Ben Sargent by Ben Sargent

Tags: Intelligent Design, Texas Education, Evolution, creationism. Add Tags

Comments (53) Jump to Comments Form

HUMPHRIES said, 10 months ago

DD, where are you? Help us out with alittle clarification, please.
Corosive Frog said, 10 months ago

LLOL!
oldlegodad said, 10 months ago

SBOE=State Board of Education. Link

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/01/19/0119science.html

Other update links on the site.
DALLASDAN said, 10 months ago

Sorry I’m late. In a nutshell, the nuts at the SBOE had a long standing rule that HS science teachers had to point out “weaknesses” in the theory of evolution but that was reversed on Thursday. In his inaugral speech, President Obama said “we will restore science to it’s rightful place”. Change has come even down here.
motivemagus said, 10 months ago

Unfortunately, according to the National Council for Science Education (www.ncseweb.org), some managed to stick creationist catchphrases into the Earth and Space Science standards like “sudden appearance.” Some other board members were upset that this was done without time to review or get expert opinions. “In a 2005 report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, Texas was one of 15 states to earn an “F” for its science standards.” Dr. Scott of the NCSE is optimistic, however.
fennec said, 10 months ago

OK, so let’s hear it for the Pasterfarians! The Flying Spaghetti Monster can touch us with his noodly appendage. (Some grad students have a lot too much time on their hands,)
NoFearPup said, 10 months ago

Yes, we just need to find that trans-mutational gene and then it will make sense…I like how Billy Peston? puts it,
“Nothing from nothing leaves nothing, and you gotta have SOMETHING, if you want to be with me…” But I guess we got plenty of time…Somewhere there’s a magic fish to be found.

In case you don’t get my sarcasm: ancient and some current forms of life were once considered PRIMITIVE - modern science has determined that there is no “SIMPLE” life forms in existence. They are a DESIGN of great complexity unequaled even by our largest cities, am I right MACIG-MOTIVE?

So science in its arrogance has dispensed with RELIGION because only simple folk could believe it…but now the world is so un-fathomable in it’s majesty even a bacterium can initiate awe amonst its contemplators. Hoisted , quite poetically, on your own petard - if I do say myself.
Corosive Frog said, 10 months ago

I said it before and I said it again; Science tells the how life began on Earth, Religion tells why.

To describe this post, I could tell someone “I wrote: I said it before…..blablahblah….bit differently” Or I could say “There’s an I, a space, then a S, then an a, then an i…” Both would be describing the same thing just as accurately, but a bit differently.

Two different fingers can point at the same thing, you know what happens when we put too much emphasis on the finger.
Simon_Jester said, 10 months ago

Hey there friends!

Are you…

Bigoted?
Angry?
Mean Spirited?
Hateful?
Selfish?
Or just plain Uncaring?

Do you wish that you could get into heaven without having to go through the day-to-day drudgery of loving thy neighbor as thyself?

Well, you can! With the amazing Fundamentalist Faith program, YOU can be a hate-filled monster and waltz right through the Pearly Gates on a red carpet.

That’s right friends…through our simple, three step, anti-choice, anti-gay, and anti-Darwin program, we eliminate the need to show compassion for the less fortunate, turn the other cheek, and judge not that, ye be judged.

Yes, it’s true. You can cast the first stone, thank the Lord that you are not as other men are, and even kick Lazarus the beggar in the crotch. As long as you follow our anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-Darwin* program, you can COUNT on being pulled out of your clothes and raised up to sit on God’s right side when the Rapture comes

Call now, at 1-800-824-6423, That’s 1-800-UBINHAD.

Operators are standing pat.

*Not effective on SOCIAL Darwinism; some restrictions may apply.
NoFearPup said, 10 months ago

ad hominen, I’m gonna win this one too - That’s 2:2 this weekend! (oooh,yeah!) Science, the new Religion of the Oppressors…You’ve heard of Communism right Joker, how combined they killed more people in one century than “Religion” has in all the centuries before? The arrogance your post shows is exactly why you’re wrong.
HUMPHRIES said, 10 months ago

puppy ,,, from a simple folk - you blow smoke out you ass. Think Ms Frog put forth a n idea worth considering. I love how you thumpers insult the almighty by reducing God and creation into a simplistic idea that you try to put a stamp of approval on “because it happened just as you see it”.
Simon_Jester said, 10 months ago

ROFL nofearsockpuppet.

