Evolution vs Creationism

[Unregistered]

Well I guess...if you can get all the qualifications for giving a worldwide impact for centuries as the Bible did and still does...anyways, you'll always find something to say against the Bible...I pray that Christ speak to you in a way that you cannot ignore...God bless you!

[Unregistered]

Well I guess...if you can get all the qualifications for giving a worldwide impact for centuries as the Bible did and still does...


Umm, no, regardless of impact it wouldn't change my visibility.


anyways, you'll always find something to say against the Bible...I pray that Christ speak to you in a way that you cannot ignore...God bless you!

I didn't say anything against the Bible in that post. Merely pointing out that just because a book says it will be disbelieved and then it is, doesn't mean it's right about other things.

[Unregistered]

Well, in my own opinion, the human race needs conflict in order to maintain homeostasis.
This is just another one of those conflicts, basically a battle of the books.
It is important for students to learn all points of view; the physical, the emotional , the mental , and the supernatural. I'm not saying that either one is entirely right or entirely wrong , but we must accept that people believe one way or the other, and hope that the students can go through the lessons with open minds. Though in modern society we have to accpet that there arent that many open minded individuals any longer. I Remember in my classes years ago having to skip over the chapter on evolution because children's parents would call in preaching their beliefs , and overall ruined what should have been an interesting couple of weeks in class.

[Unregistered]

Religion isnt only based off faith, did you know that Christ is the most documented person in history. just based off the fact that we dont have his bones, or the cross completely preserved doesnt mean there isn't hard evidence. Yeah sure evolution is a good theory, but when people say thatwe evolved from apes, it is completely disproven. we are two completely different species. at most we can be close cousin (in genetics).

[Unregistered]

All of this talk about evoultion and creationism- All right let's play a game! Evolution-???? Entropy??? do they match? Hmmm! The order of the universe??? Entropy??? Final conclusion- The grand creator- God! Even after many years of pondering- one of the greatest scientist known- Albert Einstein realize this. How can one assume that -In the beginnings of life- This primordial soup somehow all this came together and well you know the rest, but oops that dreaded word again -Entropy! How about your desk at school- order to disorder, but no one has ever spoke of this Entropy thing- Hmmm!
Yes, biologically speaking we were all designed to adapt- now think about- If you were going to design creatures of any order- would you not design them in a way to adapt to their changing environments- Of course you would! Would you not also design them such that flaws which cause the creatures to perish are those individuals that are not going to survive the long durations of time. Now some will say- fancy way of saying evolution- I am not going to debate the fact we have observed this in our environment. We can all see evidence of this; however, does this mean we are right about the entire chain of events? Especially, the beginnings of time. If you are a real scientist- the idea of a grand creator is a delightful thought- How does he/she think? How was he/she made..........???
Now this thing about 6000 years, Begin Gensis- God created the earth--------and the earth was with out form and darkness fell upon the deep..................time is relative in God's realm- 6th dimension?? A being such as he is would easily be able to flow freely through time(a 4th dimension) Dinosaurs were they real -of course they were- we have geological evidence of that- Data baby! So how is this 6000 year thing working for you so far? God's creatures- sure he had a little fun! And why not? And while we are on the subject- why do we believe he would tell us everything anyway- How presumptuous of us- us humans! Of course their are alien civilizations- millions of worlds- no we are not alone.......We'll enough he----bye!!!!!!- Now I open the debate window- He we go.....................

[Unregistered]

Religion isnt only based off faith, did you know that Christ is the most documented person in history. just based off the fact that we dont have his bones, or the cross completely preserved doesnt mean there isn't hard evidence. Yeah sure evolution is a good theory, but when people say thatwe evolved from apes, it is completely disproven. we are two completely different species. at most we can be close cousin (in genetics).


Oh, no, I didn't know Christ is the most documented person in history. I guess it makes sense, since the Romans were compulsive record-keepers.

For a start, let's produce his:

Birth certificate
Schooling records
Death certificate
Address history
Financial records
Business certificates

Not that any of that's really relevant to evolution at all, but it will be interesting to see what excuses you can come up with for not being able to produce any of that and still maintain the "most documented" position.

Technically, the theory of evolution doesn't say we evolved from apes, but that both apes and humans had a common ancestor (indeed, making us close cousins, and two different species, though I have no idea what you mean by "completely"). I don't think that exactly pacifies creationists, though.

Evolution-???? Entropy??? do they match? Hmmm! The order of the universe??? Entropy??? Final conclusion- The grand creator- God!

Huh? This set of fragments is supposed to be an argument? Are you trying out for a spot on "World's Funniest Creationists"?

[Instructorus Rex]

As time goes on new species are created and the older version dies off. In fact it has been proven that all of the more "advanced" forms have actually been around just as long as their older version (you find them in the same hunk of rock that you pulled the new version from).


Um. . .no, that actually does not happen. We don't find all species mixed together from all time periods, we find them in a very consistent pattern. Unless you're taking some serious liberties with the terms "species", "versions", or "form" there's simply no way this even resembles a substantiated claim.

[Instructorus Rex]

Religion isnt only based off faith, did you know that Christ is the most documented person in history. just based off the fact that we dont have his bones, or the cross completely preserved doesnt mean there isn't hard evidence. Yeah sure evolution is a good theory, but when people say thatwe evolved from apes, it is completely disproven. we are two completely different species. at most we can be close cousin (in genetics).

While there exists a great deal of evidence to support the historical veracity of Jesus Christ the person this by no means adds up to anything resembling "the most documented person in history". Additionally, the historical existence of Christ is a very small part of Christianity - the majority is based on faith (Christ's miraculous acts, Christ rising from the dead, Christ's ongoing impact believer's every day lives) which cannot be documented.

The theory of evolution does not claim that human beings evolved from apes so it shouldn't come as a huge surprise that a claim evolution doesn't actually make isn't true.

[Instructorus Rex]

As for Creationism/Evolution...one question. If we have 'evolved' from apes and other species have done so then why are we not 'evolving' today or even for the past century for that matter? Why are there still apes among us? Were the only apes to evolve ones with a certain IQ? Ah, the ignorance!

You should be careful when chortling about the ignorance of others while making claims (i.e. evolution claims that human beings descended from apes) that are, themselves, ignorant.

[Unregistered]

They should both be taught. Creationism isn't teaching religion. It isn't teaching heaven and hell. It is teaching HOW this universe got here, through intelligent design or "stuff" without intelligence is eternal and suddenly poofed into existence. Creationism doesn't go against Muslim, Christian, Jew or other peoples that believe the universe didn't just "poof" into existence. Understand that when creationism is taught correctly, it doesn't infringe on anybodies rights or beliefs. It is put out there as the other option. Evolution is strictly a theory and the more that scientists study the universe the more (in number) scientists area beginning to believe that there is an intelligent designer out there.

This is not religion vs science. This is science.

[Unregistered]

not anybodies

[Instructorus Rex]

They should both be taught. Creationism isn't teaching religion. It isn't teaching heaven and hell. It is teaching HOW this universe got here, through intelligent design or "stuff" without intelligence is eternal and suddenly poofed into existence. Creationism doesn't go against Muslim, Christian, Jew or other peoples that believe the universe didn't just "poof" into existence. Understand that when creationism is taught correctly, it doesn't infringe on anybodies rights or beliefs. It is put out there as the other option. Evolution is strictly a theory and the more that scientists study the universe the more (in number) scientists area beginning to believe that there is an intelligent designer out there.

This is not religion vs science. This is science.

The problem with Creationism isn't that it offends anyone, it's that the evidence doesn't support it. Science is based on evidence so we go wherever the evidence points. Science doesn't really care who it offends, nor should it. That's why Creationism is no longer taught, that's why Creationism loses virtually all court battles in a Christian-dominated country, that's why Creationism should not and will not be taught as science in public education.

[Unregistered]

You say the evidence doesn't support creationism. I say it supports the tenets of creationism better than it does evolution. Fossils are one example of evidence that supports creationism's tenet of a young earth. Darwin said that the fossil record should be replete with "transitional forms" if his theory is correct. But where are these fossils? The fossils we find are of two kinds: 1. The same as the animals and plants we see today, and 2. Extinct animals and plants. The fossil record should be MOSTLY transitional forms, if it takes millions of years for a transition! Yet we don't find them. Every once in a while, an archaelogist will find a single fossil that gets touted as a transition, but where are the other billions of transitional fossils???

