Evolution: the Pushback

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.