You make my day, you really do. In practically the same sentence you thump your chest like a silverback and howl that you’re the baddest dude on the bloc…while at the same time whining about how your and your poor lil’ buddies are being victimized by science

Peeeee-ricelss!
NoFearPup said, 10 months ago

I was responding to Simon JESTER. I disagree with Cor_Frog, I’m sure she wont be disappointed to find that out. Humphy don’t re mold me into something I’m not. :P
NoFearPup said, 10 months ago

I am saying - “You don’t want the new religion of the Oppressor to be Science, do you?” Because that is what you are headed for. Look at contemporary China - “We have fresh organs to sell, you’ll like our discount! we raided a nice Christian home church with healthy organs…two for one - no questions asked. We have many many more embryos and female fetus tissue to offer the enlightened scientist and man-of-the-world.”
Kylop said, 10 months ago

“…You’ve heard of Communism right Joker, how combined they killed more people in one century than “Religion” has in all the centuries before? …”

I’ve heard general -qualitative- assessments tossed out for both of those but never actual numbers. Where did you get a direct comparison?
Simon_Jester said, 10 months ago

And I didn’t say you were responding to me, sockpuppy, even if you did say, “You’ve heard of Communism right Joker?”

Which brings up another point, if you’re so down on Communist China, where were you and the rest of the Neo-Cons when Bush was borrowing us into hock with Beijing?

Well?
CRConrad said, 10 months ago

That you, “Simon”?
Corosive Frog said, 10 months ago

When someone is determined to control others, they will use any ideology as filler.

On the other hand, there are other countries outside the US besides China. The free World is not limited to the US. Quite frankly, it’s that “you’re american or you’re evil” attitude that gets most on my nerves and I think that condescendence is the source of a good deal of america’s bad reputation in the last eight years.

BTW’ I love the Ad, Jester!
motivemagus said, 10 months ago

Hmm…NFP, I’ll happily avoid the ad hominem argument, since that is indeed my point regarding religion (which is often idiosyncratic to one’s individual faith) vs. science (which explicitly tries to avoid that). The vast majority of religions in the world support science and indeed evolution; the main exceptions are (1) fundamentalist Christianity, and (2) fundamentalist Islam. See, for example, this link to an educational website for Texas supported by a large number of clergy: http://www.teachthemscience.org/, and the Clergy Letter Project (http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel _ evol _ sun.htm). It’s got some very nice links both to explain evolution in general, to counter the usual (outdated) criticisms by the proponents of creationism and “intelligent design,” and also explains why using ID in the schools teaches bad thinking.
As for your point about “science as religion,” it ain’t _my_ religion, and I am a scientist! (I’m Catholic, and it is noteworthy about how many great scientists are Jesuit priests, including some anthropologists…trying to understand God’s creation!) Furthermore, one of the worst governments for science in recent history was the USSR, which introduced Lysenkoism for political reasons and durn near killed Russian biology, so the “science = Godless communism” doesn’t work, either.
I feel no need to enter the debate about which killed more people, science or religion - it’s really pointless. I would rather discuss the issue itself: evolution. Evolution probably has more data supporting it than any complex scientific concept. It is the essential core of biology, biochemistry, genetics, and medicine even more than, say, gravity or atomic theory is central to physics. Unfortunately, it is a complex enough subject that it takes a little research to appreciate it. I strongly recommend reading Stephen Jay Gould’s many books explaining evolution, or at least the links on the NCSE site (www.ncseweb.org). There’s no need for a “magic fish,” NoFearPup. And the argument from complexity is a false one. We’ve had millions or billions of years of life on Earth to select out the more complex forms of life - that’s plenty of time, especially since evolution is not a random process, though randomness contributes to it.
Your view about the complexity of life and the universe is exactly the view of most scientists - the universe is a marvelous construction, and knowing more science enhances our appreciation of the vast complexity of creation. But most scientists are not so arrogant as to limit the Creator in His methods or insist that He intervene every time a new species appears. Instead, many of us feel that the Creator, Whomever you consider it to be, set up all the rules right at the beginning so that it flowed naturally. A few simple rules can play out in amazingly complex ways. My universe - and by extension, my Creator - is much, much larger and more powerful than that the fundamentalists appear to believe.
fennec said, 10 months ago

MM, you have, as usual, stated the position of most scientists so clearly. Needless to say, I agree with your thesis completely.
Simon_Jester said, 10 months ago

CRConrad.

