It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What they won't say about Evolution.

page: 22
3
<< 19  20  21    23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Let me say, I apologize if I put the same comments on the same thread...I am still in the learning stages on this website. I'll try & be more careful...

Yes, you are right, atheism is not a religion. Atheists DO exist...in their own mind that is. Let me explain:

I would submit to you that there can be no such thing as an atheist. This is why. Let's imagine that you are a professing atheist. Here are two questions for you to answer: First, do you know the combined weight of all the sand on all the beaches of Hawaii? We can safely assume that you don't. This brings us to the second question: Do you know how many hairs are on the back of a fully-grown male Asian yak, now extinct? Probably not. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that there are some things that you don't know. It is important to ask these questions because to claim with absolute certainty that there is no God is to claim what is humanly impossible to state with 100% certainty; that would make you a being that's omniscient or all-knowing. No carbon units I know have this knowledge.

Let's say that you know an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. To know 100 percent, you would have to know everything. There wouldn't be a rock in the universe that you would not be intimately familiar with, or a grain of sand that you would not be aware of. You would know everything that has happened in history, from that which is common knowledge to the minor details of the secret love life of Napoleon's great-grandmother's black cat's fleas. You would know every hair of every head, and every thought of every heart. All history would be laid out before you, because you would be omniscient (all-knowing).

Bear in mind that one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, Thomas Edison, said, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything." Let me repeat: Let's say that you have an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. Would it be possible, in the ninety-nine percent of the knowledge that you haven't yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove the existence of God or where he resides? How do you know if there's not even another dimension? You don't. If you are reasonable, you will be forced to admit that it is at least, possible. Somewhere, in the knowledge you haven't yet discovered, there could be enough evidence to prove that God does exist.

Let's look at the same thought from another angle. If I were to make an absolute statement such as, "There are absolutely no sapphires in all of China," what is needed for that statement to be proven true? I need absolute or total knowledge, even to the core of the earth. I would need to have confirming information that there absolutely are no sapphires in all of China, in any rock, in any river, in the ground to the core, in any store, in any ring…iagain, in ALL of China. If there is one speck of a sapphire in China, then my statement is false and I have no basis for it. I need absolute knowledge before I can make an absolute statement of that nature. Conversely, for me to say, "There are sapphires in China," or "There might be sapphires somewhere in China", then I do not need to have all knowledge. I just need to have seen a speck of gold in the country, and the statement is then true.

To say categorically, "There is no God," is to make an absolute statement. For the statement to be true, I must know for certain that there is no God in the entire universe. No human being has all knowledge. Therefore, none of us is able to make such assertions. If you insist upon disbelief in God, what you must say is, "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God." Owing to a lack of knowledge on your part, you don't know if God exists. So, in the strict sense of the word, you cannot be an atheist. Agnostic (without knowledge of a God), perhaps, but not atheist. Giving a name to something does not change what it is.




posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Furthermore, I realize that atheism needs evolution to escape from any implications regarding a Creator. If one starts with Darwinism, certainly it is easy to escape from any obligation to God. Those opposed to their reasoning are branded as obscurantist’s who are trying to intrude religion into science.

Dr. Emery S. Dunfee, former professor of physics at the University of Maine at Farmington: One wonders why, with all the evidence, the theory of evolution still persists. One major reason is that many people have a sort of vested interest in this theory. Jobs would be lost, loss of face would result, text books would need to be eliminated or revised.

Evolutionist Richard Lewontin in The New York Review, January, 1997, page 31: We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our “a priori” adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.

Moreover materialism is an absolute, for science dare not allow a Divine Foot in the door. That would place the creature below the Creator. Rather, the material world and all it’s scientific axioms, principles and knowledge are worshipped. It occurs to me that it takes more faith to believe there is no god, than to believe in an Intelligent Designer.

