35 comments

  1. Demonbeck says:

    As far as evolution goes, I refuse to believe that members of our General Assembly evolved from previous General Assemblies.

    Otherwise, I think Darwin was right…

  2. hankreardan says:

    Redsouther
    Why can’t we get the republicans to get going with vouchers? Why do people complain about how bad public schools but they leave thier kids in them. People who complain about the government schools and do nothing about it make me sick. BtW my child goes to private school not because of religion but because I love my Daughter.

  3. jsm says:

    I heard an ACLU lawyer on the radio this morning say that the stickers were bad because they discredit the theory of evolution.

    What?

    Science discredits it, to0. I guess science is bad. Maybe the ACLU should sue scientists who expose holes in the evolution theory.

  4. Demonbeck says:

    Ya know, I have always wondered why Creationists can’t believe that God created the original spec of life knowing that it would eventually turn into “all of God’s creatures” through evolution.

    I mean, after all He is omniscient and omnipotent, so He would be able to foresee these types of things.

  5. jsm says:

    I’ve fought this fight many times, and if you really want to rehash it again, we can. You can start with explaining the failure to find evidence of ONE missing link, much less the thousands, maybe even millions, that should exist. Then you can explain to me how millions of years of “random mutation” could somehow develop into human life, or even produce something as complicated as just the human hand.

    I’ll not waste space on PP listing the holes in the evolution theory, but if you’d like I can dig up a few websites.

  6. DougieFresh says:

    jsm,

    Of course random action can create a more complicated system. The key is that consequences of the random events are non random.

    If a random mutation occurs that is counter productive, it will either be fatal to the individual, or will create a competetive disadvantage and will eventually be fatal to the species.

    If a random mutation occurs that benefits the organism, that particular individual will have at least a slight advantage in passing on its genes over time. Eventually this mutation will be the norm in the population.

  7. griftdrift says:

    Exampled of a transitional species – Cynognathus. Contains both the jaw joints of both reptile and mammal. Along with about two dozen other transitional features.

    Example of “randomness” that creates a complex object – snowflakes.

    Benficial mutation – Beneficial is a loaded word filled with subjectivity. Mutation is about the most objective thing in the universe. However, a small community in Italy has developed resistance to arterioscleriosis due to a mutant protein. Pretty hard to not call that beneficial.

    This ain’t my first time at the rodeo either.

  8. DougieFresh says:

    grift,

    Yeah, benefitial is loaded. A mutations in one circumstance could aid in survival, and in a completely different cicrumstance hinder it.

    Anyway, you answered very well for me, so I will leave your post as my answer to jsm.

  9. jsm says:

    Okay. If cynognathus was transitional, as you claim, (1) what species did it transition from and (2) what species did it transition to?

    Good research on the Apo A-1 Milan “mutant gene.” Is this part of an evolution toward another species “better” than humans? I was thinking of physical mutations that actually change the form of an organism.

  10. Demonbeck says:

    jsm,

    From your first link:

    “In other words, there is plenty of evidence, past and present, for some sort of evolutionary process. We see it in bacteria and insects today, and we see it in the fossil record through the development of millions of species over millions of years. “

  11. jsm says:

    Demon,

    I like your selective reading. The point of the link is that the evolution theory has serious holes.

    Until the holes are closed, there should be no objection by government to telling kids the truth about the theory they’re being taught. Since when should government protect the theory of evolution? This would not be an issue if pure, unbiased scientific exploration and discovery were being taught in schools. Too many unfounded assumptions are being taken as fact, whether they are presented as such in the classroom or not. Why send a student to college to have to “unlearn” things he thought were fact? Why should kids have to do independent study to find out what in their science book is fact and what is theory? This only leads the “world is flat” syndrome.

  12. Demonbeck says:

    Evidence of evolution has been witnessed and proven. While I believe that God created the heavens and the Earth, I also believe that Darwin’s THEORY on Evolution to also be correct as well.

    While there may be unexplained instances and exceptions to the general rule provided us by this theory, to force teachers to teach Creationism (a theory with even bigger holes and no scientific evidence as proof based upon religious beliefs) as a result does our students a disservice.

  13. jsm says:

    There IS scientific evidence of a created world. It is merely dismissed by “scientists” who are unwilling to acknowledge a being greater than themselves. The scientific method is applied best with an open mind.

