PDA

View Full Version : No "Real Science" = No Diploma!


JenniferErix
04-19-2008, 10:28 PM
There are many, many things I find dubious about the practice of parents homeschooling their children. I wonder how a mother or father who has not been educated as a teacher, who in many cases has not even been to college her/himself, can possibly provide their child with as good an education as students receive in our much-maligned public schools. And I can´t help but think that these homeschool students, of whom there are several million in the United States, are being robbed of a crucial formative experience by not attending school with other people their age and being forced to interact with a diverse group of peers. :roll:

Have fun ladies.. and don't eat him alive too much!

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/57938
:p

Off to grab a bag of popcorn, this should be good!
:cool:

JenniferErix
04-19-2008, 10:37 PM
Did anyone else find it ironic that Ben Steins movie "Expelled" is advertised right next to this article?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2085/2426299283_2683b798b8_o.jpg

southernmom
04-19-2008, 10:50 PM
Wonder who died and left him in charge?

jacqlyn00
04-19-2008, 10:56 PM
Wow.... I wonder what got him started. Too bad he has such a narrow view of homeschooling.

dawninns
04-20-2008, 05:18 PM
I actually had a good conversation with this guy. I even blogged about him (http://daybydayhsing.blogspot.com/2008/04/challenge-on-revealing-our-homeschools.html) and he came over and joined the discussion in my (longest ever!) comments section. His view is expanding, at least with 'acceptable' secular homeschoolers like me. I haven't challenged him on his views of creationist homeschoolers though. I plan to write something about that down the road but haven't got it together in my head yet.

I have to say though, I agree with him in a way. If we're homeschooling and not teaching our kids the state mandated curriculum, we shouldn't expect a diploma. Teaching creationism when state standards mandate a different approach is one of those situations.

If we want state diplomas then we have to accpet the strings that go with them. If we want freedom from those strings we have to accept that we shouldn't be receiving those diplomas.

momwith3kids
04-20-2008, 05:48 PM
I don't understand why people think in order to homeschool children you need a college education. Are we not teaching them the 'exact' same thing that college educated teachers taught us in school?

...with the exception of creationism and those of us who were homeschooled.

MamaBear
04-20-2008, 07:18 PM
There are many, many things I find dubious about the practice of parents homeschooling their children. I wonder how a mother or father who has not been educated as a teacher, who in many cases has not even been to college her/himself, can possibly provide their child with as good an education as students receive in our much-maligned public schools. And I can´t help but think that these homeschool students, of whom there are several million in the United States, are being robbed of a crucial formative experience by not attending school with other people their age and being forced to interact with a diverse group of peers. :roll:

Have fun ladies.. and don't eat him alive too much!

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/57938
:p

Off to grab a bag of popcorn, this should be good!
:cool:

I was reading your post thinking, "She's has gone to the dark side, she's gone mad, she must want someone to rip her a new one". THEN I saw the bottom of the post. Heart going pitter-patter and feeling relieved it wasn't how you felt. LOL :D

kbabe1968
04-20-2008, 09:30 PM
As a creation theory follower myself, I wouldn't say I'm not going to teach the opposing view...I think it's necessary to understand BOTH in order to support the one we believe.

I may go about teaching it differently, but I am going to teach it.

Does that make sense?

Birbitt
04-20-2008, 10:24 PM
My plan for this area of science regardless of if my children are still homeschooled or not when the time comes to "teach" evolution vs. Creation is that I will teach my children Creation, and then I will inform them that many people believe in Evolution and I will explain what evolution is and then I will ask my children to do some sort of project comparing the two and pointing out the errors as they see them. This way they know both sides of the story so to speak and they can decide for themselves what is correct and what is flawed! Obviously I would like to believe that my children will grow up accepting Christianity and Creationism but unfortunately there is no guarantee of this all I can do is instruct them the best way I know how and hope and pray that they come to the right choices later.

mschickie
04-21-2008, 07:49 AM
I know in the article he talked about Apologia. The biology course that sd is doing now does discuss evolution. It discusses the difference between micro and macro evolution. Dh who is heavily into science found it a very fair portrait of this theory. I know sd is going to be covering much more than the required science for the state and we are still not eligible for a "diploma". I need to find time to sit down and compose a reponse to this gentleman.

rmcx5
04-21-2008, 07:56 AM
It's interesting that his example is just one fellow student who used Apologia. For all he knows (or we), her parents opted to skip the content on evolution vs. creationism.........doesn't mean that every homeschooler would do that.

We're not to HS level yet but I'm sure I'll show both sides like someone else mentioned. My oldest is 4th grade and she's already taken a Creation vs. Evolution class at our small co-op.

MamaBear
04-21-2008, 07:57 AM
I taught both sides.

JenniferErix
04-21-2008, 08:54 AM
I have to say though, I agree with him in a way. If we're homeschooling and not teaching our kids the state mandated curriculum, we shouldn't expect a diploma. Teaching creationism when state standards mandate a different approach is one of those situations.

If we want state diplomas then we have to accpet the strings that go with them. If we want freedom from those strings we have to accept that we shouldn't be receiving those diplomas.

Right!
But see, not every place is the same. We do not have a "State Mandated Curriculum". I know there are several states, here in the US that are like that.

Here (At least in Texas), we have complete freedom. And other than racist comments from many in the media about "White Evangelical Homeschoolers", I believe that the second largest state in the US has proven that people can be left to their own devices without massive "Big Brother" regulation.

That being said, I agree with you that if you want something from the state, you will have to allow them to have some say so. This is exactly why we do not want anything from the state. (State being used to mean Government, in general).

My children are being raised to praise God for all his beautiful awe inspiring creations. But educationally, academically, they are being taught ALL sides. (Just like I would tell them that there are all types of "lifestyles", but that we believe there is only one "Lifestyle" that was intended by God.)

Every family "Indoctrinates" (Not your words, just quoting the status quo of comments) their children. Whether it is regarding science, or how to best get your whites their whitest in the wash. We all instill our belief systems into our children. That is the way it naturally works. All children grow up to make up their own minds.

And thankfully, I live in a state that believes parental rights matter more than state rights.

Can you imagine me regulating that you HAD to teach your child, the way I teach MY child? Or me teaching my children that your children are somehow less educated than my children because of your viewpoint?

That is how many of us feel about this issue. And it is why I found the article so offensive. (not just his, of course, but really the issue itself.) And I posted originally to see how others felt.

But I totally agree with you. If you want something from the state, you have to do what they tell you to do.

Thankfully, I do not want anything from the state.

JenniferErix
04-21-2008, 08:55 AM
I am so totally sorry for that last post being so long.... It is rude of me to write so long of a reply. It comes off as rude.

Sorry.

Just love yackin!
haha!

MamaBear
04-21-2008, 09:21 AM
I am so totally sorry for that last post being so long.... It is rude of me to write so long of a reply. It comes off as rude.

Sorry.

Just love yackin!
haha!

Your post was just fine! It was perfect! :love:
I think only the soap box self-righteous posts can come off as being rude, now those can be very annoying.

No apologies necessary!

MonkeyMamma
04-21-2008, 09:26 AM
Right!
But see, not every place is the same. We do not have a "State Mandated Curriculum". I know there are several states, here in the US that are like that.

Here (At least in Texas), we have complete freedom. And other than racist comments from many in the media about "White Evangelical Homeschoolers", I believe that the second largest state in the US has proven that people can be left to their own devices without massive "Big Brother" regulation.

That being said, I agree with you that if you want something from the state, you will have to allow them to have some say so. This is exactly why we do not want anything from the state. (State being used to mean Government, in general).

My children are being raised to praise God for all his beautiful awe inspiring creations. But educationally, academically, they are being taught ALL sides. (Just like I would tell them that there are all types of "lifestyles", but that we believe there is only one "Lifestyle" that was intended by God.)

Every family "Indoctrinates" (Not your words, just quoting the status quo of comments) their children. Whether it is regarding science, or how to best get your whites their whitest in the wash. We all instill our belief systems into our children. That is the way it naturally works. All children grow up to make up their own minds.

And thankfully, I live in a state that believes parental rights matter more than state rights.

Can you imagine me regulating that you HAD to teach your child, the way I teach MY child? Or me teaching my children that your children are somehow less educated than my children because of your viewpoint?

That is how many of us feel about this issue. And it is why I found the article so offensive. (not just his, of course, but really the issue itself.) And I posted originally to see how others felt.

But I totally agree with you. If you want something from the state, you have to do what they tell you to do.

Thankfully, I do not want anything from the state.


I agree with this 100% and every day I am glad to live in the great state of Texas!!!

sgilli3
04-22-2008, 07:17 AM
I taught both sides.

Me too.
My daughter and son (the other 1 is too little)...believe in different things.
My daughter believes in creation, my son evolution...and I sit on the fence.
I will happily teach both, but ultimately, the decision is theirs.

dawninns
04-22-2008, 08:19 AM
I teach evolution as science, creation as religion.

comusher
04-22-2008, 07:16 PM
When I was in public school science was hermit crabs. When I got older I had no idea how to handle a real science experiment.

Actressdancer
04-22-2008, 08:56 PM
(Please let me preface this reply with the disclaimer that I'm running on just a couple hours of sleep, so while I know exactly what I'm trying to say, it may come across, well, incoherent)

The problem that I have with his article is how to carry out his thoughts.

What I mean is this: He isn't saying that we should be required to teach both, he's saying that we should be required to teach evolution as fact. There is a big difference there.

He talks about state requires and hinted slightly at the implications for private schools.

On one hand he says that he wouldn't presume to dictate how parents (or private school teachers, by extension) share their faith, but he also says that evolution should be taught as fact in order to attain a diploma.

There is an obvious contradiction there. If private schools where suddenly required to say "evolution is scientific fact" before their students could graduate, then Christian schools would probably all close down. I mean, how could they do that?

Moving on...

He compares teaching Creationism as science to teaching that the Holocaust is a Zionist myth. That's a pretty harsh statement. That is really what set me over the edge.

And now I'm going to bed. Assuming the cicadas let me sleep.

loreal
04-22-2008, 09:37 PM
(Please let me preface this reply with the disclaimer that I'm running on just a couple hours of sleep, so while I know exactly what I'm trying to say, it may come across, well, incoherent)

The problem that I have with his article is how to carry out his thoughts.

What I mean is this: He isn't saying that we should be required to teach both, he's saying that we should be required to teach evolution as fact. There is a big difference there.

He talks about state requires and hinted slightly at the implications for private schools.

On one hand he says that he wouldn't presume to dictate how parents (or private school teachers, by extension) share their faith, but he also says that evolution should be taught as fact in order to attain a diploma.

There is an obvious contradiction there. If private schools where suddenly required to say "evolution is scientific fact" before their students could graduate, then Christian schools would probably all close down. I mean, how could they do that?

Moving on...

He compares teaching Creationism as science to teaching that the Holocaust is a Zionist myth. That's a pretty harsh statement. That is really what set me over the edge.

And now I'm going to bed. Assuming the cicadas let me sleep.

Well said! Have a good nights sleep!!!

Jackie
04-23-2008, 06:27 AM
(Standing ovation for Amie!)

He advocates teaching evolution as FACT. I doubt he advocates using the Scientific Method to EXAMINE evollution.

In Apologia's General Science textbook, it starts by teaching three important principles. The first one is that we CANNOT assume something is true, based on the reputation of the person. ANYONE can be wrong. The second is that we cannot assume something is true, based on our prejudices. But to be REAL scientists, we must apply the Scientific Method to EVERYTHING to see if it holds up. Evolution has LOTS of flaws. WHY is it that these are not permitted to be discussed?

As far as whether or not creation is science or religion.... That's interesting. How the earth/man came to be is science, unless God had anything to do with it, and then it's religion? I'm all for teaching evolution in the schools, even in homeschools, as long as it's taught as a THEORY, complete with all the problems of it. Fine. Don't teach ID in the public schools, but at least teach evolution so that any semi-intelligent person can make an educated choice!

loreal
04-23-2008, 07:46 AM
That's what I was thinking Jackie but you said it much better than I could have.

gwenny99
04-25-2008, 04:27 PM
What is really sad is that you could replace "homeschool" with "public school" and the article as a whole would have been much more on point!

Biologist
04-29-2008, 11:55 AM
but I'm sure I'll show both sides like someone else mentioned.The problem with the "both sides" way of doing things is that there isn't two sides. There's one side made up of highly qualified Biologists publishing thousands of articles a year in peer reviewed journals and doing mountains of research projects versus another side that doesn't do research and doesn't even try getting their material peer reviewed. Creation institutes have yet to publish a single evidenced mechanism let alone a theory of creation. I'm very disappointed with the way they do things. I've written them several times with various lists of factual errors in Molecular Biology they have made and yet no responce and no corrections. Creation is religion or if you like philosophy, Evolution is Science. There is no science in Creation and no religion in Evolution. That's the way it is based on empirical evidence and only the empirical evidence.


Personally, I think Evolution should be excluded from public school science classes except on the honors level. It's not covered adequately and does very few students any good. I think we could replace it with more Cellular and Molecular Biology.

dawninns
04-29-2008, 12:33 PM
(Standing ovation for Amie!)

He advocates teaching evolution as FACT. I doubt he advocates using the Scientific Method to EXAMINE evollution.

That's the only way evolution can be and is evaluated.

In Apologia's General Science textbook, it starts by teaching three important principles. The first one is that we CANNOT assume something is true, based on the reputation of the person. ANYONE can be wrong. The second is that we cannot assume something is true, based on our prejudices. But to be REAL scientists, we must apply the Scientific Method to EVERYTHING to see if it holds up. Evolution has LOTS of flaws. WHY is it that these are not permitted to be discussed?

The problems surrounding discussion of flaws are many. First, I often find the flaws simply aren't flaws. Usually, arguments are based on faulty or incomplate information. Second, the whole idea that a theory offers a perfect and complete explanation without flaws is incorrect. Theories are explanations of evidence. The most accepted ones are the best explanations. It's certainly bad form to argue evolution is the 'truth' or is 'proven' but the fact remains that it remains the best explanation of the evidence we have. Of course there are still holes but the fact that a mountain has caves doesn't make it any less of a mountain.

As far as whether or not creation is science or religion.... That's interesting. How the earth/man came to be is science, unless God had anything to do with it, and then it's religion? I'm all for teaching evolution in the schools, even in homeschools, as long as it's taught as a THEORY, complete with all the problems of it. Fine. Don't teach ID in the public schools, but at least teach evolution so that any semi-intelligent person can make an educated choice!

Except that here the use of theory is not a scientific use. This is the problem I have with discussing the matter. There's a preamble about science and yet when the word theory is brought into the matter, science is thrown out the window and 'theory' is used as if it's meant in a layman's sense.

MonkeyMamma
04-29-2008, 12:38 PM
Creation is religion or if you like philosophy, Evolution is Science. There is no science in Creation and no religion in Evolution.

