|
Comments
I am so linking to this tomorrow, Spike. THANK YOU.
Posted by Scott McCloud at October 27, 2004 06:02 PM
66.254.94.190
Just remember, for dramedy, you're invincible. - Amir.
And I'm a smiling ninja.
Smile ninja, smile.
*bang*
Posted by Mr. Yuy at October 27, 2004 06:31 PM
160.253.0.248
I used to have the funnest time in Catechism classes. When I was in grade 5, I explained to my pshyo teacher why Dinosaurs could exist, and how genesis could agree with Evolutionary theory. To me, it was all the same. We tended to have a fun teacher one year, and then a crazy one the next [one of the crazy ones actually has an altar in his backyard to give his family eucharist each day. Which is technically a form a blasphemy sicne it's not in a church. He's SO going to hell :)].
People take things WAY too literally. This thing was written over 100 years ago. That doesn't mean it's meant to be read as if it's reality. God knows what changes have been made [well, mabye not. God's probably forgotten some of it. It has been a long time y'know]. Then again, I'm a "pick and chose" Catholic. So what do I know ^_^
Posted by Andre at October 27, 2004 06:36 PM
142.166.237.111
I have ALWAYS found that people who speak against evolution just don't understand it in the first place.
Posted by Zack at October 27, 2004 07:01 PM
24.131.183.235
good golly, that made me all giggley on the inside!
Posted by Jenn at October 27, 2004 07:10 PM
69.4.151.54
*HEART*
Posted by Dylan at October 27, 2004 07:59 PM
66.159.154.11
HAHAHA HOLY SHIT!
... I can't stop grinning. Spike, for you I have the love.
Posted by Nick Fagerlund at October 27, 2004 09:11 PM
66.41.74.111
I argued with a fellow at school about this very thing. He concluded with, "Well, God CREATED evolution."
What a fantastic article.
Posted by Clio at October 27, 2004 09:30 PM
24.69.255.237
Wheeeee! It's like Christmas has come early!
Posted by Lisa Jonte at October 27, 2004 09:51 PM
69.107.49.240
National Geographic: Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names, baby!
Posted by Spookable at October 27, 2004 09:59 PM
68.210.251.48
We as a country need this like we need oxygen.
Posted by Computolio at October 27, 2004 11:16 PM
66.238.96.69
That sound you hear is a million fundies picking up this issue at the newsstand, excitedly expecting to find their beliefs no longer marginalized...
And then their cries of anguish as they realize that no, the scientific community still puts them in the same class as the flat-earthers, where they belong.
Posted by Wagner at October 28, 2004 01:08 AM
24.28.87.101
I do expect to learn one thing from that article, which is how to explain the science to "the special class" in words that they can understand.
Posted by Reinder at October 28, 2004 03:36 AM
82.74.252.143
I saw this and burst out laughing. Even when I showed it to them, no one else in the office could understand why.
Posted by Sara at October 28, 2004 10:36 AM
147.136.254.249
Brilliant, just brilliant.
I always loved NG and now my love has turned into a dangerous obsession... er... well no, but still wonderful of them to deliver the smackdown like that.
Maybe with a few more decades the religious wackos will become an easily ignorable minority.
Posted by William G at October 28, 2004 10:46 AM
211.247.28.229
Let's hope so, William.
Posted by Reinder at October 28, 2004 12:06 PM
82.74.252.143
Just got my copy in the mail.
MAGNIFICENT.
Posted by dirk at October 28, 2004 01:37 PM
65.42.86.181
Got this back from SF author David Brin when I bounced the news about the Hobbits off of him:
"I find it truly stunning how many people can shrug off stuff like this, preferring instead a tiny, cramped cosmos just 6,000 years old, scheduled to end any-time-now in a scripted stage show. "
Posted by Stefan Jones at October 28, 2004 01:53 PM
134.242.21.161
It's for the scarily high percentage of doctors who don't believe in evolution.
Posted by Aquila at October 28, 2004 02:49 PM
203.109.254.40
People who don't already know this never will. It is a sad fact that on this issue no amount of "proof" will suffice. If the facts don't fit their "frame" they just disregard the facts. I mean, we're talking about people who take the bible literally. Not exactly the sort who are strong on reason.
Posted by kevin at October 28, 2004 02:56 PM
63.145.207.194
I have never understood why religious beliefs and science have to be incompatible. Religion is essentially allegory couched in archetypes drawn from the unconscious mind. Attempting to concretize spiritual writings robs them of any worth they might impart. I've always thought Joeseph Campbell made this point very eloquently, but the fundamentalists of various religions never stop trying.
Posted by Greg O. at October 28, 2004 03:25 PM
209.221.58.56
[I hope every Billy-Bawb in Dogpatch lets this issue sneak into the trailer, just for the cover. I just wish I could see all their faces when they sit down to read it.]
The joke's on you, sinner! Billy-Bawb can't read!
Posted by michael patrick at October 28, 2004 05:50 PM
63.164.145.198
I think I love you.
Posted by Klig at October 28, 2004 06:05 PM
157.128.218.206
I would have loved to seen the look on poor Mose's face when God was explaining DNA and RNA and the string theory and our 14 dimensions.
"You know what YHWH? I think I will just paraphrase for you: In the beginning..."
Posted by geoff b at October 28, 2004 06:48 PM
216.57.200.50
Your moral high-horse, leave it sir.
Realize that science is as illusory and ephemeral as any religious and it's branching sects.
It would be helpful if you opened your mind, rather than closed your heart.
Posted by Life at October 28, 2004 09:59 PM
68.126.186.165
"sir." Oh, Lord, a bright one.
Okay, let's talk "open minds." Have you actually read the article? Or does your own deep, obviously superior open-minded enlightenment cancel out any evidence to the contrary of your personal desire for supernatural wonder?
OMG WHY WON'T U OPEN UR HEART 2 NATURAL SELECTION DOOD.
Matter of fact != matter of pride. Sorry. Your argument sucks.
Posted by spike at October 28, 2004 10:56 PM
65.42.86.181
"Realize that science is as illusory and ephemeral as any religious and it's branching sects."
I love it when people claim that "science is illusory" over the fucking INTERNET. That damn quantum physics, letting you argue about how illusory science is with people thousands of miles away.
Posted by Wagner at October 29, 2004 02:00 AM
24.28.87.101
The entity that names itself as 'Life' seems unaware of something.
Science is observation, hypothesis, experimentation, re-evaluation of hypothesis.
Regardless of the origin of reality, be it a simple matter of interacting energy fields, or some vast and cosmic being's daydream, it's consistent. Things are tested once, twice, three times or a thousand times, and from what they do, you make a guess as to why, and think of ways to test the matter to confirm or disprove your idea.
Ideas that fail are modified and tested again. Telling someone they aren't true, or waving about a book in which it is implied they might not be wholly accurate do not make them less true. Nor does denying all things. It doesn't make them omre true either.
Hypotheses and theories rise and fall on a regular basis. Some last for a long time, others last no longer than a sandcastle with the tide coming in. Science isn't faith. Your theory doesn't match the results of replicable experimentation, then it has to go. There's no fear that your world's falling apart, nor that the other theories or hypotheses you use are false because one other was.
Just the hard and unyielding nature of the universe letting go of little hints, one at a time, as to how it all really works.
Posted by Garth Vader at October 29, 2004 02:23 AM
142.59.53.213
I think what "Life" may have been getting at, and I could be wrong, is that it is possible to view the world in any number of ways, and viewing it through science can put certain limits on the imagination. Maybe. I'm not saying I agree.
As for those who choose to ignore or destroy Darwinism, I don't know that this article will really change a lot of minds. There will likely be a few who, on the merits of this cover article, decide they can never trust National Geographic again.
I always try to bring up, when discussing this issue with detractors, that Darwin's idea of survival of the fittest is easily observable in nearly limitless other forms: interpersonal, economic, technological, et-cetera. They never seem to agree that it makes sense, then, that this system could be responsible for producing homo sapiens.
Oddly enough, though, there is less objection out there that Darwinism might apply to all other species. People get touchy when it comes to the origins of Man.
Posted by Quigley at October 29, 2004 03:10 AM
67.136.131.232
I don't understand Creationists.
In his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina, Galileo is asked to deal with the fact that the Bible infers, repeatedly, that the sun orbits a fixed earth, when it seemed clear to him, and many mathematicians with telescopes, that it most probably did not. The Bible calls the sun a prefect, blemish-less sphere, Galileo found evidence most easily explainable as sunspots.
Galileo was alright with that. It doesn't mean the Bible is wrong, it means that we have two Books; The Bible, and what he called the Book of Nature, and there are things we can learn from both. Just as you wouldn't try to learn Ethics from a Physics handbook, why would you try to learn Physics or Biology from the bible?
This problem has been solved for close to 400 years now.
Posted by Fishy at October 29, 2004 05:01 AM
128.135.175.8
It would be helpful if you opened your mind, rather than closed your heart.
The trouble with opening your mind too far is that your brain falls out. Which explains quite a lot about creationists
Posted by DrHyde at October 29, 2004 06:53 AM
217.206.131.214
What? The Earth going around the Sun isn't a theory you dumbass. It's observable fact tied to the LAW of Gravity. lol. Oh, and Darwin was wrong.
Posted by Chess at October 29, 2004 08:57 AM
24.141.78.72
Don't kid yourself. Creationists can't read!
Posted by Mike Steinbaugh at October 29, 2004 09:46 AM
68.69.245.195
"What? The Earth going around the Sun isn't a theory you dumbass. It's observable fact tied to the LAW of Gravity. lol. Oh, and Darwin was wrong."
The "Law" of gravity is also a theory.
If Darwin was wrong, then by all means, I ask you (or anyone) to explain why with some logical reasoning (they certainly would have a lot of explaining and disproving to do…). I'm sure that the scientific community would be eager to know (no sarcasm here), that’s because science deals with reasoning and proof, rather than irrational blind belief
Posted by Slinky at October 29, 2004 10:00 AM
66.20.133.205
I am definitely buying that issue! That one is a keeper!
Posted by Scott Johnson at October 29, 2004 10:31 AM
198.231.23.241
>>"What? The Earth going around the Sun isn't a theory you dumbass. It's observable fact tied to the LAW of Gravity. lol. Oh, and Darwin was wrong."
Hey, it's computer lab day in the special class!
Dude, seriously: I think it's just so great they let you people out of your cages long enough to play with computers, nowadays. That is just so progressive.
No primate left behind. Man. I'm feelin' it, I am. Right... here.
Posted by spike at October 29, 2004 11:29 AM
68.20.212.155
Yeah, anybody who studies history knows that science has never been wrong about anything... Especially on theories regarded as 'canonical truth' by intellectual elites for hundreds of years.
Posted by Shazbot at October 29, 2004 11:39 AM
207.138.176.254
I don't care one way or the other if Darwin's theories are correct or not, largely because they have no effect on my life. However, I have trouble understanding the disdain most of you share for individuals who don't believe in evolution. Who cares? They don't have any effect on your life. There are people who believe the earth is flat and the holocaust never happened, but I'm fine with letting them remain ignorant until death if it makes them feel good.
Posted by ben at October 29, 2004 11:42 AM
64.186.51.161
If evolutions on a large scale, like goop > fish > monkey > human is true. Why are there no examples of species in mid-evolution? I don't see any fish with two feet or monkey gettting any smarter.
I'm not denying that animals can evolve, such as a frog chaning color to blend in with a better envrionment. But I don't buy evolution on a large scale.
Also Darwin was a racist, who belived that white folk would soon overtake color races.
Posted by rockpants at October 29, 2004 11:45 AM
205.242.113.3
Shazbot: Point out where anyone, anywhere in this thread said science was perfect, and I'll wire you a million bucks. Otherwise, keep the strawman in the cornfield, mkay? The trick-or-treaters'll love it.
Science's highest awards go to individuals who prove long-accepted theories wrong. That's something Creationists don't seem to understand; science is flexible. It thrives on change. If someone published a paper tomorrow that completely refuted evolution, with unassailable proof and reproducable results, he wouldn't be burned at the stake. He'd get a Nobel prize.
Ben: I'd care a lot less about what Creationists believed if they weren't trying to jackhammer it into every biology class in the the country. There's a reason NG ran this story.
and rockpants: Everything is in "mid-evolution." There's no start or end. It's a process of adaptation, not a Point A to Point B thing. Read the article. You don't understand the theory.
Posted by spike at October 29, 2004 11:54 AM
68.20.212.155
The 'faith' that science requires is acceptance of two unprovable precepts: (1) The universe is fundamentally knowable; and (2) the scientific method is the best means for achieving this knowledge.
It's pretty easy to believe both of those, because there just so damn practical. But it's not necessarily the only worldview.
But I think this article in National Geographic is important. I think one of the problems is that evolution is taught poorly. High school students will realize on their own the problem of the vertabrate eye, and other adaptions which offer no fitness advantage, and may even carry a penalty until the reach a critical point. The way this is possible needs to be explained.
So if the argument goes
Creationist: Intelligent design.
Scientist: Evolution.
Creationist: Vertabrate eye?
Scientist: You're a moron, I'm a scientist.
Science merely reduces itself to a priesthood, requiring adherence simply because of the authority of their priesthood.
On the other hand, I suppose I can't work up the ire toward creationists seen by some people on this list, because I've never actually met a creationist or a biblical literalist. Maybe I'd become just as irritated.
Posted by Jim at October 29, 2004 11:59 AM
198.240.130.75
Hey, somebody must have posted a link to this entry on a creationist forum somewhere. Three people posting in defense of the indefensible within six minutes? They're "rallying the troops"!
They're going go try to shout you down, Spike, to overwhelm you with numbers. You've got better things to do than to try to answer their idiocy point-by-point and we all know it.
Posted by Wagner at October 29, 2004 12:01 PM
24.28.87.101
Jim: Yeah. A lot of methods for teaching evolution're pretty sub-par, which is why you tend to get questions like.. well... "OMG SO HOW COME WE CAN'T FIND STUFF IN MID-EVOLUTION, THEN???"
Uh, look in the mirror?
And eye evolution is goddamn awsome. I saw it explained once on an episode of "Bullshit!," how it went from this light-sensitive patch, to a concave light-sensitive patch, to a concave, light-sensitive patch filled with fluid, etc....
What use is half an eye? Well, a lot, actually.
(PS; yeah, Wagner, I suspected something like that. That's a pretty typical tactic, actually. They try to make up for in volume and persistence what they lack in fact.)
Posted by spike at October 29, 2004 12:08 PM
68.20.212.155
Yeah, the old "half-an-eye" line is so fantastically weak it's funny. Look through nature just a little bit, and you'll -find- primitive proto-eyes being put to good use all over the place. Look through the fossil record (and some living creatures, as well), and you'll -find- all those "transitional forms" Creationists refuse to believe in.
Like it says in the article, this stuff is right there. Snakes have pelvises. Humans have appendixes. Some fish have lungs, and others have the beginnings of feet. Evolution is observable in the world and in the laboratory, and anyone who draws a distinction between that and so-called "macro-evolution" doesn't really understand the timescale we're talking about.
Posted by Matt at October 29, 2004 01:19 PM
64.199.33.90
They don't tell you the full name of Darwin's book: "The Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"
Posted by Anthony Martin at October 29, 2004 01:20 PM
24.152.142.113
I don't think the argument is about evolution.
Evolution is not a theory. It can be observed in the lab. It can be observed in little marine animals in our seas. Its also why our antibiotics are becoming less and less effective against bacteria.
The argument is about whether Darwin's theory of how evolution happens is true - i.e. natural selection.
Posted by Phil at October 29, 2004 01:22 PM
213.106.4.211
"They don't tell you the full name of Darwin's book: "The Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life""
This is, of course, a spectacular and brutal misrepresentation of what Darwin meant by the term "races". Anybody who's actually read "The Origin of Species" (which Martin obvious hasn't) knows this.
BTW, Martin, would you be so kind as to tell us which fundie site referred you here?
Posted by Wagner at October 29, 2004 01:26 PM
24.28.87.101
DARWIN WAS RACIST. THAT MEANS EVOLUTION IS WRONG.
Floored by your reasoning.
This is goofy. My regular readers don't typically foam at the mouth like this. Think I'll check the logs. Maybe I got linked on HawtBibleFellatio.com...
Posted by spike at October 29, 2004 01:31 PM
68.20.212.155
"Evolution is not a theory. It can be observed in the lab."
That's what the formal, scientific definition of "theory" means, actually: A hypyothesis backed up by experimental data. Everything science has discovered about the way the world works is considered theory, because it's all subject to change if new observations disprove old ideas.
That is why science is awesome.
Posted by Matt at October 29, 2004 01:37 PM
64.199.33.90
I accept the definition of "theory", but I can observe a test tube and a chair the lab too. When does something stop becoming a theory and become widely accepted? I was pointing out that evolution is proven; Darwins theory is more difficult to prove.
Posted by Phil at October 29, 2004 01:45 PM
213.106.4.211
I just had to add that rockpants is clearly uninformed. I'm stating the obvious there, of course... We have found plenty of archeological evidence of many stages of evolution for many creatures. All of these are "midevolution" NG constantly runs stories of new primitive human remains and usually shows a number of skulls showing the development of the current human bone structure in various regions. We've seen the same things in many animals, and the information is out there availible for your perusal. There's plenty more if ya like digging things up. Have fun with that.
I love the evolutionist's replies... they don't respond directly to comments or questions... they merely pose their own as evidence. Such as the classic, "Well then why ____?" Add your fundie belief in that blank. The classic irrelevant information is classic too. "Evolution SUX0RS! Darwin wore purple socks so he was a FAGZ0R!" Darwin's socks have nothing to do with his studies of evolution, no does his sexuality. Hence comments like, "Also Darwin was a racist, who belived that white folk would soon overtake color races."
Even if he did believe that, he had his reasons. Ignorant as they may be, they're less ignorant than your stagnant unsupported belief in creationism. He probably had a whole arguement for that belief based on his observations. Does that mean it's an accurate or good belief to hold, no. But it also doesn't discredit his work in the field of evolution.
Also, rockpants, if you want fish with feet, they're called amphibians. There are quite a few of them.
"Oh, and Darwin was wrong."
N-i-c-e. That was slick chess. You really conviced everyone of your right-i-tude with that one. Score one for the creationists. Who can argue with that? ::looks around:: Oh wait, 90% of the posts in this thread.
Anyways. When I say creationists, I'm of course refering to fundamentalist christians who believe in, and only in, the exact writing of their english translations of the bible. Oh wait, you don't have a copy of the dead sea scrolls and other historical copies of the bible that you can read or cross-reference for interpretations? Oh really? That's too bad. No one you know does either? Hmmm... What about your church/preacher? Not even them? Just go with the one in English, I'm sure it's just a good anyways right? Clearly it's a very exacting in it's translation. The context and meanings are exactly the same I'm sure. Heck, reading any translation of a text written in foreign mumbojumbo is just a good as reading the original right? Oh, and it doesn't matter that god didn't actually write the bible does it? The fact that the stories there in were all told by word of mouth for quite a while before they began to be written by humans... that wouldn't have any baring on it either would it? And all stories written about Jesus, the basis of the new testament weren't begun to be written untill at least 100 years after his death... that didn't matter either right? So they can't just be historically based morality tales can they? No they're definitely literal facts you read in your King James Version bible... that was editted by said King to get some things straight. So even if the there is the Christian God who is exactly as described and heaven and all the other supernatural aspects of the text are relatively close to truth (which I'm not saying its not, as there is no way to prove it either way) you really NEED to take every damn word in your little bible litterally... that darwin's theories couldn't POSSIBLY be correct because your bible told you that god made the world and the universe and everything in 7 days... a day of which isn't of course defined anywhere... but we'll just assume a normal Earth day as it was written by men on Earth... so that's clearly the meaning... isn't it? So your one book told you that... or we can go to the hundreds of sources based on human observation, humans quite similar to the ones that transcribed the bible, that tell us that evolution probably exists. Not undeniably, but in all likelyhood it does... and they're willing to admit that they might be wrong and you might be right. But you can't do that... because you're little book told you that it was so and to believe even the slightest word to the contrary will throw you into the shadowly doubt of your great lord... and if he doubts your love and devotion... you clearly deny his son as lord and saviour and you'll spend the rest of eternity in Hell when you die... right? That's gotta be it. I wouldn't want to go to hell either. But maybe God doesn't care whether you blindly believe every word written in that book as literal truth. Maybe he wants you to live a good life by it's precepts and have faith in Him and His son. Maybe if you do that AND acknowledge that maybe jussst maybe Darwin was on to something... maybe that would be okay.
-Dranore
Posted by Dranore at October 29, 2004 02:05 PM
65.96.63.152
Phil: observation used in relation to science generally means qualitative and/or quantitative measurements in a controlled setting. While one is able to "observe" a chair in a lab - its a pretty trivial observation.
In science, when the proffesional community develops a large body of work that fails to reject a given hypothesis (some proposed idea or intellectual framework that is falsifiable and that explains a class of phenomena), the hypothesis becomes a theory. In other words, theory is a hypothesis that everyone (in the scientific community) thinks is fairly solid and has withstood many tests. There is no hard and fast rule for determining when that has occured, its more of a general consensus thing.
Posted by Another Matt at October 29, 2004 02:22 PM
209.56.60.249
Personally, I always found the concept of a God that could create a near-inifinite universe that could spontaneously create life that itself could evolve a species that recognized such a God to be far more awesome a being than one that said 'POOF! Done.-- BTW, DON'T CHANGE AND DON'T TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW I DID IT SO THERE!'
It goes back to the Ontological Arguement: Imagine a being in which no greater can be concieved and all that.
Again, Science and Religion are not incompatible. One explains What and How; the other the infinitely bigger question -- WHY?
Posted by dirk at October 29, 2004 02:27 PM
65.42.86.181
I just wasted my who break reading this.
I'll go with the Quantum Physics side and say that none of us really exist at all.
If anything we could be, along with evolution, "God's Nightmare".
But that's just me and my radical thinking.
Posted by Psychomelody at October 29, 2004 02:37 PM
216.158.45.60
Another Matt: I agree.
I remember having a conversation with a creationalist about when God supposedly created the universe 10,000 or so years ago. Today we observe stars that are further away than 10,000 light years. This either means God didn't create the universe a few thousand years ago, or he created a universe together with light mid-journey from far away stars to earth. Why would he try and decieve us?
Posted by Phil at October 29, 2004 02:39 PM
213.106.4.211
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeahhhh ah-ah-ah-ahhhhhhhhhhhhha-ah-ah-ah-ahhhhhhhhhh!
(That's as close to a Tarzan Yell as this Catholic can type) Love it. Loooove it!!!!!
Let's get what we know and what we have faith in straight, and stop telling God what He could or could not do, and look and see what He has shown us He has done! Right Ons, all around!
Posted by Fred Hintze at October 29, 2004 03:03 PM
65.221.248.4
Let's talk about God in the same thread as evolution when it's just as verifiable in a laboratory setting, mkay?
Posted by spike at October 29, 2004 04:21 PM
68.20.212.155
"In addition," Henry noted, "our University has a fine theozoology department. Few faculties anywhere can rival our professors when it comes to studying and classifying
new sorts of God!"
"How many kinds of God are there?"
"One, so far," Henry admitted, "but the Department has just recently constructed a ministerial accelerator that they believe will give rise to as many as seventeen forms of God heretofore unknown."
-- "Nobilis" by R. Sean Borgstrom
Posted by Wagner at October 29, 2004 04:36 PM
24.28.87.101
Oh come on now people! Of course evidence of evolution exists, but what about the mechanism? (and btw, I don't believe in "God" and Godly Creation) If I told you that I'm going to shake a billion crystals of glass together for a trillion years and I'm eventually going to get a wine goblet you'd laugh at me. Why scientific minds believe the inductive reasoning of evolution and have stopped searching for the real mechanism behind it is beyond me. We've just stopped thinking about it and have accepted that "It just happened because so much time passed." Yeah right-that explains what happened all right. What happenned to reproducable proof?
And I've never seen so many people go rabid before as they do in this comments section over their belief except in a church. As if National G tricking perhaps non-believers into reading an article is really going to change anybodies mind.
Geez. Jeff
Posted by Jefree Jade at October 29, 2004 05:07 PM
24.93.142.54
Wow. One-sided flame war. Excellent.
I highly doubt this post will do any good. First of all, I haven't read the NG article... the first I heard of it was from Scott McCloud's site. Perhaps the article will explain everything I need to know, and everything I type from here on out will be moot. Fair enough.
The creation account in Genesis does not require a universe less than 10,000 years old. Verse 1: God creates the heavens and the earth. Verse 2: Earth is void and barren. In between those two verses, you can put as many millions, billions, and/or trillions of years that you desire.
However, even if everything is really less than 10,000 years old, the whole thing about stars being more than 10,000 light-years away doesn't prove anything for me. For some reason, even though no human vehicle has been more than one light-day away from the earth, most scientists assume that the speed of light is constant for the entire universe. I've yet to understand that one.
I'm going to stop now, because no one actually reads the long threads on messageboards. 90% of the board has permission to bash me. No, seriously. This is the Internet, I won't take it personally.
Posted by Ilsoap at October 29, 2004 05:22 PM
24.67.253.204
"We've just stopped thinking about it and have accepted that "It just happened because so much time passed.""
Maybe you have, because you don't understand actual evolutionary biology. Nobody is claiming this, so you're arguing against against nobody.
When you actually understand evolutionary biology (hint: look up "modern synthesis"), get back to us.
Posted by Wagner at October 29, 2004 05:22 PM
24.28.87.101
All this chortling at anti-evolutionist God-fearers. My, My.
Has it ever occurred to you people that it is acceptable to believe in God and scientific knowledge at the same time? There are a large group of us out here, you know.
Posted by Beowulf at October 29, 2004 05:38 PM
66.167.53.186
Beowulf: sure.
But something they don't seem to grasp: A man's relation to his god, his religion, and his dogmatic belief systems are philosophies. Not science.
If you want to believe that an invisible cosmic force nudged a four-legged fish out of the water one day a zillion years ago instead of that fish deciding the kelp looked tastier in the OTHER tidepool and lumbering out of the surf of its own accord, that's fine with me. People believe all sorts of goofy things, knock yourselves out. But don't agitate and bully the local schoolboards to have your beliefs taught as fact in a classroom, or attempt to suppress facts that contradict your beliefs.
A few hundred years ago, a few of the bright bulbs posting here would probably have petitioned to stick Galileo's head on a pike.
Posted by spike at October 29, 2004 05:49 PM
68.20.212.155
But where do you base the premise of science off of, then?
I'm with bewulf on this; in believing that creationalism and science coenside with one another.
I mean, there are facts that back up what the Bible says, and there are facts that back up the theory of evolution. You can't deny that neither one have their good points; just think about it for a bit, and try to keep open ears to all possibilities.
And on an off-topic note..
Did you know they found Noah's arc? It was stuck inside the side of Mount Everest, I believe. HOw this would prove what some of the Biblical passages say, is because the boat was pinned about... What, 60,000 miles or so above sea-level (aka, "the great flood"?). And considering that the Noah's arc passage took place about.. Er, I couldn't give an exact date, but it was before Christ--I think anyways, I haven't read the bible to be honest--neandrathals certainly couldn't have built it, yes? All considering, human life apparently didn't exist until... God knows when. Heh.
Anyways, that's my two cents on the subject. YOu can assume I'm a blind-sighted idiot if you want, but eh, whatever. :p
Posted by iut at October 29, 2004 07:27 PM
24.128.144.106
"Did you know they found Noah's arc?"
No, they didn't. If you think they did, you're terribly ignorant and shouldn't be trying to lecture other people on scientific philosophy.
And it's "ark".
Posted by Wagner at October 29, 2004 08:05 PM
24.28.87.101
Speaking of people who believe all sorts of goofy things...
Posted by spike at October 29, 2004 08:48 PM
68.20.212.155
No, your brain doesn't fall out if you open your mind. Try it. Just once.
No, scientists would not be happy to welcome evidence that Darwin's theory was wrong.
Yes, just as in Galileo's time, dogma reigns supreme.
Dr. Raymond Damadian, Cornell University. Inventor of MRI scanning. The 2003 Nobel prize for medicine went to MRI. Two gentlemen shared it.
The inventor of MRI technology was not one of them. His colleagues at Cornell were stunned. But they knew why. Dr. Damadian believed in creation.
I guess religion and science don't mix any better than they did for Galileo, do they?
Posted by Anthony at October 29, 2004 10:58 PM
207.27.152.6
Some things:
ALL species are in mid-evolution. All life forms are transitional forms.
Partial eyes do exist in nature. See a flatworm or a box jellyfish.
60,000 miles 'above sea level' is about a quarter of the way to the moon.
Posted by Chuck at October 29, 2004 11:00 PM
24.85.5.49
Ya'll are so cute when you get all offended and huffy like that.
Why is it I've never seen an incidence of the phrase "open mind" used where someone wasn't getting geared up to throw a tantrum just because someone else refused to just go along with whatever bullshit nonsense they said without any critical analysis? Talk about a guaranteed litmus test for fluffery.
"I AM A DRAGON FAIRY PRINCESS PRIESTESS QUEEN AND ALSO MOUSSE FROM RANMA 1/2 IN A PREVIOUS LIFE U GUYZ AND I JUST WON THE ASTRAL PLANE DRAGON WAR WHILE WAITING HERE IN THE UNEMPLOYMENT LINE"
"What the fuck are you talking about, Edgar?"
"OH GOD U GUYZ ARE SO CLOSED MINDED!!!!!"
"Open-minded." I hear it's in the all-time top ten of The Most Thoroughly Abused Phrases in the English Language, somewhere between "Reubenesque" and "family values." Spare me your pleas for "open-mindedness."
You know what "open-minded" is? Restructuring the evolutionary family tree of homo sapiens to account for that new Hobbit-thing they found fossils of in the Pacific.
You know what it's not? Neglecting to hold you to the same standards for truth and reality I reserve for everyone and everything else.
Get some facts. Then we'll talk.
Posted by spike at October 29, 2004 11:09 PM
68.20.212.155
"Get some facts. Then we'll talk" is an odd thing to say, since this whole discussion down to here has been pretty much, "My professor said evolution was the hard-core gospel and that makes it so and they don't think so aren't they stupid yeah they are." It didn't seem like the facts were that important to anybody.
Are you actually interested in facts? If so, which ones?
Posted by Anthony at October 29, 2004 11:23 PM
207.27.152.6
"My professor said evolution was the hard-core gospel and that makes it so and they don't think so aren't they stupid yeah they are."
Just because -you- haven't done the reading doesn't mean that the rest of us haven't, sparky.
Posted by Wagner at October 29, 2004 11:49 PM
24.28.87.101
"My professor said evolution was the hard-core gospel and that makes it so and they don't think so aren't they stupid yeah they are."
Jeebus, this sounds familiar. Just replace a few words and you have...
"Dubya said there were WMDs in Iraq and that makes it so and the Liberals don't think so aren't they stupid yeah they are."
This explains a LOT.
Posted by scratch chickie at October 30, 2004 12:10 AM
4.10.172.102
I've read the best evolution textbooks out there. I am quite familiar with the ever-changing family tree and the brilliant theory of natural selection. I absolutely believe in science—Look mom, my high-speed internet connection, my air-conditioned office, my GPS system based on satellites. All of today's awesome technology is based on science—repeatable, empirical, legitimate science, based on observations in the future, not conjecture about the past.
Did you know that Wernher von Braun, the head of the Apollo project that made the first manned moon landing, was a creationist? Pretty clever for a Billy Bawb who can't read, don't you think?
Posted by Anthony at October 30, 2004 12:16 AM
207.27.152.6
http://userpic.livejournal.com/21558292/932864
The above Pics made into an LJ icon. Guy on my friends list did it.
Tres cool.
:>
Oh, I like your security for posting.
Posted by Erg at October 30, 2004 12:20 AM
67.101.98.203
I didn't and won't vote or root for Bush, scratch chickie, so you can sit down again.
Posted by Anthony at October 30, 2004 12:20 AM
207.27.152.6
Anthony, you are dancing around your point. Please cut to the chase: what are you trying to argue here? It does not appear that you disagree with evolutionary biology. So what -exactly- are you trying to say? Be as clear as possible so people don't try to argue against a point you're not making.
Posted by Wagner at October 30, 2004 12:22 AM
24.28.87.101
Erg: yeah, I know, it's sorta annoying. But it keeps spam-bots from posting. Automated blog-spammers used to post every other day here; Now, they can't get past the CAPTCHA. It's horrible how that's necessary these days. It shoudln't be, but it is.
PS: Awaiting a dissertation on Wernher von Braun's numerous contributions to evolutionary science.
O wait.
Posted by spike at October 30, 2004 12:44 AM
68.20.212.155
I believe in natural selection, as it has been repeatedly demonstrated by experimentation.
But natural selection, obviously, needs something to select. If you've done your reading, you'll say it with me—MUTATIONS!
Good, but there is a slight problem. Random mutations, the driving force of Darwinian evolution, never produce new information. They rearrange or destroy information, and natural selection then selects for or against the new arrangement.
Molecules-to-man evolution requires the addition of vast quantities of information to the genome. Evolutionary theory says we need lots and lots of information-destroying mutations over millions of years, to produce ever-increasing complexity.
In other words, if I am selling say, reel cheep bumper stickers and I lose a little money on each sale, I can just make it up in volume, right? Until National Geographic, Richard Dawkins, or any of the other arguably brilliant minds on the world scientific scene can answer this question, it will remain one of the many reasons why I cannot accept evolutionary biology.
I welcome critisism that consists of more than name-calling and conjoined lists of four letter words, but morning comes and I must sleep now.
Posted by Anthony at October 30, 2004 12:51 AM
207.27.152.6
No, Spike, Wernher von Braun was a Creationist, so he didn't contribute to evolution.
And he was an operational scientist, you know, the kind that puts rockets on the moon and finds cures for diseases, not a historical scientist who is responsible for the slipping last year's missing link back out of the family tree and planning the welcoming party for the 2004 Missing Link of the year.
Posted by Anthony at October 30, 2004 01:03 AM
207.27.152.6
And Issac Newton put stock in alchemy.
Your point? Oh, wait, you don't have one. All you can do is point out that OMG FAMOUS PEOPLE who don't actually have any expertise in the field we're actually discussing agree with you sometimes, which makes you right.
Oy vey. Weren't you goin' ta bed?
Posted by spike at October 30, 2004 01:11 AM
68.20.212.155
"Good, but there is a slight problem. Random mutations, the driving force of Darwinian evolution, never produce new information."
Oh, you're one those "Intelligent Design" people. A fan of Behe, or maybe Dembski?
Mutations produce new information all the time. If you want to argue against this, you're going to have to dismiss great piles of experimental data: in particular, there's a bunch of mutant bacteria that can digest -nylon- that didn't exist a century ago. We understand the mutation that created the process that lets this bacteria do this, and if you think that a new digestize enzyme isn't "new information" then... well...
BTW, there's no such thing as a "missing link". 'Cause, you know, you're an ape.
Posted by Wagner at October 30, 2004 01:13 AM
24.28.87.101
Let's see. Mutations don't increase information?
http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Evolution_of_new_information
As for the claim (not explicitly made) that evolutionary biology doesn't contribute anything to operational science, what about the various vaccines and drugs that rely on the knowledge brought to us through the study of evolution...
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/bull.html
As for the theory handwringing. Now, let us get this straight. A theory is something that is a level or two above the observations. The fossil record could be our observation. From that, we hypothesise that x may be true. As we build up correct hypotheses and discard false hypotheses, a certain set of hypotheses become linked together. At this point, the theory comes in to existence. The theory of evolution is composed of all the observations and confirmed hypotheses that we have seen thus far. Genetics, molecular biology, anatomy, physiology, geology, paleontology, developmental biology. All these fields contribute confirmed-hypotheses, and we can figure out a conclusion based on the contributions of all of these fields.
It is amazing, then, to see how the theory of evolution has not really needed to develop since Darwin proposed natural selection. We have seen so many changes in that time, and still evolution has stood strong. Evolution, in the field of geology and paleontology has had enormous predicitive power. When looking for fossils for a certain type of species, geologists and paleontologists work out where in the grand scheme of things the fossil they are looking for would come and generally can go straight to it with little difficulty.
Creationists see the theory as an end in itself rather than as a continuing, falsifiable and changing explanation. Every single minor deficiency of evolution is picked out. But instead of doing the science to confirm the truth about that deficiency, they just say "Since current science has yet explained x, God must have done it", when they should actually be saying "Since current science has yet explained x, let's go in to the lab and find an explanation for x". If every scientist who ran up to a problem simply said "Err, we don't know. God did it!", we wouldn't really have any science. Instead, they gritted their teeth and said "We don't know. But we're gonna find out!". The very fact that we have cars, computers and chemotherapy is the result of that determination to find out the true answer rather than plump for "God did it".
Posted by Tom Morris at October 30, 2004 05:26 AM
195.137.69.156
I've been reading down this list in the wee hours of the morning after a long night of work, and I see a pretty steady stream of vitriol spewing from the side of "keep the faith" and a steady rise on the bile levels from the evolution front.
Let me be clear here. My Father taught earth science for thirty years, is a devout Roman Catholic and raised his children to see the facts about the world around them. Like the article says evolution is the real deal. I think the problem the religious side in this "would-be" debate has is not their definition of science or certain theories within science, but the definition of their own god. It's too simple and not open for debate with these people. Like you can fit god in a box, or "a book". Just because you can't wrap your head around it doesn't mean it isn't. Just because it threatens the ideas you hold doesn't mean its wrong. The God I believe in isn't short of cash, mister. He/she/it doesn't make mistakes, and covers a scope so great in all directions that science serves only as a force to create questions rather than answer them. Ask any astrophysicist, when they actually discover something that their theories state as possible they then have to ask 'how is it possible'.
The problem creationists have is that they limit their god. I am sorry your god fits in a shoebox with your baseball cards. The god I learned about is bigger than that, and the people I learned it from were bigger than you. There is enough room for the universe within god and for god within the universe. Sorry to those of you who have been arguing with these people for over a day now. I myself have wasted fifteen minutes typing this up that I will never get back. Don't waste anymore time with these hypocrits of the faith. You can't win an argument with the 'blind'. Spike, I love your site and the way you think.
Posted by Cleo at October 30, 2004 06:50 AM
70.16.106.209
I myself am in science, and firmly believe in all types of evolution (and yes I understand the theory behind it, I have taken Invertebrate Palaeontology). I am also a geologist, which requires me to believe in an earth at LEAST 4.6 billion years old. I also believe in God. I think part of the problem here is that most of the evolutionists (of which I am one) are equating religion with faith. I do not believe that the bible is the ultimate truth. It is metaphorical and written by man, meaning that it is not factual. It is a series of stories written by people in an attempt to explain the world around them. Believing in a higher power, whether that be God, Buddha, Gaea, or any of the other numerous entities is part of human nature, though it is certainly not a requirement. It is simply a choice.
I find it frustrating and sad that people automatically assume I am unintelligent and uninformed by believing in God. It is possible to accept science and FAITH. I do not believe it is necessarily possible to believe in science and RELIGION, because science is constantly evolving and changing, whereas religion is stagnant. Faith is not.
Posted by Tiamat at October 30, 2004 08:30 AM
24.78.23.225
>>I don't care one way or the other if Darwin's theories are correct or not, largely because they have no effect on my<<
Well, that's arguable. If you are a student or have children (or plan to), do you want legislation to be passed to force schools to teach things that aren't true?
And anyone who has any questions about evolution can probably find the answers at http://www.talkorigins.org - even if you just like to hear Billy-Bawb talk with his foot in his mouth, you can go to the "Feedback" section. ALways fun readin' (assuming y'all can read).
Posted by michael patrick at October 30, 2004 03:11 PM
63.164.145.198
Before I respond to anything else, I want to thank Tom Morris for explaining what a theory is.
I am well aware of the nature of theories, and if you look back through my posts you will find an absence of "theory handwringing" for that reason.
I want to mention one important issue that I left out in my previous posts, that of presuppositions. Contrary to what many science popularizers would have you believe, evidence does not speak for itself. There is neither "evidence for evolution" or "evidence for creation." Evidence is evidence.
Fossils do not come with date tags attached, and the various methods scientists use to date rocks or fossils nearly always give wildly differing results. So how do you choose which dating method to trust for a given fossil find. Well, the scientist always has in the back of his or her mind an idea of how old he or she wants this find to be.
All that remains to be done is to pick from the ten or more results the one that most closely matches our existing beliefs about how old the specimen should be. The age so derived is then often claimed as decisive proof of evolution, when in truth it is a *result* of evolutionary presuppositions.
Most scientists are taught materialism as a dogma, a set of glasses through which all evidence must be viewed. Darwinism has been raised to the status of a god, whose priests are responsible to make sure no other ideologies make their way into science.
In spite of this, there are many highly educated scientists, often with no Christian background whatsoever, who are finding it impossible to continue forcing their observations into the straitjacket that is Darwinism. They attempt to present real research that suggests other explanations for the evidence we observe, but they usually find themselves without an audience.
Peer-reveiwed science journals repeatedly refuse to publish legitimate research by scientists known to believe in other theories than darwinism, no matter how unrelated the subject may be to origins.
And one of the biggest tools of the ruling arbiters of orthodoxy are magazines such as National Geographic, which present the issue as if there is *no* dissent in the ranks of legitamate scientists. So, while Spike rejoices because NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC!!!! (blessed be he) says Darwin was right, let me leave you with an excerpt from an open letter written to Dr. Peter Raven, Secretary of the Committee for Research and Exploration, National Geographic Society.
Posted by Anthony at October 30, 2004 08:02 PM
207.27.152.6
"A cadre of zealous scientists [are] acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age---the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion. If Sloan's article is not the crescendo of this fantasia, it is difficult to imagine to what heights it can next be taken."
Storrs L. Olson
Curator of Birds
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
(This was regarding the article "Feathers for T. rex?" by Christopher P. Sloan in NG's November 1999 issue)
Posted by Anthony at October 30, 2004 08:36 PM
207.27.152.6
"the various methods scientists use to date rocks or fossils nearly always give wildly differing results."
No, they don't.
So are you lying, or just ignorant? Either way, why should anybody pay you any attention at all?
Posted by Wagner at October 30, 2004 11:27 PM
24.27.35.180
To Andre: bollocks to you, it SO wasn't a blasphemy to have an altar there.
You're such a dweeb, even God thinks you're a drongo, for that one. :)
Posted by Sarsparilla at October 31, 2004 12:38 AM
195.92.67.69
My husband is the son of a Catholic and a Methodist, and his parents evidently dealt with their differences of faith by raising their children with no religion whatsoever. As a result, he knows remarkably little about Christianity, and as a good Catholic I frequently have to explain things, like who Jesus is.
So tonight we were discussing the stem cell legislation that's up on the ballot here in California, and how Mel Gibson opposes it for religious reasons, and my husband asked me, "Would fundamentalist Christians support cloning dinosaurs?"
I thought about it for a minute, then said, "I'm not sure fundamentalist Christians believe in dinosaurs."
"Why not?"
"Well, they believe the universe is only 5,000 years old, or about a week older than the Jewish people. So the dinosaurs didn't really have much time to exist."
"Do they think dinosaurs were around at the same time as people?"
"No, I think dinosaurs could only have been around during the seven days God took to create the Earth."
"Like on Thursday?"
"I think so."
"Then how do they explain the bones?"
"God put them there to trick people."
"Why would God do that?"
"Or possibly they're not dinosaur bones at all, but actually the bones of giants."
"There's no giants in the Bible!"
"Yes there are. The Old Testament says that in ancient times angels used to have sex with humans, and their children were giants."
He started laughing. "It does not!"
Sometimes it's really hard to discuss science with that man.
Anyway, it made me think of you, Spike.
Posted by Shaenon at October 31, 2004 12:58 AM
64.165.200.128
"I'm not sure fundamentalist Christians believe in dinosaurs."
to paraphrase the funniest thing Jimmy Fallon ever said, "They call dinosaurs 'Jesus Horses' "
Posted by michael patrick at October 31, 2004 01:36 AM
141.150.202.21
Of course, "Young Earth" Creationists (those who believe that the world is only a few thousand years old) are a dying breed. Unfortunately, their succesors preach "Intelligent Design" which is supposed to be a more scientifically palatable form of creationism. Of course, it still isn't true.
Posted by Michael Patrick at October 31, 2004 01:47 AM
141.150.202.21
Oh, and in case anybody was wondering about Storrs L. Olson and Anthony's little quote there, Olsen is of the minority opinion that birds are -not- the descendents of theropod dinosaurs. The vast majority of paleornithologists believe, based on substantial evidence, that birds are descended from theropods (a kind of bipedal carnivore that included velociraptors), and Olsen's contrarian position gets him quite a bit of attention.
He is, however, a strident believer in the modern synthesis evolutionary biology, as evidenced by the fact that he's one of the world's preeminent authorities on bird fossils. Anthony pretending that he's some kind of anti-Darwinian, based on that quote, is typical Creationist quoting-out-of-context. I wonder what site he pulled that quote from, without knowing anything about Olsen himself?
Posted by Wagner at October 31, 2004 02:42 AM
24.28.87.101
"Fossils do not come with date tags attached, and the various methods scientists use to date rocks or fossils nearly always give wildly differing results. So how do you choose which dating method to trust for a given fossil find. Well, the scientist always has in the back of his or her mind an idea of how old he or she wants this find to be."
Err, no. The dating methods are pretty damn accurate:
http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Radiometric_dating_gives_unreliable_results
We have tested the dating methods against each other and also against human-archaeological finds that we know are a certain age because of our knowledge of history.
"Most scientists are taught materialism as a dogma, a set of glasses through which all evidence must be viewed. Darwinism has been raised to the status of a god, whose priests are responsible to make sure no other ideologies make their way into science."
That's bull. There are many scientists who are faithful. Science has a presupposition of what we call "methodological naturalism". That is, the theories that scientists draw must be based on natural explanations. This is because supernatural explanations provide no scope for further study. Observe...
1. Look at the amazing diversity of animal and plant species on this planet!
2. I hypothesise that they were created by a supernatural, theistic deity.
Point (2) is silly. Not only is it not falsifiable or verifiable, but it also lacks any explanatory power. How did this deity create the intricate complexities? Err, "God did it". How did this deity create beings with consciousness? Err, "God did it".
