Science and Society

It is simply unfathomable that in 2008 there are people who dispute evolution. There is NO doubt that evolution is a scientific fact. The only debate involves exactly HOW it has occured over millions of years. Those that deny evolution are simply ignorant or blinded by religious myth. It is ridiculous religious outcry on this and other issues that causes the rest of the world to shake their heads and laugh at America's ignorance. Only SCIENCE should be taught in Ameica's SCIENCE classrooms.

I would like challenge atomic and gravitational theory as indisputable. Who do these elite theorists think they are? Just because I can't understand it doesn't make it true. Let's teach the controversy and take a vote on whether we are all just a random bunch of neutrons, electron and positrons!

Evolution is fact, regardless if there was intelligent design involved or not.

Anyone believing otherwise is a fool.

Man has an incentive to believe in creationism as opposed to evolution. One would rather believe that there is life after death for a variety of reasons. The most simplistic is hope. A reason to believe that thier life was not lived in vain.

To say that the NAS report is "short on evidence" is like a bad political ad. The report is packed with evidence - the Discovery Institute's choice not to accept any of it is their own problem.

Considering the broad and diverse scientific evidence for evolution, it probably IS true that it is "so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter it." That doesn't mean we won't accept new evidence - just that it would surprise us.

What amazes me is the fact that religion aka Faith is just that....faith. The scientific method doesn't work on faith based issues whereas SCIENCE is testable. Faith and religion must be separated from science. If people of faith want to teach intelligent design, I'm okay with it, but in a religious setting only. Not in school. It is religious based and so it should stay in the religious realm. I almost feel as if America is going backwards and Europe has stepped out into the light leaving us behind. Our behavior on this harks back to Europe of the 1200's and the religious zealots of the Middle East today.

I agree with dano. Religion is taught in church/Sunday school and SCIENCE is taught in public schools. Way back when I was in grade school, we were taught evolution and I went to church every Sunday and learned about "Adam and Eve". There was a conflict in my mind that no one seemed to be able to answer: What came first, the dinosaurs and cavemen or Adam and Eve? So, at some point I made up my own mind that God created all of it BEGINNING with evolution, dinosaurs, etc. - and man evolved from there. I no longer attend a church because I find many Christians to be too closed-minded to accept ANY other facts. Truth is, we do have MORE evidence to back up evolution than the theories in the bible. For me, I'll continue to believe God created evolution as science has proven to us already. People should stop being so closed-minded and allow themselves to learn something new everyday.

RE: Dano
Evolution is NOT at all an establishd fact! In fact, quite the opposite is true. There is immutable evidence for example, that donosaurs and humans actually walked the earth at he same time. Go take a look in the Paluxy River and see for yorself. The fact is, there is overwhelming evidence that all of the physical universe is actually devolving from a higher order than exists today. I challenge all 'believers' of evoution to be intellectually honest and give a good long look at the real evidence, and keep their religious beliefs out of the equation for once!!

That chicken or the egg problem should leave the Discovery people with a new tangent to ruminate on for a long time, until they evolve into big headed whiners with little evidence at hand.

@ getsmartnotdumb...are you for real? This isn't a case of "intellectual elitism", it's an examination of your own ignorance.

"Just because I can't understand it doesn't make it true." - Sorry I'm afraid it does.

And I love how the word "controversy" is being tossed about more and more in American society... an odd trend.

Vote on the issue? - are you serious? I'm afraid your confusing science with politics.

The problem with intelligent design is the theory is not based on much intelligence. A bunch of thrown together ideas claimed to be true. Science doesn't work that way. I remember someone trying to teach immutable truths at a confirmation class. The problem is not one of them was based on any sort of fact and was far from a 'Truth'. They were all just beliefs with a loose set of arguments to support them (and some of the arguments were not very good at all). Just saying something is true doesn't make it so (even if it is). And to teach that something is true when you have nothing to support that claim, that's irrespossible. Religion is fine but disputing something backed with tons of evidence with a thought up belief backed by almost nothing, that's just silly. Teach science in school and teach beliefs anyplace else.

btw - you can't de-volve. Evolving doesn't mean advancing or improving, it simply means changing. You can't un-change. That's the problem with all these 'facts', most of them don't even make any sense.