That is your opinion though and I know it is the opinion of many others. However, to a Bible believing Christian you can't have science without creation and evolution is nothing more than a theory some people teach as fact. I will teach my children creation as fact and evolution as a theory because as a Christian that is what I believe. I would never presume to tell anyone what to teach their kids and so I feel I have the right to teach mine my beliefs. I will continue to teach the way I teach and no article or research paper by some scientist is going to change my faith.

The problem I have with scientists is that they won't even consider the possiblility that creation is real. Won't even consider it! I thought that is what science was all about - researching all possibilities. How can scientists say they will research x and y but z is totally out of the question?

Sorry for blabbering:D. I just hate it when there are all these arguements going on, not on this board, but I'm just saying in general. Why can't you teach yours and I'll teach mine and let's leave it at that? And I couldn't possibly care less what they teach in public schools - as screwed up as they are already!

dawninns
04-29-2008, 12:52 PM
The problem I have with scientists is that they won't even consider the possiblility that creation is real. Won't even consider it! I thought that is what science was all about - researching all possibilities. How can scientists say they will research x and y but z is totally out of the question?

They can't consider it. Creationism demands a supernatural creator. Science can only deal with the natural world. It's like demanding someone measure volume with a geiger counter or faulting a scale because it can't tell you how loud your stereo is.

Sorry for blabbering:D. I just hate it when there are all these arguements going on, not on this board, but I'm just saying in general. Why can't you teach yours and I'll teach mine and let's leave it at that? And I couldn't possibly care less what they teach in public schools - as screwed up as they are already!

Of course you can teach yours - you're just wrong is all!
:p

Seriously though, I'll argue against creationism and ID all day but in the end I'll defend a parent's right to teach it. It's important that we allow people to teach their kids what they feel is important even when we disagree. That and so what if I disagree on that? Most of the moms I know who teach creationism or ID are excellent parents who are giving their kids stable, loving and supportive homes to grow in. That's the most important consideration.

Biologist
04-29-2008, 07:23 PM
That is your opinion though and I know it is the opinion of many others.I hate to be arrogant but according to the accepted definitions of religion and science, what I stated was fact. For it to be my opinion you would have to change the definition of religion and science.

However, to a Bible believing Christian you can't have science without creation and evolution is nothing more than a theory some people teach as fact.Evolution is nothing more than a theory. I don't think very many people would claim otherwise. However theories themselves have the potential to be facts. Gravity is only a theory, kinetics in organic chemistry is only a theory, but they all explain occuring phenomena. It's a fact that things fall, it's a fact that certain molecules react certain ways in certain situations, and it's a fact that things evolve. The theory is only an explaination of how the phenomenon occurs not if the phenomenon occurs.

I will continue to teach the way I teach and no article or research paper by some scientist is going to change my faith.I don't think anyone is asking you to as long as you don't expect science and its methods to change.
The problem I have with scientists is that they won't even consider the possiblility that creation is real. They did for a very long while, then over the course of the last 150 years they were won over. The number now is about 99.9% for people with degrees in relevant fields and basically 100% for working Biologists not to mention the numbers are still growing percentage wise.

Won't even consider it! I thought that is what science was all about - researching all possibilities.You don't understand how research works. We research what we have money for and so far it's very hard to find money for any pure research projects and that includes most Evolution research. What I would like to see is creationists using their seven figure incomes and eight firgure donations and the institutions dedicated entirely to creationism and do some research there first and then demonstrate to the public why we need funding for creation research. Futhermore, it's very unlikely that creation and ID can be researched, even if they had unlimited money and scientists working on the project, just because creation and ID are outside of science.

How can scientists say they will research x and y but z is totally out of the question?We can only research what is in the realm of science. So far no part of biblical creation has been demonstrated to be part of the realm of science.


The problem I have with scientists is that they won't even consider the possiblility that creation is real. Won't even consider it! I thought that is what science was all about - researching all possibilities. How can scientists say they will research x and y but z is totally out of the question?They can't consider it. Creationism demands a supernatural creator. Science can only deal with the natural world. It's like demanding someone measure volume with a geiger counter or faulting a scale because it can't tell you how loud your stereo is.


Of course you can teach yours - you're just wrong is all!

Sorry for blabbering. I just hate it when there are all these arguements going on, not on this board, but I'm just saying in general. Why can't you teach yours and I'll teach mine and let's leave it at that? And I couldn't possibly care less what they teach in public schools - as screwed up as they are already!
Seriously though, I'll argue against creationism and ID all day but in the end I'll defend a parent's right to teach it. It's important that we allow people to teach their kids what they feel is important even when we disagree. That and so what if I disagree on that? Most of the moms I know who teach creationism or ID are excellent parents who are giving their kids stable, loving and supportive homes to grow in. That's the most important consideration.Exactly, I think I like your post better than my own.

MonkeyMamma
04-29-2008, 07:34 PM
Ya know my post wasn't really meant to argue anything really. I don't care what you all think. If I didn't think what I believe is right I wouldn't believe it.

I'm sorry you don't think I understand science or how research works because I don't feel or think or live the way you do. I understand science completely. Just not the science you believe in. I am a very educated person. A very educated Bible believing christian and you won't sway me or make me feel like what I believe is wrong.

I'm certainly not trying to tell you to change.

dawninns
04-29-2008, 08:33 PM
Ya know my post wasn't really meant to argue anything really. I don't care what you all think. If I didn't think what I believe is right I wouldn't believe it.

I'm sorry you don't think I understand science or how research works because I don't feel or think or live the way you do. I understand science completely. Just not the science you believe in. I am a very educated person. A very educated Bible believing christian and you won't sway me or make me feel like what I believe is wrong.

I'm certainly not trying to tell you to change.

I don't expect you to change either. I'm just a real sucker for a good debate. :)

dawninns
04-29-2008, 08:42 PM
Gravity is only a theory

The way I understand it, Gravity is both a law and a theory. There's the observable phenomenon of gravity, the law. Release and apple in midair an apple and it falls towards the earth. But there's also the theory, the explanation of that observable phenomenon. Currently one theory involves gravitons I think? I do know we haven't got a theory of Gravity that's as well-substantiated as that of Evolution.

I think people get tripped up with law and theory as well. Some people think a theory is one step down from a law or a law is a theory that's been proven. That's not so.

A law is an observable phenomenon. The apple falls. that's the Law of Gravity. We can see that.

A theory is an explanation of the law or a set of laws, evidence and observable phenomenon. The apple falls because this and this make it fall. That's the Theory of Gravity.

Laws and theories exist side by side, not in a hierarchy.

MonkeyMamma
04-29-2008, 08:50 PM
I don't expect you to change either. I'm just a real sucker for a good debate. :)

It's all good! I don't expect anyone to change either.

I'm not usually for a debate but more for "do what you do and I'll do what I do and we'll all lively happily". :lol:

In a way I'm a total hippy.

Biologist
04-29-2008, 09:46 PM
I'm sorry you don't think I understand science or how research works because I don't feel or think or live the way you do. I understand science completely. Just not the science you believe in.I don't even understand science completely. Mainly I understand the underlying principles, the philosophy of science, and enough about my field of study to further the knowledge of the field. I highly doubt anyone understands science completely and from a couple of your responces I also doubt your understanding of science. As far as your comment about the science I believe in, I believe in the real science that explores the natural world, which is the only science there is based on the definition of science. The "science" you believe in is metaphysics, the unknowable, the mystic, something which doesn't even begin to be science as it is known.


I am a very educated person. A very educated Bible believing christian and you won't sway me or make me feel like what I believe is wrong.As am I, to Ph.D level. I don't doubt that you are an educated person. But education doesn't make you an expert in all fields of study. I'm not trying to make you believe that what you teach you children is wrong, atleast not in the sense you think I am implying. There are many ways to be wrong.

The way I understand it, Gravity is both a law and a theory. There's the observable phenomenon of gravity, the law. Release and apple in midair an apple and it falls towards the earth. But there's also the theory, the explanation of that observable phenomenon. Currently one theory involves gravitons I think? I do know we haven't got a theory of Gravity that's as well-substantiated as that of Evolution.

I think people get tripped up with law and theory as well. Some people think a theory is one step down from a law or a law is a theory that's been proven. That's not so.

A law is an observable phenomenon. The apple falls. that's the Law of Gravity. We can see that.


I use the term 'fact'(as we know it) or 'observation'(as we see it) instead of 'law'(as it truely is). I don't like the word law being used in science. Physicists get a little arrogant when they study the natural world but every scientist has their own philosophy of science.

To be honest, I don't fully understand the theory of gravity beyond what they teach you in freshman cal based physics, which for me was over twenty years ago. But I do know their current theory does involve gravitons interacting with each other at the speed of light. Yes, you are correct in saying that Evolution is a stronger theory than gravity, much stronger actually. We have many known mechanisms of evolution, so we can build a very accurate theory.

A theory is an explanation of the law or a set of laws, evidence and observable phenomenon. The apple falls because this and this make it fall. That's the Theory of Gravity.

Laws and theories exist side by side, not in a hierarchy.Yes, that's a very good explaination of how a theory is made. I wouldn't say they exist side by side but they share a special relationship with one another and both contribute to our understanding.

P.H.
04-29-2008, 09:54 PM
I thought a law was something proven and that it's repeatable.

Creation-substantiating papers are banned from peer-review, and any scientists with such leanings are likely to be in jeopardy of losing their jobs. Many, in fact, have already experienced that.

Belief that all creatures came from one common ancestor who developed an interest in sex at the exact convenient time that another similar, compatible, attractive creature also arose from the same slime pit with similar interests requires much more faith than the theory that God created everything out of nothing.

So-called scientists can look at a fossel bone and draw imaginary, fantastic beasts from it and call it "science," but when they look at patterns that cannot have arisen by themselves or when they look at the complexity of a single cell, they refuse to consider a first cause or a "Maker." One scenario they call science, and the other--"by definition"-- is not, because it involves something supernatural? What a double standard! Pointing to fear or the impetus & desire to survive or some unknown mechanism inherent in all living creatures to want to procreate in order to preserve their species as the driving force of evolution sounds just as "supernatural" to me. No, more like magic or fairy tale. Like a bird waiting a million years for the wind to blow the twigs into place so she could lay her eggs.

When our kiddos were first learning about evolution that nothing plus time equals something and that more time plus chance equals everything, they laughed out loud. Where did time come from? Was it here before space and matter? According to that theory it was. What is time?

Michael Behe is not a Christian, as far as I know. Yet he is only one of a number of prominent scientists who have come to the conclusion that evolution is impossible. He wrote the book, Darwin's Black Box.

(The definition of evolution in debate here is not referring to the changes within species, which use information which is already there, but macro-evolution, which is the belief in common ancestry, millions and billions of years, more and more information being added from nowhere, leading to continually more complex creatures.)

Evolution: No first cause allowed. Just results. No intelligent planning. Just perfection in patterns and beauty. Not good science. Not good logic. Definitely bad religion!

Yet it's taught in public schools.

Biologist
04-29-2008, 10:30 PM
I thought a law was something proven and that it's repeatable.

Creation-substantiating papers are banned from peer-review, and any scientists with such leanings are likely to be in jeopardy of losing their jobs. Many, in fact, have already experienced that.

Belief that all creatures came from one common ancestor who developed an interest in sex at the exact convenient time that another similar, compatible, attractive creature also arose from the same slime pit with similar interests requires much more faith than the theory that God created everything out of nothing.

So-called scientists can look at a fossel bone and draw imaginary, fantastic beasts from it and call it "science," but when they look at patterns that cannot have arisen by themselves or when they look at the complexity of a single cell, they refuse to consider a first cause or a "Maker." One scenario they call science, and the other--"by definition"-- is not, because it involves something supernatural? What a double standard! Pointing to fear or the impetus & desire to survive or some unknown mechanism inherent in all living creatures to want to procreate in order to preserve their species as the driving force of evolution sounds just as "supernatural" to me. No, more like magic or fairy tale. Like a bird waiting a million years for the wind to blow the twigs into place so she could lay her eggs.

When our kiddos were first learning about evolution that nothing plus time equals something and that more time plus chance equals everything, they laughed out loud. Where did time come from? Was it here before space and matter? According to that theory it was. What is time?

Michael Behe is not a Christian, as far as I know. Yet he is only one of a number of prominent scientists who have come to the conclusion that evolution is impossible. He wrote the book, Darwin's Black Box.

(The definition of evolution in debate here is not referring to the changes within species, which use information which is already there, but macro-evolution, which is the belief in common ancestry, millions and billions of years, more and more information being added from nowhere, leading to continually more complex creatures.)

Evolution: No first cause allowed. Just results. No intelligent planning. Just perfection in patterns and beauty. Not good science. Not good logic. Definitely a religion!

Yet it's taught in public schools.You appear to be very uninformed on the issue.

Most of everything you just said can be effectively refuted at www.talkorigins.org . If you have any further questions or commits on Evolution after reading up on the topic private message me.

JenniferErix
04-29-2008, 11:19 PM
You appear to be very uninformed on the issue. Until you have a informed opinion on the issue please reframe from posting.


Wow!
What are you, 12?

We went from educated to "You're a poo poo head", in about 10 posts...

I would never tell someone to NOT post, simply because I believe they are wrong.

However, since we are to treat others as we wish to be treated, let me return the favor to you......

You appear to be very uneducated in the ways of this forum and common social politeness. Until you can conduct yourself in a civil manner, please refrain from posting.

Jackie
04-30-2008, 06:29 AM
The problem is not an "uninformed" opinion, it's a "dissenting" opinion.

First, we're not impressed with your PhD. We're just a bunch of ignorant, in-the-dark homeschoolers here. We don't object to those who disagree with us (ad Dawn has done), but we DO object to "I know more than you, so you better bow down to me!" attitude.

I once had the opportunity to listen to two biologists go at it. I was with my friend, Norm. I had just learned earlier that day that he had actually student taught High School biology, which totally shocked me. (I mean this guy dresses in cut-offs and t-shirts!). We got talking to a visiting prof from Ohio State. The prof told Norm straight out that "I've got a PhD in Biology, so I know what I'm talking about!" Norm, without batting an eyelash, replied with, "Really! I got a PhD in Biology, too, and I believe....."

I will not get drawn into the evolution/creation debate. You are not about to change the mind of us poor, ignorant folk, and none of us can change the mind of one of the Great Honored Academia, so why waste my time?

P.H.
04-30-2008, 07:35 AM
I agree. The the referred-to poster may have run out of rational counter-points, broke forum protocol, and resorted to insults, but the site he refers to is interesting. Revealing. I hope this high-energy thread doesn't get shut down, because in some ways the site actually validated the proposition that both theories are religions. The site even names evolutionism's deity--supposedly the driving force in nature--and I'd like to see the discussion continue to explore the questions this raises.