Humans are not qualified to make absolute statements such as, “there is no God“. Mankind’s finite lack of knowledge, as Edison put it, is not enough. So the self-proclaimed atheist ignores the gigantic elephant in his living room [complete lack of all knowledge]. It moves around, takes up space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. This 99.999999999999999, etc. % of a lack of all knowledge that humans have is astonishing when contrasted to the atheists claim that God absolutely, positively does not exist. You can call black, blue, but it changes not the color. You can call yourself whatever you want, but atheists do not exist...except in the mind. Agnostics now, they are alive and well.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   


I would submit to you that there can be no such thing as an atheist. This is why. Let's imagine that you are a professing atheist. Here are two questions for you to answer: First, do you know the combined weight of all the sand on all the beaches of Hawaii? We can safely assume that you don't. This brings us to the second question: Do you know how many hairs are on the back of a fully-grown male Asian yak, now extinct? Probably not. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that there are some things that you don't know. It is important to ask these questions because to claim with absolute certainty that there is no God is to claim what is humanly impossible to state with 100% certainty; that would make you a being that's omniscient or all-knowing. No carbon units I know have this knowledge.


With that illogical kind of philosophy, I can say the same about religious people. They don't know if there is a god, they have faith that there is. Whether I know how many hairs there are on a yak has nothing to do with whether or not I think there is or isn't a god. This is such an illogical argument, it's not even... Well, it is funny.



Let's say that you know an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. To know 100 percent, you would have to know everything. There wouldn't be a rock in the universe that you would not be intimately familiar with, or a grain of sand that you would not be aware of. You would know everything that has happened in history, from that which is common knowledge to the minor details of the secret love life of Napoleon's great-grandmother's black cat's fleas. You would know every hair of every head, and every thought of every heart. All history would be laid out before you, because you would be omniscient (all-knowing).


Hmm, you claim I said I know everything, yet I've never done that. I can claim within a reasonable doubt (that means not 100%) that I know the things I do know, but not 100%. Thanks for putting words in my mouth. You are now starting to talk about my own belief that there isn't a god. Way to shift the goalposts. What topic will we move on to next?



Bear in mind that one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, Thomas Edison, said, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything." Let me repeat: Let's say that you have an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. Would it be possible, in the ninety-nine percent of the knowledge that you haven't yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove the existence of God or where he resides? How do you know if there's not even another dimension? You don't. If you are reasonable, you will be forced to admit that it is at least, possible. Somewhere, in the knowledge you haven't yet discovered, there could be enough evidence to prove that God does exist.


Good, it is excellent that Thomas Edison said that, because it's true. Science and no one alive can know everything, I am in complete agreement. One of the main properties of science is that it's fallible (you can see the other properties of it by following the link in my signature).



Let's look at the same thought from another angle.


Let's not, because it elicits the same response. I did read the whole paragraph and trust me, I would give the same response as above.




To say categorically, "There is no God," is to make an absolute statement. For the statement to be true, I must know for certain that there is no God in the entire universe. No human being has all knowledge. Therefore, none of us is able to make such assertions. If you insist upon disbelief in God, what you must say is, "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God." Owing to a lack of knowledge on your part, you don't know if God exists. So, in the strict sense of the word, you cannot be an atheist. Agnostic (without knowledge of a God), perhaps, but not atheist. Giving a name to something does not change what it is.


I did not make an absolute statement. My belief (key word is belief) is that there is no god. Why? Well, I thought you'd never ask! There is simply no proof, and if someone makes a claim that there is when there is no reason to believe it, they have to provide scientific evidence, because that will satisfy my, and other Atheists, needs. Either that, or god will actually have to prove it to me itself. If it makes it more comforting for you to call me an agnostic, go ahead. As far as I am concerned, I am Atheistic until further real evidence is provided.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   


Furthermore, I realize that atheism needs evolution to escape from any implications regarding a Creator. If one starts with Darwinism, certainly it is easy to escape from any obligation to God. Those opposed to their reasoning are branded as obscurantist’s who are trying to intrude religion into science.


Depends on what they're trying to put forth and if they actually have proof. Needless to say, there is none, and in the case of I.D., it's been judged so in the court of law.



Dr. Emery S. Dunfee, former professor of physics at the University of Maine at Farmington: One wonders why, with all the evidence, the theory of evolution still persists. One major reason is that many people have a sort of vested interest in this theory. Jobs would be lost, loss of face would result, text books would need to be eliminated or revised.


