Darwin on trial: Evolution hearings open in Kansas

[Nienna]

Hardy, har, har.

Actually, that was rather rude of me. My apologies, MRSX.

 

[Trinity]

I hate to tell you, but you aren't one of the 144,000. Those spaces were all filled early last century. Anyway, those are all supposed to be Jews. Sorry.

:rotflmao:

 

[mrsx]

Hardy, har, har.

The U.S. military isn't the only one with recruiting problems. The Army of the Lord is looking for a few good goyim. Could be your last chance...

 

[Trinity]

The U.S. military isn't the only one with recruiting problems. The Army of the Lord is looking for a few good goyim. Could be your last chance...

 

[Nienna]

If Adam and Eve were the first human beings on Earth as the bible claims, you don't think that should be the first chapter in every biology book under the heading "The origin of man"?

Adam and Eve were not the origin of man. An eternal, intelligent Creator was. The Laws of Thermodynamics show that the universe had a beginning, and therefore must have had a cause. God is that cause. The complexity of life and the existence of intelligence, itself show that God is intelligent.

Evidence of flooding does not necessarily equate evidence of biblical scientific accuracy.

Evidence of genetic change over time does not necessarily equate evidence of the accuracy of biochemical evolution. This is Origins or Historical Science. We cannot observe or do repeated testing on history. What we can do is devise a theory or model, check the physical evidence around us, and determine which model the evidence best fits. The Biblical model includes a global flood, for which there is physical evidence. The macroevolution model explains this by "catastrophism" and "punctuated equilibrium." Same physical evidence, different explanations.

For instance, if the story of Noah and the Great Flood are true, where is the trail that leads to all of the planets animals coming from a single point of origin (the Ark)?

Since all animals did not follow a single path, there probably was never a single trail. And erosion and other factors would probably have erased it by now if there was. I assume your question is really about animal dispersion after the release from the ark.

Both creationists and evolutionists acknowledge the probability of land bridges created by the lowering of the sea level while the water was locked up in glaciers during an ice age. Continental drift is another factor; the continents being closer together in the past. Animals could have swum or floated hundreds or thousands of miles using debris as resting points.

The Creation model does not assert that, for example, a single pair of kangaroos hopped all the way to Australia. It is more realistic to assume that the pair of kangaroos disembarked from the ark, mated and multiplied, and that their offspring gradually dispersed.

Besides, the last time I checked, it was called "Darwin and the Theory of Evolution" It is included in science books because of the mountain of evidence that points to it being a sound theory. If and when ID has a significant amount of real scientific data to back it up, then, and only then should it be added to science texts.

ID or Creation science does have a mountain of evidence. However, it is being blocked from being taught in the classroom because of philosophical disagreement. The atheistic leaders in the scientific community do not want anything to subvert their religious belief in naturalism, and so they act to block any hint of flaw from being explored in the classroom.

 

[MissileMan]

Since all animals did not follow a single path, there probably was never a single trail. And erosion and other factors would probably have erased it by now if there was. I assume your question is really about animal dispersion after the release from the ark.

When I said trail, I meant fossil record, etc. not an actual trail. I wonder why they never found any kangaroo bones in the middle east? Surely a few must have died while building this great kangaroo herd that swam to Australia.

Both creationists and evolutionists acknowledge the probability of land bridges created by the lowering of the sea level while the water was locked up in glaciers during an ice age. Continental drift is another factor; the continents being closer together in the past. Animals could have swum or floated hundreds or thousands of miles using debris as resting points.

Funny, I know of no passages in the bible that discuss an ice age or continental drift. You would think a text worthy of use as a science book would mention these globally significant occurences.

The Creation model does not assert that, for example, a single pair of kangaroos hopped all the way to Australia. It is more realistic to assume that the pair of kangaroos disembarked from the ark, mated and multiplied, and that their offspring gradually dispersed.

See above

ID or Creation science does have a mountain of evidence. However, it is being blocked from being taught in the classroom because of philosophical disagreement. The atheistic leaders in the scientific community do not want anything to subvert their religious belief in naturalism, and so they act to block any hint of flaw from being explored in the classroom.

If this were indeed true, the religious majority in this country would have mandated Genesis 101 be put in every text book by now. It is being excluded because of the lack of evidence.

 

[YoungChristian]

The goal of science is to find the best answer to the almost impossible to answer questions. The best answer obviously isn't evolution. There is no materialistic explanation to irreducile complexity. It has been compared to a mousetrap, if you take one part away from the mousetrap the whole contraption ceases to work. In Darwinian evolution, things must randomly develop over time through the survival of the fittest. However, this kind of evolution could not have created even a cell. If you take one protein away from an organelle, the organelle fails to function, if the organelle fails to function, so does the entire cell.
It can also be described like this, "For the loss of a nail, a horseshoe was lost; for the loss of a horseshoe, a horse was lost; for the loss of a horse, a soldier was lost; for the loss of a soldier, a battle was lost; for the loss of a battle, a war was lost." Therefore, if we lose one protein, our existence ceases. Something must have created this, regardless of what kind of God you believe in.