I love this debate! Everywhere I look nowadays I can see the miracles of science that was created by people who refused the “God did it” answer and sought to truly understand our world. It is human nature to want to understand everything and what science can’t explain we can conveniently conjure up an explanation using God. Looking back over the centuries of advancements, I believe it’s only a matter of time before man solves all mysteries to the point there will be no gaps for God to fill in. But I suppose you can still squeeze God in with an unending list of credits such as: God made “X”, once science discovers that “Y” made “X”, then God made “Y” as a mechanism for creating “X”….and it continues. Science/evolution has contributed greatly toward the advancement of man (modern medicine most notably), but sadly ID/creationism has offered nothing. I guess the moral of the story is if you believe in ID/creationism that’s fine. Just don’t channel your energies towards attempts at sabotaging science. The purpose of science isn’t to invalidate religion, but if you think it does maybe you should reexamine your faith, not science.

"immutable evidence," Sam? Most creationists don't even stand by the Paluxy River nonsense. You challenge us to "be intellectually honest and give a good long look at the real evidence." I did, thank you. Did you? Have you read the NAS report that this blog refers to? If not, it doesn't sound like you are taking a "good long look" to me. Give it a try; then we'll talk.

self righteous ignorance is a wonderful thing. If you really thought about, REALLY hard, you'd figure out the egg came first; long before chickens ever evolved as a species. Eggs have been around along time, they developed with multicellular organisms 2 billion ago, give or take a half a billion.

Have you heard about the Creation Museum? They have exhibits where man is shown walking with the dinosaurs. The museum curator explained this by saying all living creatures were created on the same day, so of course the exhibits have all living creatures having walked the earth together during the same time perioid. Then why weren't the dinosaurs mentioned in the bible? If you were God and you knew a group of men were writing a book about you wouldn't you want them to know about the millions of years that earth exihited before man walked on it? They weren't mentioned because man had not yet discovered a bone to even know that such creatures had even existed. If you don't understand evolution take a look at the history of cars & televisions. There's a perfect example of how something can evolve and continue to evolve. You christians who think you have the answers to life and how everyone should live it have single handidly caused more death, distruction, and have spread more hate and fear around the globe then any entity ever invented. Why can't you say God and evolution in the same sentence? What are you afraid of? The truth? You obviously can't handle the truth.

Stupid had become the new cool apparently.

RE: ko6728
What are you so afraid of? Why must you hide behind what you want to be true, instead of embracing The Truth?
Again evolution is NOT the truth. More and more REAL scientists--defined as those who do not have a preconceived religious notion such as 'evolution must be true so lets make the data fit the fantacy' are not only distancing themselves from evolution, but are flat out disproving it using real science. If you really want to know the truth about evolution and intellegent design, do some real investigating. Take some courses that teach you how to read and interpret statistics and raw data, so that you don't have to rely on 'the experts' to do it for you. Then, begin with the premise that 'I want to know 'the truth' not what is popular or what the so called 'experts' want me to think. Finally, Learn not to contradict yourself, it makes you sound less intellegent.

The fundamental problem with the claim that ID is science is this. Science, by definition, is the study of the universe with the assumption that it is governed by natural laws that are discoverable and knowable. The study of any concept outside those boundaries is by definition, not science. Unless you are willing to reduce your definition of God to be as set of physical laws, ID makes no sense (and if you did, then the name makes no sense). At the same time, science says nothing about where these physical laws came from, nor does it try. Science is simply a way for us to know the universe in terms of the laws of nature.

RE sam:

I assume you're referring to the Dinosaur/"Man Track" Controversy where dinosaur and supposed human footprints where found in the same rock layer. However, the human footprints have been shown to be either mistaken interpretation or in some cases outright fakes.