If you mean the Simon_Jester from the ESS board, yep it’s me.

Or…I’ve used this alias in a couple of other places as well.
HUMPHRIES said, 10 months ago

motive … interesting, you clarified a few points for me and introduced a few new ones to think about.
Corosive Frog said, 10 months ago

Faith = seeing without believing
(definition from D. Lamontagne, Professor of religious sciences at MonctonU)

If the day ever comes when religion will be proven as fact, what will be so great about believing? The point of faith will be lost.
motivemagus said, 10 months ago

thanks, fennec - I forgot you are a biologist, or I might have been warier of posting!
NoFearPup said, 10 months ago
I am sorry to question your beliefs MotiveMagus, I know some people don’t have them sorted out yet - But that hasn’t stopped other people from acting on those nascent beliefs and turning the result into a bloodbath. I responded I believe elsewhere to MarkTrail that I don’t expect to make believers using a Creation Science theme - But my main goal is to highlight your ARROGANCE and TEMERITY in dispensing with one groups beliefs as ridiculous and above consideration. I already told Fennec if your Science is so good it will stand on its own and be able to withstand learned scrutiny.
I ask a favor:
1.
Explain saltations - the appearance of fossils in the fossil record “overnight” epochally speaking and having been unchanged from their inception to their disappearance in the fossil record.
1. Explain how there is not sufficient time for evolution to have occurred by your own scientists reckoning.
2. Explain how species are interpolated from one bone and conceptualized and welcomed into the record as science fact only to be found later to be a heretofore completely KNOWN organism.
3. Explain the lack of evolutionary dead-ends. If Darwinian evolution is correct there should be museums full of the mistakes, but as hinted at earlier THERE IS NOT A SINGLE, PROVEN EVOLVED or UN-EVOLVED SPECIES KNOWN TO HAVE EXISTED.
4. Explain for the posters how LIFE began MOTIVE - this should be easy to at least theorize…Whence the spark and where the tinder most noble Scientist?
oldlegodad said, 10 months ago

I copied _jesters post and sent it to 3 of my minister friends and others, as a conversation starter. IT was a truly 2 edge sword. As thought provoking for mainline Christians as scoffers. I’ve saved it and when I find the email addys of some of the TVanglish I’ll send it to them as a poke in the eye.
fennec said, 10 months ago

MM, why be wary? You have the skill to present these things well…I don’t, so I appreciate that you are holding up our end. How else are people going to know where we’re coming from on these questions?
curiosity1 said, 10 months ago
It amazes me that over and over in the debate between faith and reason, the faithists will pull up supposed examples that cannot be explained and use that to justify that nothing of science can be trusted.

Science admits and expects the inexplicable. The point of science is to find explanation for the supposedly inexplicable. Science does not proclaim to have all the answers. And yet, the answer to any challenge by the reasonable to faithists about using faith-based science to explain the operation of the universe simply results in effectively a “Because I said so.”