I say it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation! Check this out:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/the-lie/chapter2.asp

David Stanley
Texas

[Instructorus Rex]

You say the evidence doesn't support creationism. I say it supports the tenets of creationism better than it does evolution. Fossils are one example of evidence that supports creationism's tenet of a young earth. Darwin said that the fossil record should be replete with "transitional forms" if his theory is correct. But where are these fossils? The fossils we find are of two kinds: 1. The same as the animals and plants we see today, and 2. Extinct animals and plants. The fossil record should be MOSTLY transitional forms, if it takes millions of years for a transition! Yet we don't find them. Every once in a while, an archaelogist will find a single fossil that gets touted as a transition, but where are the other billions of transitional fossils???


No, the fossil record does not support creationism. We have quite a few known transitional fossils, but due to the nature of fossilization we don't end up with a complete record for each line of organisms. You can find a brief list of some of the better known ones at, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Invertebrates_to_Fish

Take birds for example, isn't it odd we don't find any bird fossils that predate winged theropods? Isn't rather peculiar that we see theropod dinosaurs without feathers & no birds then theropod dinosaurs with feathers & no birds, then birds? That's a record that supports evolutionary change, not sudden creation.

Additionally, if you take the stance that the fossil record is an accurate portrayal of the history of life on earth you run into some serious problems for Creationism. Why aren't all living things found together if they were all created within a short time? Why don't we ever find modern fossils like human beings with older fossils like dinosaurs? Why do we see a clear progression from simple to complex scattered out across the geological landscape?



I say it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation! Check this out:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/the-lie/chapter2.asp

David Stanley
Texas

I highly recommend you broaden your sources beyond creationist propaganda sites. Answers in Genesis is pretty much garbage science. . .they're better than some, but in terms of reliability they are a worthless resource. At the end of the day they base their methodology on this kind of logic.

"However, starting with the irrefutable evidence of the Scriptures, we are told that in God the Father and Christ “ … are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3). There is no way any human mind can know all there is to know. But we have someone who does. This ends our dilemma. We are in no doubt that what God has revealed in His Word is truthful and accurate. He is not a man that He should lie (Num. 23:19) about anything. In time, we will know more fully. He will add to our knowledge, but He will not change what His Word has already revealed.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/the-lie/chapter2.asp

You may be comfortable advocating we teach theories based on religious texts as more authoritative than observation in science classrooms but I am not. . .and fortunately the courts seem to favor my side, which is always nice.

The young earth creationism advocated by organizations like Answers in Genesis is pseudoscience. It cannot stand on observation and must inevitably look to revelation for support, and our schools do not teach revelation.

[Unregistered]

The fossil record is exactly what we would expect if everything were created, and then there was a global catastrophic flood. The reason you don't find birds "early" (e.g. deep) in the fossil record is that most of them managed to escape the rising flood waters longer than deep-sea creatures, amphibians, insects, small mammals, etc. It's not odd at all. It's exactly what we would expect. Similarly, we don't find a lot of human fossils with dinosaurs, but we do find some. What you see as a "clear progression from simple to complex" is not that at all. It's a clear progression of hydrologic sorting combined with agility to escape.

Soft tissue in unbroken T-Rex thigh bones is scientific evidence that these fossils are much younger than predicted by evolution, but very consistent with the young earth consistent with creationism. Soft tissue doesn't last millions of years. See http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html for the description of the find.

Since you brought up the topic of observabiliy, I'd like you to show me a single example of macroevolution (new species) that is observable.

[Instructorus Rex]

The fossil record is exactly what we would expect if everything were created, and then there was a global catastrophic flood. The reason you don't find birds "early" (e.g. deep) in the fossil record is that most of them managed to escape the rising flood waters longer than deep-sea creatures, amphibians, insects, small mammals, etc. It's not odd at all. It's exactly what we would expect.


Please do yourself a favor and actually familiarize yourself with the fossil record. We find all shapes and sizes of extinct creatures all over the place, hydrological sorting as an explanation of the fossil record is pseudoscience.


Similarly, we don't find a lot of human fossils with dinosaurs, but we do find some.


No, we don't. Never. Not one. You are either ignorant or being lied to.


What you see as a "clear progression from simple to complex" is not that at all. It's a clear progression of hydrologic sorting combined with agility to escape.


So. . .modern turtles managed to get away from the rising waters but prehistoric theropods could not? Seriously?


Soft tissue in unbroken T-Rex thigh bones is scientific evidence that these fossils are much younger than predicted by evolution, but very consistent with the young earth consistent with creationism. Soft tissue doesn't last millions of years. See http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html for the description of the find.


If all fossils are indeed that young we should expect MOST fossils to contain soft tissue. The finding of possible soft tissue here is exciting, but at best it's implications are that things may fossilize a little differently that previously thought, there is nothing in the original article or among experts in the relevant fields to suggest this is evidence of a young creation.


Since you brought up the topic of observabiliy, I'd like you to show me a single example of macroevolution (new species) that is observable.

Define "species" and "macroevolution" in a plausibly applicable way.

[e_scouter]

Hydrology, last time I checked, was a science, not a pseudoscience. I'm getting the impression that you are so bought-in to evolution that mere disagreement gets the label "pseudoscience". Can we talk like adults? Can we spare the insults?

Hydrologic sorting happens. It happened in the recent tsunami, where the ebb and flow of water laden with soil and other debris left clear layers, which are amazingly similar to the layers we see in the sedimentary layers. The material that was more dense and with less hydrodynamic friction ended up in the lower layers, and the the material that was less dense and having more hydronamic fricion ended up in the upper layers. That's science, not pseudoscience. Similarly, in the fossil record, of which I am somewhat familiar, the lower layers contain 1. Deep sea creatures, which lived there 2. Dense material and objects with less hydrodynamic friction, and 3. Due to turbulent and random effects, which would be common in a catastrophic flood, a few objects that would normally occur in higher layers. Hydrologic sorting is one of many scientific processes that determines what ends up in a particular layer during a catastrophic flood. Other things that influence the content of each layer are the depth of the animal's or plant's habitat (deep sea, shallow sea, land) and the agility of the animal to escape the flood waters.

I've seen clearly-human footprints within a few meters of dinosaur footprints in the same limestone layer in the Paluxy River in Texas. I just Googled and found several pages describing human and dinosaur fossils in the same rock layers. Yes, they are from creation web sites, and you will probably label them bogus. That's the way it works, right?

Turtles can swim. Theropods, at least the renderings I've seen of them, look like horrible swimmers. Seriously.

We might expect to find soft tissue in most fossils during the first few hundred years after the animals were buried, but over time the soft tissue will decay and be replaced with minerals leached in from surrounding water (fossilized). The larger diameter bones, if unbroken, take much longer (but not millions of years) to completely fossilize. The scientific processes of diffusion, permeation, oxidation, mineralization, etc. govern how fast fossilization occurs. No pseudoscience here.

Feel free to use the Wikipedia definitions of species and macroevolution. And good luck.

[Instructorus Rex]

Hydrology, last time I checked, was a science, not a pseudoscience. I'm getting the impression that you are so bought-in to evolution that mere disagreement gets the label "pseudoscience". Can we talk like adults? Can we spare the insults?


Hydrology is a science in which things are sorted by hydrodynamic principles. . .but when we apply those principles to the fossil record we can clearly see it was not created by hydrological sorting due to a recent global flood. Disagreements with evolution are not pseudoscience, disagreements with evolution that are based on craptastic science are pseudoscience. This is craptastic science.



in the fossil record, of which I am somewhat familiar, the lower layers contain 1. Deep sea creatures, which lived there 2. Dense material and objects with less hydrodynamic friction, and 3. Due to turbulent and random effects, which would be common in a catastrophic flood, a few objects that would normally occur in higher layers.


No. That's not what we find. Animals of all shapes and all sizes are found together in sediment of all shapes and sizes. We find small fossils in dense material stacked on top of small fossils in fine material stacked on large fossils in fine materials stacked on top of more and more. When you apply the actual principles of hydrology to the fossil record it doesn't fit, thus using hydrology as an explanation of the fossil record is the very embodiment of pseudoscience.

Nor do those random effects seem to have deposited even one large, dense, mastadon below even one small, light, theropod.


I've seen clearly-human footprints within a few meters of dinosaur footprints in the same limestone layer in the Paluxy River in Texas. I just Googled and found several pages describing human and dinosaur fossils in the same rock layers. Yes, they are from creation web sites, and you will probably label them bogus. That's the way it works, right?


Please realize the herculian effort I'm making not to be incredibly insulting about this. Even most young earth creationist organizations realize that the Paluxy River tracks are bogus. This is not based on arrogance or anti-religious sentiment, this is based on detailed research conducted by both evolutionist and creationist scientists.

