And Science Says Our Gap Theory Is Bad.....

[Barrd]

That's hard to say, since I'm not sure what you mean by "anything new".

Okay....how about mermaids? Now, I'm being facetious, and I know it, but the point still remains....why not a primate with gills? Didn't we all crawl out of the ocean at some point? And whales, I understand, crawled back, right?
Why not a critter that gets around on some sort of wheel, instead of legs?
I look at my little Shih Tzu, the love of my life, and I have to wonder....somehow, people bred this thing from some descendant of a wolf-like critter? He's about as far from being anything like a wolf as a dog could be. If we could bring about this amazing transformation with critters that are already here, think what God could do!
Why isn't He making any new critters?

I don't remember reading the words "fully developed" anywhere.

Let's see....first was light, then land, then water....and then specific kinds of plants. Interestingly, trees seem to have come before grass...I would have thought it would be the other way around.
Next we have the rest of what we call "outer space"....sun, moon, and stars...and then, finally, critters.
You're right, the scripture is a bit vague:

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

I do see some specific critters being mentioned here, and it does sound a bit as if God created them complete. However, I have long since conceded that it could have been according to the TOE.

Yep, but then "kind" is never defined in any way. Likely it's reflective of the sort of obvious logical groups animals tend to lend themselves to.

I would have thought "kind" was obviously "species". You know....dogs are always dogs, from the big bad wolf, to the playful little Shih Tzu...
Or from King Kong, down to the little nebbish in the corner office?

Probably because that sort of thing would have been a foreign, bizarre concept to the ancient Hebrews. Regardless, the evolution of new species is a repeatedly observed event. I posted a list of fundamental facts in biology HERE, and it includes some examples of new species evolving if you're interested.

I freely admit, that is over my head. But it is interesting.

There is no comprehensive A-Z theory that goes completely from molecules to a living cell. However, there are some very good hypotheses in the works, some of which overlap a bit and have very good experimental support. A paper published this year describes how the basic building blocks of all the things you need to make a cell can be derived from the same chemical source (CLICK HERE). This is a huge advance, and IMO means they probably are very close to coming up with a comprehensive A-Z scenario.

Your "click here" produced a page entitled "Common origins of RNA, protein and lipid precursors in a cyanosulfidic protometabolism," and I just had to smile. River, I do know that RNA stands for ribonucleic acid...but I do not have the vaguest idea what that is, nor would I have a clue what cyanosulfidic protometabolism" means.
I'm positive that all the things you need to make a cell can be derived from "the dust of the ground", since that would seem to be the material that God started out with.
I've been told that science has come close to creating living cells...I don't know much about that, but, as I've said, I'm not holding my breath. I'll be impressed when science can start from scratch, and create, from a vacuum, their very own "dust"...

That's based on a wide variety of evidence from many different fields of science, that all converge on the same answer (universal common ancestry).

You know what? I'm betting that, no matter how hard we try, we're never going to figure out just how God did it.
Still, it's fun to try, isn't it?

No doubt.

No studying.

If science "had it all figured out", there would be no more science.

I can't argue with that one!

Because of our evolutionary past. In order to develop intelligence, you have to have a relatively big, complex brain. In order to have a big, complex brain, you first have to have the right anatomy to support it. Only primates have this anatomy.

See, that's what I mean. You have told me that everything that lives, from the corn in the field, to the baby in the stroller....from the great whale in the ocean, to this tiny little doggie at my feet, all derive from a "common ancestor".
And now, you want to tell me that other critters could not possibly develop "the right anatomy".
Let's make up our minds.

It's like asking "Why don't we have wings like birds?" Well, our ancestors didn't evolve along the pathways necessary to develop wings.

No, it's like asking how something as utterly helpless as a "naked ape" managed to survive in a hostile environment for long enough to make a weapon to defend itself, just as an example.
Personally, I don't think it would have been scientifically possible.
Without God, that is....

 

[Barrd]

I guess what I am saying is that, while I accept "evolution" as the adaptation of a species to its environment, I'm no so sure about "microevolution". I mean, a finch with a short beak is still a finch. It isn't a canary or a hummingbird. It certainly is not a kitty cat...
And a whale is still a whatever-it-was....only now it swims instead of lumbers on land.
A squirrel, with or without "flaps" is still a squirrel...
And a Shih Tzu is not a wolf....but it is still a dog.

So, bacteria "evolve" a resistance to drugs. Bad news!
Wake me when one morphs into an earthworm....

 

[River Jordan]

Okay....how about mermaids? Now, I'm being facetious, and I know it, but the point still remains....why not a primate with gills?

Because primates don't have the basic biological "infrastructure" necessary to develop gills. What you're able to evolve is dependent on what sort of structures your recent ancestors had. Most of evolution is just modifying pre-existing things for new purposes. It's how arms become both wings and flippers. Birds didn't just suddenly get wings, rather they came from arms that were modified over long periods of time.

I look at my little Shih Tzu, the love of my life, and I have to wonder....somehow, people bred this thing from some descendant of a wolf-like critter? He's about as far from being anything like a wolf as a dog could be. If we could bring about this amazing transformation with critters that are already here, think what God could do!
Why isn't He making any new critters?

He is. That's what the examples of speciation I posted were about.

Let's see....first was light, then land, then water....and then specific kinds of plants. Interestingly, trees seem to have come before grass...I would have thought it would be the other way around.
Next we have the rest of what we call "outer space"....sun, moon, and stars...and then, finally, critters.
You're right, the scripture is a bit vague:

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

I do see some specific critters being mentioned here, and it does sound a bit as if God created them complete. However, I have long since conceded that it could have been according to the TOE.

Well yeah....it's not a textbook.

I would have thought "kind" was obviously "species". You know....dogs are always dogs, from the big bad wolf, to the playful little Shih Tzu...
Or from King Kong, down to the little nebbish in the corner office?

Since "kind" is never defined, we can't say.

Your "click here" produced a page entitled "Common origins of RNA, protein and lipid precursors in a cyanosulfidic protometabolism," and I just had to smile. River, I do know that RNA stands for ribonucleic acid...but I do not have the vaguest idea what that is, nor would I have a clue what cyanosulfidic protometabolism" means.
I'm positive that all the things you need to make a cell can be derived from "the dust of the ground", since that would seem to be the material that God started out with.
I've been told that science has come close to creating living cells...I don't know much about that, but, as I've said, I'm not holding my breath. I'll be impressed when science can start from scratch, and create, from a vacuum, their very own "dust"...

That's fine. No one is an expert in everything.

You know what? I'm betting that, no matter how hard we try, we're never going to figure out just how God did it.
Still, it's fun to try, isn't it?

That's why I'm a scientist. :)

See, that's what I mean. You have told me that everything that lives, from the corn in the field, to the baby in the stroller....from the great whale in the ocean, to this tiny little doggie at my feet, all derive from a "common ancestor".
And now, you want to tell me that other critters could not possibly develop "the right anatomy".
Let's make up our minds.