re your specific points NFP:
1. Explain saltations - Quote specific examples and specific counterexamples - the way you phrase the challenge leads one to believe that the entirety of the fossil record fits this stated pattern. I am neither an archeologist nor a biologist, but I can certainly posit that a particular species may have arrived biologically in a particular region and geology which subsequently changed without that species having changed significantly (or more particularly skeletally). Likewise geology certainly permits for territory to change radically creating hard cuts in the geologic/biologic record (flooding, uplift, volcanic activity as examples)
Explain how there is not sufficient time for evolution to have occurred by your own scientists reckoning.
- Please support this hypothesis with a specific body that indicates that this is the case. The general consensus among geologists and biologists indicates that there is absolutely adequate time for life to have evolved to the point of today’s degree of complexity.
Explain how species are interpolated from one bone and conceptualized and welcomed into the record as science fact only to be found later to be a heretofore completely KNOWN organism.
- It is called the process of hypothesis, test and scientific challenge. Very simple. Again, you make this attribution in a way so as to make it appear that EVERY claim is equally invalidated. And, again, make a specific reference to a specific mistaken identification. Science moves forward by testing and retesting hypotheses, celebrating when a better explanation replaces a prior mistaken one.
Explain the lack of evolutionary dead-ends. If Darwinian evolution is correct there should be museums full of the mistakes, but as hinted at earlier THERE IS NOT A SINGLE, PROVEN EVOLVED or UN-EVOLVED SPECIES KNOWN TO HAVE EXISTED.
- Once again, you state there are no evolutionary dead ends. The vast majority of evolutionary dead ends amount to single organisms which are not able to pass on their unsuccessful genetic heritage. As to your point of “THERE IS NOT A SINGLE, PROVEN EVOLVED or UN-EVOLVED SPECIES KNOWN TO HAVE EXISTED”, what does that mean? Your very wording implies logically that there are no species at all known to have existed. I would point to the numerous special extinctions that we have on record as very specific counterpoints to your empty comment - one case in point - the dodo.
Explain for the posters how LIFE began MOTIVE - this should be easy to at least theorize…Whence the spark and where the tinder most noble Scientist?
- It is easy to explain - it is a phenomenon called emergent behavior. Simple elements when assembled together develop abilities that the individual components did not have. As examples, a neuron has very little capabilities, whereas the collection of neurons becomes a nervous system capable of control the corpus and house sentience. Another example, the chemicals which compose the human body are themselves assemblages of atoms which have existed on this planet (or arrived from the cosmos) over billions of years. During that time, they have through random and causal (eg energy induced) interactions formed more complex chemicals (this is readily reproduced in a chemistry lab). Eventually those chemicals develop special properties based on their physics, chemical attributes - (e.g. hormones working based on binding sites, magnetism based on the presence of magnetic ion, flexibility dependent on the lengths of molecules and bonding ability)
  Science has not reconstructed the entire history of the development of life, but it certainly goes far further than simply saying ‘oh yeah, and then people just showed up’)
I am an atheist, but I much prefer the perspective on the relationship between science and faith which has been advanced that perhaps the ‘magic’ of the universe is itself the higher power in which to believe.

Science does not preclude mystery or magnificence. It simply seeks to understand it. Allowing us to wonder about even deeper mysteries.

Peace.
InspectorWingNut said, 10 months ago

Curiousity1 I am not a biologist, paleontologist, or any other scientist. I make my arguments based on what other authorities have listed as important points. I was exposed to high school science courses as most here and have gotten most of my info from Christian radio and books and the odd secular science mag since then. I don’t have the time nor inclination to delve deeper into what is a fruitless labor in these posts so I rely on the honest posters to say yes you are right NFP, but this suggests youre wrong, etc. etc.. I believe Stephen Jay Gould , in wrestling with the implications of his own evolutionary theories came up with other “solutions” to explain these logical flaws, such as the “Hopeful Monster” and the possibility of extra-terrestrial seeding. You’ve now said science does not have all the answers yet you act like it does…Hence my charge of un-scientific arrogance.
InspectorWingNut said, 10 months ago

My fifth point (which I numbered 4) - Is that no organism has been proven to be the incontrovertible link or mutation of another lifeform by using the fossil record. One example usually cited for possible link is the archaeopteryx which exhibited some avian and reptile characteristics. It has been found that birds pre-date the archaeopteryx and can not de a definite example of “origin” I use this language loosely as the presence of one link wouldn’t necessarily reflect on another exact species. Again re-inforcing the need for more mutations more often in the fossil record.
Unwashed_one said, 10 months ago

Why am I always the last to know?
Simon_Jester said, 10 months ago

Forgive me for getting OT here, but is there anyone more cowardly than a sockpuppet?

You know, the guys who post under more than one identity. Too gutless to make a atand on their own, the create several identities, in order to, “singlehandley gang up on other posters.” as someone mch wiser than I once phrased it.

