Creationists suffer another legal defeat

[THE LIGHT]

If you think it does, the burden of proof is on you for making that claim.

Yes, I know that. Although I think it is an interesting correlation, my main reason for mentioning it was in response to blu's claim.

So that leads to an important question. Why are you trying to complain about the possibility that I might be using it as a correlation when it wasn't me that was correlating the two? Why have you not gotten on blu? Is it because he agrees with your viewpoint?

Mathmatical ability makes use of certain portions of the brain. Evolution could certainly account for it. Standardized test scores reflect something else entirely

I really thought you were smart enough to add 1+1. The claim was that because we were teaching evolution, we would be getting smarter and smarter students and be "returning" to our math excelence. INSTEAD it went the opposite direction.

(perhaps an over-reliance on calculators).

Calculators weren't around in schools during the 60's that I know of. Next.

Because evolution is fact. The details and the process' involved are open to differing theories. But evolution is fact just like gravity.

Any scientific theory that involves a belief in a supernatural diety for its answers isn't scientific - in fact, it violates the laws of science which look for natural explanations.

Yes, evolution is a fact but not in the sense that it gets used. The details that are not agreed upon are the major legs upon which evolutionism stands.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Explaining anything to you is like explaining math to Ma and Pa Kettle.

I see, so your response to me pointing out specific reasons as to why you were wrong, with ample supportive evidence, is a youtube video that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Good job.

Let me know when you'd like to return to the actual conversation, and either conceding or defending your point.

What is it that you don't think I know science is? Is it because I disagree that students should be taught evolution is FACT? Is it because I and other scientists see evolution as violating the fundamental principles and laws? Where in the scientific process does it stat that evolution is FACT and that we shouldn't look at any other theories?

We should look at all other theories that are supported with reproducible experimental evidence. When we do so, evolution always comes out on top. That's how science works. To answer your first question in the above quote: you have repeatedly demonstrated to have absolutely no knowledge of the scientific method, scientific reasoning, or evidence based logic. You have continually made false and fabricated claims as to what you THINK evolution is, despite being wrong every single time.

Here's an easy way to prove this point: what do you believe science is, and how does it progress?

Yes, evolution is a fact but not in the sense that it gets used. The details that are not agreed upon are the major legs upon which evolutionism stands.

Oh? Which details would those be? See this is yet another one of those times you have no clue what you're talking about. I greatly look forward to you answering my question.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Light knows s/he has lost this argument long, long ago, and is merely engaged in the immorality of lost arguments.

 

[YWN666]

Wow, after the national embarrassment they suffered in the Dover courtroom, I'd think they wouldn't have the balls to show their faces again.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Religious wackos, just like atheist wackos, will do the silliest things.

Just watch this Board for both types of weirdos.

 

[Coyote]

If you think it does, the burden of proof is on you for making that claim.

Yes, I know that. Although I think it is an interesting correlation, my main reason for mentioning it was in response to blu's claim.

So that leads to an important question. Why are you trying to complain about the possibility that I might be using it as a correlation when it wasn't me that was correlating the two? Why have you not gotten on blu? Is it because he agrees with your viewpoint?

Na. It's because I'm basically a lazy varmint so when a thread exceeds 25 pages I read the first one, and then take a belly flop into a page near the end. You had the bad luck to be in the way.

Calculators weren't around in schools during the 60's that I know of. Next.

Trends going up again. Evolution at work

http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/sat.gif

Because evolution is fact. The details and the process' involved are open to differing theories. But evolution is fact just like gravity.

Any scientific theory that involves a belief in a supernatural diety for its answers isn't scientific - in fact, it violates the laws of science which look for natural explanations.

Yes, evolution is a fact but not in the sense that it gets used. The details that are not agreed upon are the major legs upon which evolutionism stands.

I would disagree there. There is majority agreement on evolution from simple to complex and considerable fossil evidence in such species as whales for example, that support the transition from land-dwelling to marine - a complex transition. There is also a great deal of evidence in the study of DNA and genetics as well. One of the major contentions is whether it was a process with an even equilibrium, or one punctuated with periods of change and periods of stasis.