 

[YoungChristian]

If anyone is interested in the aspects of Intelligent Design and some empirical evidence for it, they should check out Lee Strobel's book, The Case for a Creator. I dare any atheist or agnostic to read it with an open mind and try to refute the abundance of very real evidence within it.

 

[Nienna]

When I said trail, I meant fossil record, etc. not an actual trail. I wonder why they never found any kangaroo bones in the middle east? Surely a few must have died while building this great kangaroo herd that swam to Australia.

The fossilization of an animal is a very rare occurence, as evolutionists know only too well. Perhaps the "herd" found the climate not to its liking and either died out or moved on very quickly.

Funny, I know of no passages in the bible that discuss an ice age or continental drift. You would think a text worthy of use as a science book would mention these globally significant occurences.

No one ever claimed that the Bible was solely a science book, only that it is accurate where it mentions science. Creationists include continental drift and an ice age in their model because of the physical evidence observed around them. Actually, a global volcanic flood is a very good explanation for both.

If this were indeed true, the religious majority in this country would have mandated Genesis 101 be put in every text book by now. It is being excluded because of the lack of evidence.

The Bible used to be a part of every school day, with children bringing their "testaments" to school along with their primers. However, in 1947, the Supreme court in its majority decision chose to quote out of context Thomas Jefferson's famous phrase "separation of church and state." What followed was a slippery slope of misguided judgment until, in 1962, in Engel v. Vitale, the Supreme Court, without legal or historical precedent, ruled that the word "church" in the phrase "church and state" meant not a state-mandated religion, but any religious mention or activity. Thus began the histrionic fear of faith that pervades our legal evironment today. Genesis was not blocked from lack of evidence, but from fear.

 

[IControlThePast]

Natural selection is a phenomenon embraced by creationists. Creatures can indeed learn to use existing features for new functions. However, macroevolution cannot explain how the features arose to begin with. Mutation and natural selection involve the loss or shuffling of genetic information. As I said before, a man could never become a millionaire by losing a penny a day for 30 years. In the same way, a microbe could never become a man by losing one gene a century for 3 billion years.

It isn't the goal of Evolution to describe how things started, that something appeared out of nothing. Those are other sciences like Quantum Mechanics and Astronomy, but look at the Urey-Miller chemistry experiment where using only lightning they were able to create organic compounds, including 13 amino acids, from inorganic compounds with random strikes within a week. Genes can't be equated with money, because many of those microbe genes aren't expressed, they're useless. These genes can be lost through mutation to a new species where an organism is less fit to have those genes now and loses them. There are also things called haploid organisms, meaning they only have half the DNA of the parent cell, which can account for loss of genetic information through mutant haploid cells.

One can split atoms in the lab and observe results thereof, or see the effects of quantum mechanics. These tests can also be repeated. No one has ever observed life from a non-living chemical concoction or one instance of a spontaneous appearance of a new gene. These would be an indirect way of observing macroevolution. The microevolution we observe actually serves to disprove macroevolution, for the reason I gave above. The genetic code is losing information, which is the opposite of what is needed to produce a man from a microbe.

See above response and Urey-Miller experiment.

Now, now... I give people a lot more credit for intelligence than that! Even if Genesis is not mentioned in the schoolroom, people are perfectly capable of seeing the conflict between a literal Genesis and the theory of evolution. This has led some to abandon their faith, others to compromise it. Who has more knowledge and authority? God or the men He created? In many, many cases, people believe that men do, since they adjust the Bible to fit around evolution rather than adjusting their theories of origin to fit the Bible. However, as I stated before, in this social climate, I would not expect this to be brought up in a science classroom.

Science doesn't conflict with a non-literal interpretation of the Bible. The Bible and Evolution can co-exist. There are other things driving people away from the Church, like the pedophile priests.

Why do you say that Creationism and ID aren't "scientific"? Do they not observe data and test against the theory? Just because the theory involves a supernatural Being? Evidence of this Being is just as observable as evidence of a "Big Bang," if not more so. Once again, what you are seeing is the clash between two belief systems, atheism v/s belief in God. Why should one have exclusive coverage in the classroom?

ID and Creationism aren't scientific because they don't fit Occam's Razor and are unfalsifiable. Let the coverage of "atheism" (if that's what you call science) be in a Science class and Religion in a Philosophy class.

No assumptions added. Both models assume a beginning. The universe had a beginning at some point. The axiom is "whatever has a beginning has a cause." This is self-evident. What model fits best? That an eternal Being (who had no beginning, and therefore needs no cause) created the universe, or that the universe created itself, making the assumption that it existed (in order to create itself) before it existed. This is a logical absurdity.