I can see your starting to take from another website without sourcing it. I can't find any information about this former physics professor, so my skeptic meter is definitely tweaking, so I can't say much about it other than the fact that he obviously needs to look a bit harder and be a little more objective about evolution, because there is plenty of evidence, and more is being discovered as the days and weeks pass.



Evolutionist Richard Lewontin in The New York Review, January, 1997, page 31: We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our “a priori” adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.


What do you want me to do with this? It's one mans opinion. I can hardly fault him for having it. If that's the way he feels, it makes me question his presence in the field in the first place. I certainly don't agree that science hasn't helped us have better health and life, because people are living much longer now than they ever have. I certainly don't believe his "just-so" story claims, and his claim about commitment to materialism kind of baffles me. "A priori" means knowledge independent of experience. If we have knowledge, so I would be interested to see what exactly he is talking about.



Moreover materialism is an absolute, for science dare not allow a Divine Foot in the door. That would place the creature below the Creator. Rather, the material world and all it’s scientific axioms, principles and knowledge are worshipped. It occurs to me that it takes more faith to believe there is no god, than to believe in an Intelligent Designer.


It should stay like that. Science is all about real evidence, why should it concern itself with something that is unprovable or has no evidence to lend? It shouldn't, and I think religious people themselves would agree. However, the conflict comes in when science can prove, or start to prove, with good evidence, something that religions claim. For example, studies have recently shown that the brains of gay men look more like a heterosexual womans brain in comparison, and they they are physiologically different than your typical male. [1] [2] [3] No longer can religion claim absolutely (there's that word you accused me of) that a man who is gay is possessed by the devil, or some demon, or otherwise sinful and ungodly things (like that would stop them anyway). I should make it known that I do not think that every religious person thinks that gays are sinners, etc., because they don't. That's the thing, no of it is consistent, and each one claims that they think their individual idea of what the holy script says is right. I do know that there are people who have been accused of being possessed and whatnot, though. [1] [2] etc...



Humans are not qualified to make absolute statements such as, “there is no God“. Mankind’s finite lack of knowledge, as Edison put it, is not enough. So the self-proclaimed atheist ignores the gigantic elephant in his living room [complete lack of all knowledge]. It moves around, takes up space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant...


This is your opinion, and you're welcome to it (I am not allowed to claim Atheism). You, however, can't and won't, stop my belief, and you can't tell me that I am not allowed to have it, and you can't stop me unless you kill me. That would just put another tick under the belt of deaths caused by religions now though, wouldn't it?

No one ever claims to have complete knowledge, it is impossible, and is not considered to be a "giant elephant." It's only considered a giant elephant by you because you don't understand Atheism.

It is not "moving around, trumpeting, etc." because if it were, there would be pretty clear evidence of it out there, and yet nothing solid has been substantiated. Only beliefs, the twisting of words (Intelligent design anyone?), and a lack of evidence are present.

So, if you for some reason have no problem with Agnostics now (even though many Agnostics don't care whether you call them Atheist or not), you're OK with Darwin now? He was an Agnostic, and married to his cousin (and had a mutated child because of inbreeding) who was a devout and loyal Christian.

I wonder where this discussion will shift to next? Eventually you have to run in to something I will not discuss. Either that or I will tire of going in circles with this discussion.

[edit on 27-8-2008 by OnionCloud]



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Jack Wellman
 


I don't know how many grains of sand there are on Hawaii's islands, nor do I know the number of hairs on a Yak's back. That's not enough reason for me to make up an answer to both, then scream at the top of my lungs that I'm right, then refuse to listen to actual answers given by someone who does know such things.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Christianity. The right to make up whatever answers you want to questions you can't answer, then ignore the heck out of anyone who can answer those questions.

From what you say, it seems whoever answers your questions first, whether correctly or not, is the right answer, and any subsequent answer, no matter how accurately calculated, must be false.

You are clearly not being logical. Even you must be able to see that.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Jack Wellman
 


Fine - two scientists. Fantastic. Well done! That's incredible! By your logic, if I can find two ex-Christians, there is no god. Do you see where your naive, almost childish logic leads you? Hint: nowhere.

And again, just because we can't answer a question doesn't mean to say it's rationally acceptable to make up an answer and elevate it to the highest levels of untouchability. That is logically retarded.