The deeper one delves into this study, the more obvious it appears that the debate is not between science and religion. It's between two religions. One side acknowledges the Creator as Father God. The other one looks at His creation and calls it Mother Nature.

According to this religion, to consider theories of how their deity created herself is good. It's acceptable science. To consider that nature was made by Anyone other than Mother, herself, is blasphemy against their religion, falsely called "science."

Certain understandings, requirements, and word definitions and limitations have to be adhered to in the religion of Mother Nature (or simply nature) worship. Their first article is: Nature is supreme. She created herself. There is no higher power. To even ask if there is a God other than herself is not good science, thus all other theories are banned--very like a false cult, refusing to let followers explore certain issues which lie outside their religion.

This is perhaps the most strongly held tenant of evolutionism: any reference to any other god is called "not science." Interesting rules to the game, I'd say! Oh, freedom of inquiry, where art thou in this religion!

Questions from a homeschooler, who refuses to be limited by other's redefining of the word science:

Which religion is true?
Which, if either, of the following declarations would be a tenant of good science?

"It is She that hath made us, and we ourselves."

Or

"It is He that hath made us, and not we ourselves."
(Psalm 100)


Well, dear hubby and I had a fascinating time exploring that site last night. As you can see, it triggered some propositions, and I truly hope the rest of the people on the Homeschool Spot know it's all in good will. Oh, and BTW, I am ignoring the above cult member's illegal use of the ban.

MonkeyMamma
04-30-2008, 09:24 AM
Wow!
What are you, 12?

We went from educated to "You're a poo poo head", in about 10 posts...

I would never tell someone to NOT post, simply because I believe they are wrong.

However, since we are to treat others as we wish to be treated, let me return the favor to you......

You appear to be very uneducated in the ways of this forum and common social politeness. Until you can conduct yourself in a civil manner, please refrain from posting.


I'm so glad you posted this because when I saw what was written to Prairie of all people I couldn't believe someone could be such a knowitallass.

Anyway thanks Jen! You rock girl!

Biologist
04-30-2008, 10:01 AM
Wow!
What are you, 12?

We went from educated to "You're a poo poo head", in about 10 posts...

I would never tell someone to NOT post, simply because I believe they are wrong.

However, since we are to treat others as we wish to be treated, let me return the favor to you......

You appear to be very uneducated in the ways of this forum and common social politeness. Until you can conduct yourself in a civil manner, please refrain from posting.Actually, I went from answering productive questions to answering non productive questions. Which are very irritating to answer because they are asked and answered on such a frequent rate anyone who bothered to research the material for more than five seconds would find a very good answer very quickly and nicely organized. If she had raised any point not answered on talk.origins, I would have answered it. What she did manage to do was set up a post full of strawmen, arguments from ignorance, bad analogies, red herrings, and non sequentor conclusions, really it was her who made the first insults.

The problem is not an "uninformed" opinion, it's a "dissenting" opinion.Not when her opinion is full of logical fallacies. She didn't make one accurate statement about the theory of Evolution, and disagree with it. She made warped and false statements, and disagreed with those. Which by definition is an ignorant and uninformed opinion. If she had raised points that accurately describe Evolution and disagree with those, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

P.H.
04-30-2008, 10:09 AM
Tiffany, did you notice that after you posted, he lifted the ban? The portion Jen quoted is now edited from his post, with no explanation given.

I wonder when our society first swallowed the redefinition of what science is? Newton and most of the earlier scientists (whose works are admired by both sides of the present discussion) were able to do good scientific research precisely because they believed in the Creator God of beauty, perfection, and order. Knowing the Designer, they found it logical and edifying to discover the laws He made which govern the universe. Without this option, we get bad, self-limiting science.

This widely-accepted, self-limiting "science" says, "We can't study any theories which lie outside of our definition of what science is." Ironically, their very definition of science is unscientific. What more obvious, blatant example of the way they use the ban to limit thought than was illustrated on the Spot last night--"Agree with my religion or keep silent!" Again, NOT good science! Maybe that was embarrassingly obvious, and that's why it was erased.

To me, it looks like many people are allowing themselves to be silenced by close-mindedness. What are we afraid of? Here's to freedom of inquiry! Here's to upholding a higher definition of science! Here's to welcoming magnanimous debate!

JenniferErix
04-30-2008, 10:41 AM
Inquiring minds want to know...
Biologist, why did you edit your post?


Sits waiting with a big 'ol bag of buttery popcorn............
http://www.davebarry.com/gg/2003giftguide/images/1207umbrella.jpg

P.H.
04-30-2008, 11:37 AM
That looks like such fun! I am laughing out loud and thinking how it would feel to be agile enough to catch a few like that. But maybe it's a boy thing. My brothers used to throw one at a time into the air and catch them that way, too.

Well, while we wait, Jen, we may as well keep the conversation going. I have some confessions to make.

Maybe I should mention that my husband also has a degree in science. He is an international agriculturalist. He agrees with one of biologist's former posts that there are theories and experiments about change and adaptation at higher levels of academia that would be difficult for laymen to comprehend. But these deal with change within species, (micro-evolution). The belief in macro-evolution, (ideas about how things may have changed from one specie to another) offers no help or benefit to any area of inquiry, including medicine. As one advances from one level to another, theories of macro-evolution become more and more far-fetched and preposterous. So, to claim that "uneducated people" can't deeply understand evolution is a slight-of-hand magician's trick. "Now I use this definition of evolution. Now I use another. Now you see it. Now you don't."

When this illustrious husband of mine and I were married, we were both deeply steeped in that mindset, ourselves. He was the first to risk looking at other theories beside the monkey-to-man theory. He's always wanted to be open-minded. He's a risk-taker. He constantly pushes me off the cliff of being comfortable. However, it took him years of saying things like "Oh! THAT's how this could have happened!" And "THAT makes more sense than anything I've ever heard before!" "Wow! Would you look at the evidence!" before I'd even give him an ear. Evolutionism is so arrogant--as I was! Yes, I'm ashamed to admit I sneered at him. "Go ahead," I told him, "But you'll just be going backward in your reasoning." His questions haunted me, however, and his delight in a liberated mind, newly opened to look at all possibilities made me wonder. A highly intelligent, creative, well-respected man getting more and more enthusiastic over being able to look at life from a different perspective is impossible to ignore forever. Oh, and have I ever mentioned how good-looking he is! *smile*

Then we began to meet other scientists on the same liberating journey--imagine! The journey back to being willing to consider that design has a Designer! That effect has a Cause!




Personally, I think Evolution should be excluded from public school science classes except on the honors level. It's not covered adequately and does very few students any good. I think we could replace it with more Cellular and Molecular Biology.

Last edited by Biologist : Yesterday at 12:15 PM.

Wait a minute! Where did that other post of biologist's go? Did you notice he edited another post? Edited to remove some of the revealing narrow-mindedness of the theory, I do believe... I believe the former post said something about most people not being able to understand it... ie. not being smart enough to comprehend it until the graduate level?

Anyway, maybe his former post should have been rephrased to say: Only after having been indoctrinated for about twenty years of life, can a formerly rational, logical-thinking human being be conditioned to consider that the fairy tale of macro-evolution has any merit or use in the study of real science today. On the web-site he recommended, the word "absurd" was used to describe things the authors couldn't understand. Yes, I believe the study of creation without the Creator would seem absurd. Almost unbelievable now, I once had learned to live with that absurdity, myself. So, am not trying to scoff at individuals here--only the absurd belief system, unless I include pointing a finger at myself in that scoffing. Please no one think I think less of any person in this discussion. It's the mindset. OK?

And, BTW, changing posts in the middle of a discussion without an explanation is another sleight-of-hand illustration--now you see it. Now you don't!

I'd ask you to pass the pop-corn, Jen, but I'm checking in and out of your great thread as often as I can, and now I've got to run again. 'Hope 2 C U soon!

MonkeyMamma
04-30-2008, 12:31 PM
Wow.

This is too funny to me, it really is. How dare we creation believing homeschoolers have anything worth while to say! I love a healthy debate but this is not one of them. It's basically like talking to a brick wall. The name calling and lowdown comments, along with the slight of hand tricks and edits from someone so very above us in knowledge is laughable.

I am going to continue to read whatever is posted here but I am going to try and refrain from posting (unless someone dogs out my friends) because like I said...brick wall.

Before I recuse myself from this situation I would like to just state my position.

I do not care what a "scientist" says. I do not care what website someone demands I read before posting. I do not care what is taught in public schools. I do not care if someone thinks I am wrong. I do not care what anyone teaches their children. I WILL NOT abandon my faith in my wonderful Creator because of what anyone else thinks. I will not ever change my position on what I believe. I think evolution is ridiculous and that my God created this world and everything in it. Don't be offended by it. Just let it be.

JenniferErix
04-30-2008, 01:15 PM
Ah!

I think you're all crazy!
Hahahah!

Science just shows us HOW God did it!
Bwaaa haaa haaa!

MonkeyMamma
04-30-2008, 01:21 PM
Hey! What's wrong with being crazy?!?!?!

Biologist
05-01-2008, 01:18 PM
Now, who is antaganizing who? Someone accused me of being a 'knowitallass.' However, I do have evidence that the reverse is true. First off, I'm educated in Biology, no one else here has stated they have credentials in Biology. Lets assume everyone here is intelligent and well educated in some way. I have respect for other fields of study, because I have been through a decade of study, first in general Chemistry and Biology, then in Cellular and Molecular Biology. I know, that I'm not informed enough to make decisions on what's good Psychology and what's bad Psychology. In fact, even in science, I can't tell you the specifics of Physics, or even many parts of Chemistry, and I studied that for four years. Even in Biology I'm limited to my expertise in only parts of Biology the other branches of Biology are only well studies hobbies. So I'm well aware that I don't know it all. But for someone else to come in here and make false statement after false statement proclaiming Evolution as stupid and unscientific after watching a couple of films and reading a few paragraphs on AiG, acting like he/she is an expert on every experiment and study and up to date on every conclusion of Evolution, that is your real 'knowitallass.'

Maybe I should mention that my husband also has a degree in science. He is an international agriculturalist. He agrees with one of biologist's former posts that there are theories and experiments about change and adaptation at higher levels of academia that would be difficult for laymen to comprehend. But these deal with change within species, (micro-evolution). The belief in macro-evolution, (ideas about how things may have changed from one specie to another) offers no help or benefit to any area of inquiry, including medicine. As one advances from one level to another, theories of macro-evolution become more and more far-fetched and preposterous. So, to claim that "uneducated people" can't deeply understand evolution is a slight-of-hand magician's trick. "Now I use this definition of evolution. Now I use another. Now you see it. Now you don't."If all you want is one species forming another species then fruit flies are what you seek. Scientists have sucessfully observed generations of fruit flies decending from a single species of fruit fly that are unable to breed with one another, which by the definition of species they are separate species, and this makes the very definition you gave for macro-evolution true. Now, I bet you are thinking "but they are still fruit flies" but that would be a definition change on your part from species to family. And we all know how bad switching definitions is. It isn't scientists playing the bait and switch game, because every paper and textbook you read has clear definitions and very good experiments and studies to base its conclusions on. Fortunately for creationists this information takes years of study to uncover and most people won't look into it that much so they can play the innocent critic of the material people do manage to study and play like many experiments and studies don't exist. If you were asking for anything more than the fruit fly example, you should have been more specific.

I can respond to every question everyone here has about Evolution, but please don't bombard me with questions. Do like Prarie home did and go into detail on one question you have.

MonkeyMamma
05-01-2008, 02:35 PM
I'm the one who called you a knowitallass because that is how you come off.

My proclomation about evolution isn't a false statement. It is my opinion and my belief. I don't need to read an article or watch a film because no film or article is going to shake my faith in my God and creation.

What you don't seem to get is that for christians our faith isn't debatable.

You want to throw around your degree, your knowledge of the field of science and links to websites we must all check out before posting here apparently but the fact is none of that matters a hill of beans to a Bible believing christian.

Jackie
05-01-2008, 04:12 PM
It also matters very little to homeschoolers who are sick and tired of "educrats" who "know" what's "best" for our children. We welcome dissenting opinions, but not opinions that put us down and inform us how ignorant we are, simply because WE don't have YOUR "credentials". You have made it perfectly clear that WE are not on YOUR level, and thus we must accept every word you say as absolute truth. That's pretty arrogant to me!

Shelley
05-01-2008, 04:37 PM
Not wanting to get into this discussion on a message board, which hinders debate due to a lack of tone or facial expression, I'll just post this apologetics site that addresses some evolution issues: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5319

And, no, I don't intend to debate these points. If you want to debate the points raised there, contact those authors.

Biologist
05-01-2008, 04:54 PM
I'm the one who called you a knowitallass because that is how you come off.

My proclomation about evolution isn't a false statement. It is my opinion and my belief. I don't need to read an article or watch a film because no film or article is going to shake my faith in my God and creation.

What you don't seem to get is that for christians our faith isn't debatable.

You want to throw around your degree, your knowledge of the field of science and links to websites we must all check out before posting here apparently but the fact is none of that matters a hill of beans to a Bible believing christian.

I just don't appreciate some of the slander against the scientific community people have been throwing around in this thread. I don't mind it when people say "I don't believe in Evolution, because of my faith." But I do mind false statements against science and people calling scientists narrow minded, and getting called a 'knowitallass' just because I think I know a little bit more about Biology then other people here. Did you also just openly admit that no matter how much evidence there is for Evolution you still wouldn't believe it?


It also matters very little to homeschoolers who are sick and tired of "educrats" who "know" what's "best" for our children. We welcome dissenting opinions, but not opinions that put us down and inform us how ignorant we are, simply because WE don't have YOUR "credentials". You have made it perfectly clear that WE are not on YOUR level, and thus we must accept every word you say as absolute truth. That's pretty arrogant to me! No I haven't said that at all. I just expect a person who disagrees with the scientific concensus to have a list of valid reasons and to be well informed on the topic at hand. So far it's been a lot of poorly constructed strawmen arguments and other false accusations against Evolution and the scientific community. Which aren't dissenting opinions of Evolution, they are by definition ignorant opinions.

Jackie
05-01-2008, 05:09 PM
My point exactly! You consider us all "ignorant". As for what you HAVE said, since you've deleted half of it, how are we to know for sure? It's been your overall attitude.

There are areas in which I am more knowledgeable than others; I'm sure all of us have these areas. But I don't consider others "ignorant". If they have questions or misconceptions, I will listen and instruct. I will NOT tell them to "do their research and stop asking ignorant questions"! That shows arrogance and a lack of patience for others.

MonkeyMamma
05-01-2008, 05:47 PM
Did you also just openly admit that no matter how much evidence there is for Evolution you still wouldn't believe it?



Yep!

Sure did.

You can show me all the evidence in the world and nothing you say or do or show me is going to change my belief that God created the whole entire universe and everything in it.

Does that satisfy you? Is that worded in a way that is pleasing to you? Or does that sound ignorant too?