Which major legs do you feel are in contention in the way you feel evolution gets used?

 

[THE LIGHT]

Na. It's because I'm basically a lazy varmint so when a thread exceeds 25 pages I read the first one, and then take a belly flop into a page near the end. You had the bad luck to be in the way.

Well, if you read my post it was quoted in my post so there's no excuse there.

Trends going up again. Evolution at work

http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/sat.gif

Yes, it is trending up when calculators were introduced. Sorry again.

I would disagree there. There is majority agreement on evolution from simple to complex and considerable fossil evidence in such species as whales for example, that support the transition from land-dwelling to marine - a complex transition. There is also a great deal of evidence in the study of DNA and genetics as well. One of the major contentions is whether it was a process with an even equilibrium, or one punctuated with periods of change and periods of stasis.

Well, first off, bones inside a whale aren't necessarily considered "fossils" but anyway... second, the bone inside whales are not vestigial. They have nothing to do with legs, but are fully functional in the reproductive process.

Punctuated equilibrium has so many problems that it is absurd.

As for a slow evolution from one animal to the next, I would like to hear your explanation on how the giraffe evolved.

Which major legs do you feel are in contention in the way you feel evolution gets used?

Macro-evolution, Planetary evolution, cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, etc.

 

[IanC]

For the record, most people who sneer at Christianity and pronounce that Christians don't believe in or understand evolution, present evolution as an explanation for the creation of the universe.

Of course it makes no sense, but you'll pardon those of us who are not fond of atheists, who claim that Christians force their religion on others by publicly adhering to it, while it's A-OK for atheists to hit every Christian website, every newstation, and every school with their rabid insistence that nobody in a public place be allowed to refer to Christianity, simply assume that when people start whining about evolution, they are referring to the belief that it has something to do with the creation. Of course we think that, because typically, it's trotted out every time some asshole calls Christians idiots for believing in God and for believing God created the universe and life.

That sums it up pretty well. Science does a pretty good job of describing things but it has no credible explanations for the creation of the universe or the spark of life. The theory of evolution only (incompletely) describes why lifeforms change over time. Many people assume that science will be able to answer all questions given enough time and effort but that is not true. Science has just replaced religion as the right 'faith' to believe in.

I've heard it said that science deals with the "how" and religion/philosophy deals with the "why". There could be some merit in that.

However, you categoricaly state that science will never be able to answer all the questions. You don't know that. Simply because a question has no answer YET, doesn't mean it won't or that the answer is your deity of choice.

Belief has nothing to do with science, or shouldn't. There is either evidence to support a theory, or there isn't.

there are elegant proofs that show a system is unable to define and explain itself from within that system. I can't remember who did them. Popper maybe. the origin of the universe is unexplainable. perhaps life will be explainable, but it is very unlikely.

 

[R.C. Christian]

There certainly is an unnecessary amount of hate from the left on message boards these days towards christians. I would think simply pitty would suffice for animosity.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yep, 85% of religious America is in danger from the 2% who are sceptics, freethinkers, atheists, etc., R.C.

 

[konradv]

As for a slow evolution from one animal to the next, I would like to hear your explanation on how the giraffe evolved.

There's still controversy over that, but no explanation includes being created at the same time as all the other animals!

From: Giraffe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The evolution of the long necks of giraffes has been the subject of much debate. The standard story is that they were evolved to allow the giraffes to browse vegetation that was out of the reach of other herbivores in the vicinity, giving them a competitive advantage.[7] However, an alternative theory proposes that the long necks evolved as a secondary sexual characteristic, giving males an advantage in "necking" contests to establish dominance and obtain access to sexually receptive females. This theory notes that giraffes frequently feed from relatively low-lying shrubs, and that the necks of males are significantly longer than those of females.[9] However, this theory is not universally accepted, and some of the data supporting it has recently been challenged, lending support to the original proposal that neck length is related to browsing habits.[10]

[7] ^ a b c Savage, R. J. G. & Long, M. R. (1986). Mammal Evolution: an illustrated guide. New York: Facts on File. pp. 228–229. ISBN 0-8160-1194-X.