Science will "allow a Divine Foot in the door", if evidence can be found to suggest that's the case. As it is, not one single solitary shred of evidence for such a thing has been found - not one. Science has not made its mind up on anything - that is not the scientific method. I think you see it that way because you believe God is real, and can't understand why "science" refuses to accept it. You fail to see that science requires a lot more evidence (actually, just some) to establish something as truth. You, however, take peoples' word for it, trusting in them without using your own intellect.

Good luck with that.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by flyby
 


The only way you would probably be able to convince me that evolution is false is...
First show me your degree and credentials in science
second, show me some facts and where you have gotten these facts
third and lastly, show me all of the facts and don't just pick and chose which ones you want to use.

Anyways, if anyone knew for an undeniable fact how the earth was made, then we would not be having this conversation.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 10:13 PM
link   
I noticed that you left off your degree in science or otherwise as well and that your sources are primarily "wikopedia' . Incidentally, I am a freelance writer (i.e., ovimagazine.com) and have a Bachelor of Arts and an Associates of Science, I am beginning my MA at Soiuthwestern College. My information is cited with names and dates and institutions. I give credit where it is due. For example, one unimpressed with evolution is Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, employed by the National Institutes of Health, in association with the Smithsonian Institution, served as the managing editor of the Smithsonian-affiliated journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. In 2004, Sternberg chose to publish a tightly argued paper by the Discovery Institute's Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, titled "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories."

In brief, Meyer contended that neo-Darwinism has failed to provide a convincing explanation for the massive infusion of new genetic information into the fossil record a reported 570 million years ago. Popularly known as the Cambrian Explosion, this relatively brief period of pre-history witnessed the emergence of most forms of complex animal life, seemingly without any evolutionary trail. To date, evolutionary biologists have made little progress in resolving the mystery of their origins. Meyer took a stab at it, arguing deductively that only "rational agents" have shown the ability to design and organize functional, information-rich systems. "Natural selection lacks foresight," Meyer continued. "What natural selection lacks, intelligent selection – purposive or goal-directed design – provides."

What is the evolutionist's explaination for the existence of all matter. Where did it come from? What caused it? What or Who was the First Mover, the Prime Causer? What or Whom caused the effects that is everything in the universe. How could everything come without a cause?



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Jack Wellman
 


For crying out loud! Evolution has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHERE MATTER CAME FROM. That is a completely different theory. Can't you understand that?

Stephen C Meyer isn't even a biologist. He's a geologist. At least try to find a biologist with concerns. His entry in the "Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington" was lambasted by the publishers as not having met scientific standards. Plus that "natural selection lacks foresight" nonsense is just that - nonsense. Natural selection doesn't need to have forsesight, as it is a result of the environment in which organisms exist, not a planning for a future environment. It is trial and error, where the "trial" is provided by random genetic mutations. Each mutation that is beneficial increases the chance of it being passed on to further generations. Is it really that difficult to understand, or is there something else in your head (maybe religion) that is stopping you from understanding a beatifully simple concent that doesn't rely on arbitrary conjecture to answer questions?

So please, come back to us when you have something. Because so far you're just venting hot air everywhere, and saying absolutely nothing.

So, to sum up - your entire argument against evolution is that a separate theory that has nothing to do with it doesn't make sense, and that one geologist (who has no formal training in biology) has obviously misunderstood the theory, and can't be bothered to read even a brief summary of the theory without shooting his ill-informed mouth off in front of actual biologists who point out each and every flaw of his immature, pathetic attempt to discredit a theory that has stood the test of 150 years of rigorous scientific study, and which has been further supported by the discovery of DNA, something you clearly don't believe exists.

That's really, really sad.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   
From the article: Fisherman catches 'living fossil' - BBC News - August 1, 2007 further shows that evolutionist's jump to enormous conclusions when given an inch. This example is only one of humndred

"An extremely rare 'living fossil' caught by a fisherman in Indonesia is being examined by scientists. The 1.3m-long (4.3ft), 50kg (110lb) coelacanth is only the second ever to have been captured in Asia and has been described as a 'significant find'.