The common ancestor we all share was a simple single-celled organism. Each evolutionary lineage has spent billions of years evolving down its own path, developing its own traits, distancing itself from not only other organisms around it, but from the original ancestor. You have to think of it in terms of a branching bush. Each branch will evolve its own unique characteristics, which dictates the sort of traits its ancestors can evolve. Bacteria won't grow legs because they don't have skeletons, and they don't have skeletons because they don't have the necessary biological and biochemical infrastructure necessary to produce and house one.

You see the point?

No, it's like asking how something as utterly helpless as a "naked ape" managed to survive in a hostile environment for long enough to make a weapon to defend itself, just as an example.
Personally, I don't think it would have been scientifically possible.
Without God, that is....

That very well could be.

I guess what I am saying is that, while I accept "evolution" as the adaptation of a species to its environment, I'm no so sure about "microevolution". I mean, a finch with a short beak is still a finch. It isn't a canary or a hummingbird. It certainly is not a kitty cat...

That's good, because nothing in evolutionary biology suggests that a finch would suddenly become a cat. :blink:

So, bacteria "evolve" a resistance to drugs. Bad news!
Wake me when one morphs into an earthworm....

That's not how it works. If you're really interested, I can provide some reading material for you.

 

[Barrd]

Because primates don't have the basic biological "infrastructure" necessary to develop gills. What you're able to evolve is dependent on what sort of structures your recent ancestors had. Most of evolution is just modifying pre-existing things for new purposes. It's how arms become both wings and flippers. Birds didn't just suddenly get wings, rather they came from arms that were modified over long periods of time.

See, I have a problem with that, because it seems that, on the one hand, you're saying that everything evolves from the same single cell, eons ago. Why would it not be possible, then, for a branch of primates to develop gills? It might take awhile for the "infrastructure" to change enough to support them, but...well, why not?
It seems to have worked out for the whales, which were once land mammals....or so we're told. Why whales but not primates?
Does the whale have any distant relatives still on land?

He is. That's what the examples of speciation I posted were about.

Uh....yeah.
Did I mention that that was over my head?
Maybe you could "dumb it down" for me?
Remember, I married right out of high school....although I did manage, years later, to get myself an Associates, it is a law degree...nothing at all in science unless you count 10th grade biology.
And what I remember most from that class is the terrible crush I had on the teacher. :wub: He was so groovy!

Well yeah....it's not a textbook.

Probably just as well. If He were to give us the technical details, we'd probably be trying to create our own universe, and people it with life, ourselves....

Since "kind" is never defined, we can't say.

It just makes sense that "kind" would be species.
At least, it does to my little brain...

That's fine. No one is an expert in everything.

True.
But I am curious about a lot of things.
It's the writer in me.

That's why I'm a scientist. :)

Doing what you love, and loving what you do?
Hey, that's great.
"Success" is when you can go and play every day, and get paid for it...

The common ancestor we all share was a simple single-celled organism. Each evolutionary lineage has spent billions of years evolving down its own path, developing its own traits, distancing itself from not only other organisms around it, but from the original ancestor. You have to think of it in terms of a branching bush. Each branch will evolve its own unique characteristics, which dictates the sort of traits its ancestors can evolve. Bacteria won't grow legs because they don't have skeletons, and they don't have skeletons because they don't have the necessary biological and biochemical infrastructure necessary to produce and house one.

You see the point?

A branching bush?
With a different fruit on every branch?
Mother Nature doesn't work that way. A blackberry bush can only produce blackberries....it can't do raspberries, and it certainly could never produce puppy dogs.

Besides, earthworms do not have legs, or skeletons, either.

That very well could be.

Take your average modern man (or woman), strip him down to his skin, and drop him in the middle of the African jungle,,,within 15 minutes or less, he'll be lunch for a hungry predator.
I guarantee it.

That's good, because nothing in evolutionary biology suggests that a finch would suddenly become a cat. :blink:

Or a canary, or a parakeet, or a swallow, or a hummingbird, or a buzzard, or a crow.....or any other kind of bird.
It may develop a shorter beak, or even different colored feathers....but it will always be a finch.

That's not how it works. If you're really interested, I can provide some reading material for you.

Sure....I'll look at whatever you send me.
I'm a curious bug, and always willing to (try to) learn something new...

 

[River Jordan]

See, I have a problem with that, because it seems that, on the one hand, you're saying that everything evolves from the same single cell, eons ago. Why would it not be possible, then, for a branch of primates to develop gills? It might take awhile for the "infrastructure" to change enough to support them, but...well, why not?
It seems to have worked out for the whales, which were once land mammals....or so we're told. Why whales but not primates?
Does the whale have any distant relatives still on land?

This is actually a good example of how evolutionary theory helps explain the world around us. Sharks and whales are large marine organisms, and in most cases are apex predators. Yet sharks breathe via gills and whales breathe via lungs. Why the two different ways of doing the same thing? Evolution gives us the answer.

Sharks are fish, and as such are direct descendants of ancient fish. IOW, in the evolutionary history between ancient fish and today's sharks, there was no "non-fish" stage....they've always been fish. That means sharks inherited all the biological infrastructure necessary to breathe underwater via gills. Whales OTOH are not direct descendants of ancient fish, but are rather very distantly related. In the evolutionary history of whales, their fish ancestors left the water and lived on land for millions of years, which meant they ditched gills as a means of breathing and developed the infrastructure necessary to breathe via lungs. Then later ancestors went back to the water, but because they no longer had the gill infrastructure they had to use and modify what was available to them (what they inherited from their direct ancestors), i.e., lungs.

Does that make sense?

Uh....yeah.
Did I mention that that was over my head?
Maybe you could "dumb it down" for me?

They are observed, documented examples of the evolution of new species.

A branching bush?
With a different fruit on every branch?
Mother Nature doesn't work that way. A blackberry bush can only produce blackberries....it can't do raspberries, and it certainly could never produce puppy dogs.

No, I'm talking about how evolutionary histories. For example, even though this is a common representation of human evolutionary history...

It's very wrong. Evolution doesn't go in a straight line like that. Instead, it's more like a branching bush or braided river...

Make sense?

Take your average modern man (or woman), strip him down to his skin, and drop him in the middle of the African jungle,,,within 15 minutes or less, he'll be lunch for a hungry predator.
I guarantee it.

Fortunately, our evolutionary past wasn't anything like that. One of our main survival tools is our complex social organization. So if you dropped off a couple of hundred humans in a place, there's a good chance the population would persist.

Or a canary, or a parakeet, or a swallow, or a hummingbird, or a buzzard, or a crow.....or any other kind of bird.
It may develop a shorter beak, or even different colored feathers....but it will always be a finch.

Because that's not how evolution works. Individuals don't evolve...populations do.

Sure....I'll look at whatever you send me.
I'm a curious bug, and always willing to (try to) learn something new...

I'd recommend you start here: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

 

[Wormwood]

This is actually a good example of how evolutionary theory helps explain the world around us. Sharks and whales are large marine organisms, and in most cases are apex predators. Yet sharks breathe via gills and whales breathe via lungs. Why the two different ways of doing the same thing? Evolution gives us the answer.

