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

[Wormwood]

River, if you were as passionate about the Gospel, which is the power of God for salvation of all who believe, as you are about this message of common ancestry...well, I think a lot of people's eternity would be forever altered.

 

[River Jordan]

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....

You're dodging the question. Do you think the scientists who authored the papers describing the evolution of new species are lying?

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

What do you mean "a bit of human help"?

I'm a skeptic...

Based on what? It's very clear from your posts that you know almost nothing about evolutionary biology. Now, that's fine by itself....as we agreed earlier, no one can be an expert in everything. But I'd think before I declared myself "a skeptic" about something, I'd at least take the time to study it first.

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...

All the above does is demonstrate that you really don't know much at all about evolutionary biology. And that's ok. But I'd recommend you learn a bit about it first (the website I gave would be a good start) before trying to debate it.

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.

It looks to me like the problem is with your lack of understanding of science, and how scientists go about our work.

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

Chemists were able to describe the behaviors of elements well before they knew where they came from.

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

????????? Where do scientists prevent students from considering God?

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.

Creationist organizations deserve a lot of the blame for the perception that Christianity is anti-science. Trust me....goofiness like this in the name of Christ isn't helping things...

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"...

That's just more black/white thinking. Kids aren't so stupid that if a teacher doesn't specifically mention God, they'll immediately think "Gosh, I guess she's saying God doesn't exist".

Are you honestly equating the mere mention that there might be a Creator with a "Sunday School class"?

Let's think about this for a minute. You want public school science teachers to talk about God in class. All right then....whose God? Most school districts have people from lots of faiths who pay taxes, so they have just as much right as anyone else to have the government advocate their God, right? And what about atheist or agnostic families? And what exactly is it you want the teacher to say?

River, when was the last time you actually went to Sunday School?
You know, most churches do have classes for women...

No need to be such a prig.

You can look around you at the carnage our society has become, and wonder why I think our kids need God? Really, River?

Don't let the media have that much influence over your perception of reality. Are you aware that violent crime rates are the lowest they've been in almost 40 years, and the homicide rate is at its lowest in over half a century (and by some measures, the lowest it's ever been)?

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.

All you're doing there is demonstrating why I left the thread....you weren't paying the slightest bit of attention to what I was actually saying, even when I virtually screamed it at you. It's sad to see you do this.

Of course, our politically correct River would not be one of those snobby carpet baggers....right?

Look, if you think saying "I know an intelligent person.....and SHE'S BLACK!!" isn't a problem, I'll just let that speak for itself.

 

[River Jordan]

River, if you were as passionate about the Gospel, which is the power of God for salvation of all who believe, as you are about this message of common ancestry...well, I think a lot of people's eternity would be forever altered.

I guess when you can't address the substance of the argument, you go after the person making it. *shrug* <_<

 

[Wormwood]

I'm not "going after" you or even addressing your "argument." I am simply making an observation about priorities. We have had enough discussion about these "arguments" so you know this has nothing to do with me lacking anything to say. I just think there are more important things for Christians to discuss. I can understand this being an occasional topic for discussion, but I just dont get your fervor about this topic given so many other issues that are worth our time and discussion.

 

[River Jordan]

I'm not "going after" you or even addressing your "argument."

You posted a series of unfounded, unsupported, empty claims, and after I questioned you on them, instead of supporting your claims you tried to make the conversation about me.

I am simply making an observation about priorities.

Right....what you think about my priorities. IOW, you tried to turn the conversation into one about me.

I just think there are more important things for Christians to discuss.

So if anyone discusses topics that aren't on this "important things" list, you question their priorities? Or is it just me?

I can understand this being an occasional topic for discussion, but I just dont get your fervor about this topic given so many other issues that are worth our time and discussion.

You know very well why I don't discuss specific faith topics here. Or do I need to re-post the nasty things that have been said to me again?

And btw, could you explain why you think the topics I discuss here must be reflective of my priorities in the real world?

 

[Barrd]

You're dodging the question. Do you think the scientists who authored the papers describing the evolution of new species are lying?

I think it is possible. Scientists are not saints, River....they're just people. With a paper and/or a reputation at stake, yes, a scientist might be tempted to fudge the facts just a bit.

What do you mean "a bit of human help"?

I believe Darwin called it "artificial selection".

Based on what? It's very clear from your posts that you know almost nothing about evolutionary biology. Now, that's fine by itself....as we agreed earlier, no one can be an expert in everything. But I'd think before I declared myself "a skeptic" about something, I'd at least take the time to study it first.

Based on my faith, River. I believe that God created according to "kinds", and that is a line that cannot be crossed. So, lets say for a minute that your pretty goatsbeard weed is actually a new species of plant...it is still a weed. It is still within the category of "kind". According to God's taxonomy it hasn't crossed any boundaries....but it is a pretty thing, isn't it?

All the above does is demonstrate that you really don't know much at all about evolutionary biology. And that's ok. But I'd recommend you learn a bit about it first (the website I gave would be a good start) before trying to debate it.

I didn't think I was trying to debate it.
Simply stating my belief is all I am doing.
I don't think Christians have anything to fear from science...or vice versa. Admitting the possibility of an Intelligent Designer will not kill science...if anything it adds to the wonder of it.

It looks to me like the problem is with your lack of understanding of science, and how scientists go about our work.

Are you telling me that science does not change as new evidence is discovered?

Chemists were able to describe the behaviors of elements well before they knew where they came from.

I have to wonder...do you think that science knows all about all the elements?
Or could there be an element or two, somewhere in the far reaches of space, that you might not know about?
Anything is possible, right?

????????? Where do scientists prevent students from considering God?

What is the problem with allowing a teacher to mention that "some people believe that the universe was created by a Divine Entity"???? Why can a science class not even consider such a thing? It doesn't have to be the Christian God, fevvinsakes....what on earth could it possibly hurt to allow kids to explore all the possibilities?

Creationist organizations deserve a lot of the blame for the perception that Christianity is anti-science. Trust me....goofiness like this in the name of Christ isn't helping things...

Looks like a merry go round critter to me.
I think that if you science types would ignore stuff like this, instead of getting your britches in a knot, it would die a natural death.