1. Look at the amazing diversity of animal and plant species on this planet!
2. I hypothesise that the diversity of life came in to being through a process of evolution via natural selection. Individuals with the ability to survive in their environment better than other individuals would survive, and pass on their genes to the next generation.
In this, not only does (2) explain how diversity came in to being, but it also provides scope for falsification and verification. If we can show that evolution happened via a different mechanism, or that evolution didn't happen at all, then we must reject this idea. Better still, if we do verify the hypothesis, it also provides us with something to investigate. How, precisely, do mutations happen? Or how does sexual intercourse happen? How are the genes passed on (DNA etc.)?
What the above commenter and others, like Phillip Johnson, are claiming is that methodological naturalism is synonymous with epistemic naturalism and, shudder, epistemic materialism. The point about science is that it does not presuppose any epistemological or ethical theory. Good science is still good science whether it is performed by Christians, atheists, Scientologists, capitalists, socialists, ethical egoists, utlitarians, neoconservatives or Marxists. If their experiments fit in with scientific methodology, it is good science. If they don't, it's not.
You are right on one front though. Scientists should ensure that no ideology gets in to science. The point about Darwinism is that it isn't ideology, it's evidence-based methodologically correct science.
"Unfortunately, their succesors preach "Intelligent Design" which is supposed to be a more scientifically palatable form of creationism."
The point about the ID movement isn't that it's "more scientifically palatable". Scientifically, it's a mixture of Paley's Watchmaker argument and Swinburne's Card Shuffler argument. There is no science behind it. Just reheated philosophy of religion arguments (and I should know: I spend a significant portion of my time studying philosophy of religion) with a veneer of scientific respectability. Purpose? To pretend to school boards that Darwinism is naughty and bad and that they need to give "balanced treatment to equal theories".
The reason you'll find Darwinism in scientific journals is a simple one. It is in about the same amount of doubt as gravity, quantum mechanics and the germ theory of disease.
Posted by Tom Morris at October 31, 2004 03:58 AM
195.137.69.156
I didn't mean to imply that I actually believe that ID is scientifically palatable. I DO believe that it is more presentable to the general public and (most dangerously of all) to the education system. Most ID proponents don't shout and preach hellfire and they've removed that most obvious flaw of stating that the earth is only a few thousand years old. They refer to their ridiculous notions and outright lies as "alternative opinions". This gives them an air of legitimacy with many people who fail to look beneath the surface.
Posted by michael patrick at October 31, 2004 09:18 AM
141.150.202.21
I am forever letting this entry and its comments stand in testement (lol testement lol) of exactly how hilariously unreasonable excessive religious fervor can be.
I can't figure out which part is better; Anthony towing the Creationist/Intelligent Design line to a T by relying on Ann Coulter-style disembodied quotes from completely unrelated texts and a desperate hope in the ignorance of his opponent, or his masterful disassembly by about ninety other people. It's TalkOrigins all over again!
I'm shocked the second law of thermodynamics didn't come up. It's the first bullet out of every crackpot's gun.
Thanks, kiddo!
Posted by spike at October 31, 2004 12:22 PM
68.20.20.244
I just wish the whole article was available on the web. It's infuriating to not be able to link to it in its entirety.
Posted by Tom Coates at October 31, 2004 02:45 PM
81.154.17.179
A longer extract from the article is available on the National Geographic website - http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/index.html - though I would also like to be able to link to the whole thing.
Posted by Eldan Goldenberg at October 31, 2004 03:23 PM
65.43.146.117
I have yet to make any further comment... the local bookstore doesn't have the November National Geographic yet. (Which, I think, is what this is about.)
I still stick with the one-sided flame war comment, though. Treating anyone like an idiot isn't exactly inspiring them to research your point of view.
Posted by Ilsoap at October 31, 2004 06:49 PM
64.251.71.133
On "openmindedness":
"Doubtless it is a good thing to have an open mind, but a truly open mind should be open at both ends, like the food-pipe, with the capacity for excretion as well as absorption."
--Northrop Frye
Posted by gwalla at October 31, 2004 08:00 PM
67.169.146.235
"I still stick with the one-sided flame war comment, though. Treating anyone like an idiot isn't exactly inspiring them to research your point of view."
Anthony insulted -my- intelligence by lying and assuming that I wouldn't catch him. I suppose I could give him the benefit of the doubt and propose that he was lied to first, and was just passing along incorrect information, but given the fact that he was attempting to lecture -us- on proper scientific procedure and the need to do proper research, I don't feel the need to be kind.
If the war is one-sided, it's because the other side isn't armed.
Posted by Wagner at October 31, 2004 08:14 PM
24.28.87.101
For those that do not already understand evolution, carbon dating, and science in general need to read through this entire site before making any more comments here:
http://evowiki.org/index.php/Main_Page
it is basically capable of explaining what you need to know. if you have another idiotic thing to say that is not in that wiki, try researching it before saying something stupid.
Posted by Quinn Mallory at October 31, 2004 08:41 PM
129.130.98.60
I'd like it if they found living Homo floresiensis & they could learn to talk & use tools (maybe computers) & they could say what they thought of creationists. Hell yeah!
Posted by wazza at November 1, 2004 06:26 AM
203.213.81.47
I would hope that if we found living Homo Floresiensis (which I don't find likely but just the thought that it isn't *completely* impossible tickles me no end) we'd have the good sense to stay the hell away from them so that we don't infect them with the common cold and eradicate them.
And any missionaries trying to convert them should be shot preemptively.
Posted by Reinder at November 1, 2004 09:04 AM
213.10.125.93
Wagner.
Quote my lie.
I used a quote from Storrs L. Olson precisely *because* I knew him to be a darwinian (can you get a job at the Museum of Natural History, other than groundskeeper, without being so?).
It would be no news to any of us if a creationist thought NG was playing fast and loose in an article on evolution, so it would have been pointless to quote one. "Duh, so some fundie thinks NG is wrong about birds." Of course creationists disagree. My point was that even among the ranks of evolutionists who are clearly experts in their fields, these issues are not nearly as cut-and-dried as NG portrays them to the public.
I'm sorry you missed my point.
"Doubtless it is a good thing to have an open mind, but a truly open mind should be open at both ends, like the food-pipe, with the capacity for excretion as well as absorption."
Thank you. That's very well put.
Posted by Anthony at November 1, 2004 12:45 PM
207.27.152.6
"Quote my lie."
Well, let's see. You said this:
"Peer-reveiwed science journals repeatedly refuse to publish legitimate research by scientists known to believe in other theories than darwinism, no matter how unrelated the subject may be to origins. And one of the biggest tools of the ruling arbiters of orthodoxy are magazines such as National Geographic, which present the issue as if there is *no* dissent in the ranks of legitamate scientists. So, while Spike rejoices because NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC!!!! (blessed be he) says Darwin was right, let me leave you with an excerpt from an open letter written to Dr. Peter Raven, Secretary of the Committee for Research and Exploration, National Geographic Society."
Which you then followed up with the quote from Olsen. What is one to believe, other than that you wanted people to believe that Olsen "believes in other theories than Darwinism"?
In fact, considering that the original quote is this:
"The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith."
You -actively removed- the references to theropods from the quote, without indicating that you had done so. I can think of no reason to do this other than to deliberately mislead people.
Posted by Wagner at November 1, 2004 03:48 PM
24.28.87.101
Great article. I like this place - I'd like to invite you all to check out this site:
http://bsalert.com/
Posted by BSAlert at November 1, 2004 05:23 PM
65.240.108.2
"If the war is one-sided, it's because the other side isn't armed."
Well... I won't speak on behalf of all creationists on this board, but speaking for myself, you're absolutely right. I wouldn't say I'm completely unarmed, but it's been a few years before I've looked at the theory of evolution as possibly being factual.
The last time I looked at it, it looked too flawed. Obviously, micro-evolution has been proven (change within a species to adapt to its environment), but the creation of DNA, evolution into completely new species, mutations as being progressively good things... that was too much.
This board has changed that. I don't appreciate the view that you'd have to be stupid to believe what I believe, but I admire your passion. You all have obviously found something that makes perfect sense to you, and you believe it enough to fight for it.
So... you've hooked me. When I find a National Geographic for the month of November, I'm getting it, and I'm reading the whole article with a sincerely open mind. And then I'll come back here and report what I've found.
If I find I've been wrong the whole time, I'll believe in the theory of evolution. Seriously.
Now, out of curiosity, any evolutionists out there willing to do the same thing? Give creationism a try?
(Oh, and one more question... if Noah's Ark WAS proven to be found on Mount Ararat, would that change anything for anyone?)
Posted by Ilsoap at November 1, 2004 06:19 PM
24.67.253.204
So, let me get this straight. It is reasonable to you that Noah built a boat, in which he collected and housed one each of 36 species of cat, 310 species of monkey (sounds problematic), 30 million species of insect, etc, etc. You think it is acceptable that on this boat he was able to feed for over a MONTH, elephants, rhinoceroses, cows, pigs, giraffes, lions, gazelles, black bears, brown bears, grizzly bears, polar bears, moose, elk, deer, horses, ostrich, chickens, camels, and gorillas, etc?
I am just trying to understand your point.
You actually believe that Noah, one man, was able to collect from all parts of the world, likely by WALKING, all land dwelling animals that we know to exist today? Is this what you think? Really? . . . Really? Well, frankly, I don’t know why you would be throwing stones at evolution. If you have brought yourself to the point that you can accept the literal interpretation of Noah’s arc, you should have no problem accepting a far less ludicrous idea like, I don’t know, mutations being progressively good things.
Posted by lil buckeroo at November 1, 2004 08:04 PM
67.160.238.166
If you're going to read the whole National Geographic article with an open mind (is there a lot of empty space there?), to be "fair and balanced" in the Fox News tradition you also need to read the whole Creation document, i.e. the Holy Bible. You will see that the darwin thing is the product of an "open mind" with an incredible, anti-Christ imagination run amuck. May God grant you repentance before it is too late for you and you see for your self the fables of darwin are an eternal error...at your expense.
Posted by dansmom at November 1, 2004 08:23 PM
4.154.253.176
"Now, out of curiosity, any evolutionists out there willing to do the same thing? Give creationism a try?"
Sure. Show me the scientific evidence in favor of creationism. To do so, you first have to define a theory of creationism, one that satisfies the requirements of a scientific theory. This includes (but is not limited to) the criteria under which it would be falsified.
Not one creationist has managed to present such a theory, in all of the history of the evolution debate. If -you- can, I'll be very impressed.
(Actually, that's not true. There's been a couple put forward that were falsifiable. They were quickly shown to be false.)
Posted by Wagner at November 1, 2004 08:27 PM
24.28.87.101
BTW, I give "dansmom" an eight out of ten on the troll-o-meter. You gave yourself away with the Fox News reference, though.
Posted by Wagner at November 1, 2004 08:31 PM
24.28.87.101
Fox News fits the whole darwin thing, a fable "fair and balanced"
Posted by dansmom at November 1, 2004 08:36 PM
4.154.253.176
"The thing about evolution is that if it hasn't turned your brain inside out, you haven't properly understood it ... Then to my surprise I discovered that it was converging with my growing interest in computers ... The connection lies in the counter-intuitive observation that complex results arise from simple causes, iterated many times over. It's terribly simple to see this happening in the computer ... it all grows out of simple lines of code that start with adding one and one, testing the result, and then doing it again. Being able to watch complexity blossom out of this primitive simplicity is one of the great marvels of our age, greater even than watching man walk on the moon ... It's much more difficult to see it happening in the case of evolution ... our invention of the computer has for the first time let us get a feel for how it works ... It's all part of the same underlying process that we in turn are a part of."
-Douglas Adams, Turncoat
Posted by Dirk Gently at November 1, 2004 08:47 PM
62.147.161.24
HUH?
Posted by dansmom at November 1, 2004 09:08 PM
4.154.253.176
All right, I've read the article, but as I work nightshift, I don't have time to comment on that right now. The only thing I wanted to address was lil buckeroo's question, what my point of asking about Noah's Ark was. My only point about that was that, if an incredibly large boat was found on Mount Ararat, would this change anything in your mind. The question was not meant to turn into a Noah's Ark discussion, because that would get us sidetracked.
Posted by Ilsoap at November 2, 2004 12:59 AM
64.251.71.133
Oh, and incidentally, Douglas Adams' quote could just as easily be a defense for creationism, because in a computer, no new information is being created.
Let me clarify. A computer program is made of 1's and 0's, so a blank hard drive could be looked at as an immensely large quantity of 0's, while a hard drive with many programs on it is the same number of digits, only now some of them are 1's. More programming, but same amount of information (just like a black bitmap image of 800x600 is the same filesize as a photograph 800x600).
Posted by Ilsoap at November 2, 2004 01:02 AM
64.251.71.133
"because in a computer, no new information is being created.
Let me clarify. A computer program is made of 1's and 0's, so a blank hard drive could be looked at as an immensely large quantity of 0's, while a hard drive with many programs on it is the same number of digits, only now some of them are 1's."
By this reasoning, a copy of Shakespeare's Macbeth contains as much information as an equivalent number of pages of: "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa"
BTW lil buckeroo, Noah didn't have to collect the animals- they delivered themselves to the ark. No doubt they also magically shrank to 1:1000 scale for the journey.
Posted by lukbhindu at November 2, 2004 04:34 AM
193.1.172.148
"By this reasoning, a copy of Shakespeare's Macbeth contains as much information as an equivalent number of pages of: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa."
Yes. At least as far as a computer is concerned. Hence, the argument that mutations don't give any new information, they only mutate what already exists. Those mutations, however, will turn jibberish into either more jibberish or something that actually makes sense.
Wait, that sounds like an argument FOR evolution, and I guess it is. After reading the National Geographic article that this extremely long thread is based on, the thing I got the most out of it was the part about speciation. I'd never really had speciation explained to me properly before, but it makes so much sense now. Two sets of the same species, mutating in two different directions, could eventually become so far mutated that they couldn't mate with each other.
I cannot for the life of me understand why this concept seemed so scary before. By itself, speciation does not in any way threaten anything Biblical that I know of (even if you only believe in a 6,000-year-old earth, which I don't).
So yeah, that was the best part of the article for me. The article still disappointed me in some regards, though. One of the main things holding me back, the creation of the RNA molecule from random chemicals, wasn't even addressed. And most of the article was about how there were so many creatures that existed, and similarities between them. I've never heard any creationist deny that many animals are similar.
Anyways, I have more to say, but it will have to wait for the morning. I might be working night shifts, but I'm not a night person. Later.
Posted by Ilsoap at November 2, 2004 05:04 AM
24.67.253.204
Hey CHica, I linked this to my blog....it must be spread.
Posted by Juan Navarro at November 2, 2004 09:13 AM
65.2.229.95
Well, I guess I reject the idea of evolution on a part religious and part personal basis. In other words, I don't like the idea of evolution, and my personal reading of Genesis tends to back that up. I'd like to read a bit more into the evidence for it, I guess (any sites anyone could reccomend are appreciated). I guess I don't really know enough about either side of the argument to call myself a creationist.
But it's important to note the Christianity (or Judaism, for that matter) itself ISN'T opposed to the theory. It's people that are opposed to the theory. There exist Christians, even orthodox or fundamentalist Christians, that believe evolution theory. My best friend and fellow theology philosopher by night is one of them. That's the most important thing here.
Posted by David House at November 2, 2004 12:59 PM
217.42.93.189
Okay, I want to say a bit more, having read some of the comments.
First, EVERYTHING is a theory. NOTHING can be proven, in the sense that mathematics (our ultimate proving tool) relies on axioms: small assumptions which we must guess are true for mathematics to hold together. It's possible these are wrong. Of course, that's not at all practical, but that's not the point. At the fundamental, evolution is a theory, the same that gravity is a theory (PROVE that when I let go of a ball, it won't float upward?).
So in a way, all science relies on a small bit of faith. (A small bit, but that doesn't matter: 'If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can move mountains': matthew 17:20)
Creationism is a theory: it's an idea which requires faith for you to believe. It doesn't make me 'stupid' if I believe it. And I don't care if the evidence for evolution is overwhelming for evolution. That doesn't make creationism (notice the shift in focus) wrong.
Posted by David House at November 2, 2004 01:24 PM
217.42.93.189
oh my god i just read this and saw
"incredible, anti-Christ imagination run amuck."
and now I have my epitaph!
Posted by K. Thor Jensen at November 2, 2004 02:39 PM
66.92.118.162
>
I've always been up a stump about that one. If the smallest amount of faith is all that is needed to move mountains, then why is it that no one has ever actually seen a mountain move? Last time I checked the Poconos were in the same place they always were. Sure, there's the occasional earthquake or volcanic activity, but that can easily be attributed to natural forces, not prayer and faith.
Of course, the obvious argument is that the old mustard seed vs. mountain thing is just a figure of speech not meant to be taken literally. If that's so then why can't we consider the fact that most of the bible is not meant to be taken literally?
Posted by michael patrick at November 2, 2004 04:25 PM
63.164.145.198
"Creationism is a theory"
It's not a -scientific- theory. There are certain requirements for something to fall under the heading of "science", and creationism simply does not qualify.
That's the rub, you see. If you want to believe that God Created The Heavens And The Earth, go for it. No skin off my back. But if you want to start walking around trying to call your religion -science-, then those of us with an actual scientific background are going to get a wee bit upset and start calling you nasty names, because trying to splice religion and science does serious damage to both.
Posted by Wagner at November 2, 2004 04:56 PM
24.28.87.101
Yeah, creationism is definitely not a scientific theory. If that's the reason you won't research creationism, I can't do a whole lot for you, because that would require putting forth a scientific theory that not only proves God's existence but proves what was created by him. As a scientific theory, that's impossible.
Conversely, I would also hate to live in a universe where everything could be scientifically proven. I find the possibility that everything there is to know can be scientifically proven quite depressing.
I don't call Christianity science, but I do believe that that doesn't stop it from being a valid part of explaining the world around me.
Posted by Ilsoap at November 2, 2004 05:16 PM
24.67.253.204
>
why?
Posted by michael patrick at November 2, 2004 06:39 PM
63.164.145.198
sorry, I seem to be having trouble making quotes. they keep disapearing so it seems like i'm responding to thin air. that last post should have been like this:
"Conversely, I would also hate to live in a universe where everything could be scientifically proven. I find the possibility that everything there is to know can be scientifically proven quite depressing."
- why?
Posted by michaelpatrick at November 2, 2004 06:41 PM
63.164.145.198
"Yeah, creationism is definitely not a scientific theory."
Then keep it out of the science classrooms, please. That's really all I ask.
And it's not that I "won't" research creationism because it's not science... It's that I -can't- research it because it's not science. If it's not science, I can't do scientific research on it. What other kind of "research" is there?
Posted by Wagner at November 2, 2004 08:46 PM
24.28.87.101
Ok, here's some research for you to do:
How big was Noah's Ark, according to Genesis?
How many animals did he need to fit into it? (two of each kind, not each species, since speciation happens relatively rapiidly and is not denied by reputable creationists)
Do the animals fit in the ark?
What would the evidence be today *if* there really was a worldwide flood about 4000 years ago?
Posted by Anthony at November 2, 2004 09:07 PM
207.27.152.6
Anthony:
So "researching Creationism" basically means "reading the Bible and taking it literally". I kind of figured, but thanks for being so honest about it.
Posted by Wagner at November 2, 2004 09:26 PM
24.28.87.101
Did darwin explain why the earth is the size it is? Why not smaller/larger? Why does it stay in its place? And all the planets stay in their places doing what they are appointed to do? Why do the waves of the ocean stop where they do? The sun is faithful in its place as is the moon. Did darwin explain that too? Does his theory explain why the intricate television still cannot match the delicate power, and operation (not to mention the comparison in size) of the human eye? Where did these great minds get all that wisdom to understand and work out such complicated theories?? It must be only for the wisest of the wise to understand these things. And for the rest of us there is: "In the beginning GOD CREATED the heavens and the earth..." .
Posted by dansmom at November 2, 2004 10:01 PM
4.156.24.136
Ten out of ten, dansmom. I love the "Darwinism as a theory of astrophysics" take. It's brilliant and original, I may use it later when I'm doing my own parody.
Posted by Wagner at November 2, 2004 10:12 PM
24.28.87.101
Is that plagiarism? *) Thanks for the 10.0
Posted by dansmom at November 2, 2004 10:18 PM
4.156.24.136
P.S. Its not original...ahem. certainly brilliant...its GOD, Genesis 1:1 *)
Posted by dansmom at November 2, 2004 10:20 PM
4.156.24.136
No, seriously, you can drop the pretense, dansmom. It's obvious that you're just an amazing simulation of a fundamentalist Christian whackjob... I mean, nobody is really dumb enough to expect Darwin to have written about orbital mechanics in the mid-to-late 1800's, right? Nobody would be dumb enough to confuse "Darwinism" with astrophysics and the theories of star system formation, right?
Right? Please tell me I'm right.
Posted by Wagner at November 2, 2004 10:30 PM
24.28.87.101
The problem with evolution being taught in schools is not when it's taught as something that has been scientifically observed. The problem is when evolution is taught as, by itself, an explanation for life on earth. Or worse, when the theory of evolution is taught as the only theory that real scientists accept for life on earth, while creationism is only for crackpots.
As for the other question... why would I consider a universe where everything can be proved to be depressing? Because... why keep living? Seriously, what's the point? If we're all made from goop, and when we die, we turn into dust, without any faith in a heaven or an afterlife as a possibility, it reduces me to no more than many quadrillions of molecules performing chemical processes governed by coincidence.
I mean, seriously... how can atheists stand living like that?
Posted by Ilsoap at November 3, 2004 03:35 AM
24.67.253.204
The problem with evolution being taught in schools is not when it's taught as something that has been scientifically observed. The problem is when evolution is taught as, by itself, an explanation for life on earth. Or worse, when the theory of evolution is taught as the only theory that real scientists accept for life on earth, while creationism is only for crackpots.
As for the other question... why would I consider a universe where everything can be proved to be depressing? Because... why keep living? Seriously, what's the point? If we're all made from goop, and when we die, we turn into dust, without any faith in a heaven or an afterlife as a possibility, it reduces me to no more than many quadrillions of molecules performing chemical processes governed by coincidence.
I mean, seriously... how can atheists stand living like that?
Posted by Ilsoap at November 3, 2004 03:36 AM
24.67.253.204
Oops. Double-post error. Sorry about that.
Posted by Ilsoap at November 3, 2004 03:36 AM
24.67.253.204
"I mean, seriously... how can atheists stand living like that?"
Well, I can't speak for any other atheists (it always feels wierd to use that word- it was "bad language" where I went to school), but personally I'm not all that bothered. It doesn't lessen the joy I take in life or the love I feel for others in the slightest. I mean, if you accept god as the cause for the whole shebang, then you're "no more than many quadrillions of molecules performing chemical processes governed by".........magic.
Posted by lukbhindu at November 3, 2004 05:54 AM
193.1.172.148
Ilsoap-
First off, evolution IS the only theory that real scientists accept. Even most creationist, when pressed, will finally admit that creationism is NOT scientific. Therefore it can't be accepted by science. In the end, all creationist arguments boil down to "things happen that way because God made things happen that way". Science can't accept that answer. Scientists don't say, "Evolution is true because Darwin says so". Evolution is true because of the OVERWHELMING evidence.
And as for your second statement...the reason why you should consider such a universe is because it exists. Everything CAN be explained somehow.
Your only reason for closing your mind to that fact is fear. Fear of death. Fear of not having a grand purpose. Fear that you, your loved ones, and all of humanity are just an inconsequential mote of dust.
But so what? If that's the case, then that's the case. Believing things that aren't true won't change the facts. Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying 'lalalala' won't give you immortal life.
And most important of all, following empirical evidence to find explanations of the events that shape our universe doesn't negate the existence of your god. Not yet, anyhow, and perhaps it never will. Just because we have discovered that mankind descended from previous life forms who in turn descended from forms before them (as opposed to being formed spontaneously out of the dust by an ancient Caananite deity) doesn't mean that you DON'T have a soul. Especially when we can't really define what a soul is. It has no physical form and leaves no trace. When you die it presumably goes away (assuming it was there in the first place). If you want to believe that your deceased loved ones are sitting on a cloud waiting for you to pass so you can all be together again, then go right ahead. That doesn't change the likeleyhood that your ancestor was a sponge.
And besides that, scientists still have no concrete explanation for the existence of the universe and possibly never will. Sure, the Big Bang theory is most likely true, but what existed before that? Nothing? God? A previous universe that suffered a big crunch and re-expanded? Even if any of those possibilities are proven, they do not answer the ultimate question. If God made everything, then where did God come from? The only response we can be given is "God always was" or for atheists, "Before the big bang, the empty universe with maybe just a few sub-atomic particles condensed into a single point always was" . Both arguments take us to pretty much the same place.
I apologize for running off so much. It's been a long year. Lots on my mind.
Posted by michael patrick at November 3, 2004 06:46 AM
141.150.202.21
Ilsoap:
It is not science's job to provide people with a reason for existence. The fact that the theory of evolution fails to do so is not a problem with that theory. Atomic theory doesn't say anything about the meaning of life, either, and nobody complains about it.
Posted by Wagner at November 3, 2004 08:44 AM
24.28.87.101
"It's not a -scientific- theory. There are certain requirements for something to fall under the heading of "science", and creationism simply does not qualify."
Doesn't matter. Here we're trying to explain how we came to be what we are (actually, the Bible answers the 'why', not the 'how', so we shouldn't really be debating at all, but I'll talk a bit about that later). Whether you take the scientific theory or the religious theory, they're both theories. I take a mix to understand my world. Others take purely science. (You can't take purely religion as it fails to explain some of the more modern phenonema: we must instead take scientific theories that fit in with existing religious theories). My point is that creationism IS a theory, and if you don't want to teach it alongside particle theory and quantum theory, I understand, but that doesn't make it wrong. Just because a theory can't be accepted by science doesn't mean it can't be accepted by a scientist. That's really important, as the message of Christianity is personal.
But I must come again to what I mentioned at earlier. The Bible answers the WHY. Why we're on this earth, not how we got here. That's the important thing, and that's why we have debate when trying to bend the WHY into HOW. And the WHY is the truly brilliant and life-changing thing about Christianity.
michael patrick:
"And most important of all, following empirical evidence to find explanations of the events that shape our universe doesn't negate the existence of your god. Not yet, anyhow, and perhaps it never will."
That's brilliantly said, and is really the crux of my argument. Nothing can prove or disprove the existance of any god. Everyone must decide for themselves what their personal answer to that question is.
Posted by David House at November 3, 2004 12:52 PM
217.42.93.171
Thanks for the compliment Wagner. I'll take the fundamental Christian wackjob as a badge of honor---without the pretense, no pretense here. (see my original post)no pretense. For an intense and highly technical examination of this subject see:
Library of Congress Number 54-12335, Publisher: Eerdmans; "The Christian View of Science and the Scriptures" I know you will recognize the names and theories in the scientific realm. You're a good critic Wagner. Kudos..
Posted by dansmom at November 3, 2004 12:56 PM
4.156.24.36
Out of curiosity, let's say that it's true that God DID create everything. I don't care whether you believe that to be true, let's just say it is.
Are you saying that, even if it's true that God created everything, because it can't be proven, you don't want it mentioned in science textbooks?
Because I can live with that. Just so long as students know that not everything can necessarily be explained scientifically.
As for lukbhindu and michael patrick, I guess I understand your side a little better now, but it's still hard to comprehend. I would only be quadrillions of molecules governed by magic if God was impersonal, and while believing things doesn't make them true (which I agree with), not finding 100% scientific proof for things doesn't make them false.
Basically, if there was no choice but to know that I am just the product of evolutionary goop, I would not live like I do now. There would be nothing stopping me from trying drugs or driving too fast down the highway or eating as much junk food as I wanted to. Honestly, what's the worst that can happen? I DIE? There isn't even a clear scientific definition of life to begin with. Take care of the environment? Why? That's just the world going its natural course.
"If God made everything, then where did God come from?" Actually, that's one of the reasons I believe in God. In order for our universe to exist, something must have created itself, and logically, I would think that something that can create itself is very, very smart.
P.S. In case I forget to do this later, I'd like to take the opportunity right now to thank everyone on this board that actually gave me constructive responses to my beliefs. If it weren't for you guys, I would never have found the logic in speciation, and despite any insults that were said here, I'm glad that I came.
P.S. #2 Could someone PLEASE tell me how DNA/RNA can be created from random molecules?
Posted by Ilsoap at November 3, 2004 04:44 PM
24.67.253.204
Creationism isn't "wrong" unless you try to treat it as a science. Nobody rational is going to give you any crap for believing that there's some supernatural force driving the steering wheel of the universe, as long as you don't start trying to prove it with science.
It's only when people like the ICR or the Intelligent Design folks start trying to mix their God in with their science that things get all broken, because science simply doesn't work like that. The moment you add an omnipotent cause to your model, you might as well just give up and go home because you can no longer falsify your model or use it to make any useful predictions. Scientific models that are useful are that way because they define the limits of the behavior of the system they model, and any model that has the word "omnipotent" in it anywhere obviously isn't useful anymore.
I don't care if you believe in God or not. Some of the smartest people I know are Christians. But they know better than to look for God in their microscopes.
dansmom: That book is not listed in the Library of Congress catalog, under that number or any other.
http://catalog.loc.gov/
According to Witham's "Where Darwin Meets the Bible: Creationists and Evolutionists in America", that book was published in 1954, having been written by Baptist theologian Bernard L. Ramm. According to Amazon, it is long out of print, and there do not appear to be any copies available online. This makes it somewhat unlikely that you have read it either. It being fifty years old at this point, I think it would be somewhat behind in its coverage of modern biology; in any case, a book that attempts to *reconcile* evolution with creation by presenting the Genesis creation story as a parable for billions of years of evolution would seem to be the sort of "anti-Christ imagination run amuck" that you were complaining about earlier.
Ilsoap: The evolution of DNA and RNA is one of those "if you can come up with the correct answer, you'll win a nobel prize" kind of questions. For a general layman's descriptions of where current theories are, try the following:
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_of_the_first_proteins
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/RNA_world
Posted by Wagner at November 3, 2004 06:49 PM
24.28.87.101
For some reason I feel compelled to join in... Anthony, it's not "two of every kind" that went into the Ark. It's seven of every clean animal, and two of every unclean. Which just means lots more animals. It can't be taken literally; it makes no sense.
Who asked if it would make a difference if they did find the Ark? It wouldn't, not to me. If they find a big ancient boat on a mountainside, I'm going to be intrigued, but to take that as proof of the literal truth of the Bible? It proves nothing. There are lots of facts that can be interpreted as providing evidence for Biblical truths, but they don't provide proof. They can be interpreted in other ways as well, in ways that match a more rational and consistent worldview.
Posted by zenkitty at November 3, 2004 10:48 PM
68.44.97.56
"mix their God in with their science"... you know, if God created the universe, he would have created science too. And, if omnipotence can't be involved in scientific theory, it's very possible that scientific theory is very inadequate do describe everything.
Thanks for the info, though, about the DNA/RNA. The part about RNA being "irreducible" certainly lends itself to "God made it that way", but I'm still interested in any progress scientists make on that front. Of course, I don't think I'll have to do much searching when/if it happens; with something like the creation of DNA, I imagine it'd be featured in every major newspaper in the civilised world.
So... you know, I guess that's it for me here. Pretty much every burning question I can think of about this subject has been answered. I now have new ideas about how evolution fits into the Biblical account. If anyone wants to hear them, I'll post them, but I'm not expecting to "convert" anyone.
Oh, and the whole question of whether or not Noah's Ark can be taken literally. You know, I'm going to have to do the math myself on that one, although that's off-topic for this message thread, and this thread is pretty long as it is.
Posted by Ilsoap at November 3, 2004 11:25 PM
24.67.253.204
"you know, if God created the universe, he would have created science too."
No, science is a tool created by mankind to describe the universe (which may have been created by God). God did not create science, any more than God wrote Shakespeare or God built my house. Science, Shakespeare, and houses are creations of mankind.
"And, if omnipotence can't be involved in scientific theory, it's very possible that scientific theory is very inadequate do describe everything."
Science is unable to describe God because God is, by definition, without limits. I don't see this as somehow making science less useful; theology can't tell us how to build a television set or set a broken limb, but that doesn't make it less useful either.
And RNA isn't "irreducible"; you didn't read the articles closely enough.
Posted by Wagner at November 3, 2004 11:55 PM
24.28.87.101
Corrections noted. No, God wouldn't have created science, just the laws (or "theories", if we must) behind them. And I shouldn't have said science is inadequate, just that it's limited, and to get a full picture of the universe, I don't believe science alone will cover it.
And I'll read the RNA stuff again... I understood some of the amino acid stuff, but there was an awful lot that went waaay over my head. I don't think I'll be the one getting a Nobel prize for the origin of RNA.
Posted by Ilsoap at November 4, 2004 12:50 AM
24.67.253.204
"Corrections noted. No, God wouldn't have created science, just the laws (or "theories", if we must) behind them. And I shouldn't have said science is inadequate, just that it's limited, and to get a full picture of the universe, I don't believe science alone will cover it."
I think that you may have science confused with nature:
Nature- (n) The material world and its phenomena.
The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.
Science is more of a process-
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
Posted by michael patrick at November 4, 2004 01:43 AM
141.150.202.21
Michael basically beat me to it, but I'm going to make a more important point:
The "laws of science" are creations of mankind. They are *models* for the way the universe operates, not the actual way the universe operates. When a model comes along that is better able to describe the universe, it replaces the old model.
This is what happened when Einsteinian physics replaced Newtonian physics; a new model that provided more accuracy replaced an older model. Neither model was considered "how the universe really works" except by people who don't understand the scientific process.
This is why modern biology is currently based almost completely around the Modern Synthesis of evolution; it is the model that has the most descriptive power. When people try to poke holes in it by pointing out that current theories can't explain X or Y, the correct answer is "so what?" We don't have a theory of quantum gravity yet, but that doesn't mean we've tossed quantum physics out the window. We keep quantum physics around because it is the model with the most descriptive power, even though it is incomplete; *all* scientific models are incomplete, and screaming about holes in this one or that one is just silly.
Posted by Wagner at November 4, 2004 10:10 AM
24.28.87.101
If you believe God exists, he essentially has created science, he's prompted the philosophers and scientists at each crucial point to develop science further. He was the inspiration, the muse, to each person we credit with a wonderful discovery.
Including, quite ironically, Darwin. But hey, without the problems science is throwing at us at the moment, modern theology would cease to exist, and theology is a great way that God lets people know his amazing news. It's sort of working to his advantage :)
Posted by David House at November 4, 2004 10:46 AM
217.42.93.172
"If you believe God exists, he essentially has created science, he's prompted the philosophers and scientists at each crucial point to develop science further. He was the inspiration, the muse, to each person we credit with a wonderful discovery."
So you don't believe in free will, then?
After all, if God was the inspiration for all science, then wasn't God also then the inspiration for everything you do every day? How do you make the distinction? If you think that you know where to draw the line between "normal human thought" and "divinely-inspired thought", then aren't you claiming to know the mind of God? Isn't that heretical?
If God is responsible for everything good that man produces, then God must be responsible for everything that man produces, period. And that means no free will. I'd hate to live like that.
Posted by Wagner at November 4, 2004 10:55 AM
24.28.87.101
OK. Based on what I've heard so far, I'm going to make a theory of my own:
Statement 1: Science is the process of taking information that has been observed with the five senses, testing it, and making theories based on those observations.
Statement 2: Omnipotence can not be tested in a controlled environment, and is therefore outside the realm of science.
Statement 3: God, according to Christianity, is omnipotent.
Therefore, any atheist that says they'll only believe in God if he can be proved real by science is using circular reasoning. It will be impossible to prove to that person that God exists, whether or not he does.
Posted by Ilsoap at November 4, 2004 05:53 PM
24.67.253.204
This whole discussion has been off-topic from the start. National Geographic proposes an evaluation of the theory of evolution, and here you are, talking about Noah's Ark and faith vs. science.
Since youre talking about this stuff, I will, too!
This 'faith vs. science' conflict has been brewing for the past 500 years, and little good has come from it. These are different fields, and bad things happen when they mix. Planetary astronomy was held back for centuries because people wanted God to have a physical place close to Earth. People tried to find God in the sky, and eventually gave up. Perhaps people gradually realized that they could still find God without Ptolemaic theory. Evolution is running into opposition because people want the workings of God over time to be visible on Earth. Eventually, people will give up on Creationism, because enough people will be able to find God without it.
As to what faith and science are, i don't know what faith is. Some definitions of faith hinge on there being a God, some on the absence of any gods.
Science, on the other hand, is less mysterious. Science is all about trying to predict what's going on by making increasingly better models of natural phenomena. By better, of course, I mean 'more accurate with respect to observations, more internally and logically sound, and more consistent with other accepted theories'.
Some models, like quantum physics, start from ad hoc rules based on observation and are gradually refined into theories that explain what happens in a wide variety of cases, and to a certain extent, why those things are happening. Evolution started as a general theory to explain the origin of species and was gradually refined into its present form: a theory with actual predictive power (not necessarily predicting the future, but still predictive). Of course, 'evolution' is still such a general theory that you won't get anything out of it without going into specifics.
As to the argument over specifics in evolution, those do not disprove evolution anymore than the disagreement over superstring theory could disprove quantum physics. The arguments over strings are likely to go on for some time, but the physicists still agree on Schrodinger's equation. There are scientists who disagree with the theropod-bird model, but they do so within the framework of evolution.
In closing, don't take scientific theories for absolute facts. Take them as models to describe and predict what we see. The theories we have now do just that pretty well. As for God, religion, and faith, those are here to give us some facts. When we have truly found God, God is a source we can trust, even when we can't trust our own eyes. In the end, though faith and science don't mix, faith is more important.
Posted by Space Chicken at November 4, 2004 06:06 PM
129.219.144.135
Ilsoap-
I'd say you're absolutely right. The existance (or lack thereof) of God is completely unverifiable through science. I don't know of any scientist (or anyone else for that matter) who has challenged the faithful to prove their faith ever. There would be no point in it. The only thing that scientists demand proof of is creationism and the only reason why is because creationism is so often put up as an "alternative theory" to evolution.
Let's make an analogy to another arena of science. How about germ theory (an area that I admit I know precious little about, so feel free to correct me if I make any wrong statements). As I understand it, there are these microscopic things called germs. They live everywhere. In food, water, floating in the air. If you get too many of them inside you they can damage your body. This is attestable by the fact that your body "fights" "germ infection" with an "immune system". When the germs are defeated, the patient gets better. This is why surgeons thoroughly wash thier hands before putting them inside a person's body, to prevent "germ infection".
Now what if a religous group, called the Zuddites had an alternate theory. They said that Germs were an evil lie created by the scientific establishment to bilk the public and make money selling antibiotics. The truth is that The great God Zud has an enemy who gave birth to an evil spirit that enters the body and sneezing, coughing and fevers are caused by Zud's demigods fighting off the evil spirit. The only way humans can help heal the "infected" is to pray to Zud. This helps the demigods do their work.
When doctors and scientists scoff at this "theory" the Zuddites become enraged. "Germ theory is a lie", they say. "I've never seen a germ and there is no proof that germs exist". After decades and decades of research, clinical tests, field work and general success at healing the sick through the application of science, the Zuddites are not convinced. Scientist mostly ignore the Zuddites. Until they try to get medical schools to teach "Spirit Theory" of illness. The scientists tell the Zuddites that they can't teach a theory in school if it is not scientific. It isn't even a theory they say. The Zuddites tell the scientists to prove that there is no such thing as Zud and that Zud didn't build the Eiffel Tower (which is a prime aspect of their belief). The scientists explain that germ theory does not have anything to say on the existence of Zud and that the origins of the Eiffel Tower is a seperate discipline altogether (called "Engineering").
uggghh.
I'm sure you can see where this little analogy is headed. My lunch break is over, so I won't even have time to proof read this. I aplologize for typos (and the damn space bar keepssticking.
Posted by michaelpatrick at November 4, 2004 07:53 PM
63.164.145.198
Michael: The religion you're thinking of that denied the validity of germ theory is called "The Jehovah's Witnesses". They've gotten better about it in recent years, but all through the twenties and thirties their official publications were full of delicious quotes denying the validity of germ theory.
You can still find "alternative medicine" quacks today denying it, often in connection with unusual spiritual beliefs, although no major religious organization does so. Here's a really great example of this sort of craziness:
http://www.unhinderedliving.com/germtheory.html
Posted by Wagner at November 4, 2004 11:01 PM
24.28.87.101
Curses. Once again reality is more ludicrous than fantasy!
Maybe I should have used a round-earth or galilean astronomy analogy. But there really are flat-earthers too. Is there no end to the insanity?
Posted by michael patrick at November 4, 2004 11:05 PM
141.150.202.21
Truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction has to make sense.
Posted by Wagner at November 4, 2004 11:26 PM
24.28.87.101
Pardon my possible spelling errors or clumsy writing. English is not my mothertongue and it's late at night.
To me this very interesting discussion shows again the huge problems of most of the largest religions and also the problem of fanatically "believing in science". But specifically religions aren't very adaptable to changes in knowledge of the surrounding realities - nor are they very openminded about other religions, since most of them are monoteistic and have a basic doctrine of "I'm right, you're wrong". Nowdays this means that "Yes. Five billion people *can* be wrong."
I mean, all of the societies have started from an indigenous phase where just about nothing of the surrounding world was understood. Then, just as today, things that were/are not understood were/are explained through religion with the intrinsic need of human to understand his/her surrounding world and the logical reasoning for a need for some kind of reason behind all ununderstandable - a god.
Then, as Space Chicken so well described, the borders of knowledge have expanded over time, with people having felt for at least two thousand years, that science has steppen too far, but still with time god's (or gods') role(s) have been "pushed" further and further. Now people are arguing about things like evolution and genes (stem cell therapy etc.)
Just as always before the parties really against each other are not religious people and non-religious (atheists, agnostics), but people who don't understand the relativisim of religion/culture over time or for whom it's too difficult change (e.g. who would lose power because of change) and the people who understand that development in knowledge changes our assumptions and the conception of the world.
I feel that sticking strictly to whatever holy text or historical structure makes almost all large religions (like Christians, Jews, Muslims) way too intolerant to this global interdependent world we live in. This puritanistic approach is the very basis for the clash of societies of which the war on terrorism is one consquence. And not only right-wing religious wackoes or muslim extrimists are guilty of this.
Having said all that, I want to underline that I feel that religions are very important to both people and societies and they have played a huge role in the development of the world. I just hope that they could be much more tolerant in their deeds.
Posted by Zack at November 5, 2004 01:40 AM
69.143.8.163
Zack,
are you sure that English isn't your first language?
In any case, good points all around.
Posted by michael patrick at November 5, 2004 07:06 AM
141.150.202.21
I think a reality check is: everyone knows diddley. Agnosticism surely is the only reasonable course of action. A truly paid-up member of the human race would admit, anything is possible and when it comes to the supernatural or anything we don't understand (which is most things) nothing is out of the question. So theres a selective mechanism for development of life - so what - God could have invented it. People who try to invalidate religion with science are as bad as spiritual zealots. That guy over there in the weird gown and hat looking at the cross is not any closer to a 'God' than me, nor does that person know any more about the 'unknown' than me. Religion ameliorates in many ways, philosphically. If the universe is crammed full life so what? if we are mindless robots enslaved by our genes charged only with delivering a message to somehing at the end of time - so what - if we all die and there is oblivion - there is no point in anything. Would we rather believe we are machines or spirits? Like America, should we not believe that we are special?
Posted by Geokker at November 5, 2004 01:46 PM
213.78.8.111
I think a reality check is: everyone knows diddley. Agnosticism surely is the only reasonable course of action. A truly paid-up member of the human race would admit, anything is possible and when it comes to the supernatural or anything we don't understand (which is most things) nothing is out of the question. So theres a selective mechanism for development of life - so what - God could have invented it. People who try to invalidate religion with science are as bad as spiritual zealots. That guy over there in the weird gown and hat looking at the cross is not any closer to a 'God' than me, nor does that person know any more about the 'unknown' than me. Religion ameliorates in many ways, philosphically. If the universe is crammed full life so what? if we are mindless robots enslaved by our genes charged only with delivering a message to somehing at the end of time - so what - if we all die and there is oblivion - there is no point in anything. Would we rather believe we are machines or spirits? Like America, should we not believe we are special?
Posted by Geokker at November 5, 2004 01:47 PM
213.78.8.111
Right, Geokker. Of course if you truly deeply believe in something you would have so strong inner trust in its being ultimately the truth, that you might have difficulties in accepting different points of view.
Over time this has become *many* times very problematic to just about all who have thought that something is an absolute truth. Even people closest to their gods (priests, bishops - even pope himself, rabbis, mullahs, imams, etc) have made most extreme errors in stating that something is 'gods area' or that something claimed by science is not true. There's so many examples that there's no point in even trying to list them. I have to add, though, that this, of course, doesn't prove anything about the existence or non-existense of gods. It's just a matter of fact that doesn't play in the favour of the school of 'absolutists'. Also monoteistic religions, to my opinion have a certain problem at hand.
If somebody wants to explain me this issue from a religious point of view I'd be more than happy to try to better understand it.
Posted by Zack at November 5, 2004 05:38 PM
69.143.8.163
A couple posts back, someone mentioned about how this thread has gone off-topic. Much of that was my doing, so I apologize for that.
We could all probably keep going for days, months, or longer (the Zuddite thing alone would be fun to discuss) but I've found that the more information I learn, the less likely I'll be able to remember it all.
As far as evolution is concerned this time around, I think I've hit critical mass. I've learned a lot, and I've altered my beliefs accordingly. I still believe that humans were created by God, and I still believe that the Bible does not necessitate a 6,000 year old universe. I could go into detail about my beliefs now, but that again would be going off-topic.
So, I think I'm done here. I've learned something from you all, and I hope you've learned something from me.
Posted by Ilsoap at November 5, 2004 07:46 PM
24.67.253.204
"Like America, should we not believe that we are special?"
Like America, you aren't special because of what you *are*, you are special because of what you *do*. The moment you start treating your specialness as something inherent, and not something to be earned every day through your words and thoughts and deeds, you have lost it. If you do not act like a human being, you are just another ape in a suit.
