Susan Jacoby is the author of The Age of American Unreason. She began her writing career as a reporter for The Washington Post, and has been a contributor to a wide range of periodicals and newspapers for more than 25 years on topics including law, religion, medicine, aging, women's rights, political dissent in the Soviet Union and Russian literature. Jacoby has been the recipient of grants from the Guggenheim, Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, as well as the National Endowment for the Humanities. In 2001-2002, she was named a fellow at the Center for Scholars and Writers at the New York Public Library. Jacoby’s other books include Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism (2004); Wild Justice: The Evolution of Revenge, a Pulitzer Prize finalist in 1984, and Half-Jew: A Daughter's Search for Her Family's Buried Past. She is working on a book about the relationship between American anti-intellectualism and political polarization, to be published by Pantheon in 2008. Her photo is by Chris Ramir.
Close.
Susan Jacoby
Author and reporter
Susan Jacoby is the author of The Age of American Unreason."more »
In the 800 year struggle between faith and reason begun with the fall of Rome and reaching a penultimate point with the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, perhaps the most critical observation was made by Anselm, the 11th Century Christian philosopher, "Nor do I seek to understand in order to believe, but I believe that I may understand . . . ." It remains a pitiable canard to imagine that ten centuries later mankind has resolved this dispute in favor of Greek Rationalism. The Greeks had a name for this: hubris. So long as salvation remains a religious goal driven more by fear than by love, we will face blind antirational beliefs. George F. Kennan gave us the "policy of containment," and smart urban governments are satisfied to effectively "contain" prostitution, so it seems that we must strive to merely "contain" the pernicious impact of antirationalism in our institutions, especially our schools.
In the 800 year struggle between faith and reason begun with the fall of Rome and reaching a penultimate point with the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, perhaps the most critical observation was made by Anselm, the 11th Century Christian philosopher, "Nor do I seek to understand in order to believe, but I believe that I may understand . . . ." It remains a pitiable canard to imagine that ten centuries later mankind has resolved this dispute in favor of Greek Rationalism. The Greeks had a name for this: hubris. So long as salvation remains a religious goal driven more by fear than by love, we will face blind antirational beliefs. George F. Kennan gave us the "policy of containment," and smart urban governments are satisfied to effectively "contain" prostitution, so it seems that we must strive to merely "contain" the pernicious impact of antirationalism in our institutions, especially our schools.
Intelligent Design is from Aristotles "Physics" in which he describe "Intelligent Action." The Greeks had their own theories very much like evolution, which Aristotle rejected in favor of the unseen hand of a designer. In the same piece, also Aristotle also rejected the idea of gravity and attributed the fact that rocks fall to the desire of rocks to be with their own kind.
The various tales of the Apocalyspse are derived from the Zoroastrian religion. Their messiah, the Saoshyant, will spread divine truth and lead humanity in the final battle against the forces of evil, followed by the ressurrection of the dead.
Aristotle lived 300 BC, Zoroastrianism goes back 1000 BC.
These pillars of Christian fundementalism are NOT IN THE BIBLE.
Intelligent Deisign and Millenialism are in fact PAGAN beliefs.
I am sorry for these experiences, Ms. Jacoby.
Please take heart- not all faith is blind.
Mine is a deliberate conscious choice because my mind was open and stays open.
Who can possibly criticize a deliberate conscious choice?
The bottom line is respect for others.
salaams
Brian S. - Thank you for taking time to explain your position further. Perhaps I don't undertand the whole of it. As a scientist how could you be drawn to a conclusion and offer it to others if you yourself don't entirely 'believe' it? Is it simply to see other's point of view? Quite honestly I have little interest in the subject. Science bores me to tears and quite honestly sounds much more farfetched than 'creation' or 'intelligent design' which of course probably makes it the more likely of the two but I simply don't think that it is. I suppose you could call that a 'belief'. I mean I believe there were dinosaurs. You probably say of course you do! We have bones that prove their existance. Well that is not enough proof for some people. My mother....bless her, does not believe in dinosaurs. She thinks they are a hoax planted by scientists. I suppose some people have to see certain things with their own eyes to believe them. I happen to just believe the world we live in is complex and amazing and full of mystery. I don't try to question it because I cannot forsee getting any enjoyment out of having my own 'theory' for how things came to be. I suppose I understand your conclusions even if I do not care to reach the same ones. Either way, thank you for your time in explaining your position. It is unbearably annoying to be misunderstood and misquoted to others. Hope everyone had a blessed Thanksgiving!
Jed, concerning your shallow understanding of those verses:
Matthew Chapter 24 clearly states, "Immediately after the tribulation of those days"
Matthew Chapter 10 says that the Gospel will not have been shared with everyone before the second-coming.
Matthew Chapter 16 is about the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary.
Romans Chapter 16:20 is a metaphore saying that if you can resist the tempations of Satan as they come, God will crush those tempations shortly.
James Chapter 5 has two meanings. One, be prepared for the second coming, and two, you may stand before the Judge at any moment; be ready.
1st letter of John Chapter 2 is in reference to the covenants of the Lord.
It is the pridefilled heart of man to assume he is the last generation. It is especially easy for us to assume that, as the prophecy concerning Israel has been fulfilled...however, between Creation and the Flood was 2200 years, between the Flood and Christ was 2400 years, following that logic, we're not quite there yet.
All supposed contradictions and errors are as easily pushed to the wayside.
More importantly, how will your conscience(which has recorded every lie, every petty-larceny, even innapropriate sexual thought, every hate-filled word, and every blasphemy) look on your judgement if the Bible is telling the truth?
I can't believe you guys are still discussing thing...I can't believe I came back to look!
Brian, you have said one of the most predictable things an evolutionists can say when cornered, "I'm not an expert." You paraphrased and said, "that requires too much specialized knowledge that I do not even have." There are not experts in evolution that believe the theory. The only people that have been 'de-programmed' of the brain-washing can see the true scope of the lie that you so blindly follow.
If you can't give a fact, that's fine, just give me a really good evidence, a forming star, a life-form that might have been a transition between kinds of animals, an example of how life might have started on earth...that's all I want.
Jeb, you are more brainwashed than Brian. I love science, I LOVE it. I hate the pseudoscience of Evolution. There is no contradiction in my thinking there, because evolution is not science. God Bless Science.
You seem to be quite indoctrinated in your religion, perhaps you'll be better equiped to post a fact of evolution for me.
I wouldn't expect you to concede the many contradictions and errors throughout the Bible, but what's really annoying is the smug, dismissive way you deny the issue exists, as if the very idea were absurd. Is this a tactic they teach in Apologetics 101? Because you know full well there are numerous apparent contradictions and I know full well you'll never admit any are valid.
Some of them are far from trivial:
"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven... and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven... THIS GENERATION SHALL NOT PASS, TILL ALL THESE THINGS BE FULFILLED" (Matthew 24:29-34)
Matt 10:23 When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
Matt 16:28 Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
Romans 16:20 And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly.
James 5:8 You also be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand…..Behold, the Judge is standing at the door!
1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last hour.
Pretty clear, isn't it? The letters of Paul, the gospels, and Revelations were all written by authors who expected the end of the world within their own generation. Jesus himself is clearly quoted saying that the second coming of the "son of man" would occur within the lifetime of the disciples. Well, all of those disciples are now dead, and it's two thousand years later...what gives?
I've seen some efforts to weasel out of it:
When Jesus says “Generation,” he really means "the Jewish race."
When Jesus says “Generation” he really means "wicked people of all generations"
When Jesus says "This" generation he really means "a future" generation.
When Jesus said this generation he meant it but the prophecy is delayed.
That might be okay for a liberal, but it's pretty feeble for an inerrantist. So some others have gone out and invented a whole doctrine called "preterism" just to explain this away, and clear up a few other messy issues. They simply declare that some portion of the "End Times" already took place before 70 AD, (and nobody noticed at the time, I guess) This gets them into a lot of fights with other fundamentalists about when they get to fly up to heaven to meet Jesus is the clouds. I'm oversimplifying this because there are 3 or 4 different groups of preterists, but at this point it's already sillier than Dungeons and Dragons...
Canyon Shearer, your attitude is astounding! You obviously use a computer. Have you ever taken an airplane, or been vaccinated against disease? How can you put your life in the hands of such products of modern science while denying the basis of the scientific method which made them possible?
What is the point of your reference to bloodletting? (Bloodletting predates the scientific method, anyway)How do erroneous beliefs from the past discredit science? Science is NOT a fixed, unchanging body of knowledge: It is an ongoing process. Science by definition must remain open to new evidence, and earlier answers are subject to modification and change.
Ironically, you attempt to discredit science by pointing to one of modern science's greatest achievements! You're right that through the early 19th century, doctors often spread infections among their patients. How could they know? It wasn't understood that microorganisms caused disease. The germ theory of disease was established through the experiments of Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch in the middle of the century, creating the basis for vaccination, sanitary food preparation, modern hygiene and antiseptic practices such as disinfection, etc. Modern medicine made tremendous advances after this breakthrough. Few people deny the germ theory of disease and groups which ignore its implications have a poor survival rate.
Your simplistic declarations about evolution reflect unbelievable arrogance or true delusion. The facts that support evolution are the basis of modern biology and inform large components of many other sciences such as anthropology, geology, paleontology, primatology, archeology, etc. The scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming - it long ago won acceptance as the best scientific explanation of human and nonhuman biology and the key to understanding the origin and development of life. Evolutionary assumptions and methods provide persuasive explanations for the great variety of Earth's living things, including human beings. Evolutionary concepts tie together such natural phenomena as genetic diversity, environmental change, adaptation, differential reproductive success, and speciation, thereby making evolution the central organizing principle of the life sciences. This consensus of scientific opinion is derived from biology, geology, paleontology, primatology, and archaeology. It is supported by anatomical studies and discoveries in medicine and medical anthropology.
There are mountains of scientific data that can be explained by and are consistent with the tenets of evolution. How could modern science function at all if it were organized and based on false principles? Are you suggesting a conspiracy theory involving thousands of scientists?
Are thousands of professionals in a range of fields all deluded? or are they deliberately falsifying data and engaging in a massive cover-up?
Debates about the mechanisms and details of evolution are a normal part of the scientific process. Opponents misuse quotations from prominent scientists to claim that they do not support evolution. However, examination of the quotations usually reveals that the scientists are actually disputing some aspect of how evolution occurs, not whether evolution occurred.
No, I'm not saying you should simply accept evolution as fact. I'm saying that the evidence points towards evolution. It is a matter of evidence guiding the acceptance, not, as you say, "simply accept" evolution. I'm also saying that by your remarks that the 2nd law is a problem for evolution is misleading because the degeneration of order is for closed systems, not open ones like living organisms. So that comment which, it seems to be one reason of evolution, is flawed and not backed up by evidence.