Evolution gives a theory. It's like saying evolution gives us an explanation for the octopus and it's eight arms is descended from the crab. Anyone can look at a list of animals and then try to connect dots between animals that look similar or have like traits and say they are "related." Unfortunately, most of the theories about whale evolution have been proven false (such as pelvic bones for reproduction being vestigal legs from when they evolved from being land-dwellers...along with such views about the tonsils and appendix being vestigal). The theory that a land animal could suddenly develop all the tools to breathe, eat, and endure underwater pressures as a means of instant survival are mind-boggling (and it has to be instant because many of these features are mandatory to survive and cannot slowly develop over time). The theory of the inheritance of acquired characteristics was proven wrong. So unless the world was flooded and cows had to develop traits to survive in water, I dont see how the theory of natural selection could apply to a creature that was fully "evolved" to survive on land, suddenly deciding to make its way back to the sea.

 

[Barrd]

This is actually a good example of how evolutionary theory helps explain the world around us. Sharks and whales are large marine organisms, and in most cases are apex predators. Yet sharks breathe via gills and whales breathe via lungs. Why the two different ways of doing the same thing? Evolution gives us the answer.

Sharks are fish, and as such are direct descendants of ancient fish. IOW, in the evolutionary history between ancient fish and today's sharks, there was no "non-fish" stage....they've always been fish. That means sharks inherited all the biological infrastructure necessary to breathe underwater via gills. Whales OTOH are not direct descendants of ancient fish, but are rather very distantly related. In the evolutionary history of whales, their fish ancestors left the water and lived on land for millions of years, which meant they ditched gills as a means of breathing and developed the infrastructure necessary to breathe via lungs. Then later ancestors went back to the water, but because they no longer had the gill infrastructure they had to use and modify what was available to them (what they inherited from their direct ancestors), i.e., lungs.

Does that make sense?

So, at one point, they had the infrastructure for gills, but somehow, they evolved the infrastructure for lungs, right?
Why not the other way around?

No, I'm afraid it doesn't make sense, at all.

They are observed, documented examples of the evolution of new species.

I guess I'd have to see these new species for myself. I know that what I see around me, what I see at the zoo, what I see where ever I look seems to be pretty much what it's always been, as far back as human history knows. There may have been changes within a species, but new species just don't seem to be showing themselves. Cats is cats, dogs is dogs, rabbits is rabbits....always have been and always will be.

No, I'm talking about how evolutionary histories. For example, even though this is a common representation of human evolutionary history...

Yeah, I've seen that picture. That was evolution as we knew it in 1965. The guy on the end looks a little like Ken...you know, Barbie's girlfriend?

(No, the guy on the other end. The guy on the other end looks more like Cheetah.)

My Mom had a serious thing about Barbie and Ken...but my kid brother would snap the heads off these dolls and paint them to look like shrunken heads and hang them on the birch trees in our front yard.
Little brothers can be such a pain....

It's very wrong. Evolution doesn't go in a straight line like that. Instead, it's more like a branching bush or braided river...

Make sense?

Uh....no.

Fortunately, our evolutionary past wasn't anything like that. One of our main survival tools is our complex social organization. So if you dropped off a couple of hundred humans in a place, there's a good chance the population would persist.

With no tools and no weapons? I don't think they'd last too long.
What the predators didn't pick off would succumb to exposure or disease.
Let's face it, these naked apes are just not geared to survival in a hostile environment.

Because that's not how evolution works. Individuals don't evolve...populations do.

Okay, have it your way. A flock of finches find fabulous food for free...but they need shorter beaks, right? But they are still a flock of finicky finches....they are not pesky parakeets or creepy crows, and they never will be. A population of pretty peacocks will never become a gaggle of giggling geese...

I'd recommend you start here: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

Thanks River.
You're not such a bad gal....

For a big-headed scientist.

 

[Barrd]

Evolution gives a theory. It's like saying evolution gives us an explanation for the octopus and it's eight arms is descended fro the crab. Anyone can look at a list of animals and then try to connect dots between animals that look similar or have like traits and say they are "related." Unfortunately, most of the theories about whale evolution have been proven false (such as pelvic bones for reproduction being vestigal legs from when they evolved from being land-dwellers...along with such views about the tonsils and appendix being vestigal). The theory that a land animal could suddenly develop all the tools to breathe, eat, and endure underwater pressures as a means of instant survival are mind-boggling (and it has to be instant because many of these features are mandatory to survive and cannot slowly develop over time). The theory of the inheritance of acquired characteristics was proven wrong. So unless the world was flooded and cows had to develop traits to survive in water, I dont see how the theory of natural selection could apply to a creature that was fully "evolved" to survive on land, suddenly deciding to make its way back to the sea.

Exactly, WW.
What I believe is that God created each individual species complete, and that He gave them the ability to adapt to their environment. Thus, we have finches with shorter beaks, or humans with lighter or darker skin...but a finch is still a finch, and a human is still a human.

 

[Barrd]

Evolution gives a theory. It's like saying evolution gives us an explanation for the octopus and it's eight arms is descended fro the crab. Anyone can look at a list of animals and then try to connect dots between animals that look similar or have like traits and say they are "related." Unfortunately, most of the theories about whale evolution have been proven false (such as pelvic bones for reproduction being vestigal legs from when they evolved from being land-dwellers...along with such views about the tonsils and appendix being vestigal). The theory that a land animal could suddenly develop all the tools to breathe, eat, and endure underwater pressures as a means of instant survival are mind-boggling (and it has to be instant because many of these features are mandatory to survive and cannot slowly develop over time). The theory of the inheritance of acquired characteristics was proven wrong. So unless the world was flooded and cows had to develop traits to survive in water, I dont see how the theory of natural selection could apply to a creature that was fully "evolved" to survive on land, suddenly deciding to make its way back to the sea.

Exactly, WW.
What I believe is that God created each individual species complete, and that He gave them the ability to adapt to their environment. Thus, we have finches with shorter beaks, or humans with lighter or darker skin...but a finch is still a finch, and a human is still a human.

The reason there are so many similarities is same reason an art connoisseur can look at a the brush strokes of a painting and know that it is a da Vinci or a Michelangelo, a Picasso, or a Rembrant. Obviously, the same artist that made puppies and kitties and goldfish also made wolves, and tigers and sharks....

 

[River Jordan]

Evolution gives a theory.

I hope this isn't a variation on the rather ignorant creationist talking point "It's only a theory". Please say it's not.

It's like saying evolution gives us an explanation for the octopus and it's eight arms is descended from the crab. Anyone can look at a list of animals and then try to connect dots between animals that look similar or have like traits and say they are "related."

Seriously? Is that really all you think there is to evolutionary biology? Groups of "anyone" sitting around just making things up? When Isaac Asimov said, "Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night", was he talking about you?

Unfortunately, most of the theories about whale evolution have been proven false (such as pelvic bones for reproduction being vestigal legs from when they evolved from being land-dwellers...along with such views about the tonsils and appendix being vestigal).

Says who? You?