An autopsy and genetic tests are now being carried out to determine more about the specimen. Coelacanths provide researchers with a window into the past; their fossil record dates back 350 million years.

These fish are odd in appearance, looking almost as if they have legs because of their large-lobed fins - they are sometimes dubbed "old four legs". The blue fish can also perform headstands, hovering with their head just over the sea floor, possibly to detect food.

Scientists previously thought the fish group had died out about 70 million years ago, but were shocked when in 1938 they discovered that a specimen had been caught in a fishing net off the east coast of South Africa.

Since then, more than 300 specimens of the modern coelacanth species (Latimeria chalumnae) have been found in the waters around the Comoros Islands, which are situated in the Western Indian Ocean, and the eastern coast of Africa."
[end article]

Evolutionists touted as a significant transitional missing link when they found the Archaeopteryx fossil. The dinosaur creature (discovered in a limestone quarry in southern Germany in 1861) appears to be a reptile with bird characteristics of wings and feathers. It had the skeleton of a small dinosaur, with a tail, fingers with claws on the leading edge of the wing and teeth in the jaws.

The owners of the property discovered six fossils of which only two had feathers. The inconsistencies, upon close examination the feathers, did not match the theory. These fossils appear to be identical to modern chicken feathers.

The Archaeopteryx fossils with feathers have now been declared forgeries by scientists. "Allegedly, thin layers of cement were spread on two fossils of a chicken-size dinosaur, called Compsognathus. Bird feathers were then imprinted into the wet cement" according to Dr. Walt Brown's book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, (page 148.)

This example would not have proven evolution even if the feathers had not been forgeries. Finding a few species with characteristics similar to two other species does not prove a link. There should be millions or billions of transitional links if evolution were true, not simply a few pathetic examples...and particularly certain speicies that have been discovered to still be in existence.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 12:26 PM
link   
In his introduction to The Origin of Species, Dr. W. R. Thompson recognizes the barrenness of Darwin's system, the injury it did to the progress of science and the fact that Mendelism owes nothing to it, and therefore does not belong to it.


Sir Bertram Windle [The Catholic Encyclopedia (Vol. X)], produces evidence to show that Fr. Mendel's experiments have in fact exploded the main points of Darwin's theory. In it he writes:

Bateson (in Mendel's Principles of Heredity) claims that "his experiments are worthy to rank among those which laid the foundations of the atomic laws of chemistry"; and Lock, that his discovery "was of an importance little inferior to those of a Newton or a Dalton." Punnett also states that, owing to Mendel's labours, "the position of the biologist of today is much the same as that of a chemist of a century ago, when Dalton enunciated the law of constant proportions." ...T.H. Morgan does not hesitate to say that Mendel's laws give the final coup de grace to the doctrine of Natural Selection. (op. cit. p. 182).

With regard to the claim made by evolutionists that the origin of the various species now existing in the world can be explained by the science of genetics (which as is admitted by all biologists, is but a development of Mendelism), Douglas Dewar writes in Man a Special Creation as follows:

Modern experimental work indicates that variations in organisms appear in consequence of 1) the duplication or multiplication of the chromosomes that occur in the cell nucleus, 2) in the translocation or displacement of parts of chromosomes, 3) the loss of chromosomes or parts of chromosomes, 4) gene mutations, which appear ot be the result of the rearrangement of the molecules that make up the gene, or the action of inhibitors or stimulators of the genes, 5) loss of genes, 6) cross-breeding varieties.

All the above causes are simply a shuffling or rearrangement of parts of the chromosomes or of genes. Such rearrangements may be expected to yield a considerable amount of variation, but clearly must be within the type...If a species be defined as a freely interbreeding community, no new animal species has yet been bred by any experimenter. This is very remarkable in view of the fact that breeding experiements lasting over some 30 years have been made with the vinegar fly, Drosophila melanogaster. This produces about 25 generations in a year, hence some 900 successive generations of this species have been bred in the laboratory in the unsuccessful attempt to convert it into another type. This corresponds to about 30,000 years of human existence. There appears to exist no mechanism whereby a new type of organism can arise from an existing one. This explains why all breeds of dogs, pigeons, etc., despite their great diversity are still dogs, pigeons, etc.

