Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching

You truly believe this ?

Farmerman sees the leprechaun exposed for just a second, and attempts to trap him with clear logic and reasoning, but the leprechaun distracts with a puff of irrelevant twitter, and circles around behind ebrown...

Aren't there several breaks (or "missing links") in the fossil record that have never been explained?

Snood, you and I rarely agree on anything, but in this case, the religious right is forcing schools to teach creationist theory, which includes the teaching that humanity is only 6000 years old. Do you agree with that?

From what little readings I have done on Bibliophile the BibleGuru's posts, he seems completely ignorant of scientific methods or science in general. I would suggest he start with Charles Darwins' Origin of Species as a starter. He might learn something.

snood, tthere are many breaks in the fossil record of many species. There are also many species with almost complete fossil records, (trilobites, various mollusca, forams, horses, whales, etc) Showing that one or two fossil lines are fairly complete should, to most reasonable people, draw a conclusion that theres a system in place.


bibliopile, if you dont accept the science in evolutionary thought, then you also dont accept science in general. Therefore, You are not only a follower of "Creation SCience" but perhaps a luddite as well.

Youve failed to discuss anything of substance so, I can only assume that youve got nothing of substance to discuss .Youre only here to make faces and bold unsubstantiated claims. Well, thats usually the case with those who refuse to visit the literature on the subject. if you buy all the myth in your Bible as science , youve presented no basis for its fact. But you knew that alreaday and wouldnt like to have your origins myths tampered with by these propeller heads.


Also, as you must know, your working definition of a
theory in science is all wrong, you cant even get the nomenclature and definitions correct.

Of course there are. That means neither more nor less than that data is as yet unacquired, or at the very least not yet understood, not that data does not exist, nor that the current unavailability of such data in any way invalidates, or even inconveniences, the massive body of evidence on which evolution theory is based.

Of note is that over the generations which have seen true scientific investigation and exploration of evolution, while many new questions have been opened, and corroborative evidence continually and uninteruptedly has mounted by libraries and museums full, with no end in sight, nothing has been found which contradicts the core of the theory. Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Zero.

The question you ask is a bit like this:

If a bomb goes off and you begin to reconstruct it from the pieces you can find, are all the missing pieces missing links? And because they are missing, are they therefor unexplained? If the bones of your ancestor are found in a grave in Europe, but your Great Great Great Grandfather who was lost in the civil war cannot be found, is that a missing link?

Life is not a static thing, every organism is a transitional form between what came before it and what will come after. When you ask "are there missing links, and have they been explained", what are you asking for exactly?

Your question seems sincere, and I would like to answer it, but I can barely make sense of it.

Oh yeh, snood, its "The fossil records" (its plural) each specie has its own unique fossil record, unless, like the newest subspecies of rufous hummingbird, it hasnt been around long enough to record one.

rosborne:

I knew as I started to read your answer that it would be one of the typical sniffy replies one gets when he attmpts to talk to a know-it-all. My question wasn't "a bit like" anything, except what it was - an honest inquiry whether anyone was aware of, and wished to comment on the very easily researched problems with the fossil record.



Here, let me answer that with a question...
If you search the earliest records of fossils of insects ever found, and some of them are cockroaches and dragonflies without record of ancestor, is that anything like your exploded bomb, or your great great great grandfather?




Hmmm...what in the world could I possibly be asking, huh? Well, let me ask you this - how do you explain that the living things found in so-called Cambrian rocks are already quite complex creatures (if you consider the jump from non-existence to trilobite complex - I do)?



Your reply seems unctuous and haughty, and I know damn well you could make sense of my question. But it's a very old trick to belittle the opposition in a debate. I think you'd probably best just try to discuss this with a respectable tone - the tactics you're using are best done by middle-schoolers, and they do nothing to further your (I'm quite sure) noble cause.

timber:
Sort of like "There ARE WMDs, huh?



Well, nothing much has been proven scientifically to show that the universe sprung unassisted to being from nothingness, in my estimation.