However, initial critical work in the early 1970's (Neufeld, 1975), and more intensive scientific studies in recent years, have convincingly refuted the "man track" claims, and led to their abandonment even by most creationists. The alleged human tracks involve a variety of phenomena, including elongate dinosaur tracks, erosional features, indistinct markings of unknown origin, and a few carvings.
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/mantrack.htm


Turtles can swim. Theropods, at least the renderings I've seen of them, look like horrible swimmers. Seriously.


Theropods could probably outrun your average turtle. I'm going to go out on a limb and hypothesize that your average theropod could probably get to higher ground before your average turtle.


We might expect to find soft tissue in most fossils during the first few hundred years after the animals were buried, but over time the soft tissue will decay and be replaced with minerals leached in from surrounding water (fossilized). The larger diameter bones, if unbroken, take much longer (but not millions of years) to completely fossilize. The scientific processes of diffusion, permeation, oxidation, mineralization, etc. govern how fast fossilization occurs. No pseudoscience here.


It's nothing spectacular to harvest DNA from remains that are thousands of years old. If every fossil was formed during the flood we should be able to get DNA from the MAJORITY of fossil remains.


Feel free to use the Wikipedia definitions of species and macroevolution. And good luck.

So. . .you're telling me that speciation has never been observed?

[Unregistered]

Please realize the herculian effort I'm making not to be incredibly insulting about this. Even most young earth creationist organizations realize that the Paluxy River tracks are bogus. This is not based on arrogance or anti-religious sentiment, this is based on detailed research conducted by both evolutionist and creationist scientists.


Believe me, I appreciated your restraint. I was thinking of responding twice but couldn't get past this without becoming incredibly derisive.

I don't think e_scouter has really considered the ramifications of a worldwide flood. Probably has all the standard critiques of radiometric (oh, I forgot -- they just criticize carbon dating) handy. Perhaps even the pictures of "giants".

[Unregistered]

what i see here is a huge display of intolerance , coming from the creationism defenders. this is one of the reasons why religion and faith scares me. nothing has been more harmful to humanity than religion. Cultures have been dizimated in the name of god. fanaticism leading to killings and terror, not to mention infanticide by Herodes. Where was god when all this happened?

[Unregistered]

who has created god? who has created evil? ted bundy is human. he was created to image of god. so who is god? saddam hussein is also son of god? hitler?

[Unregistered]

I would suggest that you check out www.answeringenesis.org to obtain some accurate scientific evidence in regards to this matter. You can also obtain information on subjects like Mt. Saint Helen's eruption and how this disproved millions of years for pertrification to occur. They also have evidence of red blood cells found in the femur bone of T-Rex in Montana. There is an unlimited resource available through this website.

[Instructorus Rex]

I would suggest that you check out www.answeringenesis.org to obtain some accurate scientific evidence in regards to this matter.


That's an awful suggestion, answers in genesis is a horrible resource. While better than some pseudoscience creationist sites, they are still riddled with errors.


You can also obtain information on subjects like Mt. Saint Helen's eruption and how this disproved millions of years for pertrification to occur.


Flesh this out a little bit. Petrification is a rare form of fossilization whereby organic material is replaced by silica. I'm not aware of any such phenomena occurring as a result of volcanic eruptions.


They also have evidence of red blood cells found in the femur bone of T-Rex in Montana. There is an unlimited resource available through this website.

If you're referencing this article
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/blood.asp

It's important to note that the original researchers tentatively stated they had found "remnants" of hemoglobin and "possible" evidence of degraded red blood cells.

[Omkara]

One thing I do not understand is this. We look at creation. It is beautiful and complex. Therefore, we make the inference that there must be "a" creator. I mean, how else?

But this is entirely out of keeping with our theories of intelligence. Anyone, who is well educated about intelligence, can tell you that there are many kinds of intelligences. Our educational theory reflects this, as is appropriate, given the scientific discoveries about intelligence.

Now, in all of my investigations into the complex wonders of nature, and my subsequent positing of the proposition that there is clear evidence of intelligence in creation, I cannot see one bit of evidence by which I can conclude that there is one creator.

I propose therefore that we introduce a newer, hipper theory, which I call "Intelligences Designed."

This theory integrates the fundamental and more thoroughgoingly democratic elements of specialized interest gods, who are specialized creators.

There is no reason whatsoever to assume that the same creator who created rocks created also trees. I mean, what idiot would pick up a watch and thereby conjecture that since it is most clearly a designed object that the same designer who designed the Golden Gate Bridge also designed the watch.

That would clearly be absurd. It is obvious that there are many creators, as there are many intelligences. So, we should teach the children the truth so that they will grow to be better scientists, free of their mono-theistic prejudices, assumptions and conjectures.

Lets look at the facts as they appear. Things are, after all, as they appear.

The only question is, Which are the designers? The Orphics? Muslims? Jews? Christians? Mormons? Pagans? Shintoes? Taoists? Vedics? Jainists? Hindus? Scientologists? Railiens? Potato Heads? The Corn-Pone Opiners?

Mark Twain may give us some insight here: http://www.paulgraham.com/cornpone.html

[Unregistered]

They also have evidence of red blood cells found in the femur bone of T-Rex in Montana. There is an unlimited resource available through this website.

Factually incorrect. What was actually found was degraded veins with dessicated empty cell membranes of blood cells. It took several chemical baths to rehydrate the organic material to even make it identifiable.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html

Answers in Genitals as some like it call it, is a joke. I see they still have Andrew Snellings' lies about dating on their website. Still haven't figured out what Cogenetic samples are. Or aren't being honest about it.

[Unregistered]

One thing I do not understand is this. We look at creation. It is beautiful and complex. Therefore, we make the inference that there must be "a" creator. I mean, how else?

But this is entirely out of keeping with our theories of intelligence. Anyone, who is well educated about intelligence, can tell you that there are many kinds of intelligences. Our educational theory reflects this, as is appropriate, given the scientific discoveries about intelligence.

Now, in all of my investigations into the complex wonders of nature, and my subsequent positing of the proposition that there is clear evidence of intelligence in creation, I cannot see one bit of evidence by which I can conclude that there is one creator.

I propose therefore that we introduce a newer, hipper theory, which I call "Intelligences Designed."

This theory integrates the fundamental and more thoroughgoingly democratic elements of specialized interest gods, who are specialized creators.

There is no reason whatsoever to assume that the same creator who created rocks created also trees. I mean, what idiot would pick up a watch and thereby conjecture that since it is most clearly a designed object that the same designer who designed the Golden Gate Bridge also designed the watch.

That would clearly be absurd. It is obvious that there are many creators, as there are many intelligences. So, we should teach the children the truth so that they will grow to be better scientists, free of their mono-theistic prejudices, assumptions and conjectures.

Lets look at the facts as they appear. Things are, after all, as they appear.

The only question is, Which are the designers? The Orphics? Muslims? Jews? Christians? Mormons? Pagans? Shintoes? Taoists? Vedics? Jainists? Hindus? Scientologists? Railiens? Potato Heads? The Corn-Pone Opiners?

Mark Twain may give us some insight here: http://www.paulgraham.com/cornpone.html

Cute, omkara, and I genuinely appreciate that you don't go from "intelligent designer" to your own pet religion (0h, and I'm not sure Daoists actually have a deity in their system).

However, you are assuming "intelligent design". It begs the question of what an "intelligence" actually is, and whether a complex interaction of nonsentient forces could be considered an "intelligence". These would then have no physical being, would not be "omniscient" in any kind of normal usage (after all, is the force of gravity "omniscient" because it applies everywhere?), and would certainly not be omnipotent (the force of gravity is unlikely to be setting up extradimensional planes for punishment or reward of human moral choices).

As to your question, I'd go with "none of the above" -- even if I *did* think there were some kind of supernatural entity that created things.

[Unregistered]

How did a giant sloth which moves at a pace of 1 mph manage to outlive an ancient marine squid during the flood?

After all, the ancient marine squid is found in a layer below the sloth suggesting it died earlier and was buried earlier.

How did a slow moving land mammal survive a water flood longer then an organism that lives its whole life in water?

[Omkara]

Well, not all of them have to be the smart kind of intelligences. I mean, which one is responsible for birth defects?

But the Grand Canyon, that one was smart! To stack all of those rocks just so that they will guide the river through and not block it. Think of the complex mathematics which would assure that the slope of the grade were just right!