Saying "microevolution leads to macroevolution" is not axiomatic. It, too, is a logical absurdity. It is, in essence, saying that the process of losing genes, if given enough time, will result in creatures with more genetic information.

You can't prove the universe had a beginning, it might be infinite in size. We've never seen the edge of the universe. Once again Evolution is not about explaining how things started, but Biological pathways including macroevolution. You are correct that microevolution leads to macroevolution is not axiomatic, you don't have to add any more axioms, but you do have to add the axiom that a Creator exists for ID. You don't have to assume there is a beginning for Evolution, that once again is not the purpose of it. You just have to theorize using existing axioms that certain pathways continued to act over a larger time scale for a larger result. It doesn't have to assume a beginning.

I don't know what you mean by genetic information. Some one celled organisms have way more base pairs than humans. Because humans have less base pairs and are more complex proves that the number of complex mechanisms is dependant upon amount of genetic information. A man's wealth is entirely dependant on his money though, so your analogy doesn't fit.

 

[Said1]

The U.S. military isn't the only one with recruiting problems. The Army of the Lord is looking for a few good goyim. Could be your last chance...

Wow, I could swear the wicked old witch in the picture is you, is it?

Didn't a house land on her or something?

 

[Said1]

The U.S. military isn't the only one with recruiting problems. The Army of the Lord is looking for a few good goyim. Could be your last chance...

@Kathianne: Almost spooky isn't it? (re:slave )

 

[Annie]

@Kathianne: Almost spooky isn't it? (re:slave )

Chilling. Perhaps burning? :shocked:

 

[007]

.... is merely sneaking chritianity into Public schools.

It's comments like that, that tell a lot about a person, not only misspelling Christianity, but not capitolizing it either.

Nobody's "sneaking" Christianity anywhere. All Christians are saying is that there's no more hard evidence to prove evolution that there is creation, so if you're going to teach one as legitimate, then why not the other? There is no "sneaking" going on, and you calling it that tells me you're just another Chrisitian hating liberal who'd like to see all Christianity wiped out.

 

[manu1959]

It's comments like that, that tell a lot about a person, not only misspelling Christianity, but not capitolizing it either.

Nobody's "sneaking" Christianity anywhere. All Christians are saying is that there's no more hard evidence to prove evolution that there is creation, so if you're going to teach one as legitimate, then why not the other? There is no "sneaking" going on, and you calling it that tells me you're just another Chrisitian hating liberal who'd like to see all Christianity wiped out.

neither is proveable...each as unlikely as the other... thus both should be taught....we are here because we are

 

[007]

Some day much sooner than that the Son of Man will return on a cloud of fire and I and the other 143,999 good guys will go off to eat the Ice Cream of Unimaginable Bliss while you will spend eternity in a really hot tub with Tipper Gore.

1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 [15] According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. [16] For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. [17] After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no mention of numbers.

 

[007]

neither is proveable...each as unlikely as the other... thus both should be taught....we are here because we are

I don't see creation as "unlikely".

 

[Markainion]

How great it is, that there is some mystery in life. I wonder if in heaven this debate still goes on. Until I see someone create life and intelligence out of nothing. I’m just going to wonder on this.

 

[mrsx]

Genesis tells us that God created Adam from dirt and Eve from Adam's rib. Surely there can be no clearer evidence that women evolved from men. Evolutionists, who don't believe in the Bible, confirm that the DNA of men is closer to the DNA of male chimps than it is to that of women. Here is a point on which both sides can agree.

 

[MissileMan]

The fossilization of an animal is a very rare occurence, as evolutionists know only too well. Perhaps the "herd" found the climate not to its liking and either died out or moved on very quickly.

Then perhaps you can explain how a handful of human beings (all of the same race) repopulated the entire planet within an impossibly short amount of time without leaving any evidence that they all derived from this same single point of origin?

No one ever claimed that the Bible was solely a science book, only that it is accurate where it mentions science. Creationists include continental drift and an ice age in their model because of the physical evidence observed around them. Actually, a global volcanic flood is a very good explanation for both.

It's being claimed that the bible is THE true accounting of the history of the planet. Things like continental drift, ice ages, and global volcanic flooding (chapter and verse please) aren't mentioned in the bible because those things take tens of thousands if not millions of years to run their course and therefore fall outside the timeline of the bible. (and therefore couldn't have happened)

And isn't it strange how, if the world were repopulated by Christians after God wiped the slate clean, that entire continents had never heard of God until the word was spread later from the middle east? Isn't it incredible that these repopulaters were so impressed with the Great Flood and the awesome display of the power of God that they created new religions within a few generations?

The bible might be (probably is) the history of Christianity. It is folly to apply it outside those bounds.