    I’m not pushing for teaching Biblical Creationism in the classroom, nor are those responsible for putting disclaimer stickers in the textbooks. I’m saying we should teach nothing more than the truth about what has been discovered. This would leave a student’s belief about life’s origins to the student and those who rear him. Teaching what we hope to discover is a disservice to students.

    The fact that someone believes a theory does not make it correct.

  14. DougieFresh says:

    jsm,

    My trouble with theologians that dismiss evolution based on the Bible is that they assume to know god’s methods. There is no contradiction between the metaphorical accounts in the Bible and scientist’s view of the world from the big bang.

    To flatly say that god did not use evolution as a mechanism in populating the planet is to put a limit on the omnipotent.

    Also, discounting the fossil evidence of eons of evolved and extinct forms means one would have to believe that God is a trickster, which goes against the common belief that God is good.

    There is no record of dinosaurs or giant alligators in the bible. As large and numerous as they were, it would surely merit a mention. The fact they are not mentioned there or in the recorded history of man means that they had to exist before man.

    If species are then known to appear and fade from existence, why is evolution so hard to swallow?

  15. griftdrift says:

    “If cynognathus was transitional, as you claim, (1) what species did it transition from and (2) what species did it transition to?”

    Ah Xeno’s paradox my old friend. I have missed you. The simplest answer is we don’t know. But the ancestor would probably be similar to Thrinaxodon. A descendant would be similar to Diademodon.

    However the question displays a fundamental misunderstanding is evolution. Evolution is not a+b+c leads to d. It is not a ladder. It is a bush. An analogy is that because I know you and your great- aunt, even though I never knew your great grandfather, I know he existed. He was your common ancestor. Due to the rarity of fossilization, it will always be more likely that we will discover aunts and cousins instead of fathers and grandmothers.

    ” Is this part of an evolution toward another species “better” than humans? I was thinking of physical mutations that actually change the form of an organism. ”

    In a sense, yes. Better is another loaded term. Evolution is about adaptation in order to increase chances of survival. The Italians in my example have indeed adapted to better process a modern diet that is high fat. So in the narrow paramaters given, they are more likely to survive and pass along this mutation to their off spring. Adaptation and passing successful adaptation to subsequent generations is evolution at it’s most fundamental.

    This is not the X-Men. Evolution does not mean growing a third eye or a fifth limb. It is simply adapting in order to better survive. These adaptations usually happen at the cellular level. Eventually these change can lead to radical physical transformation. However, the eventually I speak of is in terms that are hard for us to grasp. The transitions that I mentioned above took anywhere from 10-30 million years. And even over that long period although the changes are dramatic from an evolutionary stand point, they are still subtle from a physiological stand point.

    As far as the great scientific conspiracy ignoring evidence of creation. Name some evidence. I’m betting your examples are going to be geologic, not biology.

  16. jsm says:

    Dougie,

    Fossil evidence of eons of evolved forms doesn’t exist. The world is still waiting to find evidence of a fully formed transitional species, or missing link. And I put no limit on God’s omnipotence by believing that He could speak a fully formed universe into existence.

    Have you never read the term leviathan in the Bible? Does the fact that the Bible doesn’t mention a squirrel, a platypus, or an elephant mean that they didn’t exist at the time of the writings? And when did we last witness the appearance of a new species?

    I don’t follow your reasoning. It leaves out a lot of possibilities.

  17. rugby_fan says:

    I truly do not wish to get into this but…

    jsm; there are some holes in our beliefs on how gravity works, should we dismiss that as well?

    Moreover, you claim that there is scientific evidence of a supreme being.

    I didn’t know that there was objective, empirical evidence that was derived from a test following the scientific method, with independent and dependent variables, proving the existence of God but maybe I missed that, care to edify me?

    Demonbeck: amen on all your points.

  18. griftdrift says:

    Since apparently my three examples of transitionals or “missing links” is apparently not good enough. Can you please define what you mean by transitional?

  19. jsm says:

    grift,

    Here are a few evidences ignored by “scientists,” taken from http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ :

    1. Absolutely no transitional forms either in the fossil record or in modern animal and plant life have been found. All appear fully formed and complete. The fossil record amply supplies us with representation of almost all species of animals and plants but none of the supposed links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, or reptile to birds and mammals are represented nor any transitional forms at all. There are essentially the same gaps between all the basic kinds in the fossil record as exists in plant and animal life today. There are literally a host of missing links in the fossil record and the modern world.

    2. Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a “higher-order”.

    3. Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

    4. The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds’ which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

    5. Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.