But again, we can't call all of the creator intelligent. Which one gave us the gene for faith? Couldn't that god see the problems of bigotry which would arise therefrom?

I bet that god also invented anxiety. That would make sense.

[Unregistered]

Well, not all of them have to be the smart kind of intelligences. I mean, which one is responsible for birth defects?

But again, we can't call all of the creator intelligent. Which one gave us the gene for faith? Couldn't that god see the problems of bigotry which would arise therefrom?


Sure. You just have to remove the assumption that a god be benevolent, and then those sound like great ideas.

[Unregistered]

As a parent and a teacher, I see both sides of the argument. However, given the fact that evolution is also a THEORY, as Darwin himself stated, how can we discount creationism out of hand? Every year, there is more and more evidence of a systematic form of creation in our world. Why not present both arguments and let people decide for themselves? Our public schools are so strong on INDOCTRINATION, there is no room for a serious discussion of beliefs. Especially for Christians and Jews.
By the way, separation of Church and State involves the establishment of a state run religion. The fact that we don't allow students or especially teachers to pray is absurd!!

[Unregistered]

As a parent and a teacher, I see both sides of the argument. However, given the fact that evolution is also a THEORY, as Darwin himself stated, how can we discount creationism out of hand? Every year, there is more and more evidence of a systematic form of creation in our world. Why not present both arguments and let people decide for themselves? Our public schools are so strong on INDOCTRINATION, there is no room for a serious discussion of beliefs. Especially for Christians and Jews.
By the way, separation of Church and State involves the establishment of a state run religion. The fact that we don't allow students or especially teachers to pray is absurd!!


What "both sides" of the argument do you actually see? Because it sounds very one-sided -- like you support both creationism and teacher-led prayer in schools.

Evolution is a theory in the same way as the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and heliocentric theory. It is scientific, while creationism is not. That is why creationism is dismissed in science class. Presumably it is discussed in Bible classes (but, you know, because of the marginalization of Christians and Jews, those Bible classes are hugely outweighed by the number of Koran, Bhaghavad-Gita, Book of Mormon, and Shinto belief classes).

Find me some atheists threatening to disown their children if they become religious, and maybe then we can begin to have a discussion on indoctrination.

We allow both students and teachers to pray. Students are generally unrestricted from praying in non-disruptive ways. Some teachers fail to respect this, which is unfortunate, but just the fact that some teachers restrict students praying does not mean the law restricts students this way. Teachers may pray in the teacher's lounge or outside of school.

[Instructorus Rex]

As a parent and a teacher, I see both sides of the argument. However, given the fact that evolution is also a THEORY, as Darwin himself stated, how can we discount creationism out of hand?


If you are talking about a literal genesis account then I would say we discount it "out of hand" because you lost this battle on the evidence over a century ago. I don't teach pseudoscience, come up with evidence for creationism that isn't based on pseudoscience and we'll talk.


Every year, there is more and more evidence of a systematic form of creation in our world. Why not present both arguments and let people decide for themselves?


Because one argument is based on evidence while the other is based on pseudoscience. I don't teach pseudoscience. See above.


Our public schools are so strong on INDOCTRINATION, there is no room for a serious discussion of beliefs.


You can discuss your beliefs all you want but if they conflict with observable evidence then your beliefs are wrong.


By the way, separation of Church and State involves the establishment of a state run religion. The fact that we don't allow students or especially teachers to pray is absurd!!

Just how well does that argument sit with you when a muslim teacher leads the class in a prayer to Allah? How about when a Hindu teacher offers up thanks to Brahma? No religion worth it's salt NEEDS a state sponsor and I daresay you would feel much differently if the said teacher were praying to a different god than the one you believe in.

[e_scouter]

When you apply the actual principles of hydrology to the fossil record it doesn't fit, thus using hydrology as an explanation of the fossil record is the very embodiment of pseudoscience.

If you apply ONLY hydrology to the fossil record, it doesn' fit. You're picking and choosing what I said.

Nor do those random effects seem to have deposited even one large, dense, mastadon below even one small, light, theropod.

I-Rex, you don't even know the difference between mass and density! Mastodons are large, but they aren't dense. And if they were anything like today's elephants, they are excellent swimmers. And you imply that therapods are less dense because they're small and light? THIS is the embodiment of craptastic (using your pseudovocabulary) pseudoscience.

Theropods could probably outrun your average turtle. I'm going to go out on a limb and hypothesize that your average theropod could probably get to higher ground before your average turtle.

Well, allow me to join you on your limb and hypothesize that swimming trumps running when it comes to floods. Theropods were probably agile. That's why most of them are relatively high in the fossil layers.


If every fossil was formed during the flood we should be able to get DNA from the MAJORITY of fossil remains.?

Sorry, I-Rex, but science isn't exactly oozing out of that statement. If every fossil was formed during the flood, then we would find distinct species, either just like the ones we see today, or extinct species. And that's exactly what we find. If, on the other hand, fossils were formed over millions of years, and evolution was true, the fossil record would be overwhelmed with transitional species, because your theory says transitions happened gradually over long periods of time. I-Rex, we just don't find that. But I'm confident that these facts won't deter you from your religious belief in evolution. Your faith in a broken theory is unbending.


So. . .you're telling me that speciation has never been observed?
My challenge stands.

[Unregistered]

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/fossil_series.html

Gives examples of

"For another, Flood supporters explain the fossil record as being the result of hydraulic sorting. But, a flood would normally sort large things to the bottom, and the Pelycodus sequence is large-at-the-top. It and the Radiolarian sequence have two sizes at the top, not one size. And Pelycodus was changing in other ways, although that was left off the diagram to keep things clear and simple.

In the Pelycodus sequence and the Eocoelia sequence, the diagrams show ranges and confidence intervals. Wouldn't a flood have got the occasional animal out of place? The ranges show that that didn't happen. Some Flood supporters emphasize that faster animals would have climbed to higher ground - but that can't apply to Eocoelia, a seashell. And the Radiolarians and some Forams float freely in the ocean. These are very different creatures, and yet none of them have out-of-place fossils.

Some Flood supporters argue that there were multiple floods. This only explains a smooth sequence if there were a great many floods. It also concedes that evolution and speciation was happening, and presumably at a frightening pace - much faster than is observed today.

The Pelycodus sequence is found in 1600 vertical feet of non-marine sediment. This sediment does not show any wide-scale turbulent mixing, nor does the rock show any signs of being interrupted and then resumed. This 1600 foot section (and the rock above it) was formed instantly, by a non-flood miracle, or else it formed slowly and continuously. "

Since he's dealing with shells and snails, agility would have little effect.

As far as speciation, http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=examples+of+speciation

[Instructorus Rex]

If you apply ONLY hydrology to the fossil record, it doesn' fit. You're picking and choosing what I said.



I can apply any creationist argument you've thrown out thus far, none of them fit. I'll illustrate this point below.


I-Rex, you don't even know the difference between mass and density! Mastodons are large, but they aren't dense. And if they were anything like today's elephants, they are excellent swimmers. And you imply that therapods are less dense because they're small and light? THIS is the embodiment of craptastic (using your pseudovocabulary) pseudoscience.


If I describe a theropod as "small" (volume) and "light" (mass) it stands to reason they are not terribly dense. A mastadon can be generally assumed to have the same density of any other living thing proportional to it's volume. But even if both the theropod and the mastadon are the same density the mastadon will have more mass because of it's larger size/volume. I'm not a 1st grade teacher so I really can't give you a more basic explanation than that.


Well, allow me to join you on your limb and hypothesize that swimming trumps running when it comes to floods. Theropods were probably agile. That's why most of them are relatively high in the fossil layers.


Sweet, is there a particular reason why all the Plesiosaurs couldn't hack it in a flood and managed to all get dead before all the giant sloths?


Sorry, I-Rex, but science isn't exactly oozing out of that statement. If every fossil was formed during the flood, then we would find distinct species, either just like the ones we see today, or extinct species.


Seriously, make a more general claim. . ."we should expect to find species either of things that are alive today, or extinct species" This is pretty much exactly what evolution or any theory predicts, we will find fossils of animals that, barring the rare time traveling giant sloth, will be either from the present or the past. What else is there to find? Fossils of species from the future?


And that's exactly what we find. If, on the other hand, fossils were formed over millions of years, and evolution was true, the fossil record would be overwhelmed with transitional species, because your theory says transitions happened gradually over long periods of time. I-Rex, we just don't find that.