And what do you mean that there is overwhelming evidence that all of the physical universe is actually devolving from a higher order than exists today.

What evidence?

Scientists are always making claims about truth.
Lets check some out.
I was taught in school, that a atoms, smallest particles were the electron, proton, neutron. WRONG!
Many smaller particles have now been found.

I was taught in school that the big bang is now a fact not theory. Everything would fall back to one spot again.(over and over) Wrong!
Something is INCREASSING the speed at which the universe expands!

I was taught in school that petroleum is a fossil fuel. Wrong(?)
Alternative scientific explanation that oil is an a biotic product produced naturally on a continuing basis deep within the mantle of the Earth

How can we make these claims of knowledge when we don’t even know what 75% of the universe is made of.
Roughly 70% of the universe is made of dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 25%.
That’s 75% of everything!
And we have no idea what dark mater or dark energy is.

I love science, but realize almost all of present day science is based on theory not fact. But many times the theory is presented as fact.
The word evolution seems to have two meanings.
The first meaning (which I believe is true) is that life evolves. Random mutations do happen. The fittest survives.
The second meaning is a all encompassing one. Since evolution exists, than all life must have been created in this way.
This I don’t believe! True, evolution exists, but that doesn’t prove that’s how life was created.
But the scientists will try to ram that down our throats, as fact not theory

Lance,
I'd refer you to what is understood to be the Oldest written book of the Bible, Job.
You will find a lot of science before science was science. A Round Earth, Galaxies, the mystery of Snow flakes individuality and yes Dinosaurs.

It's called God's Word for a reason.

RE: Sam

Why do you think the dinosaurs were not mentioned in the bible? Do you believe they didn't exist? If you were God would you have really purposely left that huge bit of important info out of what you must consider the most important book for mankind? The book you must beleive, if you're a true christian, has ALL of the answers to life and how we are all suppose to live it? Would you have really egnore those creatures? If yes, then why would God have wasted his time with them in the first place?

Science has admitted it's mistakes and recognized its faults as new discoveries are made and theories get revised. What bothers me most is how Christian-centric this whole debate is. References to the bible, earth being created in 6 days and so on, if there is such a focus on creationism versus evolution, could some one please bring another religion into focus. The most im taking from this, is science is not denying faith, rather faith (more specifically, Christianity) is denying science. Science has never tried to destroy faith, it merely attempts to explain and understand what is observed.

RE: Bryan,

Now you've got me curious. Please find for me a verse in the bible that mentions these things and I'll stand corrected. Thanks.

If someone wants to believe the creation story over biological evolution because that's what the Bible says, I have no problem with that. But please be honest enough to say that you do believe it BECAUSE that's what the Bible says. Don't try to tell me that science somehow supports that belief. That is simply FALSE. I am a biologist. I have been studying biology and evolution for 30 years. I know what the data do and do not support. Tell me that I'm not a "real" scientist, dear sam, and I'm likely to get ######.

Hmm, so all creatures were created the same day? Just wondering, how did Noah get 2 of each of those dinosaurs on the ark???? Seems like two brontosauruses alone would already be too much to fit on there, let alone float... Sam?

sam,

"Houston, we have a problem!"

I HAVE taken those courses, and I HAVE seen the soi disant "human footprints" along the Palusky River; of particular interest were the ones at the Taylor Site, which are likely the ones you refer to in your earlier post. After a close, personal examination I had to take the position that these are not human footprints and in a couple of cases, not footprints at all. Note that this was my own conclusion: the geologist who took me there told me that we were going to see human footprints next to saurian prints; once I had seen the evidence myself I had to argue against his opinion. This really bothered me as this man was a genius in his field and I was only a student, but the evidence was clear - not human prints. It was only after a frustrating 30-45 minutes of discussion that he admitted that I was right; he used Palusky as a sort of litmus test to determine if his students could examine evidence and reach their own conclusions rather than depending on "wiser heads" to do their thinking for them.