    6. The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.

    7. Socially, natural selection argues that the best and fittest society would be one where its’ individuals look out only for themselves and would advance themselves, if possible, at the expense of others. It would even destroy others if possible. Thus barbarianism is demanded by natural selection with the destruction of the weak and the free domain of the powerful. It demands total annihilation of anything weaker than necessary and the ruling of anyone more powerful than others. People exhibit mercy, pity, and morality, all of which inhibit natural selection.

    Practically, natural selection has the following and many other inconsistencies: (a.) The natural selection process could not have the forethought to allow an organism to become worse temporarily in order to ultimately form an eye, for example. (b.) Natural selection requires that organisms began as crude, yet an organism could not have survived without basic intricate functions such as respiration and reproduction. These had to exist from the beginning of the organism. (c.) Our bodies depend on systems that run according to intricate order such as from DNA. A system dependent on order cannot be created by disorder.

    8. Natural selection has these and many other logical inconsistencies: (a.) Although evolutionists say that organisms are suited for their environment because they evolved into it, being suited for the environment is much better explained by the fact that they were created for the environment rather than that they evolved into it. (b.) The fact that living things have similar patterns and design points to a common designer better than to a common ancestor. In fact, such variety in the world could not have been produced if we all come from the same ancestor. (c.) If we all come from the same ancestor, we would all be murderers and cannibals by the simple act of killing a cow. (d.) While small and undeveloped things do become grown and developed (a baby to an adult, a seed to a tree) it is also true that the small and undeveloped first come from the developed (a baby from its parents, a seed from a tree). The pattern of growth is circular not simply from the crude to the developed as natural selection proposes. (e.) Our needs exceed those of survival. Needs for love and friendship, for example, cannot be explained if all that we do is for survival. (f.) Order and interdependence in the world argues for a designer and against chance.

  20. griftdrift says:

    Wow. That’s a lot of copy and paste chaff. It’s also a lot of “because I say it so, it must be so”. So let’s rock and roll!

    1. I have given you three examples of transitional fossils in these very comments. There are thousands more. If you continue to argue, “but what about the gap between this one and this one”, I suggest you google Xeno’s Paradox.

    2. What is a higher order? Natural selection is adaptation usually to environment that allows a species to survive. My Italian example is exactly this.

    3. First of all abiogenesis is not evolution. Evolution makes no statement on how life begins. It only address how life that already exists adapts and continues to survive. Having said that life from non-life is certainly theoretically possible and there is growing evidence based on research of microbes attached to deep sea vents of how it may have happened.

    4. Hominid fossil evidence is neither inconsistent nor inconclusive. It is certainly incomplete. But even if we never found another hominid fossil again, it does not sweep away the mountains of fossil evidence indicating transition in other species including the mostly complete transitional sequence of reptiles to mammals. Once again, you cannot fall into the logical fallacy of “if you don’t prove this everything else can be ignored”.

    5. Please name the 9 of the 12. Also please define the difference between apes and humans. Monkeys are completely different.

    6. Once again just because you say it is so doesn’t make it so. Please name these “final three” and define why they are human and not ape. Of course this is dependent on your definition given in 5.

    7. 100% wrong. It could be easily argued that concepts of mercy and compassion are exactly the traits that led to “higher” primates including man forming tribal / familial connections that allowed survival. Groups survive better than individuals. Mothers that care for their young make the possibility of that next generation surviving higher. Evolution is about preserving your species, not necessarily destroying others. Mercy and compassion actually could create a competitive advantage.

    7a. Evolution does not involve forethought. It involves natural selection which is adaptation to conditions. And you have to get worse to make an eye? I have no idea what that means.

    7b. There are current organisms that survive without respiration or sexual reproduction, so no, they have not always had to be there.

    7c. Order can be created from disorder such as my crude snowflake example. However it misses the point. Evolution says nothing about order or disorder. Just because you can’t understand something doesn’t mean it can’t be explained given the evidence we have now or eventually find. Science is not about saying something is hard, throwing up your hands and calling it a day. It is about seeking more evidence to clarify what you don’t understand now.

    8a. How is it better explained?

    8b. This statement tries to have it both ways. We have too much in common to not have a common designer yet evolution couldn’t possibly create all of our variety. This is paradoxical.

    8c. Evolution makes no moral judgments. We eat cows because at some point we got bigger brains and faster legs than cows and the protein they provide allow us to be more active. The cows got us back by giving us a high fatty diet which it now seems Italians are adapting to fight back.