[9] ^ Simmons, R. E. & Scheepers, L. (1996). "Winning by a Neck: Sexual Selection in the Evolution of Giraffe". The American Naturalist 148 (5): 771–786. doi:10.1086/285955. http://bill.srnr.arizona.edu/classes/182/Giraffe/WinningByANeck.pdf.

[10] ^ Cameron, E. Z. & du Toit, J. T. (2007). "Winning by a Neck: Tall Giraffes Avoid Competing with Shorter Browsers". American Naturalist 169 (1): 130–135. doi:10.1086/509940. PMID 17206591.

 

[Coyote]

Well, first off, bones inside a whale aren't necessarily considered "fossils" but anyway... second, the bone inside whales are not vestigial. They have nothing to do with legs, but are fully functional in the reproductive process.

I am not sure what you mean here. I'm talking about the overall fossil record for whales: The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence for one thing. Also, "vestigial" does not necessarily mean non-functioning and the fact that a particular system or organ now performs one function doesn't mean it wasn't originally used for a different function - hind legs evolving into "limbs" that help with copulation.

Punctuated equilibrium has so many problems that it is absurd.

Such as what? I'm not saying it doesn't have problems - that is why it is still very much a theory, but it explains certain things quite well.

As for a slow evolution from one animal to the next, I would like to hear your explanation on how the giraffe evolved.

A few caveats have to be considered here. One is that the fossil process only preserves a tiny proportion of all living things, and out of that - only a fraction have yet been uncovered or discovered. It could be that there are transitional forms yet to be found. Just because they haven't been found don't mean they do not exist.

What particular aspect of the giraffe to do you find contentious? The reason for developing a long neck? (sexual or foraging?) The lack of fossil evidence for transitional forms?

What explanation would you come up with?

Which major legs do you feel are in contention in the way you feel evolution gets used?

Macro-evolution, Planetary evolution, cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, etc.

Lets look at these seperately. First - macro-evolution.

Macro-evolution is defined as change that occurs at or above the level of species. This is commonly referred to as "speciation". The splitting of one species into two. I think the definition of species is contentious to some, but the most commonly accepted definition is a group of organisms that are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring with each other.

If macro-evolution deals with the creation of new species, there is ample evidence. Insects with their rapid development and short generations make an easily recordable subject for speciation in real-time. Fish also make good subject because of the ease at which populations can become genetically isolated to the point where enough genetic changes occur within a population to make fertility or mating with the original species impossible. Wikipedia has a pretty good section on it: Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Planetary evolution and cosmic evolution - I don't really view that in the same category as biological evolution and, since the definition of evolution is defined as "is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations" -- it really isn't "evolution".

Chemical evolution - what do you mean by that exactly?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

And we once again come back to the differences in sides.

Evolution makes generalizations that work across all species, and are supported across multiple scientific fields, including paleontology, anatomy, physiology, and genetics. Creationists on the other hand base points on things they don't understand, or look funny.

 

[THE LIGHT]

I am not sure what you mean here. I'm talking about the overall fossil record for whales: The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence for one thing. Also, "vestigial" does not necessarily mean non-functioning and the fact that a particular system or organ now performs one function doesn't mean it wasn't originally used for a different function - hind legs evolving into "limbs" that help with copulation.

If I may borrow a quote from you, "Correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation." Similarly, just because you have bones sitting in the ground does not mean that you can say what those bones were used for. It is you job to prove that those were legs. Imagination isn't proof.

Such as what? I'm not saying it doesn't have problems - that is why it is still very much a theory, but it explains certain things quite well.

Such as who would this new spontaneous life form mate with to keep from going extinct?

Such as we have never observed this occuring productively.

A few caveats have to be considered here. One is that the fossil process only preserves a tiny proportion of all living things, and out of that - only a fraction have yet been uncovered or discovered. It could be that there are transitional forms yet to be found. Just because they haven't been found don't mean they do not exist.

They don't exist unless they are found. You cannot base your theory on the fact that you assume they exist.