And you know what? Science isn't what tells you how to be human. It can't, because that's not its job. All this whining about science defining humans as "mindless biological robots" or something? I think that says more about the person complaining than it does about science.
Posted by Wagner at November 6, 2004 11:57 AM
24.28.87.101
God created National Geographic just to test our faith.
Posted by b. at November 7, 2004 09:22 PM
69.17.49.173
This article is so typical. We are always arguing about the wrong thing.
If there are any Christians reading this, give yourself a slightly biased science-based education:
www.drdino.com
www.answersingenesis.org
Most of their materials are free and you can read about what we should be discussing.
Darwin was right about a lot of stuff. All birds are probably related, to a bird. All dogs are probably related, to a dog.
Birds and dogs are not related to each other (not that anyone has proven beyond a reasonable doubt).
Birds and dogs are not related to a turnip.
Birds and dogs are not related to a rock.
The only type of evolution that has been observed is ‘Micro Evolution’, better defined as variation (a horse and a zebra have a common ancestor that looked a lot like a horse). ‘Cosmic Evolution’ (the origin of one element from nothing), ‘Chemical Evolution’ (the origin of many elements from one element), ‘Star and Planetary Evolution’ (the origin of one star or planet from many elements), ‘Organic Evolution’ (the origin of living matter from non-living matter), and ‘Macro Evolution’ (a horse and a turnip have a common ancestor) have never been witnessed. There are theories to all of these that are based on observations of nature. Five of the six common definitions of evolution are religious in nature and take a huge leap of faith to accept that I don’t have. I’d rather follow the biblical account.
Was Darwin wrong?
Yes, on a lot of stuff. Including the original title of his book, 'On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’
Not exactly politically correct to be a racist (believing that certain races are favored or superior to others).
(the Jews are not a race and yes I do believe they are favored in that they are God's chosen)
And Darwin was wrong to marry his first cousin. That's just weird ; ) .
Let's stop arguing about micro evolution (which no one really argues on the creation side) and argue about the other five areas of evolution which at this point are unproven and therefore...
WRONG.
Have a pleasant day.
Your Brother in Christ,
Dave
Posted by Dave at November 8, 2004 02:34 PM
199.105.197.225
"I feel that sticking strictly to whatever holy text or historical structure makes almost all large religions (like Christians, Jews, Muslims) way too intolerant to this global interdependent world we live in." -Zack
As a Muslim middle-eastern American who does *gasp* adhere strictly to the quran, I can confidently say I am not intolerant to the world we live in... and i think that was a bit of a rash statement...
Posted by marrrwa at November 8, 2004 03:06 PM
128.220.36.253
"Birds and dogs are not related to a rock."
" I’d rather follow the biblical account."
Dave- You are horribly mistaken. I have biblical proof that animals are related directly to rocks:
"Genesis 2:19 - And out of the ground the LORD God formed every be ast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam"
Also, your statement that macro evolution can't exist due to lack of direct observation is rather specious. Lack of observation doesn't mean something doesn't exist. There is insurmountable evidence in the form of fossils, and geological formations. The evidence is certainly more reliable than a six-thousand year old account of what was likely an even older oral tradition. It's been said before, and will be said again, "I have no problem with your religion, but don't try to pass it off as science".
Furthermore, your "five unproven points" are laughable. Evolution is in no way an argument for the orign of the cosmos, or of the elements, or of the stars. No one (other than creationists) has ever claimed that it was. Whether or not you believe in the Big Bang theory or any of the numerous theories regarding the early universe has no bearing on the fact that you, me and everyone we know is descended from a small apelike creature in Africa.
Also, We aren't trying to take your God away from you. Have your faith in Lord Jesus Christ. Many evolutionists are religous-a testament to the fact that one can hold opposing viewpoints in one's minds and reconcile them.
And Darwin never said that certain species or races are superior to others. "Superior" is an extremely subjective term. But, some species are adapted more favorably to certain environments. I doubt that an octopus would last long in the Savannah, but that doesn't make it inferior to a lion . And just because a woodpecker is better than I am at getting insects out of bark doesn't meant he can do my job.
Posted by michael patrick at November 8, 2004 05:16 PM
63.164.145.198
Wow, Dave didn't even read the thread. Somebody else already tried the "Darwin was RACIST" ploy and it didn't work, because that's not what Darwin meant by the word "race".
Anyway, if anybody (Christian or not) wants to read about how much of a joke Kent Hovind (aka "Doctor Dino") is, start here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/
And apparently Dave didn't read the Answers in Genesis site far enough to get to this page:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
I'd try to argue against Dave's points, but it's pretty obvious that he doesn't understand evolution, so how can he criticize it properly? I will not defend a strawman.
Posted by Wagner at November 8, 2004 08:28 PM
24.28.87.101
the funny thing is that once you go through all of the "Arguments Creationists Should Not Use" what are you left with?
Any creationist care to throw in an argument that isn't on that list?
Posted by michaelpatrick at November 8, 2004 09:30 PM
63.164.145.198
I'd just like to say that Creationist do-not-use FAQ page you linked to is an excellent example of creationists who are reasonable, thoughtful people with a real concern for truth. You could definitely dialogue with these people -- don't judge everyone by the flame wars, which are fun but don't convince anyone really. It's the rational, reasonable people on both sides who really do the persuading of people who are ready to listen.
I love the original post anyway, though -- I'm a partisan for evolution, though I try to keep an open mind.
Posted by Noumenon at November 9, 2004 03:55 AM
216.145.181.31
"the funny thing is that once you go through all of the "Arguments Creationists Should Not Use" what are you left with?"
Michaelpatrick, you make me laugh. The reason you don't know any creationist arguments that aren't on that page is that those are the favorite arguments evolutionists use as strawmen, so they are the only ones you know about.
Read the rest of the site, which is composed entirely of arguments not found on that page.
By the way, www.drdino.com uses many of those "do not use" arguments, and Answers in Genesis has invited Kent Hovind to their offices to request that he not continue the practice. He was not open to change, however, and careful creationists do not recommend his site.
Posted by Anthony at November 9, 2004 08:21 AM
207.27.152.6
"The reason you don't know any creationist arguments that aren't on that page is that those are the favorite arguments evolutionists use as strawmen, so they are the only ones you know about."
You're one to talk, considering you've used nothing but out-of-context quotes, misinterpretations of evolutionary biology, and various logical fallacies in your arguments so far.
Please, do present a new argument. How about a scientific theory of creationism? Or are you going to admit, like the others have, that creationism isn't science?
You can even quote from Answers in Genesis if you like. They don't have a scientific theory of creationism either.
Posted by Wagner at November 9, 2004 11:20 AM
24.28.87.101
Neither evolution or creationism *is* science. They are both beliefs about the unobservable past which are used to interpret the evidence revealed by science in the present.
Here is a brief creationist answer to National Geographic's article:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1106ng.asp
Posted by Anthony at November 9, 2004 05:14 PM
207.27.152.6
I think you need to be reminded of the definition of 'science'. Here is a good place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
The main difference between science and religion IMHO is that a scientist ideally has no foregone conclusion. The evidence leads where it leads and that's that. If the evidence does not support the theory then the theory must be removed or altered. I admit that scientists are human and therefore subject to bias from time to time, but overall the scientific proccess prevails (one way to ensure this is by submitting theories to scientific journals so that the may be reviewed and criticized by one's peers). Religion, on the other hand has no such provision. There is always a foregone conclusion. A creationist looks for ways to prove that God created the earth and all the animals. A creationist does not look to find out IF God created the earth and all the animals. It is a foregone conclusion that God created everything. That's why they call themselves "creationists". Scientists use terms like "Paleontologist" or "Paleobotanist" to describe the fact that they study the past. They don't call themselves "Evolutionists" None has a degree in "evolutionism".
Certainly scientists take evolution for granted, but only because (once again) of INSURMOUNTABLE evidence. It wasn't always this way. Over a century of experimentation and discovery has brought them to this conclusion.
PS Spike- (if you're reading this)I apologize that so many of us have hijacked your board. We aren't talking about comics and especially we aren't talking about YOUR comics, so if you want us to cut it out, I'll understand.
Posted by michael patrick at November 9, 2004 09:00 PM
63.164.145.198
Why don't you use that one in court?
"Yes OJ must be innocent because lets face it, the prosecution are just making up 'beliefs' about the unobservable past"
Don't play the "it's just interpretation card".
The theory of evolution fits the observed data. Creationism doesn't. End of story.
Posted by Bob Smith at November 9, 2004 09:13 PM
155.245.110.88
Anthony, I just read the AIG response (to NG's article) which you link to. I have to say it was so stupid and deceitful it made my head hurt.
Posted by lukbhindu at November 10, 2004 05:56 AM
193.1.172.148
"Neither evolution or creationism *is* science. They are both beliefs about the unobservable past which are used to interpret the evidence revealed by science in the present."
You have no idea how science works. You have some silly vision of men in white lab coats doing Important Experiments. Your second-grade vision of science is so completely useless that it would not only destroy modern biology, but it would take physics with it.
Yeah, physics. You do realize that a significant chunk of modern physics is about studying the conditions of the early universe, picoseconds after the Big Bang, because that tells us secrets about how things operate at a super-subatomic scale, right? And if the "unobservable past" is off-limits to science, then modern particle physics is crap too.
Oh yeah, I forgot, the Big Bang is considered part of "evolution" by these nutjobs, so it needs to be thrown out as well. So much for particle physics.
Posted by Wagner at November 10, 2004 12:29 PM
24.28.87.101
Michael patrick, I understand why you object to the term "evolutionist." The term is useful only to distinguish a scientist who accepts evolution from one who does not, and that is also the case with "creationists." When a paleontologist who believes in six-day creation (Yes they exist, and yes, they often earn their degrees at secular universities) arrives at a dig, he or she is there as a paleontologist, not as a "creationist."
A creationist does not look to find out IF God created the earth and all the animals. It is a foregone conclusion that God created everything. That's why they call themselves "creationists".
Herein is the real issue you have been debating, and I agree with you there. But note that a scientist who accepts evolution also does not look to find out IF God created. It is a foregone conclusion that God is outside the realm of science and thus science must not excludes any interpretation in which God plays a role.
According to this rule, even if God were directly responsible for *all* the evidence we see, science would still be required to search for or invent another explanation. Thus "playing by the rules" is ultimately more important than knowing what really happened.
The foremost apologists for evolution have often claimed that, whether God created or not, science must assume He did not, or it will collapse into superstition. Creation science assumes that He did. That is the big difference.
I don't know if I will reenter this discussion or not, but I do want to thank Spike for his patience in allowing us all to turn this board into a discussion of science and religion. It's been good talking with all of you.
Posted by Anthony at November 10, 2004 03:15 PM
207.27.152.6
"A creationist does not look to find out IF God created the earth and all the animals. It is a foregone conclusion that God created everything. That's why they call themselves "creationists"."
Thank you for demonstrating why Creationists are not scientists: real scientists don't have forgone conclusions. Real scientists don't belong to organizations with Statements of Faith that define the parameters of allowable research (like the ICR and AiG have). Real scientists change their minds when confronted with sufficient evidence.
Instead of presenting evidence when I ask for it, you whine that "evolutionists" are refusing to look at it. Dude, I've asked you *how* many times now for a Scientific Theory of Creationism? WHERE IS MY EVIDENCE FOR CREATION? Here I am, not refusing to look at it! And I don't mean nitpicks about things that evolutionary theory can't currently explain, I mean *positive evidence for the creation of life on earth*. Not negative evidence for Darwinism; disproving Darwinism does fuck-all to prove that Yahweh made the Earth in seven days. You disprove the Modern Synthesis (somehow) and science will come up with something better, and it won't be Genesis unless you've got some really solid evidence.
Here, I'm going to say it again, since apparently nobody listens when I ask: would a Creationist please give me a Scientific Theory of Creationism, and whatever positive evidence is available for said theory? Please make sure that whatever evidence you provide cannot also be used to suggest alien intervention, since I think the folks at AiG might be a little upset by that (although the Raelians might get a kick out of it).
Posted by Wagner at November 10, 2004 11:23 PM
24.28.87.101
"I do want to thank Spike for his patience"
Oh yeah. Spike's a girl, nitwit. Obviously you are not a regular reader. You never did tell us what fundie site linked you here.
Posted by Wagner at November 10, 2004 11:25 PM
24.28.87.101
Ha. I wondered if I had that wrong. Sorry Spike.
No, I'm not a regular reader. And wait until I tell my atheist cousin (who linked me to you) that Wagner called him a fundie. [giggle]
Wagner, if a painting is hanging on the wall, the painting is ample evidence for a painter. But if someone did not wish to believe in a painter, they could always invent another explanation of how pigments came by chance to be stuck on the canvas in a certain configuration. Even if the artist showed up and claimed responsibility, you could say he was a phony whom I had hired. I would have absolutely no way of presenting positive proof that the painting did not get there by chance.
The world around us is far more complex than anything humans have ever invented. The creation is the best evidence of a Creator.
I am fully aware that this will not be sufficient for you. It is sufficient for me and many others. NG hates us. And that's OK.
Posted by Anthony at November 11, 2004 09:08 AM
207.27.152.6
Here is my cousin's "fundie site:"
http://www.foldedspace.org
See you there.
Posted by Anthony at November 11, 2004 12:13 PM
207.27.152.6
I read the same article. Guess where? In my father in-laws house, he has a full subscription.
He is a die hard Christian and so am I. That article had nothing in it that disproved creationism, and like it said in the beginning, it had nothing that proved the current ideas being passed by the evolutionist I've ever spoken too. the truth is that we are part of a small stream of Christians that don't limit God, telling him that he has to create the traditional acceptable way and only that way. We both believe that God could use evolutional methods to create this world; that he built adaptability into everything in the universe; and that, having created the rules and laws of nature, that it is common sense for him to use his own rules to create everything with.
The traditionalist believe in an literal reading of the bible, but they don't take the time to address such statements as "A day is as a thousand years to God, and a thousand years is to a day..." when they go to claim that the creation was time lined in literal days.
The real problem is that everyone thinks creationism and evolution can not coexist, and indeed that they should. They are not mutually exclusive.
Posted by unstableman at November 11, 2004 01:03 PM
68.251.120.224
"The world around us is far more complex than anything humans have ever invented."
Oh, argument from ignorance. "If we don't understand it, it must have been made by God."
They used to believe that God(s) made the Sun move across the sky. We know better now. Modern theology knows better than to put God in a box labeled "stuff we can't explain", too, because that box gets smaller every day, and The Incredible Shrinking Deity is a sad sight. Maybe that's why you're so frightened, because you've put your god in a tiny box and you're afraid you're going to lose him. Maybe you should let him out, like *most* Christian churches did a long time ago.
---
Note that you still haven't shown me any evidence. You say I will deny the validity of that evidence; I say you haven't *shown* me any. I don't want metaphors about paintings, I want the evidence, please. You say I will deny the existance of a creator, but you won't give me the chance to prove you wrong.
Are you afraid of something? Or do you just not have any actual evidence?
Posted by Wagner at November 11, 2004 06:35 PM
24.28.87.101
More interesting reading...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1026natgeoprelim.asp
Posted by Renee at November 11, 2004 10:08 PM
66.74.150.132
"More interesting reading..."
AiG seems to think that science should be put up to a popular vote. "If millions of people believe this, it must be true!"
I think that if anybody should understand that truth has nothing to do with the number of people who believe in it, it would be the Christians. Or have they forgotten the early history of their faith?
And if AiG is going to put things up to a popularity contest, they should realize that Creationism is a particuarly American thing. Internationally, it's a joke; even among Christians, Creationists are a sad, tiny minority if you look at the world and not just the United States. AiG would be wise to stop using arguments that are both fallacious *and* fail to support their position.
Posted by Wagner at November 12, 2004 12:05 AM
24.28.87.101
AiG seems to think that science should be put up to a popular vote. "If millions of people believe this, it must be true!"
Wagner, I am astonished that, after all your complaining about misquotations, you are presenting a quote like the one above as if Answers in Genesis said it. Show us your source, please.
Posted by Anthony at November 12, 2004 08:35 AM
207.27.152.6
"Internationally, it's a joke; even among Christians, Creationists are a sad, tiny minority if you look at the world and not just the United States."
Yup. I live in Ireland, and it's pretty 'christian' compared to the rest of Europe, but I know people that don't believe in creationists. That is, they'll have seen them on TV and all, but have never met one and don't think they exist outside of mental institutions. Like people who think their corn flakes are trying to kill them.
Posted by lukbhindu at November 12, 2004 11:08 AM
213.202.158.154
@ Anthony: Did you bother reading the URL that Wagner responded to? Here it is again:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1026natgeoprelim.asp
The AiG Editors "praise God" that polls continue finding the same percentage of people falling into the anti-evolution camp. They're proud of their role in this. They're conflating the issue of truth with the issue of persuasion. If a snake-oil salesman comes by and persuades everyone in town that his product is a cure-all, that doesn't make it so.
Incidentally, I think somebody earlier said that macroevolution has not been observed. As I understand it, this is actually false -- there's a case described in one of the Gould books of a speciation event involving snails, I think in the Great Lakes. It's been a while since I read it, though, and it's not my specialty.
I've run into a few tin-foil-hat types who are persuaded that the peer-reviewed journals are oh-so-keen to suppress new ideas. They never can explain why it is that, nonetheless, there are plenty of peer-reviewed articles that contain rather shockingly anti-establishment ideas.
My favorite example is the resurgence of aether theory -- there are a few people out there who think that the Michelson-Morley experiment doesn't work because they failed to realize that everything is made up of the same underlying material -- we're not moving through the medium -- we are the medium. There are a couple of versions of the theory, one involving an incompressible fluid with particles as flow knots (which works nicely with quantization and string theory) and another that involves a solid, compressible rubber-like substance with particles as discrete vibrations (which turns out to correct an incompatibility between Special and General Relativity, which is evident in the timing of the GPS satellites).
Posted by Auros at November 12, 2004 03:43 PM
129.188.33.221
"The AiG Editors "praise God" that polls continue finding the same percentage of people falling into the anti-evolution camp. They're proud of their role in this."
How in the world can you construe that as showing that they think truth is determined by popular vote? You could just as well say that National Geographic thinks truth is determined by popular vote, since they are bemoaning the same statistics. Of course each side wants more people to accept the view they consider true.
If Answers in Genesis thought truth was determined by popular vote as you absurdly accuse them of, they would have given up the idea that we are created by God, since only 44 percent of Americans now believe that.
Of course Christians know the truth exists independent of how many believe it. But it is ridiculous and dishonest to suggest that this ought to prevent my rejoicing when large numbers of people agree with a view I hold as truth.
If you think Christians are the only ones who do that, please see the post that started this discussion.
Posted by Anthony at November 12, 2004 05:34 PM
207.27.152.6
"Wagner, I am astonished that, after all your complaining about misquotations, you are presenting a quote like the one above as if Answers in Genesis said it. Show us your source, please."
You're an idiot if you think that I meant to present that as if it was a literal quote. A genuine, complete idiot who is incapable of actual dialogue with human beings who use common rhetorical devices. I see no further need to have a conversation with someone like that.
Posted by Wagner at November 12, 2004 08:59 PM
24.27.35.180
"Wagner, I am astonished that, after all your complaining about misquotations, you are presenting a quote like the one above as if Answers in Genesis said it. Show us your source, please."
If you honestly think that I was presenting that as a literal quote, then you are such a gigantic idiot that I am surprised that you can feed yourself unaided without suffering grievous fork-related injuries.
(Still waiting on the positive evidence for Creationism, Anthony.)
Posted by Wagner at November 12, 2004 10:50 PM
24.28.87.101
Well, this is bizarre. I write the first comment at a friend's house while waiting for a software install to finish, and it doesn't get posted due to a "server error". I write the second comment when I get home later, and suddenly both of them show up at once. What the hell?
(Stupid MySQL.)
Posted by Wagner at November 12, 2004 10:55 PM
24.28.87.101
Wagner, please understand that calling us idiots doesn't help you win arguments. Your ad hominem attacks never get you to the answers you desire. You won't find "positive evidence for Creationism" by your definition because it is a religious belief. The fallacy is that even though you have the same lack of "positive evidence" you feel your argument is scientific.
I would like to stop telling our second graders that the earth is millions of years old when there is no scientific proof to show that. Teach evolution in private universities and private high schools. Evolution theory (outside of micro evolution) is religious and has no place in tax-funded education.
And what is popular opinion is probably exactly what should be taught in public schools. That is what a democracy is all about. The minority opinion can be taught in private schools.
I didn't call Darwin a racist although I can certainly see where you could have gotten that. I have no proof that Darwin was a racist. If I could edit my post I would. I'll try to be more careful and I’m sorry for the way that came out.
I do strongly believe that racism was very much helped along by that book.
“real scientists don't have forgone conclusions.”
Funny to hear that because I often feel the complete opposite is true about those calling themselves "real scientists". There are many assumptions when looking at evolutionary theory. One of them is that the supernatural doesn't exist. Everything must be explained using today's observations and derived theories. In other words, everything has to happen naturally without intervention by a supreme being.
And then there was this:
“Lack of observation doesn't mean something doesn't exist. There is insurmountable evidence in the form of fossils, and geological formations. The evidence is certainly more reliable than a six-thousand year old account of what was likely an even older oral tradition.”
You’re saying that fossils and geological formations prove that I am related to a turnip? In fact, you are so sure of what these fossils can do that you would teach a six year old this? You would tell them to throw out any literal interpretation of the Old Testament? You are so sure that you would force every taxpayer in this country to help you tell every six year old this?
From fossils? What makes you think a fossil can do something that we can't do today? A fossil doesn't even tell you where that creature died, less tell you that the creature could have had any kids.
We are very clear what we are arguing about right? Because you have all the public funding it is up to you to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I am related to a turnip and that the earth is 4.6 billion years old.
I'm very confident that that will not happen so take your religion to private schools and quit ruining the faith of children. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
And I would be very careful about what you tell six year olds:
Matthew 18:6 - But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
And you theistic evolutionists really ought to check out those sites posted above. You don't have to compromise your faith to accept true science. You can be a scientist and still take the first 11 chapters of Genesis literally.
“...we are part of a small stream of Christians that don't limit God, telling him that he has to create the traditional acceptable way and only that way.”
What "limits" God is saying that the world couldn't have been created on his commandment. You are limiting God by limiting him to the natural laws that we have derived from current conditions.
Adam is mentioned in 7 verses of the New Testament. In none of those verses does it imply that Adam was a metaphor.
For Muslims and Jews who believe in a literal old testament but have doubts in the first 11 chapters of Genesis, why do the genealogies in I Chronicles go back to Adam? It says, "Adam, Seth, Enosh; Kenan, Ma-hal'alel, Jared; Enoch, Methu'selah, Lamech; Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. The sons of Japheth: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras."
It must be frustrating to be descended from a metaphor.
I'll leave this alone for now. I look forward to being called an idiot again for that is a true sign that I must be getting somewhere.
; )
Your Brother in Christ,
Dave
Posted by Dave at November 13, 2004 01:23 AM
68.41.177.149
I asked you, Wagner, what sort of evidence you are looking for that could possibly qualify as positive evidence *for* Creationism which could not be interpreted in any other way, including alien intervention.
I believe my claim that God created the universe has enormous predictive power. There are many things we could expect to see if such were the case.
But if this evidence is present, it can still be interpreted as evidence of something else; indeed it must be, if special creation is ruled out a priori.
So here you are, not refusing to look at the evidence. And here I am, blood from my fork-related injuries mixing with the fundamentalist foam that the instuctor of the "special class" must keep wiping off my keyboard during computer lab day. Who besides me and maybe you even cares about this discussion anymore?
I can't tell you anything brand new about the evidence because we are both staring at the same pile of evidence. It says one thing to you and another to me because we are interpreting it differently. We interpret it differently because we began with opposite assumptions.
Of course, you are free to insist that you have no assumptions, but I will be forced to reject that claim, since assumptions are a universal feature of the human intellect, and you can't do away with them by wishing it so.
The most I can do is summarize how my interpretation accommodates some of the evidence we are both looking at. Here is what I would expect to see if the literal biblical history is correct:
(1) Order. If an intelligent being designed life, I want to see some order; not just repeated patterns like crystals, but logical language sequences that convey information, like the one I am using to communicate with you now. DNA is such a language. And it codes for complex systems that are often perfectly suited for specific purposes. DNA even contains the blueprint for building DNA itself. No surprises here.
(2) Similarities between living organisms. A designer often employs similar patterns throughout his or her work. For example, a Porsche and a Volkswagen "Beetle" share many characteristics (four-cylinder engine in the rear, independent suspension, etc.) as a result of having the same designer. Likewise, homology perfectly fits the creation model, since creationists claim that all living organisms did indeed have the same Designer.
(3) If the Genesis history is to be trusted, we should find abundant evidence of a worldwide deluge. What signature would a worldwide flood leave? Well, for starters, vast sediment deposits would form, replete with billions of well-preserved fossils, known to form only under conditions of rapid burial. Which, as you know, is exactly what scientists observe today.
Those are some of the obvious ones for me, and I, like most people, including scientists, have additional philosophical reasons for the position I currently hold. In ten years I will not believe exactly as I do now on some points, and that is one of many reasons I do not advocate having people like you shut up and kicked out of society, as fundamentalists tend to do, as the Catholics did to Galileo, and as some atheists would like to do to me.
I think you are wrong, but I think you are passionate, maybe even honest, about what you believe, and if we are both as open-minded as we claim to be, one of us is going to come around to the other's viewpoint sooner or later.
Uh-oh, here comes the man with the keys and the white coat now. End of Computer Lab. Maybe if I'm real good they'll let me out again tomorrow.
Posted by Anthony at November 13, 2004 01:32 AM
207.27.152.6
"You won't find "positive evidence for Creationism" by your definition because it is a religious belief. "
That's what Wagner, and myself (and most rational beings) have been saying all along.
"And what is popular opinion is probably exactly what should be taught in public schools." That's just silly. If we taught our students that popular opinion=fact then we'd have to tell them that bats are blind, that toads cause warts, that snakes are slimy and that bulls are color blind except when it comes to red (all things that I've heard repeatedly throughout my life that are justified as 'common knowledge' or 'popular opinion'). Just because the majority of people believe something does not make it true. Period.
"I do strongly believe that racism was very much helped along by that book."
Perhaps this is true, but it is hardly likely that more people have been oppressed or destroyed in the name of Darwin than in the name of Christ. In either case, whether or not one group or another has misinterpreted and/or misused Darwin's theories does not invalidate those theories any more than a fundamentalist bombing abortion clinics (or invading third world countries) because of a skewed interpretation of the Bible does Christianity.
"There are many assumptions when looking at evolutionary theory. One of them is that the supernatural doesn't exist. Everything must be explained using today's observations and derived theories. "
Well, duh. That's all we have to go by. Science is not exactly the same as a court room, but a reasonable analogy can be applied here. For example: Mr. Smith and Mister Jones are in a locked room for a six hour period and at the end of that period, someone unlocks the door to find that Mr. Jones has apparently been beaten to death. One can surmise that Mr. Smith administered the beating. No court in the world would entertain the notion that a third party could be guilty once it has been firmly established that no one else was able to enter the room. But if you allow "supernatural" then anything goes. A demon could have teleported into the room and murdered Mr. Jones while poor Mr. Smith stood frozen in fear. Or perhaps an invisible gang of pixies was hiding in the room all along. Or maybe Yaweh smote Mr. Jones for being a non-believer. Supernatrual causes can not be applied to any investigation. They make no sense and have no place in the investigative toolkit of the rational person.
"You’re saying that fossils and geological formations prove that I am related to a turnip? In fact, you are so sure of what these fossils can do that you would teach a six year old this? You would tell them to throw out any literal interpretation of the Old Testament? You are so sure that you would force every taxpayer in this country to help you tell every six year old this?"
I only have a six month old, but I am certain that 5.5 years from now my answer will still be yes.
"What "limits" God is saying that the world couldn't have been created on his commandment. You are limiting God by limiting him to the natural laws that we have derived from current conditions. "
I am not a theist, but I feel pretty safe in saying that they DON'T believe that God couldn't have created life in the fashion described by Creationists. They only believe that he DIDN'T.
Posted by michael patrick at November 13, 2004 02:48 AM
141.150.202.21
"Your ad hominem attacks never get you to the answers you desire."
The "answers I desire" are for you to stop pretending you know what you're talking about. Since that's impossible (fundamentalist religion having convinced you that you have Absolute Truth even though evidence shows you that you're wrong) I'm going to have to be satisfied with demonstrating to any onlookers that you're a bunch of cretins.
"The fallacy is that even though you have the same lack of "positive evidence" you feel your argument is scientific."
Oh, really?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
There's twenty-nine pieces of extremely solid evidence of which you appear to be unaware. Get reading.
And as for Anthony's "evidence"...
1) Why would a Creator have to create an ordered system? You are making assumptions about the nature of an unknown creator. (Presuming to know the mind of God? How cheeky.)
2) Ditto. If animals *didn't* have similar homologies, that could be evidence for Creation too, since the Creator could have just chosen to do things a different way. A theory that can be changed to explain everything isn't a useful theory.
3) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
I have to go to work, so I'm not going to waste anymore time on this.
Posted by Wagner at November 13, 2004 06:33 AM
24.28.87.101
I'm suprised that no one has cited the most cogent explanation of ID I've ever read. Kurt Vonnegut outlined ID in "Sirens of Titan". His thesis, which is simple and easy to undestand, is that there is a Universal Will To Become, a prime mover which makes matter and order wish to become manifest out of Nothingness (solving the problem of First Cause infinite regression).
It becomes apparent that the purpose of life on our planet (there is of course life elsewhere--a bewildering variety of life forms) involves the necessary evolution of humans in order to produce a tin strip (think "beer can pull tab") to repair a a Tralfamadorian spaceship. Once repaired human destiny is fulfilled and the spaceship move on to its destination -- a far off galaxy -- carrying a message :: *Greetings from Tralfamdore.*
(Other incidents in human history are incidental to the production of this spare part--for example the Great Wall of China is a message in Tralfamadorian providing an update on the production of the spare part.)
This explains a lot. But it may not provide much comfort to those who seek a more narcissistic version of history.
As an aside, I might add that Tralfamadorians think rather highly of Darwin, as we learn in "Slaughtehouse Five", another of Vonnegut's eschatological writings.
Testing Vonnegut's theory of course is easy. First you locate a chrono-synclastic infundibulum ......
Posted by degustibus at November 14, 2004 10:41 AM
207.189.187.249
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1106ng.asp
Posted by RighteousRider at November 14, 2004 12:21 PM
24.214.195.108
Boy, RighteousRider. You certainly aren't the third or fourth person to post that link. And it certainly isn't full of deliberate misquotations, misrepresentations, and (in a few places) outright lies.
I could, if anybody really cared, dissect that AiG site in detail, but I think the fact that they use a Gould quote that's so commonly misused by Creationists that it *has its own entry in the Quote Mine Project* should be adequate proof that they're so full of shit their eyes are brown.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html#quote3.2
Posted by Wagner at November 14, 2004 05:40 PM
24.28.87.101
That link to the Germ Theory page was absolutely fantastic, I actually laughed out loud! Speaking as someone recovering from a massive throat infection AND mononucleosis I am damn glad I live where I have access to Western medicine.
Isn't the ignorance of the creationist mass truly frightening? I can't believe how many people can believe such atrocious things as a "young earth" and literal biblical translation. Those websites ( answersingenesis and such) are also good for a laugh, if anyone needs it.
Posted by Tiamat at November 14, 2004 10:57 PM
24.78.23.225
how did god create my camera phone?
Posted by Gianni at November 15, 2004 02:31 PM
68.196.122.177
"Isn't the ignorance of the creationist mass truly frightening?"
You want us to accept that we come from a rock. That is what you are asking us to believe. Yet you have no proof. None.
You want us to believe that life can come from non-life without any proof and you call us ignorant.
Keep telling six year olds that they are animals and they will continue to act like animals.
And I love how you just laugh it all off.
The arrogance of Humanism.
It doesn't matter if we believe in a young earth or in the literal interpretation of the first 11 chapters of Genesis. I'm not trying to get these things into public schools.
The subject here is whether Darwin is wrong and where is this overwhelming proof that we came from a rock.
Where is your proof that the earth is 4.6 billion years old. What assumptions were made to come up with those numbers? Why does the age of the earth change so often in textbooks? How long has 4.6 billion years been accepted as the age (or at least the upper limit of the age)?
Why should we be so confident in the conclusions that are made by scientists when the conclusions change with the tides?
Textbooks on evolution seem to be written on popular opinion in the scientific community, not proof.
Radiometric dating is based on assumptions that can't be proven. It's a nice theory though.
The geologic column dating is completely based on circular reasoning. Fossils are dated by rock layers and rock layers are dated by fossils. Again, assumptions that can not be proven.
If your assumptions are right, and the age of the earth has been accurately dated, THEN you can call us all a bunch of ignorant cretins.
Just remember that you have to prove those assumptions right before you start the name-calling.
I have plenty of reasonable doubt not to believe your assumptions, regardless of my faith.
Believe what you want based on those assumptions, just don't force me to pay for it and don't expect everyone to believe every theory out there just because the majority of scientists fall in line.
As for popular national opinion being the basis for what is taught in textbooks, that is exactly the way the system is set up. Do you think the parents don't have a big part of what is taught in the schools? You're mistaken.
Example, the state of North Carolina (very similar to other states):
"Every four years the state Superintendent of Public Instruction recommends candidates to the governor to be considered for appointment to the textbook commission. The governor appoints 23 members to serve four-year terms. The commission is made up of five elementary teachers or principals, five middle school teachers or principals, four high school teachers or principals, three parents of elementary students in grades K-5, three parents of middle school students in grades 6-8, two parents of high school students in grades 9-12, and a local school superintendent."
The State Board of Education actually makes the decision based on the following factors:
-The recommendations of the textbook commission.
-The extent to which the books conform with requirements in the invitation to submit text books for evaluation and adoption in that state.
-The extent to which the books are consistent with the standard course of study.
-The price.
-The needs of the public schools.
"The textbook commission appoints a regional textbook advisory committee to review and evaluate materials that are submitted by publishers. Committee members are selected based upon their training and experience in the discipline...Evaluation of materials immediately follows training, and takes place for a number of days specified by the textbook commission. Upon completion of their work, evaluators file written and verbal reports of their findings with the commission. The commission then convenes to discuss both the evaluators’ conclusions and their own findings, and to draft a list of recommendations to present to the State Board of Education."
So parents serve on the committees and parents may be the ones doing the evaluations.
If you don't like what is being taught in our schools, become an evaluator or a committee member. It doesn't pay much in money but it pays greatly in the accuracy of the children's education.
Dave
Posted by Dave at November 15, 2004 04:28 PM
199.105.197.100
"You want us to accept that we come from a rock."
I want you to understand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis or SHUT THE FUCK UP. Every time you claim that "evolution says we came from rocks" you demonstrate that you are FUCKING RETARDED.
Posted by Wagner at November 15, 2004 09:31 PM
24.28.87.101
And he demonstrates that he reads Hovind's page and he's so stupid that he can not even make up his own incredulous/strawman arguments about abiogenesis and evolutionary biology.
Posted by Daniel at November 16, 2004 01:36 AM
24.171.43.230
If your assumptions are right, and the age of the earth has been accurately dated, THEN you can call us all a bunch of ignorant cretins.
You are an ignorant cretin.
Posted by Daniel at November 16, 2004 01:38 AM
24.171.43.230
Daniel- I'm not sure which side of this discussion you're on.
David-
"You want us to accept that we come from a rock. That is what you are asking us to believe. Yet you have no proof. None."
Did you not read my previous response? According to the book of Genesis (which I am beginning to suspect you haven't read) man came from the dust. I don't believe that any aspect of evolutionary theory teaches that people came from rocks.
"Why should we be so confident in the conclusions that are made by scientists when the conclusions change with the tides?"
Scientific theories change as we get new information. There is new research every day that changes how we look at the world.
It's those who don't change their opinions when presented with new information that are insane, David. Do I have to reiterate that people once thought that the sun revolved around the earth? To believe that now in the age of space exploration would be madness. But at one time that was popular thought. I'm sorry to tell you that a lot of the facts of nature that have been discovered by science are counterintuitive. The sun looks like it is moving around the earth to me. But it isn't.
"If you don't like what is being taught in our schools, become an evaluator or a committee member."
I have nothing against what is being taught in the schools in my state. Of course, I live in one of those states where the concept of "seperation of church and state" is actually abided by.
Also, David, I don't have a clue how a panel of citizens evaluating text books is construed as popular opinion. By that logic, would a trial with a jury also be considered a sample of 'popular opinion'?
I never said parents don't or shouldn't take part in education.
"Believe what you want based on those assumptions, just don't force me to pay for it and don't expect everyone to believe every theory out there just because the majority of scientists fall in line."
I don't expect you to believe ANY theories. Evolution isn't a belief. It is a fact. No amount of opinion (popular or otherwise) can change the facts.
Posted by michael patrick at November 16, 2004 07:33 AM
141.150.202.21
"Evolution isn't a belief. It is a fact."
Got it. So simple, isn't it?
Posted by Anthony at November 16, 2004 08:12 AM
207.27.152.6
"Got it. So simple, isn't it?"
Yep. The evolution of all life on earth from common ancestors is about as well-supported, scientifically, as molecules being formed from atoms, or the earth orbiting the sun. That is why we call these things "facts": to deny the incredible quantity of evidence supporting them would be kind of ridiculous.
There's plenty of debate about *how* all life on earth evolved from common ancestors, just like there's plenty of debate about quantum physics and solar system formation, but denying that these things are fundamentally true is just silly.
Creationism is like a defense attorney in a murder case arguing, not that his client is innocent of the crime, but that the crime never happened and that there is no corpse. And when the prosecution actually brings the cadaver into the courtroom, the defense attorney *won't change his position*, even with a body sitting on the table in front of him. That's Creationism, folks.
Posted by Wagner at November 16, 2004 09:44 AM
24.28.87.101
"Evolution isn't a belief. It is a fact."
Micro evolution is fact. Variation is fact. Mutation is fact. Things that are observed. Things that are repeatable.
That I am related to a turnip is NOT fact.
That I am related to a rock is NOT fact.
That the world is 4.6 Billion years old is NOT fact.
I'm an engineer and I'm pretty good at holding on to what is fact and what is assumed.
2 + 2 = 4 is fact.
Seeing 23 types of finches and coming to the conclusion that they are related to a turnip is called a theory.
I'm not even sure how I got on this site. I can't stand comic books and Star Trek sucks.
Look at the world you guys are living in. You're grasping on to a fantasy.
Wagner, I pity that you go right to expletives when the argument gets tough.
I guess my purpose is to reach out to people with a little faith and tell them that there are other alternatives to being run over with Humanism. You can fight back with your own facts.
If you are a believer, go to those sites and restore your faith. There is a small minority of people running the school systems and if we don't get up off our duffs they will run everything.
Without God this country will run itself into the ground.
Educate yourselves. If you want to see two experts arguing the merits of evolution, check out Hovind's debates. They are great. I attended one when I was at Wayne and the video is available on his site. You'll hear an evolutionist debating a creationist in a fair setting. It would be a lot more productive than the name calling going on here.
"Evolution isn't a belief. It is a fact."
Keep telling yourself that and you will believe it.
"The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of the nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one." - Adolf Hitler
"A lie told often enough becomes the truth." - Vladimir Lenin
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher regard those who think alike than those who think differently." - Friedrich Nietzche
You guys don't even follow your own advice.
Here's some advice for you. Don't make God mad.
Romans 1:18 - "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness"
I've enjoyed being called names. I have. Your lack of respect tells me so much about your argument. You only have one debating strategy. It is the same debating strategy I see in most debates on this subject. Because you have no facts (and believe me the burden of proof is on your shoulder), you claim it is fact.
Tell a six-year old they come from a rock and he'll accept that he comes from a monkey.
Tell a six-year old the world is 4.6 billion years old and he'll accept that the world is at least 10,000 years old.
You are right in line with all the great dictators who grasped on to evolution:
Jozef Stalin - 13 million
Adolf Hitler - 12 million
Mao Tze Dong - 11 million
Hideki Tojo - 5 million
Pol Pot - 1.7 million
Kim Il Sung - 1.6 million
Hurray for evolution.
Hurray for ethnic cleansing.
Hurray for slavery.
You are all so wrong.
There are consequences to every action.
Dave
Posted by Dave at November 16, 2004 10:45 AM
199.105.197.100
"That I am related to a rock is NOT fact."
Dave. I don't know why you keep throwing this same straw man argument out there. I didn't ever say you were related to a rock. Although, your specious logic may convince me in the end.
"I'm not even sure how I got on this site. I can't stand comic books and Star Trek sucks."
I don't know how you got onto this site either. I assume that you hit a link on your computer some time in the past few weeks. The very fact that you can't recall what you were doing on your computer that brought you here is rather telling. This isn't a site about comic books or Star Trek. Spike (the owner of Iron Circus.com) is a web comic artist and writer. This site is dedicated to her work. Not to whether Batman is cooler than Superman. Not to whether Gene Rodenberry is smarter than Joss Whedon. It's certainly not dedicated to whether creationists are smarter than rocks.
Accusing us that we are grasping on to a fantasy when by your own admission you believe in a literal translation of a story that states that women get their periods because a chick talked some dude into biting an apple on the advice of a snake is downright ludicrous.
And in response to your paltry insinutation that scientists who promote evolution (ie almost EVERY scientist on earth) are therefore in line with Hitler and Stalin I offer some biblical support to you statements:
"Hurray for ethnic cleansing."
(Deuteronomy 20:17) But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee.
"Hurray for slavery."
(Leviticus 25:45-46) Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen forever.
Jeez, Dave. I don't give a hoot that you're an engineer. I don't care what railroad company hired you. You tell me that evolution doesn't have the facts and after corresponding with you over and over I can only assume that you either haven't read the facts or did not understand them. You tell me that the God is the only salvation for our country and its values and that just leads me to believe that you have never read the Bible, either. I have. Talking to you is like wrestling with a quadraplegic who no matter how immobile he remains insists that he is winning.
Posted by michael patrick at November 16, 2004 12:05 PM
141.150.202.21
Michael, I'm an atheist.
Posted by Daniel at November 16, 2004 02:35 PM
24.171.41.210
Dave: you are, of course, right. The earth is 6,000 years old. The sun is the same age. The composition of the sun was set up to make it look billions of years old (obviously by Satan). Ditto for the absence (on earth) of any radioactive materials with half lives shorter than millions of years, except for those which are still being produced. Grand canyon? Sure, that was produced by the flood waters receding. Because when you drain water off sediment, it makes big winding paths like the GC, not straight lines. The common genetic code? Well, that's just a demonstration of how economical and efficient the creator is. (the same creator who couldn't find a handier way to kill everyone than a global flood, and whose best hiding place for the trees of knowledge and life was right in the middle of the garden).
Posted by lukbhindu at November 16, 2004 02:43 PM
213.202.145.42
Oh boy, the Stalin and Lysenko arguments, again. http://www.skepdic.com/lysenko.html
Stalin did NOT believe in modern evolutionary biology. He was duped by this Lysenko guy and Soviet agriculture suffered, just like how it would suffer if America adopts creationism.
What would the creationist paradigm have done? No telling. Perhaps nothing, because observing three wheat species specially created to feed humans would not have generated any questions that needed answering. No predictions are made, so there is no reason or direction for seeking further knowledge. This demonstrates the scientific uselessness of creationism. While creationism explains everything, it offers no understanding beyond, “that’s the way it was created.” No testable predictions can be derived from the creationist explanation. Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. In those few instances where predictions can be inferred from Biblical passages (e.g., groups of related organisms, migration of all animals from the resting place of the ark on Mt. Ararat to their present locations, genetic diversity derived from small founder populations, dispersal ability of organisms in direct proportion to their distance from eastern Turkey), creationism has been scientifically falsified.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/344_statements_from_scientific_an_12_19_2002.asp#bsa
http://www.atheistnetwork.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=3958&start=60
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/nazis.htm
Learn some science and history. Hovind is an idiot and a liar. He earned his degree from a split level in Colorado.
Posted by Daniel at November 16, 2004 02:45 PM
24.171.41.210
Daniel- gotcha. I wasn't sure whom you were adressing. There are just to many pronouns out there.
Posted by michael patrick at November 16, 2004 02:51 PM
63.164.145.198
"Ben: I'd care a lot less about what Creationists believed if they weren't trying to jackhammer it into every biology class in the the country. There's a reason NG ran this story."
Hi. I've been taking a biology (marine) class at a local community college. So let's recap: CREATIONISTS are trying to jackhammer their beliefs into educational classes? what? to put it bluntly, are you blind? any public book on biology, anatomy, earth science, or something related to the above is chock full of Darwinistic themes. My own teacher displays the evolutionistic perspective not as a theory as it is supposed to be looked at, but as unquestionable fact. Questions i ask about aspects of the evolutionary process are answered with prolific responses that don't actually give me the answer at all. You may take this as a rough generalization, but bear with me.
When she lectured to our class on marine mammals (manatees, to be exact), she stated that they evolved from terrestrial mammals (namely horses or cows, or something of that nature.) Manatees, although they do swim, feed, and spend most of their lives under water, can not breathe underwater. They have lungs, like us, which fairly inhibits them from performing tasks, like mating and producing offspring in water, for lack of breath. The mammals must go on ice or land to do their stuff. Certain manatees reproduce in areas where there is only ice, which limits their reproductive sessions to only certain times of the year when ice is present (winter, as you know, comes but once a year). i asked her why manatees, unlike fish and some other marine vertebrates, don't have gills. The conversation went something like this:
me: "Why don't manatees have gills, too? It would make their reproductive chances much higher, and they wouldn't have to compete for space and certain time periods."
teacher: "they're mammals. mammals don't have gills."
me: "well, horses and cows don't have flippers. why couldn't they just evolve some gills to suit their needs, since they are marine mammals. if they would want gills to make them more fit, why don't they have them?"
teacher: "Natural selection doesn't give you traits just because you WANT them. manatees have survived fine without them."
i'm confused now. is natural selection just an idea, a name for a mechanism of evolution, or is it now a being with great powers of granting lucky organisms traits they can use to outlive other organisms? How DO organisms achieve these traits? do they have a little point chart that when they get this amount of points, they are awarded one free convergent trait? Just some questions for you...
