Evolution? How?

and theologians in some Evangelical churches say differently....

now who's got the bad religion, sorry bad version of the same religion?

0 Replies

steve,

You are correct in what you say. We have all seen the "Answers in Genesis" website which is dedicated to promoting a literal interpretation of the bible.

Some scientists have personal religious beliefs but see no conflict between evolutionary theory and the bible because they reject a literal approach to the bible.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

steve,

You are correct in what you say. We have all seen the "Answers in Genesis" website which is dedicated to promoting a literal interpretation of the bible.

Some scientists have personal religious beliefs but see no conflict between evolutionary theory and the bible because they reject a literal approach to the bible.

The battle is not between Religion and Science, it never has been.

The battle is between fundamentalism and reality. Science and evolution are just caught in the middle and can't get out of the way.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

The battle is not between Religion and Science, it never has been.

The battle is between fundamentalism and reality. Science and evolution are just caught in the middle and can't get out of the way.

I agree with this. Early religion was nothing more than an attempt to explain the inexplicable. Scientific methodology grew out of religious enquiry and left it behind in many respects. But now as we probe black holes and string theory, is science really Divinity?

0 Replies

My view (borrowed from the late Stephen Jay Gould) is that science and religion have different domains of expertise. Science does not try to be divine, in fact it purposely omits the divine and studies nature in itself. Religion deals with issues that transcend nature.

0 Replies

wand, Now, if you can only spread that message to all the religious people on this planet. I know; it can't be done, and never will be. My guesstimate is that over 50 percent of religious people have religion confused with science.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

rosborne, farmerman, et al; Unfortunately, the majority of adults in this country believe we should teach creationism in our schools. That's what happens when religion gets involved with our political and educational system. I'm afraid there's no turning back; the IDers are gonna win.

I don't agree.

0 Replies

real, Ofcoarse you don't agree. That's to be expected.

0 Replies

ci, not if I can help it.

0 Replies

farmerman, I'm root'n for you, but the IDers are large in number and influence. We now have a president that wants ID to be taught along side evolution.

0 Replies

c.i.,
The president's own science advisor publicly stated that intelligent design is not science (in a comment to the New York Times).

0 Replies

wand, Haven't you noticed that what people in the administration says can be at odds with what Bush says?

From a web link:

Bush endorses Intelligent Design creationism

George W. Bush has endorsed Intelligent Design creationism's plan to corrupt education.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

real, Ofcoarse you don't agree. That's to be expected.

Well think about it, CI.

Creationists are not that well organized or funded. There are two or three groups who have a little name recognition with you but the general public hasn't a clue who they are. These groups typically operate on a shoestring, relying on donations.

On the evolution side you have groups such as NEA, with multiple thousands of members, plus paid staff in every state and at least unpaid staff in every precinct, town and county. These folks are legendary in their ability to organize and lobby for political causes. Well funded by tax dollars, these are the political equivalent of the 800 pound gorilla who can sit anywhere he wants.

These courtroom affairs are interesting but the issues ultimately get (re)decided in the state legislatures and especially at the state school boards and local school boards where these folks are THE power to be reckoned with.

Politically, creationists don't have much hope. You should be encouraged. I am just being realistic.

---------------

The only reason that large numbers of the general public ( I don't think it's a majority, but it is large) tend to agree with the creationist view despite DECADES of indoctrination of nearly the entire populace thru 12 years of mandatory public schooling is because by and large people are rather skeptical.

Overbroad statements such as 'we don't know how evolution works, but we know it's a fact' draw deserved scorn from intelligent folks who can smell it when someone's not leveling with them.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

wand, Haven't you noticed that what people in the administration says can be at odds with what Bush says?

Well, whaddaya know !

Bush tolerates dissent among his own staff. Doesn't mind if not everyone shares his view.

Isn't that what he's asking for in education?

Kinda interesting, huh?

0 Replies

real, You prolly haven't been keeping up with the news, but those folks that disagree with Bush are yelled at, private information publicized, and sometimes dismissed from their jobs (General Shinseki).

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

real lives continuing saga
Quote:
They are neither gills, nor slits. They may be folds of flesh or possibly other structures in an early stage, but they have no link to a fish gill whatsoever.