The theory that a land animal could suddenly develop all the tools to breathe, eat, and endure underwater pressures as a means of instant survival are mind-boggling (and it has to be instant because many of these features are mandatory to survive and cannot slowly develop over time).

Well it's a good thing no one has proposed that those things "developed suddenly". Likely, the problem here isn't with the science, but with your understanding of it. I mean....how much time have you really spent studying the evolutionary history of Cetaceans? Seriously...how much?

The theory of the inheritance of acquired characteristics was proven wrong. So unless the world was flooded and cows had to develop traits to survive in water, I dont see how the theory of natural selection could apply to a creature that was fully "evolved" to survive on land, suddenly deciding to make its way back to the sea.

Just because you can't comprehend it doesn't mean no one else can. Are you familiar with the fallacy of argument from incredulity?

Argument from incredulity/Lack of imagination

Arguments from incredulity take the form:

P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false; therefore P must be true.

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.

 

[River Jordan]

So, at one point, they had the infrastructure for gills, but somehow, they evolved the infrastructure for lungs, right?
Why not the other way around?

Again, because the traits they inherited from their ancestors limited the path they could evolve along. The fish ancestors of whales had gills too, but they began to evolve along their own path (while other fish evolved a different way, one of which led to sharks) and developed lobed fins that they could use as limbs and modified swim bladders that they could use to breath out of water. Eventually their descendants became amphibious tetrapods. We know this because we have their fossilized remains. We also know this is anatomically possible because we still have lobe-finned fish that breath via both gills and modified swim bladders. Then, those amphibious tetrapods gave rise to land-dwelling tetrapods who had no need for gills at all.

In order for it to be "the other way around", lungs and limbs would have had to have evolved before gills and fins.

I guess I'd have to see these new species for myself.

Then there's no point in providing you things to read, is there? If your standard is "I have to see it with my own eyes", I'm afraid I can't really do much about that.

Uh....no.

It's a family tree, just like one you would make of your relatives, only in this case it's made up of species and genera over millions of years. You should really read that Evolution 101 webpage I gave you, especially this page: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_05

With no tools and no weapons? I don't think they'd last too long.
What the predators didn't pick off would succumb to exposure or disease.
Let's face it, these naked apes are just not geared to survival in a hostile environment.

Not sure what you're talking about. People live in harsh environments all over the earth, many in extremely primitive conditions.

Okay, have it your way. A flock of finches find fabulous food for free...but they need shorter beaks, right? But they are still a flock of finicky finches....they are not pesky parakeets or creepy crows, and they never will be. A population of pretty peacocks will never become a gaggle of giggling geese...

I guess then I'm confused about what you believe. I thought you'd said you generally agreed with the evolutionary history of life on earth, but in this thread you're saying that God deliberately created each individual species and they have remained the same species ever since.

Thanks River.
You're not such a bad gal....

For a big-headed scientist.

And you're not such a bad gal either....

For an ignorant southerner.

 

[Barrd]

I hope this isn't a variation on the rather ignorant creationist talking point "It's only a theory". Please say it's not.


Seriously? Is that really all you think there is to evolutionary biology? Groups of "anyone" sitting around just making things up? When Isaac Asimov said, "Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night", was he talking about you?


Says who? You?


Well it's a good thing no one has proposed that those things "developed suddenly". Likely, the problem here isn't with the science, but with your understanding of it. I mean....how much time have you really spent studying the evolutionary history of Cetaceans? Seriously...how much?


Just because you can't comprehend it doesn't mean no one else can. Are you familiar with the fallacy of argument from incredulity?

Argument from incredulity/Lack of imagination

Arguments from incredulity take the form:

P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false; therefore P must be true.

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.

I seem to recall me sainted gran'....she tole me: :Lass, there be two sides ta ever' tale, an th' truth be summwurze in th' middle."

 

[Barrd]

Again, because the traits they inherited from their ancestors limited the path they could evolve along. The fish ancestors of whales had gills too, but they began to evolve along their own path (while other fish evolved a different way, one of which led to sharks) and developed lobed fins that they could use as limbs and modified swim bladders that they could use to breath out of water. Eventually their descendants became amphibious tetrapods. We know this because we have their fossilized remains. We also know this is anatomically possible because we still have lobe-finned fish that breath via both gills and modified swim bladders. Then, those amphibious tetrapods gave rise to land-dwelling tetrapods who had no need for gills at all.

In order for it to be "the other way around", lungs and limbs would have had to have evolved before gills and fins.

Why?

Then there's no point in providing you things to read, is there? If your standard is "I have to see it with my own eyes", I'm afraid I can't really do much about that.

Have you ever seen a never-before-seen species yourself? I'd be very interested in seeing something that actually shows some new species. A list of scientific Latin names is not really very impressive. Show me something...

It's a family tree, just like one you would make of your relatives, only in this case it's made up of species and genera over millions of years. You should really read that Evolution 101 webpage I gave you, especially this page: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_05

Perhaps I will.

Not sure what you're talking about. People live in harsh environments all over the earth, many in extremely primitive conditions.

Harsh like 100,000 years ago? Somehow, I doubt it.
Take 100 men, women and children, strip them down to their skin, and drop them in the jungle in South America.
Within a week, there will not be one of them left alive...
I'd make it more like about three days....

I guess then I'm confused about what you believe. I thought you'd said you generally agreed with the evolutionary history of life on earth, but in this thread you're saying that God deliberately created each individual species and they have remained the same species ever since.

I guess I didn't explain myself very well...perhaps I should have used the ridiculous term "microevolution".

And you're not such a bad gal either....

For an ignorant southerner.

I don't pretend to be a scholar....but I am a long way from being "an ignorant southerner." I've seen the results of my tests, and I have nothing to be ashamed of. Not many kids I know of were reading Shakespeare by the third grade. I'd already been through the children's library long since. I'd exhausted the Nancy Drew mysteries, and was into adult fiction before I was seven years old.
First of all, I grew up and was educated in upstate New York. Second, the school system in the south has vastly improved in recent years.

Your prejudice is showing, my girl, and it isn't pretty.

 

[River Jordan]

I seem to recall me sainted gran'....she tole me: :Lass, there be two sides ta ever' tale, an th' truth be summwurze in th' middle."

So then since thar be folk who see th' earth bein' flat, and folk who see th' earth bein' round, it mus' be kinda' fattish-flattish....sorta' like a flyin' sauzzer.

Why?

Why what?

Have you ever seen a never-before-seen species yourself?

Yep. I've gone out and seen the goatsbeard plant species (both the parent and newly evolved species) example. Pretty cool.

I'd be very interested in seeing something that actually shows some new species. A list of scientific Latin names is not really very impressive. Show me something...

So multiple scientists, independently go out, observe something, take the time to carefully study it over a period of time (including collecting lots of data, e.g., genetic samples), take months or years to pull the data together, analyze the data, draw some conclusions from the analyses, write up their results, and send the manuscript in to a group of other scientists who scrutinize it from as many angles as they can...and after all that they finally publish the whole thing in a scientific journal where all other scientists (and anyone else) can read it. And if anyone finds something wrong in the paper, they can write that up into a manuscript of their own and if they have a good case, the journal will publish that as well.