I'm not scoffing at you. I'm simply saying that there have been no reason to question evolution as of now. Again, you were saying that we accept evolution to be truth as if it is absolute. No scientist believes that. You created a strawman and knocked it down. Science works by probability. Thus, you were incorrect in how scientists view evolution. It has nothing to do with if you accept it or deny it. How can you reject what science "says" if science does not hold that position?
I do not consider evolution a belief because beliefs are subjective qualities that lack empirical justification. Also, you have not given reasons against the scientific literature. Perhaps that may be a good start. What scientific articles have you read that fail to support evolution? However, to override a scientific theory, one needs more than one problem, but rather numerous counter incidences.
But the main problem that I was addressing was that your ideas of fact and such were not how scientists use the terms. If you disagree, fine. But to not show why you disagree only appears to be a belief with no evidence, or not even a probable truth. Again, evolutionary theory is a probable truth. That is what I was stating. It is better to understand what science holds, and then critique it. But by not understanding what they mean by fact, then you are not arguing against science at all, but some mythical idea.
So I should based on your reasoning simply accept evolution as evidence-based 'fact'? How does that make evolution not a 'belief'? If I don't accept it as fact doesn't that make me a 'dis-believer'? and since I do not agree with the view that evolution is 'fact' defined by your science explaination OR the Christian one- does that mean you will scoff at me and assume I am too uneducated to comprehend what to you is commonly held to be true? How does this make us better than the common radical or evangelist who believes only they hold all the answers? If peoples of other faith cannot accept each other's belief of history(a relatively unimportant concern in light of things such as 'hell' and 'infidels') how can we reconcile our religious beliefs in order to promote harmony here and now?
Nobody says that Darwin's theory can't be shown wrong. In fact, the self-organizational theory that I mentioned above attempts to expand on natural selection and variation. We call evolution fact because there is overwhelming evidence for it. But, fact in science is not what one means by fact in everyday life. 'Facts' in science are probable truths and their probability, again, is measured by the evidence.
Also, to say that how scientists use 'fact' and how Christians use it is disingenuous because scientists call if fact through experimentation and testing. The data produced through experimentation strengthens evolutinary theory, whereas Christian 'fact' are mere subjective inferences about an ancient text. Furthermore, natural selection has, as I mentioned, has been seen to occur in nature, as well as other biological events. Evolution is used to *explain* the data. Theory is nothing but an explanation of data. Now, the data can be refined due to several issues. For instance, the experimenter may have designed a poor experiment, he/she didn't control for certain important variables, assumes to much and seems one variable instead of noticing that two events are occuring, etc. So, yes, data may change, but there are so much data supporting evolution, it would be absurd to think evolution is false *right now*. This doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to prove it wrong. That what scientists do all the time in their labs. We could still doubt evolution to be the "end all of all theories" and still hold it to be the best theory out there that deals with species variation.
Remember, you said that you don't really believe in evolution and that you don't believe that the universe is billions and billions of years old. But, out of all of the known explanations, evolution and our dating systems (including paleontology, physics, biology, etc.) show this to be "fact," where fact, again, is a probable explanation, but is close to 100% as we will get. Could it be proven false, yes, but there is no *reason* to doubt them based on the *evidence* right now.
Just to be clear I don't mean to dismiss evolution. I just don't belive it as fact- or 'truth' you can throw all the physics you want to at me but 1000 years from now who's to say a new 'Darwin' won't emerge with a theory that makes a hell of a lot more sense and can be more effectively proven? Such things have certainly happened before. I am saying that our knowledge of the universe is severely limited already. Limiting ourself simply to what science can or cannot prove would be folly. To claim evolution as 'fact' to me is just the same as a Christian claiming the bible to be 'the infallible word of God'.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies ton closed systems, not organisims. As I have already mentioned, it has been shown that open systems could evolve into complex organizations (by self-organization) if systems are far-from-equilibrium.
Also, scientists have used dating tools that have been proven to be accurrate. Furthermore, evolution is not a belief like Christian creation belief. I don't understand how people could dismiss evolution when they do understand how science works and what evolution actually states. They see evolution occurring in the laboratory. It is impossible for one to *prove* evolution or show *just one fact* of evolution* since that requires too much specialized knowledge that I do not even have. But for people who do not know how genetics works or even the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it is beyond belief that people would dismiss evolution on a lack of understanding of these ideas.
Ok at the risk of playing Devil's advocate here....why are all of us 'free thinkers' believing in evolution as fact as strongly as Canyon is believing Creation. As a pagan I do not believe in 'GOD' as Canyon does, but I also do not really believe in evolution either. I do not by any means believe the earth is less than 7,000 years old.....but, nor do I believe it is billions and billions of years old as some evolutionists claim.
At the risk of gaining a lot of flack here I will take a stand and say I believe in creation. Perhaps not in the 'story of' as presented in Genesis, but certainly in intelligent design. The universe tends towards chaos and disorder. How so could life have evolved from this?
I do not claim to have answers either way, but neither am I going to claim evolution as anything more than a theory.
Brian, congratulations, you have picked the most misquoted Bible verse in the history of mankind. Moses spoke not to the actual face of God, but to God as a Pillar of Smoke, see Exodus 33:9...as for Genesis, that was God as man, not God, just as when everyone saw Jesus, yet did not die.
Are those the best contradictions you've got? You're placing your faith in that? Something you found on the internet and failed to research? Bwhahaha.
And then you try to say that the science in the Bible is common sense? Did you know that in the 1800's, it was common practice for doctors to wash their hands in basins of water? The mortality rate went from over 50% in hospitals to 2% immediately following when a doctor realized that the water the doctors were washing their hands in was infested with death! I will find the name of the doctor in one of my textbooks at home if you're interested, but I'm sure you're not. The science you so blindly stand behind is the science that would say, "Washing your hands in water is enough, it doesn't have to be running."
The same as your scientists bleeding people to cure them of disease. George Washington died of blood letting, there was a Bible on his nightstand, had the doctor opened it, George Washington might still be alive today(not probable, but he wouldn't have died of blood letting!). That's you're science. Pay attention to the Bible.
You're doubting God. If God had the power to create the Earth in six days and the sun with a word, He had the power to create a long day...
We both believe in miracles, I believe in a Miracle Birth, you believe in abiogenesis(even if you don't call it abiogenesis). Neither is science or can be replicated, but we claim ours is true...
You have no understanding of anything...how can one thing not be two? A few thoughts on that, A rose by any other name smells as sweet. I am perfectly capable of being a father, a son, and a husband, but I'm still me. Space has height, width, and length, but it's still space. Your argument on the trinity is either stupid or you didn't adequately phrase it, I'd like to assume it was the latter.
You're a religious zealot. You said, "I think" then you let out all sorts of things, if they were true of the Bible would be disasterous, but they are your own made-up opinion. People have believed weird things throughout the ages that had no basis, the Egyptians worshipped the Nile, People in 1500bc middle east believed that they lived on the back of a giant (round) animal such as a tortoise, and you believe we came from dirt. Thinking that something is true and on that basis proposing it as true is stupid, look at the evidence.
Job 40:15-24:
Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.
I'm pretty sure the dinosaur in question is the Stegosaurus...
I'm glad that you won't respond to me anymore, it is clear that your heart is hardened beyond saving and your brain is washed clean of all thought.
Know, however, that if your fly would become a different fly, would become a different fly, would become a different fly, would become a mosquito, then I might believe in your ridiculous religion...but the fact is, there is no evidence that anything has ever made an evolutionary leap big enough to explain particles to man evolution.
I only asked for one proof of evolution, and you have no given up without giving it to me. Please realize that you are beaten, whether you accept that or not.
Look. I know in your own fantasy world, these count as "proofs" of God, but 'washing hands' is not scientific. Until you figure out what science is, you will live in this strange world. But let me clue you in on something here. If people have dirt on their hands and they notice that water cleans it, what do you think they will do? Besides, animals clean themselves in water. By your twisted logic, they were conducting scientific research. You are like Roger Rabbit. You are a cartoon trapped in the real world.
Here is one contradiction foryou:
God be seen?
Exod. 24:9,10; Amos 9:1; Gen. 26:2; and John 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (Ex. 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (Ex. 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Gen. 32:30)
God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (Ex. 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16)
Also, I hate to tell you this, but blood is a necessary attribute for life, but is by no means a sufficient attribute. If your brain ceases to function, you die as well, but you still have blood in you. You are a silly, silly boy.
Furthermore, what about the ridiculous statement of being born from a virgin and all the other miracle crap in Christianity? They are impossible in the real world, but suckers like you believe in them. For example, the Old Testament said that the sun stood in the sky for three days straight. Impossible. What about the Holy Trinity. One thing cannot be also be three, as Jefferson notes. Dear "God" man, wake up.
I don't think that people in biblical times thought that the world was round. Boy genius, since you are speaking of this, they also thought that the sun evolved around the Earth. They also made no mention of dinosaurs. But your logic is twisted here. How is it science that the dinosaurs lived with humans? How is that some great discovery? Anyway, dinosaurs have lived long before humans have.
Anyway, since provide no evidence for these with proper texts, you are just rambling on.
Also, did you ever think that they said that the Jews would have a homeland because it was a story about the Jews. And guess what, it was the U.S., with people who think this was a Christian nation, thought it was their duty to produce such a homeland. It is an ad hoc explanation. Give me a necessary connection to all these things and I will grant them to you.
Yes it is hilarious that Christians think science is on their side. That they use ill-founded logic and claims that they feel justify their beliefs. But since you cannot grasp the fact that evolution does not claim that a fly must turn into a horse in one fell swoop, like you are claiming you ignoramous, saying that its still a fly argues nothing. Evolution states that it creates a new species. However, a species may look very similar. For instance, the red deer and mule deer are a different species.
I AM DONE WITH YOU. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. I am wasting my time here with you. You will not take the time to learn the theory of evolution and yet claim to be an expert in it. You are what remains the problem in religion. You are stuck in your 2,000 yr old mythology and are unable to see the ridiculousness in it.
Again, I will not respond to you anymore. I have more important things to do. So don't respond because I dont care and neither do others here. You are not convincing anyone and you are counterproductive to what this site is for.
Brian S. You are even worse off than I suspected...you are even less capable of posting a Bible contradiction, ambiguous prophecy, or scientific than you are for posting a fact for evolution.
I am going to keep this reply short, as my last was "sent to the author for approval" and I don't want that to happen again, since it was a really long drawn out response. My beautiful response to the Hawthorn Fly apparently was too much for Ms. Jacoby. It's not even worth getting into right now, it's still a fly, that is not evolution. I'll come back later if this reply posts, but your argument is stupid beyond belief, I can't believe I'm even addressing it, or spent so much time earlier. Please post a real evidence for evolution in the mean time.