That it is impossible to change a dog or a pigeon into anything else but a dog or a pigeon is evident from such facts as the following which are taken from the work of Dr. Hurst, already quoted: "1) The gene is the sole basis of hereditary transmissions. 2) In every case that has been investigated more than one pair of genes are concerned in the development of each character...Genetical experiments show that in the simplest case, at least four pairs of genes are concerned in the organisation and development of the wild agouti coat colour of rabbits, and many other genes are also concerned."

The rearrangement of the molecules that make up one or more of the genes that regulate the colour of the rabbits' fur is likely to effect some change in that colour, but even if there be a simultaneous arrangement of the molecules of all such genes, the effect on the animal's coat is confined to the colour; all such changes are necessarily within narrow limits, and this applies euqally to the genes that regulate other parts of the rabbit, and those of all other animals.

Explain this...



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   
The huge gaps in evidence of the missing transitional fossil links of other species is the most glaring lack of support to evolution, still perhaps reason it is still called a theory and not a law (like other scientific theorys proven, then labeled as fact, ie, E=mc2. In fact, Einstein's theory has now been repeatedly proven by modern scientific obersvation and documentation. Evolution, after about 150 years, stills sits as a theory...like a wall flower at a dance still waiting to be asked for a dance, but no one is willing.

The gradual morphing of one type of creature to another that evolution predicts is nowhere to be found. There should have been millions of transitional creatures if evolution were true. In the "tree of life" that evolutionists have dreamed up, gaps in the fossil record are especially huge between single-cell creatures, complex invertebrates (such as snails, jellyfish, trilobites, clams, and sponges), and what evolutionists claim were the first vertebrates, fish. In fact, there are no fossil ancestors at all for complex invertebrates or fish. That alone is fatal to the theory of evolution. The fossil record shows that evolution never happened.

The platypus has a duck-like bill, swims with webbed feet, and lays eggs, yet nobody calls it a transitional creature between mammals and ducks. I assure you they would if it were extinct.

I hope the school textbooks writers are able to hire the best graphic designers and artists that they can find, since they will need them to continue to adorn beatiful pictures and graphics for us all to see. This of necessity since these textbooks do not have readily available, any real pictures of multiple transitional fossils to display. My college textbooks and my childrens textbooks are just the same...just 1 or two pictures of one fossil or specie toutin, it as the transitional specie of (who knows what) to (who can tell), since much is left up to the immagination.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Some advocates continue to demand that various forms of creationism be taught together with or in place of evolution in science classes," the report says. Evolution is a continuing topic of debate in some states. Florida officials are considering revisions in state science standards that would add the word "evolution" to the standards. The state Board of Education plans to vote on the guidelines next month.

In Texas, the state's director of science curriculum, Chris Comer, maintains she was forced to resign recently due to evolution politics. Comer said she came under pressure after forwarding an e-mail that her superiors felt made the agency appear to be biased against the instruction of intelligent design, an alternative to evolution favored by some religious conservatives. The Texas State Board of Education is expected to begin a review of the state science curriculum soon.

Josh Rosenau, a spokesman for the California-based National Center for Science Education, which supports the teaching of evolution, said the new report is important because the debate over evolution in school is not going away. Casey Luskin, program officer for the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that supports teaching students about the criticism of evolution, was critical of the document. "Students should learn about the evidence for and against evolution," he said. *
* AP News, CBS News, August 31, 2008


Incidentally, educational institutions put “Critical Thinking” as part of the reasoning process. When only one possibility is taught in the classroom on any given subject, then there is little room for debate or open discussion. It is more like being spoon fed (or force fed) only one food in the cafeteria. This type of “my way” or “high way” educational philosophy requires only rote memorization and de-emphasizes critical analysis. Conversely, my wife and I (like most educators) highly value abstract, critical and independent problem-solving skills in students that enable them to perform various functions and navigate particular difficulties that they will face latter in life.

If students are allowed to believe only one possibility in a particular subject, and one in which lacks anywhere near a 100% accuracy (ie, evolution & still why it’s regarded only as a theory), they are not being taught. They are being assimilated…like the Borg did to Captain Picard in Stark Trek. Let them think!