-one of those homeschooled people who (contrary to seemingly popular opinion) was not overprotected from the theory of evolution. We use black markers for writing, not for blacking out.
Posted by Steve at November 16, 2004 02:56 PM
4.10.218.110
Steve, go to this page. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution. It's not a being.
Posted by Daniel at November 16, 2004 03:12 PM
24.171.41.210
"Wagner, I pity that you go right to expletives when the argument gets tough."
I go right to expletives when people demonstrate that they are gigantic idiots who are not worth my time and effort.
You, sir, are a gigantic idiot who is not worth my time and effort, but I'm wasting it on you anyway. You do not understand a *damn thing* about evolution and yet you feel free to dismiss it because you believe that it contradicts your religion.
I've got news for you, sunshine. Your grasp of theology is medieval at best; modern Christian theology (of which I seem to be more familiar with than you are, having spent some time working at the local Episcopal Seminary) doesn't have a problem with evolution because their God isn't the kind of God which the facts of evolution can damage.
Their god is stronger than science and they know it. Yours, apparently, is not.
Oh, and if anybody is interested in looking at how humans are (very distantly) related to turnips, the following page on Eukaryotes is pretty cool. Eukaryotes are basically "stuff made of cells with nuclei", and they include plants, animals, algae, fungi... Pretty much everything on earth except bacteria and their ilk.
http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Eukaryotes
Posted by Wagner at November 16, 2004 03:50 PM
24.28.87.101
Steve: what your teacher should have explained is this: 1) Children are different from, but similar to parents. 2) If something is better at having kids, it will probably have more kids. 3) If something is bad at having kids, it will probably not have as many kids 4) If you're bad at surviving long enough to have kids, that counts as being bad at having them.
That's what evolution boils down to. It's easy to turn legs into flippers, because you just get slightly more streamlined legs all the way along until you have flippers. Every step of the way, you have something that works a little better.(PLEASE take note, all of these steps are unintentional. There is nothing conscious guiding this. For every kid that has slightly more streamlined flippers, there will be MANY more whose legs/flippers are as good as their parents, or worse than them. These kids are bad at surviving-see 4 above) With gills, you need to not only get working gills in one step (they don't have to be perfect, but they have to work at least a little) but you also need them to not cripple existing structures (having gills would reduce the efficiency of your lungs when you're on land-if it didn't just prohibit you from returning to land, and if that happens you're not gonna have many kids with fancy gills, since everyone else is doing their mating on land) and the animal needs the behaviours to go with them (When you have gills, you have to keep moving when underwater- to keep water going over the gills).
Posted by lukbhindu at November 16, 2004 04:42 PM
213.202.145.42
I only have time for one today. I have a lot of trains drive.
"Your grasp of theology is medieval at best; modern Christian theology (of which I seem to be more familiar with than you are, having spent some time working at the local Episcopal Seminary) doesn't have a problem with evolution because their God isn't the kind of God which the facts of evolution can damage."
Somehow modern=smart in your mind and medievil=stupid. What a humanist you've grown into. You fall right in line.
Episcopalians have always been some of the most liberal "Christians" around. I believe they were the first denomination to accept women pastors and now I believe they accept gay pastors.
How "enlightened" of them.
Going to hell in a hand basket.
Please don't align any fundamentalist with an Episcopalian.
That explains a lot if you were working for their organization Wagner.
I have to go put my resume in at Amtrak so I gotta go.
I'm praying for all of you whether you believe in a creator or not.
Dave
Posted by Dave at November 17, 2004 07:59 AM
199.105.197.100
I only have time for one today. I have a lot of trains drive.
"Your grasp of theology is medieval at best; modern Christian theology (of which I seem to be more familiar with than you are, having spent some time working at the local Episcopal Seminary) doesn't have a problem with evolution because their God isn't the kind of God which the facts of evolution can damage."
Somehow modern=smart in your mind and medieval=stupid. What a humanist you've grown into. You fall right in line.
Episcopalians have always been some of the most liberal "Christians" around. I believe they were the first denomination to accept women pastors and now I believe they accept gay pastors.
How "enlightened" of them.
Going to hell in a hand basket.
Please don't align any fundamentalist with an Episcopalian.
That explains a lot if you were working for their organization Wagner.
I have to go put my resume in at Amtrak so I gotta go.
I'm praying for all of you whether you believe in a creator or not.
Dave
Posted by Dave at November 17, 2004 07:59 AM
199.105.197.100
Sorry about the double post but the server gave me an internal error so I thought the post didn't do through. I fat fingered medieval the first time anyway.
Dave
Posted by Dave at November 17, 2004 08:01 AM
199.105.197.100
"I'm praying for all of you whether you believe in a creator or not."
gee thanks!
Posted by michaelpatrick at November 17, 2004 08:07 AM
141.150.202.21
"How "enlightened" of them. Going to hell in a hand basket."
Keep digging that hole, Dave. Every time you post you demonstrate how corrupt and terrifying your "cause" is. Why not just post 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and be done with it?
"Please don't align any fundamentalist with an Episcopalian."
Don't worry, nobody will. And nobody will align you with anybody who knows what they're talking about. Your grasp of science is kindergarden and your grasp of theology is medieval; you have acknowledged the latter (in fact you seem to cherish the concept), and you have done nothing to dispute the former.
You are literally centuries behind on the times, Dave, like all of your brethren. It is amazing that you are willing to use a computer; I would think that such intellectual luddities like yourselves would refuse to use anything that relies so heavily on the awful, anti-God quantum physics like your computer does.
Posted by Wagner at November 17, 2004 08:25 AM
24.28.87.101
Yes, quantum physics. It's so useful for studying the youthful situation of the Universe after the Big Bang, and it easily disposes of Aristotle's First Cause argument. It's really evil, Dave. :)
Posted by Daniel at November 17, 2004 08:41 PM
24.171.46.91
what I want to know is, if we all came from turnips then why are there still turninps?
Posted by michael patrick at November 17, 2004 09:16 PM
63.164.145.198
Becuz Evolution Iz EviLLLLL1!
Posted by Daniel at November 17, 2004 11:48 PM
24.171.46.91
I don't know about you, but every time I look at fundamentalists, I can see the human-turnip relationship plain as day.
Posted by Wagner at November 18, 2004 12:22 AM
24.28.87.101
Well, fundamentalists do have the lives of a lawn.
Posted by Daniel at November 18, 2004 12:45 AM
24.171.46.91
"Well, fundamentalists do have the lives of a lawn."
Yeah. It's tough following rules. It's tough believing in something when most people around you want to bring you down.
It's tough being a Christian.
Look at the way your fellow man reacts. Talk about unmerciful. Talk about intolerant.
Read your scoffing posts back and you hopefully will see why your humanist viewpoint on life IS a religion.
You worship man.
You don't need a God.
What bothers me the most is when people only accept half of a religion. Those who say they are believers but reject certain portions of the bible because it isn't proven. They only read what they want to read in order to put God into a box that agrees with their ideals.
Man has always tried to conform religion to man instead of submitting to any authority.
Who makes the rules? Man? Or God.
I respect fundamentalists because they at least believe in something with their whole heart.
Fundamentalist Muslims take every word of the Koran as literal. I respect that. I don't agree with the text they are using and they don't agree with mine. But at least they give it everything. And fundamentalist Muslims agree totally with fundamentalist Christians when it comes to evolutionary theory.
Laziness, arrogance and greed have taken the place of most fundamentalism.
Sad and pitiful.
God never changes so why should our beliefs?
For 1800 years Christians believed in the literal interpretation of the first 11 chapters of Genesis. Then some guy (Lyell) comes along and says the world is much older than 6000 years. Weak handed Christians then change their entire belief structure to accept this theory and cast doubt on the interpretation of all scripture. Now Jesus is just a good example of how to run your life. No more eternal salvation. No more black and white. No more right and wrong.
Now man makes the rules.
If man says the world is 4.6 billion years old then that becomes reality.
And in ten years when man decides the world is 4.8 billion years old we will change all the textbooks and kneel humbly to this new "fact".
Get off your high horse of humanism and humble yourself before the Lord.
The two ways you can look at observations:
-Make an observation, assume the bible is literal and then make your theory.
-Make an observation, assume there was no creator and everything happens by chance, and then make your theory.
No man can serve two masters.
Embrace science IN LIGHT of scripture. They will not disagree with each other if you look hard enough.
Change your perspective and wake up.
In a nutshell this is what evolutionists believe that contradicts the bible:
Evolutionary formula for making a universe:
Nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 natural elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order.
Evolutionary formula for making life:
Dirt + water + time = living creatures.
It's a fable.
And you're allowed to believe it.
Just don't expect me to help pay for it.
I have to get back to designing widgets.
Dave
Posted by Dave at November 18, 2004 09:39 AM
199.105.197.100
Dave-a few things:
"The two ways you can look at observations:
-Make an observation, assume the bible is literal and then make your theory.
-Make an observation, assume there was no creator and everything happens by chance, and then make your theory."
Surely you could also make an observation, assume dianetics is literally true, and then make your theory. Or assume Bugs bunny cartoons are true. Or anything you felt like believing. The simple fact is that predictions made under the assumption of biblical infallibility invariably disagree with reality. Denying evolution because the bible disagrees is on a par with me rejecting nuclear physics- despite all available evidence- because my invisible friend told me atoms can't be split.
"Nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 natural elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order."
Perfect balance and order? What about supernovae? Colliding galaxies? Cometary impacts? Solar flares? Doesn't sound very orderly to me.
P.S. It's quite easy to make something sound crazy (nothing+nothing=....). My invisible friend explained that people who believe in nuclear bombs think 'lump of metal+lump of metal=explosion' She asks why cars don't constantly explode unless it's fake.
Posted by lukbhindu at November 18, 2004 10:41 AM
213.202.165.131
Actually, the reason the age of the earth keeps changing is because we are continually inventing more and more detailed methods to date rocks, minerals, and fossils. As these methods develop we are able to more correctly determine the age of the earth. The current estimate is approximately 4.6 billion years (that's a North American billion, not a UK billion). If you refuse to accept proven scientific methods such as radiometric dating, then I cannot convince you of their validity without taking you through my degree for BSc Geology.
Dating with fossils is not circular reasoning, one or the other is dated using another method (palaeomagnetic dating, radiometic dating, etc.) and according to palaeoclimates, minerals present, and other material in the rock or sediment they are determined to be contemporary or not.
It is easy to find young fossils in old rocks, if a crack is opened up through tectonic movement or in another manner and the younger fossils fall down into the lower strata. That is why stratigraphy based on fossils is not always perfect.
Posted by Tiamat at November 18, 2004 11:37 AM
24.78.23.225
"The simple fact is that predictions made under the assumption of biblical infallibility invariably disagree with reality."
Who's reality? All we have is observations and I have yet to see one observation that conflicts with the biblical account of a six day creation.
You make a fine point on the Bugs Bunny analogy. I should restate my original "two perception" theory but I believe we are splitting hairs. I think you understood what I meant but I'd be happy to clarify.
"Perfect balance and order? What about supernovae? Colliding galaxies? Cometary impacts? Solar flares? Doesn't sound very orderly to me."
I think it is incredibly orderly although "orderly" is another word whose definition is based on perception or relativity.
I'm sure you've heard that either there is a God, or there isn't and both possibilities are frightening.
If there is no God then we are sitting on an earth that is spinning around on its axis at 1000 mph and hurdling through space orbiting around the sun at 67,000 mph and no one is driving.
If there is a God then we better find out who he is and what he wants.
I personally think that God exists and what is perceived as disorder or chaos is all a part of a perfect plan.
I think you'll find that many evolutionists believe in the order of the universe as the ultimate proof to evolution in that we are all evolving into perfect beings. Here is one quote I got off a forum from an evolutionist:
"The Universe Does work Perfectly. Even what is perceived as Chaos has Purpose. A star explodes in a Super Nova, a seemingly chaotic event, but it actually produces all the elements heavier then iron, and distributes all the elements throughout the Universe in the process. Mutations are apparent errors in the genetic code, yet in the long run, through Evolution, Nature improves the species through those errors, so they are not errors at all, but simply Nature's Way of examining all the possibilities. The predatory nature of life also improves species, for as the predators ween out the invalid and weak, the species grow stronger and more capable, requiring the predators to grow stronger and more capable in order to hunt them. All Life is aspiring towards an improved view. Nothing was Created Perfect, but everything is evolving in that direction."
I of course don't believe this. I don't believe God makes mistakes or that we are evolving into a perfect world.
Your Local Fundie,
Dave
Posted by Dave at November 18, 2004 01:32 PM
199.105.197.100
Dave, I don't have to bother responding to you. Your paragraphs are laced with fallacies, lies, and bearings of false witness against me. (Exodus 20)
Posted by Daniel at November 18, 2004 03:40 PM
24.171.46.91
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=106276
Posted by Daniel at November 18, 2004 03:42 PM
24.171.46.91
David, who's reality? Who's reality? Have fun in your reality you stinking postmodernist. :)
Posted by Daniel at November 18, 2004 04:01 PM
24.171.46.91
Sorry, not buying it.
National Geographic is wrong and so was Darwin
by Dr. Terry Mortenson, AiG–USA
6 November 2004
The 33-page cover story of the November issue of National Geographic asks the question, “Was Darwin wrong?” After decades of evolutionary propaganda, the magazine surprised no one with their confident answer, “No!” But scientifically informed and careful thinking readers will not be persuaded by the “overwhelming evidence” (p. 4) presented.
Obviously, National Geographic (hereafter simply NG) thinks that a significant percentage of their readers are slipping in their faith in evolution and need a remedial course in the some of the “abundant, various, ever increasing, solidly interconnected, and easily available” evidence (p. 8). NG admits that nearly half of Americans don’t believe in evolution, due in part to “Scriptural literalism” [really, it’s simply believing God’s plain word] and the “proselytizing” [NG isn’t proselytizing, of course?] work of young-earth creationist and intelligent design proponents (p. 6). They also blame it on “honest confusion and ignorance”; but given that the popular science magazines, the mass media and the educational establishment are controlled by evolutionists, evolutionists have no one to blame but themselves for this alleged confusion and ignorance.
They are also hoping that their readers have a short memory. Only about five years ago, NG promoted “Archaeoraptor” as “proof’ that “We can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals.”1 However, this turned out to be a hoax—a Piltdown Bird—see Archaeoraptor—Phony “feathered” fossil. They had to publish an embarrassing recantation, but now they are back to their old indoctrinating tricks.
The article starts with some of the usual patronizing nonsense refuting the “evolution is just a theory” claim. But this is a straw man, as we have long advised creationists from saying this very thing—see this section of our “don’t use” page. This section also refutes the very fallacy that NG tries to foist upon its readers: that we should not dignify evolution with a word like “theory,” and put the goo-to-you conjecture on the same level as the theory of relativity and theories of electricity. Rather, these theories that NG confidently compares with evolution are based on repeatable observations in the present, while evolution is a claim about the unobserved past. See Naturalism, Origin and Operation Science.
The article says that “two big ideas are at issue here: the historical phenomenon of the evolution of all species (descended from a common ancestor) and natural selection as ‘the main mechanism causing that phenomenon’” (p. 8).
The fundamental points of debate: Information
To understand the following brief analysis of this article, it will be important to remember some important facts about life and the creationist view. All living things contain in their cells the DNA molecule that carries the information (genetic instructions) for making all aspects of that creature and all this information is in the first fertilized cell of each kind of creature. Amoeba DNA has no information for making hooves, hair, tails and eyes, but horse DNA does. Alligator DNA has no genetic information for producing feathers, hollow bones and one-way lung systems, but eagles do (as did Archaeopteryx). Some DNA information is common to many different kinds of creatures, but there are also differences.
So the key questions related to evolution are these. One, how did this information come into existence in the evolutionist’s supposed first living microscopic creature? And, second, how did the information in that “simple” creature get changed and augmented to produce all the different kinds of plants and animals that we see living and in the fossil record?
The NG article doesn’t even attempt to address the first question, with good reason. As the world famous astrobiologist, Paul Davies, says:
It's a shame that there are precious few hard facts when it comes to the origin of life. We have a rough idea when it began on Earth, and some interesting theories about where, but the how part has everybody stumped. Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organised themselves into the first living cell.2
This is not surprising, given the problems with chemical evolution to explain life’s origin, and the key role of genetic information in the making of living creatures. Dr Werner Gitt is a leading German scientist and young-earth creationist who is an expert on information theory. In his powerful, tightly reasoned book, In the Beginning was Information, he argues, “There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.”3
So the evolution theory is in big trouble right from the beginning. But it gets worse, because, as creationists have repeatedly argued, and as we review below, natural selection and mutations (either alone or together) do not produce the increase of new genetic information needed to support the goo-to-you-via-the-zoo theory of evolution.
Creationists believe, based on the clear teaching of Genesis, that God supernaturally made different “kinds” of plants and animals during the first six literal days of history and that He endowed those creatures with the genetic information to produce enormous varieties within the original kinds but not the ability to change into a different kind. Creation scientists (with PhDs earned at secular, evolution-dominated universities) are involved in ongoing scientific research to try to define the genetic boundaries of the original kinds, but most seem to agree that, generally speaking, the Genesis kinds are in most cases at the genus or family level, not the species level of modern taxonomic classification. See What is the Biblical creationist model? and Variation, information and the created kind.
So the contrast between evolution and creation is clear. Evolutionists believe in the tree of life—that all living things are descended from one common ancestor. That is, they believe in vertical change from one kind of creature to another. Creationists believe in the forest of life—horizontal variation within the original created kind, but not one kind changing into another. Which view really fits the scientific evidence?
Keep up to date with the latest creation information!
Creation Magazine (1-year subscription)
Keep your family informed on the latest easy-to-understand evidences for creation and against evolution! This unique full-color family magazine gives God the glory, refutes evolution, and gives you the answers to defend your faith. Exciting articles and great witnessing material you won't find anywhere else! Includes a beautifully illustrated full-color children’s section in every issue. Powerful ammunition to intelligently discuss nature, history, science, the Bible, and related subjects. Delivered to your home every three months!
ORDER YOUR COPY TODAY
Concerning natural selection, NG gets it wrong at the start when it says that “Wallace and Darwin share the kudos for having discovered natural selection” (p. 8). Actually, a respected creationist British scientist, Edward Blyth, discussed the concept (without using the term) 25 years before Darwin published his famous book. Blyth attributed variation within the original created kinds to changes in environment or food supply.4 NG describes natural selection as the “natural culling” of “useless or negative variations” (p. 8), but this reveals the fatal flaw in Darwin’s theory. As creationists have continually pointed out, natural selection doesn’t create anything new, it only selects from the existing genetic information from which the varieties are produced. The result is either the preservation of some of that information in a variety well suited to a particular environment or the complete loss of some of the information through extinction of a variety. But what never results is the increase or creation of new genetic information.
NG misleads its readers and evades this information argument when it showcases losses of information as “proof” of goo-to-you evolution, which would involve massive increases of information. For example, NG asks, “Why do certain species of flightless beetles have wings that never open?” (pp. 12–13). We have long ago pointed out that such beetles did arise from beetles with fully functional wings because of a mutation that crippled the power of flight. But in some environments, such a mutation may be beneficial, i.e. benefiting the organism. For example, on a windy island, a beetle that flew into the air may be blown into the sea, while flightless ones will avoid that peril. But the bottom line is the beetle has lost something; this doesn’t explain how beetles or flight could have arisen in the first place. See Beetle bloopers: Even a defect can be an advantage sometimes, even though it results from a loss of genetic information.
The evidence for evolution is presented by NG in four categories: biogeography (the study of the geographical distribution of living creatures), paleontology (the study of fossils), embryology (the study of the development of embryos to birth) and morphology (the study of the shape and design of creatures). Darwin used all these arguments, and so do modern evolutionists.
Biogeography
Evolutionists say that only evolution can explain why there are certain creatures in one location, say kangaroos in Australia, but not in another location. However, Darwin claimed that evolution explained the pattern of life on fixed continents, while now evolution is supposed to explain the pattern of life on continents that moved apart from one big one. If evolution is so flexible that it can explain such mutually incompatible distributions, then it explains nothing at all.
Also, there are many puzzles to the observed distribution of living and fossil creatures. For example, kangaroos are not mainly in Australia “because they evolved there.” And evolutionists have to admit that marsupials once lived in Europe, Asia and North America (in profusion in the latter), but now are largely absent (except for opossums in the Americas). Here is a revealing admission from two evolutionists:
Living marsupials are restricted to Australia and South America (which were part of the supercontinent Gondwana); North American opossums are recent immigrants to the continent. In contrast, metatherian fossils from the Late Cretaceous are exclusively from Eurasia and North America (which formed the supercontinent Laurasia). This geographical switch remains unexplained.5
But creationists contend that there are much better explanations of the biogeographic evidence, which flow from understanding the changes in climate and sea level after the global catastrophic Flood at the time of Noah and the fact that post-Flood people would have intentionally (and sometimes unknowingly) taken plants and animals to different parts of the world as they repopulated the earth. See Migration Q&A and chapter 1 of Woodmorrappe’s book, Studies in Flood Geology.
Closely related species in an area, such as the thirteen species of finches in the Galбpagos Islands that Darwin explored, have indeed arisen from a common ancestor. But finches changing into finches don’t tell us where finches came from in the first place. Rather, they are a classic example of sorting out genetic information, not generating new information, and far more quickly than evolutionists expected but just what the creation model predicted—see Darwin’s finches: Evidence supporting rapid post-Flood adaptation. Also, recent work shows that many of the changes are really the result of a built-in capacity to respond to cyclically changing climates. For example, while a drought resulted in a slight increase in beak size, the change was reversed when the rains returned.
This argument applies to the other NG examples of anoles, mole rats, ants, pigeons and fruit flies. It’s also important to note that Darwin’s argument was against a compromising view similar to that of progressive creationists such as Hugh Ross: namely, that God created individual species where they are now living.
Contrary to what the NG article implies, informed creationists do indeed believe that new species can arise. But these are the result of the reshuffling or loss of the genetic information in the original created kinds. As explained earlier, creationist scientists do not believe that the original created “kinds” (mentioned in Genesis 1) are equivalent to the modern man-made taxonomic classification of “species,” but more likely approximates the “family” level. Much recent evidence has accumulated to show that speciation can happen rapidly, which has surprised evolutionists but fits perfectly with the Bible’s teachings—see Speedy species surprise.
Paleontology
NG leads readers to believe that Darwin thought the fossil record supported his theory. But actually he admitted more than once in his famous book6 that the fossil record is an embarrassment to his theory of descent from a common ancestor. He knew that if his theory was true, there should be countless numbers of transitional forms (e.g., 100% reptile, 75% reptile-25% bird, 50% reptile-50%bird, 25% reptile-75%bird, 100% bird and many transitional forms between each of those). Darwin attributed the lack of evidence to our ignorance of the fossil record. But today our museums are loaded with fossils and the missing links are still missing.
As the late Harvard evolutionary geologist, Stephen Gould, put it:
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.7
In a 1979 letter responding to the late creationist, Luther Sunderland, Colin Patterson, then Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, concurred:
I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? ... You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line — there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.8
Richard Dawkins’ evolutionist disciple at Oxford University, Mark Ridley, is emphatic:
However, the gradual change of fossil species has never been part of the evidence for evolution. In the chapters on the fossil record in the Origin of Species Darwin showed that the record was useless for testing between evolution and special creation because it has great gaps in it. The same argument still applies. ... In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.9 [emphasis in the original]
So I guess the folks at NG are not real evolutionists, or at least not very informed. They certainly offer nothing in this article to negate these statements. Incredibly, NG even admits that “illuminating but spotty, the fossil record is like a film of evolution from which 999 out of every 1000 frames have been lost on the cutting-room floor” (p. 25). So there you have it. Evolution is 99.9% imagination! NG quickly reassures us that “dozens of intermediate forms” have been found, but they only give two examples: horses and whales.
Creationists have exposed the flaws in the supposed horse evolution story for years. The story told by the fossils in South America is backwards compared to the story told by the fossils in North America—see What’s happened to the horse? Rather, the horse “tree” is really a bush, and comprises merely variants within the horse kind, and most likely a non-horse at the bottom—see The non-evolution of the horse: Special creation or evolved rock badger? and pages 189–97 in Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! A previous flawed attempt by NG (in 1981) to use horse fossils to support evolution is exposed in Horse find defies evolution.
Top left: Gingerich’s first reconstruction12
Bottom left: what he had actually found12
Top right: more complete skeleton13
Bottom right: more reasonable reconstruction14
As for whale evolution, NG refers to the work of paleontologist Philip Gingerich. It discusses his research on Pakicetus (“whale from Pakistan”), but doesn’t reveal the real story. In 1994 Gingerich claimed Pakicetus was a creature “perfectly intermediate” between a land animal and a whale.10 The fossil evidence at the time only consisted of parts of the skull, yet Gingerich’s artist drew the creature swimming in the ocean with front legs like a land animal but the mouth and a rear end looking like a sea creature as it was trying to eat fish. But by 2001 more fossils had been found11 and it was concluded that Pakicetus was “no more amphibious than a tapir.”13 Yet NG misleadingly tells us that Gingerich “discovered Pakicetus, a terrestrial mammal” (p. 31). That’s not what he called it when he discovered it and wrote about it in the scientific literature!
NG goes on to say that Gingerich now believes that whales are related to antelope based on a “single piece of fossil” found in 2000. It was part of the anklebone of a “new species of whale,” they said. But later they found the other part and realized that it was “an anklebone, from a four-legged whale.” Hold on! When was the last time you saw a “four-legged whale”? Evolutionists are playing language games to call the fins and tail of a whale “legs.” But if, as NG says, the fossil “closely resembled” the anklebone in artiodactyls (hoofed land animals, such as antelopes), then how on earth could this “single piece of fossil evidence” be interpreted as being in any way related to whales? In evolution theory, imagination is king! NG says at this point “this is how science is supposed to work” (p. 31). Really?
For more refutation of the supposed fossil evidence for evolution, readers should consult Darwin’s Enigma, Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! and chapter 5 of Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics.
Embryology and Morphology
Similarity of shape or design can just as well, if not more so, point to a common designer, rather than a common ancestor. Roller skates, bikes, cars, trucks, busses and trains all have wheels, but one is not the ancestor of the other. They are similar because intelligent human designers have all thought that wheels are a good way to move things on land. So too living creatures that share the same planet and are interdependently linked in a complex ecosystem will have many similarities and those which live in very similar environments on earth (e.g., in water or air or on land) will share even more similarities. Our infinitely wise Creator is smarter than all the engineers put together. Good designs can be, and are, easily modified for different applications.
But when we take into account the differences in creatures that share common features, the common ancestor argument becomes even more unbelievable. For example, humans and frogs have five digits on their hands, but the developmental patterns in them are vastly different. In humans the fingers develop by programmed cell death in between the digits, whereas in frogs it is by outward growth as cells divide. See more detailed discussion of this in the sixth chapter of Refuting Evolution 2.
As for embryos, the development is programmed by the information in the DNA molecule in the fertilized egg. So again the question is where did this information come from for the different kinds of plants and animals? It didn’t come from time and chance and the laws of nature. And we must never lose sight of the evolutionists continued use of Ernst Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings—see Ernst Haeckel: Evangelist for evolution and apostle of deceit and Fraud rediscovered. Yet, like Darwin and many science textbooks15 and evolutionist books for laymen,16 NG endorses embryonic recapitulation (p. 13).
NG claims vestigial characteristics or organs as proof of evolution. These are aspects of the body that are claimed to be useless leftovers from our animal ancestry. There are two problems with this argument. One, the loss of function (through the loss of genetic information) cannot be evidence of the ascendance from a lowly kind of creature up to a higher form (which would require an increase of information). Secondly, nearly all of the 180 “vestigial organs” in man cited by evolutionists as proof of evolution at the turn of the 20th century are now known (because of medical research) to have at least one function. See Chapter 7 of Refuting Evolution 2 and Vestigial Organs Are Fully Functional. In fact, NG ludicrously uses male nipples as proof of evolution (pp. 12–13)—do they think males evolved from a race entirely comprised of breasted-female humans? For an answer, see Male nipples prove evolution? (reply to a skeptic).
NG makes a big deal about plants, animals, bacteria and viruses changing to resist herbicides, insecticides and antibiotics. In fact, the article says that “there’s no better or more immediate evidence supporting the Darwinian theory than this process of forced transformation among our inimical germs” (p. 21).
But in each cited example we have a certain kind of creature changing into another variety of that same kind of creature. One flu strain changing into another flu strain, or one staph bacterium changing into a different staph bacterium, or one variety of house fly turning into another variety of house fly is not an explanation of where the information to make the flu, staph or house fly came from in the first place. And we always find that the change is actually going in the opposite direction to what evolution requires—see The evolution train’s a-comin’ (Sorry, a-goin’—in the wrong direction).
But how does this variation occur? Prominent evolutionist, Francisco Ayala tell us:
Insect resistance to a pesticide was first reported in 1947 for the Housefly (Musca domestica) with respect to DDT. Since then resistance to one or more pesticides has been reported in at least 225 species of insects and other arthropods. The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds.17
Research shows that the same can apply to antibiotic resistance.
Scientists at the University of Alberta have revived bacteria from members of the historic Franklin expedition who mysteriously perished in the Arctic nearly 150 years ago. Not only are the six strains of bacteria almost certainly the oldest ever revived, says medical microbiologist Dr. Kinga Kowalewska-Grochowska, three of them also happen to be resistant to antibiotics. In this case, the antibiotics clindamycin and cefoxitin, both of which were developed more than a century after the men died, were among those used.18
But many times the changes are due to mutations, which are copying mistakes in the DNA molecule in the process of reproduction. What NG doesn’t tell the readers is that mutations result in a loss of genetic information in the creature. Most mutations are deleterious, if not fatal, to the organism. It is not on the way up (evolving), but on the way down (devolving). Sometimes, the mutation does improve the chance of survival, but it always involves a loss of genetic information.
For example, the bacterium, Helicobacter pylori, is troublesome to humans, but doctors can destroy it with an antibiotic. After the patient takes the antibiotic, it is absorbed through the cell wall of the bacterium. It has the genetic information to make an enzyme which reacts with the antibiotic converting it into a poison, killing the bacterium. But due to a mutation, some H. pylori cannot make the enzyme and so cannot convert the antibiotic and so do not die but reproduce, giving the patient and doctor a new problem. The mutant survived through a loss of information, which is not a process that will eventually lead to an increase of information to change a bacterium over millions of years into a biologist.
As Dr. Lee Spetner, a Jewish scientist and expert on mutations, has stated in his excellent book, Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, pp. 159–60:
But all these mutations reduce the information in the gene by making a protein less specific. They add no information and they add no new molecular capability. Indeed, all mutations studied destroy information. None of them can serve as an example of a mutation that can lead to the large changes of macroevolution. ... Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up on volume.
So much for mutations being any help to the evolutionist. Just like natural selection, they don’t produce the new genetic information that the theory requires. But like natural selection, mutations fit perfectly with what the Bible teaches. They are the result of the curse of God on creation when Adam and Eve sinned (Genesis 3:20, Romans 8:20–22).
NG is simply “hurling elephants” at their readers when it says that additional evidence for evolution comes from “population genetics, biochemistry, molecular biology, and ... genomics” (p. 20). Readers will see the insurmountable problems for evolution from biochemistry in Michael Behe’s (Ph.D. university biochemist) Darwin’s Black Box. For an agnostic, university molecular biologist’s strictly scientific evaluation of evolution, see Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (particularly chapter 10).
Darwinism and religion
NG wraps things up by asserting that “no one needs to, and no one should, accept evolution merely as a matter of faith” (p. 8). But that is precisely what most of the world, including most scientists (who are just laymen outside their own field of expertise), have done. Evolution is believed because it appears to be scientific due to “smoke and mirrors” arguments and because it gives people an excuse for not submitting to their Creator. As Romans 1:18–20 says, people suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
But what is Darwin’s theory’s relationship to religion? Certainly, a person can believe in a vaguely defined “religion” and in evolution at the same time (see Is evolution “anti-religion”? It depends). NG claims the compatibility of evolution with papal pronouncements and Roman Catholic dogma (p. 6). However, as far as the likes of NG are concerned, when the Pope says you can believe in evolution, he’s an enlightened religious leader who should be heeded. But when he speaks on the sanctity of human life from conception and marriage, and thus opposes abortion and homosexual behavior, then he’s just an old bigot who should keep his religion to himself.
But even the NG’s premise can be debated. There are Roman Catholics who don’t believe evolution or millions of years is compatible with their faith (or true science). For example, most of the scientists in the video Evolution ... Fact or Belief? and in the geology video Experiments in Stratification are Catholic. But the real issue is whether the theory of millions of years of evolution is compatible with the Creator’s Word, the Bible. For two centuries, young-earth creationists have shown clearly that it is not. See The Great Turning Point, Refuting Compromise, Creation and Change, and these articles: Two histories of death, Two world-views in conflict and The god of an old earth.
Conclusion
NG is wrong that scientific evidence proves goo-to-you-via-the-zoo evolution. The evidence has never supported Darwin’s theory, which is why an increasing number of Ph.D. scientists and well-informed laymen and students are rejecting what they have been taught (brainwashed) in schools, museums, TV science programs and in National Geographic all their lives.
Darwin was partially right about natural selection explaining the origin of species. But because he didn’t pay attention to the Bible (but rather rejected it because of his rebellion against his Creator), he didn’t understand that speciation is simply the God-designed way for the original supernaturally created kinds to produce wonderful variety and perpetuate themselves in the changing environments of a sin-cursed world that would be radically changed by a global year-long Flood at the time of Noah.
The Bible fits the facts, which explains why an increasing number of Ph.D. scientists are creationists—see In Six Days, On the Seventh Day, The Genesis Files and our website section Creation scientists and other biographies of interest. Evolution doesn’t agree with the scientific evidence. It cannot stand careful scrutiny, which is why evolutionists have to use political and academic power and legal intimidation to keep criticisms of evolution out of public schools. In fact, the atheistic anti-creationist Eugenie Scott tacitly admitted that if students were presented such criticisms, they might end up not believing it!
In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one of the major themes in science.19
It is sad to see that Philip Gingerich is an evolutionist, and not a Bible-believing Christian, today because his church didn’t teach him correctly. He said, “I grew up in a conservative church in the Midwest and was not taught anything about evolution. The subject was clearly skirted.” (p. 31)
Churches that don’t equip their youth and adults to deal with the myth of evolution are likely to see them deceived by articles like this one in NG and many of them will drift away from the truth of God’s Word.
Why should Christians continue to subscribe to a magazine like National Geographic that persistently writes deceptively untruthful articles to push an anti-god agenda? Instead, subscribe to Creation magazine—56 pages of full color, understandable, truthful articles, coming four times per year, and with no paid advertising. A gift subscription for a Christian or an unbeliever would make a great Christmas present.
References and notes
1. Sloan, C.P., Feathers for T. Rex?, National Geographic 196(5):98–107, November 1999. Return to text.
2. Paul Davies (Australian Centre for Astrobiology, Macquarie Univ.), Born Lucky, New Scientist, Vol. 179(2403):32, 12 July 2003. Return to text.
3. Werner Gitt, In the Beginning was Information, p. 107, CLV, Bielefeld, Germany, 1997. Return to text.
4. Edward Blyth, An attempt to classify the “varieties” of animals with observations on the marked seasonal and other changes which naturally take place in various British species and which do not constitute varieties, Magazine of Natural History, VIII:40–53, 1835. See also my book, The Great Turning Point (pp. 92–93 and 187–189) for the similar reasoning of two of the “scriptural geologists,” George Bugg (a pastor) and William Rhind (a scientist), writing just before and after Blyth in 1826 and 1838 respectively. Evolutionists are discovering this also. See Environment contributes to evolution, too, 29 Oct. 2004. Return to text.
5. Cifelli, R.L. and Davis, B.M., Marsupial origins, Science 302:1899–2, 2003. Return to text.
6. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, pp. 206, 292 and 307, Penguin Books, London, 1982; reprint of 1859 edition. Return to text.
7. Stephen J. Gould, Evolution’s Erratic Pace, Natural History, 86(5):14, May 1977. Return to text.
8. Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, p. 89, Master Books, Santee, CA, 1988. Return to text.
9. Mark Ridley (zoologist, Oxford University), Who doubts evolution? New Scientist, 90:830–1, 25 June 1981. Return to text.
10. “In time and in its morphology, Pakicetus is perfectly intermediate, a missing link between earlier land mammals and later, full-fledged whales.” Phil Gingerich, The Whales of Tethys, Natural History, April 1994, p. 86. Return to text.
11. This was after Jonathan Sarfati’s analysis of Pakicetus in chapter 5 of the original 1999 Refuting Evolution. Later-discovered fossils confirmed Sarfati’s prediction that this was a strictly terrestrial creature (as per the updated version of chapter 5). Return to text.
12. P.D. Gingerich, N.A. Wells, D.E. Russell, and S.M.I. Shah, Science 220(4595):403–6, 22 April 1983; P.D. Gingerich, Journal of Geological Education. 31:140–144, 1983. Return to text.
13. J.G.M. Thewissen, E.M. Williams, L.J. Roe, and S.T. Hussain, Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyls, Nature 413:277–281, 20 Sept. 2001. (see PDF file). Return to text.
14. Pakicetus … eight years on. Illustration: Carl Buell
Return to text.
15. E.g., George B. Johnson and Peter H. Raven, Biology: Principles and Explorations, p. 257, Holt, Rinehard and Winston, 1998. This widely used high school text gives the student no hint in the discussion around this diagram that the pictures are fraudulent. Return to text.
16. Ernst Mayr (100-year old Harvard University biologist and leading evolutionist), What Evolution Is, pp. 27–30, Basic Books, New York, 2001. On page 28 Mayr uses Haeckel’s original drawings with no mention that they are fraudulent. Return to text.
17. Francisco J. Ayala, The Mechanisms of Evolution, Scientific American 239(3):65, Sept. 1978. Return to text.
18. Ed Struzik, Ancient bacteria revived, Sunday Herald (Calgary, Ontario, Canada), 16 Sept. 1990, A1. Return to text.
19. Cited in Larry Witham, Where Darwin Meets the Bible, p. 23, Oxford University Press, 2002. Return to text.
Posted by Jim at November 18, 2004 07:36 PM
68.97.100.48
sorry, please go to
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1106ng.asp
for links and pictures of the "whale" in this article.
Posted by jim at November 18, 2004 07:42 PM
68.97.100.48
Thank you Jim. Thank you so very much for that awesome waste of bandwith. Would anyone else like to post the same link again or paste the same article up in its entirety? Better yet, why not just paste up the entire book of Genesis as your argument? If that's the way a discussion is handled then I guess I should go ahead and transcribe the NG article and paste it up here. We can go back and forth posting the same exact text ad infinitum and call it an argument.
Posted by michaelpatrick at November 18, 2004 08:07 PM
63.164.145.198
I suspect that Spike may decide to end this thread as it is probably wasting her bandwith. If anyone is interested, I've made a PDF file of the thread so far. It's 74 pages long and over a meg in size. Email me if you would like a copy.
Posted by michaelpatrick at November 18, 2004 08:16 PM
63.164.145.198
Proof that Creationists can't read is demonstrated by the fact that they keep reposting that AiG article, even though it's been demonstrated over and over again that they're a bunch of dishonest cretins. I mean, really, do I need to post the Gould quote reference again?
"Evolutionary formula for making a universe:
Nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 natural elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order."
This may very well be the largest strawman ever constructed on the face of the planet. Although it does bear a pleasing resemblance to TIMECUBE, which makes me wonder if Dave is taking his medication or not.
Posted by Wagner at November 18, 2004 10:28 PM
24.28.87.101
Dave- That whole "nothing+nothing yadda-yadda" has nothing to do directly with evolutionary theory. The two are about as related as ancient Egypt is to the American Civil War. Even so, you still kind of get it wrong. It's a bit off topic to begin with (assuming that there is a topic here), but what I know about the big bang theory (or theories) is that there is no "nothing + nothing=two elements" etc.
It's more like "everything was compressed into a singularity and somehow suddenly expanded. Furthermore the heat and pressure from that expansion led to the creation of hydrogen and helium which in turn led to the creation of stars which in turn led to the creation of the elements".
To my knowledge cosmolgists and astrophysicists have no answer as to what existed before the big bang (other than a singularity which contained all of the compressed matter and energy which consists the universe). So they can't possibly even imply that nothing + nothing = anything at all. Maybe your god was the one who set things all in motion. Maybe it was bugs bunny. I don't frigging know. But once again, it is unrelated to the denate at hand just like arguing in what manner King Tut died has nothing to o with who was victorious at Gettysburg.
Posted by michael patrick at November 19, 2004 02:22 AM
151.204.83.85
I apologize for my previous post having more than the usual number of typos.
Posted by michael patrick at November 19, 2004 02:49 AM
151.204.83.85
I think this article says it all:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1106ng.asp
You guys should look at it.
; )
That's all today. I have a ton to do before the weekend.
And that "nothing+nothing yadda-yadda" formula shows up in many textbooks today from what I've been told. Not seeing them directly I can't say that is a fact that I have witnessed.
Strawman or not, that is what is being taught.
So at what point do you believe we have no facts? At what point are scientists not sure of?
I personally don't think they are sure of anything outside of micro evolution but I want to know what you guys think.
Apparently I'm doing a poor job of simplifying your beliefs. Even if the simplification is exactly what one of you believe, the other will completely deny it and call me an idiot. So why don't you guys do the talking.
Do you not agree with the formula:
Dirt + Water + Time = Life
??
And what evidence do you post that shows this is possible?
Let's clarify the argument and find the exact point where we disagree.
I would hope that would get rid of the name calling.
I'll stop trying to be clever and you stop trying to act so superior and we'll have a constructive discussion.
And I'll stop calling you a bunch of humanists.
And I would think Spike likes the hits to her site. When Googling this article you will find her site right near the top.
Eventually I'd like to know what parts of the bible do you take as fact and what parts you dismiss as legend or myth?
Dave
Posted by Dave at November 19, 2004 09:04 AM
199.105.197.100
Dave,
Exactly what are the keywords you imagine people would use to google this article? I doubt that anyone is out there looking for it specifically.
I do not agree with your 'formula'. Scientists do say that were there is water there is the possibilty for life, but that is not the only factor.
I can't say with %100 certainty which parts of the bible are fact and which are myth. Like any book of history and religion it has some statements that are more verifiable than others. JFK died a little over forty years ago, and people are still debating exactly what did or did not happen during his presidency in spite of the fact that there are documents, film, audio recordings and eyewitness accounts from people who were there. How can we possibly say we know what happened 2000 to 6000 years ago with absolute certainty. Science doesn't claim to have all of the answers. What science does claim is to have the best possible answers for now until any further information is discovered. That's why science is always being revised. Each new version contributes to a better understanding than a previous theory.
As for what portions of the bible I dismiss/believe. There are certain portions of the bible that I personally dismiss right of the bat. The Garden of Eden and the events that reportedly took place there are at the top of the list. The ark is up there too. What can be accepted. Well, the majority of the places, kingdoms and characters of the bible are at least in part based on real people and places. To dissect the bible, word for word, page by page and unravel truth from myth is a collosal task which I personally have no desire to undertake. There are many who have devoted their entire life to it.
As for the "AIG" article. I'm not sure if those who keep posting it are expecting a response or something. The article says many things and I wouldn't wish to respond to them all any more than any of you would wish to respond to the "NG" article point by point (and by that, I mean actually offer a thoughtful analysis, not merely post a link to another article).
I have read the article. It's chock full of holes, but I don't have the energy to point them all out.
Well, ok... maybe one:
The article quotes the NG article as saying "illuminating but spotty, the fossil record is like a film of evolution from which 999 out of every 1000 frames have been lost on the cutting-room floor". This is somehow used as a statement against evolution, but that's ridiculous. If you watch a movie and remove %99.9 of the frames, what are you left with? Assuming a 2 hour movie running at 24 frames per second you'd have roughly 170 some odd frames. If I were to take 170 sill images from a two hour movie and throw them on the floor out of sync do you think you couldn't figure out how the movie went? What if you and a bunch of your friends got together and organized the film into a certain order based on logical progression and cause and effect (in frame 37 the character has more hair than in frame 100, so we know that it probably occurs earlier in the timeline). You certainly wouldn't be able to say that you knew the movie in its entirety, and there'd always be room for interpretation and potential for misunderstanding, but there are some things of which you could be certain. You could determine who the main characters were. Probably who was the protagonist and who was the antagonist. Possibly, you could figure out the plot to some degree. If anyone were to tell you that your assesment of the film based on those 170 frames was all wrong because they had a book written by someone who had never even seen the frames which kind of said otherwise what would you think?
Anyway, it's time to feed the six month old whose mind i can't wait to corrupt with secular humanism.
Posted by michael patrick at November 19, 2004 09:51 AM
151.204.83.85
Ha, scientists could not have found this fossil at a better time. Surely, this is a program of the Evil Secular Humanist Conspiracy. :)
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/11/18/great.apes/index.html
http://www.atheistnetwork.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=3035&start=20
And there's a page about abiogenesis. I'm not going to pretend that I'm a know it all about abiogenesis. The only thing I can collect when I think about abiogenesis is the Miller Urey experiment, probably because of the situation of running lightning through chemicals. :)
Posted by Daniel at November 19, 2004 10:08 AM
24.171.46.91
"Do you not agree with the formula:
Dirt + Water + Time = Life
??"
No.
Posted by Wagner at November 19, 2004 08:25 PM
24.28.87.101
Evolution science is the new Catholic Church.
Posted by Anthony at November 19, 2004 09:28 PM
68.59.201.203
And the Catholic Church collected and canonized the books of your Bible.
In your face. :)
Posted by Daniel at November 19, 2004 10:58 PM
24.171.41.40
"Evolution science is the new Catholic Church."
Oddly enough, the Catholics don't have a problem with evolutionary biology. It's only fundamentalist Christians, and only the ones in America, who think that science is a threat to their God.
Maybe it's because their God is smaller than the Catholics' God. They keep cramming into a small box labeled "STUFF WE CAN'T EXPLAIN", and the Catholics let their God out of that box a hell of a long time ago.
Of course, American fundamentalist Christians don't think Catholics are "Real Christians" anyway. I think that's amusing on so many levels.