There are numerous factors (http://toarchive.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html) which render fossil finds a rarity and thus limit the number of fossils we have to begin with. However, the claim that we don't find enough transitional fossils is simply false; take the evolution for the modern horse as an example:

Again, consider the fossil horses; Hyracotherium lived during the Eocene whereas Equus lived during the Pleistocene and Recent. In intervening rocks, we find a geochronologic succession (Norell & Novacek, 1992) of horse species and genera that exhibit gradual, progressive morphologic change from four toes (digits II - V) to one toe (digit III) on the front feet (Simpson, 1951; Carroll, 1988, p. 533-536; MacFadden, 1992). First, digit V (pinkie) was reduced to a splint and disappeared resulting in horses with three functional toes. Subsequently, digits II and IV (index and ring finger, respectively; flank the middle toe/finger on each side) were reduced in size simultaneously, resulting first in non-functional toes (they did not contact the ground) and ultimately in tiny splints as in the modern horses (Simpson, 1951; Carroll, 1988, p. 533-536; MacFadden, 1992). Significant changes in size and shape of the skull and body, along with teeth morphology, also happened in parallel (Simpson, 1951; Carroll, 1988, p. 533-536; MacFadden, 1992). That is descent with modification, and provides very strong, incontrovertible evidence for evolution.

Transitional Fossils
(http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_04.htm)


But I'm confident that these facts won't deter you from your religious belief in evolution. Your faith in a broken theory is unbending.


My views as to the reliability of evolutionary theory are predicated on evidence. Scientific theories have been constantly changing and their most fervent supporters have changed their stances based on evidence. Bring me some evidence and I'll give your beliefs some respect.

[Unregistered]

The fossil record is exactly what we would expect if everything were created, and then there was a global catastrophic flood. The reason you don't find birds "early" (e.g. deep) in the fossil record is that most of them managed to escape the rising flood waters longer than deep-sea creatures, amphibians, insects, small mammals, etc. It's not odd at all. It's exactly what we would expect.

So you're saying that flightless birds as an entire species managed to outlive and escape the flood faster then marine species which thrive in water?

How again is that not odd? Species inherently vulnerable to floods living longer then species which live in water are more likely to survive a global flood?

Furthermore, few birds are capable of staying in the air for significant periods of time. And why would deep sea creatures be MORE likely to die BEFORE birds?

Similarly, we don't find a lot of human fossils with dinosaurs, but we do find some.

Actually we have none. Either you are lying or the source you got your "information" from is lying to you.

What you see as a "clear progression from simple to complex" is not that at all. It's a clear progression of hydrologic sorting combined with agility to escape.

This makes no sense. Hydrological sorting sorts things by density and size. Therefore we should see dolphins in the same layer with ancient sharks and ancient whales. We don't. Furthermore, we should see all shellfish with similar size and similar densities in the same layer independent of complexity. We don't. On top of that, your asinine agility to escape should clearly place marine organisms, including ancient ones well above the layers of sloths which have an inherent inability to escape anything. Furthermore, we should see quick dinosaurs such as ceoplhysis in layers above organisms less agile, like elephants. We don't. You are wrong.

Soft tissue in unbroken T-Rex thigh bones is scientific evidence that these fossils are much younger than predicted by evolution, but very consistent with the young earth consistent with creationism. Soft tissue doesn't last millions of years. See http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html for the description of the find.

LOL. That bull****? You do realize that what was found had to be chemically rehydrated numerous times to even be recognized? The creationist movement has essentially lied to everyone about what was actually found.

Since you brought up the topic of observabiliy, I'd like you to show me a single example of macroevolution (new species) that is observable.

Define new species.

[Unregistered]

I a curious how many of the posts were from biology major/minors and actually paid attention to class...especially in statistics class. Creationism doesn't claim that evolution doesn't exist it just didn't start life. Statistically, the chances of the universe having the right conditions to sustain a planet like ours in addition to the statistical probability of life being as complex as it is, especially at the cellular level, and as varied are more than one in trillions (extremely generous). Life didn't "evolve" just once on this planet but after the anhilation of the planets population more than three times. If your going to teach science, you need to teach as many of the theories as possible. Inform your students and let them make their own beliefs. After all, it was once taught that the earth was flat and the idea of the earth being a sphere was considered blasphemy. Besides, the Bible even states, in the old testament, that the earth was round...long before it became accepted among the 'scientific' community.

[Unregistered]

the chances of the universe having the right conditions to sustain a planet like ours in addition to the statistical probability of life being as complex as it is, especially at the cellular level, and as varied are more than one in trillions (extremely generous).

Baloney. You don't know what the statistics actually are. Statistics on the origin of life are a joke -- they start with broad assumptions and go from there. Creationists like to compute statistics as if it were claimed all the amino acids were thrown up in the air and fell on the floor in the right combination to produce full-length strands of DNA.

[Unregistered]

Baloney? That's the best you can do. You don't want to argue statistics and say they don't mean anything? Fine, I can deal with that. In the scheme of all this chaos we call life, it is organized in such a way that it could not have happened randomly. The organization from the smallest atom to ecology (noone said to throw out evolution altogether) and extending to the systems of the universe could not have happened just out of some atoms and energy being tossed into the air and landing where ever they do. The first law you learn in science is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transferred. So, where did the first atom of come from? These are the questions we should be wrapping our students' minds around. The kids aren't too stupid to consider abstract possibilities. Give the kids an opportunity to contemplate questions that we really don't have the answers to. That's the foundation of science. Questioning, testing, and proving...that's what makes discussing, not teaching, creationism in the classroom so important.

[Unregistered]

You're not "arguing" statistics. You're simply making an assertive claim that they support your side. I claim you (or rather, whoever you're citing) is making base assumptions that are unwaranted in forming the statistics. And, that you're treating the situation unrealistically. You'll be telling me about Boeing 747's soon, I'll bet.

While where the first atom came from may be an interesting question to ask, there's simply nothing there to teach. At a high school level, pretty much nothing at all. It's not like they're forbidden to think about it -- they can ponder all they want in their off time.

There is no testing or proving in creationism.

[Instructorus Rex]

Baloney? That's the best you can do. You don't want to argue statistics and say they don't mean anything? Fine, I can deal with that.


It's a drake equation, by that I mean there is no way you can know any of the variables necessary to make an accurate calculation. You can try it out here (http://www.dimaggio.org/AIG/Drake%20Equation/). Notice how all the variables are unknowns. So basically yes, your calculation is baloney. . .and that's putting it nicely.


Give the kids an opportunity to contemplate questions that we really don't have the answers to. That's the foundation of science. Questioning, testing, and proving...that's what makes discussing, not teaching, creationism in the classroom so important.

If you want to believe in a religious interpretation that contradicts observable evidence that is your choice. If you want to believe in a religious interpretation that accepts observable evidence that is also your choice. Neither of these choices, however, changes the essential foundation of science - the observable evidence. That's just about all the discussing creationism does and should get in my classroom.

[Unregistered]

Creationism doesn't claim that evolution doesn't exist it just didn't start life.

Indeed it doesn't. Creationism just denies evolution as a whole.

Statistically, the chances of the universe having the right conditions to sustain a planet like ours in addition to the statistical probability of life being as complex as it is, especially at the cellular level, and as varied are more than one in trillions (extremely generous).

As others have pointed out, your equation requires the knowledge of all factors. Good luck with that.

Life didn't "evolve" just once on this planet but after the anhilation of the planets population more than three times.

Actually life hasn't stopped evolving even through the extinction events that have occurred on the planet. What life hasn't done is arise more then once from non-life.

If your going to teach science, you need to teach as many of the theories as possible.

Theories? What other theories exist besides TOE?

A theory is an aggregation of facts, evidence, experiments and hypotheses. Creationism has nothing but speculation and intelligent design is nothing more than a glorified God of the Gaps argument.

What you propose is teaching kids fairy tales.

Inform your students and let them make their own beliefs.

I wasn't aware that science was now about beliefs rather then empirical data.

After all, it was once taught that the earth was flat and the idea of the earth being a sphere was considered blasphemy. Besides, the Bible even states, in the old testament, that the earth was round...long before it became accepted among the 'scientific' community.

That's only if you reinterpret scripture to make it fit known knowledge. A literal interpretation without any facts about the real world dictate a flat Earth.

Try again.

[Unregistered]

You can argue evolution over creation all you want by trying to use facts. Fact number one, there is no factual proof of creation. Fact number two, there is no factual proof of evolution either. There have been no missing links founds through any fossil layers. If you think that children should think and ponder on there own time, what exactly is your job. By the time the kids are in high school they have memorized enough info and hopefully have been taught to theorize and analyze for themselves. Teaching isn't just about having kids memorized a bunch of information, it's about teaching them to make the appropriate judgements based on the available information and to expand their ability to learn more complex ideas. When you teach just evolution you are just as bad as the religious extremists that believe no evolution should be taught at. Their the left and you're the 'right'.