That lesson has never been forgotten, and I strive to make sure that brilliant man's teaching was not wasted. Another brilliant man laid out the three steps of reasoning as:

1) Always make up your own mind
2) Always thoroughly consider and think about all the facts before making up your mind
3) Always make sure you actually have all the facts before thinking

The teaching of these two men has seen me through some tough times, and helped guide me through some tough decisions: their teachings were in fact correct.

As an aside, this approach makes it impossible to establish personal definitions that can be used in place of actual reasoning such as defining what "REAL scientists" are and then stating (without cited examples) how they are "disproving" evolution using "real science". If your reliance on the fallacy of the Palusky tracks is an example of this, I would invite you to take your own advice, as well as that of my mentors: study, examine the evidence yourself without prejudice, and only then come to a conclusion. It appears as if you're relying on others to look and think for you, rather than doing it for yourself.

For a starting point, go to Texas and look for yourself. It really doesn't take geological training to see that the "human footprints" aren't, although a modicum of knowledge does help. But still, go and look for yourself; we can talk more after your return.

RE: Bryan,

The idea that Dinosaur are described in the bible is really nothing more that a subjective interpretation of the word behemoth. There’s really no proof that it actually was referring to a Dinosaurs.

For example the word "behemoth" is also believed to be derived from the ancient Egyptian name for the hippopotamus, "pehemau," which literally translates as "water-ox,".

Right on "Wondering"! And now we know who we can blame for bringing us the damn cockroach!

i do have to say this....best POST ever!

I believe in evolution but not the simplistic kind that many materialist scientists claim. What they continue to leave out of the picture is the immortal nature of man.

Reincarnation has been scientifically proven at the University level. See the results of the research and discoveries of the Univerisity of Arizona, Veritas program, and the University of Virginia Health Systems, Personality Studies for more information.

What I'd like to see now is how they interplay of reincarnation and evolution happens. Then and only then would we see an advance in the science of evolution and maybe a wider acceptance of it.

Although there are about 668 names of dinosaurs, there are perhaps only 55 different “kinds” of dinosaurs. Furthermore, not all dinosaurs were huge like the Brachiosaurus, and even those dinosaurs on the Ark were probably “teenagers” or young adults.

Creationist researcher John Woodmorappe has calculated that Noah had on board with him representatives from about 8,000 animal genera (including some now-extinct animals), or around 16,000 individual animals. When you realize that horses, zebras, and donkeys are probably descended from the horse-like “kind”, Noah did not have to carry two sets of each such animal. Also, dogs, wolves, and coyotes are probably from a single canine “kind”, so hundreds of different dogs were not needed.

According to Genesis 6:15, the Ark measured 300 x 50 x 30 cubits, which is about 460 x 75 x 44 feet, with a volume of about 1.52 million cubic feet. Researchers have shown that this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard railroad stock cars (US), each of which can hold 240 sheep. By the way, only 11% of all land animals are larger than a sheep.

Without getting into all the math, the 16,000-plus animals would have occupied much less than half the space in the Ark (even allowing them some moving-around space).

MT - How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

I'd like to insert into this discussion that in the 150 years since Darwin posited evolution, many thousands of scientists have conducted research using the rigors of the scientific method. Scientific method requires that a scientist try to disprove a hypothesis before it is accepted as theory (not the same meaning or validity as the lay term theory, which is more akin to a scientist's hypothesis.) In contrast, those who promote creationism/ID using pseudo scientific language and presentation have used their research to try to prove their position. This is an opposite method, unscientific under the guise of science and has no validity because it's based on inclusion of anything that supports their hypothesis (or unscientific "theory") while excluding anything that refutes it.

jock59801 - How many darwinists can dance on the head of a pin? And the phrase is supposed to include "needle" and not "pin".

laura,

Intelligent design uses the scientific method to detect design.

1) Observation:
The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified). Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design.