A support for the Bible, scientific...hmmm...that's difficult, it's not like it told people to wash their hands under running water, that the earth was round and floating in space, that the life was in the blood, the water cycle, sea currents, air currents, dinosaurs, radio waves, the decay of the world, the best dimensions for large barges, and nuclear weapons. No, no science in the Bible...
I think it is hilarious that you claim Christians can not handle education when it is clear that evolutionists are teaching a faith which not only has no supporting science, but also includes outright lies.
A proof for God, "The Nation of Israel. A people which were without a homeland for 1600 years, spread throughout the earth, yet were promised the return of their land in the end times. Through no effort of their own was the Holy Land restored to them, but by the decay of a failing SuperPower which was forced to get rid of it's middle-eastern interests and gave the Jews the land in Palestine that it owned."
Haha. The Bible is proof for God? So if I write a story about Kings living at the center of the Earth and write vague prophesies, somewhat consistent (although it is argued by some that there are inherent contradictions in the Bible, but I don't care to analyze if a story is real or not), then you will beleive in the Kings?
But since you do not give anything specific like you demand of others, then you are just a silly, silly boy.
Your "proof" is no different than us saying 'Evolution is true". But you claim that is us just falling victim to lies. Why the contradiction in your views? So I'll give you your own line. Give us ONE scientific conclusion (notice I didn't say fact because you misunderstand what science is) that the Bible is supported by and give us the scientific test that supports the conclusion. Also, if you are so concerned with the truth, then why not critique the supporting evidence of the Hawthorn maggot flies. And please go beyond the ad hominem attacks and the misunderstanding idea that macroevoution means that the new species must look different. Learn evolution and then critique it. Macroevolution simply means a change in genetic codes where a new species arises, even if it looks similar.
So give us that great and amazing proof of God. Saying the Bible proves it is like saying evolution proves evolution (a tautology and gives no new information) or that the Bible is true because God is true, and God is true because the Bible is true (another tautology). Or, how about God is true because I say so!. You give nothing empirical. You just state your ignorance which is hilarious. This is why creationists should not be in charge of education because this type of thinking will ruin our educational system. But I guess the voters realize that because everytime creationism is tried to be placed in schools, it is voted down!
Anyway, I just saw the response that you received from teh creationist. Some may think that he is being sarcastic with the 110% comment, but seeing his misunderstanding of evolution, I have little doubt that he thinks one something could actually be 110% of itself, which, in their minds, is evidence that math is wrong also. Everything in the Bible is true in their minds and no science will ever disprove that. As I mentioned before, they don't want to learn the science and actually understand that. They are just trying to preach on the internet to save our destined souls that are heading to Hell. I rather be in Hell and be uneducated, than in Heaven and knowing nothing at all. Lets just thank "God" that science is able to go on despite creationist ignorance. They don't understand science and they are proud of it. Saying that the new fly is still a fly is rooted in their absurd idea of 'half an eye' or 'half-man and half-ape' comments. They are so twisted in their words and demand evidence for evolution. If they simply read scientific articles and/or books they would see it themselves. However, they come on internet sites and demand us to prove it, which would take us to explain decades of research. Thus, when we don't they feel like they win. It is like a child kicking, screaming, and whining because they want to go and get ice cream. Once they get it, they cry because of a stomachache. Well, we gave the creationists their ice cream. Now he is complaining that it isn't real evidence, even though scientists who are wiser than his God see it as such. Pathetic!!!
I think it is hilarious that Canyon keeps asking for evidence for evolution, but he simply says "Creation is a fact." He fails to give evidence against the Earth being 4.5 billion years old (accepted through scientific dating). I provided a link (I fixed the broken link) that gives 29 proofs for evidence, and, instead of showing how they are false through the non-faulty creation science, he uses ad hominem attacks against the web site. True genius sir!
At my first attempt of evolution evidence, I wanted to give an explanation in one of my books, but I couldn't find it until now.
One of the best ways to give evidence for natural selection and a new species, is to look at organisms that multiply alot and don't live that long. This way, we can view numerous population generations within our own lifetime. But I'm sure Canyon and other creationists refuse to look at scientific texts or journals, so they don't know this.
Anyway, the two flies we will look at are the apple maggot flies and the hawthorn maggot flies. They look indistinguishable to the eye. One way to test natural selection is to ask, "Are the flies that parasitize apple fruits and hawthorn fruits distinct populations" (Evolutionary Analysis by Freeman and Herron, p. 416). The mechanism of natural selection in this instance is food preference. This is due to the fact that mating occurs on the fruit. Thus, there are two hypotheses, they are same populations and different populations. Hence, it is testable.
It was tested if they were different or the same, and it was found through protein electrophoresis (determining the genetic make-up) and found them to be different. The differences aren't marked by their looks, but by their genotypes.
These flies were marked so they could be studied in the wild and found that mating occured between the two flies of 6% of the matings. What occurred was that there was an exchange of alleles. The increase of gene flow is caused by the fruits ripening. Due to other biological phenomena, the hawthorn flies larvae are selected more rapidly and the apple flies larvae are selected more slowly. Then, in the spring, the flies were examined to determine and "assay the frequencies of the six allozymes that differ between the hawthorne and apple races" (418).
What was found? The hawthorn flies that switch to the fruit of apples must develop slowly! In other words, "In a single generation, then, the researchers succeeded in replicating the selection of events that have produced divergence between the apple race and the hawthorn race in nature over the past 300 years" (418).
This experiment uses much more biological jargon to go over here. However, it is clear that they saw MACROEVOLUTION in ONE generation. This wasn't microevolution at all. Perhaps the problem is that creationists just don't read evolutionary material. Thus, it makes it much easier on their Christian souls to make absurd comments that evolution doesn't occur. WE ARE SEEING IT OCCUR NOW. The book that I cite lists eight other species that are diverging right now with their citations to the studies that are researching it. Quit lying about this crap. Evolution happened. We see it occurring just like we see the effects of gravity.
So, I ask you, "Where is the evidence of God and his creation?" One fact please!
>>
TSAlleyCat, in responce to your article I fell on the floor laughing. But it was in pity, be assured of that.
That fly is still 110% FLY, it not a mosquito, it is not a Humming Bird, it is a FLY, it shows no tendency to become anything else. You have been brainwashed by tiny, tiny things, like the changing of beak size in birds...that's not evolution! Of all the things I am shocked by in this world, the ease with which people are brainwashed continually takes my breath away.
Evolution is predicted by the Bible. It says in the end times many will listen to preachers who appeal to their itching ears. You are so desperate to disprove God and Creation that you will believe any stupidness that comes up. I will and do honestly examine each and every evolution idea that comes up, and truthfully, most of them take three seconds to see the absolute religiousness of it all.
If you were truly interested in the truth instead of appealing to your own heart's desire, you'd see the truth in a heartbeat.
Now, are you going to post a fact for evolution or what?
<<
Your arrogant, snotty, and ignorant dismisal does nothing to refute what is posted. Evolutionary biology is based on Selection and variation. Not Flies becoming Moths or some other artifical construct but flies become some other kind of fly i.e. Speciation, one of the core concepts of evolution. Speciation over time does create new and different animals.
The bottom line is science has been able to find and demonstrate selection and generic variation as living facts that can be observed. Since these are the core drivers of evolution, it would be diffucult to somehow claim evolution doesn't happen when the key mechanisms of it are indeed know and provable
I don't disprove god, because god is an provable matter or faith - belief withough evidence. Even people like yourself tend to retreat into it when the evidence tac isn't working. Like you, I am concerned about has been proven and disproven. I don't try to disprove god because I don't have to, God is unproven, so those making the positive assertion have the burden of proof.
I take nothing about evolution on faith. I have studied it in the laboratory, and held the skulls of the Hominid Ancestors you say never existed in my hands
Anyway, you've had a fact, you've predictably denied it as such, and any more of the same will be a waste of time.
TSAlleyCat, in responce to your article I fell on the floor laughing. But it was in pity, be assured of that.
That fly is still 110% FLY, it not a mosquito, it is not a Humming Bird, it is a FLY, it shows no tendency to become anything else. You have been brainwashed by tiny, tiny things, like the changing of beak size in birds...that's not evolution! Of all the things I am shocked by in this world, the ease with which people are brainwashed continually takes my breath away.
Evolution is predicted by the Bible. It says in the end times many will listen to preachers who appeal to their itching ears. You are so desperate to disprove God and Creation that you will believe any stupidness that comes up. I will and do honestly examine each and every evolution idea that comes up, and truthfully, most of them take three seconds to see the absolute religiousness of it all.
If you were truly interested in the truth instead of appealing to your own heart's desire, you'd see the truth in a heartbeat.
Now, are you going to post a fact for evolution or what?
I feel like a broken record, but you are blinded by faith yet again. I knew that wikipedia article was written solely by evolutionists, after all, look at the super-tiny blurb that creationists got. I wanted to see if you could read through the religion of the evolutionists, but I guess you're not interested in that.
They said, "one large depositional event", which, 4400 years ago was a World-Wide Flood. They agree with me without even meaning too...These trees aren't through rock that you think is brand new, no, it matches the age of the other rocks, which your dating methods have so royally screwed up.
Fact for Creation(Flood):
Seashells and clams on the TOP of Mt. Everest
Disproving Fact for Evolution:
The Appendix, an important part of your immune system; those without one are more likely to contract lukemia, colon cancer, and prostate cancer. If you still believe it does nothing, and it came from our Orangutang uncles, please explain why they DON'T HAVE ONE or any similar organ!
Please now, post for me ONE fact that supports evolution.
Direct evidence for Speciation:
>>
An interesting example of evolution at work is the case of the hawthorn fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, which appears to be undergoing sympatric speciation.[5] Different populations of hawthorn fly feed on different fruits. A distinct population emerged in North America in the 19th century some time after apples, a non-native species, were introduced. This apple-feeding population normally feeds only on apples and not on the historically preferred fruit of hawthorns. The current hawthorn feeding population does not normally feed on apples. Scientists are investigating whether or not the apple-feeding subspecies may further evolve into a new species.
Some evidence, such as the fact that six out of thirteen alozyme loci are different, that hawthorn flies mature later in the season and take longer to mature than apple flies; and that there is little evidence of interbreeding (researchers have documented a 4-6% hybridization rate) suggests that this is occurring. The emergence of the new hawthorn fly is an example of evolution in progress.
<<
Wikipedia
This type of activity has been long predicted in Evolutionary biology and molecular Genetics.
But it doesn't matter does it? Science is drawing conclusions for evidenence, Religious Fanatacism is taking your preset conclusion and scraping for evidence, which is clearly what you are doing. Even if your "Standing Fossil" was a strong argument for a "Young Earth Flood" (which it is not) The preponderance of evidence is (massively) on the side of the old earth.