That's just more black/white thinking. Kids aren't so stupid that if a teacher doesn't specifically mention God, they'll immediately think "Gosh, I guess she's saying God doesn't exist".

No, they're smart enough to realize that their teachers have been gagged.
Some of them actually have enough sense to be frightened at this stupidity.

Let's think about this for a minute. You want public school science teachers to talk about God in class. All right then....whose God? Most school districts have people from lots of faiths who pay taxes, so they have just as much right as anyone else to have the government advocate their God, right? And what about atheist or agnostic families? And what exactly is it you want the teacher to say?

Why does it have to be any specific God?
I'm old enough to remember when we prayed in school. That prayer wasn't necessarily addressed to any particular God....just a simple couple of lines thanking God for our teachers and our parents, and asking Him to watch over us as we studied together....that's it. Any god, from Allah to the Flying Spaghetti Monster would have fit.
Why can't the teacher just mention, sort of "in passing", that some people believe that there is a Divine Entity Who created the universe? Why does he have to get specific about "whose God"? If you're so worried about those two or three atheist kids who might be present, the teacher could always add "and some people do not."
What I do not understand is, why must we ban any mention at all of God from our schools? What are we so afraid of?

No need to be such a prig.

You forgot "sanctimonious"....

Don't let the media have that much influence over your perception of reality. Are you aware that violent crime rates are the lowest they've been in almost 40 years, and the homicide rate is at its lowest in over half a century (and by some measures, the lowest it's ever been)?

Who is talking about the crime rate? I'm talking about morality. Love has become a dirty word, and marriage an empty sham. Kids are having sex as early as eight and nine years old...at that age I didn't even know what sex was, fapeetsakes, and these little babies are selling it! I'm talking about broken marriages, and latch-key kids...I'm talking about abortion, and child abuse...I'm talking about the lack of respect for parents, or elders in general.
Because of iniquity, the love of many has grown cold...
And it isn't getting any better, River.

All you're doing there is demonstrating why I left the thread....you weren't paying the slightest bit of attention to what I was actually saying, even when I virtually screamed it at you. It's sad to see you do this.

Oh, I heard you. You wanted to tell me how Christianity's rejection of "gay rights" was a major reason why young people are leaving their faith.
My answer is still the same.
God has forbidden it.
Those who love and truly wish to follow Jesus will obey God. They are the ones who truly have faith in God. They will always put God first, ahead of job, ahead of family, ahead of any "politically correct" attitudes...that's just the way it is, River. To a Christian, Christ is the center of his/her life.
And that's all that really matters.

Look, if you think saying "I know an intelligent person.....and SHE'S BLACK!!" isn't a problem, I'll just let that speak for itself.

When someone uses term "ignorant southerner", certain conclusions are pretty much inevitable, I'm afraid.
Sorry.

 

[Wormwood]

You posted a series of unfounded, unsupported, empty claims, and after I questioned you on them, instead of supporting your claims you tried to make the conversation about me.

They are not unfounded or empty. If you recall we have had 200+ post conversations on these issues. I really dont feel like hashing through it all again with you as there really seems to be no point. On the other hand, I simply made an observation as to your zeal over an issue that has such little eternal weight. I am reflecting on the issue and I am just wondering, when there is a common message of salvation we share in Jesus Christ which is the power of God to salvation, why the only message I see you zealously promoting is the divisive message of all live having a common ancestor.

Right....what you think about my priorities. IOW, you tried to turn the conversation into one about me.

Is that off limits? I am not name-calling or being harsh (in my opinion). I am just asking, what I feel to be, a legitimate question about why this is so important to you that it is the only topic you ever discuss on here with other Christians.

So if anyone discusses topics that aren't on this "important things" list, you question their priorities? Or is it just me?

No, we all have our areas of interest. I understand that. I just dont understand that this is pretty much the only topic that I see you discussing daily for years. I am just trying to understand your thinking here. I mean, in my opinion, the Christian faith deals with issues related to eternity and I dont understand your daily zeal for this topic that seems so peripheral. Im just asking a question because I am curious about why this issue seems to consume your daily thoughts.

You know very well why I don't discuss specific faith topics here. Or do I need to re-post the nasty things that have been said to me again?

River, I have had plenty of nasty things said to me on here as well. I think one of the reasons you catch so much flack on here is because you seem to only and always discuss this particular topic that is so prone to heated discussion and division. I doubt you would catch so much grief if you spent some time on a few threads that discussed God's love and grace toward each of us in Christ.

 

[River Jordan]

I think it is possible. Scientists are not saints, River....they're just people. With a paper and/or a reputation at stake, yes, a scientist might be tempted to fudge the facts just a bit.

So what exactly are you doing here? Why the obfuscation and coy language? Looks to me like you're trying to have it both ways.....you want to be able to wave away inconvenient science, but you're not quite willing to directly accuse specific scientists of fraud. If you really think those papers are lies, just say so. If not, then explain why you feel you can just wave them away without even understanding them?

I believe Darwin called it "artificial selection".

And what makes you think that's the case here?

Based on my faith, River. I believe that God created according to "kinds", and that is a line that cannot be crossed. So, lets say for a minute that your pretty goatsbeard weed is actually a new species of plant...it is still a weed. It is still within the category of "kind". According to God's taxonomy it hasn't crossed any boundaries....but it is a pretty thing, isn't it?

So you think "weed" is a "kind"?

I didn't think I was trying to debate it.
Simply stating my belief is all I am doing.

Is that all? Insinuating that scientists are liars is simply stating your belief?

Are you telling me that science does not change as new evidence is discovered?

Of course not. Not sure why you even had to ask that.

I have to wonder...do you think that science knows all about all the elements?
Or could there be an element or two, somewhere in the far reaches of space, that you might not know about?
Anything is possible, right?

Not sure what your point is.

What is the problem with allowing a teacher to mention that "some people believe that the universe was created by a Divine Entity"???? Why can a science class not even consider such a thing? It doesn't have to be the Christian God, fevvinsakes....what on earth could it possibly hurt to allow kids to explore all the possibilities?