2) Hypothesis:
If an object in the natural world was designed, then we should be able to examine that object and find the same high levels of CSI in the natural world as we find in human-designed objects.

3) Experiment:
We can examine biological structures to test if high CSI exists. When we look at natural objects in biology, we find many machine-like structures which are specified, because they have a particular arrangement of parts which is necessary for them to function, and complex because they have an unlikely arrangement of many interacting parts. These biological machines are "irreducibly complex," for any change in the nature or arrangement of these parts would destroy their function. Irreducibly complex structures cannot be built up through an alternative theory, such as Darwinian evolution, because Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution. "Reverse engineering" of these structures shows that they cease to function if changed even slightly.

4) Conclusion:
Because they exhibit high levels of CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these "irreducibly complex" biological structures, it is concluded that they were intelligently designed.

MT: It should be noted that such a large WOOD structure would collapse under it's own weight. In short, Noah's Arc is only a tall tale.

People are going to believe what they want to believe, almost to a fault. One guy I know who doesn't believe in evolution always starts his argument by stating something like "I just can't believe all of this happened by chance, that there was no plan" and so on. I have given up arguing with him about it because it just doesn't sink in, it's like he doesn't hear me. No matter what I say he always falls back to the same argument. I think this may have something to do with one of the basic tenets of most religions, faith. Faith does not require proof, just your unwavering belief. After all, who can "prove" God exists, really. I'm not saying he doesn't ... just that it can't be proven with any empirical evidence. I find it somewhat amusing to think that God gave us this ability to think for ourselves ... except of course when it comes to questioning things like how the earth was created, etc. He MUST have seen that one coming!

RE: Tamoko

I am not afraid of anything. To include creatures purported to have no flesh. No, make that "especially" creatures purported to have no flesh.

Keep your Jehovah's Witnesses' tactics out of intellectual discussion.

Evolution is the "Truth" and once again, anyone who denies that fact is a fool. I stand by that. I also stand by the facts I learned in every statistics, trigonometry, algebra, genetics, humanities, and electronics class I have ever taken.

You should read a book called "The Golden Bough" if you really want to put whatever your "experts" and their facts up against reality. I suggest every religous zealot do so as well.

Lastly, no where in my post did I contradict myself.

I am very curious about this discussion and similar discussions on other boards.

The I.D./scientific creationists have clearly demonstrated that they simply will not except, or do not understand, factual evidence and reasoned argument.

Sooooo, what possible tool do those who choose to argue with these people have to convince them they are wrong? And what does it say about those who are trying? Instead of wasting your time on an unwinnable discussion, why not put your efforts into trying to promote critical thinking in our schools. Any rational person who has the tools of critical thinking available to them will come to a well reasoned conclusion.

It may be possible that there is a window of opportunity for children, where if they are not taught how to think critically, they will be forever lost to the powers of superstition and irrationality.

Lance my dear fellow,
Have you read the Bible? Try the book of JOB. There is a very detailed description of a dinosaur found there.
Lets apply a small amount of logic to this discussion. First, get your facts correct, Dr. Carl Baugh (of the creation evidences museum) did not tell you or anyone else that 'all' living things were created on the same day. As a matter of reference, man was created on the sixth day. The other organisms were created on previous days. Second, His 'exhibits' are reproductions of what he has found in the riverbed. Which are fossilized human footprints deposited withn the fossilized footprints of dinosaurs. I don't mean near each other, or in the same rock layer--I mean that they were layed down within moments of one another then covered up and fossilized together. I have personally seen them in the river bed. There is no doubt that the footprints are human. Cars and televisions evolved? Really? I suppose their was a primordial soup that they 'evolved' from, too? Now, I simply love it when you folks prove my point for me. You see it really does take some intellect to be able to understand the following, but I will try to keep it a simple as I can. Televisions and cars do not evolve. If they did you would only have to purchase one and then later models would just come forth. Televisions and cars are the products of intellegent design. (Some more intellegent than others) Furthermore, not only do they not evolve, but in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics (a big word I know, But bare with me) they tend to decompose over time, unless new energy and intellgence (ie the car restorer) are applied to them. Again apply a little intellegence and a little logic folks, thats all I ask. Its NOT even a BAD example of how things supposedly evolve!! Us Christians have caused more death than any other entity? Please, that is the oldest and the lamest cop out in the little book of cop outs. You are obviouy confusing christians whith some other religious group. Do you even know what it means to be a christian? Something tells me that you don't, or you would be one! Evolution and God in the same sentence, there I said it, do I get a sticker now? Seriously, All you need to do is loose the anger, and whatever else is keeping you from using your intellect and logic. Maybe the courses that I suggested earlier. Oh, and by the way, I am afraid that people like you won't see the light in time to make a difference in their lives. As far as The Truth is concerned, He and I get along just dandy, thank you.