Why are evolutionists are so afraid to introduce this possibility into the classroom? Is it for fear of being wrong!? The demand by the scientific or evolutionistic agenda’s excluding all other possibilities into their scientific agenda’s in the classroom reminds me on an earlier time, when scientists thought themselves enlightened. A dark time in actuality, made demonstrative by narrow-mindedness to exclude such ideas that “there earth really wasn’t flat, you wouldn’t fall of the edge of the earth, nor was the earth the center of the universe, that doctors “blood-letting” practices did not help and were actually more harmful to the patient…I could go on.

THESE thought they were right too, dogmatically, to the exclusion of other possibilities…, yet they were clearly wrong, proven so at a latter time. Theories are just that…theories. Laws (E=mc2) are laws. They are not the same.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Jack Wellman
 


Now I know you don't have a clue.

E=mc2 is a theory, too. A scientific theory.

Clearly you don't know what you're talking about.

Nice try, though. Kind of bit you in the posterior, however.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   
I was simply referring to recent computer technology that has proven some of Enstein's theory true, like gravity bending light. I do try and keep abreast of what's going on the the scientific frontier, like recent advances in microbiology have shown the incomprehensible complexity of DNA and the living cell. The human DNA molecules are the chromosomes that comprise the human genome. The purpose of the DNA is to specify the information for the human blueprint, not alter or mutate the human blueprint for supposed survivability. Information is separate from the chemicals that are just the media for the information.

Thermodynamics 2nd law, known as the law of entropy, applies not only to usable energy but equally to organization and things wearing out. The natural flow is from organized to unorganized, complex to random, new to “worn out.” We see this principle in our everyday lives. Energy, applied with intelligence, is necessary to reverse the ever-increasing entropy or randomness of creation. The DNA molecule carries the genetic language, but the language itself is independent of its carrier. You can burn a CD with the same genetic information, but the content of the message has not changed it.

Lee Strobel (The Case for a Creator) said, "The data at the core of life is not disorganized, it's not simply orderly like salt crystals, but it's complex and specific information that can accomplish a bewildering task—the building of biological machines that far outstrip human technological capabilities" (p. 244). The genetic language is so complex yet precise, that the average mistake that is not caught turns out to be one error per 10 billion letters. If only one mistake occurs in parts of the code, which is in the genes, it can cause a disease such as sickle-cell anemia. This precision far surpasses human capabilities. Microsoft’s spell check is not perfect and even the best and most intelligent typist in the world couldn't come close to making only one mistake per 10 billion letters.

This explains why there has not been found in nature any single example of one information system inside the cell gradually evolving into another functional information program. There isabsolutely no ancient DNA ever found to be so. Michael Behe, a biochemist and professor at Pennsylvania's Lehigh University, explains that genetic information is primarily an instruction manual and gives some examples. "Consider a step-by-step list of [genetic] instructions. A mutation is a change in one of the lines of instructions. So instead of saying, "Take a 1/4-inch nut," a mutation might say, "Take a 3/8-inch nut." Or instead of "Place the round peg in the round hole," we might get "Place the round peg in the square hole" . . . What a mutation cannot do is change all the instructions in one step—say, [providing instructions] to build a fax machine instead of a radio" (Darwin's Black Box, 1996, p. 41).

How could such an accident or freak of nature in mutation produce life? Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, consists of "artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction . . . [and a] capacity not equaled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours" (Denton, p. 329, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis). With only one or a few minor mistakes in the millions of letters in that bacterium's, DNA can kill it‘s own host. Alterations and mutations kill, true replication ensures survival. DNA alterations or mutations only disable, age or kill. Alterations in the DNA can be fatal to a specie, not make it superior.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Jack Wellman
 


If you kept abreast of scientific discoveries, you'd know there is no such thing as "proof" in science, except mathematics.