You didn't answer the question. You accused scientists of refusing to allow students to consider God. Specifically describe where they do that.

Looks like a merry go round critter to me.
I think that if you science types would ignore stuff like this, instead of getting your britches in a knot, it would die a natural death.

Really? Just ignore the problem and hope it goes away? Um.....no.

No, they're smart enough to realize that their teachers have been gagged.
Some of them actually have enough sense to be frightened at this stupidity.

What in the world are you talking about? It looks to me like you really want public schools to use taxpayer funds to promote and endorse your religious beliefs.

Why does it have to be any specific God?

Why can't it be? Surely you're not trying to put a gag order on the teachers?

Why can't the teacher just mention, sort of "in passing", that some people believe that there is a Divine Entity Who created the universe?

Because it's science class, and that's not science. Duh.

What I do not understand is, why must we ban any mention at all of God from our schools? What are we so afraid of?

Not sure what's going on where you live, but there is no ban on any mention of God at all in schools. Students can believe, meet, and talk about God as they please. Teachers teach about different beliefs in God in world history.

What are you afraid of? Are you afraid if science teachers don't go out of their way to tell their students that God is behind all the things they're learning about, they'll become atheists or something?

Who is talking about the crime rate? I'm talking about morality. Love has become a dirty word, and marriage an empty sham. Kids are having sex as early as eight and nine years old...at that age I didn't even know what sex was, fapeetsakes, and these little babies are selling it! I'm talking about broken marriages, and latch-key kids...I'm talking about abortion, and child abuse...I'm talking about the lack of respect for parents, or elders in general.
Because of iniquity, the love of many has grown cold...
And it isn't getting any better, River.

I'm sure from your perspective, that's how things seem.

When someone uses term "ignorant southerner", certain conclusions are pretty much inevitable, I'm afraid.
Sorry.

You're not keeping up with the conversation very well.

 

[River Jordan]

They are not unfounded or empty.

Uh....yes they are. Your post consisted entirely of empty claims without a single shred of supporting evidence.

If you recall we have had 200+ post conversations on these issues. I really dont feel like hashing through it all again with you as there really seems to be no point.

I agree. You can say things like "most of the theories about whale evolution have been proven false", but without a single bit of support, it's empty rhetoric that has no point and most certainly has absolutely no relevance to actual science.

On the other hand, I simply made an observation as to your zeal over an issue that has such little eternal weight. I am reflecting on the issue and I am just wondering, when there is a common message of salvation we share in Jesus Christ which is the power of God to salvation, why the only message I see you zealously promoting is the divisive message of all live having a common ancestor.

Huh. I don't recall one of the rules of this forum being that only subjects of "eternal weight" were allowed to be discussed.

Is that off limits? I am not name-calling or being harsh (in my opinion). I am just asking, what I feel to be, a legitimate question about why this is so important to you that it is the only topic you ever discuss on here with other Christians.

First, it's not the only topic I discuss. If you truly think it is, that just shows you aren't paying attention. Second, as I've explained here countless times, this is a topic of specific interest to me because I'm a Christian and a biologist, so the intersection of those two worlds is important to me. Plus, as a youth leader, I see how important this is to kids today. I get asked about it almost every week.

Im just asking a question because I am curious about why this issue seems to consume your daily thoughts.

If you think about half a dozen posts per week (at best) on a subject means that subject "consumes my daily thoughts", I'd say your perspective is a bit out of whack. I don't know if you've noticed, but this board is pretty dead. The Christianity and Science forum really only has one active thread in it and even it only gets a handful of posts to it every few days or so.

But then one has to wonder, if that's all it takes to qualify something as "consuming daily thoughts", can't we say the same about the people I'm posting to?

River, I have had plenty of nasty things said to me on here as well. I think one of the reasons you catch so much flack on here is because you seem to only and always discuss this particular topic that is so prone to heated discussion and division. I doubt you would catch so much grief if you spent some time on a few threads that discussed God's love and grace toward each of us in Christ.

You need to pay better attention. Just in the last few months I've posted about homosexuality, politics, international events, and abortion.

 

[Wormwood]

I agree. You can say things like "most of the theories about whale evolution have been proven false", but without a single bit of support, it's empty rhetoric that has no point and most certainly has absolutely no relevance to actual science.

I gave you the example of whale bones used for giving birth were declared to be vestigal leg bones in evolutionary theory and published as such in many biology text books for many years. Just because I choose not to engage in yet another lengthy and meaningless debate on which scientists deserve a hearing and what constitutes true science does not mean my statements are baseless. Of course everything you disagree with is empty rhetoric. We have been down this road. I provide a support and you say something like, "Oh well he doesnt count because...."

So, I see no value in these discussions. You will only accept the testimony of PhD's and when I quote those who agree with me, you dismiss them as liars and so forth. Convenient that "empty rhetoric" pertains to everyone and everything that doesnt agree with your POV.

I agree. You can say things like "most of the theories about whale evolution have been proven false", but without a single bit of support, it's empty rhetoric that has no point and most certainly has absolutely no relevance to actual science.

This is just obfuscating. The point is simple. Evolution from a common ancestor is a theory. In fact, it is a host of differing theories...many of which do not agree with one another. It is a theory that is continually being revised based on new findings....that is what good science does. Yet, the fact remains that elements of the theory (such as vestigial leg bones in the whale pelvis) have been proven false show that your pictures of the evolutionary tree posted previously are not hard, concrete facts as you implied. They are theories, based partially in science and partially in imagination. If not, then elements of the theory would never be proven false. Correct? The idea that a cow-like creature meandered back into the sea and developed flippers and a blowhole over millions of years as an explanation for sea-dwelling mammals is a theory. There are also theories that such a transition could not happen gradually. This is because some believe that developing vessels that can adjust to sea pressures, and the precise functioning of specific organs that allow whales to eat and not drown and many other characteristics of the whale are vital functions that either exist and allow for sea-life or do not exist and the mammal drowns. This has led some to develop other theories of how such changes could happen quickly while others turn to other answers such as creationism or even extra-terrestrial intervention...but nonetheless, they are theories. This is not to say some theories are more science-laden than other, but lets not pretend there isnt some imagination at play here.