All that, and you're like "Meh....not impressed"? Do you hold everything in your life up to this standard, or just biology? :lol:

Anyways....I'm not sure what you're expecting. It's not like I'm going to drive to your house, pick you up, and take you to the Palouse of E. Washington and show you the goatsbeard species in person.

Perhaps I will.

You mean you haven't looked?

Harsh like 100,000 years ago? Somehow, I doubt it.
Take 100 men, women and children, strip them down to their skin, and drop them in the jungle in South America.
Within a week, there will not be one of them left alive...
I'd make it more like about three days....

Um, got news for ya'...there are tribes of hundreds of humans living in the jungles in S. America pretty much "down to their skin", right now, in much the same conditions as they've existed for the last couple millennia or so.

I guess I didn't explain myself very well...perhaps I should have used the ridiculous term "microevolution".

That doesn't really clear things up.

I don't pretend to be a scholar....but I am a long way from being "an ignorant southerner." I've seen the results of my tests, and I have nothing to be ashamed of. Not many kids I know of were reading Shakespeare by the third grade. I'd already been through the children's library long since. I'd exhausted the Nancy Drew mysteries, and was into adult fiction before I was seven years old.
First of all, I grew up and was educated in upstate New York. Second, the school system in the south has vastly improved in recent years.

Your prejudice is showing, my girl, and it isn't pretty.

*sigh*

You referred to me as a "big-headed scientist", and then put a little smiley, to indicate that you were joking (I figured). So I responded in kind by referring to you as an "ignorant southerner", followed by the same little smiley.

Sorry you missed that.

 

[Barrd]

So then since thar be folk who see th' earth bein' flat, and folk who see th' earth bein' round, it mus' be kinda' fattish-flattish....sorta' like a flyin' sauzzer.

LOL! An' doan fergit th' taypot...yer granda missed 'is tay las' night....las' I saw it, ol' Russel 'ad it. Do ye run, Lass, 'n see iffn' ye kin git it back from 'im. There's me gurlie...

Why what?

Why shouldn't this work 'tother way 'round?

Yep. I've gone out and seen the goatsbeard plant species (both the parent and newly evolved species) example. Pretty cool.

I am much more impressed by this personal testimony than I could be by a list of Latin names.

So multiple scientists, independently go out, observe something, take the time to carefully study it over a period of time (including collecting lots of data, e.g., genetic samples), take months or years to pull the data together, analyze the data, draw some conclusions from the analyses, write up their results, and send the manuscript in to a group of other scientists who scrutinize it from as many angles as they can...and after all that they finally publish the whole thing in a scientific journal where all other scientists (and anyone else) can read it. And if anyone finds something wrong in the paper, they can write that up into a manuscript of their own and if they have a good case, the journal will publish that as well.

All that, and you're like "Meh....not impressed"? Do you hold everything in your life up to this standard, or just biology? :lol:

Pretty much.
I know that I made it clear in another thread that my Christianity is not something I keep in a box and polish up on Sunday....it is a vital part of who I am. Everything is held up to the standard of how it fits into my faith.

Anyways....I'm not sure what you're expecting. It's not like I'm going to drive to your house, pick you up, and take you to the Palouse of E. Washington and show you the goatsbeard species in person.

But we would have had so much fun....and I did offer to pay for half the gas...

You mean you haven't looked?

I looked, but I haven't yet taken the time to read it through.

Um, got news for ya'...there are tribes of hundreds of humans living in the jungles in S. America pretty much "down to their skin", right now, in much the same conditions as they've existed for the last couple millennia or so.

You mean these guys?

http://www.uncontactedtribes.org/

They look pretty primitive to me. Your point might be more convincing if these guys were still evolving. They do seem kind of stuck in the stage just before Ken, don't they? Still, they are surviving in a very hostile environment....well, sorta. I'm guessing the life expectancy isn't terrific...

I was thinking of modern man....perhaps a group of scientists, or a bunch of ignorant southerners? Or that little nebbish in the corner cubicle? Fully evolved, well-educated modern men and women.

That doesn't really clear things up.

I do recall explaining the major problem with the TOE is that it doesn't seem to have an explanation as to how the whole process began. "From goo to you via the zoo" doesn't really work for me. And, as I recall, you sort of have a problem with any suggestion in the classroom that there might be a Designer....let's don't tell the kids that we just don't have any other explanation, let's tell 'em that science, having discovered where lightning really comes from, have thus eliminated God from the picture.
You seem to have forgotten that the Bible was never intended to be a science text book to begin with.
Now, whether you believe, as you do, that everything from grass to gorillas began with "a couple of cells" or as I do, that God started with "everything after it's kind", the bottom line is still "Godunit", right? Why is it so important to keep this vital information from our kids? They can decide for themselves which God, fevvinsakes....this isn't really about "pushing Christianity"....although pushing the truth doesn't really seem like such a huge crime to me.
Yes, I know all about how this is a "secular society"....that seems to be a very huge part of the problem...

*sigh*

You referred to me as a "big-headed scientist", and then put a little smiley, to indicate that you were joking (I figured). So I responded in kind by referring to you as an "ignorant southerner", followed by the same little smiley.

Sorry you missed that.

Fair enough.
But "big-headed scientist" is actually a compliment. "Ignorant Southerner" not so much.
I am very impressed by your intelligence...I just wish that you would also use this huge brain of yours in the service of our mutual God.

I suppose I've tangled with too many science geeks over this very point. One guy told me to "crawl out from under the trailer park and get a library card"...I've probably read more books than he's ever even seen. They just weren't science text books.
The assumption that just because someone lives in Alabama they must ignorant has long since worn thin. I know a lady (she lives in Mobile) who could probably match even your intelligence....and, hey....she's black! She is one of the smartest, and coolest, people I know....and she is also a very devout Christian.

Still, I should have been able to take your joke.
Gran always said, "doan be a-dishin' it out, me lass, less'n ye kin take it yersel".....an' she were right.
Sorry!

 

[River Jordan]

Why shouldn't this work 'tother way 'round?

I'm still not sure what you mean by the other way around.

I am much more impressed by this personal testimony than I could be by a list of Latin names.

That doesn't make sense, since those papers are the personal testimonies of the scientists who observed the events, studied them, analyzed them, and wrote them up. I mean really....do you think they're lying or something?

Pretty much.
I know that I made it clear in another thread that my Christianity is not something I keep in a box and polish up on Sunday....it is a vital part of who I am. Everything is held up to the standard of how it fits into my faith.

Oh, so this isn't even a question of the science for you. Is this a situation where even if the science is very clear, if it conflicts with your faith you won't accept it?

I looked, but I haven't yet taken the time to read it through.

Well, if the above is how things are with you, it may be a waste of time anyways.

You mean these guys?

http://www.uncontactedtribes.org/

They look pretty primitive to me. Your point might be more convincing if these guys were still evolving. They do seem kind of stuck in the stage just before Ken, don't they? Still, they are surviving in a very hostile environment....well, sorta. I'm guessing the life expectancy isn't terrific...