MonkeyMamma
05-01-2008, 06:00 PM
So far it's been a lot of poorly constructed strawmen arguments and other false accusations against Evolution and the scientific community. Which aren't dissenting opinions of Evolution, they are by definition ignorant opinions.

And this my friends is what I can a knowitallass.

Emma's#1fan
05-01-2008, 06:05 PM
I will admit to not being "educated" in Biology. I have copied these questions before and those who claim evolution is "fact" or "almost fact" have not given clear answers that enlightened me in my ignorance regarding evolution. These are interesting questions that I would like to have answered. These are questions that no person has been able to answer, as a fact, for me, regardless of how much "proof" scientists have to validate their "theory" or they are very broad with their answer. Biologist, clearly you are educated in this area. I am hoping that you can provide the answers I have been looking for.
The questions and more can be found at www.drdino.com. I really appreciate you being so helpful and enlightening. Perhaps I can finally understand what no person, teacher, or scientist has yet been able to clearify and help me understand. Thanks in advance.



(1) Where are the trillions of fossils of such true transitional forms?



(2) Is this scientific evidence for creationism, or isn't it?



(3)Where did all the 90-plus elements come from (iron, barium, calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc)?

4) How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?

(5) Where did the thousands of compounds we find in the world come from: carbon dioxide, sodium chloride, calcium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, chlorophyll, sucrose, hydrogen sulfide, benzene, aluminum silicate, mercaptans, propane, silicon dioxide, boric acid, etc.?

(6) How did life develop from non-life?

(7) Where did the human emotions, such as love, hate, and jealousy come from?

(8) What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce human beings, plus millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, all with symmetrical features, i.e., one side being a mirror image of the other? We take symmetry in all these creatures for granted, but is that a reasonable outcome for a random process?

(9) What are the odds that of the millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, a male of each species developed at the same time and in the same place as a female of the same species, so that the species could propagate?

(10) Why are there 2 sexes anyhow? This is not foreordained in the evolutionary framework. Is there some sort of plan here?

(11) If the first generation of mating species didn't have parents, how did the mating pair get to that point anyhow? Isn't evolution supposed to progress when an offspring of a mating pair has a beneficial mutation?

(12) How did the heart, lungs, brain, stomach, veins, blood, kidneys, etc. develop in the first animal by slow, minute steps and the animal survive while these changes were occurring?

(13) Why do books on evolution, including biology textbooks, always start with a fully developed animal when attempting to explain how one species developed into another species? Why don't evolutionists first explain how the first animal developed? (An animal with a heart, lungs, brain, stomach, etc.)

(14) What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce a system in human reproduction whereby exactly 50% of offspring are male and 50% are female (based on 50% X-chromosomes and 50% Y-chromosomes)? Again – is there some sort of a plan here?



(15) Where did the law of gravity come from? Did it have a beginning? Isn't it reasonable to assume that when matter was created, the law of gravity was established at the same time to regulate matter?

(16) Where did this energy come from? Isn’t the only reasonable answer that it was the result of a creative act by an almighty designer/creator?

(17) Why do evolutionists summarily dismiss the evidence from design without any serious consideration?

(18) Other than rejection of the supernatural, how else can one explain the steadfast adherence of evolutionists to this theory even though they do not know the origin of the 3 main bases of evolution: the origin of matter, the origin of energy, and the origin of life?

If you believe in evolution:

(19) Can you give us just one coercive proof of evolution, i.e., a proof that absolutely eliminates any other possible explanation for the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life?

(20) Isn't it true that rather than proofs of evolution, all that evolutionists can come up with are evidences for evolution to someone who already believes in evolution?

Let's see some answers to important questions such as these, rather than a discussion of what is science and what is religion. That type of discussion is entirely irrelevant. What we seek is the truth, and creationism is a far more reasonable and logical explanation of the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life.

Students: Make a copy of this CHALLENGE TO EVOLUTIONISTS and ask your teacher or professor to give you answers to these questions. If they cannot, you have a right to be skeptical that what they are teaching you about evolution is true. Also, give copies to your fellow students so that they too will be aware that there are huge flaws in the theory of evolution. And of course it is still a theory, not a "fact".

Robert H. Congelliere

Comments? Students: Let me know what your teacher or professor said after they looked over these questions. Did they give you any answers?

rhcongelliere@yahoo.com

Biologist
05-01-2008, 11:33 PM
I intend to answer all the questions but time is working against me so here's some I've answered so far. My answers will get more detailed when I have time to work on it, but really all this typing in exhausting.


(2) Is this scientific evidence for creationism, or isn't it?No, the lack of evidence for X is not evidence for Y. That is what we call a combination of negative evidence and the either/or fallacy and they are both logical fallacies. It's like the statement, since you don't have a thousand dollars in your pocket, I must have a thousand dollars in my pocket. You must derive your conclusion from positive evidence.


(3)Where did all the 90-plus elements come from (iron, barium, calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc)?Fussion of small atoms in the centers of stars. And some exist only in by fission done in labs. Can't give very many specifics because I'm not a physicist and I fail to see the relevance to Evolution this question has.

(5) Where did the thousands of compounds we find in the world come from: carbon dioxide, sodium chloride, calcium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, chlorophyll, sucrose, hydrogen sulfide, benzene, aluminum silicate, mercaptans, propane, silicon dioxide, boric acid, etc.?The combination of atoms into molecules and molecules into more complex molecules.

(7) Where did the human emotions, such as love, hate, and jealousy come from? Chemicals in the brain that cause us to react to situations in a way which benefit our survival.


(8) What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce human beings, plus millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, all with symmetrical features, i.e., one side being a mirror image of the other? We take symmetry in all these creatures for granted, but is that a reasonable outcome for a random process? It's far simplier for complex organisms to develop in symetry because it requires fewer genes, not to mention it's more beneficial to be symetrical.

(13) Why do books on evolution, including biology textbooks, always start with a fully developed animal when attempting to explain how one species developed into another species? Why don't evolutionists first explain how the first animal developed? (An animal with a heart, lungs, brain, stomach, etc.) Primarily because those are the animals we can actively observe evolving. We do have explainations for how these animals developed, but it's incredibly hard to condense and simplify the information so that it can fit in two chapters of a textbook for 9th graders.

(14) What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce a system in human reproduction whereby exactly 50% of offspring are male and 50% are female (based on 50% X-chromosomes and 50% Y-chromosomes)? Again – is there some sort of a plan here? Well first off, this is a simple model of human reproduction(that 50/50 are born). In reality more male children are born than female children, but sperm are made with a ratio of exactly 1:1. To answer your question it has to deal with the way cells undergo meosis humans have 23 pairs of chomosomes in females you have two X's for the 23rd pair so when female reproductive cells undergo meosis they only produce cells with X chromosomes. But since males are born XY their cells undergo meosis and produce two cells with the Y(sex determining) chromosome and two with the X chromosome. It's simple genetics and the simplest route for organisms to undergo sexual reproduction. It would require significantly more complexity to make sperm at any other ratio.

(15) Where did the law of gravity come from? Did it have a beginning? Isn't it reasonable to assume that when matter was created, the law of gravity was established at the same time to regulate matter? We don't know, we aren't even sure what causes gravity. This is probably an unknowable question but since it is entirely unrelated to Evolution I have no problem not being able to give you the answer you expect to find.

(16) Where did this energy come from? Isn’t the only reasonable answer that it was the result of a creative act by an almighty designer/creator? This steps outside the realm of science and you will not find support for any explaination be it the Christian god, the flying spaghetti monster, or it just existing. No matter which of the many possibilities is true, no of them would have an effect on Evolution because Evolution doesn't describe where energy comes from.

(17) Why do evolutionists summarily dismiss the evidence from design without any serious consideration? We 'evolutionists' have never really been given the chance to formally peer review the work of Creationists. Creationists play a nasty game of publishing anything they write as soon as they write it. Which is why you can see 'scientific' articles written last week on many of their sites. They rarely attempt to take a normal route of peer review and revision. Not to mention the fact that they rarely do research, if at all, for these articles. And when they do attempt to conduct a research product, they do it in the most absurd manner possible. One study I remember reading on the Helium content of Zircon crystals had the statement "unfortunately the original calculations are unavailible." In a real scientific study you show every calculation you use in your paper. The omissions of calculations alone would make your paper meaningless in the scientific community because you need to show how you got these numbers for these graphs for which you are basing your conclusion on. This isn't even counting the fact that the researchers couldn't come up with a unifying way on which to experimentally test these samples. The numbers they supply in their charts yielded up to a +/- 1000% margin of error which gave a negative age, several ages in the millions, and yes it even gave a roughly a 6000 year age if you fudge the numbers just right! And the way they set up the experiment was just pathetic, instead of testing their samples in pressurised solids to simulate being buried deep in the ground, they put them in a vaccuum because that would fudge the numbers closer to what they wanted. Yet they want "serious consideration."


4) How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?First off, you are starting with the assumption that there is design involved. There are patterns, yes, but that is not evidence for design.


(19) Can you give us just one coercive proof of evolution, i.e., a proof that absolutely eliminates any other possible explanation for the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life? I can give very strong evidence for Evolution, but you have to be specific because I'm not going to write a library.

Let's see some answers to important questions such as these, rather than a discussion of what is science and what is religion. That type of discussion is entirely irrelevant. What we seek is the truth, and creationism is a far more reasonable and logical explanation of the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life. No the discussion of what is science and what is not science is entirely relevant when discussing science. Science is a tool and yes it is limited in it's observation power because it can only observe what is observable. I know that sounds silly, but what creationists are trying to assert as 'science' isn't science, even if it is truth. They use dishonest tactics to use the credibility of science to promote psuedo-science. If creationist would like to develop a new tool to study the universe that superceeds science they should, but so far they are empty handed so they keep trying to hijack science.

dawninns
05-02-2008, 06:01 AM
I thought a law was something proven and that it's repeatable.

Nope. I thought something similar until I looked into the matter more. Here's a good quote (from here (http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1999-10/940942724.Sh.r.html)) that sums up the matter:

The current consensus among philosophers of science seems to be this:
Laws are generalizations about what has happened, from which we can generalize about what we expect to happen. They pertain to observational data. The ability of the ancients to predict eclipses had nothing to do with whether they knew just how they happened; they had a law but not a theory.

Theories are explanations of observations (or of laws). The fact that we have a pretty good understanding of how stars explode doesn't necessarily mean we could predict the next supernova; we have a theory but not a law.

I think the problem around understanding theories is a problem with creation science where I do feel it's often misrepresented but also with science at large. Shucks, science education in many public schools simply sucks. Where did you and I learn our mistaken ideas of what theories are afterall?

dawninns
05-02-2008, 07:15 AM
I will admit to not being "educated" in Biology.

Self-educated here which some would probably count as not educated. :D

(8) What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce human beings, plus millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, all with symmetrical features, i.e., one side being a mirror image of the other? We take symmetry in all these creatures for granted, but is that a reasonable outcome for a random process?

(9) What are the odds that of the millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, a male of each species developed at the same time and in the same place as a female of the same species, so that the species could propagate?

Mind-bendingly outrageous. But I bet that if I figured out the odds of me ending up as a homeschooling housewife with an interest in algebra and comic books, a Hyundai Elantra, 2.5 acres of property and a staple remover about an inch and a half away from a 15 inch CRT monitor then I'd find they were also mind-bendingly outrageous.

Long odds don't indicate something is impossible. They point to exactl the opposite, that something, however unlikely, IS possible.

(17) Why do evolutionists summarily dismiss the evidence from design without any serious consideration?

Because design demands a supernatural creator. Science can't address supernatural beings.

The question might as well be, "Why do Ice cream stands summarily dismiss my demands for a hamburger?"

(18) Other than rejection of the supernatural, how else can one explain the steadfast adherence of evolutionists to this theory even though they do not know the origin of the 3 main bases of evolution: the origin of matter, the origin of energy, and the origin of life?

None of those three things are covered by evolution and that site is being dishonest in implying they are. Evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution).

That's it. That's all. Evolution presupposes matter, energy and life (that's abiogenesis). There's nothing in evolutionary theory that can explain any of those three. Again, it's expecting hamburgers from and ice cream stand.


If you believe in evolution:

(19) Can you give us just one coercive proof of evolution, i.e., a proof that absolutely eliminates any other possible explanation for the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life?

The first two don't fall into the scope of evolution. Human life? I don't think there is one coercive proof. There's a lot of evidence that exists which evolution explains better than any other theory to date.

(20) Isn't it true that rather than proofs of evolution, all that evolutionists can come up with are evidences for evolution to someone who already believes in evolution?

It's true there are no proofs. Demanding truth or absolute proofs from a theory is misguided. A theory is an explanation. The best theories provide the best explanations of all the evidence. As for the rest of that, it isn't true. It's an opinion with no data or research behind it. It's not a scientific argument, it's rhetoric an sophistry.

What we seek is the truth, and creationism is a far more reasonable and logical explanation of the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life.

Creationism presupposes a supernatural deity that created the world by magical means that have no foundation in science. That's not reasonable in terms of science.

Also, give copies to your fellow students so that they too will be aware that there are huge flaws in the theory of evolution. And of course it is still a theory, not a "fact".


This last quote again misrepresents the meaning of theory. The claims about flaws don't follow logically from the questions since most of the questions were related to physics, cosmology and chemistry and had nothing to do with evolution.

I didn't answer most of the questions because I think the answers are pretty accessible. A Google search will tell you how the elements are forged in stars for instance. That's part of what puzzles me. Why is the focus on confronting 'evolutionists' rather then consulting sources and texts?

And I hate the term evolutionist. I had a JW visit me yesterday. One of the first things she started telling me about was how those evolutionists don't believe in God. I can't help but feel the term is used in an attempt to exclude Christians who accept evolution from the Christian fold. The lady is wonderful and we usually have some good chats (I know she thinks she's going to convert me! :twisted:) but I got a little heated at that suggestion.

Anyhow, I honestly think there's an unreal expectation of science in creationist circles and it's looked at through a religious paradigm without the realization of how different the standards and demands are. Or else that creationist science is a very different animal from science in general and that difference isn't acknowledged.

dawninns
05-02-2008, 07:41 AM
Yep!

Sure did.

You can show me all the evidence in the world and nothing you say or do or show me is going to change my belief that God created the whole entire universe and everything in it.

Does that satisfy you? Is that worded in a way that is pleasing to you? Or does that sound ignorant too?

I think that's what I want to hear from creationists (to be blunt). That the matter isn't about science at all, that it's a faith-based decision.

Ideally I'd like to see the science stuff dropped. In part because I think it misrepresents science but also...We've lost the idea of a life led by faith I think.

I don't know if I'm making myself clear but we don't seem to think that a life led by faith is enough anymore. You can't decide that the world was created in 6 days simply by faith, you are told you have to justify it with science. You can't pursue social justice just on the basis of the demands of your faith, you have to justify it in terms of money or benefit to society. I don't know how to explain this better.