The Devil's Dictionary defines 'faith' as, "Belief without evidence in what one is told by someone who speaks without knowledge of things without parallel." I've always thought that to be a wonderful observation.

LB750 - you provide zero evidence to back up your claim. I provided evidence to back up mine.

All of the evolutionists on here are either presupposed to naturalism/atheism or are not well educated regarding all of the holes in the evolutionary theory.

RE: btw
According to my Websters Universal Encyclopedic Dictionary. The word Evolve means to develop over time, not simply change over time. Then when you go back to the Ds and look up Devolve you find that it means to degenerate through a gradual change and the example it gives is--where order devolves into chaos. Again just get the facts right, is that too much to ask? Yall are making this toooo easy!!

RE: Voice of Reason

Looks like another one has joined the discussion.

Why does the W.B.T.S. take such offense to evolution? Probably the same reason they discourage a college education for their children: they fear knowledge. That is not just for the J.W.'s, though, that holds true for all of the zealots, regardless of faith.

oh my gosh-evolve!

Ron good comments, but about evolution being true. Think this throuh. All living organisms have DNA, correct? This is the information required not only for the organism to survive, but also to procreate (for those of you that don't have a dictionary, that means to have babies), true? Yes, mutations do occur, but they are almost always a net loss of informantion. So then what would cause a speciic organism to ADAPT to a change? Could it be that the information required for the adaptation is already encoed within the organism's DNA? Just Food for thought!!

Sam,
You are lost, but not in a biblical sense. Why don't you list 100 credible scientists that believe your dribble? And I'm not talking about the type that the Discovery Institute uses. You know, the PhD in theology who is interpreting biological/palentological evidence. I'm talking about real life PhD's in biology, genetics, palentology, etc. The same science which has led to the development of the device you typed your crazy statements on that we read here is the science that teaches us that evolution is a fact. Or did you just pray for your postings to be made and they were, sans device?

I belive all the way with evolution. I am a firm believer we should spend more time on studying evolution. Also, I understand people have the religion to freedom, but think they are runnign for answers to the question. The bible was written by people! If that what makes them believe life is about after it, then they may.

Sam,
You are lost, but not in a biblical sense. Why don't you list 100 credible scientists that believe your dribble? And I'm not talking about the type that the Discovery Institute uses. You know, the PhD in theology who is interpreting biological/palentological evidence. I'm talking about real life PhD's in biology, genetics, palentology, etc. The same science which has led to the development of the device you typed your crazy statements on that we read here is the science that teaches us that evolution is a fact. Or did you just pray for your postings to be made and they were, sans device?

All:

Let's not confuse NATURAL SELECTION with EVOLUTION.

I would hope that all of the folks against evolution would at least acknowledge that a "loving god" would instill an ability for any creature to adapt to its surroundings. This would be natural selection.

Now, over time, natural genetic mutations which are mostly detrimental to the organism coupled with natural selection, which is good for the organism, to me, would equal evolution.

Voice of Reason,
Thats it!! You are making my point for me again. Lets apply critical thinking without anyone's agenda. A challenge!! Can you do it?? Its just like I mentioned earlier, all we need to do is think, take the emotionalism out of the equation. What a fantastic idea!! I will throw out the first Critical thinking question. Here goes.