So, Anthony, where's that Scientific Theory of Creationism? Where's that evidence for Creation? Still dodging the question?
Posted by Wagner at November 19, 2004 11:12 PM
24.28.87.101
Different Anthony. I didn't have time for this anymore. Now I'm just observing. My last post was way back.
Posted by Anthony at November 22, 2004 02:32 PM
207.27.152.6
Looking back at this HUGE thread it has come to my realization no one is going to convince anybody either way. There is evidence for both sides. Evolution vs Creation, intelligent design what ever you wnat to call it. It comes down to making a choice about what you think based on the evidence. It comes down to faith. "Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" Hebrews 11:1
In Genesis chapter one it says "In the beginning God"
Although some would debate me on this, it is not a question of the process but authorship. "God created"
Me personally, I believe this universe was created how I do not know. I believe in a literal Adam and Eve. I believe they were the first humans but not the only. I believe by faith. In the same way others think we were not created but are here by chance.
However, we are never going to settle anything or even attempt to see the others view point as long as we are using the cheap debate devices of insult and intimidation.
This whole thread ties into a very important point. If there is no creator we are not accountable to him. If there is a creator we are accountable to him. I believe we are accountable to God. I believe we have all violated the ten commandments and will be held accountable on judgement day and the guilty will be punished. God, who is merciful made a way for us NOT to die in our sins. 2000 years ago His Son , Jesus Christ died as paymant for our sins. If you repent and trust in Jesus you will be saved. I believe this by faith. I know some of you will scoff at this and think it foolish and absurd. "The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing" 1 Corinthians 1:18. I would just urge anyone reading this to simply ask God to show himself to you. If the statements above are true you owe it to yourself to at least check it out without any preconceived notions.
Posted by Jim at November 22, 2004 03:40 PM
68.97.100.48
"If there is a creator we are accountable to him."
Why?
Posted by Christian Wagner at November 22, 2004 05:02 PM
63.95.64.254
Christian, Got kids?
Posted by Jim at November 22, 2004 07:12 PM
68.97.100.48
Fucking excellent.
Posted by Kevynn at November 22, 2004 07:23 PM
69.166.211.145
"Christian, Got kids?"
Thank you for demonstrating the paucity of your God-Man relationship model. The "Big Bearded Sky-Daddy" model of God is pre-medieval; I'd say it's probably neolithic at best.
It also demonstrates how crappy your relationship with your kids probably is. Your kids are accountable to you because you are their caregiver and provider, not because you gave birth to them. If giving birth was the source of accountability for children, then adoption wouldn't exist, orphans would be accountable to no one, and there could be no such thing as abusive parents (since all parental actions would be within their rights, all the way up to infanticide).
If we are accountable to God, it is because of our relationships with him, not because of his role as a creator deity. And if his relationships with us is are poor ones (Gnostic Demiurge, anyone?), then we would owe him no accountability whatsoever.
Posted by Wagner at November 22, 2004 09:35 PM
24.28.87.101
(this may or may not be a double post. apologies beforehand.)
Jim.
Sorry that I didn't respond to your last email. Been having email problems.
I pretty much gave up trying to convince creationists and ID proponents of the reality of evolution theory and law. The only things I can say I've already said. Evolution is not a religion. It is not a belief system. Science isn't either. Science does not offer salvation. Science does not tell us whether or not we have souls nor what happens to them when we die. Science does not determine the existence or lack thereof of god. Science only deals with verifiable facts. Once god is taken into the equation all facts become questionable.
Scientists and scientifically minded folks such us myself only become frustrated when fundamentalists attempt to pass off rleligous doctrine as scientific fact and or theory. The argument that evolution is just as questionable scientifically as creationsim just doesn't hold any water. And if we are expected to teach creationism as an 'alternate opinion' so that children can make up there own minds then we should probably teach other alternate opinions. Should we teach our children the 'theory' that the world was formed by the corpse of Ymir the giant. Or how about the various earth diver myths of the Americas? We can't leave them out as options. The problem herein lies that all religions have their own take on the origin of life the universe and everything. None of them are scientific theories and therefore do not belong in science class. Religous beliefs should be taught in church, or by the parents or even in religous schools.
Posted by michael patrick at November 22, 2004 10:13 PM
63.164.145.198
"Thank you for demonstrating the paucity of your God-Man relationship model. The "Big Bearded Sky-Daddy" model of God is pre-medieval; I'd say it's probably neolithic at best."
Christian,
It is pre-medieval
"I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Matthew 18:3
1. You never answered my question.
2. You insulted me
Were you ever on a debate team?
My child/father relationship model is valid and is modeled numerous places in scripture
"A father to the fatherless, a defender of widows, is God in his holy dwelling." Psalm 68:5
Everyone is accountable to God because He created us and He is sovereign (He makes the rules). We are not accountable to God because of our relationship or lack thereof with Him. If you want no relationship with Him and you reject the only offer of forgiveness He has made in Jesus Christ then you are right, you do not consider yourself accountable. Do you think that since He made you and gave you life and all the good things in your life that maybe you owe Him at least a thought?
However, the relationship has no bearing. The Bible says you will be held accountable. Relationship or no relationship.
"Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God." Romans 3:19
God doesn't want you to owe Him anything Christian, He wants to forgive you and love you.
Posted by Jim at November 22, 2004 10:34 PM
68.97.100.48
"Thank you for demonstrating the paucity of your God-Man relationship model. The "Big Bearded Sky-Daddy" model of God is pre-medieval; I'd say it's probably neolithic at best."
Christian,
It is pre-medieval
"I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Matthew 18:3
1. You never answered my question.
2. You insulted me
Were you ever on a debate team?
My child/father relationship model is valid and is modeled numerous places in scripture
"A father to the fatherless, a defender of widows, is God in his holy dwelling." Psalm 68:5
Everyone is accountable to God because He created us and He is sovereign (He makes the rules). We are not accountable to God because of our relationship or lack thereof with Him. If you want no relationship with Him and you reject the only offer of forgiveness He has made in Jesus Christ then you are right, you do not consider yourself accountable. Do you think that since He made you and gave you life and all the good things in your life that maybe you owe Him at least a thought?
However, the relationship has no bearing. The Bible says you will be held accountable. Relationship or no relationship.
"Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God." Romans 3:19
God doesn't want you to owe Him anything Christian, He wants to forgive you and love you.
Posted by jim at November 22, 2004 10:37 PM
68.97.100.48
Sorry, double post
Posted by Jim at November 22, 2004 10:39 PM
68.97.100.48
Jim, what do you think about the idea that Yahweh was a member of the Canaanite pantheon?
Posted by Daniel at November 22, 2004 10:46 PM
24.171.42.186
Michael Patrick,
I think you are right about not teaching creationism in the school. I do believe in the constitution and the state not establishing a religion. I just would like educators to present evolution as a theory among others.
Posted by Jim at November 22, 2004 10:53 PM
68.97.100.48
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
Where is the scientific theory of creationism?
If the schools present evolutionary biology and Intelligent Design or whatever is the flavor of the week in the Christian community, then will Christian churches reciprocate this spirit of fairness and present Christianity as a religion among others? You bet your ass they won't. :)
Posted by Daniel at November 22, 2004 11:50 PM
24.171.42.186
Daniel,
What your really asking me is did the israelites borrow a canaanite god and just clean him up and submit to a set of really strict set of rules, or did the canaanites borrow the Israelite god and dirty him up. Both unlikely. The Israelites did worship Baal and other Canaanite gods it is recorded in the old testament.
Posted by Jim at November 23, 2004 05:51 AM
68.97.100.48
So, how did that come about? I mean, why didn't god smite them at the first sign of them worshipping other gods? He's usually so strict about that.
Posted by lukbhindu at November 23, 2004 06:42 AM
193.1.172.148
lukbhindu,
You are right. God is very strict about worshipping other gods (1st and 2nd commandment) The countless times Israel went astray He sent prophets to warn them to stop it. He left it up to them.
Posted by Jim at November 23, 2004 09:53 AM
137.240.136.81
Go OU!!!
Posted by Jim at November 23, 2004 10:21 AM
137.240.136.81
http://cc.usu.edu/~fath6/contents-bible.htm
There's also discoveries like the Ugaritic texts.
Posted by Daniel at November 23, 2004 12:32 PM
24.171.45.62
http://www.apologeticspress.org/defdocs/rr1993/r&r9307a.htm
Yes, you are right. This and other discoveries have shed light on alot from the OT. However, the similarities should not be over emphasised. Thank you for the link. I didn't read all of it but I have heard most of what I did read before in one form or another.
I have really enjoyed writing and sharing opinions here. This is taking far too much time out of my day though. I have three jobs and four kids and I just don't have the time anymore.
I would urge all of you to just read my posts with an open mind and heart. I am guessing that most of you think yourselves too educated or intelligent to believe in God. But I assure you belief in God does not mean you leave your intellect at the door. Just ask God to reveal Himself to you with a sincere heart.
I would like to continue contact with all of you via e-mail I you want to drop me aline. I will check back from time to time.
Grace and Peace
In Christ,
Jim
Posted by jim at November 23, 2004 03:26 PM
68.97.100.48
Nice one Daniel. Very interesting. Jim- what does go ou mean?
Posted by lukbhindu at November 23, 2004 03:32 PM
213.202.158.154
University of Oklahoma
Do you watch college football at all?
Posted by Jim at November 23, 2004 03:36 PM
68.97.100.48
BTW Happy Thanksgiving everybody!
Posted by Jim at November 23, 2004 03:40 PM
68.97.100.48
"1. You never answered my question."
That's because your question was stupid and irrelevant.
"2. You insulted me"
That's because you deserved it for asking a stupid and irrelevant question.
"But I assure you belief in God does not mean you leave your intellect at the door."
No, just belief in young-earth Creationism.
Posted by Wagner at November 24, 2004 12:43 AM
24.28.87.101
Dear trolling sock puppet,
It is especially foolish of you to be performing your dubious hobby on a board where your IP address is posted immediately beneath your "name".
Posted by michael patrick at November 25, 2004 10:05 AM
151.204.26.135
Trolling sock puppet has been removed. No shitting in my blog.
AS YOU WERE, DEARS.
Posted by spike at November 25, 2004 06:51 PM
68.20.25.12
IT'S A SCIENTIST CONSPIRACY! BREAK THROUGH THE MATRIX NEO!
Posted by Joachim Vanhauwaert at November 27, 2004 02:31 AM
213.119.96.157
cant understand what all the fuss is about really. Surely if you take the time to read Darwin's theory and the vast amount of work done since it will be vividly clear to anyone, apart maybe from the brain-dead gullible religious types, that evolution by means of natural selection is a very credible theory, which has not been challenged since being devised. The biblical version of creation is, on the other hand, well flawed is being too nice, let's just say insipid and corrupt!!
Maybe some of the folks posting here should read and study a bit before belching forth such crackpot, and actually very childish views. I certainly dont think its fair to hack into one of the most credible and important scientific theories just because you believe in some silly volume of, at best, morality tales. Maybe one or two of the posters here should attempt to evolve themselves and try living in the real world rather than their cosseted religious fairyland. Afterall if God seemingly created humans in his own image I'm sure he never thought that he could create you guys with heads full of turnip! But then again I suppose that is just another proof of evolution now isnt it!!!!!
Posted by the rev at November 29, 2004 04:19 AM
130.159.54.3
"brain-dead gullible religious types"
"childish views"
"silly volume of, at best, morality tales."
"religious fairyland"
"heads full of turnip"
I don't know what to say to this. Your debating technique is right on par with Wagner (and most of the 'intellectuals' I've debated). No real facts or data. Just name calling.
I can't say that you are a waste of time because Jesus never turned his back on anyone. Neither should I. But I'm feeling like the debate isn't constructive.
You're a scientific bully. You think by screaming the loudest that somehow you are correct. There are enough people doing that on both sides of this conflict. You don't need to add to the confusion.
Saying you are right doesn't make you right.
There is a possibility that there is a God.
There is a possibility that the world was created.
You assume that man can know everything that there is to know.
I say man can not even come close to understanding the complexity of this world.
The Bible explains in detail how it happened.
I choose to believe it.
You choose to look for other answers. You don't actually have any answers but you just know in your heart that the Bible can't be it.
That's fine.
Keep looking.
I don't call you ignorant for looking.
You call me ignorant for feeling like I've found it. I've stopped looking.
Everything that casts doubt on the Bible's account can be theoretically answered. If you had something concrete, some 'fact', I would deny the Bible.
That 'fact' hasn't come along.
Until it does, I plan to fight to keep the indoctrination of our children towards natural origins out of our public schools.
I will fight to get every reference to a 4.6 billion year old earth out of the textbooks.
I will fight to get every reference to humans being related to apes out of the textbooks.
And I will fight to level the playing field between our two religions.
I'm done with your site Spike.
You're a wonderful artist and you have a great deal of talent.
Thank you for allowing your site to be used for this debate.
God Bless,
Dave
Posted by Dave at November 29, 2004 03:35 PM
199.105.197.100
"Everything that casts doubt on the Bible's account can be theoretically answered. If you had something concrete, some 'fact', I would deny the Bible."
No, you wouldn't. And everybody here knows it, Dave.
I'm sorry you hate the science that makes your computer work; you should throw it away, because the same quantum physics that makes your PC operate says that the universe is about four and a half billion years old.
I know you won't take the time to understand the scientific evidence that you dismiss, so I hope you have a nice life instead. You probably will, since ignorance is bliss, after all.
And as long as you fight for ignorance, for insisting that a literal interpretation of books written by flat-earthers is an adequate replacement for modern science, those of us who actually care about the human condition will continue to fight right back.
See you on the battlefield, Dave.
Posted by Wagner at November 29, 2004 08:18 PM
24.28.87.101
And for those of you still paying attention, here's a pretty damn fine piece of writing on the subject, a little harsher than I would put it, but along many of the same lines I would use:
http://www.zenarchery.com/archives/001695.html
Posted by Wagner at November 30, 2004 09:47 PM
24.28.87.101
www.ApologeticsPress.org has interesting comments. If you have read the NG article on Darwin and evol.. this is a must read
Posted by monica at December 3, 2004 02:12 PM
4.245.17.44
Wow. That article at Apologetics Press is yet another giant collection of out-of-context quotes and huge misrepretentations of the facts. The fact that they present the late Conrad H. Waddington as being an anti-evolutionist is a brutal piece of intellectual dishonesty; I feel no qualms in calling them outright liars and frauds based on that one out-of-context quote alone, and will not bother with any further analysis.
Monica, get better sources, please.
Posted by Wagner at December 4, 2004 01:06 PM
24.28.87.101
Check out Kent Hovind. He has great creation arguments. He's got many DVD's on Evolution vs. Creation that are very good, including one titled, "100 Reasons Evolution is Stupid." He's a very famous man. One of the best debators on the topic for sure.
Posted by Hank at December 8, 2004 12:35 AM
63.229.193.180
Now Hank is just trolling. Nobody can take Kent Hovind seriously. Not even the other Creationists take Kent Hovind seriously.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/
The man sells copies of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" for Christ's sake. He's a crank and a nutjob and he was recently busted for tax evasion, which made a lot of us laugh out loud.
Posted by Wagner at December 8, 2004 06:40 AM
24.28.87.101
I just read the article, and was rather PO’ed that it failed to count those of us who accept an old universe, even “billyons and billyons” of years old, yet still reject Darwinism, or Punk-Eek, as a plausible explanation as to the diversity of life on earth. I assume that our group, usually called OECs, were lumped in with the “don’t know/don’t care” that made up the undesignated remainder in the polls.
The author mistakenly insists that anti-evolutionists primarily grew up in the Bible Belt, were home-schooled, or kept in religious schools, and were not exposed to “true science.”
The truth is that many of us Boomers were raised in industrial areas, such as, in my case, NYS, received public educations, went on to secular universities, received degrees in science or engineering, and was force-fed this drivel all the way.
However, having not pursued a degree in “evolutionary biology” or, worse, “public education,” we were free to look at the facts as if our livelihood didn’t depend on it, and found that most of the “evidence” just didn’t add up. And much of it was parroted in the NG article in question.
For example, the author cites embryologic evidence, also know as “Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny,” is a cornerstone in the support of Darwinism. That old saw, still found in textbooks a century after it was discredited by nearly the whole scientific community, shows how desperate the evolutionists are.
Likewise, he cites evolution as the keystone of modern medicine, especially in the never ending fight against infectious diseases.
Yet, he discusses the development of drug-resistant strains of bacteria since the advent of antibiotics in the 40’s, but yet these strains are still the same species; the organisms called “E. coli” during WWII are still called “E. coli,” which means they are still the same species. Where does “The Origin of the SPECIES” fit in? After all, during the numerous pandemic outbreaks in history, such as the “Spanish Flu” epidemic in 1918, some people had a natural immunity, and lived, while others did not, and died. Does that mean that the survivors were of a different “species” than the victims? I DON’T THINK SO!
I could go on, but I have probably taken too much of your bandwidth.
Don’t let those who can provide pretty solid, physical evidence for an old Cosmos drag you into the Primal Soup of Darwinism. They are basically running on empty, scientifically.
Posted by normfromga at December 10, 2004 04:08 PM
137.244.215.51
Norm, Old-Earth Creationists are lumped in with Young-Earth Creationists because you're both ignoring vast piles of scientific evidence because you either don't understand it, haven't bothered to read it, or it makes you uncomfortable. Since you seem to think that evolutionary biology claims that disease survivors are a different species from disease victims, I'm guessing you fall into the first category, those who simply fail to understand it properly.
Here's some fuel for your engine: "29+ Evidences For Common Descent"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
If that's "running on empty", then the Creationism-Mobile is up on blocks in the front yard with weeds growing through the engine block.
Posted by Wagner at December 10, 2004 10:41 PM
24.28.87.101
Oh, and more specifically:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#ontogeny
"Some evolutionary critics wrongly think that because Ernst Haeckel's "Biogenetic Law" is false, embryology can no longer provide evidence for evolution. However, this is a curious assessment, since neither modern evolutionary theory nor modern developmental biology are based upon Haeckel's observations and theories. The discussion above is in no way an endorsement of either "Von Baer's Laws" or Haeckel's Biogenetic Law. Both of these fail as scientific laws, and both are incorrect as generalizations. Evolutionary change can proceed via these patterns, but it often does not.
The ideas of Ernst Haeckel greatly influenced the early history of embryology in the 19th century. Haeckel hypothesized that "Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny", meaning that during its development an organism passes through stages resembling its adult ancestors. However, Haeckel's ideas long have been superseded by those of Karl Ernst von Baer, his predecessor. Von Baer suggested that the embryonic stages of an individual should resemble the embryonic stages of other closely related organisms, rather than resembling its adult ancestors. Haeckel's Biogenetic Law has been discredited since the late 1800's, and it is not a part of modern (or even not-so-modern) evolutionary theory. Haeckel thought only the final stages of development could be altered appreciably by evolution, but we have known that to be false for nearly a century. All developmental stages can be modified during evolution, though the phylotypic stage may be more constrained than others. For more about Haeckel's Biogenetic Law, developmental phylotypes, and the evidence embryology provides in modern evolutionary theory, see "Wells and Haeckel's Embryos" by PZ Meyers, or refer to a modern developmental biology college-level textbook such as Gilbert 1997, pp. 912-914."
Posted by Wagner at December 10, 2004 10:43 PM
24.28.87.101
normfromga, I thought that the formal definition of "species" is when two creatures of different species can't produce offspring. Or the offspring can't produce offspring. So I think the survivors of the Spanish Flu are still human. :)
Of course, I don't know how that applies to bacteria, since they just split in half to reproduce.
Posted by Melike at December 15, 2004 10:37 AM
18.247.6.136
BLASPHEMY!
Posted by Leonard Ternowski at December 15, 2004 09:10 PM
66.217.45.57
Wagner wrote:
"Nobody can take Kent Hovind seriously. Not even the other Creationists take Kent Hovind seriously."
I agree completely. However, I don't believe that the other Creationists take themselves seriously, either. Let me explain.
The fact that guys like Hovind can write about evolution in evolution's terms shows that they read the material in order to refute it. A reading of scientific evolutionary material leaves little to doubt about the correctness of the premise.
The naked fact is that this creationist stuff is not meant to be taken seriously. It exists simply to bait others. Why? Because claiming a belief in the patently unbelievable is a way for these folks to create and appose a socially-unifying enemy, namely us. This gives fundamentalists a sense of social solidarity. In a socially alienating world, who can blame them? It has nothing whatsoever to do with truth.
I proclaim the truth of evolution for a social reason as well. My firm belief is that our society cannot endure as long as we abandon truth. All manner of devious and evil behavior has been justified with anti-intellectual appeals to emotion. I do not say here that the creationists are necessarily evil. There are no doubt others responding to this list who will appose fundamentalists for the same reasons they appose us. Creationism vs. evolution is a social issue not a religious vs. science issue. That's my view.
Posted by Mark Buchner at December 17, 2004 12:24 AM
24.9.21.119
The first 5 books of the Bible are a 5 act play?
Posted by www.vonbora.org at December 18, 2004 08:04 AM
70.177.20.179
The Ahora Covenant Inscription was first published in the Field Notes Section of Research & Exploration, A Scholarly Publication of the National Geographic Society, Autumn Issue, 1994.
http://www.vonbora.org/inscript.html
Posted by www.vonbora.org at December 18, 2004 08:09 AM
70.177.20.179
^^^ AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ^^^
Posted by spike at December 18, 2004 08:23 AM
68.20.182.178
I am left utterly speechless by the Von Bora site. How they managed to get from this photo:
http://www.vonbora.org/images/inscrip1.gif
to this "inscription":
http://www.vonbora.org/images/inscrip.gif
is something I truly cannot fathom. Although their version of the proto-Sumerian heiroglyph for "penis", supposedly meaning "man", is damn amusing. GOD DRAWS COCKS ON WALLS.
Posted by Wagner at December 18, 2004 10:41 AM
24.28.87.101
While it is prudent to avoid hasty presumptions or accusations about who has authored a particular written record, It is a settled matter of science that the earliest forms of writing (extant) in all the world come from the region near present day Iraq.
Veysel Donbaz is the Chief Specialist and Curator of the Cuneiform Tablet Archives of the Archaeological Museums in Эstanbul, Turkey. (The tablet was found in the far eastern reaches of Turkey near the Iraq border.) He has verified the tablet is written in proto-sumerian (before Sumer) and he has established the accuracy of the initial translation of the writing. Locals in the region claim that there are many more similar tablets of pictographic proto-sumerian in the same general area were the tablet was discovered. Access to the region has been denied to scientists and foreigners on the basis of “security concerns” since the first tablet was photographed in 1990.
Veysel Donbaz is actively working with many colleagues at the museums of Turkey, the Ministry of Culture of Turkey, and other international organizations in order to do further scientific research of the area and of other tablets should they exist, as reported by the Kurds who are locals in the restricted region.
Veysel Donbaz and others in the museums of Turkey and the Ministry of Culture in Turkey insisted that it was necessary to publish the discovery of the inscription and it’s initial translation in an internationally recognized publication.
It was published by National Geographic in 1994 in “Research & Exploration” in the field notes section, in the Autumn issue, which ironically was their last hardcopy issue. (The periodical was first titled “NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC RESEARCH and was published until autumn 1990, then the title was changed to NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC RESEARCH & EXPLORATION and published in hard copy until Autumn 1994. On-line subscriptions to the archived issues of all the National Geographic periodicals has been available in the past. National Geographic can be contacted regarding archived copies of the issue.
While many libraries subscribe to the basic National Geographic publication, only large universities subscribed to the more specialized periodical titled “Research & Exploration”.
Posted by www.vonbora.org at December 18, 2004 06:40 PM
70.177.20.179
Oh, I do not doubt that the earliest forms of writing were probably from that area, and looked pretty much like that. But to attribute some scribbles on a rock to the Word Of God To Noah Warning Him Of The Coming Flood is really bloody amusing, especially when the symbol for "man" is a GIANT PENIS.
GOD DRAWS COCKS ON WALLS.
Posted by Christian Wagner at December 18, 2004 07:50 PM
24.27.35.180
Hasty conclusions regarding a proposition surely results in a faulty assessment and inaccurate understanding of the actual claims. If one does not first understand what is actually proposed (the hypothesis) then one cannot accurately asses the validity of that hypothesis nor can they skillfully show any error that may exist. If one does not address the propositional statements then one has not addressed the proposition, and should not pretend to have.
National Geographic published the Ahora Covenant Inscription. Therefore it must be accurate. No?
Posted by www.vonbora.org at December 18, 2004 11:12 PM
70.177.20.179
Please show me exactly what data National Geographic published. Please realize that I work for the second-largest university in the United States and that I will be verifying any claims by walking over to one of our libraries and looking it up. I may scan in the material and make parts of it available online to thread participants, temporarily of course.
NGR&E, Vol. 10, No. 4, 1994, p. 484, apparently. I assume that if you're making these claims, you have access to the source material yourself?
Posted by Wagner at December 19, 2004 10:24 AM
24.28.87.101
I have no more access to source information regarding the claims than you do. (Except that being at a large university in the US you may have colleagues or associates with contacts at Ataturk University.) Perhaps the way I posted the info caused confusion. Please accept my apology if I caused any. I am not the author of the vonbora.org site or the claims it makes. I simply heard about the site several years ago and have kept a close eye on the site and have attempted to verify information presented on the site with information that is available in the public record.
There are various details throughout the site that can be substantiated in the public record. (The details I speak of do not directly affect the heart of the claims but do speak to the credibility of the site in general.) The claims are extraordinarily detailed and I have not been able to disprove any of the secondary facts. The facts that go to the heart of the propositions are also made in extraordinary detail and could easily be disproved or substantiated if Turkey would allow experts to research the site and surrounding area where the inscription was found.
The technology and the experts to do the work exist and there are many that are pursuing permits and submitting proposals in order to win the necessary permission from the government of Turkey.
Posted by Anderson at December 20, 2004 03:00 AM
70.177.20.179
Translation of Anderson-speak: "I have no idea what NGR&E actually published and have been talking out my ass. Excuse me while I backpedal furiously."
Assuming I don't have to skip lunch today, I will attempt to find the appropriate issue of NGR&E (since that's the heart of this argument).
Posted by Wagner at December 20, 2004 06:40 AM
24.28.87.101
You make an uncharacteristically excessive number of accusations and assumptions without warrant.
By source material it would have been understood that you were asking if I had access to the rock that the inscription is on. No, I do not. All the information I have is in the public record and is equally available to you. It is imminently verifiable. You can make your own conclusions about the credibility. I have read the article. And you have sufficient information to find the article yourself. Additional information since 1994 is also available publicly in various venues.
I am not privileged to any source material that is published in NG and therefore must take at face value what they say, substantiating other items of information that I can by other sources. Though they have sometimes been in error they usually would publish a retraction if they made a significant mistake or had a hoax played on them.
In the end we find that our acceptance of “scientific conclusions” are still a matter of belief and confidence in someone else that has proposed the hypothesis or perhaps in someone else who has corroborated the hypothesis, because it is an extremely rare instance when we can actually get at the source material and make our own scientific and methodical conclusion, even if we had the expertise. (For instance have you ever held the Rosetta Stone? How do we know it exists if we have not? Are we sure the secrets that it is reported to have revealed are accurate? Of course we don’t doubt the veracity. And that is the point. We believe. We may even believe that we ourselves could discover the same things about the Rosetta Stone if we got our hands on it, but still we would have to rely on some experts to assist us with much knowledge that we do not have and do not have the lifetime to gain. It therefore still remains based on an issue of belief at some level.)
Neither of us will likely ever hold the Ahora Covenant Inscription and even if we could I know I would have to rely on some experts to use special technology to get the tool marks off the stone distinguished from the other marks of erosion and decay, much less to translate it.
Consider the propositions of any argument and choose who you believe. Do not be hasty to pass judgment one way or the other. It takes time to sufficiently corroborate or disprove. It took over1400 years to read Egyptian hieroglyphs and even once the Rosetta Stone was found it took twenty some years to figure it out. Most of all, don’t lie to yourself by making unjustified allowances for the argument made by someone that you hope to believe rather than the one who may yet be shown more credible.
Posted by Anderson at December 21, 2004 01:24 AM
70.177.20.179
Blah, blah, blah. You made a claim, and I called you on it, and now you're using lots of big words to cover up the fact that National Geographic didn't, in fact, say what you claimed it said. You can argue about the philosophy of science until you're blue in the face, and it doesn't matter.
I am current at home sick, after leaving work early yesterday. (Flu, running a fever, etc.) As soon as I get back to campus I will look up the NGR&E issue and put this silly crap to rest.
Posted by Wagner at December 21, 2004 10:24 AM
24.28.87.101
I hope you feel better soon and have a hasty recovery.
You would do well not to be hasty in your conclusion of what I claimed. Your credibility of logic is at stake. Red hearings won’t suffice. There is a difference in discrediting someone and being yet unable to verify.
You of course question my credibility. That is fair. Let me offer you another claim that you can more easily know if I am telling the truth, and others reading the board can easily verify for themselves.
Suppose I say that your middle initial is “K”.
You know immediately if I am telling the truth. Others must judge for themselves if I am credible. You can deny that your middle initial is “K” and then they would have to choose who they are to believe regarding our claims about your middle initial, you or me. And even after additional evidence is presented on this board arguing one way or another, the readers must still consider the possibility that you and I are actually the same poster playing a big hoax. There conclusion of what they believe would rest on the foundation of who they believe.
The claim that your middle initial is “K” is an example of a secondary claim that does not directly speak to the primary statements. However, if someone is able to prove a plethora of secondary claims are false, then it would seriously call into question the credibility of the one making them, and thus make it much more difficult to believe the veracity of the primary claim.
I have independently verified many secondary claims on the vonbora.org website. I have not been able to discredit even one secondary claim. It does not necessarily follow that all of the claims on www.vonbora.org are true, but as yet, their credibility is untarnished.
I invite you to patiently and carefully read the claims of www.vonbora.org and find even one claim that is demonstrably false. Be careful. Submit to reason rather than prejudice. Don’t be hasty. It usually leads to egg on face. And remember that “Ad hominem” and “red hearing” don’t’ cut the mustard.
Sleep well.
Posted by Anderson at December 21, 2004 06:01 PM
70.177.20.179
"Red hearings won’t suffice."
That's "herrings". If you're going to pretend to be smarter than everybody else by throwing around fancy words, get your terminology right. Otherwise you look like a bit of a schmuck.
But by all means, keep using those big words you don't understand in an attempt to distract people from your original (false) claim.
Posted by Wagner at December 21, 2004 07:59 PM
24.28.87.101
Ah… it is not a matter of understanding the words, it is a matter of spelling. Spelling never was my forte and once again my reliance on Microsoft spell check failed me. Spell check hasn’t evolved to your skill. But in Microsoft’s defense they have probably evolved to your level of grace.
If you have assumed that I do not embrace the idea of evolution through natural selection it would be unwarranted. I never stated nor implied such. Though I will admit that the slow evolution of your logic does strain the theory! Having been warned of the folly revealed by haste, and the impotence of both an ad hominem or red herring argument, you yet determined hastily to engaged in both. Perhaps you should blame it on the fever.
In the interest of evolution, you should consider a few more things.
First, my original claim was simply that the Ahora Covenant inscription was published in NGR&E. With a little effort you will be able to verify it.
Second, all my subsequent claims (even that your middle initial is “K”) are as easily verifiable by anyone that is so inclined to search the public record.
Again, you should refrain from haste. Your response reveals an early evolution in your logic. “But to attribute some scribbles on a rock to the Word Of God To Noah Warning Him Of The Coming Flood is really bloody amusing, especially when the symbol for "man" is a GIANT PENIS.
GOD DRAWS COCKS ON WALLS”
Either you did not take care to understand the claim of vonbora.org, or you simply didn’t have a better argument than the red herring. I am not aware that anyone has argued the Ahora Covenant inscription was 1) chiseled into a “wall”, 2) written to warn Noah of “The Coming Flood”, or 3) that it was chiseled by God. If one is to accuse someone of lying, they should at least be able to properly explain the lie, or it may call into question their unbiased scientific approach of discovery.
Be methodical and patient. Wait till your fever is gone. What is the rush?
Posted by Anderson at December 21, 2004 10:56 PM
70.177.20.179
"Be methodical and patient."
Why? The vonbora.org stuff is right up there with Bigfoot sightings and UFOlogy. It deserves scorn and ridicule. And so do you, for taking it seriously.
Posted by Wagner at December 22, 2004 06:52 AM
24.28.87.101
Surely you can do better. No? No, you cannot. Your very approach prevents it. Perhaps you should use a lifeline.
It is not the scientific method that is at fault but hypocrites who call themselves scientists. They quickly give up when they cannot easily show something is false, even though they started out with such vigor and self-confidence that they could.
The scientific method of discovery is an excellent approach. It is a fortress of sound reason that should not be abandoned when you are faced with the possibility that your assumptions were wrong. And certainly if you choose to abandon the fortress of reason you should choose something more adequate than the little indefensible hut of vitriol and hate.
Your evolution in logic seems to be stuck in a rut. May I offer you a little help to speed you to a higher plane. Look to your friend Spike who is much more advanced than you are. He quickly realized he should not address a claim that he could not disprove, and chose rather to immediately employ the primary defense of all skilled pseudo-scientists, running in disdainful denial.
Perhaps you should try to rally the troops. Get together and prove why National Geographic has been duped. Surely they need to write an apology to the readers about why they published the Ahora Covenant inscription. NG has unwittingly published heresy within their own holy book. They must be brought back from the error of their ways. You can alert them!
Don’t forget to use the scientific method, lest your assistance cause them more harm. (Actually address the argument and find something demonstrably false. Surely you know a few scientists that can find at least one thing that is demonstrably false. Just one thing.)
I am looking forward to their retraction/correction. I just hope they are still around when they have to print it. Perhaps you can scan it for us and provide it on the board for everyone, temporarily of course!
Hope you feel better,
Cheers!
Posted by Anderson at December 22, 2004 02:36 PM
70.177.20.179
Surely you can do better. No? No, you cannot. Your very approach prevents it. Perhaps you should use a lifeline.
It is not the scientific method that is at fault but hypocrites who call themselves scientists. They quickly give up when they cannot easily show something is false, even though they started out with such vigor and self-confidence that they could.
The scientific method of discovery is an excellent approach. It is a fortress of sound reason that should not be abandoned when you are faced with the possibility that your assumptions were wrong. And certainly if you choose to abandon the fortress of reason you should choose something more adequate than the little indefensible hut of vitriol and hate.
Your evolution in logic seems to be stuck in a rut. May I offer you a little help to speed you to a higher plane. Look to your friend Spike who is much more advanced than you are. He quickly realized he should not address a claim that he could not disprove, and chose rather to immediately employ the primary defense of all skilled pseudo-scientists, running in disdainful denial.
Perhaps you should try to rally the troops. Get together and prove why National Geographic has been duped. Surely they need to write an apology to the readers about why they published the Ahora Covenant inscription. NG has unwittingly published heresy within their own holy book. They must be brought back from the error of their ways. You can alert them!
Don’t forget to use the scientific method, lest your assistance cause them more harm. (Actually address the argument and find something demonstrably false. Surely you know a few scientists that can find at least one thing that is demonstrably false. Just one thing.)
I am looking forward to their retraction/correction. I just hope they are still around when they have to print it. Perhaps you can scan it for us and provide it on the board for everyone, temporarily of course!
Hope you feel better,
Cheers!
Posted by Anderson at December 22, 2004 02:39 PM
70.177.20.179
"Look to your friend Spike who is much more advanced than you are. He quickly realized"
She. But then, we kind of figured you're not from around here, Sparky.
Got the book. Going to scan the page tonight. I had a good laugh when I realized what was going on, although I don't think you'll be quite as amused, Anderson.
By the way, Anderson, I'm going to ask you something up-front in the meanwhile: are you seriously claiming that there is scientific truth behind the Flood story from Genesis? Because that's what it sounds like you are claiming. Please be specific and do not dance around the question.
Posted by Wagner at December 22, 2004 03:49 PM
146.6.154.195
She… Yes, thank you. Perhaps the town marshal can plead with her to forgive my temporary ignorance seeing that I am now enlightened and meant no offense.
As to your securing the published article in NGR&E I applauded your research ability. Now you have confirmed two of my statements 1) that your middle initial is “K” and 2) that the Ahora Covenant Inscription was published in NGR&E in 1994. My other claims can be substantiated too by anyone who wishes to spend the time.
As for your question: “are you seriously claiming that there is scientific truth behind the Flood story from Genesis?” Read carefully because I will be brief.
No.
Gee whiz, there really seems to be no end of what you will accuse me of. The ad hominem approach is really boring me.
As to whether I will be amused… You underestimate my sense of humor. My sense of humor has evolved extensively and is getting better by the day (I have passed Bill Gates like he was standing still. I know that’s not saying a lot, but I have to start somewhere. I am finding this evolution thing takes time and I can’t seem to rush it.)
I think I will go for a long walk and come back in a few weeks to see what you all have come up with. I am looking forward to it. In addition to Bigfoot, UFOs, and cold fusion, perhaps I will return and find out what other outlandish things I believe in. I do hope I don’t walk too far and fall off the edge of the earth. It would be a shame to miss an opportunity for my humor to evolve. Ahh… natural selection. I guess I really just don’t have any choice in the matter.
Cheers,
Posted by Anderson at December 22, 2004 05:08 PM
70.177.20.179
Well, since you're doing the old "you people are boring nd stupid so I'm going to quit talking to you" routine, you obviously will have nothing to say about this.
http://www.io.com/~cwagner/ararat/
Posted by Wagner at December 22, 2004 08:11 PM
24.28.87.101
I'm not at all familiar with NGR&E. Since it is a scholarly publication, I assume that the article was open to criticism and was therefore dissected by other scholars. Or was that article published in the April issue?
Posted by michael patrick at December 24, 2004 11:09 AM
141.150.206.98
Michael, it was published in the very last issue of NGR&E ever made, the Autumn 1994 issue. If any criticism or analysis of the piece was made, it was done outside of the pages of NGR&E. It's entirely likely that since it was a single one-page piece, presenting nothing that could be independently verified or analyzed, that it was roundly ignored.
NGR&E wasn't exactly a peer-reviewed scientific journal, after all. Its standards were not scientifically rigorous; if they were, then I doubt that Crawford would have been able to get away with not providing photographs of the "inscription".
That said, this copy of Volume 10 of NGR&E that I've checked out of the university library has a lot of amazing work in it. While it's not up to scientific journal levels, it's still much "heavier" than the standard NG issues. Lots to pore over, even in a ten-year-old volume.
Posted by Wagner at December 24, 2004 02:40 PM
24.28.87.101
"I just wish I could see all their faces when they sit down to read it."
That's assuming they can read. This is classic stuff. Now to find the back issue and buy it…
To the batcave!
Posted by Terry Tolleson at January 10, 2005 09:09 AM
206.77.59.184
At last, it fizzled out. And Wagner had the last word.
Good for you, Wagner.
Posted by Anthony at January 17, 2005 08:18 AM
204.116.115.6
I enjoyed that last discussion. Christian is a total brute behind a keyboard but that Anderson guy really made me laugh. He's pretty witty (even though he can't spell). Christian makes me laugh too but I'm more ashamed that I find that kind of behavior funny.
I don't condone it though.
; )
Thanks for getting the article Christian. It was interesting. Didn't care for your commentary but it did make me giggle.
Your Brother in Christ,
Dave
Posted by Dave at January 18, 2005 03:11 PM
199.105.197.100
i am taking a class at city college and the professor requires that we have the nov. 2004 issue of national geographic for class, i was wondering if i anyone on this site would be willing to send me a copy or know of a place that i could buy a copy for this class. if you are against helping students out i could pay for shipping and the price that you paid for the magazine if anyone can help me out my email address is mikeysullivan@gmail.com
Posted by Mikey at January 20, 2005 01:31 AM
63.197.76.87
This is a long and exhaustive discussion. I have read through most of the comments. As a Christian I am perplexed how people of many walks detest me for my beliefs. I do not believe the evolutionary theory is corrective - but using the principles of the scientific approach it can neither be proven or denied. The same is true of a creation view of origins. My two cents is that the argument can only be solved through historical, legal approaches to the topic. I can no sooner prove to you the origin of earth as much as what I ate for breakfast two weeks back using the scientific approach. The heart of this argument lies in a belief in God. Either you accept Him as creator of the universe and Lord of your life, or you reject His existence and leave all hope in chance. I cannot persuade you either way with facts and figures... you must accept Him by faith. I hope today many of you will at least consider His existence.
Humbling walking toward the Light,
Norm
Posted by Norm at February 1, 2005 12:05 PM
12.163.14.178
"I do not believe the evolutionary theory is corrective - but using the principles of the scientific approach it can neither be proven or denied."
You do not understand the scientific method. The scientific method cannot prove a model; it can only disprove one. And the fact that the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology has not been disproven does not mean that it *cannot* be disproven.
I could disprove heliocentrism, tomorrow, if I had the right evidence. The fact that said evidence is very unlikely to exist doesn't make heliocentrism not scientific.
(By the way, proving to us what you ate two weeks for breakfast using the scientific approach would also involve using evidence. I'm sure you could think of a way if you tried. I can think of at least three or four and I'm not trying hard.)
Posted by Wagner at February 4, 2005 08:45 AM
146.6.154.196
Man, I can't believe this thread is still kicking.
Last summer Wired ran an article about the whole ID issue. Regarding those who wish to introduce ID as an 'alternative opinion' was the the blurb “Some people deny the holocaust, but we don’t teach that in history.”
Of course, if creationists and their ilk insist on getting equal time and disclaimers on text books, then I want to be able to teach criticial thinking and the scientific proccess in church and on the PAX network.
Posted by Michael Patrick at February 6, 2005 01:29 PM
63.164.145.85
Modern synthesis = outside force creating something
evolutionary biology = study of evolutionary thinking (as it changes every year)
I believe this argument can go on all day and most will not move. It is just like democrats and republicans - lots of banter but not much accomplished. I appreciate your eloquent words, but I will not move any further on this issue because of your sarcastic and demeaning tone. Choose your way and I will stay with mine... I actually hope you will come to know real truth, even though that would mean I have to spend all of eternity with you. God doesn't have to prove himself to you and one day no evidence will be require for you to understand you were wrong.
By the way... bring your arguments and theories to the table in my church. However, leave your smug and rude tone at the door. Why is it you judge thousands of dedicated and genuine Christians against your solitary ideal of what is right. Please, go to church and listen with the open mind you ask me to approach evolution with.
Posted by Norm at February 7, 2005 11:36 AM
12.163.14.178
Modern synthesis = outside force creating something
evolutionary biology = study of evolutionary thinking (as it changes every year)
I believe this argument can go on all day and most will not move. It is just like democrats and republicans - lots of banter but not much accomplished. I appreciate your eloquent words, but I will not move any further on this issue because of your sarcastic and demeaning tone. Choose your way and I will stay with mine... I actually hope you will come to know real truth, even though that would mean I have to spend all of eternity with you. God doesn't have to prove himself to you and one day no evidence will be require for you to understand you were wrong.
By the way... bring your arguments and theories to the table in my church. However, leave your smug and rude tone at the door. Why is it you judge thousands of dedicated and genuine Christians against your solitary ideal of what is right. Please, go to church and listen with the open mind you ask me to approach evolution with.
Posted by Norm at February 7, 2005 11:38 AM
12.163.14.178
Modern synthesis = outside force creating something
evolutionary biology = study of evolutionary thinking (as it changes every year)
I believe this argument can go on all day and most will not move. It is just like democrats and republicans - lots of banter but not much accomplished. I appreciate your eloquent words, but I will not move any further on this issue because of your sarcastic and demeaning tone. Choose your way and I will stay with mine... I actually hope you will come to know real truth, even though that would mean I have to spend all of eternity with you. God doesn't have to prove himself to you and one day no evidence will be require for you to understand you were wrong.
By the way... bring your arguments and theories to the table in my church. However, leave your smug and rude tone at the door. Why is it you judge thousands of dedicated and genuine Christians against your solitary ideal of what is right. Please, go to church and listen with the open mind you ask me to approach evolution with.
Posted by Norm at February 7, 2005 11:38 AM
12.163.14.178
I can't speak for everyone, but I certainly am not judging christians or anyone else. I just don't want them teaching religion in scence class at public schools. I doubt that you would want someone teaching a philosophy that you don't share to your children.
Thanks for the invite, but I've been to church plenty. I know as much about Christ(if not more) and nearly every aspect of the bible as most of the people who actually practice Christianity.
I appreciate your concern for my soul. But it's really got nothing to do with the discussion. Your decision to take the book of Genesis literally has no affect on the absolute FACT that mankind is descended from earlier species. My understanding and acceptance of that fact should have no affect on your faith in your god and your belief that there is an eternity waiting for you. Good luck with that.
Posted by michaelpatrick at February 7, 2005 05:42 PM
63.164.145.85
Norm, it's obvious that you have no idea what the term "modern synthesis" means. So it's rather hypocritical of you, accusing other people of being ignorant of Christianity, while demonstrating how ignorant you are of the science you like to mock.
You can start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_synthesis
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
Posted by Wagner at February 7, 2005 05:54 PM
66.68.108.122
Well, after reading the bulk of the posts here I have determined that most of the people posting to this forum do not have open minds about this topic. Both sides are squabbling and trying to find evidence to prove themselves correct, while in the end coming back to the same name calling that this whole thing started off as. I think this thread was created to bash "Literal Bible" Believing Christians. I don't think there is much else to say on this.
As far as my beliefs go, just so you all can call me stupid like the rest, I believe the Bible is correct, and that the earth is young. I find it hard to stomach that Nature, being as complex as it is could have just happened by chance, and that my life has no more purpose than a gnat's. To quote the Matrix, "We're not here because we're free. We're here because we're not free. There is no escaping reason; no denying purpose. Because as we both know, without purpose, we would not exist. "
Onto the Theories. There is very little that can be proven on either side, especially when you get deep into it. Does anyone research their views with an open mind, take this quote for example. "The fact the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won't fit in, why so much the worse for the facts is my feeling. " How can you trust a man who ignores the facts as a scientist.
Darwin pushed Natural Selection.