We're expected to live by reason, not faith. Faith is seen as primitive and misguided.

I have a few people I carry with me as models of a faith-led life and funnily enough, one of them was a baptist who was also a creationist. I knew her on an AOL forum and she was one of the most forgiving and grounded people I've ever known. Her approach to creationism was different too. She ignored the debates, read nothing of creation science. She simply believed because that was her faith.

But I have biases and maybe I have this opinion because I don't think much of creation science, evil dudette that I am. Still, that woman has a powerful presence in my thoughts to this day.

And so MonkeyMama, I have a lot of respect for what you just said. I don't think it's ignorance at all but shows a profound knowledge of your faith and beliefs.

Emma's#1fan
05-02-2008, 07:53 AM
Biologist, thanks for taking the time to answer the questions. Although they aren't any different than answers I have received from other people. I am curious why you didn't answer questions 1, 6, 9, 10, 11, and 12. Perhaps they, too, have nothing to do with how animals evolved? Yes, I understand that you noted you will answer them later. I just assumed they would be the first questions answered since they are the ones that would provide a solid foundation for evolution.

Emma's#1fan
05-02-2008, 08:08 AM
I intend to answer all the questions but time is working against me so here's some I've answered so far.
I appreciate you answering them for me.:D

No, the lack of evidence for X is not evidence for Y. That is what we call a combination of negative evidence and the either/or fallacy and they are both logical fallacies. It's like the statement, since you don't have a thousand dollars in your pocket, I must have a thousand dollars in my pocket. You must derive your conclusion from positive evidence.
Interesting. This can apply to both evolution and Christianity. I am not speaking of mere faith. Rather the physical, what I consider "positive" evidence for Biblical support. I am wondering where their is "physical" evidence to support or confirm evolution.

Shelley
05-02-2008, 08:59 AM
For those interested, here is an article on defining 'science': http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6032.

dawninns
05-02-2008, 09:00 AM
Biologist, thanks for taking the time to answer the questions. Although they aren't any different than answers I have received from other people. I am curious why you didn't answer questions 1, 6, 9, 10, 11, and 12. Perhaps they, too, have nothing to do with how animals evolved? Yes, I understand that you noted you will answer them later. I just assumed they would be the first questions answered since they are the ones that would provide a solid foundation for evolution.

I'm butting in because this is fun and I don't want Biologist to hog it all.. :)

1] Is weird. Why trillions? We've found thousands of fossils, tens of thousands. We have a fossil record from which inferences can be made. We have enough. I just don't get the trillions thing. :)

6] That has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. That's abiogenesis. Evolution deals with changes in life after it's already here.

9] Is really about understanding odds, not evolution. More in my previous answer.

10] Another weird one. It's less about science than philosophy. Seeing a plan demands a frame that you view this matter through. That frame is that gee, two sexes, just like the bible says and exactly what we need to reporoduce. A different frame however and it looks like, gee, two sexes. Obviously a beneficial and advantageous mutation that's been wildly successful. It's in the bible? I guess we've made it so important culturally that we've even written it into our religion.

11] ) If the first generation of mating species didn't have parents, how did the mating pair get to that point anyhow?

huh? There were always 'parents'.

Isn't evolution supposed to progress when an offspring of a mating pair has a beneficial mutation?

Beneficial mutation is probably a bad term. Mutations are neutral. It's when a mutation confers an advantage and that's usually dependant on the environment.

Emma's#1fan
05-02-2008, 09:25 AM
I am posting this on two seperate posts because I can't fit it one one. YIKES!!!:lol:


(3)Where did all the 90-plus elements come from (iron, barium, calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc)?


Fussion of small atoms in the centers of stars.
Where or how can this be proven or is this a theory, merely speculation?


And some exist only in by fission done in labs. Can't give very many specifics because I'm not a physicist and I fail to see the relevance to Evolution this question has.
It would show that their is no creator. It would support that we had to evolve because their was no creator.

(5) Where did the thousands of compounds we find in the world come from: carbon dioxide, sodium chloride, calcium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, chlorophyll, sucrose, hydrogen sulfide, benzene, aluminum silicate, mercaptans, propane, silicon dioxide, boric acid, etc.?

The combination of atoms into molecules and molecules into more complex molecules.

...but what brought them into existance?

(7) Where did the human emotions, such as love, hate, and jealousy come from?

Chemicals in the brain that cause us to react to situations in a way which benefit our survival.
Yes. I agree with this. Where, what, or who did these chemicals come from?
(8) What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce human beings, plus millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, all with symmetrical features, i.e., one side being a mirror image of the other? We take symmetry in all these creatures for granted, but is that a reasonable outcome for a random process?

It's far simplier for complex organisms to develop in symetry because it requires fewer genes, not to mention it's more beneficial to be symetrical. What are the odds of thousands upon thousands of complex organisms randomly and spontaneously perfecting themselves.

(13) Why do books on evolution, including biology textbooks, always start with a fully developed animal when attempting to explain how one species developed into another species? Why don't evolutionists first explain how the first animal developed? (An animal with a heart, lungs, brain, stomach, etc.)

Primarily because those are the animals we can actively observe evolving. We do have explainations for how these animals developed, but it's incredibly hard to condense and simplify the information so that it can fit in two chapters of a textbook for 9th graders.
Where can I find a place where I can observe the evolution of these animals?
(14) What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce a system in human reproduction whereby exactly 50% of offspring are male and 50% are female (based on 50% X-chromosomes and 50% Y-chromosomes)? Again – is there some sort of a plan here?


Well first off, this is a simple model of human reproduction(that 50/50 are born). In reality more male children are born than female children, but sperm are made with a ratio of exactly 1:1. To answer your question it has to deal with the way cells undergo meosis humans have 23 pairs of chomosomes in females you have two X's for the 23rd pair so when female reproductive cells undergo meosis they only produce cells with X chromosomes. But since males are born XY their cells undergo meosis and produce two cells with the Y(sex determining) chromosome and two with the X chromosome. It's simple genetics and the simplest route for organisms to undergo sexual reproduction. It would require significantly more complexity to make sperm at any other ratio.
I am baffled by this. Not what you wrote, but rather how incredicly perfect and amazing the reproductive system is. Yet, I still am interested in what the odds are of such an incredibly, amazing, reproductive system evolving by chance.


(15) Where did the law of gravity come from? Did it have a beginning? Isn't it reasonable to assume that when matter was created, the law of gravity was established at the same time to regulate matter?

We don't know, we aren't even sure what causes gravity. This is probably an unknowable question but since it is entirely unrelated to Evolution I have no problem not being able to give you the answer you expect to find.The question shows that life, as we know it, is far more complex than we know. Gravity is beyond explanation. My reasoning for believing this question has everything to do with Evolution is because the very thing that caused the world to come into existance is also the very thing that caused animals to evolve?...or do you believe that the world and animals came about by different .........what?

(16) Where did this energy come from? Isn’t the only reasonable answer that it was the result of a creative act by an almighty designer/creator?

This steps outside the realm of science and you will not find support for any explaination be it the Christian god, the flying spaghetti monster, or it just existing. No matter which of the many possibilities is true, no of them would have an effect on Evolution because Evolution doesn't describe where energy comes from.
This is intersting, indeed! So does Evolution stand alone? Meaning, does Evolution have no connection to any other aspect of life, including energy? It is basically in a class of its own. How evolution came about is completely seperate from its surroundings? It didn't rely on another energy, force, whatever to evolve. It just happened?

Emma's#1fan
05-02-2008, 09:27 AM
(17) Why do evolutionists summarily dismiss the evidence from design without any serious consideration?


We 'evolutionists' have never really been given the chance to formally peer review the work of Creationists. Creationists play a nasty game of publishing anything they write as soon as they write it. Which is why you can see 'scientific' articles written last week on many of their sites. They rarely attempt to take a normal route of peer review and revision. Not to mention the fact that they rarely do research, if at all, for these articles. And when they do attempt to conduct a research product, they do it in the most absurd manner possible. One study I remember reading on the Helium content of Zircon crystals had the statement "unfortunately the original calculations are unavailible." In a real scientific study you show every calculation you use in your paper. The omissions of calculations alone would make your paper meaningless in the scientific community because you need to show how you got these numbers for these graphs for which you are basing your conclusion on. This isn't even counting the fact that the researchers couldn't come up with a unifying way on which to experimentally test these samples. The numbers they supply in their charts yielded up to a +/- 1000% margin of error which gave a negative age, several ages in the millions, and yes it even gave a roughly a 6000 year age if you fudge the numbers just right! And the way they set up the experiment was just pathetic, instead of testing their samples in pressurised solids to simulate being buried deep in the ground, they put them in a vaccuum because that would fudge the numbers closer to what they wanted. Yet they want "serious consideration."
Out of curiousity, have you studied to physical evidence that backs the Bibles accuracy or have you simply studied "science". The Bible goes far a beyond a book with thousands of words. There is a lot of physical evidence to show the words of the Bible are accurate.

4) How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?

First off, you are starting with the assumption that there is design involved. There are patterns, yes, but that is not evidence for design.
Alright. What word would be better to use? Perhaps we can substitue "design" with the word "make-up"?
How do you explain the precision in the make-up of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?

(19) Can you give us just one coercive proof of evolution, i.e., a proof that absolutely eliminates any other possible explanation for the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life?

I can give very strong evidence for Evolution, but you have to be specific because I'm not going to write a library.

I believe this is very specific. I am asking for one proof of evolution, not for a library of information.

Let's see some answers to important questions such as these, rather than a discussion of what is science and what is religion. That type of discussion is entirely irrelevant. What we seek is the truth, and creationism is a far more reasonable and logical explanation of the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life.

No the discussion of what is science and what is not science is entirely relevant when discussing science. Science is a tool and yes it is limited in it's observation power because it can only observe what is observable. I know that sounds silly, but what creationists are trying to assert as 'science' isn't science, even if it is truth. They use dishonest tactics to use the credibility of science to promote psuedo-science. If creationist would like to develop a new tool to study the universe that superceeds science they should, but so far they are empty handed so they keep trying to hijack science.
Perhaps, Evolutionists should come up with a better way to study Evolution. You have not yet given a solid, factual answer to help me understand why Evolution is accurate.

Emma's#1fan
05-02-2008, 09:31 AM
(8) What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce human beings, plus millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, all with symmetrical features, i.e., one side being a mirror image of the other? We take symmetry in all these creatures for granted, but is that a reasonable outcome for a random process?

(9) What are the odds that of the millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, a male of each species developed at the same time and in the same place as a female of the same species, so that the species could propagate?


Mind-bendingly outrageous. But I bet that if I figured out the odds of me ending up as a homeschooling housewife with an interest in algebra and comic books, a Hyundai Elantra, 2.5 acres of property and a staple remover about an inch and a half away from a 15 inch CRT monitor then I'd find they were also mind-bendingly outrageous.


These are not the same thing. You becoming a homeschool parent is a choice, as is everything you own and take pleasure in. Evolution wasn't a choice, unless it was the choice of a living creator. Evolution simply happened, correct?


EDITED TO ADD: YIKES! I do not like the way the second to the last sentence sounds. Rather, I should have typed ...
...Evolution didn't happen by choice, unlike Creation that required the choice of a living God. Evolution simply happened, correct?

Emma's#1fan
05-02-2008, 09:35 AM
I'm butting in because this is fun and I don't want Biologist to hog it all.. :)Please do!!!;) I always enjoy your thoughts. They make me think!:D


1] Is weird. Why trillions? We've found thousands of fossils, tens of thousands. We have a fossil record from which inferences can be made. We have enough. I just don't get the trillions thing. :)

Where is this record and has it been proven that they were fully functioning while in their transitional stage? If so, how did they survive?

MonkeyMamma
05-02-2008, 09:38 AM
There is a lot of physical evidence to show the words of the Bible are accurate.



Yes there is. My faith is the foundation for my belief but there is something behind that too.

Dawn I completely respect you and your opinions. I love the way you handle yourself. I appreciate that when you disagree with someone (or someone disagrees with you) you are kind in your debate. You don't try to shove people down to make yourself look better and you don't go back and delete half your comments.:D Anyway I thank you.

MonkeyMamma
05-02-2008, 09:40 AM
You have not yet given a solid, factual answer to help me understand why Evolution is accurate.

No he hasn't. And he has avoided some of those questions.

Emma's#1fan
05-02-2008, 09:41 AM
11] ) If the first generation of mating species didn't have parents, how did the mating pair get to that point anyhow?


huh? There were always 'parents'.

Correct. There were always parents and the offspring take on the genes or physical aspects of the parents. Assuming animals reproduce in the same time frame they reproduce now, then how would they have time to evolve when they are reproducing the same genes over and over again. Dogs still come out dogs and pigs are still pigs. When did species change species? When did all this evolving stop taking place?

Emma's#1fan
05-02-2008, 09:44 AM
dawninns, I am with you!!! This is fun!!! I actually have to get off and do some school work!!!
BUMMER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:lol: :lol: :lol:
....but, I will be back!;)

P.H.
05-02-2008, 10:27 AM
Patty, thanks for your questions. It helped get the conversation off of the offense I caused by using the word, "narrow-minded." Truly, I didn't mean it to refer to specific people on here--only in general, that's how the view seems to me. Sorry for saying that offensively before.)

Dawninns and Biologist, thank you both for your thoughtful replies. You've put some time into this, that's obvious. This is a fascinating study in our family, and being able to "pick the brains" with someone of the other persuasion is a privilege. I hope you both hang in here a little longer with us, because, like Patty, I truly would like to know how someone who subscribes to the theory of evolution handles the logic of some things. So, once again, thanks for being here.

Ready for some more questions? (From someone who is ignorant to someone who is narrow-minded? Ha-ha! Just kidding OK? Well, maybe not totally kidding, for I admit ignorance on many things, so you're only too right, there.)

1. OK, if all that life required to get started was the correct elements, then why couldn't we put a horse fly, for example, into a blender, chop him into a thousand parts, and watch those parts become new fruit flies? The parts would have every element necessary for new flies--contrary to your first fly, who had to develop his own new combinations. (I know this question was previously addressed by Dawninns, who said it lies outside of the scope of science, yet this is precisely the point at which evolution loses credibility--at the beginning.)




No, the lack of evidence for X is not evidence for Y. That is what we call a combination of negative evidence and the either/or fallacy and they are both logical fallacies. It's like the statement, since you don't have a thousand dollars in your pocket, I must have a thousand dollars in my pocket. You must derive your conclusion from positive evidence.



2. Biologist says that we can't claim something to be true just because something else is not true. Often this is the case. But not always. The situation we are dealing with here is one exception. There are only two possibilities: either nature appeared out of nowhere and we made ourselves or a Creator did it. There are no other alternatives.

(BTW, evolution has come up with some preposterous ideas how Mother Nature could have done this.)