The rest of your post boils down to "I don't know what DNA is, so I'm going to have to say God did it". Brilliant.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Your comment that "The rest of your post boils down to "I don't know what DNA is, so I'm going to have to say God did it". Brilliant." is simply your opinion. I would not say I don't know about DNA is, in fact information on DNA is so widely available and accessible that I even found those who first attempted to create it. It was in 1952 a graduate student in Chicago attempted to emulate prebiotic conditions on a young Earth "billions of years ago." But organic life and DNA were never "created." * What biochemists cannot do given almost unlimited funding, time, and contact with the brightest and best scientific minds in the world is to create a "simmering, primordial stew". There have been several other simulation experiments over the years, yet not even one time, has anyone, anywhere, ever been able to make the sugar-like molecules dioxy-ribose and ribose necessary to build DNA and RNA molecules." I do know this about DNA, so you can not say I don't know what DNA is.

Random chemical reactions are not what any biochemist would bet on when making something as detailed as DNA. The have tried strictly controlled, random-event, whatever and their lack of creating life has added even more woes to their primordial stew hypothesis. I do know something about DNA...and that is that humans can not spontaneously create life along with it's DNA and RNA.

If the origin of DNA/RNA continues to remain "one of the greatest -- and potentially unsolvable -- scientific mysteries" then the door is wide open to a supernatural explanation. Questioning, unbiased scientists should be free to go down that path. Evolutionist’s are still hoping, after 50 years of trying, that some day a purely chemical explanation for the origin of the complex DNA molecule will miraculously appear, but they still wait and wait. Just like the theory, 150 years old and holding…as a theory.

* Kerr, R. A. October 6, 2006. Has lazy mixing spoiled the primordial stew? Science 6 314:36-37.

[edit on 3-9-2008 by Jack Wellman]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Jack Wellman
 


Not knowing doesn't automatically mean God did it. Just because we don't know at the moment doesn't mean we can simply pull some idea out of thin-air and present it as fact, which is exactly what you're doing.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   
I am not trying to pull up thingss out of thin air. Whether you think God created life or not is up to each individual. I am simply trying to show that the theory of evolution has some enourmous credibility problems. Whether you think God is or is not responsible is up to you. I am revealing why the evolution-only curriculum is bad for science. I have a few more reasons why and straight from Darwin himself.

To begin with, evolution itself is divided. Threre is neo-Darwinism which proposes that millions of minute changes occured, over an extremely long period of time, and resulted in a new species. When they could not find these tiny changes between one type of creature into another in the fossil record, some evolutionists “theorized” that change must have occurred by occasional, gigantic leaps, called punctuated equilibrium. Even these two groups disagree with each other.

Hypothetically, beneficial mutation could only make a slight change. Any more than that would be so disruptive as to cause death due to the irregularities in their DNA. So punctuated equilibrium is not really one giant leap at a time or it may become a leap to the death. Anyway, this punctuated equilibrium envisions a lot of slight changes over many thousands or millions of years; then no change occurs for millions of years. However, fossil records indicate otherwise. There are no fossils that have been found from a leap such as this, because thousands of years is too fast in the billions of years of "geologic time" to leave any. On the other hand, without fossils there is no evidence that ANY leaps ever happened in the first place, and today, there remains no evidence of these leaps or gradual changes or that they are even happening today in any of the millions of species that still exist.

Constant change is what evolution is all about, whether gradual or in gigantic leaps. The problem for evolution is that we do not see the “leaps” or “creeps” in the fossil record. All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress "under construction". If evolution's continuously morphing, then almost every fossil should show a least some change. There have never been found any fossils with parts of a species in a state of change…or in various stages of completion.

For every successful change there should be many more leading up to that species. The whole process is random trial and error, without direction. What did Darwin himself think of his theory? Charles Darwin described the problems with his theory in great detail, particularly in the last chapter. I can only briefly state one of his many comments here, in this space allowed. I encourage you to read the entire last chapter of his book and you will read for yourself what he really thought. Exceedingly few people do!

In The Origin of Species he says, "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." I actually agree with Darwin here in that geology, even to this day, “does not reveal ANY such finely graduated organic chain“. There are many others who also agree with Darwin that the lack of geological evidence is “…the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against [Darwin's] theory”. A search for a "missing link" seems ridiculous with the entire chain is missing.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Jack Wellman
 


No, evolution does not have credibility problems. Different schools of thought within one theory does not equal problems. It's how people learn.

Saying it has credibility problems does not make it so.




top topics



 
3
<< 19  20  21    23 >>

log in

join