Do you ascribe the scientific concensus on Evolution a mass conspiracy? I know of plenty of Christian-Faith Scientists (had to use the hyphen to escape the conntation of the denomination) that would be absolutely thrilled for the evidence to prove the bible. But it does not, so as intellectually honest people they accept evolution as a well-established fact.
"Bush would surely have been criticized, and rightly so, had he failed to invite representatives of non-Christian faiths to the ecumenical ceremony in memory of the victims of terrorism. But he felt perfectly free to ignore Americans who adhere to no religious faith, whose outlook is predominantly secular, and who interpret history and tragedy as the work of man rather than God. There was no speaker who represented my views, no one to reject the notion of divine purpose at work in theslaughter of thousands and to proclaim the truth that grief, patriotism, and outrage at injustice run just as deep in the secular as in the religious portion of the American body politic."
Three thousand Americans dead and Ms. Jacoby felt slighted because there was no speaker to counter with a secularist-toned speech at a prayer service? I feel her pain.
Apparently not, as the following (found in the link you gave me) is stated:
"Thus, the arguments by Dr. Harold Coffin and other creationists that the presence of “Spirorbis” fossils within strata containing polystrate fossils indicate their deposition in a marine environment are invalid because these fossils are actually the remains of extinct fresh and brackish water lophophorates instead of the remains of the marine genera Spirorbis as they have been misidentified in the geologic literature.
Thus, according to mainstream science, polystrate fossils are just fossils which were buried in a relatively short time span either by one large depositional event or by several smaller ones. Mainstream geologists see no need to invoke a global flood to explain upright fossils.
This position of mainstream geologists is supported by numerous examples, which have been found at numerous locations, of polystrate, upright, trees completely buried within either late Holocene or historic sediments. These polystrate trees demonstrate that conventional geologic processes are capable of burying and preserving trees in an upright position such that in time, they will become fossilized."
Canyon (again!):
"Fact for Creation(Flood):
Trees standing through Million Year old Strata"
"1. The world is very old, 6,600 years is quite old.
2. 6,600 years, two days, is not much older"
Hmmm...seems to be a little discrepancy.
Your "evidence" for Creation is trees through million year old strata, but yet you say the world is only 6,600 years old...
"Fact for Creation(Flood):
Trees standing through Million Year old Strata"
Here:
"Malone, along with many "young Earth global flood creationists", have no idea that even data from the 19th century, presented by a creationist geologist is enough to demolish the "polystrate fossil trees" part of their presentation. "Polystrate fossil trees" are probably one of the weakest pieces of evidence YEGF creationists can offer for their interpretation. I wish they would stop using it."
"Fact for Creation(Flood):
Trees standing through Million Year old Strata"
and in response, I found:
"In summary, we’ve learned that the curious Fossil-Fossils of De-Na-Zin simply cannot be squared with creationist “Flood Geology.” How could “sprint” fossilization have occurred during the high-energy flood itself? How can the silty river deposits and occasional floods of the Ojo Alamo be reconciled with the creationist notion that global chaos reigned right through the entire Tertiary Period? Well, they can’t."
And another of your brilliant arguments:
"If you clear out your garage of EVERYTHING, shut it and lock it, in a billion years, will we be able to open your garage and find a Mercedes? No, because evolution doesn't happen. Even if we put all of the materials in there for a Mercedes Benz, no amount of time will put it together"
This is not how evolution works!
The following sounds eerily familiar to what most of us are saying to you...(except replace evolution with Christianity (or whatever religion)):
"You are blinded to the truth, until you truly want to find it, anything I post here will not convince you. Please stop believing blindly in evolution."
We have a wonderful example of the topic of this thread. I have to repeat my question, more specifically this time: how are we going to protect our species from the likes of Canyon Shearer?
This is a mind totally controlled by blind faith, absolutely shielded against rationality. I can ask for no better example of how diseased a presumably thinking mind can become when so infected.
Other than the noise they make, they really have nothing to say. Canyon Shearer is a foot-stamper, who only pretends to understand the meaning of the word 'evidence.' These people use words like "knowledge" and "fact" in a different manner than those who do understand what evidence is and is not. They have a corrupted vocabulary, for this reason it is truly impossible to have any kind of discussion based on rational observation and empericism.
We once believed the atom to be indivisable, we have proven this is not the case. I must say I don't believe it's possible to clear the infected mind of blind faith, perhaps this can be disproven too.
You are blinded by your faith in science, please reread you post to learn that!
I have searched out every lie or misunderstanding of evolution, there are no facts, which is why it's been four days and none have been posted! When you find one, (you won't) please post it!
There is misunderstood evidence for a Billions of years. It is the defining point in your religion. With enough time, anything is possible to you.
If you clear out your garage of EVERYTHING, shut it and lock it, in a billion years, will we be able to open your garage and find a Mercedes? No, because evolution doesn't happen. Even if we put all of the materials in there for a Mercedes Benz, no amount of time will put it together. Things break down, in fact after only probably 100 years, the garage will fall apart! That is the way the world works, only with an intelligent creator will a car be put together!
You are blinded to the truth, until you truly want to find it, anything I post here will not convince you. Please stop believing blindly in evolution.
Ugh...once again there are lots of resources for "facts" of evolution...you choose to not search them out. When I get more time I'll post one.
Regarding the following:
1. The world is very old, 6,600 years is quite old.
2. 6,600 years, two days, is not much older.
3. No, they don't.
4. ???
5. Evolution has ZERO facts.
Um...the "world" is billions of years old, and there is evidence of that.
Obviously, the universe is even older...
3. Yes...where's your proof disputing this?
"Fact of creation, a word you used, "Universe" means, One Phrase, also: "In the Beginning, God Created the Heavens and the Earth."
"1) The world is very old
2) The universe is much older
3) All creatures on earth have antecedents
5) Evolution is "Fact" in biology not a theory, not only can evolutionary behavior be seen in biological study, it also has predicted things found in the modern science of genetics"
All other religious posts aside(which none of which bear replying to), I will reply to TSalleycats,
1. The world is very old, 6,600 years is quite old.
2. 6,600 years, two days, is not much older.
3. No, they don't.
4. ???
5. Evolution has ZERO facts.
If it did, someone would have posted a single sentence answer here.
Fact of creation, a word you used, "Universe" means, One Phrase, also: "In the Beginning, God Created the Heavens and the Earth."
That is ONE Fact, there are hundreds, even thousands more for a Created, Young Earth...in archeology, Biology, Genetics, Medical Science, Astrology, Linguistics, in everything. Do not think that I am arguing Science vs. Religion. I am arguing Science vs. Evolution. The two say opposite things, and always Science(True Science) Agrees with the Bible.
This argument has degenerated to futility. The extreme hilarity of it...Talk Origins is down...which is a stupid website anyways filled with evolution zealots who can't prove anything.
All other things aside.
ONE fact that proves evolution!
<<
There is no "One Fact" that proves evolution anymore than there is "one fact" that proves all of chemistry. However, the totality of most modern science does show that several things are pretty well "proven".
1) The world is very old
2) The universe is much older
3) All creatures on earth have antecedents
5) Evolution is "Fact" in biology not a theory, not only can evolutionary behavior be seen in biological study, it also has predicted things found in the modern science of genetics
Beyond this whether you want to ascribe this to a god or not is your business, but when come to the table with a pre-set agenda Like Canyon there is virtually nothing that will be a sufficient fact. If you believe that what we ascribe to Physics is done by Magical Gnomes, then you will see Magical Gnomes when a Nuclear Bomb explodes.
Although now a non-believer of any kind, I was an Evangelical Baptist as a kid, but I dropped out when I realized they believed the Biblical creation story literally. Even then I was well read enough to understand the difference between science and Mythology. I was aghast that they ridiculed Science and evolution based on Fanatical assertions. I didn't "believe" in science, I accepted it as process *note* PROCESS for finding out the nature of the universe.
By the way I've seen some the "Proof" that Biblical Creationists put forth against evolution and biblical creation. For a real hoot visit
Its full of the same tired tirade against evolution that has been in the little paper tracts left around in bathrooms for decades. They still harp on "Piltdown" man, a case of deliberate fraud that somehow proves all of evolution's evidence is false.
If Canyon really wanted proof, there is plenty to be found. But it’s called Science, a method of inquiry that cannot be undertaken with a pre-assumed outcome.
I said Sam Harris was "the most rational person on the panel." Well there are at least two rational people on the panel. Susan is a very eloquent speaker. She gets right to the point with powerful and lucid arguments.
Canyon Shearer proves Susan's point; fundamentalists can not find common ground. According to Canyon Shearer only good christians go to heaven. There are many people that believe the same thing about him because of their religion.
This seems to be a fitting quotation:
"There are readers of these newsgroups who reject evolution for religious reasons. In general these readers oppose both the fact of evolution and theories of mechanisms, although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts. That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of "microevolution"--they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the "facthood" of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose. Even this simple hope is rarely fulfilled."
All Comments (70)
In the 800 year struggle between faith and reason begun with the fall of Rome and reaching a penultimate point with the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, perhaps the most critical observation was made by Anselm, the 11th Century Christian philosopher, "Nor do I seek to understand in order to believe, but I believe that I may understand . . . ." It remains a pitiable canard to imagine that ten centuries later mankind has resolved this dispute in favor of Greek Rationalism. The Greeks had a name for this: hubris. So long as salvation remains a religious goal driven more by fear than by love, we will face blind antirational beliefs. George F. Kennan gave us the "policy of containment," and smart urban governments are satisfied to effectively "contain" prostitution, so it seems that we must strive to merely "contain" the pernicious impact of antirationalism in our institutions, especially our schools.
June 19, 2008 3:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 19, 2008 15:48
In the 800 year struggle between faith and reason begun with the fall of Rome and reaching a penultimate point with the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, perhaps the most critical observation was made by Anselm, the 11th Century Christian philosopher, "Nor do I seek to understand in order to believe, but I believe that I may understand . . . ." It remains a pitiable canard to imagine that ten centuries later mankind has resolved this dispute in favor of Greek Rationalism. The Greeks had a name for this: hubris. So long as salvation remains a religious goal driven more by fear than by love, we will face blind antirational beliefs. George F. Kennan gave us the "policy of containment," and smart urban governments are satisfied to effectively "contain" prostitution, so it seems that we must strive to merely "contain" the pernicious impact of antirationalism in our institutions, especially our schools.
June 19, 2008 3:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 19, 2008 15:47
ruapx pkbg khrsiqyxv xnilrauk xvpf jhdrc igyxqwso [URL]http://www.bgqmoukrz.ubmtf.com[/URL] frpwug ixqp
April 26, 2007 11:24 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 26, 2007 23:24
hcwn hecmlsifx xpilend artufnm piklub bwuhfyve dnbpzyt
April 26, 2007 11:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 26, 2007 23:22
Hi Sam! Photos i send on e-mail.