My beliefs do not say he was wrong. I believe that God Created, and I believe in a great flood, and I believe God created all the races and different parts of the world when the people built the tower of Babel. This does not keep me from believing in Natural Selection. As I have seen stated before there never has been and never will be new information created from a mutation. It is impossible, the same as it is impossible to create "new matter". If you start with a book with 100,000 words, it takes an intelligent being to add a word to that book. In other words in order for a mutation to create information it would have to be a mutation that is produced in a lab by a genetic engineer plugging an additional gene into the mix. Do the research, there have been NO, I repeat NO mutations which produce additional genes. If you wish to dispute my claim, then please give me some real information, from a scientist, not an "Evolutionist Monk." There is no point in discussing isotope dating, because we all know it comes down to, You believe it's right, I think there is a margin of error, and my beliefs allow me to imagine that the rock could have started out with a different amount of your isotope than you believe was present, this comes down to a "You weren't there, and neither was I" scenario that neither of us can dig our way out of. So on with the fun.
Posted by Rkane at February 22, 2005 12:51 PM
65.168.37.20
Rkane-
Pleased to meet you.
Like many creationists you have made several claims and accusations from a false basis. It is difficult to refute them all at once. But what the hell. I'm snowed in.
For starters, the last sentence of your first paragraph is "I don't think there is much else to say on this. " yet somehow you managed to find three more paragraphs worth of material. Bloody good show. I knew you had it in you.
Next item. Believing in the bible does not in and of itself make you stupid. Nor does belief in the Quran or the Bagavad Gita. Believing in a young earth doesn't really make you stupid either. It just makes you either misinformed or in a state of severe denial. There isn't much I can do about the latter, but for the former there are many many many resources. Just go to talkorigins.org or wikipedia and do a search on geology or "The Age of the Earth". You will find a wealth of information illustrating why the earth is far far far older than 4-6 thousand years.
I'm sorry that you find nature hard to stomach. I find many things hard to stomach as well. Much of human history is quite disgusting to me. But I still must accept that it did indeed happen.
Yes, nature is complex. That very complexity is one of the reasons it is believed to not have been a product of "creation" or "design". Things that are designed tend to be simpler than things that have evolved naturally. Perhaps a useful anaology is the path that water takes when rolling down a hill as opposed to the path it takes when travelling through a man-made irrigation system. Both systems perform the function of moving liquid from A to B. The water flowing down a hill takes many unneccessary twists and turns to reach its destination. However, by its very nature, a system that is 'designed' is much simpler. Anything that is unneeded tends to be removed from the equation. In natural evolution there are many uneeded things that do not get deleted (tonsils, appendix, male nipples). Likewise, billiions of years of natural evolution causes extremely complex forms to emerge. I would suspect that a seven day creation would yield much more streamlined forms.
Whether or not your life has more purpose than a gnat's is pretty subjective. I've never met you, but the very fact that you are (presumably- it's hard to be sure over the internet) human makes you more important to me than any insect. I think most human beings would say the same. Evolutionary theory has nothing to say over whether or not mankind has or has not any grand purpose on a cosmic scale. That is the domain of philosophy and spirituality.
You say that there is very little to be proven on either side. That is where creationists get it wrong most often. In fact there is NOTHING to be proven on either side. Evolution is a scientific theory and by definition can only be DISPROVEN. That's how it works. Someone invents a model that explains something else (in this case it explains the diversity and origin of different species on earth). They then test the model by using it to make predictions. If the predictions are proven true then they can be said to have a sound THEORY. A theory cannot be proven. It can only be disproven. Either by finding a new model which explains the phenomenae and makes predictions more accurately, or by finding phenomenae or instances of predictions where the theory was inadequate. To my knowledge, this has not been done so far. Thus after over a century of endurance it can be said that evolution goes beyond a theory and becomes a scientific law. Of course it still remains a theory (just like the theory of gravity or germ theory). Although all reputable scientists in the field of biology agree that evolution is a FACT, it is still considered a theory becuase there are many complex aspects of it that remain to be hashed out (like puncruated equilibrium or whether or not dinos are related to birds).
On the other hand, creationism CANNOT be disproven. It can't be proven, but it mostly cannot be disproven. There are no criteria by which it can be judged. Therefore it is not a scientific theory. It is a belief. It is a belief specifically held by particular religious groups. Because of its religious affiliation and lack of scientific merit it can not, should not (and if I have anything to say about it) will not be taught to my children or to any other children in a country where separation of church and state is the the number one law of the land.
I have no problem with you believing in all of the things you believe in. If you want to accept that there was a global flood or a tower of babel in spite of all evidence to the contrary go right ahead. But don't try and teach that in a public school. It's hard enough to teach kids real science and history.
I'm going to post this now and get back to the rest of your comment later.
Posted by Michael Patrick at February 24, 2005 08:24 PM
63.164.145.85
I think I would call you a true scientists. You never come out and say that Evolution is a FACT. You hint at it, but you wouldn't say it, because you know there is a possibility that it could be disproven. The problem I have are with the people who decide they believe something and then do not research the other side at all, and assume they know it all, and that they are right. I see a few people who seem to fit that type from their posts above.
The hard part of this whole debate is leaving the religious aspects out of it. I believe that we can both start from different positions on origins, and still come to most of the same conclusions when working for practical applications for science in today's world.
The problem I run into is where evolution feeds the fuel for abortion, euthenasia, and stem cell research. Each of these issues prove to be very destructive to life, and I do not believe there is a life that should not be cherished. That is why my desire is so strong to find the evidence to disprove evolutionary ideas to as many people as possible.
Your first statement about geology is false. We assume there were millions of years because of geology, and geology uses rock formations to show evidence to this. Here is a good place to start in explaining how these are only theories. http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v8i8f.htm I do not believe it is good to use a theory to prove another theory because that would leave more holes in it.
But after reading all that you have to say, I don't think there is a point it trying to convince you that I'm right and you are wrong. The same can be said in the opposite I'm sure. I have read everything I could get my hands on since first entering these debates with coworkers, and other friends of mine.
The ones who believe in Evolution will probably never be convinced, and the ones who believe in creation will never be convinced otherwise, but the ones who are not sure, need to have all the information we can give them so they can make an informed decision.
I feel the same as you about my kids being taught something I do not believe to be true. The problem I find is that we are not the ones making the decisions about such things. The more uninformed among us are making these decisions, namely politicians. We can debate it all we want, but it becomes up to them, and truely they are not well suited for it. I do not think I will homeschool my children, but I am very tired of Evolution being taught as a FACT in schools.
I could spend hours showing evidence to disprove every theory, but then it comes back to who do you believe in the end. And since I believe the Bible it is hard to get scientists to listen to what I have to say.
Posted by Rkane at March 3, 2005 12:26 PM
156.63.134.4
While reading some more of this, being that I only read the first 20 or so posts last time, I came upon an interesting question.
Why is it so hard to for some people to accept the possibility that everything was originally perfect, and that things have went down hill, no uphill since then? It doesn't take much reasoning to see that it is possible. The current health of human kind could easily show that we are getting sicker, rather than better, as our gene pool becomes more sparse.
Posted by rkane at March 3, 2005 12:40 PM
156.63.134.4
Why do I bother? I should take up needlepoint instead.
I'm not a scientist. I'm just a person who understands that science is the best method available to human beings when it comes to understanding nature.
I do not believe in evolution. It is not a matter of belief. Since you accused me of not stating it I will state it now for the record: Evolution is a FACT. And yes, it can be disproven.
(here cones one of my crappy analogies)The notion that the earth is spherical is also a fact. It can be disproven. Merely fly a plane in one direction until you reach the edge. If you manage to find the end of the earth you have disproven the theory that it is round. If, instead, you manage to fly all the way AROUND the sphere we call earth and in doing so end up in the same place that you started (as predicted by the theory that the earth is round) you will have failed to disprove said theory. Just because something can POTENTIALLY be disproven doesn't mean it isn't true.
First off, evolution does not 'feed the fuels' (I believe you meant to say either 'fuel the fire' or 'feed the fire') of abortion, euthanasia, and stem cell research. Abortion is an issue for those who believe that an unborn fetus is more valuable than the eleven year old rape victim who has to be responsible for it through no fault of her own. Personally I am pro choice. I am generally against abortion because (believe it or not) I do in fact think that life is precious. However I am capable of realizing the difference between a moral decision and a legal one. If I were female and if I were to find myself in the unenviable situation of an undesired pregnancy I suspect that termination of said pregnancy would be morally impossible for ME. But I am clearly capable of seeing cases in which abortion is a viable and perhaps even the only suitable alternative. Therefore abortion must remain legal.
The case for euthanasia (as far as I'm concerned) is strongly similar to that for abortion. One difference, for ME, however is that it is a situation that I have actually experienced first hand. In fact, I have somewhat recently been faced with the decision of causing a loved one's life to end to prevent undue suffering in the face of unavoidable demise.
In any case, these issues have nothing- nothing at all to do with the FACT that mankind has evolved from previous species.
Furthermore, Rkane, I feel obliged to inform you that attempting to disprove evolution will not in any way affect the need and desire for abortions, euthanasia, and stem cell research. Nor will any attempt to prove that the world is flat affect the price of a plane ticket to Indonesia.
You say that we are not the ones who decide what gets taught to our children. In that respect you cannot be more wrong. In spite of much evidence to the contrary, the US is still by and large a democracy. Not only do we have the right to address the school boards who determine our school's curriculum, but we also get to choose our politicians (somewhat).
"...since I believe the Bible it is hard to get scientists to listen to what I have to say.
" You are aware of the fact that many evolutionary scientists are in fact Christians? And I'm willing to bet that a great deal of them are Jewish as well.
As for your last statement. Evolutionary theory does not propose that the state of life on earth has improved or worsened over the past three billions years. It only states that individual species evolve to be more perfectly suited to their individual environments. The tricky part is that environments change. Because of this, only those who have (by chance) the proper hereditary traits to help them survive manage to pass their genetic material to future generations. Not only is ther no reason to believe that humans are the be-all end-all of evolution- there is not even any reason to believe that we are a stop along the way. We could be a dead end.
Also- that bit about our gene pool becoming sparse is utterly nonsensical considering the fact that there are now more humans on the planet tan ever before.
Posted by michael patrick at March 5, 2005 04:38 AM
151.204.62.19
"We assume there were millions of years because of geology, and geology uses rock formations to show evidence to this."
No, it doesn't. You're being lied to.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
Posted by Wagner at March 17, 2005 07:22 AM
66.68.108.122
I see your point about needle point, but I believe it better for both of us to discuss our positions and strengthen our beliefs than to waste time making a shirt, or aphgan. :)
The funny part of this whole ordeal is people can't seem to see the middle ground on these things. I believe abortion has it's place in cases or Rape, insest, and when the mother is at risk. But abortion on demand as a "I shouldn't have gotten drunk and had sex without a condom" fix all, I believe is way wrong. Also I think any case where the person cannot live without a room full of machinery doing all the living for them is where euthanasia is acceptable, if it could even be called that.
Which is why I state again, that even coming from different starting points we can still end up at the same conclusions.
I think it takes something away from the awesomeness of nature to state that it just happened by accident, and wasn't the result of an intelligent being's intricate design.
I know christians who believe that evolution is correct, but it doesn't take away their effectiveness as christians.
I think the reason I am posting and the reason I keep stating the same stuff over and over again is that the problem lies in people calling each other names, over something that none of us will ever prove correct. Science is the best way we can learn about our surroundings, and the scientific method is very important to almost everything we do whether we know it or not. But for science to step in and say, you are wrong and we are right, would not be true science. Science looks for answer to the questions that cannot be answered, and in the case of evolution vs creation will not be answered in my lifetime without some doubt as to it's relevancy.
I only have one question for you, and this is something to think about deep in your being. If someone did find proof tomorrow that evolution was wrong, would you change your beliefs, or would you spend the rest of your life trying to disprove what they had discovered.
Posted by rkane at March 18, 2005 03:56 PM
156.63.134.4
Wolк bez :)
Posted by Konrad at March 22, 2005 05:01 AM
149.156.134.11
When I read that article, I nearly teared up with pride and joy. No tapdancing around the subject. My uncle gave me a book (on Christmas, of all bad timings) on how some dude investigated the bible's teachings and showed "scientifically" that they could have been historically accurate. I'd like to give him this article as a return favor. Especially since scientists never said that the bible is 100% false. Scientists don't go around trying to bring down religion. They are just trying to figure stuff out. Maybe the walls of Jericho did fall down, just maybe it happened because of a natural earthquake, and not because of God's wrath. The fact that you have a website devoted to this issue makes this Oregon geologist proud. Thanks web-dude!
Posted by Jeff at March 24, 2005 12:35 AM
12.108.30.230
That had to be the worst thing i ever saw posted on the internet. Not only did u not convince me, you disgraced yourself infront of anyone who knows what evolution is. You try to hard to be smart in a subject you obviously know nothing about.
Posted by Jay at March 30, 2005 07:20 PM
205.188.117.5
Web-dude, your an idiot.
Posted by Jack at March 30, 2005 07:21 PM
205.188.117.5
I cannot believe what i am seeing! The factual part in this really is you wouldn't understand evolution even if the hoax was true. Your facts are mixed up and you wouldn't know the truth if it crawled down your shorts and bit you in the ass!
Posted by I now hate this site at March 30, 2005 07:25 PM
205.188.117.5
Jay-Jack-Hater,
To whom are you referring?
By the by- it's quite apparent that all of you are the the same person even if you use different names.
Posted by Michael Patrick at March 31, 2005 07:47 PM
63.164.145.85
" I will pray for you all!" I am a fourteen year old who believes not in evolution, but faith. School is almost out for the summer where I am from. I was just given the task to create a biased project on facts and opinions that back up evolutionism and creationist. I have my own religious beliefs that are uncomparable to a lot of people. I only hope that you all keep on posting your opinions so that my evolution side is strong in voice. Thank you =)
Posted by Push Frog at April 28, 2005 05:04 PM
12.214.113.58
"Science" by which you mean evolutionary theory and "Religion" by which you mean creationism must disagree because they do. Can people be so blind as to say that they should just exist harmoniously? They disagree on life's fundamentals - that's why people argue.
The article was biased. I lost a lot of respect for National Geographic from that article, largely because of the continuously mentioned but never described "overwhelming evidence" for the theory of evolution. Where is it?
Above, someone has made the comment that people reject evolution despite any evidence just because it would cripple their world view. I defy you to consider carefully, if you were presented with hard evidence of young-earth creation, would you change your world view accordingly?
I similarily defy the person who claimed that the religious types were not reasonable people to read this article:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i2/logic.asp
Posted by The voice of reason at June 5, 2005 06:32 PM
220.245.178.132
Mr. Reason,
I'm not sure who you were addressing in your post, but I'll do my best to respond.
Are you saying that one area of science (evolutionary theory) is essentially the same as all of science? Also, are you making a similar assertion towards religion? There are many branches of science, just as there are many branches of Christianity (and Christianity is only one of literally THOUSANDS of religious systems). No one is saying that evolution and creationism can coexist. At best they are apples and oranges. Or perhaps a better analogy is that one is a detailed description of an apple based on observations (and a little bit of conjecture) whereas the other is a story about oranges based on the ancient beliefs of nomadic Semitic tribesmen. What I do see some folks saying is that evolutionary theory does not negate the existence of God. Also, the creation myth can still be of religious importance even if it is not literally true.
If the reason why you lost respect for National Geographic is because the evidence for evolution was not printed in the article you must remember that it is only a magazine. The average issue (this is from memory- I don't have one handy) is only a couple hundred pages long. The evidence you request would fill volumes and volumes. As a matter of fact it does fill volumes and volumes at the library and in book stores. You can also visit websites like http://www.talkorigins.org for evidence and compelling argument in favor of evolution.
As for the consideration you raise in your third paragraph: If I were presented with hard evidence for young earth creationism, then of course I might change my world view. Of course, I would do the same if presented with hard evidence of the flat earth theory or the existence of Martians living in my basement. You would have to tell me what this hard evidence would be. I have yet to hear a creationist describe what type of evidence they could use to prove their ‘theory’. The existence of God (as far as I now) cannot be proven, and creationists by their own admission think that it is impossible to know what happened in the past if we weren’t there to observe it. Yet they claim that they do know what happened in the past because someone was nice enough to write it all down for them.
Posted by michael von patrick at June 7, 2005 05:17 PM
63.164.145.85
http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=5&itemid=2644
Here's your 50-some page rebuttal, the one that after National Geographic received, the executive editor was asked to resign due to lack of judgement in letting the article be run. I read the NG article myself, I have a copy of it next to me right now. It provides little to no evidence for evolution, using outdated, unproven theories, and theories that have been proven false again and again. My anthropologist step-dad and I debate regularly. He had me read this article, and after I gave him my written response, well, he really didn't have much to say after that. I do have this article to thank, though, for opening up the conversation for me to be able to say some of the things I did.
Posted by Dustin at June 10, 2005 12:30 PM
68.103.214.161
"National Geographic Shoots Itself in the Foot- Again!"
Dustin, you have shown me the error of my ways. I am ready to leave evolutionism behind me. Come to think of it, "Evil"lution has led me to commit abortion, euthanasia, and genocide. From this day forward I am convinced that the only rational explanation for the variety of life on earth is the hand of an unseen designer. The very thought that minor changes over billions of years could create human beings out of rocks is ridiculous. Besides, if humans came from rocks, then why are there still rocks?
I can't thank you enough.
Posted by michaelpatrick at June 11, 2005 09:40 AM
141.150.238.47
Wow, this is still going?
"Here's your 50-some page rebuttal, the one that after National Geographic received, the executive editor was asked to resign due to lack of judgement in letting the article be run."
If these idiots think that Bill Allen left NG because of their ridiculous and incredibly dishonest article, they're completely fucking crazy. Bill Allen retired after thirty-five years at the magazine, and his retirement was announced in early November *before* this issue of NG even shipped.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20248-2004Nov2.html
But by all means, believe the lies if they make you feel better.
Posted by Wagner at June 23, 2005 08:57 AM
146.6.154.118
Wagner,
Thanks again for your research. You would be a fine addition to any church if you could control your anger and personal attacks. They get in the way of true fact finding. I just love that you care enough about something to actually look for the answer. We do have that in common.
I'd be interested to hear your opinion of this guy: http://www.mcremo.com/
I don't think he's an ID supporter but he has some interesting theories on the evolution cover ups.
If you wouldn't mind putting your research skills to use, I'd like to know if this guy is out of his mind.
Thanks.
Your Brother in Christ,
Dave
Posted by Dave at June 24, 2005 01:06 PM
199.105.197.100
Oh god, Cremo. He's a full-fledged kook. In his own words:
"'We did not evolve up from matter; instead we devolved, or came down, from the realm of pure consciousness, spirit,' says Cremo. He bases his response on modern science and the world's great wisdom traditions, including the Vedic philosophy of ancient India. Cremo proposes that before we ask the question, 'Where did human beings come from? we should first contemplate, What is a human being?' Cremo asserts that humans are a combination of matter, mind, and consciousness (or spirit)."
http://www.humandevolution.com
I don't think I need to comment further.
Posted by Wagner at June 27, 2005 09:38 AM
146.6.154.118
Oh, what the hell. I will comment further.
Further details on Cremo and his oddball Krishna Creationism can be found here; there are links to various reviews of Cremo's books and other materials.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom.html
Posted by Wagner at June 27, 2005 09:46 AM
146.6.154.118
I wonder if we can rejuvenate this ol' thread.
I miss it.
Posted by michaelpatrick at August 2, 2005 04:46 PM
63.164.145.85
It was the Greeks who believed there was a Bearded Man in the sky with lightning bolts deciding every facet of every humans life. His name was Zeus. This model is where modern Christians get their image of God. However sticking feathers up your but does not make you a chicken.
Rastafarians believed in a 'sprit more powerful than all' and named it Jah. Note that Jah is an it, not a he or she. Jah is not young or old or white or black. Jah is a sprit that controls that which we can not.
For people that say there is no God: you obviously haven’t seen a sunset lately. You haven’t been to a 100ft waterfall or looked out over the Grand Canyon. You haven’t rafted a class V river or slept under the stars and just stared at them all night. Because if you have done any of these things, you would KNOW, not think, KNOW there is a force more powerful then you out there making things happen.
However, for those who believe God created man: go get your head checked. How can you call your selves intelligent when you believe God just *bam* made Adam and Eve and they had sex and had a boy, and then a girl, and then those two siblings had sex and had kids. Until we had humans running around. You’re telling me Africans, Asians, Indians, all came from a white male and female? Haha that’s a story. It’s no truer than the tale of witches and werewolves and vampires. (I know there are some people who believe in witches and werewolves and vampires, but to those people I say check out James "the amazing" Randi’s Million dollar reward for proof of magic under lab conditions.)
Anyway my point is simply this. There is no way the universe was created at random, and there is no way that one bearded man in the sky decided this is how it was all going to be. I have been thrown too many curveballs in life to believe that everything is pre-destined.
So take things with a grain of salt, get more exercise and stop watching so much TV. There is a beautiful world out there, go and live in it for a while, then maybe you will see where I am coming from. Jah is life.
-Bmose (age 20 from STL)
Posted by bmose at August 9, 2005 01:39 PM
208.30.169.2
Why can't things be random? I'd sooner believe that life on this planet, the mechanism of Evolution, and the fact coincidences occur to be the result of randomness than the work of some cosmic force.
It's a statistical inevitability for the conditions on Earth to exist. It's a statistical inevitability that life will be created. When dealing with a low probability and a far greater (but finite) number of trials, you must inevitably chance upon the most unlikely case.
Dirt+Water = Life? Not quite. More so ionically coated clay agents with simple carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen compounds. We proved it to be possible to create organic chemicals this way a century ago. While admittedly the formation of organic chemicals to an organism is harder to swallow, it works fine with differential success of survivability. I for one disagree with Natural Selection, and rather believe that differential reproductive success to be a more inclusive explanation to the phenonmenon, whereas Natural Selection deals mostly with limited resources, mates, and predation (which does not necessarily have to be the case).
In my opinion Fundies are arguing with science up to 1900. We've refuted some of those ideas and have moved onto a different set of ideas in many fields. They believe Science to be a static dogma, whereas it should be taken as a fluid view of the universe that is always subject to change based on observation and speculation. Nothing's set in stone.
This argument is tiring, a waste of time, albeit entertaining.
Creationists: I'm going to make a ludicrous remark in your field of expertise, then leave it for common sense to try to prove you wrong. Fgsfds, btw. (Although a fundie going to 4chan would be improbable).
Evolutionists: Wrong. I'm going to insult your intelligence now.
Creationists: You're a tool.
Evolutionists: "Thou art a tool." - Scripture Number:Number.
It's gotten a bit formulaic at this point.
Sure, I agree that the Evolution they teach in schools is not correct, but what should we teach them? The current theories? I don't think a 6th grader will grasp M-Superstring Theory, much less Bosonic String Theory, or hell, basic calculus. In the end, teaching Darwin is the best we can do, as it is the lite version of the established set of experiments, observations, and speculations. But teaching Creation in a science class is downright unresponsible. It belongs in a Social Studies or Theology course. Science is a philosophy based on empericism, not devotion--in fact it encourages challenging established paradigms.
So.....anyone wanna go kotch and grab a few pints? I admit, I get some jollies out of trolling Fundie forums, but it's purely recreational.
Posted by Choi at August 13, 2005 02:07 AM
68.158.39.35
What is on with people these days. You all belive that the earth was created in millions and billions of years why. To say that we are humans coming from stupid single celled blobs. i the carbondating has been proved wrong as many times as i can remember. There are scientists who faked evidence and admited it. Yet some people still use it for some strange reason. I am a christian and many things i have studied throughtout my life is that the only thing that accurately portrays truth is the bible. There is physical evidence that proves evolution wrong. I have seen a scientist who believed in evolution was dumbstruck by a simple question. I look at answers in genesis and actually for those who find me stupid amd irritating there is a christian science book for those out there who want it.
Posted by Wernher Schnetler at October 10, 2005 10:31 AM
203.132.247.119
"There is physical evidence that proves evolution wrong."
Like what?
(Christ. We're coming up on a year of this damn thread.)
Posted by Wagner at October 14, 2005 10:52 AM
146.6.154.118
[b]Wernher[/b], would you care to elaborate on the following:
"the carbondating has been proved wrong"
"There is physical evidence that proves evolution wrong"
"a scientist who believed in evolution was dumbstruck by a simple question."
And as for the bible 'accurately portraying truth', do you have any basis for that claim or is it just TRUE LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!
P.S. Yes, I know I'm missing two question marks in this post. I just don't know where they're meant to go. Damn punctuation.
Posted by macalan at October 18, 2005 11:13 AM
193.1.172.163
oh some people think Evolution is true and some of us think its like a laugh in a FACE
theres only one true answer and its GOD people he the Almighty,All Powerful,Lord Of Lords,King of Kings, the Only, The Son and the Holly Spirit Created every person and from Genesis 1:1- IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HERAVENS AND EARTH
1:3 AND GOD SAID LET THERE BE LIGHT
AND THERE WAS LIGHT
1:6 AND GOD SAID LET THERE BE FIRMAMENT IN THE MIDST OF THE WATERS AND LET IT DIVIDED THE WATERS FROM THE WATERS
1;20 GOD SAID LET THE WATERS BRING ABOUDENTLY THE MOVING CREATURES THAT HATH LIFE,AND FOWLTHAT MAY FLYABOVE THR EARTH
1:26 AND GOD SIAD LETS MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE ,AFTER OUR LIKENESS.........
I THAT SCRIPTURES ITS SAYS MAKE THE IMAGE LIKE GOD AND JESUS I CAN GET IN DETAILS BUT YALL iam proven that evolutionist dont have the answers God has the Answers take the Arrow head who made the Arrow head how do ya know they maded was ya alive then well .......... see its yer believe that the indians created it so why dont ya have faith that God created everything including us.
Posted by JT Patrick a new born Christian at October 20, 2005 04:25 AM
24.151.240.91
That last post reminded me of those hand-written cardboard signs you see homeless people holding up on the side of the highway.
Posted by Wagner at October 20, 2005 05:23 PM
66.68.108.122
Wow. You certainly showed me. I will have to think long and hard about who maded the arrow head.
By the way, while you have clearly demonstrated that there must be a god who created the universe, how did you decide it was the god of the bible and not say, Allah or Brahma?
Posted by macalan at November 3, 2005 06:16 AM
193.1.172.163
Anonymous was here.
http://img.4chan.org/b/imgboard.html
Posted by Anonymous at November 12, 2005 10:22 AM
43.244.33.113
Anonymous was here.
http://img.4chan.org/b/imgboard.html
Posted by Anonymous at November 12, 2005 10:22 AM
43.244.33.113
If anyone has the answers to life, the universe, and everything, it would be the hivemind that is 4chan's /b/.
Posted by Pedobear at December 3, 2005 08:55 PM
131.191.90.237
On your spectacular claims, Spike;
"Yes, it can be measured in a laboratory"
What do you mean by that? Observance of Natural selection? Or do you mean sight-directed mutations?(Assuming, of course, that you're referring to evolution) If natural selection, you know,"Only the strongest will survive", can you tell me how it adds genetic information? I mean, it eliminates the weak, and leaves the strong, therefore only the strong reproduce. Natural selection didnt evolve the strong, it let it live.
Now, if you refer to random mutations, laboratory observations are rather primatevely experimental right now, with not much to conclude on.
The next statement, "Yes, there is fossil evidence" would you give some examples of such instead of just claiming there are? Also two notable people have (or once had) disagreeed with you: Darwin was confounded by the complete lack of fossil evidence, and Stephen Gould made many statements of how paleantologists needed to face up to the fact that there are none.
Lastly, "And yes it's just a theory. And so is that whole "the Earth orbits the Sun" thing. Time out to look up the scientific definition of the word "theory,". As I do agree with the definition of theory, I do not, however, call evolution a theory by definition, since most of its fundamental elements are heavily debated by evolutionists themselves. I would call it a group of unestablished hypothesises. If you could answer any of my rebuttals to your claims, please enlighten me.
P.S Please dont insult, just give a reasonable argument.
Posted by Stephen Hawkings (lol) at December 20, 2005 01:43 AM
67.170.123.28
Why do I bother? Oh well, here we go again-
"If natural selection, you know,"Only the strongest will survive", can you tell me how it adds genetic information?"
Your main question here seems to be 'how does evolution add new information?' That's a regular chestnut the IDs and Creationists like to bust out. Perhaps I can answer you with an analogy. The english language (like genetic code) is made up of letters. There are only 26 letters. I'm no linguist, but I am pretty sure that we have been stuck with these letters for quite some time. Yet somehow every year we seem to come up with new and different words. There are words that are amalgams of other words or abbreviations, or even some we have never heard before. That is NEW INFORMATION. How can new information exist if we keep using the same 26 letters? OMG WTF? There must be some unseen force creating new letters when we aren't looking. Or maybe, by simply rearranging the sequences we already have NEW INFORMATION can easily be created. Another factor that exists in evolution is RANDOM MUTATION. Random mutation can in fact 'garble the message' and thus create new arrangements of code in our DNA. I'm not a scientist, so if I say something that sounds unscientific and lay- well too bad, but I think my gist is right. I don't know how well random mutations are observed in the laborotory, but there are plenty of people who can give you more information than I could ever supply on the subject : www.talkorigins.org and www.pandasthumb.org are excellent places to start.
Posted by michaelpatrick at December 21, 2005 11:20 AM
151.204.209.59
(curse you - internal server error)
"The next statement, "Yes, there is fossil evidence" would you give some examples of such instead of just claiming there are? Also two notable people have (or once had) disagreeed with you: Darwin was confounded by the complete lack of fossil evidence, and Stephen Gould made many statements of how paleantologists needed to face up to the fact that there are none.
"
Hunh? Stephen J. Gould said that? Could you give an example of such instead of just claiming that he has?
As for Darwin. I'm not sure where he exactly said that either, but since his time yo must admit a LOT of fossil evidence has been uncovered. I'm not sure exactly what fossil evidence you are saying isn't there. If you tell me what you think it is that doesn't exist I'll see if I can find it for you.
"As I do agree with the definition of theory, I do not, however, call evolution a theory by definition, since most of its fundamental elements are heavily debated by evolutionists themselves. I would call it a group of unestablished hypothesises."
That's nice that you have your own definition of what is or is not a theory. Unfortunately the overall scientific community is usually the go to guy on the subject of what is or isn't a theory. Don't feel too bad, I had the same problem when I tried to change the definition of the word "lie" to my mother as a kid. (I didn't say I did my homework, I just didn't not say that I failed to in fact do it while I may or may not have been engaged in non-homework related activities). Apparently she was the final decider on that subject.
Posted by michael patrick at December 21, 2005 11:28 AM
151.204.209.59
My idea of "erotic" not come in green color, but I agree on special looking color of this month.
Posted by Betta at December 25, 2005 03:30 AM
58.10.64.15
"Hunh? Stephen J. Gould said that? Could you give an example of such instead of just claiming that he has?"
Probably one of the ones you can find in the Creationist Quote Mine Project. Gould pretty much has his own section, he's misquoted so often.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
Posted by Wagner at December 27, 2005 12:09 AM
66.68.108.122
ummm...just testing something...
Posted by michaelpatrick at January 9, 2006 08:26 PM
63.164.145.198
nucleic acids are impossible without other nucleic acids making them. Any freshman high schooler can learn that! Nucleic acids can't be developed by chemical accidents. All darwinists can seemingly do is continue calling open minded CURIOUS (read SCIENCE MINDED) people names! Creation is no accident. Drop the Gould book (well...read his conclusions first) and study how perfect astronomically Earth is for life. we are even in the right spot in the galaxy to research the universe! Call Jesus a liar at your own peril and cut through the make believe cartoon fossils, shaved jaws, protruded jaws, and try to find in your heart, without laughing out loud, the truth about whales and antelopes having a common ancestor! Based on an ankle bone? I suppose accidental chemistry produced the mazda- inspired submicroscopic bacterial flagella rotary motors and impellors? Give some Behe a read! Quit worshipping spontaneous generation (its so 1800's)
Posted by bts at March 24, 2006 03:48 PM
207.235.187.20
So, what then... poof! Nucleic Acid!!
Posted by Jessica at March 25, 2006 01:29 AM
67.78.216.40
I would suggest you pick up the Gould book that you dropped..... i think you missed a few pages.
Posted by Mitsy at March 25, 2006 01:35 AM
67.78.216.40
Wagner stated: "Well, since you're doing the old "you people are boring nd stupid so I'm going to quit talking to you" routine, you obviously will have nothing to say about this.
http://www.io.com/~cwagner/ararat/"
Anderson responds:
It has been awhile, but time was no advantage for you. Still hasty I see to presume that you have understood the facts and the point of the argument, and hastier still to assume you have debunked it, but alas, alac, and alas again… you have missed the real point. You are boxing at the air.
Yet all is not lost, in your haste and zeal you have become the perfect object lesson. It is ironic.
This exchange started because I told you there was an article in NG. You then presumed that I take exception to the credibility of National Geographic (I never stated that but you were happy to leap the chasm to start an argument.)
You proved that NGR&E did publish the article, and I find it humorous that indeed you are the one who is taking exception to National Geographic’s ability to publish credible articles. You called the content of the Ahora Covenant inscription article “pretty damn ridiculous”.
I ask you:
How did such a “ridiculous” article get published in National Geographic Research and Exploration? It was you that said NGR&E “though not a “scientific journal, is still much "heavier" than the standard NG issues.”
Surely they have reliable publishing standards. No?
Surely they don’t just publish “pretty damn ridiculous” claims without corroboration do they? Is National Geographic incapable of recognizing “pretty damn ridiculous” claims? National Geographic has editors don’t they? If NG has them, surely NGR&E had them.
Your argument is basically that National Geographic did a shoddy, half-baked, inept, clumsy, bungling, incompetent, and unscientific job of evaluating the “pretty damn ridiculous” article regarding the Ahora Covenant Inscription. (And you suggest they were likely duped by someone who believes in Bigfoot, UFOs, and cold fusion.)
Your conclusion is that they screwed up really badly or were royally tricked by an evil hoax. If they screwed up so badly then why have they not retracted their heinous error, or if they were duped why have they not ousted the rascal that threw egg on their face? (I’ll give you a hint: If they could they would be responsible to do so.)
I must tell you that you have not convinced me that you have confidence in National Geographic as a reliable source of information. Indeed you are arguing against it. You decided it necessary to discredit the editors of NGR&E though you have no information whatsoever regarding the methods or independent verifications they sought or obtained.
But all is not lost, you are the object lesson.
There is no end to which one will accuse, discredit, and disregard in order to show themselves that they are free of errors and ignorance (even if no one accused them).
National Geographic is merely entertainment until it can address the real issue:
“One who holds a lie will discredit, accuse, obfuscate, reject, and oppose all others (and even oppose his own conscience) in order to show himself that there is no consequence for holding a lie. Ironically, one’s unrelenting zeal to prove he believes that there is no consequence (and the inevitable necessity to abandon reason itself in this sleepless quest) ironically serves to illuminate what he indeed does believe, yet cannot admit.” ~anonymous
Cheers,
Anderson
Posted by Anderson at April 22, 2006 01:38 AM
71.100.175.198
let me just start with...SHOW ME THE BEEF! you have absolutely no proof that anything like evolution is true...if you look at charts the fossils state....that that animal...has always been that animal...with a curved dotted line attatched to say that evolutionists BELIEVE that that is what may have happened...and you go back to darwin...isnt it ironic that he died not even believing what he is famous for today?...think on it....also you crack on those who are religious?...might i remind you that they are the reason that you are allowed to even have this topic on here!...you might want to think harder on these things before you go and make some bogous nonsupported claims on a websight...if you want real answers you should take a look at answersingenesis.org ! they will show you the beef! and for those of you who dont get it...it means proof...bones...dna...why do i find it ironic that evolutionists keep trying to find ONE THING...ONE THING...to prove creationists wrong and they find "the missing link" and that stays "solid" for a couple of weeks until proved wrong or another rock is turned and the whole theory is changed...if you believe something why does it continue to change?...seems to me that this is a group of people who if "evolved" didnt end up as a group with the backbone and must change stances on each new fossil found because it proves the previous theory invalid...SHOW ME THE BEEF!
Posted by Jon at April 30, 2006 08:42 PM
24.131.97.176
Holy shit, people are still posting in this thing. Haven't looked here in months. The neverending stream of ignorant Creationists are nothing new or interesting or worth replying to, but...
Anderson: you can blather all you want about my motives, using the biggest words you like. The article was still crap, Edward Crawford is still a crank, and NGR&E is still not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. End of argument.
Posted by Wagner at May 6, 2006 11:56 AM
66.68.108.122
Yes. The National Geographic Society is capable of publishing crap without a second thought. It’s lucrative. People are known to pay someone to say what they like to hear or write what they like to read. Tell us something new already.
Welcome to the next level.
Cheers, Anderson
Posted by Anderson at May 7, 2006 08:37 PM
71.100.175.198
Anderson said the following, oh so long ago:
"National Geographic published the Ahora Covenant Inscription. Therefore it must be accurate. No?"
To summarize his roundabout, deliberately obsfucated argument: if we are treating NG as an authoritative scientific source, then we must also accept this Ahora Covenant Inscription stuff because it was also published in a NG publication. This is typical Internet Debate: you try to get your "opponent" caught in a contradiction, and then you "win". It's even better if you are very vague in your original argument, because that makes it more likely that your "opponent" will write something you can claim is a contradiction, because they think you're making one kind of argument instead of your "real" one.
I fell for that one hook-line-and-sinker. The big, pretentious words should have been a big hint that Anderson was trying to wind me up so that he could go "GOTCHA". Internet Debate lives for the "zinger", that one perfect sentence which instantly destroys the opponent's argument by pointing out that devastating flaw.
The problem here is that nobody was treating NG as an authoritative scientific publication. They just did a nice summary of arguments and evidence which are available elsewhere. The arguments and evidence stand alone and do not need NG to prop them up; they existed before the NG article and they would continue to exist had NG not published it.
If Anderson wants to smear the respectability of NG by pointing out that its research journal had published some really dumb shit in the past... well, okay. I don't really give a shit, because that has no bearing on the quality of the arguments and evidence published by NG, which in the end is merely a popular magazine.
Congrats, Anderson. You've managed to waste a huge amount of my time, because I thought you were arguing one point but were in fact just playing Socrates. You have masturbated all over these blog comments and probably feel very satisifed, but in the meanwhile the rest of us are just going "ewww".
Posted by Wagner at May 9, 2006 07:57 AM
66.68.108.122
That was disgusting Christian. I'm sure you were raised better than that.
Your Brother in Christ,
Dave
Posted by Dave at May 9, 2006 06:11 PM
199.105.197.100
Disgusting? Nooo. That was /hilarious./ And accurate.
I think this whole debate is only relevant-and-ongoing because for some people, it's impossible to imagine a life that is in a constant, ecstatic kind of flux. It's a lot like being a kid forever, exploring and letting curiosity run rampant, and ignoring the big intangibles out there.
Maybe the thought of infinite free will and potential and possibility is just not as exciting for these people as it is for some of us.
I like knowing that I evolved from something that probably threw around its own feces when it was upset. It kind of takes the guilt out of throwing a tantrum.
"At least I'm not flinging shit around--" Oh, wait.
I guess not much has changed after all. :P
Hell's where all the interesting folks, go, anyway.
Your Sister (or, more like 83rd cousin 300 times removed) in halfbreed-Jewish-Protestant-turned-heretic-
chaos-worship,
mackie
P.S. Predation, physical fitness, and all of that have little to do with evolution, directly--the genes that get passed on are from critters that are really really good at having babies. It just happens that strong, well-adapted individuals tend to survive to an age where they can reproduce, and then survive long enough to reproduce into a ripe old age. Darwin had, what, twelve kids? Nowadays those kinds of numbers are reduced to trailer parks and their ilk. And fundies (Catholics?) have sort-of-banned birth control, haven't they? Time to start humping, my enlightened friends! For humankind!
Posted by mackennzie at May 12, 2006 12:01 AM
209.6.97.49
I made no obfuscated argument or set out to play GOTCHA. I asked a question and made a plane statement that threw you into fomenting reaction mode.
It is plainly clear that you chose to focus your whole last post on what was merely my rhetorical question which was posed subsequent to your reactionary summation of what NG in fact did publish. It was a rhetorical question to your hasty reaction which occurred before you even considered the possibility that NG in fact did publish it, and moreover before considering the possible validity of their decision to publish the notice of discovery of an old rock.
Your last post addressed a subsequent question, rather than the first and primary statement; addressed it with recycled vitriol and hate; and then presumed “a good feeling” with regard to all questions, addressed or not---That sorta quacks like “obfuscating”.
Once again you make haste and argue against yourself better than others can.
I simply made an announcement that NGR&E had published an article about an old rock with an inscription on it. I made no conclusions about the accuracy or legitimacy of the content. I simply found it curious that NG would publish an inscription that on the face of it seems to be somewhat at odds with some of NG’s most closely held propositions. I thought some of the smart scientific types could shed some light.
Honest folk could have handled it soundly. They could have found the name of the editor, they could have found the name of those who convinced the editor of the credibility, etc. etc. and then they could have weighed the facts relative to the article content.
I posted it for anyone’s consideration. You immediately reacted by ridiculing the one you presumed to be the author of the stone inscription (though no one else has speculated who it was that drew “cocks on walls”). You ridiculed the one who claims to have made the discovery. You tossed about red herrings, and ad hominem arguments. And you have expressed disbelief that NG would have actually published such an article (and now even argue for uncertain credibility or minimal import that NG really has after all) .
To put it simply, you reacted before you reasoned. The cause is self-evident.
At no time have you dealt with the NG article honestly, neither are you able to. The implications of the inscription simply preclude you.
Big deal, eh. It’s a free country.
Cheers,
Anderson
Posted by Anderson at May 12, 2006 06:52 PM
71.100.175.198
...I think what Anderson is getting at is that because Wagner (<3!) found an article in an offshoot of NG that was perhaps not thoroughly researched or edited, the credibility of /everything/ published in the parent magazine, NG, must therefore be thrown into doubt. It doeesn't take a big leap to then figure that Anderson would like to set up NG as a supposed source of biased lies--all poorly-researched and cunningly worded.
I wasn't aware that NG dictated scientific fact. I thought its job was just to report to the layman--in layman's terms--certain things, from the culture of Afghanistan to the obesity epidemic. It is not a scientific journal, nor was it ever. It is a magazine designed to help those of us stuck in cubicles and so forth to explore the world, albeit vicariously.
Now, as far as the Scientific Theory/Model of Evolution, that's solid as bedrock. More solid, even, since bedrock probably gets joggled by tectonics. Creationists don't seem to get the KISS rule of, well, everything: Keep It Simple, Stupid. Why the hell would a god go through the trouble of artificially radioactively decaying certain elements just to /trick us./
It bears mentioning that a significant portion of our genome never gets transcribed into proteins. So why's it there? It didn't affect reproductive rates negatively, that's why--so it never evolved out.
I think a god that could create evolving organisms and biosystems is far more deserving of devotion than one that just makes a half-assed planet with all kinds of superfluous genetic material floating around.
And oh yeah, the Tree of Life isn't a tree anymore, really. It's a Ring. Bacterial and viral DNA is constantly being spliced into our genome, and vice-versa. Same with all the other organisms out there. Chances are very good that there's some string of A's, G's, C's, and T's in my (and your) DNA that got copied and pasted from a wombat or a nemotode or a tomato. I think it was in an issue of the Scientific journal "Nature" some time in the last two years.
And really, how /cool/ is that? Between random non-lethal hiccups in DNA replication and this, I think there's plenty of opportunity for mutations to develop into the diversity of life we now have over time.
Anyway, to go back off-topic to the rock? I think you take yourself far too seriously if you didn't chuckle a little at "GOD DRAWS COCKS ON WALLS." God has a sense of humor, if he/she/it exists: look at the platypus. There's something delightfully absurd and grounding in the thought of a god with a penchant for graffitti. That's the kind of god I'd like to have around--maybe to play a couple of rounds of Halo 2, and discuss the answer to life (42).
And as far as implications of inscriptions, for all we know, that scribble could've been an ancient grocery list--the photo doesn't resemble the interpretation for me in the slightest. It very well could be a prayer for some pagan god--and we know how evil those pagans are--particularly because of the imagery of the genetalia. Those are usually associated with fertility, and the Judeo-Christian-Muslim god is not a fertility god who encourages promiscuity--especially not with oxen.
...What if the inscription is a description of intercourse with oxen, for that matter? I don't see why a rainbow couldn't be a metaphor for an orgasm--a /gay/ orgasm. <3~
Anyway, god and I are off to go shoot some pool. She always wins--the woman's a physics genius. Makes perfect bank shots every damn time. She's already won $500 off of me.
Knowledge is the surest road to god,
mackennzie
Posted by mackennzie at May 12, 2006 10:13 PM
209.6.97.49
Nobody cares, Anderson.
Posted by Wagner at May 13, 2006 02:15 AM
66.68.108.122
^^^ AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ^^^
Posted by Anderson at May 18, 2006 03:18 AM
71.100.175.198
What I want to know is, if all humans ared descended from Jews, then why are there still Jews today?
Posted by michael patrick at June 15, 2006 08:36 PM
151.204.211.197
People that think anyone who beleives in God is a moron is a pretty arrogant, bigoted person. I dont see how evolution disproves God. I beleive in God and evolution. I guess that means that the bible thumpers and the evolution thumpers both hate my guts!
Posted by Tony at December 20, 2006 10:51 PM
4.182.218.140
Tony- what are you? Some sort of necromancer?
Posted by Michael Patrick at January 7, 2007 10:27 AM
71.248.255.129
Very helpful article. Can i traslate this and insert on my site? Greetins from Poland
Posted by Meble at February 23, 2007 06:38 AM
82.177.36.10
You're an idiot if you think that I meant to present that as if it was a literal quote. A genuine, complete idiot who is incapable of actual dialogue with human beings who use common rhetorical devices. I see no further need to have a conversation with someone like that.
Posted by Pozycjonowanie at March 8, 2007 11:42 AM
82.146.251.5
Pozy...I think you are having a completely different conversation.
Posted by michaeljpatrick at March 8, 2007 12:55 PM
151.204.25.246
OMFG this thread has been going for nearly 2.5 years! I just happened on it tonight and can't believe you people can't get past this, so here it is...