Now, I know you will likely say that "just because we dont know how..." and then the song and dance about discovery, lack of imagination by creationists, yadda yadda yadda. That is all fine and good, but just dont tell me its not a theory. The only reason you believe it is not a theory is because you are confined to a naturalistic explanation of one source for all species. However, what if somehow multiple sources of life appeared at once and those multiple sources all evolved in different ways. Then, perhaps we do not have to force the cow into the sea and force ourselves into ultra creative ways of imagining how, what we (real scientists) already KNOW to be true, might have actually transpired. Rather, perhaps fish and sea-dwelling mammals have different evolutionary trees entirely instead or forcing them into only one? Oh, but that sounds too much like creationism and we know those folks are all maniacal liars and half-wits.

In sum, this is nothing but a catch-22. It is a theory when elements are proven wrong and you proclaim, "Duh, that's how science works! Theories that are tested and proven right and wrong!" But then you say, evolution is certainly NOT a theory and we know it is true and are just figuring out the details of how what we already know to be true might have worked itself out! How convienient. It's a theory when elements are proven wrong because that is how science works. But when the big picture of the theory is questioned because of things we currently know about life and the specific functions of particular animals that do not seem to have a means of developing those features over time, such people are shouted down as being "anti-science" and a narrow-minded, unimaginative bible-thumpers.

We must accept the theory as fact to be "genuine" scientists. It's okay to say elements of the theory is wrong, so long as your conclusions continue to toe the line of the theory. That is what good science does. It questions, but only so far as those questions do not go outside the parameters we have set as "science" (i.e. naturalism and a common ancestor for all living things). Be a scientist and ask questions and test them.....just dont question the big picture assumptions or you cant be a scientist any longer. Cant you see the irony here?



Im not going to argue with you about your focus in life. If you feel you arent consumed by the subject and give eternal matters that bring believers together as much or more focus in your life, then that's fine. I am not your judge. Just a personal inquiry on my part. Sometimes I major in minors and other believers call me on it and I thank them for the reminder.....If its not a concern for you, then that is all I need to hear. Have a blessed day.

 

[River Jordan]

I gave you the example of whale bones used for giving birth were declared to be vestigal leg bones in evolutionary theory and published as such in many biology text books for many years. Just because I choose not to engage in yet another lengthy and meaningless debate on which scientists deserve a hearing and what constitutes true science does not mean my statements are baseless.

The fact that you posted such claims without any supporting material or substance at all, makes them unsupported, empty claims by definition. I mean, what exactly do you think an "empty, unsupported claim" is, if not something asserted without any supporting material?

Of course everything you disagree with is empty rhetoric. We have been down this road. I provide a support and you say something like, "Oh well he doesnt count because...."

And now you throw out accusations without any support or evidence. Seems to be a habit of yours. Are you expecting folks here to be like, "Oh, well since 'Wormwood' says it's so, it must be so"?

So, I see no value in these discussions.

Your posts in this thread indicate otherwise.

You will only accept the testimony of PhD's and when I quote those who agree with me, you dismiss them as liars and so forth. Convenient that "empty rhetoric" pertains to everyone and everything that doesnt agree with your POV.

Again, more baseless, empty accusations.

Evolution from a common ancestor is a theory. In fact, it is a host of differing theories...many of which do not agree with one another. It is a theory that is continually being revised based on new findings....that is what good science does.

Are you engaging in that common creationist talking point of "It's only a theory", where you think "theory" means something like "is lesser supported than fact"?

Yet, the fact remains that elements of the theory (such as vestigial leg bones in the whale pelvis) have been proven false

Again, says who? You? Do you understand how empty assertions don't become true if you repeat them often enough?

show that your pictures of the evolutionary tree posted previously are not hard, concrete facts as you implied.

What do whale vestigial structures have to do with the hominid family tree I posted? :blink:

They are theories, based partially in science and partially in imagination. If not, then elements of the theory would never be proven false. Correct?

Ah, so you are engaging in the ignorant creationist talking point of "it's only a theory". So what do you think it says when a person who's making all sorts of unsupported assertions about science doesn't even know what the word theory means in science? Do you think that adds to, or takes away from your credibility?

The idea that a cow-like creature meandered back into the sea and developed flippers and a blowhole over millions of years as an explanation for sea-dwelling mammals is a theory. There are also theories that such a transition could not happen gradually. This is because some believe that developing vessels that can adjust to sea pressures, and the precise functioning of specific organs that allow whales to eat and not drown and many other characteristics of the whale are vital functions that either exist and allow for sea-life or do not exist and the mammal drowns. This has led some to develop other theories of how such changes could happen quickly while others turn to other answers such as creationism or even extra-terrestrial intervention...but nonetheless, they are theories. This is not to say some theories are more science-laden than other, but lets not pretend there isnt some imagination at play here.

So I have to ask again (and maybe you'll answer this time)....how much time have you spent studying the evolutionary history of whales? What exactly have you studied?

Now, I know you will likely say that "just because we dont know how..." and then the song and dance about discovery, lack of imagination by creationists, yadda yadda yadda. That is all fine and good, but just dont tell me its not a theory. The only reason you believe it is not a theory is because you are confined to a naturalistic explanation of one source for all species.

Once again, your misuse of the word theory is noted.

However, what if somehow multiple sources of life appeared at once and those multiple sources all evolved in different ways. Then, perhaps we do not have to force the cow into the sea and force ourselves into ultra creative ways of imagining how, what we (real scientists) already KNOW to be true, might have actually transpired. Rather, perhaps fish and sea-dwelling mammals have different evolutionary trees entirely instead or forcing them into only one? Oh, but that sounds too much like creationism and we know those folks are all maniacal liars and half-wits.

When all that happens, let me know.

In sum, this is nothing but a catch-22. It is a theory when elements are proven wrong and you proclaim, "Duh, that's how science works! Theories that are tested and proven right and wrong!" But then you say, evolution is certainly NOT a theory and we know it is true and are just figuring out the details of how what we already know to be true might have worked itself out! How convienient. It's a theory when elements are proven wrong because that is how science works. But when the big picture of the theory is questioned because of things we currently know about life and the specific functions of particular animals that do not seem to have a means of developing those features over time, such people are shouted down as being "anti-science" and a narrow-minded, unimaginative bible-thumpers.