Green
April 25, 2007 9:15 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 25, 2007 09:15
Intelligent Design is from Aristotles "Physics" in which he describe "Intelligent Action." The Greeks had their own theories very much like evolution, which Aristotle rejected in favor of the unseen hand of a designer. In the same piece, also Aristotle also rejected the idea of gravity and attributed the fact that rocks fall to the desire of rocks to be with their own kind.
The various tales of the Apocalyspse are derived from the Zoroastrian religion. Their messiah, the Saoshyant, will spread divine truth and lead humanity in the final battle against the forces of evil, followed by the ressurrection of the dead.
Aristotle lived 300 BC, Zoroastrianism goes back 1000 BC.
These pillars of Christian fundementalism are NOT IN THE BIBLE.
Intelligent Deisign and Millenialism are in fact PAGAN beliefs.
March 14, 2007 12:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 14, 2007 12:42
I am sorry for these experiences, Ms. Jacoby.
Please take heart- not all faith is blind.
Mine is a deliberate conscious choice because my mind was open and stays open.
Who can possibly criticize a deliberate conscious choice?
The bottom line is respect for others.
salaams
December 6, 2006 3:03 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 6, 2006 03:03
Brian S. - Thank you for taking time to explain your position further. Perhaps I don't undertand the whole of it. As a scientist how could you be drawn to a conclusion and offer it to others if you yourself don't entirely 'believe' it? Is it simply to see other's point of view? Quite honestly I have little interest in the subject. Science bores me to tears and quite honestly sounds much more farfetched than 'creation' or 'intelligent design' which of course probably makes it the more likely of the two but I simply don't think that it is. I suppose you could call that a 'belief'. I mean I believe there were dinosaurs. You probably say of course you do! We have bones that prove their existance. Well that is not enough proof for some people. My mother....bless her, does not believe in dinosaurs. She thinks they are a hoax planted by scientists. I suppose some people have to see certain things with their own eyes to believe them. I happen to just believe the world we live in is complex and amazing and full of mystery. I don't try to question it because I cannot forsee getting any enjoyment out of having my own 'theory' for how things came to be. I suppose I understand your conclusions even if I do not care to reach the same ones. Either way, thank you for your time in explaining your position. It is unbearably annoying to be misunderstood and misquoted to others. Hope everyone had a blessed Thanksgiving!
November 26, 2006 1:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 26, 2006 13:03
Jed, concerning your shallow understanding of those verses:
Matthew Chapter 24 clearly states, "Immediately after the tribulation of those days"
Matthew Chapter 10 says that the Gospel will not have been shared with everyone before the second-coming.
Matthew Chapter 16 is about the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary.
Romans Chapter 16:20 is a metaphore saying that if you can resist the tempations of Satan as they come, God will crush those tempations shortly.
James Chapter 5 has two meanings. One, be prepared for the second coming, and two, you may stand before the Judge at any moment; be ready.
1st letter of John Chapter 2 is in reference to the covenants of the Lord.
It is the pridefilled heart of man to assume he is the last generation. It is especially easy for us to assume that, as the prophecy concerning Israel has been fulfilled...however, between Creation and the Flood was 2200 years, between the Flood and Christ was 2400 years, following that logic, we're not quite there yet.
All supposed contradictions and errors are as easily pushed to the wayside.
More importantly, how will your conscience(which has recorded every lie, every petty-larceny, even innapropriate sexual thought, every hate-filled word, and every blasphemy) look on your judgement if the Bible is telling the truth?
November 24, 2006 11:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 24, 2006 23:04
I can't believe you guys are still discussing thing...I can't believe I came back to look!
Brian, you have said one of the most predictable things an evolutionists can say when cornered, "I'm not an expert." You paraphrased and said, "that requires too much specialized knowledge that I do not even have." There are not experts in evolution that believe the theory. The only people that have been 'de-programmed' of the brain-washing can see the true scope of the lie that you so blindly follow.
If you can't give a fact, that's fine, just give me a really good evidence, a forming star, a life-form that might have been a transition between kinds of animals, an example of how life might have started on earth...that's all I want.
Jeb, you are more brainwashed than Brian. I love science, I LOVE it. I hate the pseudoscience of Evolution. There is no contradiction in my thinking there, because evolution is not science. God Bless Science.
You seem to be quite indoctrinated in your religion, perhaps you'll be better equiped to post a fact of evolution for me.
November 24, 2006 10:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 24, 2006 22:42
I wouldn't expect you to concede the many contradictions and errors throughout the Bible, but what's really annoying is the smug, dismissive way you deny the issue exists, as if the very idea were absurd. Is this a tactic they teach in Apologetics 101? Because you know full well there are numerous apparent contradictions and I know full well you'll never admit any are valid.
Some of them are far from trivial:
"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven... and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven... THIS GENERATION SHALL NOT PASS, TILL ALL THESE THINGS BE FULFILLED" (Matthew 24:29-34)
Matt 10:23 When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
Matt 16:28 Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
Romans 16:20 And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly.
James 5:8 You also be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand…..Behold, the Judge is standing at the door!
1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last hour.
Pretty clear, isn't it? The letters of Paul, the gospels, and Revelations were all written by authors who expected the end of the world within their own generation. Jesus himself is clearly quoted saying that the second coming of the "son of man" would occur within the lifetime of the disciples. Well, all of those disciples are now dead, and it's two thousand years later...what gives?
I've seen some efforts to weasel out of it:
When Jesus says “Generation,” he really means "the Jewish race."
When Jesus says “Generation” he really means "wicked people of all generations"
When Jesus says "This" generation he really means "a future" generation.
When Jesus said this generation he meant it but the prophecy is delayed.
That might be okay for a liberal, but it's pretty feeble for an inerrantist. So some others have gone out and invented a whole doctrine called "preterism" just to explain this away, and clear up a few other messy issues. They simply declare that some portion of the "End Times" already took place before 70 AD, (and nobody noticed at the time, I guess) This gets them into a lot of fights with other fundamentalists about when they get to fly up to heaven to meet Jesus is the clouds. I'm oversimplifying this because there are 3 or 4 different groups of preterists, but at this point it's already sillier than Dungeons and Dragons...
November 24, 2006 3:19 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 24, 2006 03:19
Canyon Shearer, your attitude is astounding! You obviously use a computer. Have you ever taken an airplane, or been vaccinated against disease? How can you put your life in the hands of such products of modern science while denying the basis of the scientific method which made them possible?
What is the point of your reference to bloodletting? (Bloodletting predates the scientific method, anyway)How do erroneous beliefs from the past discredit science? Science is NOT a fixed, unchanging body of knowledge: It is an ongoing process. Science by definition must remain open to new evidence, and earlier answers are subject to modification and change.
Ironically, you attempt to discredit science by pointing to one of modern science's greatest achievements! You're right that through the early 19th century, doctors often spread infections among their patients. How could they know? It wasn't understood that microorganisms caused disease. The germ theory of disease was established through the experiments of Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch in the middle of the century, creating the basis for vaccination, sanitary food preparation, modern hygiene and antiseptic practices such as disinfection, etc. Modern medicine made tremendous advances after this breakthrough. Few people deny the germ theory of disease and groups which ignore its implications have a poor survival rate.
Your simplistic declarations about evolution reflect unbelievable arrogance or true delusion. The facts that support evolution are the basis of modern biology and inform large components of many other sciences such as anthropology, geology, paleontology, primatology, archeology, etc. The scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming - it long ago won acceptance as the best scientific explanation of human and nonhuman biology and the key to understanding the origin and development of life. Evolutionary assumptions and methods provide persuasive explanations for the great variety of Earth's living things, including human beings. Evolutionary concepts tie together such natural phenomena as genetic diversity, environmental change, adaptation, differential reproductive success, and speciation, thereby making evolution the central organizing principle of the life sciences. This consensus of scientific opinion is derived from biology, geology, paleontology, primatology, and archaeology. It is supported by anatomical studies and discoveries in medicine and medical anthropology.
There are mountains of scientific data that can be explained by and are consistent with the tenets of evolution. How could modern science function at all if it were organized and based on false principles? Are you suggesting a conspiracy theory involving thousands of scientists?
Are thousands of professionals in a range of fields all deluded? or are they deliberately falsifying data and engaging in a massive cover-up?
Debates about the mechanisms and details of evolution are a normal part of the scientific process. Opponents misuse quotations from prominent scientists to claim that they do not support evolution. However, examination of the quotations usually reveals that the scientists are actually disputing some aspect of how evolution occurs, not whether evolution occurred.
November 24, 2006 2:09 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 24, 2006 02:09
Brian S.
I was a pre-med student at one time, so my lab work was doing biology experiments and anthropology.
For whatever it's worth.
November 23, 2006 4:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 23, 2006 16:31
Phoenix,
No, I'm not saying you should simply accept evolution as fact. I'm saying that the evidence points towards evolution. It is a matter of evidence guiding the acceptance, not, as you say, "simply accept" evolution. I'm also saying that by your remarks that the 2nd law is a problem for evolution is misleading because the degeneration of order is for closed systems, not open ones like living organisms. So that comment which, it seems to be one reason of evolution, is flawed and not backed up by evidence.
I'm not scoffing at you. I'm simply saying that there have been no reason to question evolution as of now. Again, you were saying that we accept evolution to be truth as if it is absolute. No scientist believes that. You created a strawman and knocked it down. Science works by probability. Thus, you were incorrect in how scientists view evolution. It has nothing to do with if you accept it or deny it. How can you reject what science "says" if science does not hold that position?
I do not consider evolution a belief because beliefs are subjective qualities that lack empirical justification. Also, you have not given reasons against the scientific literature. Perhaps that may be a good start. What scientific articles have you read that fail to support evolution? However, to override a scientific theory, one needs more than one problem, but rather numerous counter incidences.
But the main problem that I was addressing was that your ideas of fact and such were not how scientists use the terms. If you disagree, fine. But to not show why you disagree only appears to be a belief with no evidence, or not even a probable truth. Again, evolutionary theory is a probable truth. That is what I was stating. It is better to understand what science holds, and then critique it. But by not understanding what they mean by fact, then you are not arguing against science at all, but some mythical idea.
November 22, 2006 10:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 22, 2006 22:04
Brian-
So I should based on your reasoning simply accept evolution as evidence-based 'fact'? How does that make evolution not a 'belief'? If I don't accept it as fact doesn't that make me a 'dis-believer'? and since I do not agree with the view that evolution is 'fact' defined by your science explaination OR the Christian one- does that mean you will scoff at me and assume I am too uneducated to comprehend what to you is commonly held to be true? How does this make us better than the common radical or evangelist who believes only they hold all the answers? If peoples of other faith cannot accept each other's belief of history(a relatively unimportant concern in light of things such as 'hell' and 'infidels') how can we reconcile our religious beliefs in order to promote harmony here and now?