    8d. I really have no idea what this means. Natural selection says nothing about crude to the developed. There is no hierarchy. It is not a ladder. It is adaptation to increase the chances of survival.

    8e. See 7.

    8f. Evolution says nothing about chance. Natural selection is not based on chance and it is not random. Natural selection is SELECTION. Adaptations that show success are selected to increase chances of survival.

  21. rugby_fan says:

    number 8 is not entirely true
    A), it is hard to believe looking at humans through out the world that they have not adapted to the environment and utilized the tools at their mercy.
    B) I don’t buy that argument at all see (A)
    c) No we wouldn’t as we are all separate species we are not cannibals and a great deal of philosophies do say that we are murderers for eating meat.
    D) My qualm is that there are organisms (i wish I could remember their name, Ive got it in a book at home) that just released small amounts of oxygen and then managed to create atmospheres and thus life
    E) Love can be viewed as a way to perpetuate survival (marriage, child rearing &c.), people who are lonely and depressed often turn to suicide, so friendship as well could help us survive.
    F) There are plenty of philosophies that show the problems with that theory.

  22. jsm says:

    grift,

    As stated earlier, I didn’t want to waste a bunch of PP space listing info, but I couldn’t let the debate lie. I’m picking my battles in this post.

    1. There’s way too much information missing to claim that the three fossil records you mentioned are in fact transitional species. Scientists shouldn’t fill in holes with conjecture and jump to conclusions.

    4. You have mentioned this mountain of fossil evidence to support evolution with transitional species, but you haven’t presented it. Three very similar cynodonts are not very convincing.

    5. I’ll defer to those more knowledgable than I:
    http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid5.htm

    6. http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid6.htm

    7. How is it that an eye was gradually formed over millions of years of mutation? How did the need arise through natural selection? How did the sight nerves, etc. develop from blind species? What triggered its development?

    “Just because you can’t understand something doesn’t mean it can’t be explained given the evidence we have now or eventually find.”

    Eventually find? The scientific method does not work when discoveries we hope to make are factored.

    8. If you believe that natural selection is not random and not based on chance, then how do you say evolution does not involve forethought? From where does the motivation come to mutate?

  23. Bill Simon says:

    Well, this seems to be as good a place as any to interject with a question that has always puzzled me: IF the Creationists are correct, and Adam and Eve were the first humans, and, Adam had NOT chosen to listen to Eve or the Serpent, then the whole world as we know it would never have existed, right?

    Because, had Adam chosens to obey God’s words (or so the fable goes), Adam and Eve would have STAYED in the Garden of Eden forever and lived their lives as happy and sinless people without ever being kicked-out and having a bunch of kids that helped propagate the world of humans.

  24. gatormathis says:

    Which brings us back to the present day facts of life.

    Fossils, organisms, mutations, abiogenesis and all them other bigger than four lettered words, ain’t none of it gonna lift your butt a bit higher out of the bed in the morning.

    That task will be left up to you, along with whatever you plan for the remainder.

    And as you ponder the purchase of that new state of the art exercise machine, think about one thing.

    2007 is on the way, will be here in just a few more days.

    Make of it what you will, it’ll be the last one of those you get. You see how fast 2006 went.

    Before we know it, it’ll be Christmas again.

    So a New Year’s Wish is in order. Wanting to stay conducive with management, and not stray from the subject, I’ll stick with the evolution catergory.

    As the New Year comes, and man continues to “evolve”, maybe that place in one’s brain that causes such hate against another human being will finally begin to erode away. I beleive this to be the simplified key to survival.

    When you have the different factions in areas performing the type attempts at genocide we read about today, that is pitiful.

    Hatred of this magnatude hurts a lot of innocent folks who would just rather see if they could make it to the end of another day to kiss their families and watch a few cartoons. Have a little supper maybe.

    Think about it. How many folks do you know who are just itching to strap on a bomb-bowtie, complete with matching bomb-comabun, and attractive hand-held fuse.

    That percentage may be a bit higher in some areas than others, but it’s not the biggest fad going today, I can assure you.

    You know, like, let that hate and projected energy turn into like a banana pudding craving or something. That would make the world a lot more mellow.

    Bout the only mad folks you see around banana pudding is the ones who didn’t get any. But hardly any headlines today say “Banana puddingless partygoer explodes waist- pack bomb, in reprisal to ill prepared hostess.”

    So how you act in 2007 is all on you anyway.

    As Al Pacino said in Scarface, “The World is yours baby!!”

    Have at it.

    gator****is out.

Comments are closed.