We must accept the theory as fact to be "genuine" scientists. It's okay to say elements of the theory is wrong, so long as your conclusions continue to toe the line of the theory. That is what good science does. It questions, but only so far as those questions do not go outside the parameters we have set as "science" (i.e. naturalism and a common ancestor for all living things). Be a scientist and ask questions and test them.....just dont question the big picture assumptions or you cant be a scientist any longer. Cant you see the irony here?

So you see evolutionary biology as what.....a conspiracy? A hoax? A bunch of incompetent boobs making things up? Please answer, I'd really like to know.

 

[Barrd]

So what exactly are you doing here? Why the obfuscation and coy language? Looks to me like you're trying to have it both ways.....you want to be able to wave away inconvenient science, but you're not quite willing to directly accuse specific scientists of fraud. If you really think those papers are lies, just say so. If not, then explain why you feel you can just wave them away without even understanding them?

I don't know if these papers are lies or not, River, how could I? I'm not accusing anyone of anything. As a layman, I honestly do not know.
But I reject the notion that scientists are above such things. Where a treasured reputation is at stake, a human being is not above smudging the facts a little...we see it all the time. Scientists are just human beings, like anyone else...

And what makes you think that's the case here?

What makes you so sure that isn't the case here?
And even if the thing "evolved" all on it's own, with no human help at all, what does that actually prove?

So you think "weed" is a "kind"?

Well, yeah! It's not a rose, is it? It isn't a daffodil or a tiger lily, is it? It isn't corn or strawberries.
It is a very pretty weed.
Now, I'm one of those who sees no problem allowing a few dandelions to grow in the back yard. The kids love them, and they don't hurt anything.
Besides, weeds are so much easier to grow than roses...

Is that all? Insinuating that scientists are liars is simply stating your belief?

River, all human beings are capable of lying. Surely, this is not front page news, is it?

Of course not. Not sure why you even had to ask that.

Let's see....what was my original point?
Oh, yeah, I remember:
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.

Not sure what your point is.

LOL...I'm not sure any more, either. You said that chemists didn't know where the elements they work with came from, and I am quite sure that even in the days of alchemy, we were pretty sure that they came from "earth, wind, fire, and water"...

You didn't answer the question. You accused scientists of refusing to allow students to consider God. Specifically describe where they do that.

By refusing to allow any mention of any possibility that there might be a Intelligent Designer, River. Whether that Designer be Allah, or some African god, or Mithra, or the Greek Pantheon of gods and goddesses....or even the "Spaghetti Monster" is completely irrelevant. The point is that the universe, with all the wonders it contains, did not just "poof" into existence all on its own.
Why can't we so much as suggest this possibility in class? I honestly do not get it.

Really? Just ignore the problem and hope it goes away? Um.....no.

Of course not.
Better to give it plenty of attention.
Gotta show these morons up for the stupid gits that they are, right?

What in the world are you talking about? It looks to me like you really want public schools to use taxpayer funds to promote and endorse your religious beliefs.

You've got the rhetoric ingrained, River.
"God" is a very generic term. It can mean the Christian God, that I worship....or it could mean "Chtulu, The Ancient One". It could even mean "The Flying Spaghetti Monster"....arrrgh!

Why can't it be? Surely you're not trying to put a gag order on the teachers?

Honestly, River, now you're just being difficult. If a particular teacher has a preference for a particular god or goddess, surely there would be no harm in his saying so, as long as he allows each student to also have their particular preference.
After all, the first amendment guarantees each of us this precious right. Doesn't it?

Because it's science class, and that's not science. Duh.

I thought science was about exploring all the possibilities.
Evidently, you only want to discuss those possibilities you think you have "proof" for.
You're not going to discover anything new that way, River.

Not sure what's going on where you live, but there is no ban on any mention of God at all in schools. Students can believe, meet, and talk about God as they please. Teachers teach about different beliefs in God in world history.

Where I live, our kids still sing Christmas carols in school.

What are you afraid of? Are you afraid if science teachers don't go out of their way to tell their students that God is behind all the things they're learning about, they'll become atheists or something?

You need to stick your nose outside of the lab every now and then, River.

I'm sure from your perspective, that's how things seem.

Yeah....turn off the microscope, put the test tubes down, turn off the bunsen burner....
And take a look at the real world around you.

You're not keeping up with the conversation very well.

Okay....look, River, when you made that remark, I'm afraid I took you for a bit of a bigot.
I am very happy to find that this is not the case, and very willing to apologize for my error.

After all, this is the deep south, where bigotry abounds. There are places even in this quiet little town where a white woman like me dare not walk alone after dark...and I'm afraid the reverse is also true. There are places where a black woman dare not walk alone after dark.
My son and his friend Anthony had a bottle thrown at them just for walking together in the wrong place. My son wound up with seven stitches in his head...and our Anthony was, you should pardon the expression, white with his rage.
We have rednecks and racists on both sides of the fence, I'm afraid. Someone like me, with friends on both sides of this issue, might get a little over-sensitive, and perhaps pick up the sword to defend when there really isn't anything to defend at all.


EDIT:
Perhaps I should mention that Anthony is black, just in case that wasn't obvious. He's been a part of this family ever since he was a scrawny 12 year old, all huge brown eyes and afro. He has grown into quite a handsome young man...and I am very proud of him, as I am of all my kids...both my own natural children, and all the extras I seem to have accumulated over the years.
They keep me busy, especially during the holidays!

 

[River Jordan]

I don't know if these papers are lies or not, River, how could I? I'm not accusing anyone of anything. As a layman, I honestly do not know.

That's funny. You really are trying to have it both ways. You have no idea what these papers say, but you do know they might be saying something you don't want to be true. So rather than just say "I have no idea" and leave it at that, you wave them away as unconvincing and insinuate that the scientists who wrote them just might be lying. But you don't have the courage to actually say they're lying, and when pressed on it, you fall back on "Oh, I'm just saying they're as prone to lying as anyone else".