3. The next statement from Biologist presupposes that we want to survive. Enter lack of logic. (Yet another case of "science's" double-speak.) Science claims not to deal with the reasons behind things and that faith and ultimate causes lie outside the realm of science. Oh, really? It seems to me that they address things like this a lot: for example, they have a very strong faith themselves in the desire to survive as the driving force behind human emotions--love, hate, jealousy, etc.

God, according to them is not scientific, but the desire to survive is? That's faith, also. And I don't believe in it. I do not believe in the "Faith of Inherent Knowledge in Each of us to Know that Which Will Benefit Our Survival." I believe that no such thing exists. I believe that is a falsehood. I believe it is part of a false religion. Yet it is a tenant of modern science, because God has to be excluded. It's one or the other. Science does deal with matters of faith--just a different faith. Read it here:



.


Chemicals in the brain that cause us to react to situations in a way which benefit our survival.


This steps outside the realm of science and you will not find support for any explaination be it the Christian god, the flying spaghetti monster, or it just existing. No matter which of the many possibilities is true, no of them would have an effect on Evolution because Evolution doesn't describe where energy comes from.

First off, you are starting with the assumption that there is design involved. There are patterns, yes, but that is not evidence for design.

No the discussion of what is science and what is not science is entirely relevant when discussing science. Science is a tool and yes it is limited in it's observation power because it can only observe what is observable. I know that sounds silly

But you don't limit yourselves to describing only that which can be observed. That's part of the problem. An obvious example is how you (not meaning you personally, but you in plural, as in "you-all") invent millions of years to construct a scenario to get all the fossils buried in the rock layers all over the earth, when many of them show evidence of rapid burial. Excluding God from your formulas limits you from even considering a world-wide flood. Not good science.

That statement of yours is not accurate. You do not limit yourselves to what you can observe. (Please, I'm not calling anyone a liar--just limited in your scope of what you allow yourselves to look at. Very limited.)

By excluding the idea of God from the very definition of science, evolution has, by definition, painted itself into a corner of illogical alternatives. Therefore, it allegedly, when it's convenient, refuses to discuss the origin of life. Think of it. So-called "science" refuses to look at ultimate causes. 'Say's they're outside the realm of scientific inquiry. Only because science has evolved itself to limit its own definition of what science is. Bad science, I'd say.

Is any one else glad we're all not in the same room right now? We'd probably be interrupting each other with questions and explanations and websites! What a joyous thing to have minds to explore these issues! Thanks, everyone for the fun! Yes, it's truly fun for us to probe great minds on these matters, even if, by definition, some of those great minds choose limiting definitions. *Smiling*

P.H.
05-02-2008, 10:30 AM
Yipes! It took me so long to post that I missed some fascinating conversation. 'Going back now to see what I interrupted. Yes, did we agree this was fun? We did agree. Yeah!

Biologist
05-02-2008, 11:42 AM
No he hasn't. And he has avoided some of those questions.

Wait one minture here. Did you not read the first paragraph on my post? I don't have infinite time out of my day to post replies to every question over a period of 16 hours assuming I recieved the questions right when she first posted them. Just be patient, I have a busy schedual.

P.H.
05-02-2008, 12:20 PM
Yipes! It took me so long to post that I missed some fascinating conversation. 'Going back now to see what I interrupted. Yes, did we agree this was fun? We did agree. Yeah!

I still have not had time to do justice to all the wonderful substance on both sides that have gone into this discussion, nor have I had time to study your link, Shelley. I plan to show it to my husband next week.

Since there are still quite a few unaddressed topics in this thread, I'd like to add another one. Actually it's not another one. I'd like to zero in on one specific one that particularly bugs me:


Faith in the inherent ability of the chemicals in each organism to make choices for survival and the desire to do that is a religion. This belief cannot be substantiated or tested. It is a faith system, and one I don't believe in. According to some people, though, modern science doesn't deal with matters of faith. This claim is either double speak or illogical thinking, in my humble opinion.

Their faith system is the only allowed to be studied. They exclude the other faith system.

I do not understand this contradiction on the part of otherwise intelligent, wonderful, well-meaning people. I'm glad we have some of them on this Spot so that we can probe. Someone help me understand this dichotomy, please. Thank you!

JenniferErix
05-02-2008, 02:38 PM
Hey, does anyone have that link to that YouTube clip that shows the scientific experiment that shows how the big bang happened.. you know, I think it is titled something like: "How to impress your friends and create things out of nothing without really trying?"

I can't seem to find anything on any scientific experiments that shows this theory... anyone... anyone....???

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2295/2459295783_1dfd1e6314_o.jpg

Emma's#1fan
05-02-2008, 03:07 PM
I have no idea but the popcorn look delicious!

JenniferErix
05-02-2008, 03:10 PM
I was being sarcastic, silly !

I just tried to show a photo that represented all the quiet folks that are enjoying this right along with you guys! Keep it up, this is cool!

(Passes the popcorn)

Back to the topic:
How come there "Seems" to be a basic scientific experiment that Proves" or at least shows how scientific principles, theories or laws work.... yet there is not one that shows how something is derived from nothing.... SOMETHING had to create it.

That's again why my personal beliefs are that Biologist is 100% correct on everything, except that the science simply proves HOW God did it. Thats' all.

It is like we are each others "Missing Link".

P.H.
05-03-2008, 08:06 AM
How come there "Seems" to be a basic scientific experiment that Proves" or at least shows how scientific principles, theories or laws work.... yet there is not one that shows how something is derived from nothing.... SOMETHING had to create it.

That's again why my personal beliefs are that Biologist is 100% correct on everything, except that the science simply proves HOW God did it. Thats' all.

It is like we are each others "Missing Link".

I agree that true science illustrates HOW God did it. But looking at fossils and deducing that whales once grew legs and emerged from the ocean as wolves is not true science.

(Not that you said it was. 'Just to clarify that a line has to be drawn somewhere between incredulity and credulity.)

P.H.
05-03-2008, 08:24 AM
I mean, it must take a lot of "faith" to believe that, right?

dawninns
05-03-2008, 09:49 AM
Correct. There were always parents and the offspring take on the genes or physical aspects of the parents.

Okay! I get it. :D

Assuming animals reproduce in the same time frame they reproduce now, then how would they have time to evolve when they are reproducing the same genes over and over again.Dogs still come out dogs and pigs are still pigs. When did species change species? When did all this evolving stop taking place?

Evolution hasn't stopped. We see it all the time...In a hospital ward where a superbug has developed a resistance to an anti-biotic, on a cornfield where a pest insect now resists a pesticide.

There was also never a time when dogs (or whatever species we're talking) didn't come out dogs. The change from one species to another doesn't happen in a generation. I've been hearing some neat ideas that speciation may not even be primarily a biological thing. It's intial cause may be cultural. One popultion of robins becomes isolated from another, over time it's signals and communication change so that even if they encounter robins from the inital population they simply don't recognize each others mating signls and such. From there they don't interbreed and over many generations the mutations that naturally occur, since their isolated to the new population and not shared with the old one, differentiate them even more.

Regardless, evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) is simply, "...the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next." It's not about dogs turning into pigs, it's about a dog giving birth to a dog that has a mutation that gives it a hearing defiency or a curly coat of hair. In fact, it's evolution that allows us to create breeds of dogs.

dawninns
05-03-2008, 10:04 AM
1. OK, if all that life required to get started was the correct elements, then why couldn't we put a horse fly, for example, into a blender, chop him into a thousand parts, and watch those parts become new fruit flies? The parts would have every element necessary for new flies--contrary to your first fly, who had to develop his own new combinations. (I know this question was previously addressed by Dawninns, who said it lies outside of the scope of science, yet this is precisely the point at which evolution loses credibility--at the beginning.)

Wait a minute though, we're discussing evolution. How life began is a completely different concern called abiogenesis. Evolution involves the processes of change in organisms and has nothing to do with how life began.

This is a key confusion I see often - and no, not just from creationists. :)

2. Biologist says that we can't claim something to be true just because something else is not true. Often this is the case. But not always. The situation we are dealing with here is one exception. There are only two possibilities: either nature appeared out of nowhere and we made ourselves or a Creator did it. There are no other alternatives.

This isn't evolution, this is origin of life but still, no one argues life appeared out of nothing. Some people who accept evolution think a Creator did it. Others point to world filled wth elements and chemical reactions which isn't nothing.

(BTW, evolution has come up with some preposterous ideas how Mother Nature could have done this.)

Nope. I'm going to be stubborn about this. Evolution has absolutely nothing to say about how life began. Evolution comes in after the fact.

3. The next statement from Biologist presupposes that we want to survive. Enter lack of logic. (Yet another case of "science's" double-speak.) Science claims not to deal with the reasons behind things and that faith and ultimate causes lie outside the realm of science. Oh, really? It seems to me that they address things like this a lot: for example, they have a very strong faith themselves in the desire to survive as the driving force behind human emotions--love, hate, jealousy, etc.

I'm not sure I understand this...Maybe you could elaborate?

God, according to them is not scientific, but the desire to survive is? That's faith, also.

Not in a scientific paradigm. Rather, It may be genetic programming.

Science does deal with matters of faith--just a different faith.

I don't buy it. To me that misrepresents science and does a disservice to faith.

But you don't limit yourselves to describing only that which can be observed. That's part of the problem. An obvious example is how you (not meaning you personally, but you in plural, as in "you-all") invent millions of years to construct a scenario to get all the fossils buried in the rock layers all over the earth, when many of them show evidence of rapid burial. Excluding God from your formulas limits you from even considering a world-wide flood. Not good science.

I'd dispute what I think you're implying about the fossil record. Do you have a source?

By excluding the idea of God from the very definition of science, evolution has, by definition, painted itself into a corner of illogical alternatives.

Speaking as a Christian who accepts evolution I have to make the point that evolution does NOT exclude God. Evolution excludes a literalist Abrahamic reading of the Bible. Yes. It does not exclude God and many, many believers have no problem accepting evolution.

Is any one else glad we're all not in the same room right now? We'd probably be interrupting each other with questions and explanations and websites! What a joyous thing to have minds to explore these issues! Thanks, everyone for the fun! Yes, it's truly fun for us to probe great minds on these matters, even if, by definition, some of those great minds choose limiting definitions. *Smiling*

Yeah but if we were in the same room I would have baked a cheesecake and someone would have brought nachos...Being in a room together is always prefferable if only because of the food!! :p:lol:

dawninns
05-03-2008, 10:06 AM
I agree that true science illustrates HOW God did it. But looking at fossils and deducing that whales once grew legs and emerged from the ocean as wolves is not true science.


It's a good thing science says nothing of the sort then.:p

P.H.
05-03-2008, 11:05 AM
We read that in an article on evolution in Reader's Digest, which I kept for years. Here's another one, which Reader's Digest also printed, quite different from the whale to wolf story. If reading the entire essay seems intimidating, at least read the portion I highlighted.

first published in The Reader's Digest in August 1925 (Vol. 4, No. 40),
Mr. Bryan on Evolution
by William Jennings Bryan

Are those who reject evolution as an unproved hypothesis unreasonable in refusing to accept, as conclusive, the evidence offered by evolutionists in support of a proposition that links every living thing in blood relationship to every other living thing--the rose to the onion, the eagle to the mosquito, the mockingbird to the rattlesnake, the royal palm to the scrub oak, and man to all? Surely, so astounding a proposition should be supported by facts before it becomes binding upon the judgment of a rational being.

It is not unusual for evolutionists to declare that their hypothesis is as clearly established as the law of gravitation or the roundness of the earth. Yet anyone can prove that anything heavier than air, when thrown up into the air, will fall to the ground; anyone can demonstrate the roundness of the earth by traveling around it.

But how about the doctrine that all of the species (Darwin estimated the number at from two to three million--the lowest estimate is one million, about a half million of which have been tabulated) by the operation of interior, resident forces came by slow and gradual development from one or a few germs of life, which appeared on this planet millions of years ago--the estimates varying according to the vigor of the guesser's imagination and the number of ciphers he has left in his basket? Can that proposition be demonstrated by every one like the law of gravitation or the roundness of the earth? On the contrary, no one has ever been able to trace one single species to another. Darwin admitted that no species had ever been traced to another, but he thought his hypothesis should be accepted even though the "missing links" had not been found. He did not say link, as some seem to think, but links. If there is such a thing as evolution, it is not just one link--the link between man and the lower forms of life--that is missing, but all the millions of links between millions of species. Our case is even stronger; it has been pointed out that evolution, if there is such a force, would act so slowly that there would be an infinite number of links between each two species, or a million times a million links in all, every one of which is missing.
Thomas Huxley also asserted that no species had ever been traced to another; and, while a friend of Darwin, declared that until some species could be traced to another, Darwin's hypothesis did not rise to the dignity of a theory. Prof. William Bateson, a London biologist, prominent enough to be invited to cross the Atlantic and speak to the members of the American Society for the Advancement of Science, at Toronto two years ago last December, in discussing evolution, took up every effort that had been made to discover the origin of species, and declared that every one had failed--every one! Yet he still asserted faith in evolution, showing how much easier it is for some scientists to have faith along their own line of work than along religious lines.

Why should we believe that all species come one from another when no evidence has yet been found to prove that any species came from another? If evolution were true, every square foot of the earth's surface would teem with conclusive proof of change. The entire absence of proof is the strongest possible proof that evolution is a myth.

But those who reject evolution have another proof. Chemistry refutes all the claims of the evolutionists, and proves that there is no pushing power to be found anywhere in nature--no progressive force at work in the earth--no eternal urge lifting matter or life from any plane to a higher one. Chemistry has failed to find any trace of force active enough to raise life, step by step up, along the lines of the family tree imagined by Darwin, from "A group of marine animals, resembling the larvae of existing ascidians" to "Man, the wonder and glory of the universe."
On the contrary, the only active force discovered on the planet as pointed out by Edwin Slosson, is deterioration, decay, death. All the formulae of chemistry are exact and permanent. They leave no room for the guesses upon which evolutionists build other guesses, ad infinitum. Take water, for instance; it must have been on earth before any living thing appeared, because it is the daily need of every living thing. And it has been H2O from the beginning. Every one of the millions of changes of species imagined by the evolutionists have taken place--if they have taken place at all--since water came upon the earth. But water has not changed; neither has anything else ever changed, so far as nature has revealed her processes to man.
When a few bones and a piece of skull are fashioned into a supposed likeness of a prehistoric animal, described as an ape-man, the evolutionists fall down before it and worship it, although it contains a smaller percentage of fact than the one-half percent alcohol permitted in a legal beverage.... Someone searching for fossils in a sand hill in Nebraska came upon a lonely tooth. The body of the animal had disappeared; not even a jaw bone survived. Professor Osborn summoned a few congenial spirits, nearly as credulous as himself, and they held a post mortem examination on this insignificant tooth. After due deliberation, they announced that the tooth was the long-looked-for missing link which the world awaited.