Not "sorta like" anything, snood - just plain objective fact.

I would submit further there indeed seems room for adjustment relative to your estimation; science does not hypothecate that " ... that the universe sprung unassisted to being from nothingness ... ".

What is deduced by science from the available evidence, in conformity with the observed phenomona, is that our present observable universe apparently stems from an as-yet not understood event, an event the occurrence of which is multiply indicated and reinforced by physics, astronomy, and the logic of higher math. What, if anything, may lie beyond or outside or otherwise seperate from that compellingly indicated event or singularity is even further beyond our comprehension and understanding of the precise minute detail of that singularity.

To claim that "Science says the universe began unaided from nothingness" is as uninformed as to say "Man descended from the apes". The fossil record clearly indicates primates - including both contemporary and extinct forms, ape, chimpanzee, monkey, lemur, and human alike, share a common ancestor, which even further back shares an ancestor in common with all other vertebrates, and further back yet there are yet more and more points of differentiation and speciation.

I believe it is the understanding held by some in regard to science that is flawed, and I submit that it precisely is that flaw of understanding which engenders its own ignorant, baseless propagation.

snood, I see thatt you read literature from what appears to be a single source , viz
"IF YOU CONSIDER TTHE JUMP FROM NON-EXISTENCE TO TRILOBITE COMPLEX"....

iI guess everyone wants to sound really smart , but nobody wants to take some time to read more than one newspaper.
The "jump" to trilobite occured over a few B Billion years, from the 3.8 B Y old Iswa formation, through tthe Ediacara and then to tthe "CAmbrian EXPLOSION"

Cambrian explosion was more like a burp, in which new orders appeared, but , a whole bunch of orders of hard parted older species previously went extinct.
Cambrian explosion is for tourists. Its a"turn of a phrase" tthat when coined by Eldredge, he probably wished hed kept his big yap shut. weve found a bunch of places in Australia and S africa and lattely Antarctica where earliest fossils of non trilobite artthropoda and others were found. Your trilobite statement to Rosborne, therefore, shouldnt be a centerpiece of an argument about missing links if youve got no deeper knowledge than that.

MY point was, and youve kept quiet about it, is"if we can find one species with an abundance of transitional forms then that sort of (by implication) shoots a biggy hole through your "problems with the fossil record"

The only problem with the fossil records is that people who dont understand anything about their uses or cladistics in general, dont stop spoutin g opinions tthat there are problems with the fossil records . OF COURSE tthere are gaps, weve only been working on digging up most key species since Edward Drinker Cope and Samuel Othneill Marsh would have Navajo Indians atttack each others expeditions.
Your comment is like a caveman telling his friend
"OG how we ever make HDTV?"
Weve made tremendous jumps in some orders, like AVES,Only in the last 5 years have we developed almost an unbroken line for birds. That lead to a problem. It seems that birds were here first before dinosaurs, so dinos probably didnt evolve into birds (although tthe concept is dead wrong anyway) Birds, or a burdlike common ancestor gave rise to birds and dinosaurs. We learn sttuff daily, to preach some sort of FINALITY . like your fossil record thing , when we are only in the early innings of discovery.eads me to believe , honestly, that you dont really want to be convinced about the "FACTNESS" of evolution theory, you , instead need to confront that which is the product of research and discovery, and yell ""NO NO It isnt true". I reject that as close minded , never to be opened. Its too bad, ttheres a lot of stuff going on all around you , and its so accessible tto kids with an interest in science and how discovery works and how many sciences team up to test the theory.

As far as Bibliophiles incorrect statementts about evolution being non testable. Ill forego the obvious viral and bacterial mutes and go to tthe predictive methods that were used to link thhe development of the Nile and Lake Albert Cichlid Fish. The LAke Albert genuses derived from the Nile species and radiated into an entire new range of fish with different morphologies and niches than tthe Nile cichlids and yet they are genetically linked . The geologic upheval that lifted Albert isolated the fish. Speciation proceeded and , by counting mutational accumulations , we can calculate their time of isolation. which, coincidentally coincides with geophysics chrono data and stratigraphy. Bib, itts you whose knowledge base needs to be filled a bit, youre too busy ttrying to deny the facts staring at you.