IMO, that's very intellectually dishonest of you.

What makes you so sure that isn't the case here?
And even if the thing "evolved" all on it's own, with no human help at all, what does that actually prove?

Stop dodging and answer the question. What makes you think there was artificial selection involved?
And it proves, as the other examples do as well, that the evolution of new species is a repeatedly observed fact.

Well, yeah! It's not a rose, is it? It isn't a daffodil or a tiger lily, is it? It isn't corn or strawberries.
It is a very pretty weed.

Um....ok then.

River, all human beings are capable of lying. Surely, this is not front page news, is it?

So maybe that's what I'll start doing with all the stories you like to tell. I'm not saying you're lying, just that you're as capable of lying as everyone else.

You said that chemists didn't know where the elements they work with came from, and I am quite sure that even in the days of alchemy, we were pretty sure that they came from "earth, wind, fire, and water"...

Um.....no. That's just silly.

By refusing to allow any mention of any possibility that there might be a Intelligent Designer, River.

So you honestly think that scientists write the laws that prevent science teachers from teaching religion in science class?

Why can't we so much as suggest this possibility in class? I honestly do not get it.

Because we teach science, not religion, in science class. But like you say...you just don't get that.

Of course not.
Better to give it plenty of attention.
Gotta show these morons up for the stupid gits that they are, right?

Sometimes the most effective way to combat stupidity is to subject it to ridicule.

If a particular teacher has a preference for a particular god or goddess, surely there would be no harm in his saying so, as long as he allows each student to also have their particular preference.
After all, the first amendment guarantees each of us this precious right. Doesn't it?

So not only are you ignorant of science, you're also ignorant of the law (hint: you don't have absolute free speech rights at work).

I thought science was about exploring all the possibilities.

No, it's not. Science is about testing hypotheses. I'm pretty sure we can't test God.

Evidently, you only want to discuss those possibilities you think you have "proof" for.
You're not going to discover anything new that way, River.

Yet science is making discoveries all the time, at an alarmingly accelerating rate. Looks like your rhetoric isn't matching up with reality.

You need to stick your nose outside of the lab every now and then, River.

Yeah....turn off the microscope, put the test tubes down, turn off the bunsen burner....
And take a look at the real world around you.

Your priggishness is noted yet again.

Okay....look, River, when you made that remark, I'm afraid I took you for a bit of a bigot.
I am very happy to find that this is not the case, and very willing to apologize for my error.

After all, this is the deep south, where bigotry abounds. There are places even in this quiet little town where a white woman like me dare not walk alone after dark...and I'm afraid the reverse is also true. There are places where a black woman dare not walk alone after dark.
My son and his friend Anthony had a bottle thrown at them just for walking together in the wrong place. My son wound up with seven stitches in his head...and our Anthony was, you should pardon the expression, white with his rage.
We have rednecks and racists on both sides of the fence, I'm afraid. Someone like me, with friends on both sides of this issue, might get a little over-sensitive, and perhaps pick up the sword to defend when there really isn't anything to defend at all.

EDIT:
Perhaps I should mention that Anthony is black, just in case that wasn't obvious. He's been a part of this family ever since he was a scrawny 12 year old, all huge brown eyes and afro. He has grown into quite a handsome young man...and I am very proud of him, as I am of all my kids...both my own natural children, and all the extras I seem to have accumulated over the years.
They keep me busy, especially during the holidays!

I'll just point out that you're as capable as lying as anyone else.

 

[StanJ]

Exactly why RJ is on my ignore list...she basically ignores everything about the TARUE origins of life in favour of science.
IMO, tit for tat basically.

 

[Barrd]

That's funny. You really are trying to have it both ways. You have no idea what these papers say, but you do know they might be saying something you don't want to be true. So rather than just say "I have no idea" and leave it at that, you wave them away as unconvincing and insinuate that the scientists who wrote them just might be lying. But you don't have the courage to actually say they're lying, and when pressed on it, you fall back on "Oh, I'm just saying they're as prone to lying as anyone else".

What you don't seem to understand is that it doesn't matter.

IMO, that's very intellectually dishonest of you.

Have it your way, River. I'm just as human as anyone else. I don't recall ever having said I wasn't.

Stop dodging and answer the question. What makes you think there was artificial selection involved?
And it proves, as the other examples do as well, that the evolution of new species is a repeatedly observed fact.

It's a hybrid.

Um....ok then.

So maybe that's what I'll start doing with all the stories you like to tell. I'm not saying you're lying, just that you're as capable of lying as everyone else.

Well, of course, I am just as capable of lying as everyone else....and maybe a little more so.
After all, I am a story teller...
I also write poetry, and songs.
So, you don't believe the stories I tell about my life....oh, River, I'm cut to the heart. I'm completely devastated... :wacko:
Some stranger on the internet whom I never met and never will meet thinks I might be dishonest. Oh, how will I go on!

Wait...come to think of it, how do I know that you aren't lying to me about yourself? Hey...maybe you aren't a scientist at all! Maybe you're lying! I don't really know, do I? Maybe you are really a nurse's aid or something....

Um.....no. That's just silly.

No more silly than you trying to tell me that chemists don't know where the elements they work with come from.

So you honestly think that scientists write the laws that prevent science teachers from teaching religion in science class?

I don't think I ever said that.
However, I am a bit surprised to find a Christian in favor of these laws...especially a Christian who is so concerned about young people leaving their faith.
I guess it's like my Daddy used to say....it all depends on whose ox is being gored...

Because we teach science, not religion, in science class. But like you say...you just don't get that.

I'd put one of our students from our high school where the teachers ignore the law that prevents them from talking about God against any student from any other high school any day.
Honestly, since when did God ever prevent anyone from getting an education?

Sometimes the most effective way to combat stupidity is to subject it to ridicule.

Is this a new scientific method?
"They don't think the way that we do, so let's bully them. Let's ridicule them until they learn their lesson, daggum it."
Yeah! That'll fix 'em...

So not only are you ignorant of science, you're also ignorant of the law (hint: you don't have absolute free speech rights at work).

Tell ya what....you keep worrying about obeying man's laws.
And I'll worry about obeying God.