I was thinking of modern man....perhaps a group of scientists, or a bunch of ignorant southerners? Or that little nebbish in the corner cubicle? Fully evolved, well-educated modern men and women.

None of that makes any sense really. The people in those tribes are just as evolved as you and I. The fact remains, modern humans do survive in very harsh conditions, even when living a fairly primitive lifestyle.

I do recall explaining the major problem with the TOE is that it doesn't seem to have an explanation as to how the whole process began.

You mean the origin of life? Just as chemists don't have to figure out where all the elements came from before they can describe how those elements behave and interact, biologists don't have to figure out where the first life forms came from before they can describe how life forms behave and interact (i.e., evolve).

Even if God deliberately created the very first self-replicating simple cells 3.7 billion years ago, evolutionary theory would still explain the subsequent history and behaviors.

"From goo to you via the zoo" doesn't really work for me.

Probably because that's a childish platitude, in the same category as atheists telling us Christians that we worship "a zombie Jew".

And, as I recall, you sort of have a problem with any suggestion in the classroom that there might be a Designer....let's don't tell the kids that we just don't have any other explanation, let's tell 'em that science, having discovered where lightning really comes from, have thus eliminated God from the picture.
You seem to have forgotten that the Bible was never intended to be a science text book to begin with.

Do you see how you answered your own question? You're right....the Bible isn't a science textbook, so why would we teach it in science classes?

Now, whether you believe, as you do, that everything from grass to gorillas began with "a couple of cells" or as I do, that God started with "everything after it's kind", the bottom line is still "Godunit", right? Why is it so important to keep this vital information from our kids? They can decide for themselves which God, fevvinsakes....this isn't really about "pushing Christianity"....although pushing the truth doesn't really seem like such a huge crime to me.
Yes, I know all about how this is a "secular society"....that seems to be a very huge part of the problem...

Because we teach science in science class, and "Gudunit" isn't science....at all.

Fair enough.
But "big-headed scientist" is actually a compliment.

Since when? CLICK HERE

big headed
adjective
conceited or arrogant.
"I'm trying not to get too big-headed"
synonyms: conceited, full of oneself, cocky, arrogant, cocksure, above oneself, self-important;

I am very impressed by your intelligence...I just wish that you would also use this huge brain of yours in the service of our mutual God.

How do you know I don't?

The assumption that just because someone lives in Alabama they must ignorant has long since worn thin. I know a lady (she lives in Mobile) who could probably match even your intelligence....and, hey....she's black! She is one of the smartest, and coolest, people I know....and she is also a very devout Christian.

Um....not touching that one.

Still, I should have been able to take your joke.
Gran always said, "doan be a-dishin' it out, me lass, less'n ye kin take it yersel".....an' she were right.
Sorry!

Apology accepted. Thank you.

 

[Barrd]

I'm still not sure what you mean by the other way around.

Oh, never mind. Ever since I was very little, I've loved the water, and I've always been a pretty good swimmer. And I've always had this fantasy about being a mermaid.
After all, if whales could do it, why not people? But, hey....it's just a childhood fantasy.

That doesn't make sense, since those papers are the personal testimonies of the scientists who observed the events, studied them, analyzed them, and wrote them up. I mean really....do you think they're lying or something?

Now, please do not be offended. But I kind of look at most of these things in the same way as you might look at Creationists.
How to explain?
My Rags would never have evolved in nature...he's much too small and much too gentle to be able to defend himself from bigger dogs...in fact, that is why he only has one eye, poor pup...a bigger dog took an interest in his chosen lady, who was in heat, and he tried to defend her honor....in other words, they had a bar room type brawl over a b....uh....well, you get the idea. And my little sweetheart lost. If my son had not been able to break them up, I might have lost the entire dog and not just his eye.
Are you quite sure your goatsbeard wasn't also a created species? Perhaps not....as I have admitted, I quite honestly do not know enough about it to be able to make that kind of judgment call. I do know that, what I see in the world around me is pretty much the same as my great, great, great, great, great, great grandmother saw around her. What would a new species of animal actually look like, i wonder?
The most amazing thing I know of is the seahorse....the male carries the young. How cool is that?
Then there's that duck-billed platypus....God outdid Himself on that one.

Oh, so this isn't even a question of the science for you. Is this a situation where even if the science is very clear, if it conflicts with your faith you won't accept it?

That's a loaded question, and there isn't a real answer for it.
First of all, when is the science "very clear"? Science is not something you can engrave on stone. It wasn't so long ago that schoolchildren were taught that there were nine planets in our solar system...the ninth being Pluto. Now that has changed. New evidence, don't you know.
Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but it seems to me that this is the true beauty of science.....it is an ever-changing kaleidoscope of wonders.
So far, there has been no new information as far as the TOE is concerned, nor do I suspect that there ever will be...however, one can never be quite sure, can one?
Second, God did not give us technical details as to just how He created the universe, nor how He designed all the amazing variety of life we see all around us.
Perhaps one day we will find a way to explore some of the nearer systems, and find new life there...anything is possible,
What would science do if they were to find mermaids, or unicorns, or leprechauns? Now, I'm being facetious and I know it....but just suppose life on some other world didn't evolve according to the rules you think you know?

On the other hand, God does not change. Nor does He make mistakes. I'm willing to believe that He set evolution in motion and that it works according to His rules...I'm just not sure science has those rules all figured out, even though they may think that they have. I know they've been wrong before, but I am quite sure that God never is.

Like I said before, there is no controversy whatsoever between God and science....there never has been. The only controversy is between scientists and theologians. (Notice, I did not say "big-headed scientists" or "stuffed-shirt theologians"....although you may consider those terms implied, with present company excepted of course. )

Well, if the above is how things are with you, it may be a waste of time anyways.

River, you caught me at a particular busy time of year. I'm still the main holiday chef for my family.....all my kids, grandkids, and great grandkids expect my kitchen to stay busy from late November on till after New Years...Thanksgiving, I did two twenty something pound turkeys, both of them full of home made sage and onion stuffing, several casseroles, three kinds of vegetables, mashed potatoes, giblet gravy, several pies....pumpkin, sweet potato, apple, cherry, chocolate, and banana cream, a cake in the shape of a pilgrim's hat, a large batch of cookies, and three gallons of home made egg nog.
And there isn't a scrap of all that food left.

My third son is taking his vacation time over Christmas this year, so he'll be home for the holidays...and he does love his Mom's cooking. The kid looks too thin to me...I intend to take this opportunity to put a bit of weight on those bones.

I do intend to read your website, honest I do....just give me a bit of time, please?

None of that makes any sense really. The people in those tribes are just as evolved as you and I. The fact remains, modern humans do survive in very harsh conditions, even when living a fairly primitive lifestyle.

They don't look it to me, but what do I know?
Still...why haven't they advanced? Why are they still living in grass huts and running around in loin cloths? Where is their industrial revolution? How is it that they are so far behind the rest of the world?