Which makes more sense, The parent (generic) exists before its offspring. OR The offsring exists before the parent.

These are two statements. Anyone who chooses to respond, please, do so without emotion, or irrational comments. Please give specifc reasons for your responses. Lets see if this can work.

The parent exists first...that is if one believes in time.

Jeez, when I look in the mirror, I sure do.

sam - Mutations almost never result in a "loss" of information. They involve a CHANGE in information - the substitution of one nucleotide for another. Most such changes are more or less neutral; many are detrimental. Occasionally, a mutation improves the ability of an organism to survive or reproduce in its environment. Therefore, this new information is passed on to more offspring. That is what causes adaptation, which is a form of evolution. This has been witnessed many times. It is quite logical, and really not very scary.

Wandering,
This is exactly what I'm talking about!!
You cannot even quote me correctly. The lack of Intellectual integrety is astounding. NO, the animals were not created on the same day. The ark? He could have taken eggs. or a hundred other possibilities. The point is, you
seem to base your beliefs upon misquotes; which means you are basing your world view on misinformation. No 'wander' you are wandering.

How wonderful that our own "flat earth society" continues to impede human progress. *snort* Superstitionists of ALL stripes are just idiots.

Hello,

I'm still waiting for the bible verses from Job that mentions the dinasaurs.

I'm gonna take a break. I'll be napping in the mouth a whale!

sam - if you spent less time on your emotional critiques of other people's emotional critiques, and more time on explaining your question, it might work better.

"On what day did God create Spinal Tap, and couldn't he have rested on that day too?"

Cross out "Spinal Tap"
Insert "sam"

'When you realize that horses, zebras, and donkeys are probably descended from the horse-like “kind”, Noah did not have to carry two sets of each such animal. Also, dogs, wolves, and coyotes are probably from a single canine “kind”, so hundreds of different dogs were not needed.'

MT, I hope you realize that central to your discussion about animals that went on the Ark is the notion that other animals evolved from the animals Noah carried.

The existence of the egg first whereby the chicken evolved a way to get inside one is intriguing enough. We may have to accept the idea of the extraterrestials landing here and starting an EASTER EGG hunt where the children gathered them up and harbored the emerging animal. VOILA...

RE: Esme Anne's comment

GOOD ONE!!!!!!!!!! lololololol

RE: esme anne

In that case, the flood should have come a few billion years earlier. That way the ark could have been alot smaller.

About the size of a large lipid drop, maybe. Throw in a couple of RNA strands and shazaam!

That's my kind of ark. And it's about the size of one I would build if told to do so by a "voice". Oh wait, that means I am building an ark every time I put oil into the water before I pour in the macaroni shells. I think I'll start telling everyone I am building an ark when I make macaroni.

Cool, everyone has really helped me out today!

;)

The fact that we are actually debating evolution over Adam and Eve in 20th century America is laughable. At least it would be if it didn't represent the watering down of science by professional christians not unlike the assertion from the church long ago that the world was flat in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Please keep your religion to yourself. Everyone is free to believe in whatever they want, but that does not give them the right to assail science because it does not support their particular religion.

Dave;

Your definition of science is to say the least lacking!!Again, my WUED defines science as (1) the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.
(2) a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study ie. the science of theology. (yes its there)
(3) (a)knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operatoin of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method (b) such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenonena. ie natural science.
Who says that 'God' is not natural. As a matter of fact the Bible says hat God is knowable, therefore, according the above definition creation is absolutely a science.

RE: daddyblue

I'm with daddyblue on this one, guys.

