Evolution? How?

Really.

I prefer the syllogism.

State your premises.

Who are you to talk about specious logic, when you turn around and simply accept an ancient book as the last word about the structure of the universe?

There is only one truth, and many circumlocutions of the truth. Each has its appeal to different groups.

Those who 'simply accept' any proposition or conclusion based on appeal do so at their peril.

Yeah how dare I speak my mind. I ought to be ashamed of dissing the priests in their white lab robes.

And the way I question the exalted status of St Charles de Beaglé is just short of blasphemous, huh?

Evidence and scientific proof is independent of who does the experiment or who collects the evidence. As far as I can see , there are at least 5 separate "schools" of creationist through theistic evolution. Each clamoring about the validity of their own speciallly revealed "truths".

RL, Momma and Intrepids "force fit" analysis of how we do analysis of a fossil assemblage is funny to 6this ol rocknocker. Im reading and learning an entire set of propositions that are more baseless than the existence of Bigfoot.
The disciplines of strat analysis are every it as invested in the core disciplines as chem and physics as any other applied science or engineering.
LAst night I was listening to the "Formation of abiotic oil deposits" by a couple of PhD's (albeit Creationists) who also have no ideas of how the rules of Superposition or correlation or thermal gradients or environments of deposition work. On one hand I was amazedat how someone invested in training in Physics and experimentation could be so purposefully ignorant of how the world works. On the other hand I found it funny and could use the shows tape as a kind of "Ok Kiddies, try to find 6 differences between these two drawings"

Your logic is not specious because specious at least indicates that there is a thread of truth in there. Your logic is based upon Midieaval thinking and ignorance just like the two PhDs who are touting abiotic oil.

You are, apparently, wrong about evidence and scientific proof not depending on who is doing the analysis.

If someone else did the analysis that you just did, they would not find that Intrepid has spoken about fossil assemlages at all. Since he has not, your evidence is false and is based purely on wishful thinking or ignorance.

I include you Intrepid into the league of the uneducated , Not as a swipe against your person but as a swipe against your amazing abilitys to merely agree with momma and others of her ilk. Real Life, at least comes out swinging with some stuff to chew on. Thats at least fun.By merely agreeing with others whove talked about subjects that, in my mind seem really dim, Ill include you in my critique. Ya cant just pick up rocks and hand em to others to throw.

Intrepid; I don't think for a minute you look at all like that.

I believe farmer was referring to Creationists and IDers in general and not to a specific post in this thread. The only problem I find with farmer is his subject matter, being so esoteric; I wish he would spend more time on spelling and grammar. I know he can do it when he doesn't hurry.

The subject is difficult enough as it is.

You must have come late into the thread farmerman. We are almost to 500 pages. Have you read everything that I posted?

Farmerman,

Merely agree with Momma and others of her ilk? Intrepid is much more knowledgeable about so much more than I. I am proud that you would put me in his category, even though I believe you didn't mean it as a compliment.

As Ive said a number of times herein. I have a crippled left hand which is semi paralyzed and no feeling from an armed conflict many years ago. If you cant take my typing skills TS. Consider it an intelligence test .
PS, I was referrin g to a specific set of posts, those about fossil assemblages in rock strata, separated by several feets of depth.

If Intrepid was silent on that issue, Ill apologize and buy him a beverage of his choice. However, I think he was agreeing with momma or Real Life. It does get hard to follow a thread this long when some of us were hear from the beginning of the cambrian

Farmerman,

I am so sorry to hear about your hand. I am sure we can all show a bit more consideration. God Bless.

No need to apologize, farmerman. We all make mistakes.

I am sorry about your affliction. I can relate to it as my left arm was paralized for a time. I was fortunate (blessed) and the nerves came back to life.

NAAAAH, thats not the point. Hell I can do great feats of pain endurance with the "no feeling" part. I just do not like the words "esoteric" used in my presence. Im trying to limit the amount of techy words so that we can all discuss some of this ****. I do fall into jargon only when I cannot think of a word analogous to the techy one.

I have a specially designed keyboar which keeps me from setting off most of the wrong letters but its not 100% farmerproof. Dont worry about it and PLEEEZE dont let up on the debate points . I can take care of myself. When I read total Bullshit passages about certain points of the sciences with which I deal daily, Im gonna respond. Im usually slow to rise in anger but once and a while I can get snotty.

I think my biggest mistake is I think and type and then dont use the spellcheck cause I dont want to lose the ability to have my post as a response to one above.
Thanks for your nice thought though.

I have a buddy (also a geologist) who is missing one leg below his knee and part of a foot (landmine). He would kick the crap out of me if I told people he was handicapped.

From the NYT:

October 27, 2005
2 Science Groups Say Kansas Can't Use Their Evolution Papers
By JODI WILGOREN
CHICAGO, Oct. 27 - Two leading science organizations have denied the Kansas board of education permission to use their copyrighted materials in the state's proposed new science standards because of the standards' critical approach to evolution.

The National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association said the much-disputed new standards "will put the students of Kansas at a competitive disadvantage as they take their place in the world."

The stinging rebuke came less than two weeks before the state school board is expected to put the science standards into effect. The new standards have also received a lukewarm review from an external education company.

While the copyright denial could cause delay in their adoption, as the standards are rewritten, it is unlikely to derail the board's conservative majority in its mission to require that challenges to Darwin's theories be taught in the state's classrooms.

"Kansas students will not be well-prepared for the rigors of higher education or the demands of an increasingly complex and technologically-driven world if their science education is based on these standards," Ralph J. Cicerone, president of the National Academy, and Michael J. Padilla, president of the teachers' group, said in a joint written statement today. "Instead, they will put the students of Kansas at a competitive disadvantage as they take their place in the world."