Man (and by that I mean gender neutral Homo sapiens) is a bipedal, simian mammal descended from a common ancesotr with the other apes and is ultimately related to every other living thing on Earth by way of evolution. That is our BIOLOGICAL origin.
Mankind (notice the change in terminology) may or may not be (a matter of faith) unique among all living things on Earth in that we have an understanding and relationship with God. That is our SPIRITUAL origin.
Thus people (again a totally inclusivie term) have both a biological origin and a spiritual origin. Even born-again Christians distinguish between their biological birth and their "spiritual" birth.
The sooner those who adhere to a creationist view can come to grips with this observation the sooner we can move on to more important discussions.
Biological evolution is a fact. Spiritual creation may, or may not, be a fact. One is testable, the other is not. Period.
Posted by Mark at March 14, 2007 10:45 PM
128.192.13.80
There is no god moron.
Posted by Anonymous at March 15, 2007 05:04 AM
70.53.95.44
A very good and sophisticated article. I absolutely with agree you, Thank you!
Posted by Alain tRucks at March 19, 2007 07:15 AM
80.54.200.2
Translation of Anderson-speak: "I have no idea what NGR&E actually published and have been talking out my ass. Excuse me while I backpedal furiously."
Assuming I don't have to skip lunch today, I will attempt to find the appropriate issue of NGR&E (since that's the heart of this argument).
Posted by torrent at March 25, 2007 04:13 PM
83.26.126.2
Good read! Thanks
Posted by torrent at March 25, 2007 04:14 PM
83.26.126.2
nice :)
Posted by gry at April 1, 2007 11:47 AM
83.26.111.35
Did not look a date, thought that all think backwardly :)
Posted by Tomas at April 2, 2007 12:12 PM
80.73.3.114
Yes. The National Geographic Society is capable of publishing crap without a second thought. It’s lucrative. People are known to pay someone to say what they like to hear or write what they like to read. Tell us something new already.
Posted by fee at April 3, 2007 06:05 AM
58.97.0.250
ery helpful article.
Posted by Programy at April 7, 2007 09:00 AM
83.9.118.44
nice article :)
Posted by wakacje Leba at April 9, 2007 02:50 AM
83.16.236.50
I think these blog is really useful for new comers and Excellent resource list. It´s a very interesting Blog and simple answer of many questions. Keep up the good work! Thanks it helps me a lotЙ
Posted by google offers oodles of tools at April 9, 2007 04:03 AM
88.214.203.202
who let the bots out?
Posted by michael at April 14, 2007 09:58 AM
141.150.211.87
I still have recurrent problems with explore your site in Internet Explorer 4.0. please fix this problem
Posted by 50 cent at April 16, 2007 03:55 AM
88.214.203.202
Hi, I stumbled upon this enormous blog thing, and man, is it ever long! I must say I am very surprised by how passionat you have all turned out to be while typing this thing out. It has been going on for several years now.
So, I am curious to why the evolutionists here are getting REALLY mad, rude and sarcastic towards the creationists.
I have researched extesively on this topic, of evolution and stuff. I will admit that evoltion does seem rock solid. It has many universities and the like founded in its name.
I must rebut, however. I have looked into it, and have actually been insulted as to how much of a wool they have pulled over all of our eyes. Allow me to elaborate.
I am offended that while I examine both the creationist and evolutionsit material, evoltionists won't even listen to creationsits defences. I don't understand how you seem to think that I am so stupid to believe in something that is a lie. I believe in creationism for a reason.
I have seen this website posted previously, but has anyone actaully checked out answersingenesis.org ? It is actually very impressive, how extensivley the support themselves.
There are two kinds of science in teh world of, uh, science. There is observable science, and historical science. Observable scienc is what brought us the rocket ship, and windows, and medicines.
Historical science is not really science, in a way, because science is all about repeating the process. Historical science takes a rock, and claims it is billions of years old. One of there favourite lines is talking about carbon dating. I've researched carbon dating, and it only dates back thousands of years - so, whether it IS really old or not cannot be determined by that theroy. But evolutionists wouldn't have you know that.
Darwin was angry at God because his daughter died, that's all.
ANyways, It was a creationsist who came up with the shifting plates idea. It was a creationsist who invented MRI, It was a creationsit who discovered natural selction, which, upon inspection, is not evoluton at all, but only supports creationsist even more.
Posted by Adam - hi! at April 22, 2007 09:06 PM
65.93.37.18
Hello everyone. To be honest, I'm on here trying to procrastinate from my homework. :)
It's amazing on how intense people can get about this subject. Of course I don't disagree with it--I get very involved in all kinds of discussions as well.
Personally, I am a Christian, and I believe that God created the world in 7 days...well.. 6 really..--to be all 'techinically correct'...sheesh! haha
I know thta alreday many people are going to try to find a hole in what I'm writing, just because I disagree with their beliefs. I hope that's not the case, though. I've learned that it's important to, in almost any serious discussion, go into it with an open mind. This is not to say that you are willing to change you entire beliefe system after reading one well written sentence... (If I did that, perhaps I wouldn't believe in Jesus today. Some of the people on this site are quite articulate. :) ) However, if we decide before anything is said that we will disagree with the other entirly without listening, then there is no real point in having this board.
I'm no expert in history or any kind of science. And I'm not a pastro or anything. do know, though, what Jesus has done for me in my life. I think a lot of people choose to believe the 'evolutionist' theory because it usually excludes God from history.
I choose to believe 'creation' because I feel better knwoing that my life has purpose. It's my understanding that 'evolutionsists' think that they (and the rest of us) are the result of a great unique twist of chance--that by an incredible and freak turn of events, the entire universe was started. Creationists believe that there was an incredible God who, by using incredible power, created the universe. We don't have an explanation where God came from ( really, he didn't come from anywhere, he just was), so really, the large amount of unknowns is similar, so they both seem equally believable. Over billions of years, 'evolutionists' usually believe, single-cell organisms evolved into multi-cel organisms, which, over more billions of years, evolved more and more, until they had the ablity to kill and eat and eat each other. Things kept on killing things, and after all kinds of agony, death, freak chances, we eventually come out on top, just as guilty as everything else is of killing, hate and cruelty. Creationists believe that there was an almighty God. Out of his power he created everything, the animals, plants, waters, earth, and (seperately) humans. We are on top of the food chain because God loved humans so much that he gave them rulership over them(animals). Sadly, Adam and Eve sinned, and therefore, sin entered the world.
One main difference so far is that evolustinsists don't blame themselves for all the crap that goes on in the world, and creationists do...so why would anyone find happiness thinking that they are the desendants of the people who caused sin, death, murder, hatred, rape, theft. ect..??
Evolutionsists say that their story hasn't changed much since then...humans have evolved condiderably since they first appeared, and even though they are still humans be definition, they are much smarter and advanced. THey are free to live their lives, because they relaize that feedom is a great thing to have. They have some sort of conscious, and try to follow it as they see fit. Death, just like birth, is a crucial step involved in a cruel cycle. THey know that when they die, they will be only making room for more people to inhabit this 60-something billion year old planet. THey know that unless they are among the 0.1% of 'extraodinary' people, who become incredibly famous for discovering or doing someting absolutly phenominal, they will fade into history, and no one will ever really remember them again. Teir families lament their death, but when the sun burns out we'll all die anyways, so there's no real point in trying to make a difference to anyone, unless it helps them live their life better. :)
Creationsist think that, rather than a collection of slim-evolved-cells, each and every human has unfathomable worth, because God created him. Yeah, they screwed up horribly, and they are bound to die--and it's their fault completely... Then someone called Jesus came..he was God in the form of a man. Because he was God, he had no obligation to do anything for the lame people who lived on the Earth. However, he loved all of everyone so much, that he chose to die for them, so that even though they might die physically--they could live forever more in a paradise.
To me, belief in God sounds better than thinking we're all an accident, destined to die and suffer before we die.
Posted by Jacob at April 22, 2007 10:12 PM
65.93.139.66
Hi I am a Christian, I study science for a fun, my girlfriend is a bioengineer, I have read the latest reports from camps in both fields. I am currently reading "The making of the fittest: the ultimate DNA forensic evidence". I also read articles in http://answersingenisis.org I grew up taught evolution, no one can say I do not have a firm grasp on its arguments.
If an evolutionist where to look at a color wheel, he would assume red evolved from yellow. have you ever stopped to wonder why 99%of all supposed species that have ever existed are now extinct? (fact from an evolutionist journal) evolution postulates exponential mutation, WHY DO WE ONLY OBSERVE THE OPPOSE T? We cant blame human interaction for anymore that maybe 1%, so what happened the the other 98%. climate change? if thats the case, survival of the fittest is pretty weak.
Read:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1125dna.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/206.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/RE2/chapter6.asp
most posters on here against creationists are whelps that have been suckling on secular humanist media, and don't care about gathering ALL the raw data, just enough to support there argument. Secular Humanism is recognized by the US government as a RELIGION. and most public schools textbooks tech the secular humanist world view. You cant excape having a world view. Us Christians at least know what our IS. Even that aside though, real facts can be interpreted wrong if plugged into the wrong system.
National Geographic has an adgenda, and they have invested full hearty into evolution as Dogma, If they recant, half of there issues will look stupid. They are biased and will not show you the evidence to the contrary.
Posted by Scott at April 26, 2007 12:24 PM
69.133.120.221
Wouldn't want you to miss out on the new web "www.vonbora.net"
It is the only notice of discovery ever to include location, altitude, and proportion. Thus it is the only claim that can be tested by science. And since most scientists believe it never existed, this is their perfect opportunity to prove it. Read carefully or you might say something you regret later. Bye Bye.
Posted by Anderson at May 5, 2007 01:12 AM
71.100.170.143
Wow. Every once in a while I pop my head in here and see that this thread is still lingering. Of course lately it seems that it is mostly pro-creation types coming in to get the "last laugh" on an audience that has moved on. Well, here I am, your audience.
You all have so much to say it would be difficult to respond to everything, but I too have other things I should be doing an a desire to procrastinate.
I will respond to as many comments as I can until I become bored. I hope that you will stick around long enough to read them as I have read all of yours.
Dear, Adam-Hi!
You say, "I am curious to why the evolutionists here are getting REALLY mad, rude and sarcastic towards the creationists."
Personally I don't like the term "evolutionist". It implies that evolution is a belief system rather than a science and that in and of itself reveals the massive misunderstanding on the part of creationists. Creationists support their "theory" because it is what they want to believe. They fear it will somehow invalidate or weaken their religious stance to discover that God did not directly create mankind and is not directly responsible for the wide variety of life on this world. This is why they often resort to moral, ethical and philosophical arguments against evolution like equating it with eugenics, the holocaust, atheism, and a lack of a belief in a purpose for mankind. Also, usage of such a term allows the argument to be polarized and forces people to side with what feels right to them instead of understanding the facts and the scientific process. People who recognize the validity of evolution are no more "evolutionists" than people who think the world isn't flat would be considered "sphereists" (likewise, those who agree with Newtons laws aren't "gravitists").
The second point I should probably make here is regarding the sarcasm and anger. Part of the anger is a reaction to the close-minded and bull-headed attitude of creationists. Not everyone who supports evolution is a cool headed saint. Sometimes when faced with several people attempting to argue seven different preposterous points at once can cause one to get a little edgy. The sarcasm is two-part: on the one hand it is a natural reaction when one becomes angered at trying to prove a point to someone who either is not understanding or not listening. On the other hand, many of the regular posters to this blog (myself included) are sarcastic by nature. It is part of our make-up to crack jokes and roll our eyes. It is what we do. That should not in any way reflect on the whole of the scientific community ( a community of which most of the people who visit this blog aren't even members).
You continue thusly:
"I am offended that while I examine both the creationist and evolutionsit material, evoltionists won't even listen to creationsits defences. I don't understand how you seem to think that I am so stupid to believe in something that is a lie. I believe in creationism for a reason."
First, you are wrong. I and several others I know have listened to the arguments of creationism ad nauseam. We may seem as if we no longer wish to hear your arguments because we have heard them all before. Countless times just throughout the course of this blog the same arguments have surfaced and been refuted over and over again. I don't think that everyone who believes in creationism is stupid, but is is one of the top ten signs of ignorance.
Then you said, "I have seen this website posted previously, but has anyone actaully checked out answersingenesis.org ? It is actually very impressive, how extensivley the support themselves."
Answersingenesis.org is a site that I have visited. It is quite possibly the largest collection of lies and misdirections in history. Their is a flipside site known as talkorigins.org (also its sister site- pandasthumb.org). The major difference between Talk Origins and Answers in Genesis is that T.O. will actually cite and link back to A.i.G., but A.i.G. does not ever reciprocate. I don't think it is very active lately, but if you look at the "FEEDBACK" and FAQ sections of Talk Origins you will find a multitude of well reasoned responses to many of your questions.
Some more of what you said, "There are two kinds of science in teh world of, uh, science. There is observable science, and historical science. Observable scienc is what brought us the rocket ship, and windows, and medicines.
Historical science is not really science, in a way, because science is all about repeating the process. Historical science takes a rock, and claims it is billions of years old. One of there favourite lines is talking about carbon dating. I've researched carbon dating, and it only dates back thousands of years - so, whether it IS really old or not cannot be determined by that theroy. But evolutionists wouldn't have you know that."
Nothing in that previous paragraph is true. There is only once kind of science. That science is (not my words, but they fit), 'a systematic methodology which attempts to collect accurate information about reality and to model this in a way which can be used to make reliable, concrete and quantitative predictions about future events and observations.'
Carbon dating can determine the age of an object in the range of (I think) 60 thousand years. This still predates the Bible by about 54 thousand years. Also there are many other radioactive materials with half-lives that far exceed that of Carbon 14 and can therefore date an object far older than 60 thousand years. In addition to that there are numerous other ways to determine the age of the universe. Some simple equations based on the speed of light (which is observable and well documented) and the distance of other celestial bodies (another observable and well documented fact) should be all that is necessary to determine that the universe BILLIONS Of years old.
Some more from Adam Hi!, "Darwin was angry at God because his daughter died, that's all."
There is so much wrong with this statement. For starters, death of children was pretty much a common occurrence in Darwin's age (and sadly still today in some areas). Further, much of the groundwork for Darwin's theories had been laid long before the death of his daughter. Your statement here is a sad example of creationist dogma wherein personal and unrelated incidents are injected into a debate which is supposedly scientific. Even if what you said here were true it would mean nothing. Regardless of the motives behind Darwin's theories, the amount of research and discovery that has been done since has proven and improved upon his understanding of natural evolution to the point that it is (along with genetics) the foundation of all modern biological science.
Adam-Hi! speaks some more, "ANyways, It was a creationsist who came up with the shifting plates idea. It was a creationsist who invented MRI, It was a creationsit who discovered natural selction, which, upon inspection, is not evoluton at all, but only supports creationsist even more."
What's your point here? Einstein was Jewish. Does that mean that gentiles are exempt from his theory of relativity? Or does it mean that Judaism is the one true religion? Or perhaps it means nothing because science and religion have as much to do with one another as me eating eggs for breakfast has to do with the size and shape of the moon.
Scott, Jacob, and the always fun Anderson- I hope to have time to get back to you each in turn. Stay tuned!
--
Michael J. Patrick
www.michaeljpatrick.com
haloofbees.blogspot.com
Posted by michael j patrick at May 11, 2007 02:26 PM
141.150.246.160
I wonder if we can rejuvenate this ol' thread.
Posted by pendrive at June 11, 2007 10:37 AM
83.11.190.183
nice article :)
Posted by mp3 player at June 17, 2007 07:54 AM
83.11.155.157
Wow, this is still going? Right, seriously huge post ahead...
Okay, I have a different profile than most people who have posted here (except for one IIRC). I am an earth scientist by trade/training, but I am first and foremost a huge geekess and devour any knowledge I can get my hands on. Science, religion, philosophy, all of it. And I came to some conclusions.
1) This has been stated before, but I think it bears repeating: science cannot positively prove anything; it can, however, disprove things.
2) Also pre-stated: any purported explanations that boil down to "God did it, *poof*" are unacceptable in the arena of science, because there is no data (and no, the Bible doesn't count as data, as it's not an observation). *This means that religion has, or could have, a wider scope than science. Hold that thought.*
What makes me "different?" I believe in God, and I place my full faith in science to explain things in this world we inhabit. What I do not believe in is *religion.* Sorry to break it to all you "good Christians," but you don't know how it really works. Neither do you good Muslims, you good Hindus, or you good...er...people who worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Pastafarians?).
The final conclusion I came to is this: if you take your holy texts as literal truth. YOU ARE COMMITTING BLASPHEMY. Christians especially are horrible about this: the analogy of "putting God in a shoebox labeled 'stuff we can't explain'" is a perfect example. Why are you afraid of God? Why don't you like the idea that God might have done things in a way that science, a human invention, can explain? Science isn't everything, I admit, and I do not accept *any* scientific theory as absolute truth, because no scientist worthy of the name will push his or her theory as indisputable truth. We *know* science can't ever provide absolute truth, and this is part of walking humbly in God.
Furthermore, I believe fundamentalists of any stripe are idolaters. You heard me: idol-worshipers. They insist on clinging to a book that has changed by a huge amount over the years and was, when you get right down to it, human-made, and refuse to allow that God could possibly be something different. I don't know about you, but stuffing God into the shoebox sounds pretty disrespectful to me.
To be quite honest, I think the only workable theology is Deism/Panentheism (distinct from Pantheism, for those who split hairs). God is everything, everything is God. You don't have to have a holy book or a bunch of old men telling you what to believe; God is there for anyone to touch, see, smell, taste, hear, and think about, even if the senses and mind are inadequate by themselves.
My belief in God is based mostly on the admittedly flawed First Mover argument; no one knows what set the universe in motion, or what there was before the Big Bang, if anything, or if there even was a Bang, or if there is a finite or infinite series of Bang-like events. The point is, on this issue, scientists and theologists are equally uninformed. My conception of God is not a personal God, the Big Beard In the Sky, but It's (I hate how there's no polite gender-neutral pronoune in English) definitely there (and here, and everywhere) to my mind.
Science and faith don't have to be at odds; science and religion, however, always will be, because religion and science each have an agenda while faith does not. I advise people to consider Deism; it's the All-In-One religion, transcending any single group's petty purported monopoly on the One True Path.
Posted by Azuma Hazuki at June 25, 2007 08:50 PM
130.245.197.52
I wonder if we can rejuvenate this ol' thread.
Posted by Praca at July 31, 2007 06:56 AM
83.11.136.251
What ever would make you think that some random chance made such complex infrastructures as what we are? Did you know that the literal root of the word mutations is mistakes? Do you realize that if Darwin's THEORY is correct that midgets, according to his own theory, would have to give birth to other midgets, but 98% of the time that is not the case. Did you know that there are 15,000 genetic mistakes between you and your parents. Oh ya, did you know that evolution is just a fancy word for Spontaneous generation which means something will randomly pop up anywhere at any time. By the way scientists cannot recreate life, nor is there any evidence that you can show me that proves evolution that isn't a fake or misread information. All the evidence points toward intelligent design, and by the way how can science prove absolutes if according to your theories there are no absolutes!
Posted by Jeff at September 28, 2007 01:47 AM
70.104.248.221
"Do you realize that if Darwin's THEORY is correct that midgets, according to his own theory, would have to give birth to other midgets, but 98% of the time that is not the case."
Jeff doesn't understand the difference between dominant and recessive genetic traits, which isn't really surprising. Given his lack of understanding of basic genetics, I think it's safe to bet that his opinions on the evidence underlying evolutionary biology are probably pretty on pretty shaky ground.
Woohoo! Three years of calling Creationists a bunch of idiots in this thread!
Posted by Wagner at November 24, 2007 12:36 AM
72.179.54.161
Pop open a bottle of Champagne for the thread that will never die!
Posted by michael j patrick at December 4, 2007 01:24 AM
63.164.145.85
thanks for helpful article
Posted by gov2gov at December 6, 2007 01:12 PM
89.113.78.196
spike, youre an idiot that has no biblical knowledge at all. and for all youwho agree with him, open up a bible, clear your pulluted mind, and TRY to think about the truth that is behind all this.
Posted by Sherlock Holmes at February 16, 2008 02:04 PM
204.84.50.94
The truth is that you are clearly not anything like Sherlock Holmes. For starters he would have noticed that Spike is a "SHE".
Posted by michael patrick at March 20, 2008 08:47 AM
71.248.243.128
Wagner: "Woohoo! Three years of calling Creationists a bunch of idiots in this thread!"
If it is your desire, may you fully enjoy more happy years of your past time.
Though I do find its a mystery.. this human propensity to define our identity by what we hate rather than what we love.
Posted by Anderson at March 27, 2008 08:24 PM
71.100.165.47
Anderson - I think I can speak for Wagner here as well as myself. This conversation has been fun and an interesting diversion but in no way does it "define our identity". If it has for you then I suspect your own identity is in need of some enrichment.
Posted by michael patrick at April 15, 2008 09:03 PM
72.73.206.30
This is pretty much the sweetest article ever. All you creationists though, STFU. All you scientists, BYOB. Party at the NatGeo office!!! Anyone interested?
Posted by MXisLife at April 17, 2008 09:32 AM
24.56.251.6
Wow, I just have to tag my name on this again. I can't believe people aren't tired of this yet. I wish "shout downs" like this happened more often. Nobody would go to war, we'd just get on the web and scream at each other from the comfort of the interweb. The last time I posted here I was just starting school. Now I'm looking at MFA programs. Whoo, time flies.
Posted by Cleo at April 27, 2008 08:02 AM
72.73.74.165
Yes. Darwin was wrong. Since theres no scientific proof, let us use the same method that Darwin himself used. Observation. Which is basically scientific (anyway). Let us assume that someone from another planet landed on the planet earth today. He would notice a myriad of transportation vehicles (bicycles, motorpeds, small cars, limos, buses, trains, aeroplnes etc). Then this person, after studying the records available would write a book “The origin of Transportation Machines on Planet earth” Would this person be right if he said that aeroplanes evolved from bicycles ? They share certain common aspects, like the wheels. If not so for “simple things” like military surveillance crafts, how so for something like a house fly? Darwin was wrong, and anyone who supports his ideas does not wish to use logic.
Posted by James I. M. at July 21, 2008 12:08 PM
212.49.89.152
Obvious proof that God created man -
What are the odds that our legs would be made (through random chance) to be just long enought to reach the ground?
Posted by Michael Patrick at July 30, 2008 10:18 PM
63.164.145.85
MP: "Anderson - I think I can speak for Wagner here as well as myself. This conversation has been fun and an interesting diversion but in no way does it "define our identity". If it has for you then I suspect your own identity is in need of some enrichment."
"This conversation" doesn't define anyone's identity. No conversation can define one's identity. Even so, all conversations occasionally disclose what a person loves, or loves to hate.
Posted by Anderson at August 8, 2008 11:27 PM
71.100.7.50
They say that they have proven evolution in the lab but I tell you that if they have to do it in a lab they had to create it and there for it is not natural!! Also they have only proven that mutations can occur it would take a whole lot of mutation to make a single celled organism into a person don't you think!! Since most mutations result in an unviable offspring this takes a bigger leap to say that we evolved than to say that we were all created. Take a closer look and you will find that all of the things they accredit to evolution actually have a purpose like the appendix we actually use it. Also things like arm like bones on reptiles and wales help with birthing so if you want to claim that evolution really happens and that its observable I say you need to prove that your proof is actually proof instead of taking it upon yourself to guess and say hey it makes sense. I'll tell you what doesn't make sense evolution is based on the idea that life spontaneous came into being and I tell you that they have calculated that the chance of even one protein in a simple life form to be made spontaneously is 1 in 1000000000000000000000000000 I believe its a hundred zeros or so so if that seems possible you can buy into this theory if not find some real proof and then publish it.
Posted by Miller, Jess at September 30, 2008 05:24 PM
69.144.246.15
www.vonbora.org updated their website.
Posted by Update at December 11, 2008 11:56 PM
72.254.154.91
yes this magazine serie was talked about real evidences of theory of evolution by Harun Yahya's book of Evolution Deceit. that is so joyful. because how can we still accept this teory since 150 yearly in this modern age. it is very absurd by some scientific understanding.
Posted by Abdullah Korkmaz (APOCAN) at March 31, 2009 08:20 AM
194.27.33.6
Those who believe in evolution do not really understand it's beginnings and believe the lies they are told. Darwin did not prove evolution. He took another's theory then added conjecture with mismatched examples hoping that one day the evidence would be found. Many have tried to attach isolated examples without proof of actual connection to evolution. Whenever "proof" is found it still is surrounded by so much "unknown" that it only adds to the theory.
Evolution has actually become a religion to those who claim their is no God. The chain of evidence to support evolution is broken at each link just prior to the "evidence" and the link just after the evidence, with only conjecture to tie them together. There is more examples that cannot be explained by evolution then evidence that "might" support evolution.
Darwin is the High Priest of the religion of Evolution.
Posted by Roger W Hancock at June 14, 2009 08:17 AM
75.172.63.179
Any theory is just a theory but many can actually be proven. You cannot prove evoluton any more than you can disprove God.
Posted by Roger W Hancock, PoetPatriot at June 14, 2009 08:21 AM
75.172.63.179
i don't understand about darwin theory it true or not, because this theory very different with religion.but scientist is scientist.you can agree or not
Posted by foraminifera at November 1, 2009 07:39 PM
203.189.89.59
i realize that this theory evolution very different with religion.i think this theory only theory,not proven anymore.
Posted by foraminifera at November 10, 2009 01:26 AM
203.189.89.59
Whenever I open up safari or calendar in safari, after around 3 or 4 minutes and closes it and goes to the main page (with all the application icons). How can I stop my iphone from doing this? I want to actually use these applications without my iphone closing them. Thanks!
________________
[url=http://unlockiphone22.com]unlock iphone 3g[/url]
Posted by nargige at December 17, 2009 01:51 AM
94.23.226.25
Bonjour I'd like to thank you for such a great quality forum!
Since I believe I have a very extensive website myself I knew it would be good karma to let you all know about it.
Arranging a party to celebrate the birthday of anyone who is 1 years old or ninety-nine years old demands a certain number of [url=http://birthdaypartysuppliesplanet.com]birthday party supplies[/url]. Some of the expected supplies most likely will be unique for people of different ages and tastes, although there are a few kinds of [url=http://birthdaysuppliescity.com]party supplies[/url] that you will need despite what the person's tastes are. Many birthday parties are planned around a theme like a superhero. Certain supplies that are purchased will be the result of the theme of the celebration. When planning for younger children, you can find quite a lot of themes based on the child's favorite TV show or movie character. Moreover, you will also find a lot of classic kids birthday themes. For adolescents, you might wish to choose a character theme or maybe just a color scheme. A lot of the most beloved themes are the Luau [url=http://birthdaysuppliesland.com]party supplies[/url], Hollywood party, Marti Gras [url=http://partysuppliescity.com]party supplies[/url], Retro party or the Disco [url=http://partysuppliesland.com]birthday supplies[/url]. Pick decorations and food that reinforce the theme. For adults, a popular supplies are ones based on the year of the adult's birth. You may find tons of ideas for this kind of decorating.
Thank you for reading my post, hopefully you enjoyed the summary of my website. If you are looking for a specific theme party why not check our [url=http://www.partyopedia.com/articles/safari-party-supplies.html]safari Party Supplies[/url] page.
Posted by redeDaree at December 17, 2009 07:27 AM
212.235.107.171
Watch Gossip Girl Online For Free - Gossip Girl Streaming Online
[CENTER][URL="http://www.gossip-girl.watch-movies-and-series-online.com"][IMG]http://www.youronlinemovies.net/includes/public/images/movies/gossip-girl.png[/IMG][/URL]
Hi [B]Upper East Siders[/B]!
Come And Welcome to my website: [B][URL="http://gossip-girl.watch-movies-and-series-online.com"][B]Gossip Girl[/B][/URL][/B]
Whether you’re a Hampton Baby, Central Park [B]Prada[/B] gal, or you even dwell in *[B]gasp[/B]* Brooklyn, [I]this site is for you.[/I]
Why? The answer’s easier than deciding [B]what to wear[/B] tomorrow to school.
[B]Because [/B]my website has [B]all [/B]the latest [B]gossip[/B] about [B]Serena[/B], [B]Blair, Dan [/B]and the other poor little rich kids on the Upper East Side.
[/CENTER]
Posted by RuffSuild at December 18, 2009 09:20 AM
195.252.73.223
What's up one, I'm modish to the forum and justified wanted to impart hey. hi leaning touch to comprehend unusual pepole and allowance bits with them
suffer with a jubilant year
Posted by Attemenib at December 19, 2009 03:46 AM
84.110.201.80
Hi- Nice forum
DeluxSexToys.com - Premium Adult sex toys at Discount Prices
Huge Selection of premium Adult toys to choose from at 30% to 70% off retail prices. Shop discreetly online in the comfort of your own home or office. Discreet 24 hr shipping. Free shipping on all orders over $60
Take an extra 10% off all orders, just for stopping by. Coupon code: 570759
Great inventory of
dildos,condoms,sex swings,bondage gear,ropes,handcuffs,rabbit vibrators,prostate toys,anal toys,sex machines and much much more to see!
http://www.deluxsextoys.com Delux Your Sex Life..........
Also be sure to check our Adult Video On Demand section containing 1000's on adult videos
http://www.hotmovies.com//index.php?custom_theater=13117
[/color] [url=http://www.edenfantasys.com/Images/blank.gif[/url] [color=#ffffff] [/color]
[color=#ffffff]...see you around soon...[/color] [url=http://www.deluxsextoys.com]...[/url] [color=#ffffff].. ...[/color]
Posted by InnowVawCal at December 19, 2009 01:39 PM
212.235.107.116
At Hosts3.com for every hosting account you buy we give you 2 -3 extra free backup hosting accounts at no charge!
Offshore Alpha Master Resellers - Free back up Master Reseller
Hosts3.com is now offering Alpha Master Reseller Hosting
These are Offshore Servers in the OVH Data Center
You can create resellers and master resellers on the Alpha account.
Order Now and Get another Free Master Reseller to backup your data free.
http://www.hosts3.com/whmcs/cart.php?gid=25
Hosts3.com is proud to offer Stable Offshore Master Reseller Hosting
You asked and we delivered!
Offshore Bronze Master Reseller
Offshore Bronze Master Reseller 20GB Space 200GB Bandwidth Unlimited MySql's Unlimited Hosted domains Unlimited Sub domains Unlimited Email Accounts Free Private Name servers WHM/cPanel 11 Allowed Offshore type content Legal Adult content allowed Server Location: Netherlands
$11.99 /mo order Here:
http://www.hosts3.com/whmcs/cart.php?a=add&pid=31
Offshore Silver Master Reseller
Offshore Silver Master Reseller 40GB Space 400GB Bandwidth Unlimited MySql's Unlimited Hosted domains Unlimited Sub domains Unlimited Email Accounts Free Private Name servers WHM/cPanel 11 Allowed Offshore type content Legal Adult content allowed Server Location: Netherlands
$18.99 /mo order here:
http://www.hosts3.com/whmcs/cart.php?a=add&pid=33
Offshore Gold Master Reseller
Offshore Gold Master Reseller 80 GB Space 800 GB Bandwidth Unlimited MySql's Unlimited Hosted domains Unlimited Sub domains Unlimited Email Accounts Free Private Name servers WHM/cPanel 11 Allowed Offshore type content Allowed Legal Adult content allowed Server Location: Netherlands
$21.99 mo Order Here
http://www.hosts3.com/whmcs/cart.php?a=add&pid=34
Offshore Platinum Master Reseller
Offshore Platinum Master Reseller Hosting Unmetred Space Unmetred Bandwidth Unlimited MySql's Unlimited Hosted domains Unlimited Sub domains Unlimited Email Accounts Free Private Name servers WHM/cPanel 11 Allowed Offshore type content Allowed Legal Adult content allowed Server Location: Netherlands
$25.99 mo order here:
http://www.hosts3.com/whmcs/cart.php?a=add&pid=35
Offshore Resellers Low Prices
Offshore Reseller Hosting Account
Unmetered Space W/ Cpanel Unmetered Resources
Only $9 Per month - Make a lot of money selling to your
own clients. Private nameservers FREE
Order Here:
http://www.hosts3.com/whmcs/cart.php?a=add&pid=26
Offshore Reseller Mini Plan 5 GB Unmetered Resources
Only $3 per month:
http://www.hosts3.com/whmcs/cart.php?a=add&pid=29
Offshore Shared Hosting Only $1 per month for 3 Gb:
FREE 30 Day trial on All Hosting accounts
Just open a Free client account, submit ticket with your
domain name and you will get a FREE 30 day trial hosting:
http://www.hosts3.com/whmcs/cart.php?a=add&pid=9
FFmpeg Hosting Reseller Accounts Available
Reseller FFmpeg Enabled Hosting
10 GB Space Same specs as info below in
shared hosting but you create your
own sub account and charge your own price!
$3 Per month FREE 30 Day Trial
Order Here:
http://www.hosts3.com/whmcs/cart.php?a=add&pid=11
Onshore FFMpeg Enabled Shared Hosting Also Available
Disk Storage 5000 MB
Monthly Data Transfer Unmetered
FFMPEG Video Extensions Enabled!
FREE Video Site Script Installed
If you run out of space we will increase it by 1 gb per request
Adult Content Allowed
Unlimited Addon Domains
Unlimited Parked Domains
24/7 Tech Support
Unlimited MySQL Database
cPanel Latest Version
Unlimited cPanel Features
Fantastico De-Luxe
POP3/SMTP Mails
PHP 5 - MySQL 5 Perl
Cron - FrontPage
GD - CURL
Image Magick
Fantastico
FFMpeg,Mplayer & FLV2Tool Support
Ruby on Rails
Libogg, Liborbis, Lame & MP3 Encoder Support
Frontpage Extension
Cpanel and video tutorials to help you
Free 30 Day Trial Upon Request (Just open a ticket)
$6 per year
Order Here and use the code dp at checkout for $4 Discount:
http://www.hosts3.com/whmcs/cart.php?a=add&pid=13
Hosts3.com Offers A Low Cost Anonymous VPN Service
Surf the internet Privately using a USA IP on an encrypted
connection. We are the lowest cost VPN Provider around.
All user logs are wiped every 7 Days for privacy by admin.
Only $4 month for Shared IP and $8 month for your own dedicated IP
Order shared IP here:
http://www.hosts3.com/whmcs/cart.php?a=add&pid=3
Order Dedicated IP here:
http://www.hosts3.com/whmcs/cart.php?a=add&pid=4
Account Setup info and VPN Software will be emailed within 24 Hours after payment.
Offshore Reseller Hosting Account
Unmetered Space W/ Cpanel Unmetered Resources
Only $9 Per month - Make a lot of money selling to your
own clients. Private nameservers FREE
Order Here:
http://www.hosts3.com/whmcs/cart.php?a=add&pid=26
Offshore Shared Hosting Only $1 per month for 3 Gb:
FREE 30 Day trial on All Hosting accounts
Just open a Free client account, submit ticket with your
domain name and you will get a FREE 30 day trial hosting:
99.9% Uptime
Disk Storage
3000 MB
Unlimited Addon Domains
Unlimited Parked Domains
24/7 Tech Support
Unlimited MySQL Database
cPanel Latest Version
Unlimited cPanel Features
Fantastico De-Luxe
POP3/SMTP Mails
PHP 5 - MySQL 5 Perl
Cron - FrontPage
GD - CURL
Image Magick
Fantastico
Cpanel and video tutorials to help you
Anonymous Domain Registrations if you pay by Liberty Reserve
http://www.hosts3.com/whmcs/cart.php?a=add&pid=9
Windows ASP .Net Hosting Accounts 5GB
HELM 4
web forwarding
backup
MIME types
pre-propagation
scripting support
virtual directories unlimited
secure folders unlimited
custom error page
default document list
antivirus
spam protection
isolated app pools unlimited
usage reports
statistics
file manager
POP3 email accounts unlimited
auto responders
mail forwarders
mailing lists
web based email
MS Access databases unlimited
mySQL databases unlimited
MS SQL server 2005 unlimited
ODBC DSN
DSN-less connection
ftp access
ftp accounts unlimited unlimited unlimited
python
CGI
PERL5
PHP5
MS XML
MS XML parser
MS .NET framework 1.1
MS .NET framework 2
IIS6
Server Side Include (SSI)
ASP scripting
ASP.net 1
ASP.net 2
DNS editor
frontPage extensions
$3 month Order Here now:
http://www.hosts3.com/whmcs/cart.php?a=add&pid=28
Windows VPS Servers
WVPS-1
-----------
Windows
15GB of Space
150GB of Transfer
200MB of Ram
Windows Server 2003
Full Off Site Backups Nightly
Remote Desktop (RDP) - Administrator Access
Managed VPS Support
Pro-Active Monitoring - Your VPS goes down we get it back up and notify
Custom Bandwidth Graphing
MS SQL 2008 Databases -> Upon Request
http://www.hosts3.com/whmcs/cart.php?a=add&pid=17
Unmetered FFmpeg Master Reseller Accounts
http://www.hosts3.com/whmcs/cart.php?a=add&pid=44
Offshore (Romania ) VPS Windows or Linux Same Price
- 512MB Dedicated SLM RAM
- Fair-share CPU Usage
- 500GB bandwidth
- 20GB space
- Your choice of Linux or Windows
Romanian Data Center
Linking, torrents and nulled script allowed.
All plans also include:
- Powered by Virtuozzo 4.0
- Choice of Linux (x86 or x64) or Windows 2003 Enterprise x64
- Free offloaded MySQL and Microsoft MSSQL servers for your own needs - saves you plenty of local resources!
- rDNS with a simple request (At this time we're still working on a control panel for it, but it's coming soon!)
- Great pings to Asia and the America's
- Semi-Managed support
http://www.hosts3.com/whmcs/cart.php?a=add&pid=81
- 1GB Dedicated SLM RAM
- Fair-share CPU Usage
- 1000GB bandwidth
- 30GB space
- Your choice of Linux or Windows
http://www.hosts3.com/whmcs/cart.php?a=add&pid=82
Rapidleech Plans - free seperate cpanel account with purchase
10 GB Rapidleech Webspace
Rapidleech Panel Preinstalled
No cpanel not used for webhosting
Can store Files
Unmetered Space
http://www.hosts3.com/whmcs/cart.php?a=add&pid=76
25 GB Rapidleech Webspace
Rapidleech Panel Preinstalled
No cpanel not used for webhosting
Can store Files
Unmetered Space
http://www.hosts3.com/whmcs/cart.php?a=add&pid=77
Seedboxes
50 GB disk space *
Unlimited active torrents **
Unmetered traffic
- 20 Mbps bandwidth limit outbound ***
HTTP access (for downloading)
FTP + SFTP access (for downloading, uploading and managing)
http://www.hosts3.com/whmcs/cart.php?a=add&pid=79
110 GB disk space *
Unlimited active torrents **
Unmetered traffic
- 40 Mbps bandwidth limit outbound ***
HTTP access (for downloading)
FTP + SFTP access (for downloading, uploading and managing)
http://www.hosts3.com/whmcs/cart.php?a=add&pid=80
For any questions or potential discounts etc:
Please open ticket here:
http://www.hosts3.com/whmcs/submitticket.php
Posted by CypesypeSlare at December 20, 2009 02:39 PM
69.163.33.89
Genius Mortgage Solutions is your source for an
fha refinance and a
debt consolidation refinance. An an fha refinance might be your pathway to a low interest rate home loan.
One of the benefits of this program is that it provides flexible underwriting guidelines so that you can get a
competitive interest rate on a home loan with as low as a 640 credit score.
The an fha refinance
will also allow you to borrow up to 96.5% of your homes value.
Please visit us today to see if an an
fha refinance is right for you. Genius Mortgage Solutions is also your source for a
debt consolidation refinance.
We work with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the FHA to deliver the most competitive rates and programs. We
can lend up to 85% of your home's value with a debt consolidation refinance. By consolidating all of your
high interest credit cards into the
debt consolidation refinance, you can usually save between $300.00 to $800.00 per month off of
geniusmortgageyour current monthly expenses. Please visit us today to see if a debt consolidation refinance is right for you.
target="_blank" >fha refinance might be your pathway to a low interest rate home loan. One of the benefits of this program is that it provides flexible underwriting guidelines so that you can get a competitive interest rate on a home loan with as low as a 640 credit score. The an fha refinance will also allow you to borrow up to 96.5% of your homes value. Please visit us today to see if an an fha refinance is right for you. Genius Mortgage Solutions is also your source for a debt consolidation refinance. We work with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the FHA to deliver the most competitive rates and programs. We can lend up to 85% of your home's value with a debt consolidation refinance. By consolidating all of your high interest credit cards into the debt consolidation refinance, you can usually save between $300.00 to $800.00 per month off of your current monthly expenses. Please visit us today to see if a debt consolidation refinance is right for you.
Posted by dymmenseniecy at December 21, 2009 06:54 PM
69.163.33.89
Dofus est un [url=http://www.bawwgt.com/fr]dofus kamas[/url], le joueur incarne un ou plusieurs personnages. On y retrouve une multitude [url=http://www.bawwgt.com/fr]acheter des dofus kamas[/url] et d'Ё¦quipements en tout genre, une vingtaine de mЁ¦tiers diffЁ¦rents et plus d'une centaine de monstres rЁ¦partis en diffЁ¦rentes zones sur les 10 000 [url=http://www.bawwgt.com/fr]dofus kamas pas cher[/url] (portions de carte, sur lesquelles l'on se dЁ¦place d'ailleurs comme sur une carte) formant l'univers de [url=http://www.bawwgt.com/fr]achat dofus kamas[/url], dont 99% ne sont accessibles qu'aux abonnЁ¦s.
Posted by tedy at December 22, 2009 02:34 AM
204.124.182.42
Hello Everybody,
It is very nice to found this. It is a perfect forum
[url=http://ass-parade.assfuckdolls.com/ass-parade]ass parade[/url]
Posted by ursulayang at December 22, 2009 06:24 PM
93.182.157.80
Hi guys.
Are there any good alternatives to rapidshare?
I mean sites where you don't have to wait or pay.
I only know [url=http://www.isavethis.com]isavethis[/url].
What about hotfile? I heard they also pay.
Posted by kathysetker at December 24, 2009 10:05 AM
74.63.219.178
Hello, Merry Christmas to those of you who celebrate it
Best wishes
emotlyses
Posted by emotlyses at December 25, 2009 09:34 PM
189.127.143.70
Greetings-This is a Great Place
[/color] [url=http://www.edenfantasys.com/Images/blank.gif[/url] [color=#ffffff] [/color]
[color=#ffffff]...see you around soon...[/color] [url=http://www.deluxsextoys.com]...[/url] [color=#ffffff].. ...[/color]
Posted by Dogcileicox at December 26, 2009 01:34 AM
212.235.107.116
miley cyrus nude miley cyrus nude miley cyrus nude
Posted by Grinnyignix at December 28, 2009 07:49 AM
93.174.93.104
Generally I do not post on blogs, but I would like to say that this post really forced me to do so! really nice post.
rH3uYcBX
Posted by SantaBlue at December 29, 2009 07:25 AM
213.155.25.194
100 euro dziennie - Zarabiasz wiecej niz 100 euro dziennie ? Nie wchodz
100 dziennie - Zarabiaj nawet 100 euro dziennie
200 euro dziennie - 200 euro / 24 h ?
200 Ђ dziennie - 200 euro w 24 godziny ?
300 euro dziennie - 300 euro dziennie ? Teraz to mozliwe
300l dziennie - 300 euro dziennie ? Teraz to mozliwe
internetowe kasyno- Kasyno internetowe po polsku
kasyno - Najlepsze kasyna w sieci
kasyno europejskie- Europejskie kasyno
[url=http://kasyno-online24.pl/kosci/]Kosci - Zasady gry[/url]
kasyno online Polskie kasyno online
ruletka Potrafisz obstawiac w ruletce ?
ruletka europejska Poznaj ruletke europejska
ruletka online Ruletka online - zarabiaj w kasynie
sekretna metoda Obstawianie w ruletce
zarabianie w internecie
[url=http://kasyno-online24.pl]polskie kasyno[/url]
Posted by vesroomcoro at December 29, 2009 02:12 PM
83.4.158.185
Attention Fellow Skiers
Just planning [url=http://www.tripcart.com/usa-regions/Sierra-Nevada/ski/Mt.-Pinos.html] Mt Pinos Ski[/url] .
Still crowded?
Its not the Sierra's, but ,
I hung out at, like [url=http://www.tripcart.com/usa-regions/Missouri-Arkansas/ski/Snow-Creek.html]Snow Creek Ski[/url] and [URL=http://www.tripcart.com/usa-regions/Southern-Appalachian-Mountains/ski/Winterplace.html]West Virginia Snow Ski[/url]
Have a good holiday
Posted by adaniatly at December 31, 2009 01:09 PM
212.235.107.33
At my new work, due to firewall limitations, I cannot install the VT Trader, a software from CMS Forex. Therefore I need to buy a device, Im thinking Blackberry or a Windows Mobile and then look for a new broker dealer to start trading. Anyone knows about Mobile Forex Trading?
[url=http://forexrobot-review.info]best forex software[/url]
Posted by nargige at January 3, 2010 10:55 PM
94.23.226.25
At my new work, due to firewall limitations, I cannot install the VT Trader, a software from CMS Forex. Therefore I need to buy a device, Im thinking Blackberry or a Windows Mobile and then look for a new broker dealer to start trading. Anyone knows about Mobile Forex Trading?
[url=http://forexrobot-review.info]best forex software[/url]
Posted by nargige at January 3, 2010 10:55 PM
94.23.226.25
At my new work, due to firewall limitations, I cannot install the VT Trader, a software from CMS Forex. Therefore I need to buy a device, Im thinking Blackberry or a Windows Mobile and then look for a new broker dealer to start trading. Anyone knows about Mobile Forex Trading?
[url=http://forexrobot-review.info]best forex software[/url]
Posted by nargige at January 3, 2010 10:55 PM
94.23.226.25
At my new work, due to firewall limitations, I cannot install the VT Trader, a software from CMS Forex. Therefore I need to buy a device, Im thinking Blackberry or a Windows Mobile and then look for a new broker dealer to start trading. Anyone knows about Mobile Forex Trading?