[Unregistered]

Isaiah 40:22 (New International Version)

22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Wells is a fellow of the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture:
Wells' idea is simple: In the ten chapters that make up most of the book, he tackles an equal number of what he calls "icons," -that is, myths- of evolutionary biology, attempting to show that biology textbooks don't tell the whole story, are out of date, or oversimplify what is known. From there he concludes that because these icons are the best "proofs" of evolution, biologists don't have a leg to stand on and they should once and for all abandon their ideological positions and open their minds to a truer and better science, which of course must include the possibility of intelligent supernatural design (Dembski 1998).chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience//Pigliucci-IconsReview.html

I can always add more. I think the least we should do as educators is to explore and familiarize ourselves with as much information rather than taking what is told to us as set in stone. Many scientists over the years have gone against the flow of society have also provided us with our scientific foundations whick also have changed over the centuries. Are we that arrogant to think that our opinion or what we know is unchangeable, that there are no other possibilities? That sounds awful, closed minded to me. I am at least willing to consider the combination of creation and theory.

[Unregistered]

You can argue evolution over creation all you want by trying to use facts. Fact number one, there is no factual proof of creation. Fact number two, there is no factual proof of evolution either. There have been no missing links founds through any fossil layers. If you think that children should think and ponder on there own time, what exactly is your job. By the time the kids are in high school they have memorized enough info and hopefully have been taught to theorize and analyze for themselves. Teaching isn't just about having kids memorized a bunch of information, it's about teaching them to make the appropriate judgements based on the available information and to expand their ability to learn more complex ideas. When you teach just evolution you are just as bad as the religious extremists that believe no evolution should be taught at. Their the left and you're the 'right'.

If by "missing link" you mean "transitional forms", you are quite incorrect. Additionally, there is abundant evidence for evolution, including seeing it in a laboratory -- look up the Lenski experiment for starters. Multiple fields of science offer evidence supporting evolution. Your offering up falsehoods in defense of your position simply shows you haven't memorized much at all, nor learned to analyze or synthesize for yourself. Or even do web searches.

Creationism offers nothing of any intellectual or educational merit.

[Unregistered]

My fortune teller read my future once, and said, "There will be a windy period in your life soon. Someone will be watching over you."

Therefore, there must be a designer. I mean, who made wind? Intestinal bacteria are no sufficient explanation. Where can those bacteria live, but in an intestine? Therefore, there must be a designer.

I can smell design. The fart is contained in the hole, but the hole is not contained in the fart.

It follows that there is design in the hole, which is contained in the fart. This is a miracle, which observes not the law of the excluded middle.

Logic cannot be applied to the hole, which both is and is not contained in the farts. Hence the hole is outside of space and time.

"Be-Holed!" Said He, and hence there came a Big Bang.

So there is room in the Science class room for God and Fortune Tellers. I'd have never seen the light were it not for that fateful day: me, my fortune teller and my copy of Principia Mathematica.

[Unregistered]

I was under the impression that we were discussing evolution as the beginning of life. I can give you that individual species did evolve over time like the dog from wolf but I question that evolution itself made man from early fish the whole primordial ooze thing. It's great Lensky can evolve E. Coli to eat more efficiently and adapt to ingesting citrate, yes I read it, the fact still remains...that bacteria will not evolve into a prion or virus. You would have to change the DNA at the most basic level, rewrite the instructions, add proteins, amino acids in all the right combinations, essentially change the majority of the DNA composition. That type of complex transcription change would need to be too extensive to happen in nature. The possibility of viability is also pretty remote because the DNA would repair itself. I can understand that it happens over thousands of millenia but an E. Coli bacteria adapting a few mutations is something totally different than E. Coli becoming a Cold Virus.

[Unregistered]

Evolutionism teaches the appearance of life from non-life, followed by patterns of innovation and diversification from a single-celled ancestor to the great diversity of life we see around us today. Evolutionary predictions are shown in the top two graphics. The actual physical evidence of the fossil record is shown in the bottom two. The prediction is falsified, even when interpreted according to uniformitarian (old earth) belief.

Described recently as "the most important evolutionary event during the entire history of the Metazoa," the Cambrian explosion established virtually all the major animal body forms -- Bauplane or phyla -- that would exist thereafter, including many that were 'weeded out' and became extinct. Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla, some people estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100. The evolutionary innovation of the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary had clearly been extremely broad: "unprecedented and unsurpassed," as James Valentine of the University of California, Santa Barbara, recently put it. (Lewin)

The gaps in the fossil record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt. (Wesson) http://www.rae.org/FAQ01.html


I would rather just admit that God created life and its ability to adapt. I just don't believe (or see proof of) humans developing from apes, sorry.

[Unregistered]

I was under the impression that we were discussing evolution as the beginning of life. I can give you that individual species did evolve over time like the dog from wolf but I question that evolution itself made man from early fish the whole primordial ooze thing. It's great Lensky can evolve E. Coli to eat more efficiently and adapt to ingesting citrate, yes I read it, the fact still remains...that bacteria will not evolve into a prion or virus. You would have to change the DNA at the most basic level, rewrite the instructions, add proteins, amino acids in all the right combinations, essentially change the majority of the DNA composition. That type of complex transcription change would need to be too extensive to happen in nature. The possibility of viability is also pretty remote because the DNA would repair itself. I can understand that it happens over thousands of millenia but an E. Coli bacteria adapting a few mutations is something totally different than E. Coli becoming a Cold Virus.

Your instinct that it wouldn't happen in nature is just that: a pure, gut instinct. If I gave you a list of everything the body needs to do just to keep itself alive you'd also be flabbergasted. The thing is, you have no legitimate way of differentiating between wolf to dog from bacteria to fish. They're the same kinds of changes, just more pronounced. It's like saying you can never walk from New York to California but you can walk across the room. Given enough time, there's no effective difference between walking to California and walking across the room.

The Lenski experiment took 20 years. Life started 3 and a half billion years ago.

As a side note, evolution is not actually the beginning of life. That's abiogenesis, which is hypothetical. So in a way, comparing evolution and creationism is comparing two different things.

[Unregistered]

Evolutionism teaches the appearance of life from non-life, followed by patterns of innovation and diversification from a single-celled ancestor to the great diversity of life we see around us today. Evolutionary predictions are shown in the top two graphics. The actual physical evidence of the fossil record is shown in the bottom two. The prediction is falsified, even when interpreted according to uniformitarian (old earth) belief.

Described recently as "the most important evolutionary event during the entire history of the Metazoa," the Cambrian explosion established virtually all the major animal body forms -- Bauplane or phyla -- that would exist thereafter, including many that were 'weeded out' and became extinct. Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla, some people estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100. The evolutionary innovation of the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary had clearly been extremely broad: "unprecedented and unsurpassed," as James Valentine of the University of California, Santa Barbara, recently put it. (Lewin)

The gaps in the fossil record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt. (Wesson) http://www.rae.org/FAQ01.html


I would rather just admit that God created life and its ability to adapt. I just don't believe (or see proof of) humans developing from apes, sorry.

The graphs show the Cambrian explosion at a few hundred million years ago, and then compare it to an unspecified "time". The amount of time looked at in the graphs is one-tenth of the total time. The Cambrian "explosion" itself was over 10 million years -- while this is indeed a burst in geological time, consider how long it truly is.

That you'd "rather just admit that God created life" is a bit strained. You see no proof of evolution, and yet you see proof of a deity? What you should be admitting is that you want it to have been God, not that you're forced into that conclusion.

[Instructorus Rex]

Evolutionism teaches the appearance of life from non-life, followed by patterns of innovation and diversification from a single-celled ancestor to the great diversity of life we see around us today.


100% wrong. The theory of evolution deals with the origin of the species, abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis) deals with the origin of life.


Evolutionary predictions are shown in the top two graphics. The actual physical evidence of the fossil record is shown in the bottom two. The prediction is falsified, even when interpreted according to uniformitarian (old earth) belief.


Your graphs are complete jokes. And by "jokes" I'm referring to that kind of bad joke that is blatantly inaccurate and not really funny in any kind of way except a lingering chortle of disdain. When you've got more than inaccurate charts and propaganda someone might let your theories close to a science classroom, until then enjoy the dung heap of pseudoscience because you're not leaving it any time soon.