You mean the origin of life? Just as chemists don't have to figure out where all the elements came from before they can describe how those elements behave and interact, biologists don't have to figure out where the first life forms came from before they can describe how life forms behave and interact (i.e., evolve).

Chemists don't know where the elements came from? I was not aware of that. They come from the ground, or the water, or the air, don't they?

Even if God deliberately created the very first self-replicating simple cells 3.7 billion years ago, evolutionary theory would still explain the subsequent history and behaviors.

Would that still apply if He created actual critters, according to "kind"?

Probably because that's a childish platitude, in the same category as atheists telling us Christians that we worship "a zombie Jew".

It's a childish argument to begin with, on both sides.
And the way I heard it was 'a dead Jew on a stick'.

Do you see how you answered your own question? You're right....the Bible isn't a science textbook, so why would we teach it in science classes?

Who said anything about teaching the Bible in science class?
What I don't understand is why there must be no mention whatsoever of anything remotely like an Intelligent Designer. Why is it so terrible to explain to a classroom of kids that many people believe that the universe was created by a Divine Entity, even if that Entity remains nameless? Why is it so important that kids not hear even a whisper of such an idea in the classroom?
You asked me once why I think young people are leaving our faith. I wonder if it might have something to do with their various teachers making Christians look like a bunch of "Ignorant Southerners"?

Because we teach science in science class, and "Gudunit" isn't science....at all.

Is it a bronze-age superstition, then?
Have we become so terrified of "offending" someone that we dare not so much as suggest that there might be a Divine Entity?
How the heck did that happen?

Since when? CLICK HERE

big headed
adjective
conceited or arrogant.
"I'm trying not to get too big-headed"
synonyms: conceited, full of oneself, cocky, arrogant, cocksure, above oneself, self-important;

And here all I was thinking was that you had a big brain.
Well....maybe you are a little arrogant...

But then, I'm told I am, as well...

How do you know I don't?

I guess it was an earlier conversation we had.
You explained to me that we live in a "secular" country, and need to be "politically correct".
Now, while I realize that this is a secular nation, I see no need to keep my Christianity a secret. Quite the opposite....it seems to me that there is a tremendous need to shout it from the housetops!

Um....not touching that one.

Why? Is it because she's black, or because she's an Ignorant Southerner?
She knows she is black, and she also knows that she is not ignorant.

Apology accepted. Thank you.

No problem.
When I know I'm wrong, I will admit it and apologize.

Sometimes, though, it takes some convincing....since I am so seldom wrong.

 

[River Jordan]

Now, please do not be offended. But I kind of look at most of these things in the same way as you might look at Creationists.

I still don't understand. Are you saying you think those scientists are lying?

Are you quite sure your goatsbeard wasn't also a created species?

I don't know what you mean by that. Do you mean "Are you sure God didn't magically poof that species into existence"?

Perhaps not....as I have admitted, I quite honestly do not know enough about it to be able to make that kind of judgment call.

Lack of knowledge didn't seem to stop you earlier when you waved away multiple scientific papers.

I do know that, what I see in the world around me is pretty much the same as my great, great, great, great, great, great grandmother saw around her.

Except for the new species that have evolved over that time and the ones that have gone extinct (and the ones that have evolved new traits, like antibiotic resistance).

What would a new species of animal actually look like, i wonder?

Very much like its parent species.

First of all, when is the science "very clear"? Science is not something you can engrave on stone.
Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but it seems to me that this is the true beauty of science.....it is an ever-changing kaleidoscope of wonders.
So far, there has been no new information as far as the TOE is concerned, nor do I suspect that there ever will be...however, one can never be quite sure, can one?

The science is very clear on lots of things we take for granted.

Some things in science change, lots of other things don't. It's very unlikely that we'll discover that the earth doesn't orbit the sun, and in the same way it's very unlikely we'll discover that new species don't arise via evolution or that humans aren't related to primates.

Second, God did not give us technical details as to just how He created the universe, nor how He designed all the amazing variety of life we see all around us.
Perhaps one day we will find a way to explore some of the nearer systems, and find new life there...anything is possible,
What would science do if they were to find mermaids, or unicorns, or leprechauns? Now, I'm being facetious and I know it....but just suppose life on some other world didn't evolve according to the rules you think you know?

Then we'll adjust our position accordingly, unlike creationists who refuse to adjust under any circumstances.

I do intend to read your website, honest I do....just give me a bit of time, please?

I didn't mean to make you feel like you have to read the site now. My point was that if you're of the mind that nothing that site can show can change your opinions, then there's no point in you looking at it.

They don't look it to me, but what do I know?
Still...why haven't they advanced? Why are they still living in grass huts and running around in loin cloths? Where is their industrial revolution? How is it that they are so far behind the rest of the world?

I've seen interviews with them where they point out that we're the primitive ones, since we can't figure out how to live in an environment without trashing it.

Chemists don't know where the elements came from? I was not aware of that. They come from the ground, or the water, or the air, don't they?

You missed the point, i.e., that scientists can describe how something behaves, even if they don't know where that something came from.

Would that still apply if He created actual critters, according to "kind"?

Hard to say since we don't know what "kinds" are.

Who said anything about teaching the Bible in science class?
What I don't understand is why there must be no mention whatsoever of anything remotely like an Intelligent Designer. Why is it so terrible to explain to a classroom of kids that many people believe that the universe was created by a Divine Entity, even if that Entity remains nameless? Why is it so important that kids not hear even a whisper of such an idea in the classroom?

It's science class...we teach science in science class. "An intelligent designer" isn't science and neither is "a divine entity". I can't think of any reason for a public school to deliberately inject religious beliefs into science classes.

You asked me once why I think young people are leaving our faith. I wonder if it might have something to do with their various teachers making Christians look like a bunch of "Ignorant Southerners"?

When it comes to this subject, the creationist organizations are the ones making Christians look ignorant. Not sure how much you look around, but creationists and creationism are a laughingstock across the internet and in universities. And given the sorts of nonsense they promote, it's entirely deserved.

Is it a bronze-age superstition, then?

You should try and limit such black/white thinking whenever you can. It's not a choice between either teaching kids "Goddidit" or "the Bible is superstition". I think the current approach (in most places) is just fine, where they teach science in science class, and if religious issues are brought up by students the teacher notes that different people have different religious beliefs, and that's a personal matter, and then they get back to learning science.

There's no reason to turn science classes into Sunday School.

Have we become so terrified of "offending" someone that we dare not so much as suggest that there might be a Divine Entity?
How the heck did that happen?

You haven't given a good reason why the government should be teaching kids about a "Divine Entity" in the first place.

"I guess it was an earlier conversation we had.
You explained to me that we live in a "secular" country, and need to be "politically correct".
Now, while I realize that this is a secular nation, I see no need to keep my Christianity a secret. Quite the opposite....it seems to me that there is a tremendous need to shout it from the housetops!"

We are a secular country, and I didn't say anything about being politically correct. As for the rest, what in the world are you on about? You basically accused me of not using my gifts for God, and I'm asking how you know I don't. You still haven't given an answer.