No, it's not. Science is about testing hypotheses. I'm pretty sure we can't test God.

Oh, but wouldn't you just love to stuff Him into a test tube...

Yet science is making discoveries all the time, at an alarmingly accelerating rate. Looks like your rhetoric isn't matching up with reality.

And yet, science still has not discovered anything that God did not put there in the first place...

Your priggishness is noted yet again.

And again, you forgot "sanctimonious".

I'll just point out that you're as capable as lying as anyone else.

Didn't we already cover that?

You know, River, as much as I hate to say it, I think it might be a good idea if we just don't talk to each other. You seem to be getting a tad upset with me.
Continuing in this way is probably not good for your blood pressure...

Anyway, you have fun with your test tubes and your beakers and you bunsen burners and your microscopes...
And I will pray for you.
:)
Bye, now!

 

[River Jordan]

Exactly why RJ is on my ignore list...she basically ignores everything about the TARUE origins of life in favour of science.
IMO, tit for tat basically.

The fact that Stan feels the need to remind everyone, as often as he can, that he has me on ignore says waaaaaaay more about Stan than it does anyone else, IMO. <_<

 

[River Jordan]

Barrd, the first time I read your latest post I wasn't sure what to make of it. But then I read it again and I realized what it is....different ways in which you compensate for when the facts and reality aren't going your way. I'll demonstrate...

What you don't seem to understand is that it doesn't matter.

Exhibit A. This is basically the person who can't argue the facts anymore suddenly declaring "Awww, no one cares anyways!"

Have it your way, River. I'm just as human as anyone else. I don't recall ever having said I wasn't.

Exhibit B. A variation of the same theme. "Me? Dishonest? *shrug*...never said I wasn't".

It's a hybrid.

The goatsbeard is, others on the list I posted aren't. That's why I posted multiple examples into a list...it has observations of new species evolving in the lab, in the wild, via hybridization, via other means, among insects, among single-celled organisms, among reptiles, among plants, and other circumstances.

Why not stop looking for excuses to deny reality, and just accept the reality of God's creation that's right in front of you? If God's creation includes evolution producing new species (and we know it does because we see it happen), then that's just the way God made it. Accept it.

Well, of course, I am just as capable of lying as everyone else....and maybe a little more so.
After all, I am a story teller...
I also write poetry, and songs.

Exhibit C. Now that your excuse of insinuating (rather than having the courage to just say it) that the scientists who authored those papers just could be lying has been turned back on you, you go with a variation on Exhibit B.

So, you don't believe the stories I tell about my life....oh, River, I'm cut to the heart. I'm completely devastated... :wacko:
Some stranger on the internet whom I never met and never will meet thinks I might be dishonest. Oh, how will I go on!
Wait...come to think of it, how do I know that you aren't lying to me about yourself? Hey...maybe you aren't a scientist at all! Maybe you're lying! I don't really know, do I? Maybe you are really a nurse's aid or something....

Exhibit D. Self-explanatory.

No more silly than you trying to tell me that chemists don't know where the elements they work with come from.

Exhibit E. Arguing via straw man. I never said "chemists don't know where the elements they work with come from". I did say that chemists in the past were able to describe the behaviors of elements before they knew where they came from (to which you hilariously responded "earth, wind, and fire"). Hopefully you see the distinction there. If not, read it a couple more times just to make sure.

I don't think I ever said that.

Then why would you.....oh wait, is this important? I should ask first, rather than spend a bunch of time on it only to have you suddenly declare it not to be important.

However, I am a bit surprised to find a Christian in favor of these laws...especially a Christian who is so concerned about young people leaving their faith.
I guess it's like my Daddy used to say....it all depends on whose ox is being gored...

Lots of Christians, and Christians who work in science, don't want religion taught in science class. Why would anyone want such a thing? You really want the government, with its multi-culturalism, tolerance, and religious inclusiveness charged with teaching kids about God? How many atheists would scramble to get teaching jobs once they're legally allowed to tell their students God doesn't exist?

I'd put one of our students from our high school where the teachers ignore the law that prevents them from talking about God against any student from any other high school any day.
Honestly, since when did God ever prevent anyone from getting an education?

Exhibit F. Empty posturing. Plus, I don't think anyone from Alabama should be crowing about their education system. I mean, really....being proud of being 30th instead of 49th? Um....congratulations I guess.

Is this a new scientific method?
"They don't think the way that we do, so let's bully them. Let's ridicule them until they learn their lesson, daggum it."
Yeah! That'll fix 'em...

Exhibit G. Another straw man.

Tell ya what....you keep worrying about obeying man's laws.
And I'll worry about obeying God.

Exhibit H. Trying to cloak yourself in God in an attempt to fend off criticism. After all, if you're the one on God's side, disagreeing with you is the same as disagreeing with God, and no true Christian would ever disagree with God.

Oh, but wouldn't you just love to stuff Him into a test tube...

Exhibit I. Self-explanatory.

You know, River, as much as I hate to say it, I think it might be a good idea if we just don't talk to each other. You seem to be getting a tad upset with me.
Continuing in this way is probably not good for your blood pressure...

Exhibit J. Quitting while trying to blame it on the other person.

Anyway, you have fun with your test tubes and your beakers and you bunsen burners and your microscopes...
And I will pray for you.

And the grand finale, Exhibits K and L.....an attempt at belittling followed by the ever-popular backhanded insult "I'll pray for you".

Look, I don't know why you think we can't discuss things. I'm not the slightest bit angry, upset, or well....much of anything emotional. It's an internet board, so I just don't get that worked up about it. I do know my science though, and I do know my way around the overlap between science and faith. Those are what I do as both a scientist and a Christian youth leader. I talk about these things almost every day, and I love it. I love talking with the kids. They don't have all the hangups that adults have, which makes them more open, inquisitive, and energetic. I don't think I've ever heard or seen one of our kids say or insinuate anything like "Well maybe they're lying" after being shown something they didn't think existed.

So I guess my point is, just keep in mind that when you're around someone who really knows a subject pretty well, be careful with what you say about that subject, and don't try and hide behind flimsy excuses and coping mechanisms. Just be honest. And whatever you do, don't think you already know everything about God's creation, so much so that you think you're qualified to wave away observed reality.