What they are are gill arches. REad the entire sentences before you insert foot into bucchal cavity.
What Strickelberger has stated (and most everyone agrees, there is some recapitulation of embryonic features, but it has no phylogenetic significance)
Eg all embryonic stages have a "tail" , or baleen whale have embryonic"teeth' which are reabsorbed. These stages of embryonic structures, Mayr called "organizers' for ensuing developmental steps EG if the center line of the primitive digestive system in the blastula stage is cut in a mammal or a fish embryo, the notochord doesnt develop, and if that doesnt, neither does the vertebra. Thus the midline is "recapitulated "as a bauplan feature because its an organizer of later embryonic stages. Now whether you believe that all tetrapods who dwell on land DONT show gill arches in the early embryonic stages, well youve proven that your just a rookie thats treading water to catch up. (I wouldnt worry about using "small words", we can tell that English may be a second language for you).
What MAyr said is what patodog showed above (which you failed to absorb)
MAyr said
" The anlage (Anlagen) of the ancestral organ now serves as a somaticprogram for the ensuing development of the restructured organ....What is recapitulated are always particular structures (gill arches, tails, pronephra, midline stripe of the archentera ), but never the whole adult form of the ancestor.
I tried to present that in my two previous posyts in an attempt to be scientifically honest and complete. You, as usual, merely fail to comprehend and then try to dump on what some of the minds greater than you or I , have said previously on this very subjexct.
As I told you when you joined in, beware of the crap that Safarti spews, hes not a real bright guy and is more a market specialist for AIG.

Vestigial structures are the other side of the same coin that you try to dismiss. Again, Mayr has said that embryonic similarities, recapitulation (of specific embryonic organs) and vestigial structures--raise insurmountable difficulties for Creationism, but are fully compatible with an evolutionary explanation based upon common descent, variation, and natural selection" (MAyr 2001)

I understand your point, Farmerman. But it's not the same as agreeing with it.

Evolutionists, unwilling to part entirely with recapitulation because the progressive drawings are such a smooth marketing tool, have tried to have their cake and eat it too.

While admitting that 'gill (slits or arches, it matters not)' supposedly present in mammalian embryos don't really have anything to do with breathing, they STILL want to claim that they are evidence of evolution from fish so they can still call them 'gills'.

The fact that they have to spin that fish gills have somehow turned into {fill in the blank} (how did the fish whose gills were undergoing this transition over many generations manage to breathe? how did the nascent mammalian creatures manage to {insert function of the structure that gill is postulated to have become} until the structure fully formed? It sounds like it would give both of these creatures a distinct DISadvantage in the battle for survival, which is the opposite of what evolution teaches.) doesn't seem to embarrass them. But it should.

Claiming that since it 'looks just like a gill' it must therefore 'be a gill (recapitulated)' is no more than sophistry.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Overbroad statements such as 'we don't know how evolution works, but we know it's a fact' draw deserved scorn from intelligent folks who can smell it when someone's not leveling with them.

Of course we know how it works. It works by variation and natural selection.

Nobody who understands evolution ever says, "we don't know how it works, but we know it's a fact". What is generally said (and which I said previously) is, "even though many details of the evolutionary process are not agreed upon, the basic tenets of the theory are not in question at all". And that's very different from the statement you presented.

Those intelligent people you described, 'who can smell it when someone's not leveling with them', are being fooled by people like you, who either don't understand what they are talking about, or are intentionally misleading them.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

The biggest concern for the scientists are the protection of Tennessee's cave creatures by protecting the cave ecosystems.

"The Rumble Room, near Spencer, Tenneessee, is the second-largest known cave room in the United States. A battle over a planned sewage facility that would have drained into the cave underscored the need to protect cave inhabitants and the wildlife they harbor."

If humans need a sewage facility to insure their health (and therefore survival) why should they care how it affects other organisms?

That's just evolution in practice, isn't it? Laughing

0 Replies

Some people are just too dense to understand the implications of destroying the life forms in the caves of Tennessee. I'm not even going to try.

0 Replies

Conversation with an Evolutionist:

Q. How did early life forms assemble themselves from basic chemicals into functioning cell sub-components consisting of dozens or hundreds of complex chemicals which all must be present in just the right amounts (a regulating feature currently controlled by structures that are now programmed by DNA, but neither the DNA nor the structures existed at this point) and avoid chemical destruction while still residing in a chemically hostile environment without any type of barrier (such as a cell membrane) to prevent chemical annihalation?

A: We're really not sure.

Q. How did early life forms assemble themselves from functioning cell sub-components into functioning units or cells?

A. We're really not sure.

Q. How did these early life forms instantly protect themselves from outside forces and be able instantly to successfully reproduce, feed themselves and eliminate waste, since failure to be instantly successful would probably mean quick death and thus the end of the line and the need to start all over ?

A. We're really not sure.

Q. How did these early life forms successfully and accidentally organize themselves into multiple celled organisms?

A. We're really not sure.

Q. How did these organisms continue to accidentally gather additional genetic information and complexity against the known laws of science, becoming higher and higher forms of life by sheer chance?

A. We're really not sure.

Q. How did Man come to be?

A. Oh of THAT we are very sure. It's called evolution.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know