Give science a fact and it is invincible. But no one can guess more wildly than a scientist, when he has no compass but his imagination, and no purpose but to get away from God. Darwin uses the phrase "we may well suppose" 800 times and wins for himself a high place among the unconscious humorists by his efforts to explain things that are not true. For instance, he assumed that man has a brain superior to woman's brain, and tried to explain it on the theory that our ancestors were brutes and that the males, fighting for female mates, increased their brain power. He also assumed that our ancestors were hairy animals, and tried to explain the disappearance of the hair on the theory that the females selected their companions and, because of a universal preference, selected the least hairy and thus, in the course of ages, bred the hair off. The two explanations would be funny enough, even if each did not make the other impossible--the two sexes could not do the selecting at the same time.
Evolutionists also explain to us that light, beating on the skin, brought out the eye, although the explanation does not tell us why the light waves did not continue to beat until they brought out eyes all over the body. They also tell us that the leg is a development from a wart that accidentally appeared on the belly of a legless animal; and that we dream of falling because our ancestors fell out of trees 50,000 years ago.
It is a calamity that highly educated men should while away their time in idle speculation instead of devoting themselves to the serious problems that demand solution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor's Addendum: The foregoing article was first published in The Reader's Digest in August 1925 (Vol. 4, No. 40), less than three years after the Digest first began publication. At that time, the magazine was not as strongly committed to evolutionism as it is today (the editors have adamantly refused to publish creationist articles in recent years).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This article is copied from icr.org
Although all of Mr. Bryan's and my views don't match, I thought this essay was well reasoned.

I love cheesecake! I'll bring a platter of fruit to go with it. Jennifer has the popcorn. 'Anybody up to bringing nachos and cheese?

P.H.
05-03-2008, 11:14 AM
Dawninns, I really appreciate your taking so much time to help me understand your reasoning and, therefore, the reasoning of many other people I respect, including relatives and friends. This forum gives me the chance to ask questions (which might sound ignorant to some) which otherwise, I might not have the chance to ask--time wise as well as location, etc. Also, I'm trusting y'all are forgiving of my bias, and you know very well I'm not angry at any of you, just because I think your view is narrow, right?

Defending my position is actually only a secondary motivation for me on this thread. I'm trying very hard to understand where the other side is coming from, and you and others have been helpful. (Though not convincing. *smiling*) Once again, thanks!

JenniferErix
05-03-2008, 12:02 PM
Dawninns,

I like how you communicate. There are too many examples to quote them all here, but how you explained evolutionary changes using the birds as an example, very cool.

And when you pointed out that Evolution does not have to do with the beginning of life, but simply how it has developed.. very cool as well.

That is why I like debates with you because you make your points clearly.

Oh, and if there is food involved, I'm bringing the Tostitoes and Pico De Gallo!

Jackie
05-03-2008, 01:36 PM
It depends on what you mean by EVOLUTION. Yes, things do evolve as in adapt and change. Even creationists believe that. But there's no evidence of animals evolving from one species into another. That type of evolution DOES have to do with the origin of life.

Emma's#1fan
05-03-2008, 02:25 PM
Evolution hasn't stopped. We see it all the time...In a hospital ward where a superbug has developed a resistance to an anti-biotic, on a cornfield where a pest insect now resists a pesticide.

Insect immunity to pesticides is not Evolution. Humans becoming resistant to antibiotics is not Evolution. If this is a fact, please explain why and how this evolution occures and where is the evidence that "proves" this to be accurate. I will say, that I do agree that humans and insects are developing immunities and resistance to pesticides and antibiotics. But never once, during my Pest Management courses were we ever taught that insect immunity was a result of evolution. If this is true, then it contradicts the point that macroevolution happens over thousands of years. People and insects would have to evolve much faster because it was less than 15 to 20 years ago that these pesticides and antibiotics were still working. In this case, we WOULD be able to physically notice the transitions in humans as well as insects. Or are we merely speaking of microevolution. In this case, I can understand and agree.



The change from one species to another doesn't happen in a generation. How long does it take? Is it over hundreds of years, thousands, millions? If science is based around it's observations, then where is the evidence to back these observations? If animals are constantly evolving, then we are in a functioning transitional stage ourselves??? Forever?:confused:
...and if it doesn't happen in a generation, then we are back to the question of how can animals reproduce, reproduce being a very, very, important word? If animals are reproducing, some many times in a lifetime, how do they have a chance to evolve and be functioning at the same time?


Regardless, evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) is simply, "...the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next." It's not about dogs turning into pigs, it's about a dog giving birth to a dog that has a mutation that gives it a hearing defiency or a curly coat of hair. So it IS still a dog. This contradicts the very idea of where or how humans evolved.

In fact, it's evolution that allows us to create breeds of dogs.
How is this evolution? "Create" being the key word. Man doesn't create, man makes with what already exists. This is not evolution. Dogs breed and reproduce. Where does it say that it is evolution?

Emma's#1fan
05-03-2008, 02:32 PM
Dawninns, I really appreciate your taking so much time to help me understand your reasoning ...
Defending my position is actually only a secondary motivation for me on this thread. I'm trying very hard to understand where the other side is coming from, and you and others have been helpful.
I second this!!!!:D I am very thankful for dawninns considerate way of communicating her point. I have said it before, she gives us a lot to think about. It is a pleasure to discuss this topic with all of you.:D Thanks for the time and information, my friends!!!

dawninns
05-03-2008, 03:37 PM
It depends on what you mean by EVOLUTION. Yes, things do evolve as in adapt and change. Even creationists believe that. But there's no evidence of animals evolving from one species into another. That type of evolution DOES have to do with the origin of life.

No, it doesn't. The origin of life is more likely something to do with chemistry. Evolution is genetic change. You can't have that when there's no life. There has to be a different initial cause simply because the elements for evolution don't exist.

And...When we talk about speciation we're only talking degrees. Evolution is always, fundamentally, about small mutations that occur from one generation to the next. It's just that, over long periods of time, those small changes accumulate and so though two populations may have been identical to begin with, once they've been isolated for a few hundred millennia, they're quite different. It's a snowball rolling down a hill. At the beginning it's a little handful of snow. At the end it's a huge boulder of snow packed densly and probably filled with debris. Species? Well that's just some point along the downhill journey where we decided it was different enough. And we use interbreeding as the measure for that marker because well, we're just obsessed with sex. :)

dawninns
05-03-2008, 03:55 PM
[QUOTE=Prairie Home;183872]
But those who reject evolution have another proof. Chemistry refutes all the claims of the evolutionists, and proves that there is no pushing power to be found anywhere in nature--no progressive force at work in the earth--no eternal urge lifting matter or life from any plane to a higher one. Chemistry has failed to find any trace of force active enough to raise life, step by step up, along the lines of the family tree imagined by Darwin, from "A group of marine animals, resembling the larvae of existing ascidians" to "Man, the wonder and glory of the universe."

You bolded this and I'm lazy so I'll address this for now.

It's genetic mutation. That's the force. It's just that the power in that force is tiny. It's one genetic mutation at a time. What gives it real force is time and environment (which is getting into natural selection). It's enourmous spans of time for those changes to accumulate and different environments to select for different traits.

Evolution is such a tiny thing. It's a mutation in a gene affecting a change from one generation to the next. It's like gravity I think. Gravity is, as forces go, puny. I mean, something has to be the size of a small moon before it can actually exert any noticable force on a human and even then and even on a much larger planet like Earth I can confound gravity everytime I lift a finger. And yet it's effect on the universe is profound. It's cumulative effect keeps the universe together. The cumulative of all those little mutations, all that evolution, is a hugely diverse array of lifeforms.

You know, I make the meanest Chocolate Irish Cream Cheesecake. I think that's what I'll bring!

dawninns
05-03-2008, 04:14 PM
Insect immunity to pesticides is not Evolution. Humans becoming resistant to antibiotics is not Evolution. If this is a fact, please explain why and how this evolution occures and where is the evidence that "proves" this to be accurate. I will say, that I do agree that humans and insects are developing immunities and resistance to pesticides and antibiotics. But never once, during my Pest Management courses were we ever taught that insect immunity was a result of evolution. If this is true, then it contradicts the point that macroevolution happens over thousands of years. People and insects would have to evolve much faster because it was less than 15 to 20 years ago that these pesticides and antibiotics were still working. In this case, we WOULD be able to physically notice the transitions in humans as well as insects. Or are we merely speaking of microevolution. In this case, I can understand and agree.

Evolution is genetic change from one generation to the next. That's the process by which insects become resistant to pesticides. It's also natural selection. The evolution is the mutation in a member of the population that offers them resistance to the pesticide. Natural selection then takes over. The pesticide environment determines who dies and who lives on to pass on their genes.

I don't agree with you about time spans. Insects reproduce rapidly. They can go through hundreds of thousands (millions?) of generations before one human reaches sexual maturity. Since the core of evolution is the genetic change that happens from one generation to the next it's only to be expected that rates of change in a fly population would be drasticly different from the rate of change in a human population. How many years would it take us to get through just a hundred thousand generations? Heck...Have we yet?


How long does it take? Is it over hundreds of years, thousands, millions? If science is based around it's observations, then where is the evidence to back these observations? If animals are constantly evolving, then we are in a functioning transitional stage ourselves??? Forever?:confused:

Yup! :D We're one point on that path of the rolling snowball. I just think that's the neatest though myself.

How is this evolution? "Create" being the key word. Man doesn't create, man makes with what already exists. This is not evolution. Dogs breed and reproduce. Where does it say that it is evolution?

It's not natural selection which is the prevailing theory of how evolution works to create species but it is evolution if evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution)is, "the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next." From one generation of dog to the next, there's been a change in an inherited trait.

You know, I think our culture uses those terms (evolution and natural selection) sloppily and interchangably.

dawninns
05-03-2008, 04:16 PM
I second this!!!!:D I am very thankful for dawninns considerate way of communicating her point. I have said it before, she gives us a lot to think about. It is a pleasure to discuss this topic with all of you.:D Thanks for the time and information, my friends!!!

Thanks you guys. I think this is the first time I've really enjoyed this kind of exchange and I think the key is that I'm not doing this to change minds (first time maybe?! :D). I'm just doing it so I can share what I think, explain what I can about what I understand of evolution and have fun. I really appreciate the tone you guys have made possible here! :)

Emma's#1fan
05-03-2008, 07:09 PM
I don't agree with you about time spans. Insects reproduce rapidly. They can go through hundreds of thousands (millions?) of generations before one human reaches sexual maturity. Since the core of evolution is the genetic change that happens from one generation to the next it's only to be expected that rates of change in a fly population would be drasticly different from the rate of change in a human population.

I agree with most of this.:D An insect indeed matures, reproduces and dies much faster than a human. Still, I can't see this as evolution.





How would you explain your view regarding humans becoming resistant to antibiotics as part of evolution?
Evolution hasn't stopped. We see it all the time...In a hospital ward where a superbug has developed a resistance to an anti-biotic, on a cornfield where a pest insect now resists a pesticide.
People and insects would have to evolve much faster because it was less than 15 to 20 years ago that these pesticides and antibiotics were still working. In this case, we WOULD be able to physically notice the transitions in humans as well as insects. Or are we merely speaking of microevolution. In this case, I can understand and agree.







You know, I think our culture uses those terms (evolution and natural selection) sloppily and interchangably.
This is an interesting point and most definitely food for thought.;)

JenniferErix
05-03-2008, 07:35 PM
I have a thought.....

Survival of the fittest...
When farmers want the best cattle, they breed the strongest with the strongest... Could this be a form of human initiated evolution? I mean people breed some pretty weird dogs, you know?

dawninns
05-03-2008, 08:31 PM
I have a thought.....

Survival of the fittest...
When farmers want the best cattle, they breed the strongest with the strongest... Could this be a form of human initiated evolution? I mean people breed some pretty weird dogs, you know?

That's selection. The evolution would happen anyway. How evolution shapes a species though...Human selection, Natural selection or God. Those are the three basic choices.

P.H.
05-05-2008, 07:23 AM
Several questions have been asked of me, which I'm afraid might not get responded to in a timely manner: Hubby and dd are not yet back from a trip to Oregon, which leaves more responsibility for me on the home front, and coming up this week are a support group field trip, a family gathering, graduations, and more.

I'd also like to spend additional time on some of the sites mentioned on this thread before I say too much more; so please carry on this week, and I hope to be back--if not with conversation, at least for some of that mean cheesecake!

P.H.
05-05-2008, 09:25 AM
Meanwhile, just a fact about the sun, to ponder:
http://www.did-u-know.org/pages/article8.html

AussieMum
05-07-2008, 02:04 AM
did you know that the theory of evolution is not actually science? It is not repeatable, or test-able. It is philosophy, taught as science, taught as fact. My kids are aware of the philosophy of evolution, and the philosophy of creation. And they are equally aware that neither are science.

P.H.
05-10-2008, 04:52 AM
The idea that different genetic combinations is similar to brand new genetic information needs to be challenged again, also. It's the old micro-to-macro debate. I'm just passing through to see if there was any more conversation about this and see that there's not, though others have previously mentioned it on this thread. I'll check the fridge to see if at least there's some cheesecake someone saved for me.

'Didn't see any. Oh well, that's OK. I'll leave a somewhat unpolished message about "Mr. and Mrs. Orange" and be on my way to a family gathering where I'll notice that I'm the only offspring of my parents who inherited fine, straight hair. My three wonderful siblings all have beautiful, thick, very curly hair. Observing that, this morning gives rise to this story:

Mr. and Mrs. Orange both inherited one red gene from one of their parents and one yellow gene from the other parent. The combo of red and yellow produced their orange color. They each passed only one of their color genes to each of their four children. Of course, neither, technically, passed the orange gene on, though they did have two baby oranges. The red and yellow genes became separated in the reproductive process, and only one gene--either red or yellow--was available to be passed to each child. Mrs. Orange contributed a red gene twice and a yellow gene twice. Statistically, not all families work out exactly this way, but Mr. Orange also contributed a red gene twice and a yellow gene twice. This showed up in their children like this: RR, Ry, Ry, and yy. They, not knowing the theory of genetics nor how colors combine--some dominant and some recessive--were shocked to see they had produced two offspring apparently quite different from themselves! A baby red and a baby yellow! (Along with the two baby oranges.)

If one baby yellow grows up and marries a red, all of their children will be baby oranges! They will run the risk of someone telling them that such change is similar to the alleged change from one type of creature into another. Though it is true that if the Yellow family only marries other Yellows, they will never give rise to Reds or Oranges, it is not true that they are no longer in the Color family nor is it true that their offspring could ever change into Greens, without the addition of Blue genes through intermarriage.