[Unregistered]

100% wrong. The theory of evolution deals with the origin of the species, abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis) deals with the origin of life.

This is incorrect. The Theory of evolution does not discuss how life arose, just how life changes. Evolution in its simplest form is change in allele frequencies over time. No-living things don't have alleles. Therefore, evolution does not discuss them. Abiogenesis is not part of the theory but is related on an overall view of naturalistic forces.

[Unregistered]

This is incorrect. The Theory of evolution does not discuss how life arose, just how life changes. Evolution in its simplest form is change in allele frequencies over time. No-living things don't have alleles. Therefore, evolution does not discuss them. Abiogenesis is not part of the theory but is related on an overall view of naturalistic forces.

I think you ought to read the quote before you respond; nothing in Instructorus' post is inconsistent with what you just stated. He is just responding to someone else's assertion that "evolution teaches the appearance of life from non-life", and identifying the study of the origin of life as abiogenesis and distinct from evolution.

Are we that arrogant to think that our opinion or what we know is unchangeable, that there are no other possibilities?

No, that would be religions such as Christianity and Catholicism and Islam that are that arrogant. They're the ones who are pushing creationism.

[Instructorus Rex]

This is incorrect. The Theory of evolution does not discuss how life arose, just how life changes. Evolution in its simplest form is change in allele frequencies over time. No-living things don't have alleles. Therefore, evolution does not discuss them. Abiogenesis is not part of the theory but is related on an overall view of naturalistic forces.

Read it twice, post it once.

[Unregistered]

Hello, I was doing a essay on the Evolution vs Creationism argument and just wanted to ask what you people think of it

I think the debate is problematic for both sides. Evolution can explain the Big Bang but not the existance of the primeival atom while Creationists want to paint science with a faith brush (not questioning is belief). One possibility is in how we define "God". Is this simply a state of mind? Is 'god' something that exists in all humans that we have free will to ignore or pay attention to? Does it matter in 2009 if we got here through evolution or through creation or a combination of both? The more important question would see to be where are we headed? The belief in God has not prevented evil nor has it prevented harm done in his/her name. There are good people who do not believe in teh same god and people who do harm but who claim to be Godly. Retoric of evolution v creation is filled with bias with creationists ignoring science and evolutionists relying on science. Perhaps both are right and wrong. The argument requires open minds to examine what we claim as fact (on both sides). Presently, it is a battle between freedom and control.

[hypeblackdog]

You talk about a being ,name god,as if this being is a Male.Has your supernatural being,presence its self to you? How does one know what happen at death? Who do you know,who has been on the other side and came back,and told you or anybody else,what was going on? I fail to see the reason or logic in believing that a so call person name "jesus"was both human and divine.In my opinion,this kind of faith believing shouldn't be taught in our school system. Only that with firm proofs should be taught in our school system. Old ancient myths has no place in the class room. The bible was written 300yrs after the facts,by questionable peoples. Main person being, king james,this guy was a notorious bad person. A mordantly intelligent person knowns,that a snake can't have a conversation with another human. I believe one would have to be delusional, to believe such event took place on this planet.Our schools system should only teach what can be proven with firm proofs.Cosmo Myths, are beyond the scope of rationality. Evolution and Creation can't be bridge.:rolleyes:

[hypeblackdog]

Evolutionism teaches the appearance of life from non-life, followed by patterns of innovation and diversification from a single-celled ancestor to the great diversity of life we see around us today. Evolutionary predictions are shown in the top two graphics. The actual physical evidence of the fossil record is shown in the bottom two. The prediction is falsified, even when interpreted according to uniformitarian (old earth) belief.

Described recently as "the most important evolutionary event during the entire history of the Metazoa," the Cambrian explosion established virtually all the major animal body forms -- Bauplane or phyla -- that would exist thereafter, including many that were 'weeded out' and became extinct. Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla, some people estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100. The evolutionary innovation of the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary had clearly been extremely broad: "unprecedented and unsurpassed," as James Valentine of the University of California, Santa Barbara, recently put it. (Lewin)

The gaps in the fossil record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt. (Wesson) http://www.rae.org/FAQ01.html


I would rather just admit that God created life and its ability to adapt. I just don't believe (or see proof of) humans developing from apes, sorry.Is believing in a invisible being,a rational thought? Do you really believe,that our planet was made in 6days time frame? Do you really believe that,god,demon,angle,hell,heaven,have a known existence in our universe?:rolleyes:

[hypeblackdog]

I think the debate is problematic for both sides. Evolution can explain the Big Bang but not the existance of the primeival atom while Creationists want to paint science with a faith brush (not questioning is belief). One possibility is in how we define "God". Is this simply a state of mind? Is 'god' something that exists in all humans that we have free will to ignore or pay attention to? Does it matter in 2009 if we got here through evolution or through creation or a combination of both? The more important question would see to be where are we headed? The belief in God has not prevented evil nor has it prevented harm done in his/her name. There are good people who do not believe in teh same god and people who do harm but who claim to be Godly. Retoric of evolution v creation is filled with bias with creationists ignoring science and evolutionists relying on science. Perhaps both are right and wrong. The argument requires open minds to examine what we claim as fact (on both sides). Presently, it is a battle between freedom and control.Should Old Ancient Myths be taught in our school system? Can faith believing be taught as absolute truth? Do you want somebody to control your mind?:rolleyes:

[hypeblackdog]

I think Evolution is crazy and should be talked about in school.

God created heaven and earth and he created man in his image so if we evolved from an animal how can god of created us in his image unless he looked like a monkey himself?Who created god? Its crazy to believe a human can be both,human and divine. Do you really know that jesus ever existed on this planet?:rolleyes:

[hypeblackdog]

I agree with the previous posters that the subject of Creationism belongs in philosophy class, not science class. But if you are mandated to teach it as science, a few difficulties must first be overcome.

First, which version of Creationism do you teach?
The fundy Christian version, the evangelical Christian version, the fundy Muslim version, the moderate Muslim version, the American Indian version (at least a half dozen variants of that), the Hindu version, the Buddhist version, the Zoroastrian version, etc.

Once that's been settled, we need to decide...

What does the teacher use for scientific evidence to support a particular religious belief? The available empirical evidence doesn't particularly support creationism or any particular version over another.

Third, who will train the teachers on a new curriculum? There are not, to my knowledge, any regionally accredited colleges that seriously teach Creationism as preferable to another view.

Fourth, will school boards compel teachers to violate their conscience if they hold a particular belief about one version of Creationism versus another?
no version of creation should be taught in our schools system?:rolleyes:

[hypeblackdog]

In response to "smiling": I'd have to agree. I am a scientist and a Christian and have long pondered and struggled with the seeming dilemma of evolution and creationism in the classroom. I have also come to the conclusion, albeit slowly, that God is the creator of all things, including evolution!
What firm proof do have that a supernatral being created this planet? Do you know what is out -there?:rolleyes:

[Instructorus Rex]

The bible was written 300yrs after the facts,by questionable peoples.


You must be talking about the Gospels here as opposed to the multiple books spanning thousands of years that make up the entire bible. Even then, various gospels were written at various times after the events they record. While the oldest actual manuscripts we know of were written sometimes hundreds of years later the original upon which they are based were probably quite younger.

Seriously, "peoples"?


Main person being, king james,this guy was a notorious bad person.


Really? King James wrote the bible? You should write a book about this fascinating time traveling English monarch, no doubt biblical scholars and critics everywhere would be thrilled to learn of it.


A mordantly intelligent person knowns,that a snake can't have a conversation with another human.


One might also suspect that a moderately intelligent person would know how to spell "moderately" in addition to being able to realize that a snake can't talk to "another" person.


I believe one would have to be delusional, to believe such event took place on this planet.Our schools system should only teach what can be proven with firm proofs.Cosmo Myths, are beyond the scope of rationality. Evolution and Creation can't be bridge.:rolleyes:

Your space bar = not just a giant rectangle on your keyboard.

On substance I agree about creationism not being taught in schools, but your shoddy presentation does nothing to bolster your argument.

[Unregistered]

Will someone please show me where in the Constitution the phrase "separation of church and state" exists.

[Unregistered]

Will someone please show me where in the Constitution the phrase "separation of church and state" exists.

Amendment I

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Amendment XIV

"No State shall...deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ......"

Numerous Supreme Court decisions have held that these clauses, interpreted with the aid of associated documents of the time, indicate there is a separation between church and state.

Of course, what's your argument here? If there were no separation between church and state, you'd want to be forcing students to learn bad science?

You're a relic.