November 22, 2006 9:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 22, 2006 21:23
Phoenix,
Nobody says that Darwin's theory can't be shown wrong. In fact, the self-organizational theory that I mentioned above attempts to expand on natural selection and variation. We call evolution fact because there is overwhelming evidence for it. But, fact in science is not what one means by fact in everyday life. 'Facts' in science are probable truths and their probability, again, is measured by the evidence.
Also, to say that how scientists use 'fact' and how Christians use it is disingenuous because scientists call if fact through experimentation and testing. The data produced through experimentation strengthens evolutinary theory, whereas Christian 'fact' are mere subjective inferences about an ancient text. Furthermore, natural selection has, as I mentioned, has been seen to occur in nature, as well as other biological events. Evolution is used to *explain* the data. Theory is nothing but an explanation of data. Now, the data can be refined due to several issues. For instance, the experimenter may have designed a poor experiment, he/she didn't control for certain important variables, assumes to much and seems one variable instead of noticing that two events are occuring, etc. So, yes, data may change, but there are so much data supporting evolution, it would be absurd to think evolution is false *right now*. This doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to prove it wrong. That what scientists do all the time in their labs. We could still doubt evolution to be the "end all of all theories" and still hold it to be the best theory out there that deals with species variation.
Remember, you said that you don't really believe in evolution and that you don't believe that the universe is billions and billions of years old. But, out of all of the known explanations, evolution and our dating systems (including paleontology, physics, biology, etc.) show this to be "fact," where fact, again, is a probable explanation, but is close to 100% as we will get. Could it be proven false, yes, but there is no *reason* to doubt them based on the *evidence* right now.
November 22, 2006 5:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 22, 2006 17:16
Brian,
Just to be clear I don't mean to dismiss evolution. I just don't belive it as fact- or 'truth' you can throw all the physics you want to at me but 1000 years from now who's to say a new 'Darwin' won't emerge with a theory that makes a hell of a lot more sense and can be more effectively proven? Such things have certainly happened before. I am saying that our knowledge of the universe is severely limited already. Limiting ourself simply to what science can or cannot prove would be folly. To claim evolution as 'fact' to me is just the same as a Christian claiming the bible to be 'the infallible word of God'.
November 22, 2006 4:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 22, 2006 16:26
Phoenix,
The 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies ton closed systems, not organisims. As I have already mentioned, it has been shown that open systems could evolve into complex organizations (by self-organization) if systems are far-from-equilibrium.
Also, scientists have used dating tools that have been proven to be accurrate. Furthermore, evolution is not a belief like Christian creation belief. I don't understand how people could dismiss evolution when they do understand how science works and what evolution actually states. They see evolution occurring in the laboratory. It is impossible for one to *prove* evolution or show *just one fact* of evolution* since that requires too much specialized knowledge that I do not even have. But for people who do not know how genetics works or even the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it is beyond belief that people would dismiss evolution on a lack of understanding of these ideas.
November 22, 2006 3:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 22, 2006 15:09
Ok at the risk of playing Devil's advocate here....why are all of us 'free thinkers' believing in evolution as fact as strongly as Canyon is believing Creation. As a pagan I do not believe in 'GOD' as Canyon does, but I also do not really believe in evolution either. I do not by any means believe the earth is less than 7,000 years old.....but, nor do I believe it is billions and billions of years old as some evolutionists claim.
At the risk of gaining a lot of flack here I will take a stand and say I believe in creation. Perhaps not in the 'story of' as presented in Genesis, but certainly in intelligent design. The universe tends towards chaos and disorder. How so could life have evolved from this?
I do not claim to have answers either way, but neither am I going to claim evolution as anything more than a theory.
November 22, 2006 1:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 22, 2006 13:55
Brian, congratulations, you have picked the most misquoted Bible verse in the history of mankind. Moses spoke not to the actual face of God, but to God as a Pillar of Smoke, see Exodus 33:9...as for Genesis, that was God as man, not God, just as when everyone saw Jesus, yet did not die.
Are those the best contradictions you've got? You're placing your faith in that? Something you found on the internet and failed to research? Bwhahaha.
And then you try to say that the science in the Bible is common sense? Did you know that in the 1800's, it was common practice for doctors to wash their hands in basins of water? The mortality rate went from over 50% in hospitals to 2% immediately following when a doctor realized that the water the doctors were washing their hands in was infested with death! I will find the name of the doctor in one of my textbooks at home if you're interested, but I'm sure you're not. The science you so blindly stand behind is the science that would say, "Washing your hands in water is enough, it doesn't have to be running."
The same as your scientists bleeding people to cure them of disease. George Washington died of blood letting, there was a Bible on his nightstand, had the doctor opened it, George Washington might still be alive today(not probable, but he wouldn't have died of blood letting!). That's you're science. Pay attention to the Bible.
You're doubting God. If God had the power to create the Earth in six days and the sun with a word, He had the power to create a long day...
We both believe in miracles, I believe in a Miracle Birth, you believe in abiogenesis(even if you don't call it abiogenesis). Neither is science or can be replicated, but we claim ours is true...
You have no understanding of anything...how can one thing not be two? A few thoughts on that, A rose by any other name smells as sweet. I am perfectly capable of being a father, a son, and a husband, but I'm still me. Space has height, width, and length, but it's still space. Your argument on the trinity is either stupid or you didn't adequately phrase it, I'd like to assume it was the latter.
You're a religious zealot. You said, "I think" then you let out all sorts of things, if they were true of the Bible would be disasterous, but they are your own made-up opinion. People have believed weird things throughout the ages that had no basis, the Egyptians worshipped the Nile, People in 1500bc middle east believed that they lived on the back of a giant (round) animal such as a tortoise, and you believe we came from dirt. Thinking that something is true and on that basis proposing it as true is stupid, look at the evidence.
Job 40:15-24:
Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.
I'm pretty sure the dinosaur in question is the Stegosaurus...
I'm glad that you won't respond to me anymore, it is clear that your heart is hardened beyond saving and your brain is washed clean of all thought.
Know, however, that if your fly would become a different fly, would become a different fly, would become a different fly, would become a mosquito, then I might believe in your ridiculous religion...but the fact is, there is no evidence that anything has ever made an evolutionary leap big enough to explain particles to man evolution.
I only asked for one proof of evolution, and you have no given up without giving it to me. Please realize that you are beaten, whether you accept that or not.
November 22, 2006 1:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 22, 2006 13:06
TSALLEYCAT,
Did you say that you worked in a lab, or did you you just mean as a student? Just curious.
November 22, 2006 12:49 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 22, 2006 00:49
A Fly is still a fly. That's rich.
But agreed. Brian S.
Finito.
November 21, 2006 11:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 21, 2006 23:17
Canyon,
Look. I know in your own fantasy world, these count as "proofs" of God, but 'washing hands' is not scientific. Until you figure out what science is, you will live in this strange world. But let me clue you in on something here. If people have dirt on their hands and they notice that water cleans it, what do you think they will do? Besides, animals clean themselves in water. By your twisted logic, they were conducting scientific research. You are like Roger Rabbit. You are a cartoon trapped in the real world.
Here is one contradiction foryou:
God be seen?
Exod. 24:9,10; Amos 9:1; Gen. 26:2; and John 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (Ex. 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (Ex. 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Gen. 32:30)
God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (Ex. 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16)
Source: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#god_seen
Also, I hate to tell you this, but blood is a necessary attribute for life, but is by no means a sufficient attribute. If your brain ceases to function, you die as well, but you still have blood in you. You are a silly, silly boy.
Furthermore, what about the ridiculous statement of being born from a virgin and all the other miracle crap in Christianity? They are impossible in the real world, but suckers like you believe in them. For example, the Old Testament said that the sun stood in the sky for three days straight. Impossible. What about the Holy Trinity. One thing cannot be also be three, as Jefferson notes. Dear "God" man, wake up.
I don't think that people in biblical times thought that the world was round. Boy genius, since you are speaking of this, they also thought that the sun evolved around the Earth. They also made no mention of dinosaurs. But your logic is twisted here. How is it science that the dinosaurs lived with humans? How is that some great discovery? Anyway, dinosaurs have lived long before humans have.
Anyway, since provide no evidence for these with proper texts, you are just rambling on.
Also, did you ever think that they said that the Jews would have a homeland because it was a story about the Jews. And guess what, it was the U.S., with people who think this was a Christian nation, thought it was their duty to produce such a homeland. It is an ad hoc explanation. Give me a necessary connection to all these things and I will grant them to you.
Yes it is hilarious that Christians think science is on their side. That they use ill-founded logic and claims that they feel justify their beliefs. But since you cannot grasp the fact that evolution does not claim that a fly must turn into a horse in one fell swoop, like you are claiming you ignoramous, saying that its still a fly argues nothing. Evolution states that it creates a new species. However, a species may look very similar. For instance, the red deer and mule deer are a different species.
I AM DONE WITH YOU. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. I am wasting my time here with you. You will not take the time to learn the theory of evolution and yet claim to be an expert in it. You are what remains the problem in religion. You are stuck in your 2,000 yr old mythology and are unable to see the ridiculousness in it.
Again, I will not respond to you anymore. I have more important things to do. So don't respond because I dont care and neither do others here. You are not convincing anyone and you are counterproductive to what this site is for.
November 21, 2006 9:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 21, 2006 21:48
Brian S. You are even worse off than I suspected...you are even less capable of posting a Bible contradiction, ambiguous prophecy, or scientific than you are for posting a fact for evolution.
I am going to keep this reply short, as my last was "sent to the author for approval" and I don't want that to happen again, since it was a really long drawn out response. My beautiful response to the Hawthorn Fly apparently was too much for Ms. Jacoby. It's not even worth getting into right now, it's still a fly, that is not evolution. I'll come back later if this reply posts, but your argument is stupid beyond belief, I can't believe I'm even addressing it, or spent so much time earlier. Please post a real evidence for evolution in the mean time.
A support for the Bible, scientific...hmmm...that's difficult, it's not like it told people to wash their hands under running water, that the earth was round and floating in space, that the life was in the blood, the water cycle, sea currents, air currents, dinosaurs, radio waves, the decay of the world, the best dimensions for large barges, and nuclear weapons. No, no science in the Bible...
I think it is hilarious that you claim Christians can not handle education when it is clear that evolutionists are teaching a faith which not only has no supporting science, but also includes outright lies.
A proof for God, "The Nation of Israel. A people which were without a homeland for 1600 years, spread throughout the earth, yet were promised the return of their land in the end times. Through no effort of their own was the Holy Land restored to them, but by the decay of a failing SuperPower which was forced to get rid of it's middle-eastern interests and gave the Jews the land in Palestine that it owned."
