Let me post this one more time..I believe this is the most pertinent part of the article that the General posted.
"Apparently, Darwin's theory had become indefensible to them, citing particularly the absence of intermediate fossils as the conflicting fact.
Intermediate meaning "missing link" fossils..or fossils showing a transition between two different species. The "missing links" have not been found my friends. Anyone who tells you they have is either..
a) ignorant
b) lying
c) both a & c
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Well that's not fair..I've given the same amount of evidence you've given..links to web sites. Regarding your previous post..Please explain to me how the this reply that you've given answers the question [b]Where's the missing link?I don't see any mention in that post of a missing link being found. That's because there has not been one. This is a very simple truth. Debate this point all you wish, but this fact will remain the same. [/B]
Have I said anywhere the missing link between apes and humans HAS been found? NO!!! If it HAD been, then it wouldn't be called a missing link, now would it? But of course, if 1 missing link was found, then it still wouldn't satisfy you, now would it? Like in the one thing that Ush posted, some people simply won't be happy until the fossil of a pregnant ape with a human fetus is found.
But just because it hasn't been found yet does NOT mean it does not exist. There are many gaps in the fossil record, because fossils are few and far between, and only very rarely does an animal become fossilized. But scientists are searching for these fossils. Creationists just say "Well, they don't have it right now, therefore it doesn't exist, so then evolution can't be true."
For those of you who don't know what the "punctuated equilibrium" theory is, I will explain it in short.
Having concluded that the serious absense of intermediate forms in the fossil record nullified Darwin's theory of evolution, evolutionists rationalized that it might be possible for genetic mutation to produce new species in between generations. In example, a fully developed bear suddenly gives birth to a fully developed rhinoceros.
Yes, I'm telling the truth. To study this possibility, long studies were made, with the fruit fly as the subject becuase its short life span and generation cycle makes it ideal for studying the processes of evolution. The flies were bombarded with radioactivity, and mutations did indeed form. However, despite the mutations, every single one remained, physically, a fruit fly!
For one species to give birth to an entirely different species, the genetic information in the DNA would have to be shifted around nearly entirely, and into a working set that cap actually produce a living, able creature. This is comparable to placing the separate parts of a fine watch into a paper bag, and shaking the paper bag to make the parts assemble themselves into a complete watch, tighten the screws, wind itself, and set itself to the correct time.
Compared to the need for such mutation to produce two complete creatures of the same (new and entirely unplanned) species, one of each gender, within the same lifespan, the watch in the bag looks plausible.
I think some of you are missing the big picture: How will this affect our children? How will this affect our society as a whole? What will be the positive/negative consequences of initiating Creationism into science classes? How will this affect our economy? Who will be harmed? Who will be benefited? Etc.
Here's my two cents as a Christian:
No, intelligent design should not be taught, unless that school happens to be a Christian school. Then, if the school chooses to do so, both may be taught.
(That was probably more like one cent. I'm not going to justify my answer; it will stay as-is. Unless someone pisses me off.)
Originally posted by FeceMan
Here's my two cents as a Christian:No, intelligent design should not be taught, unless that school happens to be a Christian school. Then, if the school chooses to do so, both may be taught.
(That was probably more like one cent. I'm not going to justify my answer; it will stay as-is. Unless someone pisses me off.)
Thank you, a sensible response. That is my stance entirely.
Originally posted by Draco69
I think some of you are missing the big picture: How will this affect our children? How will this affect our society as a whole? What will be the positive/negative consequences of initiating Creationism into science classes? How will this affect our economy? Who will be harmed? Who will be benefited? Etc.
Good points. I don't see it having any adverse effects. When I was in Junior High, Creationism was mentioned briefly in Science textbooks. This was in "public school" by the way.
Originally posted by Lana
Yeah. 25 years ago. Read the articles I linked a few pages back. About fossils that have been found in the past 5 years.
I did.
The first is yet another ape, complete with a build of how they think the bones might have been put together, and an artist's visualization of how it may have looked. even the scientists who discovered it didn't want to call it a link. Rather shaky evidence.
The second is a good story indeed. A link that not even Darwin could find. Amazing. And better yet, they use this link to validate the line from worm to human, ignoring the fact that that path has several other snags. But best of all, there are no pictures, no diagrams, nothing. I could just as easily write that I had discovered the link that shows man came from elephants.
The third, as far as I can figure out what the heck they're saying, is about a virus which infected a food poisoning bug. They're using that to validate evolution to man?