[Unregistered]

Evolutionists believe that the "big bang" created everything. Lets look at it. The big bang was caused by energy. If you try to find a definition of energy, you will really never find what it is in its essence, only what it can do. No one really knows what it is. E=mc2 doesn't really explain things either. Every atom has this energy that comes from somewhere but where? We are only capable of manipulating it or seeing what it can do.

Then there's "chance". Evolutionists say we evolved the way we are because of chance. Chance is not capable of creating anything. If I flip a coin, it will come up 50 / 50 heads 50 / 50 tails. Chance didn't create this. I flipped the coin remember? It was the energy I used in my hand that made the coin flip.

I've studied several different theories on young earth or old earth and how the bible and science agree. There are many learned scientists and scholars that present very good cases for both. What it really boils down to is:

If the big bang created you and me as the result of chance, I'm going to call the energy of that big bang God.
If you believe in young earth creationism, you sill have to believe in God.

The other evidence is the Bible itself. If a book can foretell the future accurately as it is obviously doing, it needs checked out further. If it tells of someone that lived 2000 years ago, and all the great things that happened, and were witnessed by hundreds of people, and were recorded...it is true. It only takes 1 or 2 witnesses to stand up in court. 500 people witnessed Jesus alive after his death, burial, & resurrection.

[Greetings from Israel]

To say that creationism need be delegated to discussions of philosophy is to fallaciously suggest that in some way science is independent of philosophy. The difference between creationism and science is in their different philosophical approaches to understanding the natural laws which dominate the world. Modern science often claims to have detached itself from 'a priori' knowledge having replaced it with pure empiricism, which it claims as a superior method. However, it is important to note that theoretical sciences rely upon reason, putting the theories to empirical testing only retroactively to the conception of the idea. One famous example is the Theory of Relativity (specifically special relativity) which is founded upon two mathematical postulates, galileos principle of relativity and uniform speed of light in a vacuum to all observers. (postulates are statements taken as truths by way of reason alone which can never be empirically tested). Beyond this, it is important to note that historically empiricism and rationalism are 2 respected, though contested, methodologies.
Creationism with its foundation on the teachings of religious leaders and specifically God, most strongly can base its position on a priori knowledge and the view that we can not fully understand our world by observation alone. This is best exemplified by Plato's similie of the cave in which he compares mankind to a prisoner in a cave whos gaze is fixated on shadows on the wall. To the prisoner the world exists only of the shadows and this reflects the real world as it truly is. But should the prisoner apply reason, as only humans can, he will inevitably conclude that there could be more. When he does this, the prisoner is freed from the bondage of empirical conclusions and he will release himself and see that the shadows are simply a reflection of the sunlight on objects passing by the entrance to the cave. Plato and other idealists would not question the rational conclusion of empirical science, but would disagree that observation can truly lead us to a proper understanding of the laws of nature. Aquinas would say that we can NEVER understand the true nature of the highest laws, which is Gods will, but we can participate in them by applying our reason and following His Divine Laws.
Modern western scientists are in fact living a contradiction that essentially amounts to hypocrisy. While touting empiricism as the only method to understand nature, they conversely accept liberal democracy with its foundation in 'natural rights' which are abstract principles that any true empiricist would argue merely mask the true driving forces behind society. If ideas define the material world for human society, why is it that we think observation alone is enough to understand the laws defining the rest of nature? If human beings possessing 'natural rights' derived from reason independent of observation is so readily accepted by us, then why is it that we refuse to accept the possibility that the rest of nature also has such unobservable laws?

[Unregistered]

If the big bang created you and me as the result of chance, I'm going to call the energy of that big bang God.

Okay, first you. If you're going to redefine god in such a manner, you have to be prepared to give up everything one might be likely to associate with deities, such as sentience, continued existence, morality, omnipotence, interest in humanity, etc., etc.

At that point, you can still call the energy God if you want, but there's really no point, is there?

To say that creationism need be delegated to discussions of philosophy is to fallaciously suggest that in some way science is independent of philosophy.

It is not fallacious to say that creationism is not scientific. If you draw a Venn diagram of science and one of religion, even if some of the topics they deal with overlap it doesn't mean you need to discuss the other. In a public school in particular. Otherwise, you would say you must discuss plants when discussing animals because they're both living things. Or you must discuss diamonds when discussing sandstone because they're both rocks. Or that you must discuss diamonds when discussing animals because they're both forms of matter.


Creationism with its foundation on the teachings of religious leaders and specifically God, most strongly can base its position on a priori knowledge and the view that we can not fully understand our world by observation alone. This is best exemplified by Plato's similie <sic> of the cave in which he compares mankind to a prisoner in a cave whos gaze is fixated on shadows on the wall. To the prisoner the world exists only of the shadows and this reflects the real world as it truly is. But should the prisoner apply reason, as only humans can, he will inevitably conclude that there could be more. When he does this, the prisoner is freed from the bondage of empirical conclusions and he will release himself and see that the shadows are simply a reflection of the sunlight on objects passing by the entrance to the cave.

Even if every bit of this drivel were true, it would do nothing to prove creationism. Besides that, you've completely misinterpreted the meaning of Plato's metaphor (not simile).

[Greetings from Israel]

It is not fallacious to say that creationism is not scientific. ....[/QUOTE]

Even if every bit of this drivel were true, it would do nothing to prove creationism. Besides that, you've completely misinterpreted the meaning of Plato's metaphor (not simile).[/QUOTE]

I understand that you may wish to simplify topics through specification, but regardless, it is not my claim that creationism is not UNscientific, but rather that science is not independent of philosophy and its fundamental understandings and assumptions are grounded in philosophical warranties that are historically a basis for debate.

As for nitpicking on semantics, maybe I am not entirely familiar with how Plato's work is titled in English, but I was describing how his story is comparing mankind's cognitive formation to that of the prisoner in a cave, and comparison is a simile. Regardless, the story itself is an allegory, if anything.

More importantly I have not misunderstood the meaning of this work, simply applied it. The story is to show us Plato's assertion that there is understanding beyond which observation alone can understand. I think this philosophical stance is of particular importance to modern science and its foundation of empirically-based knowledge as the only true knowledge.

[Unregistered]

If I could offer a South African Primary, Public School perspective?

Until reasonably of late - or at least until 1994 - it was not permitted to teach evolution from a macroevolution viewpoint. Microevolution was permitted as long as it was termed as "an occurrence of small-scale changes within a specific population over a period of generations". Linked to this was at least one hour per school week of religious studies (Calvanistic - of course!). Creationism was linked to the religious studies curriculum and was heavily reinforced trhoughout the whole curriculum of other subjects. Of course this system was flawed -

Anyway, I think that our SA education system has managed to find a suitable balance between creationism and evolution - the teaching of evolution starts somewhere around the seventh grade (13 year olds) wherein simple aspects of evolutionary theory are taught. IN order to appease annoyed parents (who believed that public school's were teaching the doctrine's of satan) and rioting teachers (who refused to teach this), this section of work has been deemed "informal". This means that the National and Provincial departments of education expect the work content to be covered but not asssessed - in terms for promotion criteria.

Linked to this is the freedom granted to School Governing Bodies, which may select and implement their own choice of religion within the school. These religious practices (morning prayers, Bible readings, Assembly themes, visits by ministers of religion) are permitted as long as they are not proselytizing or unfairly discriminating against learners. Learners are given the opportunity to exit the classroom (when their parents have signed due documentation) during religious occurences.

The current school I teach at gives the individual teacher the choice to either implement basic evangelical Christianity at salient moments (morning prayer, Bible reading, reliigious instruction) or not, based on how the teacher feels about Christianity. A basic evolution module is taught in the fifth and seventh grade. Religious instruction still takes place - so I would teach Evolution in the second term for a period of a few weeks (2 weeks). Of course the kids would have already had 7 weeks (7 hours) of pro-creationistic teaching during the first term's religious instruction - showing a selection of contemporary creationistic science DVDs, guest speakers and copious amounts of Scripture reading and worksheets colouring in dinosaurs walking with Adam and Eve.

Of course this practice will differ between Primary Schools - some may favour Evolution more and may have more liberal teacher parent views. Some schools wouldn't even teach creationism, should they have opted to remove all religious practices from school.

I think that it is only fair, for the parents, that they have a choice in determining their children's outlook on such important matters as evolution, creationism etc. So, it really becomes a matter of saying I send my child to school X, because of their language policy and religious practices.

Of course things are more standardised at high school level and learners who selected biology as one of their subjects for grade 12 would have to immerse themselves in evolutionary thought.