"Why? Is it because she's black, or because she's an Ignorant Southerner?
She knows she is black, and she also knows that she is not ignorant."

Describing someone as intelligent and then going out of your way to note "And she's black!", assumes that such a case is unusual and worthy of note, which assumes that most black people aren't intelligent. It's no different than saying someone is good at math and noting "And she's a woman!"

 

[Barrd]

I still don't understand. Are you saying you think those scientists are lying?

Scientists are just people, River, like anyone else. They may be better educated than plumbers, but they still show their behinds at times....and, yes, they are just as capable of being dishonest as anyone else....

I don't know what you mean by that. Do you mean "Are you sure God didn't magically poof that species into existence"?

More like "Are you sure that evolution didn't get a bit of human help?

Lack of knowledge didn't seem to stop you earlier when you waved away multiple scientific papers.

I'm a skeptic...

Except for the new species that have evolved over that time and the ones that have gone extinct (and the ones that have evolved new traits, like antibiotic resistance).

Again, when it comes to "new species" I don't think you and I are thinking along the same lines. A pretty new weed that can't pollinate with other weeds is still just a weed...show me a brand new, never-before-seen critter...I don't know...a dog that can climb trees, or maybe another mammal going back into the ocean, or maybe a seahorse coming out....something really impressive, something new and different. As far as I can tell, the critters we see at the zoo are the same critters that have been there for generations.
Wake me when they start putting in brand new cages for brand new critters...

Very much like its parent species.

Exactly.

The science is very clear on lots of things we take for granted.

Of course.

Some things in science change, lots of other things don't. It's very unlikely that we'll discover that the earth doesn't orbit the sun, and in the same way it's very unlikely we'll discover that new species don't arise via evolution or that humans aren't related to primates.

But that's the fun of science, isn't it?
You might find that our solar system itself is actually revolving around....well, something. And you may find that the rules you think you "know" as to how things evolve don't apply to everything that lives.

Then we'll adjust our position accordingly, unlike creationists who refuse to adjust under any circumstances.

I think the point is that, while science must change as new evidence is uncovered, God never changes.
The problem is that they cannot admit that they don't know everything about God, nor can they.

I didn't mean to make you feel like you have to read the site now. My point was that if you're of the mind that nothing that site can show can change your opinions, then there's no point in you looking at it.

It's been one he...ck of a weekend.

I've seen interviews with them where they point out that we're the primitive ones, since we can't figure out how to live in an environment without trashing it.

LOL! Shades of Douglas Adams!
Like his dolphins, these primitive natives just might have a point, at that... B)

You missed the point, i.e., that scientists can describe how something behaves, even if they don't know where that something came from.

But chemists do know where elements came from.
So the point was sort of lost, there...

Hard to say since we don't know what "kinds" are.

I suspect that it is a line that cannot be crossed.
Your pretty weed is still a weed...a pretty weed, no doubt, but basically just a weed. Wake me when it develops a means of moving on it's own, for instance.
Remember the plant in "Little Shop of Horrors"?

It's science class...we teach science in science class. "An intelligent designer" isn't science and neither is "a divine entity". I can't think of any reason for a public school to deliberately inject religious beliefs into science classes.

I thought science was about considering all the possibilities.
Yet, for some reason, science refuses to allow students to even consider this one.
Why?

When it comes to this subject, the creationist organizations are the ones making Christians look ignorant. Not sure how much you look around, but creationists and creationism are a laughingstock across the internet and in universities. And given the sorts of nonsense they promote, it's entirely deserved.

It wasn't that long ago that my middle son called me from Arizona...it seems that my grand daughter's teacher had humiliated her in class by telling her that the God she believed in was a "bronze-age myth" and that science had eliminated the need for a "sky daddy". He, evidently, is a huge fan of "The Spaghetti Monster"...a rather ridiculous parody of a "god". Now, to be fair, the school took the high road and dismissed that teacher...but how many of our kids are being subjected to such nonsense?
I don't think anyone's beliefs ought to be ridiculed, myself. I think it is, as I used to tell my kids "rude, crude, and not to shrewd, Dude"...
Do I agree with Creationists?
No, I do not.
Do I think they deserve the treatment they get? No, I do not.
Unfortunately, all that has happened is that, by indulging in such ridicule, we've not only made Creationists look foolish, but Christianity as a whole has suffered.

You should try and limit such black/white thinking whenever you can. It's not a choice between either teaching kids "Goddidit" or "the Bible is superstition". I think the current approach (in most places) is just fine, where they teach science in science class, and if religious issues are brought up by students the teacher notes that different people have different religious beliefs, and that's a personal matter, and then they get back to learning science.

That would be great if it had not become such a "hot button" issue.
Refusal to take a stand at this stage of the game is pretty much the same thing as telling our kids that "science has eliminated the need for a "skydaddy"...


continued in next post....

 

[Barrd]

There's no reason to turn science classes into Sunday School.

Are you honestly equating the mere mention that there might be a Creator with a "Sunday School class"?
River, when was the last time you actually went to Sunday School?
You know, most churches do have classes for women...

You haven't given a good reason why the government should be teaching kids about a "Divine Entity" in the first place.

You can look around you at the carnage our society has become, and wonder why I think our kids need God? Really, River?
Even here in the Bible Belt we have kids as young as nine prostituting...being "pimped" out by their older siblings, or even, in one case, by their teacher.

"I guess it was an earlier conversation we had.
You explained to me that we live in a "secular" country, and need to be "politically correct".
Now, while I realize that this is a secular nation, I see no need to keep my Christianity a secret. Quite the opposite....it seems to me that there is a tremendous need to shout it from the housetops!"

We are a secular country, and I didn't say anything about being politically correct. As for the rest, what in the world are you on about? You basically accused me of not using my gifts for God, and I'm asking how you know I don't. You still haven't given an answer.

At the risk of derailing this thread, which is something I do not wish to do, you had a problem with me because I refuse to accept "gay marriage", calling it a sin. I also refuse to accept pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, rape, and all other forms of sexual perversions.
God has forbidden these to human beings, "secular" or not, just as He has forbidden adultery, stealing, lying, and murder.
As I recall, you accused me of "vilifying" gays, while I insisted that we should not just happily send them off to hell with a cake and a smile.
I believed then and I believe now that God would be better served by telling these poor people the truth.

"Why? Is it because she's black, or because she's an Ignorant Southerner?
She knows she is black, and she also knows that she is not ignorant."

Describing someone as intelligent and then going out of your way to note "And she's black!", assumes that such a case is unusual and worthy of note, which assumes that most black people aren't intelligent. It's no different than saying someone is good at math and noting "And she's a woman!"

Again, don't be offended...but you also mentioned, in that other thread, that you compared the fight for "gay rights" to the epic battle blacks have fought, and are still fighting, which is patently ridiculous. There is a great deal of difference between skin color and perversion.
Also, folks who think of southerners as generally "ignorant" are usually the same ones who think of blacks as "inferior".
Of course, our politically correct River would not be one of those snobby carpet baggers....right?