[url=http://forexrobot-review.info]best forex software[/url]
Posted by nargige at January 3, 2010 10:56 PM
94.23.226.25
At my new work, due to firewall limitations, I cannot install the VT Trader, a software from CMS Forex. Therefore I need to buy a device, Im thinking Blackberry or a Windows Mobile and then look for a new broker dealer to start trading. Anyone knows about Mobile Forex Trading?
[url=http://forexrobot-review.info]best forex software[/url]
Posted by nargige at January 3, 2010 10:56 PM
94.23.226.25
when i try to log into msn, its says , "we cannot sign yu into windows live messenger" ive treid everything, deleted it then installed it again, fixed the internet connection, EVERYTHING! but still not working. I have a laptop and windows live messenger works on it but i need help.. THE ERROR CODE IS 80048820 IF THAT HELPS
_____________
[url=http://darmowetapety24.blogspot.com]Darmowe tapety[/url]
Posted by chervebreab at January 3, 2010 11:22 PM
83.27.113.236
I want to know your opinion on which 2 types of trading you are most likely to win at if you trade, either Forex or stock trading? Which is most likely to give you better returns and make you richer quicker?
[url=http://forexrobot-review.info]best forex software[/url]
Posted by nargige at January 4, 2010 11:39 AM
188.165.192.166
bangladesh doesn't have any forex broker house. but i want to invest in forex. how can i do that.can i play that from malaysia as a student visa holder or business visa holder.
[url=http://forexrobot-review.info]best forex software[/url]
Posted by nargige at January 4, 2010 01:50 PM
188.165.192.168
Free Auto & Auto Parts classifieds ads at www.AutoWhat.com
1000's of potential buyers visit the site daily all looking for thier next vehicle purchase so why not put your vehicle or auto parts in front of them to see!
Only takes 3 easy steps and your classifieds ad is online
http://www.AutoWhat.com
Free Automotive Online Classifieds
Free to post seller ads with pictures
Free to browse and reply to all ads
Acura
Alfa Romeo
AM General
Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd.
Audi
BMW
Bugatti
Buick
Cadillac
Chevrolet
Citroen
DaimlerChrysler Corporation
Daewoo Motor Co.
Delorean Motor Company
Dodge
Ferrari
Fiat
Ford Motor Company
General Motors
GMC
Holden
Honda
Hummer
Hyundai
Infiniti
Isuzu
Jaguar Cars
Jeep
Jensen Motors
Kia
Laforza
Lamborghini
Lancia
Land Rover
Lincoln
Lotus Cars
Lexus
Maserati
Mazda
Mercedes-Benz
Mercury
MG
Minelli
The Mini Cooper
Mistubishi
Morgan Motor Co.
Mosler Automotive
Nissan
NUMMI
Oldsmobile
Opel
Packard
Panoz
Peugeot
Pontiac
Porsche
Proton
PSA Peugeot Citroen
Renault
Rolls-Royce
Rover Cars
Saab
Saturn
Shelby American
Skoda
Spectre Cars
Studebaker Motor Company
Subaru
Suzuk
Toyota
TVR
Vauxhall
Volkswagen
Volvo
Zimmer Motor Cars
AutoWhat.com AutoWhat.com AutoWhat.com
Posted by foerinvoiva at January 6, 2010 03:56 PM
212.235.107.116
Hey Folks
Was at [url=http://www.tripcart.com/usa-regions/Sierra-Nevada/ski/Mt.-Pinos.html] Mt Pinos Ski[/url] .
Have the crowds gone?
Used to be in in the midwest and ,
frequented every weekend, like [url=http://www.tripcart.com/usa-regions/Missouri-Arkansas/ski/Snow-Creek.html]Snow Creek Ski[/url] and [URL=http://www.tripcart.com/usa-regions/Southern-Appalachian-Mountains/ski/Winterplace.html]West Virginia Snow Ski[/url]
Happy Skiing!
Posted by adaniatly at January 7, 2010 12:02 AM
212.235.107.33
i like to glimpse [url=http://www.moviesjudge.com]streaming movies[/url]. its so much easier then having to actually set off my cathedra because i am a realy indolent person.
Posted by streamingmoviesEA at January 7, 2010 11:18 AM
222.76.210.8
Silver is too cheap compared to gold
Silver usually moves in tandem with gold, but last year it fell more than gold.
Now it’s leading gold on the way up. Silver still has a ways to go and the current silver
to gold ratio stands at 61 to 1 and the ratio is too high. Silver is a buy.
Earn Free Silver Coins Click below
Free Report here ----> http://silversnowball.com/2145
Silver is too cheap compared to gold and is a buy. Eleven months ago it took 85 ounces of silver
to buy an ounce of gold. Since then the ratio has come down in favor of silver. Now it only takes
61 ounces of silver to buy an ounce of gold.
Silver is still too cheap compared to gold. At the end of 2007 it took only 45 ounces of silver to buy
an ounce of gold. I think we are headed in that direction again.
Recently, the Chinese announced that they are buying silver, and they are very savvy investors.
If China's doing it, it won’t be long before all of Asia follows. Now is the time for you to buy your
physical silver while the price is still low and while there is availability. Last year at this time the
market was oversold and long delays and huge premiums were common. It starting to happen againl.
It is a good idea to buy your silver now while you can still get it.
Take advantage today of a way to get lots of silver and earn free silver every single month.
Earn Free Silver Coins Click below
Free Report here ----> http://silversnowball.com/2145
Posted by arottetty at January 8, 2010 01:34 PM
69.163.33.89
such as pwnage tool 3.1.4 ..,etc.
_____________
[url=http://nextgenerationconsolereview.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=23525]Darmowe tapety[/url]
Posted by avaigageStery at January 9, 2010 02:17 AM
83.28.196.194
Attention Fellow Skiers
I am going to [url=http://www.tripcart.com/usa-regions/Sierra-Nevada/ski/Mt.-Pinos.html] Mt Pinos Ski[/url] .
Hows the conditions?
Its not the Sierra's, but ,
never missed a season at, like [url=http://www.tripcart.com/usa-regions/Missouri-Arkansas/ski/Snow-Creek.html]Snow Creek Ski[/url] and [URL=http://www.tripcart.com/usa-regions/Missouri-Arkansas/ski/Hidden-Valley-MO.html]Hidden Valley Ski Missouri[/url]
Enjoy
Posted by adaniatly at January 10, 2010 01:54 AM
212.235.107.33
[b]Best Electric Bike Reviews[/b]
Looking for the best [url=http://www.electricbikereviews.info/]electric bike reviews[/url]? All kinds of product reviews, videos and more about electric bikes.
http://www.electricbikereviews.info/
Posted by Electric Bike Reviews at January 11, 2010 11:16 AM
67.202.21.235
Ugh...so I came home from work today, pop in some Halo...and see this on my xbox 360:
[img]http://i48.tinypic.com/28h1v9c.jpg[/img]
I did a bit of research and found a ton of people complaining about the "Red Ring of Death" -- has this happened to anyone else?
My xbox 360 is out of warranty now and I don't know how to repair it. I did find this site:
[url=http://www.fixredlighterrors.com]Fix Red Ring of Death[/url]
Link: http://www.fixredlighterrors.com
What do you guys think? Worth a shot?
I'm ready to try anything at this point. :( :( :(
Posted by kevjacker at January 12, 2010 01:27 PM
67.202.21.235
Of course, what a great site and informative posts, I will add backlink - bookmark this site? Regards, Reader.
rH3uYcBX
Posted by Levitra at January 13, 2010 12:34 AM
66.191.242.214
Of course, what a great site and informative posts, I will add backlink - bookmark this site? Regards, Reader.
rH3uYcBX
Posted by Levitra at January 13, 2010 12:34 AM
66.191.242.214
Of course, what a great site and informative posts, I will add backlink - bookmark this site? Regards, Reader.
rH3uYcBX
Posted by Levitra at January 13, 2010 12:35 AM
66.191.242.214
Of course, what a great site and informative posts, I will add backlink - bookmark this site? Regards, Reader.
rH3uYcBX
Posted by Levitra at January 13, 2010 12:35 AM
66.191.242.214
Of course, what a great site and informative posts, I will add backlink - bookmark this site? Regards, Reader.
rH3uYcBX
Posted by Levitra at January 13, 2010 12:35 AM
66.191.242.214
I just discovered the website who discuss about
many
home based business
If you want to know more here it is
home based business opportunity
Posted by Prurrouby at January 13, 2010 12:03 PM
95.68.65.49
[url=http://unrealmeet.com/?page=5374][img]http://superrealhot.org/images/x81.jpg[/img][/url]
[b][size=132]порно онлайн опытных женщин: вэб порно чат[/size][/b]
Чувствуя, как смертельный холод коснулся моих волос, я распахнул дверцу шкафа и увидел, что мой чемодан отомкнут. Вот она изжловила нечто в недрах рюкзачка, и в моих руках оказался паспорт со вложенным в него конвертом. - Саш...пойдем домой. Сначала еле заметно, а потом со все большим и большим жаром. Мери Фест не выдержала нагрузку и крепко спала, подложив ку-лачки под щечку. Но Сайли ошиблась. вудман порно русские онлайн порно фильмы 1990 года как убрать порно баннер mozilla порно фильмы с толстыми галерка порно фото видео порнуха по русски смотреть бесплатно просмотр домашнего порно он лайн скачать гей порно малолеток бесплатно анальное порно блондинок онлайн секс в офисе порно чертик ru порно оннлайн жесткое домашнее порно видео бесплатная порнуха xxx . Но теперь и Никк, и тот дале-кий райский берег реки были где-то далеко позади, в другой её жизни. Вызвав у них довольно сильное удивление. Эрекция к тому времени у него правда периодически пропадала, но все же с грехом пополам, Алексей справился с делом. Как буд-то ни одной минуты тело женщины не оставалось не подвижным и в то же время изгибы его были вкрадчивы и медленны, что казалось, что я никогда больше не смогу увидеть взор, так долго томившей меня. Я напивалась только потому что хотела заглушить ту боль в душе, в сердце, которую мне причинили. Мама на работе, а я сижу дома, жду гостя. Сайли напряженно смотрела за действиями своей новой подруги, чувствуя, как по ней самой от всего увиденного побежала нервная дрожь. Я невзначай опустила взгляд. дивитись безплатно порно ролики порно малолетки рассказы бесплатно смотреть порно в чёрных чулках онлайн гей порно тв бесплатно короткие клипы порно смотреть бесплатно грудастые порно актрисы смотреть порно ебли старушек порнография свёкр и невестка порно малолетки россия самая красивая порно бесплатные порноролики франции порно бесплатно большие сиськи соски голые порно малалетки скачать порно белоснежка бесплатно мульт смешные порно ролики онлайн дрочи хуй собаки порно порно секс с мамой скачать порно минет с letitbit порно халява писающие смотреть порно клипы короткие онлайн порно фото анны плетневой порноролики блондинки онлайн порно американское он лайн . Однако, в отличи от ее, там не было ни капли секса. Аккуратно беру зубами сосок. Целый день слоняясь по парку и вилле, Сайли не находила себя места. В те годы в стране была какая-то "сексуальная революция". Свободной рукой я мял грудь, глядя как лицо Нины заливается ярким румянцем. Думая, что это сбившаяся слишком длинная рубашка, я резким движением отвернул ее наверх и сейчас же под еле ощутимым покровом ткани почувствовал шелковистую пышность мягких курчавых волос. И залез под одеяло. Сна-чала пришли корреспонденты. Тут же из дырочки появилась прозрачная капля смазки. teamplay tv порно канал домашние русское видио порно порно фото милявской порно фильм служанка порно старушки просмотреть скачать короткое порно для мобильного самое лучшее порно в чулках порно анал фото видео инцест брат сестра порно онлайн порно учительница online прикольные порно клипы онлайн бесплатно посмотреть порно видно бесплатно порно www jdy su супер зоо порно ева анджелина порно фото лизать порноролик порнуха фильмы сотреть бесплатно скачать порнуху бесплатно бес регистрации порно рассказы огромный член сына скачать бесплатно детские порно фото порно рассказы свингеры порно геев с животными посмотреть бесплатно порно выебал спящую семейное извращение порно онлайн скачать бесплатно фильм порнуху порно видео с училкой смотреть просмотр бесплатной порнухи онлайн порно фото голых взрослых женщин абсолютно бесплатно дом 2 порно смотреть порно с очень худыми скачать мультфильм белоснежка порно Стиву, оставшемуся без девушки, хотелось плакать от обиды. Конечно я слышал о таких вещах. Сайли целый день провалялась в постели. Не большой, но юркий, слегка кривоватый он проникал во все чувствительные точки её воз-бужденного влагалища. Я коснулся рукой ее лобка, провел пальцами по мягким розовым губкам. Может быть, она все-таки уйдет? Когда все закончилось, Сайли заметила, что она неприлично заметно возбуждена. - Ты знаешь что я безумно тебя люблю?!? И в этот момент та девушка посмотрела в нашу сторону и я все поняла. С болью в душе он видел, как Джек, лежа на распростертым под ним телом Сайли, целует её обворожительные груди, шею и лицо.
Posted by obseria at January 13, 2010 02:15 PM
212.117.183.133
[url=http://videofreeonly.net/?page=11213][img]http://megadirect.info/play_img/s1043.jpg[/img][/url]
[b][size=109]трах русских подростков онлайн: геи города перми[/size][/b]
бритье пизды
секси фото пизды
оргазм от музыки слушать бесплатно
влагалище 13 летней девочки фото
занятся сексом онлайн
ебут пьяных школьниц
писают в туалете порно бесплатно
домашний секс смотреть online
смотреть бесплатно парнуху с берковой
болит мочевой после секса
мальчик дрочит письку онлайн
программы писать минусовки
притензия как пишется
эротика голые студентки
видео бесплатно делают минет малолетки
маленькие письки фото бесплатно смотреть
оральный секс истории рассказы
мальчик дрочит скачать бесплатно
значение анального секса для мужчины
секс ради ребенка
менты сосут хуй
секс с настоящим конем видео
ролики миньета без смс
частная эротика смотреь бесплатно
секс с семенович онлайн
порно онлайн писают в туалете
екатерина климова секс
ассоциация анального секса
писать сжатые изложения гиа
грубый секс русские
боль после секса слева
смотреть порно видео расширение влагалища
эротика в ванной видео смотреть
секс с девушками в чите
фото любителям сисек
секс позы в рисунках
секс с девчонками 12 лет
порно видео девочка дрочит мальчику
женщины ебутся в бане фото
тесты на сколько я лесбиянка
школьница эротика скачать бесплатно
голые письки 50 их женщин
я твоя секси
в icq пишет сбой
лучшие фото орального секса
попка парня фото
сестра собака трах
имитацию вагины из подручных средств
порно фото сексуальных лесбиянок
парня в анал
толпой ебут пьяную девку
лохматые письки эротика
горизонтальный прокол капюшона клитора
челябинск клуб секс
секс в белой церкви
порно анал негритянки онлайн
сосет у старика онлайн
порно ебля мамы с сыном
ласкает клитор языком фото
зрелые женщины стриптиз смотреть онлайн
лесбиянки фетишистки
конь ебет кобылу
программа взлома порносайтов
свету букину ебут фото ru
ебут спящих пьяных баб
[url=http://chrischijindulaw.com/forums/index.php?topic=18290.new#new]lets sex секс знакомства чита - секс объявления в нижнем новгороде[/url]
[url=http://www.l2hools.pl/forum/index.php/topic,5261.new.html#new]фото крупно раздвинутая анал, молодое влагалище девушки[/url]
[url=http://kati.vn/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=55237#55237]сперма па лице миньет - осел трах[/url]
[url=http://stellavie.info/bb/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=56202]секс форум извращенцев: порно фото ебли жены[/url]
[url=http://busygrandmother.com/retirementForum/index.php?topic=39239.new#new]фото очень большие влагалища - конь трах фото[/url]
[url=http://www.jimmysmithtraining.com/forum/topic-t7596.html]как правильно начать анальный секс и подсмотренное за писающими в парке[/url]
[url=http://www.ghits.freeforums.org/topic-t80673.html]видео малолетка первый раз сосёт - ни хуя себе бутират[/url]
[url=http://feilunhaithailand.freeforums.org/topic-t15171.html]девушки скрытая камера эротика - эротика франция скачать[/url]
[url=http://autokidok.ru/forum/showthread.php?p=21363#post21363]секс в воде, смотреть сын ебет сисястую маму[/url]
[url=http://kdd.foreo.pl/topic-t35194.html]видео секс полные девушки, воспаление влагалища после экстирпации матки[/url]
[url=http://www.autosuperb.ru/viewtopic.php?p=12750#12750]вагина после вакуумной помпы, фото отрезанных писек[/url]
[url=http://frequest.org/phorum/read.php?3,7863]нет денег нет секса онлайн: тугая негритянская попка[/url]
[url=http://www.ponsakul.com/forum/index.php?topic=52362.new#new]малолетки сосут хуй и скачать бесплатно порно медицинский секс[/url]
[url=http://thailanddining.com/index.php?topic=79775.new#new]трах молодых, брызги спермы минеты[/url]
[url=http://www.sanirai.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=9613#9613]секс скандалы россия видео, як писати резюме[/url]
Posted by Speelry at January 13, 2010 07:21 PM
212.117.184.155
I inclination not concur on it. I assume warm-hearted post. Specially the designation attracted me to study the sound story.
Posted by Buy Viagra at January 14, 2010 12:17 AM
78.26.187.217
Tons of financial aids and grants are available if you are looking to find money for college. Single mother grants and minority grants are available to pay for college as well as grants that are awarded to people that have a particular last name or background.
First you need to locate a grant that is right for your situation. A grant is something entirely different than a student loan or a scholarship. Scholarships take the requirements of the institution into consideration as well as merit, financial need, and social criteria. Grants sometimes have conditions such as a frame of time and certain things to achieve in order to keep them. With loans, they are granted depending on your needs and how able you are to repay them. Coming usually with interest these loans have to be applied for and repaid. On the other hand, grants are awarded to people that take the time to apply for them and meet the eligibility requirements. As long as the terms of a grant are satisfied, grants do not need to be repaid. However, you will need to look for grants and submit an application that will demonstrate your eligibility before getting them.
If you are looking for college grants for single mothers, you should be careful to keep all of your options open. Usually you start with what you are looking for such as "Single Mother Grants for College" but if you don't get too many results you can widen your search a bit more. Depending on the grants you might even have to limit the search down to "Grants for College" before you finally find one but you have to remember you are just looking for money for your education, it doesn't matter where it comes from.
After you find a place giving Single Mother Grants for College you can then start writing them on how you meet their criteria. Any grant, whether offered by a corporations, an organization, or the government, has certain requirements for submission that must be completed before a grant can be awarded. You have to prove to them that you fit the bill for the type of grant they are providing. You have to do much more than simply tell them that you want to go to college and are a single mother.
There are professional grant writers that many people employ to help them write a grant. However, these professional grant writers can be very expensive, and most women applying for college grants for single mothers do not use this option. You need to clearly let the person providing the grant know just why you qualify to receive their money and make sure you understand their requirements.
[url=http://www.scribd.com/doc/17666704/Free-Government-Grants-for-Single-Moms]scholarships for single moms[/url]
Posted by joeshmoett at January 16, 2010 09:16 PM
74.208.127.178
Genial post and this enter helped me alot in my college assignement. Say thank you you seeking your information.
Posted by WP Themes at January 17, 2010 09:28 PM
78.26.187.217
Hey Folks,
I got my dreambox flashed at near a playmate and on occasion need to set up CCcam. I obtain sky uk card also so I would essential the latest version of CCcam if you know where to chance it i would be grateful.
Also could you go to me a good cccam tutorial?
[url=http://www.digitalvortex.info/cccam]cccam[/url] worked in the past
Best Regards
Posted by CCcamFreeForAll at January 18, 2010 07:28 AM
74.118.193.69
KOKiuw iwuejnbyyare, [url=http://itujttxbkoqp.com/]itujttxbkoqp[/url], [link=http://lhglfipdihlu.com/]lhglfipdihlu[/link], http://pmzyyqgdeffz.com/
Posted by ystqcrh at January 18, 2010 03:48 PM
188.92.75.82
Generic amaryl Order differin Generic relafen ED brand cialis Discount tentex forte World delivery levaquin
Posted by calebdog at January 18, 2010 05:26 PM
84.19.161.8
Witam, zapraszam na moja stronke, ktorej tematyka jest [url=http://studencki-kredyt.pl]kredyt studencki[/url].
Posted by Lafunfife at January 18, 2010 07:56 PM
75.127.105.193
Hey guys. Who knows Shutter Island? I'm so excited forth martin scorsese Film shutter island. It resolution be a mountainous ascendancy remarkably with the grave cast of Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Ruffalo, Ben Kingsley, and so uncountable other celebrated casting members.
Tons of people pleasure be getting [url=http://www.shutterislandmovie.net]Shutter Island[/url] when its released on the 19th of February 2010.
Honourable my 2 cents guys
Posted by ShutterIslandMovie at January 19, 2010 02:56 AM
74.118.193.69
Witam, zapraszam na moja stronke, ktorej tematyka jest [url=http://studencki-kredyt.pl]preferencyjny kredyt studencki[/url].
Posted by hofePhexOvese at January 20, 2010 02:16 PM
75.127.105.193
Opulently I agree but I contemplate the post should acquire more info then it has.
Posted by Vigrx Plus at January 20, 2010 05:18 PM
78.26.187.217
Brim over I assent to but I contemplate the post should secure more info then it has.
Posted by Vigrx Plus at January 21, 2010 03:22 AM
78.26.187.217
This blog has been published in the regard to get info about the creature of god. We must praise the god in order to see the amazing creatures.
Posted by fashion at January 21, 2010 05:32 AM
115.186.18.1
Thanks for posting such a terrific site. this blog was not only knowledgeable but also very inventive too. There normally are a limited number of bloggers who can create technical stuff that creatively. we look for articles about a subject like this. I have gone in detail through many websites to find knowledge regarding this.Keep writing in !!
Posted by seo expert at January 21, 2010 07:46 PM
24.11.205.107
Good Comments. I agree with your point.
Posted by SEO Company at January 22, 2010 03:45 PM
69.65.70.2
Witam wszystkich chcialbym zaprezentowac moje nowe strony internetowe ktorych tematyka jest [url=http://studencki-kredyt.pl/choroby-oczu/jaskra.html]jaskra[/url] [url=http://studencki-kredyt.pl/choroby-oczu/astygmatyzm.html]astygmatyzm[/url] Oraz strone dotyczaca finansow [url=http://studencki-kredyt.pl/kredyt-sms.htmll]kredyt sms[/url]
Posted by twiniLele at January 23, 2010 04:14 AM
64.22.94.36
Thanks for posting such a terrific site. this blog was not only knowledgeable but also very inventive too. There normally are a limited number of bloggers who can create technical stuff that creatively. we look for articles about a subject like this. I have gone in detail through many websites to find knowledge regarding this.Keep writing in !!
Posted by Promotional Merchandise at January 23, 2010 11:30 AM
119.152.108.79
http://kredyt-studencki-lenin.blogspot.com/2009/12/plany-rozwojowe-kredytow-studenckich.html
http://kredyt-studencki-lenin.blogspot.com/2009/12/kredyt-studencki-w-ameryce-poudniowej.html
http://kredyt-studencki-lenin.blogspot.com/2009/12/preferencyjna-wymiana-towarowa.html
Posted by quarbusia at January 23, 2010 06:56 PM
75.127.105.193
[url=http://www.hosts3.com/whmcs/cart.php]http://www.Host3.com[/url] Now Offers 100% Encrypted Privacy Services Please pick your server location in the order notes.
Hosts3.com Offers A Low Cost Anonymous VPN Service
Surf the internet Privately using a USA IP on an encrypted
connection. We are the lowest cost VPN Provider around.
All user logs are wiped every 7 Days for privacy by admin.
Only $4 month for Shared IP and $8 month for your own dedicated IP
Order shared IP here:
[url=http://www.hosts3.com/whmcs/cart.php]http://www.hosts3.com/whmcs/cart.php?a=add&pid=3[/url]
Order Dedicated IP here:
[url=http://www.hosts3.com/whmcs/cart.php]http://www.hosts3.com/whmcs/cart.php?a=add&pid=4[/url]
Account Setup info and VPN Software will be emailed after payment.
Available Offshore Email jurisdictions:
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Germany
Czech Republic
Hong Kong
U.S.A
Everyone from any country can use these services.
Server Systems are completely realtime encrypted including your email.
Your IP is never visible when using this service.
All your communication is SSL/TLS encrypted.
SSL/TLS POP3/SMTP/IMAP.
Realtime Spam & Virus filtering covering also your file storage space.
SSL Webmail to further enhance your privacy and mobility.
Included Webmail feature: encrypted file storage with 125MB upgradable space.
Included Webmail feature: fetching email from thirdparty accounts using POP3.
Included Webmail feature: Full (Open)PGP Support with up to 4096 bits keys.
Included Webmail features: Virtual Keyboard, Calendar, Notes, Bookmarks.
125MB upgradable eMail Storage - 250MB total capacity to start with.
No logs kept - No java or javascript required !
Optional service to use your own domain.
Included service to forward email.
Included service to add aliases.
Order Now Here Only $60 Annually:
[url=]http://www.hosts3.com/whmcs/cart.php?a=add&pid=89[/url]
Available Offshore VPN Privacy jurisdictions:
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Germany
Czech Republic
Hong Kong
U.S.A
Our premium VPN solution is based on the next generation of VPN technology which will restore your privacy and anonymity in full with a few steps. Your real IP and information remains at all times invisible while using our services. The VPN software used, known as OpenVPN, is opensource which guarantees you use software with no backdoors and can be reviewed at any time you wish. We do not use the weak PPTP protocol or protocols which cannot handle hostile environments.
With our VPN solution you can turn any standard computer quickly into a secure and private medium to communicate. None of your applications will require seperate configuration since they'll automatically use our offshore servers.
Your advantages:
Everyone from any country can use these services.
Excellent for business, home and travellers who need a secure private encrypted line to communicate.
Your IP is never revealed remaining protected at all times while being anonymous in your surfing.
Suited for virtually any use - companies, personal, finance, casino, gaming, secrecy, social networking ...
All your traffic is 100 % encrypted using the strongest methods available increasing your anonymity !
High speed connections - year packages have UNMETERED bandwidth !
Easy setup and firewall/internal network friendly - operates in very hostile environments.
Accounts are protected by password authentication and unique certificates
Full protection against eavesdropping and other forms of attacks.
Ensuring 100 % privacy with no logs, surfing anonymously on the internet at all times.
Supports Skype and many other VOIP calling solutions.
Supported platforms include Windows, Linux and OSX (MAC).
OpenVPN is also known to work on Solaris, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD.
P2P Torrent Support
Support for Proxies, Socks and solutions like Tor to increase your anonymous surfing and usage.
Excellent for streaming Audio and Video.
Excellent for anything requiring Low Latency.
Order Here:
[url=]http://www.hosts3.com/whmcs/cart.php?a=add&pid=94[/url]
Offshore SSH Privacy Tunnel & Shell jurisdictions
Everyone from any country can use these services.
All major operating systems supported like Unix, Linux, OSX, Windows and more.
As a general note - our major systems are realtime on drive level encrypted !
Professional 24/7 Support - no ticket or robotic approach !
All connections use extremely secure encrypted SSH v2 tunnels for all your traffic.
Virtually all applications supported like IRC, P2P, MSN, Newsgroups, FTP and so on.
All proxies are "High Anonymity" or "Elite Proxies" - no one can determine if you're using a proxy at all.
All available proxies allow ALL ports to be reached - including any exotic SSL ports.
Anonymous surfing through Socks 4/5 Proxy - unlike other providers no extra charge !
Anonymous surfing through Privoxy / Squid Proxy linked, extra protection filtering malicious data/ads.
Anonymous surfing through Privoxy / the Tor Service, extra protection and anonymity through Tor.
Anonymous surfing through Squid proxy, standard anonymous surfing.
Our DNS is used and not that of your provider ! - No DNS Leakage !
SSL Webmail including your own email account accessible using pop3/smtp over ssh !
Strong Defenses in place while using our Service ! - against worms, virus, malicious sites, crackers ...
Full Tor entrypoint to the Tor network for all your needs - You can connect directly to Tor from any server !
Your IP is never revealed using our services and is safeguarded at all times.
NO LOGGING of your surfing & outbound connections - no byte is stored unlike most providers !
Compile & Run your own tools like BNC's, Eggdrop ... - FULL programming environment included.
Use up to 6 background processes at the same time.
no bandwidth limitations, only fair use policy and high speed connections.
Start with 200MB diskspace, need more ? Tell us !
Standard tools like Screen, *****X, IRSSI and so on.
Solid & tested tools available to encrypt any important data.
If you wish custom solutions like a private and unique IP let us know !
Hardened from the outside & inside to protect our clients.
Other users can't dig in the system to find info about you.
Order Now Here :
[url=http://www.hosts3.com/whmcs/cart.php]http://www.hosts3.com/whmcs/cart.php?a=add&pid=93[/url]
For Inquiries and Information:
http://www.hosts3.com/whmcs/submitticket.php
Posted by Vaxaltbut at January 24, 2010 02:16 PM
69.163.33.89
Witam wszystkich chcialbym zaprezentowac moje nowe strony internetowe ktorych tematyka jest [url=http://studencki-kredyt.pl/choroby-oczu/jaskra.html]jaskra[/url] [url=http://studencki-kredyt.pl/choroby-oczu/astygmatyzm.html]astygmatyzm[/url] Oraz strone dotyczaca finansow [url=http://studencki-kredyt.pl/kredyt-sms.htmll]kredyt sms[/url]
Posted by twiniLele at January 24, 2010 08:32 PM
64.22.94.36
Very nice site! cheap viagra
Posted by Pharmd601 at January 25, 2010 08:41 AM
217.117.218.70
Very nice site! [url=http://oieypxa.com/oryraqr/2.html]cheap cialis[/url]
Posted by Pharmc97 at January 25, 2010 08:42 AM
121.170.169.122
Very nice site! cheap cialis http://oieypxa.com/oryraqr/4.html
Posted by Pharme386 at January 25, 2010 08:42 AM
88.220.124.234
Hey everyone ;)
Blackhat passageway
stroke selfish modification online with bhp
[url=http://easywaytomakemoney.weebloggity.com/?p=3]Easy Way to make money[/url][url=http://seocost.musiced.net/?p=3]Seo Cost[/url][url=http://bestseo.hoosieraccess.com/?p=3]Best SEO[/url][url=http://besucc.es/howtoearneasymoney/?p=3]How To earn Online[/url][url=http://seoplacement.musicfizz.com/?p=3]SEO Placement[/url][url=http://howtoearnmoneyfast.filipinosg.com/?p=3]How to earn money fast[/url][url=http://advancedseo.allcraftsblogs.com/?p=3]Advanced SEO[/url][url=http://whitehatseo.bpblogg.se/?p=3]White Hat SEO[/url][url=http://iluvtech.org/howtoearnextramoney/?p=3]How to earn extra money[/url][url=http://seoagency.thedrawclub.com/?p=3]SEO Agency[/url][url=http://seosem.bizomundo.com/?p=3]SEO SEM[/url][url=http://professionalseo.myparknspot.com/?p=3]Pro SEO[/url][url=http://waystomakeextramoney.milletmeclisi.com/?p=3]Ways to make extra money[/url][url=http://community.tristar.com/howtomakemoneyquickly/?p=2]How to make money quickly[/url][url=http://seoservices.socialmedia4seo.com/?p=3]SOcial media[/url][url=http://makemoneywithgoogle.vidopp.com/?p=3]Make money with google[/url][url=http://quickeasymoney.dateredheadz.com/?p=3]Quick easy money[/url][url=http://openadoptionsupport.com/seosearchengineoptimisation/?p=3]Search engine optimisation[/url][url=http://seoblog.bunnitude.com/?p=3]SEO Blog[/url][url=http://seohelp.1r.ro/?p=3]SEO Help[/url][url=http://smallbusinessseo.womandiary.net/?p=3]Small Business SEO[/url][url=http://seomarketing.sexusblog.com/?p=3]SEO Marketing[/url][url=http://howtomakeextramoney.homepage.ph/?p=3]How to make extra money[/url][url=http://familymascot.com/goodseo/?p=3]Good SEO[/url][url=http://seopositioning.bloggista.net/?p=3]SEO Positioning[/url][url=http://seooptimazation.blogcenter.us/?p=3]SEO Optimization[/url][url=http://makemoneyonebay.72pines.com/?p=3]Make Money on Ebay[/url][url=http://choicecommerce.com/seoexperience/?p=3]SEO Experience[/url][url=http://makemoneyblog.anyhow5.com/?p=3]Make Money blog[/url][url=http://seosoftwarebest.sims3legacy.com/?p=3]SEO Software best[/url][url=http://ineedtomakemoney.anthonyjansen.com/?p=3]I need to make money[/url][url=http://top10seo.blogono.com/?p=3]top 10 seo[/url][url=http://bestseo.hoosieraccess.com/?p=4]Blackhat seo forum[/url][url=http://advancedseo.allcraftsblogs.com/?p=4]Advanced SEO[/url][url=http://seomarketing.sexusblog.com/?p=4]Black hat palace[/url][url=http://easywaytomakemoney.weebloggity.com/?p=4]easy way to make money[/url][url=http://familymascot.com/goodseo/?p=4]good SEO mane[/url][url=http://besucc.es/howtoearneasymoney/?p=4]how to earn easy money[/url][url=http://howtoearnmoneyfast.filipinosg.com/?p=4]how to earn money fast fast[/url][url=http://howtomakeextramoney.homepage.ph/?p=4]extra money online[/url][url=http://howtomakemoneyathome.l0lz.com/?p=4]how to make money at home[/url][url=http://community.tristar.com/howtomakemoneyquickly/?p=3]tristar[/url][url=http://ineedtomakemoney.anthonyjansen.com/?p=4]i need to make money[/url][url=http://openadoptionsupport.com/seosearchengineoptimisation/?p=4]search engine optimization[/url][url=http://nuevaescuela.net/blogs/makeeasymoney/?p=4]make easy money online[/url][url=http://makemoneyonebay.72pines.com/?p=4]make money on ebay[/url][url=http://makemoneywithgoogle.vidopp.com/?p=4]make money with google[/url][url=http://seosoftwarebest.sims3legacy.com/?p=4]seo software bset[/url][url=http://seoagency.thedrawclub.com/?p=4]seo agency[/url][url=http://seoblog.bunnitude.com/?p=4]seo blog[/url][url=http://seocost.musiced.net/?p=4]seo cost[/url][url=http://choicecommerce.com/seoexperience/?p=4]choice commerce[/url][url=http://seohelp.1r.ro/?p=4]seo help[/url][url=http://seogroup1.wordpress.com/?p=3]seo group[/url][url=http://seojobs.spinvillage.com/?p=3]seo jobs[/url][url=http://seooptimazation.blogcenter.us/?p=4]seo optimize[/url][url=http://seoplacement.musicfizz.com/?p=4]black hat seo forum[/url][url=http://seopositioning.bloggista.net/?p=4]blackhat seo forum[/url][url=http://seosem.bizomundo.com/?p=4]blackhat seo[/url][url=http://seoservices.socialmedia4seo.com/?p=4]blackhat forum[/url][url=http://smallbusinessseo.womandiary.net/?p=4]blackhat[/url][url=http://top10seo.blogono.com/?p=4]black hat[/url][url=http://waystomakeextramoney.milletmeclisi.com/?p=4]blackhat seo forumz[/url][url=http://whitehatseo.bpblogg.se/?p=4]bhploggg[/url]
Posted by ixDyeAggBallerzXi at January 26, 2010 12:49 AM
212.235.107.85
[b]why is altocor prescribed
[/b]
abilify disk melt
levitra lawyers
soma dan nolvadex
diuretics and atacand
what is zithromax
accupril 80 mg
paxil withdrawl
artane castle
magnetix trial pack
muscle relaxants soma
atacand alternitives
weight gain lexapro
g postmessage propecia subject forum
beak appetit variety trial pack
dark urine edema bactrim
aleve pain tablet
flomax and kidney stones
soma by wallace
strattera side effects in adults
plavix nexium
cheapest brand viagra
sideffects of arimidex
arimidex estrogen starvation
malaria aralen clinic fort worth
pravachol cardizem cd phentermine aceon
advair diskus patient
buy cheap cheap kamagra uk viagra
buy soma online
aggrenox versus aspirin for post stroke
amaryl and maximum dosages
[url=http://how-is.metlama.bee.pl/qukiotheng.html] pamelor dosing and migraine prophylaxis [/url]
[url=http://erfahrungen-sila.pirinka.osa.pl/anuskl.html] advair singulair lawsuit san francisco [/url]
[url=http://signs-of.bueaga.bij.pl/usutyof.html] board clomid message [/url]
[url=http://are-naproxen.andanterra.orge.pl/rommand.html] aldactone benefits [/url]
[url=http://pro-air.pirinka.osa.pl/lyeawa.html] aggrenox the drug [/url]
[url=http://are-naproxen.andanterra.orge.pl/index.html] can i give my dog aleve [/url]
[url=http://viagra-site.kaliziare.name/medso.html] lasix buy online overnight ship [/url]
[url=http://actor-prono.bueaga.bij.pl/bbedorns.html] car rand driver evista [/url]
[url=http://how-is.metlama.bee.pl/these.html] ortho micronor pcos [/url]
[url=http://actos-plus.andanterra.orge.pl/easkidlinsa.html] actos weight gain [/url]
[url=http://prevacid-and.lamazerro.345.pl/votitru.html] prilosec omeprazole for sale [/url]
[url=http://cymbalta-kid.andanterra.orge.pl/mofierive.html] side effects of premarin [/url]
[url=http://buying-online.aragornik.com/tyothosthe.html] tramadol recipe [/url]
[url=http://phenelzine-kemad.kaliziare.name/pladoeristhe.html] lamictal and osteoporosis [/url]
[url=http://buy-acomplia.metlama.bee.pl/gntadisurin.html] acomplia diet [/url]
transdermal cialis
soma cod
seroquel class action
albuterol sulfate illicit
effects of celexa on thyroid functin
has wyeth discontinued alesse
avandia actos
tamiflu reaction
cipro annanicole
side effects from actonel
order 50 mg lasix without prescription
cialis generic
how does albuterol sulfate work
medications not to take with singulair
mexican amoxil
synthroid weight loss
lexapro and exercise
adalat 1958
pravachol bontril albenza
asacol from canada
[url=http://acne-accutane.frodiog.info/index.html]isotretinoin accutane[/url]
clomid sample
http://stopping-taking.faramirik.net/map.html |paxil lawyers los angeles
[url=http://viagra-cialis.faramirik.net/index.html]lowest price viagra[/url]
[url=http://amaryl-boulet.pirinka.osa.pl/index.html]amaryl drug interactions[/url]
http://congestive-hea.lamazerro.345.pl/index.html coupon for advair diskus
http://g-postmessage.lamazerro.345.pl/index.html viagra pills
http://viagra-site.kaliziare.name/map.html |viagra soft hard
http://6-mp.bueaga.bij.pl/index.html 6 np and asacol
http://triglyceride.andanterra.orge.pl/map.html |use of zetia and lopid together
tamiflu efficacy
adalat cc manufacturer
aleve arthritis
periactin appetite stimulant
deltasone upjohn
generic aciphex
desyrel 50mg
uses for anafranil
anafranil and premature ejaculation
abilify alternatives
Posted by NAITTYSAILA at January 26, 2010 07:37 PM
212.95.58.203
loved las vegas? risk the all unused [url=http://www.casinolasvegass.com]casino[/url] las vegas at www.casinolasvegass.com with on the other side of 75 advanced lavish [url=http://www.casinolasvegass.com]online casino[/url] games like slots, roulette, baccarat, craps and more and be ordinary existent notes with our $400 cost-free bonus.
we from unvaried aware b wealthier games then the obsolete online [url=http://www.place-a-bet.net/]casino[/url] www.place-a-bet.net!
Posted by Floalobow at January 27, 2010 02:25 AM
203.199.215.116
It is extremely interesting for me to read that article. Thank you for it. I like such topics and everything connected to them. I would like to read a bit more on that blog soon.
Posted by Stranger at January 27, 2010 02:40 AM
178.93.78.127
LOL this is a funny place. I think You dont know what You are writing about. Better see some [url=http://saltydroid.wordpress.com]TRUTH on Saltydroid[/url] and stop crying like a baby.
Posted by Saltydroid kbk at January 28, 2010 08:20 AM
188.92.74.89
Dofus est un [url=http://www.bawwgt.com/fr]dofus kamas[/url], le joueur incarne un ou plusieurs personnages. On y retrouve une multitude [url=http://www.bawwgt.com/fr]acheter des dofus kamas[/url] et d'Ё¦quipements en tout genre, une vingtaine de mЁ¦tiers diffЁ¦rents et plus d'une centaine de monstres rЁ¦partis en diffЁ¦rentes zones sur les 10 000 [url=http://www.bawwgt.com/fr]dofus kamas pas cher[/url] (portions de carte, sur lesquelles l'on se dЁ¦place d'ailleurs comme sur une carte) formant l'univers de [url=http://www.bawwgt.com/fr]achat dofus kamas[/url], dont 99% ne sont accessibles qu'aux abonnЁ¦s.
Posted by tedy at February 1, 2010 05:30 AM
204.124.182.42
Hello! bkedkec interesting bkedkec site!
Posted by Pharmb633 at February 1, 2010 04:59 PM
81.17.165.38
Hey, great blog...but I don’t understand how to add your site in my rss reader. Can you Help me, please :)
Posted by compare online stock trading companies at February 1, 2010 10:30 PM
211.239.124.90
Amiable post and this mail helped me alot in my college assignement. Gratefulness you on your information.
Posted by WP Themes at February 2, 2010 08:43 AM
78.26.187.217
Hey very nice blog!!....I'm an instant fan, I have bookmarked you and I'll be checking back on a regular....See ya
surface encounters macomb mi
Posted by Tony Pacise at February 2, 2010 12:46 PM
131.112.243.101
Hey guys, I've been lurking in the interest of all this forum in search a while - so I figured I'd restoration in change living quarters moving forward and gesticulation up.
How is everyone?
[URL="http://seeonlinemovies.info"][IMG]http://lostcpa.com/smilies/See_Online_Movies.gif[/IMG][/URL]
</img?
Posted by vxiMovieFanaticixv at February 2, 2010 01:10 PM
212.235.107.85
Buy Endress & Hauser models at up to 20% discount from list price
Endress+Hauser is a leading supplier of measuring instruments and automation solutions for the industrial process engineering industry.
Endress+Hauser is recognized as a leading supplier of industrial measurement and automation equipment, providing services and solutions for industrial processes all over the world. Endress+Hauser offer comprehensive process solutions for flow, level, pressure, analysis, temperature, recording and digital communications across a wide range of industries, optimizing processes in regards to economic efficiency, safety and environmental protection.
As major stockists of many Endress and Hauser level instruments, We [url=http://www.endress.org.ua]official distributor Endress+Hauser in Ukraine[/url], can offer a range of Endress & Hauser models at up to 20% discount from list price - prices usually only available when buying in bulk.
Feel free to contact us.
Posted by EndressHauser at February 3, 2010 05:23 AM
79.171.126.62
[url=http://sopriventontes.net/][img]http://tonoviergates.net/img-add/euro2.jpg[/img][/url]
[b]of discounted software, [url=http://sopriventontes.net/]cd cover - adobe acrobat pro 9[/url]
[url=http://sopriventontes.net/]discount on software[/url] office 97 software sue nero
filemaker pro 10 upgrade [url=http://tonoviergates.net/]adobe acrobat 8 pro for vista[/url] academic discount software
[url=http://sopriventontes.net/]free software for retail shop[/url] order software review
[url=http://tonoviergates.net/]Collection Mac Retail Price[/url] academic software in
adobe com software [url=http://tonoviergates.net/]buying educational software[/url][/b]
Posted by Seitteemith at February 3, 2010 09:23 AM
93.80.190.164
[url=http://megadirect.info/?page=23278][img]http://viprealhot.com/video_images/video626.jpg[/img][/url]
[b][size=125]online порнофильмы - смотреть порноролики износилование[/size][/b]
порно фильмы от 1996 годов
скачать порно хетай видео
порно ролики переодетые мужчины
архив онлайн порно фильмов
порноролики с пожилыми дамами
видеоролик порно зоофилка с конем
девственницы голые видео порно
ранетки снялись в порно ролике
красивые девушки видео порно
домашнее порно видео минет
порно ролики студентов смотреть
порно видео ролики свингеры
каштанка ком порно ролики
скачать бесплатно полнометражные порно мультфильмы
совсем юные порно видео
видео порно скачать басплатно
бесплатные ролики порно ru
порно видео мультики симпсоны
порно транс ролики он лайн
смотреть порно видео зоофилки
смотреть халявное порно видео бесплатно
порно видео трахнул свою дочь
эротика порно ролики
порно знакомства видео
порно просмотреть ролик на сайте
порно мамки видео онлайн
порно фильм красная шапочька
домашнее порно видео со знаменитостями
фильмы онлайн бесплатно порно девушки
порно видео короткие ролики сперма
порно видео без смс запретное
порно видео ру смотреть бесплатно
смотреть онлайн порно мультфильм футурама
порно фильм анастасия заворотнюк бесплатно
порно онлайн просмотр супер фильм
бесплтные порноролики онлайн
документальные фильмы скачать бесплатно порно
смртреть порно клипы бесплатно
короткие порноролики малолеток бесплатно
полнометражные порнофильмы он лайн
порно фильмы с сюжетом бесплатно
есплатный просмотр порно видео
порно видео в солярии онлайн
порно ролики фото домашнее любительское
зоо порно секс смотреть видео
порнофильмы 1990
смотреть порно фильм табу 2
жестокое порно видео малолеток
порно видео матерей с сыновьями
порно мультфильмы с монстрами
смотреть бесплатно порно фильмы мультики
смотреть онлайн видео порно студентов
бесплатное видео порнуха знаменитостей
порно видео русские бесплатно изнасилование
порно видео девочек до 18
порно видео мужики и животные
просмотреть порно видео без скачивания
бесплатно порно видео ролики пожилые
смотреть порно фильмы 2009
порн | 