MT has given a perfect example of "using pseudo scientific language and presentation" to try to give credence to unscientific gobbledegook. MT didn't give any evidence of having done anything more than using terms invented for ID, substituting an unscientific study that looks for proof of ID in place of genuine experimentation, and the circular "logic" that if something is too complex for us humans to disassemble and successfully reassemble it must have been created by a supernatural being, God. Again, the most salient features of the scientific method are its rigor and THE FACT THAT IT PROVES A THING BY ACTIVELY WORKING TO DISPROVE IT AND FAILING OVER AND OVER AGAIN. MT, you can apparently get away with co-opting the language and format of the scientific method for your purposes, but you don't understand it nor are you implementing it.

OK, maybe God created Spinal Tap. They are indeed god-like. :)

Sam or MT,
I have a few questions. Why didn't God just recreate all of the creatures after the flood instead of having Noah collect them? Why did the dinosaurs, that Noah brought on the ark, go extinct? How did the animals on the ark "change" from one creature to another without evolution (wolfs to coyotes to dogs)?
Obviously, there are many "truths" you know which have yet to be shared with the rest of mankind! Are you a prophet?

jock,
is this a profession or an admission, i man are you really a jock (ie sports player), if so, I consider the source.
Step it up and we can talk.

I think many of you are missing the bigger picture. You are assuming humans were designed intelligently. I know many humans that don't possess an ounce of intelligence.

Be back after kid's basketball games

sam - maybe you need a new dictionary. That is a very informal and incomplete definition of science. Most dictionaries give various definitions that are used by the general public. Science, as understood by scientists, is a PROCESS of gaining knowledge through the scientific method, which involves falsifiable hypotheses. Theology, which does not have falsifiable hypotheses, cannot be a "science."

Adam and Eve.
There's a good one. I guess then that Adam and Eve were both, white, black, asian, etheopian, american indian, italian, etc, etc, etc. But hey, if you sleep better thinking that we came from a pile of ash and a rib bone, go for it. But let me add that by the looks of all the big asses out there that that rib bone came from a pork belly!

'MT didn't give any evidence of having done anything more than using terms invented for ID, substituting an unscientific study that looks for proof of ID in place of genuine experimentation, and the circular "logic" that if something is too complex for us humans to disassemble and successfully reassemble it must have been created by a supernatural being, God. Again, the most salient features of the scientific method are its rigor and THE FACT THAT IT PROVES A THING BY ACTIVELY WORKING TO DISPROVE IT AND FAILING OVER AND OVER AGAIN.'

Not only that, the "irreducible complexity" concept, as an attempt to disprove the theory of evolution, fails to do so AND further reinforces that theory's validity. The expert testimony presented at the trial concerning the Dover, PA science curriculum in rebuttal of the "irreducible complexity" argument indicated that the "irreducibly complex" structure indicated by the testifying intelligent design proponent performed an entirely different function in a similar organism in which one part of the structure was not present. Far from being "useless," the altered structure's function was in fact the distinguishing characteristic between two otherwise identical organisms. Thus, the evidence not only rebutted "irreducible complexity," but also indicated the existence of a process by which natural structures change in order to execute different functions in similar organisms.

I'm sorry, but I want my kids to know this stuff. And I don't want it taught to them only after they've been lectured about how the universe could be the work of a supreme being and too complex for human comprehension. I don't want their science lessons prefaced with "Don't Bother."

For forty years, I have searched for concrete evidence that man did indeed evolve from an ape, and until now, I believed my search to be in vain. It wasn't until I read the comments in this blog, from beginning to end, that I realized that there is some truth to the evolutionary process and each one of you contributed to this proof. Just read your own comments. The messages started out with a form of intellicutual debate, but then slowly deteriorated, becoming insulting, fault finding instead of fact based, belittling to those of 'faith' and/or 'religion', then eventually becoming degrading, using the word "stupid" to define a colleagues comment. In the end, these unprofessional comments were the only facts stated that man does evolve, and does so intentionally. Otherwise, no one presented evidence to PROVE their FACTS on origination. And no one ever will. Why? Because evolution and creation are both faith based. No one was around to witness whichever event happened to start the process of life. The universe, in all of its glory, was silent in its infancy. Each side has its theory, and then documentation to suppo