What particular aspect of the giraffe to do you find contentious? The reason for developing a long neck? (sexual or foraging?) The lack of fossil evidence for transitional forms?

Not "why?" but "how?" There are bunches of reasons why a car should stay on the road, but the important part is "how."

Lets look at these seperately. First - macro-evolution.

Macro-evolution is defined as change that occurs at or above the level of species. This is commonly referred to as "speciation". The splitting of one species into two. I think the definition of species is contentious to some, but the most commonly accepted definition is a group of organisms that are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring with each other.

If macro-evolution deals with the creation of new species, there is ample evidence. Insects with their rapid development and short generations make an easily recordable subject for speciation in real-time. Fish also make good subject because of the ease at which populations can become genetically isolated to the point where enough genetic changes occur within a population to make fertility or mating with the original species impossible. Wikipedia has a pretty good section on it: Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which is not really what they mean. They always give examples of a dog turning into another type of dog through breeding which I am okay with. That is observable. But we have never observed a plant turning into a dog or a dog turning into a giraffe or a lizzard turning into a bird. It just don't happen.

 

[THE LIGHT]

And we once again come back to the differences in sides.

Evolution makes generalizations that work across all species, and are supported across multiple scientific fields, including paleontology, anatomy, physiology, and genetics. Creationists on the other hand base points on things they don't understand, or look funny.

Wrong. Creationists base their conclusions off of validated theories, while evolutionists look at something they don't understand and say "it musta been evolution that did it."

 

[SmarterThanHick]

If I may borrow a quote from you, "Correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation." Similarly, just because you have bones sitting in the ground does not mean that you can say what those bones were used for. It is you job to prove that those were legs. Imagination isn't proof.

True. Proof is such thing as phylogenetics demonstrating how the bones changed over time based on specific mutations in proteins. But again, you either pretend this field doesn't exist altogether, or pretend it doesn't count because you don't understand it.

Such as who would this new spontaneous life form mate with to keep from going extinct?

As if on a timer, you once again offer up indication that you have absolutely no clue about evolution. One species does not spontaneously pop out a new life form. That's dumb. You continue to be dumb for making such statements. Once again this shows that people like me know all of your reasoning for creationism - being "cuz the bible said so" - and people like you have no clue about evolution yet still claim it's wrong.

Not "why?" but "how?" There are bunches of reasons why a car should stay on the road, but the important part is "how."

No no. The question is still "why". The "how" is the same for all species across evolution: genetic deviations over time. Now if you're dumb enough to ask how a giraffe stands up with such a long neck, again returning to the infantile idea of "I don't understand something so therefore it's god", I must point out that the physics involved would be the same regardless of creationism or evolution.

Which is not really what they mean. They always give examples of a dog turning into another type of dog through breeding which I am okay with. That is observable. But we have never observed a plant turning into a dog or a dog turning into a giraffe or a lizzard turning into a bird. It just don't happen.

YOU'RE RIGHT! That's because what you just described IS NOT EVOLUTION.

The question you should be asking yourself at this point is: Do you want to continue remaining ignorant and clearly stating stupidity when several people are telling you that you have no clue what evolution is? Or do you actually want to learn the science behind it so you can at least make an informed decision and not sound like a 5 year old making up nonsense everytime you post here?

Wrong. Creationists base their conclusions off of validated theories, while evolutionists look at something they don't understand and say "it musta been evolution that did it."

There are no valid theories in creationism. There is only the bible. Evolution, on the other hand, has supporting evidence across all scientific fields examining this topic. Now it seems you've returned to making broad sweeping generalizations with absolutely no support.

 

[Coyote]

And we once again come back to the differences in sides.

Evolution makes generalizations that work across all species, and are supported across multiple scientific fields, including paleontology, anatomy, physiology, and genetics. Creationists on the other hand base points on things they don't understand, or look funny.

Wrong. Creationists base their conclusions off of validated theories, while evolutionists look at something they don't understand and say "it musta been evolution that did it."

No, not in the least. Creationists rely on two things to support their theories: one is their Bible, the other is "negative evidence" used in the following manner:

If evolution can't explain a phenomena, that validates Creationism
If there are holes in a theory, those holes validate Creationism.
I won't even go there about how they distort science in an attempt to bolster their theory.