That's the basis of change on the genetic level: introducing new genetic information from new parents, but the information is already present in the new parent. Always has been. Nothing genetically new magically appeared by chance, even though a new-appearing characteristic did. The other Miss Yellow married a Mr. Blue, and they gave birth to four little Greens! Not really evolution, though it's called micro-evolution, because they had never seen green babies before. If all the Blues & Greens met disaster, eventually the family would degenerate back to yellows--hardly an increase in information. Nope. A net decrease. Call it natural selection or breeding. Happens all the time. I've never heard a creationist argue this. But I hear evolutionists use this example as a mini example of macro change on a regular basis.

Macro evolution supposes that brand new information can arise spontaneously, giving rise to increasing complexity, when selective breeding actually breeds OUT certain genes. It's actually the opposite of the macro scenario. Various combo's are possible in reproduction--but only using genetic information that is already there.

Well, thought I'd leave this illustration, because this is a discussion about teaching theories, and micro-to-macro doesn't hold up to very many tests, in my humble opinion. I hate to eat and run, I mean post and run, but we've got miles to drive today, and the amazing woman who bequeathed me with straight hair is waiting with hugs and kisses for us all, and I have an essay to read to her, and my older bro and I plan to play a trumpet duet. It will be a fine day. I'll be back, though. Blessings to everyone as we sort out this fascinating subject!

P.H.
05-15-2008, 02:44 PM
Not wanting to get into this discussion on a message board, which hinders debate due to a lack of tone or facial expression, I'll just post this apologetics site that addresses some evolution issues: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5319




Shelley, I'm trying to get back to some of these links, including your "Stand to Reason" one. There's a lot to think about in them, and it'll be a while before I thoroughly explore them; but I did get a chance to read STR today and want to quote part of it which seems to pertain to this discussion:


"However, the exclusion of intelligent creation from the realm of science is arbitrary for two reasons. First, the fact is there is no clear line of demarcation between science and non-science. Second, even if there were such a line, it wouldn't automatically mean that well justified conclusions from other disciplines could not have a bearing on scientific thinking."


The author developed this topic in a way I had never considered before. Thanks for the link.

P.H.
07-17-2008, 01:40 PM
Though I haven't had time to read in all the links provided here as much as I'd hoped, I have remembered this discussion. An analogy came to me the other day:

Trying to do science (the study of creation) without taking into account the influence of The Creator might be similar to trying to study photosynthesis without allowing consideration of the sun.

RoadRunner
07-19-2008, 04:10 AM
The more I study science, the more respect I have for the Creator.

Cosmos (order) does not come from chaos.

I have an engineering degree, if that matters to you.

And about the fruitflies? Guess what, they are still just fruitflies. They are not mosquitoes or anything else...

FreeSpirit
08-18-2008, 02:13 PM
Wow.

All I can say is in my experience, faith is stronger than fact. Whatever you believe IS.

You can change ANYTHING with faith. Or else there would not be miracles that defy all natural laws.

You can strip a person of everything material. You can force the universe laws upon them. But NO ONE can take away your faith.

If I'm placing bets, it's not on science.

Incidently, I learned both theories, evolution and creation. I needed neither to have a successful job or survive in society. So who cares which one is taught? I think it's not the scientists but the psychologists who are concerned with religion in the schools and force evolution as fact. Psychologists believe children are like animals to be trained. In reality children are spiritual beings who deserve to not have their faith weakened.

But spirits with little faith to lean upon ARE easier to control.

Actressdancer
08-18-2008, 02:41 PM
But spirits with little faith to lean upon ARE easier to control.

And that, Ladies and Gentleman, is a powerful statement.

Emma's#1fan
08-18-2008, 04:34 PM
This is why psychologist Dr. James Dobson believes so strongly in homeschooling, although he is all for Christian teachers in the public system.

P.H.
08-28-2008, 06:36 PM
This thread has so many "branches," and all of them are challenging to think about. You gals have done it again--made me "ruminate" about things and try to wrap some words around an idea. Here goes! I hope you can see I'm just trying to peel back some layers here and not really contradict anyone about these particular points:

1. Faith is indeed powerful. There is tremendous power in our souls to make a difference in the world, and this power, activated by faith, can be used for good or for evil, because "faith" itself--in anything or in an idea--can change things. 'Doesn't even have to be based on fact.

2. Quite a part from this phenomena is objective reality. Absolutes. God and Truth. 'Doesn't depend on what anyone thinks, believes, or has faith about. It is what is really real. Exactly what the facts are & what reality is, is not always easily discerned; and we humans have a capacity to be deceived, no matter how much faith we have. But objective Truth does exist. God IS. ("I AM" is His name!) And all other ideas either line up with that or run contrary to it.

This Truth, revealed by creation and the science which studies it, the Word and the history which records it, and the living Christ and the lives He changes is the Truth which will last forever, and the faith which is anchored in that is the faith which I hope we are talking about here.

Yeah! I did it! I had the nerve to post on this thread again! I look back on the thread and see that at places I felt so passionate about things that I sounded way too harsh. Ugh! In real life, I'm a meek, somewhat quiet, sweet, unoffensive-type person. *smiling* Well, most of the time...

Emma's#1fan
08-28-2008, 06:43 PM
Prairie, it has been a pleasure to read your posts!

P.H.
08-28-2008, 08:43 PM
Prairie, it has been a pleasure to read your posts!

Thank you for saying that, Patty: I still feel really small whenever I think about this thread. When I made generalizations, it sounded like I just meant specific people, and it's too late to go back and change that now. But God is able to use even our carelessness and somehow bring good out of it! Amazing! It's a pleasure to read your posts, too!

NHMom
09-05-2008, 12:43 PM
I'm not about to debate with the author of the original article posted, but my main question to him would be "Why single out homeschoolers?" Does he not realize that there are many Catholic High Schools in this Country that also teach Science from the viewpoint of creationism? These same High Schools hand out diplomas and are legally acceptable to Colleges, Universities, and States.

Why in his mind would it be OK for these High Schools to do so but not homeschoolers? :roll:

I plan on teaching both and letting my children decide which they want to believe. I'm firm in the belief that "You can only lead a horse to water, you can't force it to drink".

elc
09-18-2008, 03:59 PM
I am actually going to slightly agree, that right now I see things are kind of gridlocked and only children are suffering. Realistically if our education system is to succeed, especially financially, at least 10-30 % of students are going to have to be home schooled. I think that the govt. should consider home schooling as a lifesaver and offer free classes and certificates, testing centers and convenient work submission facilities.

amccleary5
09-19-2008, 01:05 AM
It's 1:30 am. This post is so fascinating that I had to read it all the way through - forget the auxilliary links - I had no time for that.

I'm new here and already feel many great connections, so I want to be careful not to step on anyones faith or science. But I feel compelled to join in (diarhea of the fingers maybe?)

I feel the presence of God in my very existence (but I don't care if you call him mother nature, or by several names at the same time).

For me, faith probably represents how I interpret what I know, rather than dictating the learning process for me.

About a year ago, I read a book called "Don't Know Much About Space". I'm sure it was meant to appeal to the scientific nature of things, but for me, it validated the very idea of God.

The book explained the vastness of what we are able to see in space, even beyond our own solar system. And in all that space - there is only one planet that is "just right"; not too hot or too cold to sustain life. I know, I'm simplifying - but I only have a very small amount of college and don't want to get in over my head.

On the one hand, it made me think, there has to be some other planet out there that can sustain life - but on the other hand, it made the idea of a world created by a Supernatural Being more believable than anything else I had read, for or against the idea of One God.

If we tried to make a model of our solar system that was to scale - we would have to put earth and mars in different cities!! And we can see beyond our own solar system! In all that space - there appears to be only one planet with the right conditions for life as we know and understand it. Pretty good case for Creationism maybe?

The same author wrote a book called "Don't Know Much About the Bible". This one is more of a history book, but it challenges a lot of the things that are taught as fact about the historical figures in the Bible, including dates, times and places. For example, the date for Christmas (which I had been taught was the actual date of Christ's birth) was more likely set by the Roman Government to coincide with a Pagan Holiday as the Government was converting to Christianity and wanted to appease the Pagans.

Another interesting suggestion: That there is evidence of a great flood - but not all over the earth at once. Rather in the area including and surrounding the Middle East (Mesopotamia and the like).

Anyway - I'm not so much trying to take one side or the other. Like I began the post - I believe in God as someone who is in me. But these two books influenced my faith and perception and I wanted to share how they did so.

And the only thing that was really offensive to me about the original article was the idea that I need a college education to properly teach my child at home. I just watched a PBS special yesterday on the state of education in America. One of the most glaring points made in the program is that American schools attract lower acedemia to the teaching profession (public schools, I mean). So we don't really have the brightest bulbs teaching our kids. And they have to teach a large group of students with diverse needs and learning styles, all at the same time.

I, on the other hand, with my limited college education, can spend a whole day with one child, whose background I am intimately familiar with, whose needs I am accutely aware of and whose success is my only goal. I can find the means to teach her just about anything she needs to know - or at least lead her to the people who can, or the methods for finding the answers for herself or within herself.

I'm reasonably bright, and come from a family of excessively bright people, including a mother with a Mensa IQ (for all the good it did her - she has not had a very happy or successful life). To be a good teacher, I don't have to know everything - I only have to know the process of learning and pass that process on to my students.

And I have to stop now and post because my computer is about to go dead and if it does before I post - no way am I writing this again.

elc
09-21-2008, 12:43 PM
My husband and I were talking the other day and we both agreed that one of the biggest downfalls of today’s economic and social issues is the need to search and hire, only based on a certain degree status. If society stopped for a moment and hired based on intellect instead of a piece of paper, I could almost guarantee you that we would not be seeing today’s financial dilemmas. For instance my husband works in a hardware store and everyday solves the crises of the well educated. So, So, So smart but yet they would have no water for there grass, if it not for my husband. The first thing they will tell you is how smart he is. Which is why of course, my daughter will be attending college.

HOMEMOM
10-07-2008, 11:12 PM
I have to say though, I agree with him in a way. If we're homeschooling and not teaching our kids the state mandated curriculum, we shouldn't expect a diploma. Teaching creationism when state standards mandate a different approach is one of those situations.


Definition of diploma: a document certifying the successful completion of a course of study.

HUMMM!

I can't seem to find where it states "a course of science." In the state of Texas, homeschools are considered private schools. A state mandated curriculum is for the "Public Schools."Meaning, private schools regulate which curriculum satisfies the requirement for a private school diploma. In fact, if you check Texas curriculum requirements for homeschools, you will see that the state doesn't list science as being one of the required subjects.

I'm speaking on "Texas" homeschool laws. If the state actually states in its laws that science is mandatory for obtaining a private and public school diploma, then I can see why a diploma would not be issued.

HOMEMOM
10-08-2008, 12:30 AM
Inquiring minds want to know...
Biologist, why did you edit your post?


If you read some of Biologist's responses, you will see that the need to be in control and right is in Biologist's blood.

My "Theory" on why Biologist keeps editing the post, is that there is a strong need to be right and not contradicted.

I don't claim to know everything. In fact, I don't want to. Look what happend to Adam and Eve. The strong need to know everything, lead them to eat from the tree of Knowledge of Good and evil.:lol:lol

Oh! I'm sorry! Biologist doesn't believe in "creationism." Let me explain the danger of knowing too muchby giving an example that Biologist can relate to. According to the documentaryDangerous Knowledge,"Ludwig Boltzmann's struggle to prove the existence of atoms and probability eventually drove him to suicide. Kurt Gödel, the introverted confidant of Einstein, proved that there would always be problems which were outside human logic. His life ended in a sanatorium where he starved himself to death."

dawninns
10-08-2008, 05:01 AM
If you read some of Biologist's responses, you will see that the need to be in control and right is in Biologist's blood.

My "Theory" on why Biologist keeps editing the post, is that there is a strong need to be right and not contradicted.


There's no need to resort to insulting people in this thread or "yelling" with large fonts. If you have points to make could you please use normal text formatting and refrain from going after people who haven't posted in ages?

Emma's#1fan
10-08-2008, 12:04 PM
WOW! Time flies!LOL

The last time Biologist posted was 05-02-2008. I thought it was only two months ago.

Emma's#1fan
10-08-2008, 12:09 PM
[I'm speaking on "Texas" homeschool laws. If the state actually states in its laws that science is mandatory for obtaining a private and public school diploma, then I can see why a diploma would not be issued.


In California we are required to cover the same subjects as the public school, science being one of them. BUT! We do not need to teach the same ideas as the public school and we can still issue a diploma.

dawninns
10-08-2008, 12:23 PM
Is it the equivelant of a state diploma?

MonkeyMamma
10-08-2008, 12:33 PM
I'm so very glad I live in Texas. Dh and I have discussed moving out of state but then we think better of it. Nowhere else will we find the same awesome gun and homeschooling laws as in our great state.

HOMEMOM
10-08-2008, 05:00 PM
There's no need to resort to insulting people in this thread or "yelling" with large fonts. If you have points to make could you please use normal text formatting and refrain from going after people who haven't posted in ages?


Sorry that it seemed that I was "yelling." I was trying to place emphasis on my statement. I will try to use smaller fonts next time. I wasn't trying to come off as insulting, I was just responding to the insulting comments that were made by Biologist.

However, you do realize that new members are trying to catch up on the reading, and they do have the right to respond. I see that you have made comments in your responses that may have been misconstrued as insulting also. In fact, members have responded to you with slight irritation. Did you tell them not to respond to you the way they did. No, you just said, "I'm just a real sucker for a good debate."

If you go back and read some of Biologist responses, you will see that Biologist was insulting a member. I was only responding.

Emma's#1fan
10-08-2008, 05:14 PM
Do you mean is it accredited?

Operating as I am now, no it isn't accredited. But many colleges are still taking in homeschoolers by means of transcripts, portfolios, and of course the passing of their entrance exam.

I was part of an accredited program for many years. I had to pay $40. a month, go to four mandatory meetings a year and keep records but I could school however I wanted. I find it interesting that I can actually buy an accredited diploma just by being enrolled and completing their program. How they choose to run their program is up to each private program. With the program I was in, we homeschooled as we do now. The only difference is $40. a month, four meetings, and paperwork.

So once I realized I could give my own diploma and it was no better than the public schools, being accredited no longer mattered to me. In the end, all college bound students are going to have to take a college entrance exam. Whether they pass or fail determines whether they get in and of course placement.

Jackie
10-08-2008, 05:14 PM
If you go back and read some of Biologist responses, you will see that Biologist was insulting a member. I was only responding.

Which is why he's no longer around :).

HOMEMOM
10-08-2008, 05:16 PM
Is it the equivelant of a state diploma?

Yes, homeschool diplomas issued by the parent are legal and equivelant to a state issued diploma. However, there is just one catch. Since the colleges and universities can't get a class rank on a homeschooled student, they have to be admitted by individual review of their homeschool transcript and SAT or ACT scores. In addition, the military is recruiting homeschoolers and have in their policy that homeschool diplomas are equivelant to state issued diplomas.:p