November 21, 2006 7:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 21, 2006 19:19
Haha. The Bible is proof for God? So if I write a story about Kings living at the center of the Earth and write vague prophesies, somewhat consistent (although it is argued by some that there are inherent contradictions in the Bible, but I don't care to analyze if a story is real or not), then you will beleive in the Kings?
But since you do not give anything specific like you demand of others, then you are just a silly, silly boy.
Your "proof" is no different than us saying 'Evolution is true". But you claim that is us just falling victim to lies. Why the contradiction in your views? So I'll give you your own line. Give us ONE scientific conclusion (notice I didn't say fact because you misunderstand what science is) that the Bible is supported by and give us the scientific test that supports the conclusion. Also, if you are so concerned with the truth, then why not critique the supporting evidence of the Hawthorn maggot flies. And please go beyond the ad hominem attacks and the misunderstanding idea that macroevoution means that the new species must look different. Learn evolution and then critique it. Macroevolution simply means a change in genetic codes where a new species arises, even if it looks similar.
So give us that great and amazing proof of God. Saying the Bible proves it is like saying evolution proves evolution (a tautology and gives no new information) or that the Bible is true because God is true, and God is true because the Bible is true (another tautology). Or, how about God is true because I say so!. You give nothing empirical. You just state your ignorance which is hilarious. This is why creationists should not be in charge of education because this type of thinking will ruin our educational system. But I guess the voters realize that because everytime creationism is tried to be placed in schools, it is voted down!
November 21, 2006 2:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 21, 2006 14:59
I seem to have offended Ms. Jacoby, we'll see if this post goes through, I hope my last one does, it took a long time to write.
Proof for God, the Bible: Infallible, Inerrant, 100% prophecy fulfillment to date, absolute scientific perfection.
November 21, 2006 6:58 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 21, 2006 06:58
Alleycat,
Sorry. I didn't notice your post.
Anyway, I just saw the response that you received from teh creationist. Some may think that he is being sarcastic with the 110% comment, but seeing his misunderstanding of evolution, I have little doubt that he thinks one something could actually be 110% of itself, which, in their minds, is evidence that math is wrong also. Everything in the Bible is true in their minds and no science will ever disprove that. As I mentioned before, they don't want to learn the science and actually understand that. They are just trying to preach on the internet to save our destined souls that are heading to Hell. I rather be in Hell and be uneducated, than in Heaven and knowing nothing at all. Lets just thank "God" that science is able to go on despite creationist ignorance. They don't understand science and they are proud of it. Saying that the new fly is still a fly is rooted in their absurd idea of 'half an eye' or 'half-man and half-ape' comments. They are so twisted in their words and demand evidence for evolution. If they simply read scientific articles and/or books they would see it themselves. However, they come on internet sites and demand us to prove it, which would take us to explain decades of research. Thus, when we don't they feel like they win. It is like a child kicking, screaming, and whining because they want to go and get ice cream. Once they get it, they cry because of a stomachache. Well, we gave the creationists their ice cream. Now he is complaining that it isn't real evidence, even though scientists who are wiser than his God see it as such. Pathetic!!!
November 21, 2006 2:09 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 21, 2006 02:09
I think it is hilarious that Canyon keeps asking for evidence for evolution, but he simply says "Creation is a fact." He fails to give evidence against the Earth being 4.5 billion years old (accepted through scientific dating). I provided a link (I fixed the broken link) that gives 29 proofs for evidence, and, instead of showing how they are false through the non-faulty creation science, he uses ad hominem attacks against the web site. True genius sir!
At my first attempt of evolution evidence, I wanted to give an explanation in one of my books, but I couldn't find it until now.
One of the best ways to give evidence for natural selection and a new species, is to look at organisms that multiply alot and don't live that long. This way, we can view numerous population generations within our own lifetime. But I'm sure Canyon and other creationists refuse to look at scientific texts or journals, so they don't know this.
Anyway, the two flies we will look at are the apple maggot flies and the hawthorn maggot flies. They look indistinguishable to the eye. One way to test natural selection is to ask, "Are the flies that parasitize apple fruits and hawthorn fruits distinct populations" (Evolutionary Analysis by Freeman and Herron, p. 416). The mechanism of natural selection in this instance is food preference. This is due to the fact that mating occurs on the fruit. Thus, there are two hypotheses, they are same populations and different populations. Hence, it is testable.
It was tested if they were different or the same, and it was found through protein electrophoresis (determining the genetic make-up) and found them to be different. The differences aren't marked by their looks, but by their genotypes.
These flies were marked so they could be studied in the wild and found that mating occured between the two flies of 6% of the matings. What occurred was that there was an exchange of alleles. The increase of gene flow is caused by the fruits ripening. Due to other biological phenomena, the hawthorn flies larvae are selected more rapidly and the apple flies larvae are selected more slowly. Then, in the spring, the flies were examined to determine and "assay the frequencies of the six allozymes that differ between the hawthorne and apple races" (418).
What was found? The hawthorn flies that switch to the fruit of apples must develop slowly! In other words, "In a single generation, then, the researchers succeeded in replicating the selection of events that have produced divergence between the apple race and the hawthorn race in nature over the past 300 years" (418).
This experiment uses much more biological jargon to go over here. However, it is clear that they saw MACROEVOLUTION in ONE generation. This wasn't microevolution at all. Perhaps the problem is that creationists just don't read evolutionary material. Thus, it makes it much easier on their Christian souls to make absurd comments that evolution doesn't occur. WE ARE SEEING IT OCCUR NOW. The book that I cite lists eight other species that are diverging right now with their citations to the studies that are researching it. Quit lying about this crap. Evolution happened. We see it occurring just like we see the effects of gravity.
So, I ask you, "Where is the evidence of God and his creation?" One fact please!
November 21, 2006 1:30 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 21, 2006 01:30
>>
TSAlleyCat, in responce to your article I fell on the floor laughing. But it was in pity, be assured of that.
That fly is still 110% FLY, it not a mosquito, it is not a Humming Bird, it is a FLY, it shows no tendency to become anything else. You have been brainwashed by tiny, tiny things, like the changing of beak size in birds...that's not evolution! Of all the things I am shocked by in this world, the ease with which people are brainwashed continually takes my breath away.
Evolution is predicted by the Bible. It says in the end times many will listen to preachers who appeal to their itching ears. You are so desperate to disprove God and Creation that you will believe any stupidness that comes up. I will and do honestly examine each and every evolution idea that comes up, and truthfully, most of them take three seconds to see the absolute religiousness of it all.
If you were truly interested in the truth instead of appealing to your own heart's desire, you'd see the truth in a heartbeat.
Now, are you going to post a fact for evolution or what?
<<
Your arrogant, snotty, and ignorant dismisal does nothing to refute what is posted. Evolutionary biology is based on Selection and variation. Not Flies becoming Moths or some other artifical construct but flies become some other kind of fly i.e. Speciation, one of the core concepts of evolution. Speciation over time does create new and different animals.
The bottom line is science has been able to find and demonstrate selection and generic variation as living facts that can be observed. Since these are the core drivers of evolution, it would be diffucult to somehow claim evolution doesn't happen when the key mechanisms of it are indeed know and provable
I don't disprove god, because god is an provable matter or faith - belief withough evidence. Even people like yourself tend to retreat into it when the evidence tac isn't working. Like you, I am concerned about has been proven and disproven. I don't try to disprove god because I don't have to, God is unproven, so those making the positive assertion have the burden of proof.
I take nothing about evolution on faith. I have studied it in the laboratory, and held the skulls of the Hominid Ancestors you say never existed in my hands
Anyway, you've had a fact, you've predictably denied it as such, and any more of the same will be a waste of time.
November 20, 2006 11:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 20, 2006 23:33
TSAlleyCat, in responce to your article I fell on the floor laughing. But it was in pity, be assured of that.
That fly is still 110% FLY, it not a mosquito, it is not a Humming Bird, it is a FLY, it shows no tendency to become anything else. You have been brainwashed by tiny, tiny things, like the changing of beak size in birds...that's not evolution! Of all the things I am shocked by in this world, the ease with which people are brainwashed continually takes my breath away.
Evolution is predicted by the Bible. It says in the end times many will listen to preachers who appeal to their itching ears. You are so desperate to disprove God and Creation that you will believe any stupidness that comes up. I will and do honestly examine each and every evolution idea that comes up, and truthfully, most of them take three seconds to see the absolute religiousness of it all.
If you were truly interested in the truth instead of appealing to your own heart's desire, you'd see the truth in a heartbeat.
Now, are you going to post a fact for evolution or what?
November 20, 2006 8:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 20, 2006 20:31
I feel like a broken record, but you are blinded by faith yet again. I knew that wikipedia article was written solely by evolutionists, after all, look at the super-tiny blurb that creationists got. I wanted to see if you could read through the religion of the evolutionists, but I guess you're not interested in that.
They said, "one large depositional event", which, 4400 years ago was a World-Wide Flood. They agree with me without even meaning too...These trees aren't through rock that you think is brand new, no, it matches the age of the other rocks, which your dating methods have so royally screwed up.
Fact for Creation(Flood):
Seashells and clams on the TOP of Mt. Everest
Disproving Fact for Evolution:
The Appendix, an important part of your immune system; those without one are more likely to contract lukemia, colon cancer, and prostate cancer. If you still believe it does nothing, and it came from our Orangutang uncles, please explain why they DON'T HAVE ONE or any similar organ!
Please now, post for me ONE fact that supports evolution.
November 20, 2006 8:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 20, 2006 20:25
Hey Canyon:
Direct evidence for Speciation:
>>
An interesting example of evolution at work is the case of the hawthorn fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, which appears to be undergoing sympatric speciation.[5] Different populations of hawthorn fly feed on different fruits. A distinct population emerged in North America in the 19th century some time after apples, a non-native species, were introduced. This apple-feeding population normally feeds only on apples and not on the historically preferred fruit of hawthorns. The current hawthorn feeding population does not normally feed on apples. Scientists are investigating whether or not the apple-feeding subspecies may further evolve into a new species.
Some evidence, such as the fact that six out of thirteen alozyme loci are different, that hawthorn flies mature later in the season and take longer to mature than apple flies; and that there is little evidence of interbreeding (researchers have documented a 4-6% hybridization rate) suggests that this is occurring. The emergence of the new hawthorn fly is an example of evolution in progress.
<<
Wikipedia
This type of activity has been long predicted in Evolutionary biology and molecular Genetics.
But it doesn't matter does it? Science is drawing conclusions for evidenence, Religious Fanatacism is taking your preset conclusion and scraping for evidence, which is clearly what you are doing. Even if your "Standing Fossil" was a strong argument for a "Young Earth Flood" (which it is not) The preponderance of evidence is (massively) on the side of the old earth.