The fourth contains a few problems. The Homo Habilis and [IHomo Rudolfensis[/I] have been discredited as belonging to the Homo genus. And recent research on the Ankarapithecus has shown it to be most likely related to the apes of present-day South Asia.
The fifth is interesting. However, again they show no evidence of their discoveries, only their written word. Archaeopteryx was a species of bird, not a half-bird/half-dinosaur.
It also claims that the degree of diffence in DNA is according to the time the species split from the others. A pretty theory... and conveniently impossible to show.
The sixth contains another pretty artist's visualization, but forgets to support the picture with the actual fossils. And even then, the two scientists cannot agree on how the "new finds" link whales to the rest of the mammals.
Update:
TOPEKA, Kan. (May 6) - As a State Board of Education subcommittee heard more testimony Friday on how evolution should be taught in Kansas classrooms, one member acknowledged that she hadn't read all of an evolution-friendly draft of science standards proposed by educators.
Kathy Martin of Clay Center made the comment while attempting to reassure a witness who said he hadn't read the entire proposal, just parts of it. Russell Carlson, a biochemistry and molecular biology professor at the University of Georgia, said he had reviewed an alternate proposal from intelligent design advocates.
''I've not read it word for word myself,'' Martin said of the other proposal, eliciting groans of disbelief from a few members of the audience.
The board expects to consider changes in June in how Kansas students are tested statewide on science. The three-member subcommittee began hearings Thursday, and will hear more testimony Saturday and again next Thursday.
''It's intellectually stimulating,'' said board Chairman Steve Abrams, of Arkansas City, one of the three presiding members. ''It's good information.''
Similar battles have occurred in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania in the past few years.
The Kansas board has sought to avoid comparisons of its hearings with the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial in Dayton, Tenn., in which teacher John Scopes was convicted of violating a law against teaching evolution. But the hearings resemble a trial, with attorneys managing each side's case.
In 1999, the Kansas State Board of Education, with a conservative majority - which included Abrams - deleted most references to evolution in the science standards. The next election led to a less conservative board, which adopted the current standards describing evolution as a key concept for students to learn before graduating high school.
Last year, conservatives captured a majority again, and many scientists fear the board will adopt revisions supported by intelligent design advocates. The conservative majority includes the three subcommittee members, Abrams; Kathy Martin, of Clay Center, and Connie Morris, of St. Francis.
Intelligent design advocates said they only want to expose students to more criticism of evolution, giving them a more balanced picture of the theory attributed to 19th Century British scientist Charles Darwin.
''The way Darwinian evolution is usually presented is that the evidence is overwhelming, and there is no controversy about it,'' said Jonathan Wells, a senior fellow at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which supports intelligent design research. ''That's clearly not the case.''
Intelligent design advocates question evolutionary science that says change in one species can lead to new species and that different species have common ancestors.
Intelligent design says some features in the natural world - because they are complex and well-ordered - are best explained by an intelligent cause.
None of the changes intelligent design advocates have proposed in the standards mention their ideas. But other scientists scoff at the notion that the board isn't being pushed to endorse intelligent design.
''The only things that exist in intelligent design literature are criticisms of evolution,'' said Keith Miller, a research assistant professor in geology at Kansas State University. ''Who are the people they are bringing here to speak? Advocates of intelligent design.''
Viewing the hearings as rigged against evolution, national and state science groups are boycotting, so no scientist is expected to testify against the intelligent design advocates' case.
Instead, they planned news conferences at the Statehouse. On display for the first one Thursday night was a wheel barrow and two crates full of copies of scientific journals - to suggest evolution is well-documented.
Originally posted by Draco69
''The only things that exist in intelligent design literature are criticisms of evolution,'' said Keith Miller, a research assistant professor in geology at Kansas State University. ''Who are the people they are bringing here to speak? Advocates of intelligent design.''Viewing the hearings as rigged against evolution, national and state science groups are boycotting, so no scientist is expected to testify against the intelligent design advocates' case.
What, the evolutionists are feeling threatened, so they're refusing to argue their point of view? Sounds like pretty childish action to me. Yeah, that'll make people want to support teaching evolution... 🙄
Originally posted by General Kaliero
What, the evolutionists are feeling threatened, so they're refusing to argue their point of view? Sounds like pretty childish action to me. Yeah, that'll make people want to support teaching evolution... 🙄
I think it's getting to the point where the the theory of Evolution should be labeled as a "religion".... 😆 😆 😆
..the only thing it has missing from it are supernatural events..oh wait a second I forgot about the Rhinocerous being born from a Bear theory..lol..okay..so when will we be hearing news about the Church of Darwin being started... 😆 😆 😆