 

[Barrd]

Barrd, the first time I read your latest post I wasn't sure what to make of it. But then I read it again and I realized what it is....different ways in which you compensate for when the facts and reality aren't going your way. I'll demonstrate...



Exhibit A. This is basically the person who can't argue the facts anymore suddenly declaring "Awww, no one cares anyways!"


Exhibit B. A variation of the same theme. "Me? Dishonest? *shrug*...never said I wasn't".


The goatsbeard is, others on the list I posted aren't. That's why I posted multiple examples into a list...it has observations of new species evolving in the lab, in the wild, via hybridization, via other means, among insects, among single-celled organisms, among reptiles, among plants, and other circumstances.

Why not stop looking for excuses to deny reality, and just accept the reality of God's creation that's right in front of you? If God's creation includes evolution producing new species (and we know it does because we see it happen), then that's just the way God made it. Accept it.


Exhibit C. Now that your excuse of insinuating (rather than having the courage to just say it) that the scientists who authored those papers just could be lying has been turned back on you, you go with a variation on Exhibit B.


Exhibit D. Self-explanatory.


Exhibit E. Arguing via straw man. I never said "chemists don't know where the elements they work with come from". I did say that chemists in the past were able to describe the behaviors of elements before they knew where they came from (to which you hilariously responded "earth, wind, and fire"). Hopefully you see the distinction there. If not, read it a couple more times just to make sure.


Then why would you.....oh wait, is this important? I should ask first, rather than spend a bunch of time on it only to have you suddenly declare it not to be important.


Lots of Christians, and Christians who work in science, don't want religion taught in science class. Why would anyone want such a thing? You really want the government, with its multi-culturalism, tolerance, and religious inclusiveness charged with teaching kids about God? How many atheists would scramble to get teaching jobs once they're legally allowed to tell their students God doesn't exist?


Exhibit F. Empty posturing. Plus, I don't think anyone from Alabama should be crowing about their education system. I mean, really....being proud of being 30th instead of 49th? Um....congratulations I guess.


Exhibit G. Another straw man.

Exhibit H. Trying to cloak yourself in God in an attempt to fend off criticism. After all, if you're the one on God's side, disagreeing with you is the same as disagreeing with God, and no true Christian would ever disagree with God.


Exhibit I. Self-explanatory.


Exhibit J. Quitting while trying to blame it on the other person.


And the grand finale, Exhibits K and L.....an attempt at belittling followed by the ever-popular backhanded insult "I'll pray for you".

Look, I don't know why you think we can't discuss things. I'm not the slightest bit angry, upset, or well....much of anything emotional. It's an internet board, so I just don't get that worked up about it. I do know my science though, and I do know my way around the overlap between science and faith. Those are what I do as both a scientist and a Christian youth leader. I talk about these things almost every day, and I love it. I love talking with the kids. They don't have all the hangups that adults have, which makes them more open, inquisitive, and energetic. I don't think I've ever heard or seen one of our kids say or insinuate anything like "Well maybe they're lying" after being shown something they didn't think existed.

So I guess my point is, just keep in mind that when you're around someone who really knows a subject pretty well, be careful with what you say about that subject, and don't try and hide behind flimsy excuses and coping mechanisms. Just be honest. And whatever you do, don't think you already know everything about God's creation, so much so that you think you're qualified to wave away observed reality.

Much as I hate to admit it, Stan was right....I need to put you on ignore. Evidently, playing nice with you is out of the question...

 

[River Jordan]

So maybe you can explain how....

Calling me "big-headed"

Asking "when was the last time you actually went to Sunday School?"

Telling me "You need to stick your nose outside of the lab every now and then"

Telling me, "turn off the microscope, put the test tubes down, turn off the bunsen burner....And take a look at the real world around you."

Saying that I would "just love to stuff Him [God] into a test tube"

And finishing with "you have fun with your test tubes and your beakers and you bunsen burners and your microscopes...And I will pray for you."

...is "playing nice"?

 

[Barrd]

The fact that Stan feels the need to remind everyone, as often as he can, that he has me on ignore says waaaaaaay more about Stan than it does anyone else, IMO. <_<

The fact that Stan was once your friend, but now feels the need to ignore you says waaaaaaaaaay more about you, IMO.

And it shows me that I should have listened to him, and saved myself all this grief.

Stan and I may disagree about some things, but he's no fool. He's a good man and a good Christian...he's just a stubborn old goat. If he put you on his ignore list, he had a good reason. I should have listened to him.

River, I am a Christian. As far as I am concerned, God created the universe, and God created life. No, I do not claim to know how He did it, but I do know that He divided living things by "kind"....and I am quite sure that "kind" is a line that cannot be crossed.
So, while I am willing to believe in a finch with a short beak, it is still a finch. You may call it a new "species" if you like, but it is still within God's taxonomy of "kind". It is not a canary.
And I am willing to believe in a hybrid weed. You want to call it a new "species"....fine. But it is still a weed. It is not a strawberry.

I am willing that Muslims should worship Allah, and that Wiccans should worship their goddess, and that young "pagans" should worship the Greek pantheon or whatever...I may think they're silly, but if that's what they believe, so be it. Actually, I kind of like the Wiccan's slogan, "And ye harm none, do as ye will." Mind, I do not agree with it....but at least it's a start. It's a ways from "Love one another as I have loved you"...but it's a step in the right direction.

I am willing to believe that these scientists have found what they believe to be "new species"....if that's what they want to call them. But I don't even have to glance at any of these papers to know, for a fact, that not one of these critters has become a new "kind".

Once more, I bare no hard feelings toward you, River...I just think you are far too wrapped up in your science to really see the world as God intends for us to see it.
I really do intend to pray for you....somewhere in there must lurk the River I first met. As I recall, you liked me because I am a devout Christian. As a devout Christian, I oppose gay marriage, I oppose abortion, and I oppose taking God out of our schools and courthouses. I'm sorry if that offends you, I really am.
However, you may as well know....God comes first for me, and for every single other devout Christian you will ever meet.