Do you ascribe the scientific concensus on Evolution a mass conspiracy? I know of plenty of Christian-Faith Scientists (had to use the hyphen to escape the conntation of the denomination) that would be absolutely thrilled for the evidence to prove the bible. But it does not, so as intellectually honest people they accept evolution as a well-established fact.
November 20, 2006 8:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 20, 2006 20:09
From Freethinkers--
"Bush would surely have been criticized, and rightly so, had he failed to invite representatives of non-Christian faiths to the ecumenical ceremony in memory of the victims of terrorism. But he felt perfectly free to ignore Americans who adhere to no religious faith, whose outlook is predominantly secular, and who interpret history and tragedy as the work of man rather than God. There was no speaker who represented my views, no one to reject the notion of divine purpose at work in theslaughter of thousands and to proclaim the truth that grief, patriotism, and outrage at injustice run just as deep in the secular as in the religious portion of the American body politic."
Three thousand Americans dead and Ms. Jacoby felt slighted because there was no speaker to counter with a secularist-toned speech at a prayer service? I feel her pain.
November 20, 2006 4:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 20, 2006 16:06
Canyon:
Did you even read the link you listed?
Fact for Creation(Flood):
Trees standing through Million Year old Strata:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil
Apparently not, as the following (found in the link you gave me) is stated:
"Thus, the arguments by Dr. Harold Coffin and other creationists that the presence of “Spirorbis” fossils within strata containing polystrate fossils indicate their deposition in a marine environment are invalid because these fossils are actually the remains of extinct fresh and brackish water lophophorates instead of the remains of the marine genera Spirorbis as they have been misidentified in the geologic literature.
Thus, according to mainstream science, polystrate fossils are just fossils which were buried in a relatively short time span either by one large depositional event or by several smaller ones. Mainstream geologists see no need to invoke a global flood to explain upright fossils.
This position of mainstream geologists is supported by numerous examples, which have been found at numerous locations, of polystrate, upright, trees completely buried within either late Holocene or historic sediments. These polystrate trees demonstrate that conventional geologic processes are capable of burying and preserving trees in an upright position such that in time, they will become fossilized."
So there goes your proof.
November 20, 2006 3:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 20, 2006 15:32
Canyon (again!):
"Fact for Creation(Flood):
Trees standing through Million Year old Strata"
"1. The world is very old, 6,600 years is quite old.
2. 6,600 years, two days, is not much older"
Hmmm...seems to be a little discrepancy.
Your "evidence" for Creation is trees through million year old strata, but yet you say the world is only 6,600 years old...
How do explain that?
November 20, 2006 2:58 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 20, 2006 14:58
Canyon:
"Fact for Creation(Flood):
Trees standing through Million Year old Strata"
Here:
"Malone, along with many "young Earth global flood creationists", have no idea that even data from the 19th century, presented by a creationist geologist is enough to demolish the "polystrate fossil trees" part of their presentation. "Polystrate fossil trees" are probably one of the weakest pieces of evidence YEGF creationists can offer for their interpretation. I wish they would stop using it."
If you'd like to read more on this, try this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
November 20, 2006 1:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 20, 2006 13:08
Canyon:
"Fact for Creation(Flood):
Trees standing through Million Year old Strata"
and in response, I found:
"In summary, we’ve learned that the curious Fossil-Fossils of De-Na-Zin simply cannot be squared with creationist “Flood Geology.” How could “sprint” fossilization have occurred during the high-energy flood itself? How can the silty river deposits and occasional floods of the Ojo Alamo be reconciled with the creationist notion that global chaos reigned right through the entire Tertiary Period? Well, they can’t."
And another of your brilliant arguments:
"If you clear out your garage of EVERYTHING, shut it and lock it, in a billion years, will we be able to open your garage and find a Mercedes? No, because evolution doesn't happen. Even if we put all of the materials in there for a Mercedes Benz, no amount of time will put it together"
This is not how evolution works!
The following sounds eerily familiar to what most of us are saying to you...(except replace evolution with Christianity (or whatever religion)):
"You are blinded to the truth, until you truly want to find it, anything I post here will not convince you. Please stop believing blindly in evolution."
November 20, 2006 12:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 20, 2006 12:49
Be quiet now, the grownups are talking.
November 20, 2006 12:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 20, 2006 12:22
Dear MKH,
With extreme laughter do I reply to your post.
You basically said, "Canyon has blind faith because he refused to believe in the things we don't know but may someday know."
Take your blindfold off Mr. MKH.
One proof of Evolution, PLEASE!
November 20, 2006 12:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 20, 2006 12:02
We have a wonderful example of the topic of this thread. I have to repeat my question, more specifically this time: how are we going to protect our species from the likes of Canyon Shearer?
This is a mind totally controlled by blind faith, absolutely shielded against rationality. I can ask for no better example of how diseased a presumably thinking mind can become when so infected.
Other than the noise they make, they really have nothing to say. Canyon Shearer is a foot-stamper, who only pretends to understand the meaning of the word 'evidence.' These people use words like "knowledge" and "fact" in a different manner than those who do understand what evidence is and is not. They have a corrupted vocabulary, for this reason it is truly impossible to have any kind of discussion based on rational observation and empericism.
We once believed the atom to be indivisable, we have proven this is not the case. I must say I don't believe it's possible to clear the infected mind of blind faith, perhaps this can be disproven too.
November 20, 2006 11:20 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 20, 2006 11:20
Dear Mr. Atheist,
You are blinded by your faith in science, please reread you post to learn that!
I have searched out every lie or misunderstanding of evolution, there are no facts, which is why it's been four days and none have been posted! When you find one, (you won't) please post it!
There is misunderstood evidence for a Billions of years. It is the defining point in your religion. With enough time, anything is possible to you.
If you clear out your garage of EVERYTHING, shut it and lock it, in a billion years, will we be able to open your garage and find a Mercedes? No, because evolution doesn't happen. Even if we put all of the materials in there for a Mercedes Benz, no amount of time will put it together. Things break down, in fact after only probably 100 years, the garage will fall apart! That is the way the world works, only with an intelligent creator will a car be put together!
You are blinded to the truth, until you truly want to find it, anything I post here will not convince you. Please stop believing blindly in evolution.
Fact for Creation(Flood):
Trees standing through Million Year old Strata:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil
November 20, 2006 10:18 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 20, 2006 10:18
Canyon:
Ugh...once again there are lots of resources for "facts" of evolution...you choose to not search them out. When I get more time I'll post one.
Regarding the following:
1. The world is very old, 6,600 years is quite old.
2. 6,600 years, two days, is not much older.
3. No, they don't.
4. ???
5. Evolution has ZERO facts.
Um...the "world" is billions of years old, and there is evidence of that.
Obviously, the universe is even older...
3. Yes...where's your proof disputing this?
"Fact of creation, a word you used, "Universe" means, One Phrase, also: "In the Beginning, God Created the Heavens and the Earth."
"That is ONE Fact"
How is that a fact?!
where's the evidence?
Show me ONE fact of creation
November 20, 2006 10:05 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 20, 2006 10:05
"1) The world is very old
2) The universe is much older
3) All creatures on earth have antecedents
5) Evolution is "Fact" in biology not a theory, not only can evolutionary behavior be seen in biological study, it also has predicted things found in the modern science of genetics"
All other religious posts aside(which none of which bear replying to), I will reply to TSalleycats,
1. The world is very old, 6,600 years is quite old.
2. 6,600 years, two days, is not much older.
3. No, they don't.
4. ???
5. Evolution has ZERO facts.
If it did, someone would have posted a single sentence answer here.
Fact of creation, a word you used, "Universe" means, One Phrase, also: "In the Beginning, God Created the Heavens and the Earth."
That is ONE Fact, there are hundreds, even thousands more for a Created, Young Earth...in archeology, Biology, Genetics, Medical Science, Astrology, Linguistics, in everything. Do not think that I am arguing Science vs. Religion. I am arguing Science vs. Evolution. The two say opposite things, and always Science(True Science) Agrees with the Bible.
Where's your fact?
November 20, 2006 7:46 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 20, 2006 07:46
>> Canyon Shearer:
This argument has degenerated to futility. The extreme hilarity of it...Talk Origins is down...which is a stupid website anyways filled with evolution zealots who can't prove anything.
All other things aside.
ONE fact that proves evolution!
<<
There is no "One Fact" that proves evolution anymore than there is "one fact" that proves all of chemistry. However, the totality of most modern science does show that several things are pretty well "proven".
1) The world is very old
2) The universe is much older
3) All creatures on earth have antecedents
5) Evolution is "Fact" in biology not a theory, not only can evolutionary behavior be seen in biological study, it also has predicted things found in the modern science of genetics
Beyond this whether you want to ascribe this to a god or not is your business, but when come to the table with a pre-set agenda Like Canyon there is virtually nothing that will be a sufficient fact. If you believe that what we ascribe to Physics is done by Magical Gnomes, then you will see Magical Gnomes when a Nuclear Bomb explodes.
Although now a non-believer of any kind, I was an Evangelical Baptist as a kid, but I dropped out when I realized they believed the Biblical creation story literally. Even then I was well read enough to understand the difference between science and Mythology. I was aghast that they ridiculed Science and evolution based on Fanatical assertions. I didn't "believe" in science, I accepted it as process *note* PROCESS for finding out the nature of the universe.
By the way I've seen some the "Proof" that Biblical Creationists put forth against evolution and biblical creation. For a real hoot visit
http://www.evidencebible.com/
Its full of the same tired tirade against evolution that has been in the little paper tracts left around in bathrooms for decades. They still harp on "Piltdown" man, a case of deliberate fraud that somehow proves all of evolution's evidence is false.
If Canyon really wanted proof, there is plenty to be found. But it’s called Science, a method of inquiry that cannot be undertaken with a pre-assumed outcome.
November 19, 2006 6:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 19, 2006 18:20
I said Sam Harris was "the most rational person on the panel." Well there are at least two rational people on the panel. Susan is a very eloquent speaker. She gets right to the point with powerful and lucid arguments.
Canyon Shearer proves Susan's point; fundamentalists can not find common ground. According to Canyon Shearer only good christians go to heaven. There are many people that believe the same thing about him because of their religion.
November 18, 2006 6:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2006 18:31
Canyon Shearer is just plain scary...
Thanks to all the "rational" posters.
This seems to be a fitting quotation:
"There are readers of these newsgroups who reject evolution for religious reasons. In general these readers oppose both the fact of evolution and theories of mechanisms, although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts. That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of "microevolution"--they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the "facthood" of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose. Even this simple hope is rarely fulfilled."
November 18, 2006 12:19 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2006 00:19