The key support for Creationism is not any form of positive evidence - it is based on a logical fallacies: if Theory A can not explain xyz, that means Theory B is correct or of equal validity. No. It doesn't. Theory B has to prove itself on it's own merits.

The idea that if Theory A can't answer a question, it is unaswerable, therefore Theory B's idea of a supernatural explanation is valid is not science in any way shape or form.

 

[Hister]

But do creationists know that they're stoopid? And just not care? Or are they too stoopid to know how stoopid they are?

 

[Coyote]

I am not sure what you mean here. I'm talking about the overall fossil record for whales: The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence for one thing. Also, "vestigial" does not necessarily mean non-functioning and the fact that a particular system or organ now performs one function doesn't mean it wasn't originally used for a different function - hind legs evolving into "limbs" that help with copulation.

If I may borrow a quote from you, "Correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation." Similarly, just because you have bones sitting in the ground does not mean that you can say what those bones were used for. It is you job to prove that those were legs. Imagination isn't proof.

Very true, but - if you have enough pieces of evidence to put together enough of a picture to see a trend or to make comparisons with modern day animals you can put forth a theory that has a enough facts to support causation (either that or a hell of a lot of unbelievable coincidences - now which is more believable?).

In the case of the whale, there is a substantial fossil record showing the evolution of the hind limbs leading to vestigial remnants that now act to facilitate copulation. And it's not just the vestigial hind limbs that whales retain from their land-living ancestry, they have vestigial olfactory nerves, a remnant of an exterior opening of the ear canal, a number of small muscles devoted to nonexistent external ears, the diaphragm, which in whales is vestigial and has very little muscle because whales do not use that for breathing. These changes are supported in the fossil record and the living animal.

Such as what? I'm not saying it doesn't have problems - that is why it is still very much a theory, but it explains certain things quite well.

Such as who would this new spontaneous life form mate with to keep from going extinct?

Because that isn't the way evolution works - it doesn't work with individual change but with cumulative genetic changes in a population until they add up to enough that the isolated group can no longer mate with the original population if they meet up again.

Such as we have never observed this occuring productively.

But we have in certain species of insects, fish, and bacteria. If you are talking about observing large scale changes of the kind in the fossil record, we - and the sciences involved - haven't been around long enough.

They don't exist unless they are found. You cannot base your theory on the fact that you assume they exist.

If you have enough other evidence - then yes, you can. If you are putting together a jigsaw puzzle and you are missing 3 pieces, do you assume they never existed or do you assume you simply haven't found them? If the puzzle appears to be a picture of an elephant, and most of the pieces support that conclusion - do you feel reasonably sure of making that conclusion or do you deny it based on the missing pieces?

What particular aspect of the giraffe to do you find contentious? The reason for developing a long neck? (sexual or foraging?) The lack of fossil evidence for transitional forms?

Not "why?" but "how?" There are bunches of reasons why a car should stay on the road, but the important part is "how."

So your issue is with the lack of fossil evidence then?

Which is not really what they mean. They always give examples of a dog turning into another type of dog through breeding which I am okay with. That is observable. But we have never observed a plant turning into a dog or a dog turning into a giraffe or a lizzard turning into a bird. It just don't happen.

No. It happens, but you are mixing together a lot of different things here.

Dogs turning into other types of dogs are still the same species - in fact dogs, coyotes, wolves can all interbreed and produce offspring. They are "breeds" rather than genetically seperate species. Large scale changes take millions of years. We've only been around for a fraction of the time, and our ability to use science even briefer.

 

[konradv]

And we once again come back to the differences in sides.

Evolution makes generalizations that work across all species, and are supported across multiple scientific fields, including paleontology, anatomy, physiology, and genetics. Creationists on the other hand base points on things they don't understand, or look funny.

Wrong. Creationists base their conclusions off of validated theories, while evolutionists look at something they don't understand and say "it musta been evolution that did it."

Could you give us a link to those theories? I was under the impression that you considered creationism settled fact, not mere theory?!?!