I'm sorry you feel this way because I didn't mean it that way at all.

I'm usually very good at focusing on the core meaning in questions, and I think you can see this from my history of replies in various threads. But your question doesn't fit into evolutionary science as I know it, and I know it very well.

Your question rings of misconception and of sound bites which come from creationist rhetoric, not from a personal attempt to understand the evidence around us.

If there is something you really don't understand in the theory, then I am happy to try to help (to the best of my knowledge). But if you just want to repeat creationist rhetoric and then cry foul when someone tries to address the question, then we are done.

Snood, you continue to confuse the scientific with the philosophical (or religious).

It is a mistake to think that if you want to defend religion, you need to support this attack on science.

Evolution is part of the scientific field of biology. It deals with genetic anscestry. There are all sorts of scientific evidence from fossils to genes to trace this anscentry through changes in species.

In your latest point out that science hasn't proved that "the universe sprung unassisted to being from nothingness." Of course you are absolutely correct in this.

I don't think any one will claim that it has been scientifically proven that there is no Creator. Many scientists may be atheists, but I bet very few would claim their atheism is "scientifically proven".

There are also Christian scientists who accept evolution (based on the scientific evidence) but find that it can fit into a fulfilling relgious belief system.

The question of whether there is a Creator is a religious question-- not a scientific one. Science has a problem even definng such words as "unassisted".

It helps to keep these two issues very clear. Science answers some questions very well. Evolution is one of the things that has been scientifically proven because there is so much evidence that can be analyzed.

The questions about "why" the universe exists is clearly beyond the reach of science. There is no scientific evidence as to whether there is a Creator. Anyone with an opinion about this must admit it is a religious (or philosophical question). I believe that this will always be the case.

Ros, Farmer, Timber, ebrown, and CI:

Evolution is NOT a scientific fact.
Evolution is a belief system that has grown into a humanist propoganda tool that has wormed its way into the media and education systems of America.

When you understand what the definition of evolution is then you'll really begin to question the so-called "scientists" or "scientific evidence" that these folks produce and massage to conform with their preconceived beliefs.

Bib.

Pray tell us , what is the definittion of evolution to which you subscribe.? and how do you know that the evidence is cooked?

If you post silly stuff like your above junk, and then run away, witth no evidence to support your points, you dont help your case, you sound jus. like another one of the "dont bother me with facts" members of the Institute of Creation "SCience"

Eitther bring up something concrete that we can debate, or start a religious thread in which you can find converts to your doctrines

PS, I think youll find that , in Europe, most countries tetach evolution in biology. .

The fact that my children came home from school expressing scepticism about evolution indicates to me that science teachers are not trying to indoctrinate their students.

Your beliefs are forcing you to attack modern science.

The problem with your is that these so-called "scientists" (who most of us just call scientists) are quite an impressive group. They are decoding genes. They are curing diseases and discovering incredible new drugs. They have even added new tools to criminal justice justice system.

These so-called scientists all were trained at universities that taught evolution. They (with maybe a very small number of religious exceptions) all accept evolution as scientifically proven.

It is hard to believe that the people at the forefront of science in our advanced society are as locked into "massaging" their results to "conform with their preconceived beliefs". It would be simply impossible to believe that if this were true, these people would be able to make any of the breakthroughs we are seeing.

You can't separate evolution from science. Evolution and science are done by much of the same people, they are taught in the same Universities and were studied using the same scientific process.

The scientists who are at the forefront of research and development all accept evolution, and all trust that the process used to investigate, analyze evolution is valid.

Your attack on evolution is an attack on modern science.

Come on Bib, just because you say it with conviction doesn't make it true.

If your complaint is with the belief system of Naturalism (upon which science is based), or if you are going to argue that human awareness is just a dream or something, then you need to say it. Otherwise it just looks like you're trolling for attention.