In the statement, as well as in letters to the state board, the groups opposed the standards for singling out evolution as a controversial theory, and also for changing the definition of science itself so that it is not restricted to natural phenomena.

A third organization, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, echoed those concerns in a news release supporting the copyright denial, saying: "Students are ill-served by any effort in science classrooms to blur the distinction between science and other ways of knowing, including those concerned with the supernatural."

The president of the state school board, Steve Abrams, who is the leader of its 6-4 conservative majority, said members could approve the standards on Nov. 8 as planned - but with a caveat directing a copyright lawyer to remove direct references to the groups' materials.

"The impact is minimal - it won't change the concepts," Dr. Abrams said. "They obviously don't have copyrights on concepts."

But the chairman of the standards-writing committee, Steve Case, said copyrighted material appears on almost all of the document's 100 pages, and predicted it could take two to three months to revise them.

"In some cases it's just a phrase, but in some cases it's extensive," said Dr. Case, an assistant research professor at the University of Kansas, who opposes the criticism of evolution that conservatives inserted into the standards. "You try to keep the idea but change the wording around, the writing becomes horrifically bad."

The copyright skirmish is not a surprise: the two groups took a similar step in 1999, when the Kansas board stripped the standards of virtually any reference to evolution, a move that was reversed when conservative members were ousted from office.

A board member who supports evolution, Sue Gamble, said the science groups' strong statement would not block the standards' adoption but could have a longer-term effect.

"Nothing is going to stop these six members from doing what they're going to do," Ms. Gamble said of the board's conservative majority, four of whom are up for re-election in 2006. "It won't make any difference, but I think it will make a difference next year in the election."

farmer; I didn't realize about your hand. Sorry.

However, I meant what I said about your posts being esoteric, though perhaps I should have used the word erudite. You are miles ahead of me in your knowledge of natural science and I believe others would agree with me that this thread would have died months ago were it not for your input.

That being said, I continue to beg for mercy, not that you would dumb down your posts, just that you would take a few extra seconds in deference to my friend Joe Sixpack, who, as we are all aware, excels only in Barbeque recipes and beverage selection.

From my perspective as a believer, I find it notable that God, the intelligent designer of all natural and moral law, could have presented his message to the least of us so simply while the rest of us multiply words as we present the least of our propositions.

neo said

That would make me want to revisit the sayings of these "least people" to make sure that they knew of what they speak. The difference may be a s huge as the difference between being able to recognize a Lamborghini and the ability to build one.

Lets talk for a moment about those unsophisticated people who make up the vast majority of the world's population:

Would a just God make his message to them so recondite that they must have the services of a priest in order to have a relationship with him? Who cares if they can build Lamborghinis?

What would the world be like if everybody obeyed Jesus' command to love even one's enemies? A simple command, right? And who are the ones giving permission to disregard it? Not the least, but the powerful. Not the flock, but the preachers. Not the populace, but the politicians.

So don't expect the bible to talk up to the level of the rocket scientist. If you do, you will never be able to understand it. As Jesus was reported to have said in Matthew 11:25: "At that time Jesus said in response: "I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to babes."

Thats all fine if you believe all that.
If there can be established a chain of evidence that explains any phenomenon, why put down those that have spent the time to learn the science, and are involved in the research?

The problem with the fundamental religious and many of the later "hucksters" is that they cynically recognize that there are vasy numbers of people whose expertise does not reside in science , but lie in other areas.
The IDers and Creationists target them.The "shiny suited hucksters" like to lie up a storm about how they feel science is misleading us all and how their own "revealed truth"
is the only way. Yet they do all this without the shred of any evidence nor do they give a **** about truth. If they did care , they would get behind the research thats going on in applied evolutionary mechanisms . Such research will, at least help in the stemming of diseases. Mechanisms suggested by DNA structures will also lead to advances in medicine, and whether you admit it or not, the data is evolutionarily based.

Even in my profession, we look at the fossil record for evidence of such minor aspects as paleoparasitism in specific fossils in strata because these starta indicate possible petroleum and gas finds.

I mean you are entirely welcome to believe that some God revealed all this to a bunch of nomads and kids, but for some strange reason, they didnt leave a bibliography.

Not everyone can be nor even wants to be a scientist. Its really an existence that you gotta love .
We rally around ignorance because thats where the problems are. We dislike having pat unchangeable answers to lifes unanswered questions. (Guy Noir line). You have to admit that, no matter what science discovers, the Creationists immediately look at how they can
1discredit the point without even understanding it or


2 Try to fit it within their limited worldview

There is never an honest assessment to see how it all fits into an existing theory. (I dont know how many times evolutionary theory has been rocked by self investigation that took many ytears to reach conclusions) whereas Creationists arrive at conclusions involving what ros calls "poofism" without even a smile. To them , evidence bears no importance. Even with all the evidence that sits out there, I defy you to come up with one place that its been used successfully (without involving huge amounts of actual fraud, like the PAluxy Man tracks, or the cave paintings of dinosaurs in Fonte de Gaume that were made with a Titanium white chalk base)

I have nothing to add, except to say, that I appreciate farmerman's posts. He is doing so well, that I, a non scientist, can just sit back and nod as I read. The only "scientists" I don't repect work for certain profit based entities, such as drug companies. In general, scientists are the most honest of people, and the most knowledgeable in their respective fields, and it is is to our good interests to try to listen up to what they try to tell us.