This is why sockpuppets are immediately banned from most forums as soon as they’re uncovered, regardless of the politics of the place From Democratic Underground, to Free Republic, sockpuppets are booted with no reprieve whenever they show up.

And that’s something that always happens, because the average sockpuppet is about as smart as a leaky sack of hammers….and about as effective at concealing their identity as a tattooed fat-lady.

Anyone else agree with this?
motivemagus said, 10 months ago
NoFearPup - Happy to comply, though had you gone to a few of those websites, you might have found them clearer on the subject than I will be! I strongly recommend http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist
even though you won’t like the title.

There are two pieces to this, I think. One is that something appeared rapidly, and the other is that it didn’t change as far as we know until it disappeared from the fossil record. Basically, It’s a big world and an old one, NFP. “Overnight” epochally speaking can be a long time indeed. (“A thousand years is but a day in Your sight,” eh? That argument is used for some creationists to justify some longer periods.) But rapid appearance once a species has occurred can be quite fast. Rabbits exploded across Australia because they had no predators; a species with rapid reproductive rates that was unusually well suited for a niche could quite easily become very populous in a very short time - like us. On the second point, remember we have to find fossils, which is not always easy. (We don’t know what color dinosaurs were, because there isn’t anything left to judge!) Species can last a long time in some form in any case - sharks are the usual example, or the coelocanth. Doesn’t mean they didn’t evolve anyway, just that they didn’t do so in ways we can see in the fossil record - sickle cell anaemia developed as a form of malaria resistance within the past 10,000 years, I understand, but how would you know from the fossil record alone? (Answer: you don’t. But that’s all we have for some critters.)

Also 1. None of “my own scientists” reckon that there wasn’t time - that’s a fallacy. (I think Dr. Behe pushed this.) Actually, between mutations, genetic drift, flips of DNA, natural selection, and other mechanisms supporting evolution, there’s plenty of time. One scientist (sorry, can’t remember his name) used a simple program to randomly produce letters, but nonrandomly select out appropriate letters to reproduce Hamlet (reflecting natural selection, which does not select randomly), and got the whole play in something like four days! Similarly, there can be enormous changes in relatively little time through certain kinds of gene shifts, and if they are advantageous (which just means you have more kids surviving to reproduce than the others), then evolutions happens quickly as well. Neoteny, for example, would produce drastic visual changes, but require relatively small gene shifts. (That is, humans resemble childlike primates. One theory is that we retained our childlike large brain to body ratio, etc. Infant chimps and humans look very much alike, but we don’t “mature” as far as chimps do. Gould has a funny article on this called “A Biological Homage to Mickey Mouse.”)
1. There is a technical term for this in the literature. It is known as a “mistake.” Occasional errors do not obviate the major body of work, anymore than you miscalculating your checkbook once means arithmetic is wrong. And it doesn’t happen nearly as often as some people think. (This is also why peer-reviewed literature is so important - so someone catches mistakes!)
2. I have read this item three times and have no idea what you are saying in the latter sentences. But there are museums full of “evolutionary dead-ends,” if you want to think of them that way. What do you think dinosaurs are, anyway? Or the early forms of horses - Eohippus, chalicotheria, etc.? And incidentally, we have seen evolution occur – so much so that even the Intelligent Design supporters have admitted to microevolution (i.e., evolution of traits within the species), but in fact we have even seen speciation occur in plants, insects, and worms.
  Where did life begin? Depends on what you are asking. Personally, I think God decided to get it all started. In terms of how did DNA-based life start, the conventional theory is that it began in chemical-rich early seas, and the right combination of energy and chemistry eventually produced a replicating molecule. The odds of this happening are not so great, when you think of the number of molecules in the sea. (There’s a lot of fish in the sea - but lots more molecules!) If you want to think of God choosing when that occurred, feel free.
  One thing that always puzzled me about young-Earth (only 6,000 year old) creationists is why they thought a jury-rigged Earth that required constant tinkering was somehow a superior creation to one where God could set it up and let certain majestic laws and principles take their course.
  I certainly don’t claim to have all the answers, and I’m not a biologist like fennec, so any mistakes in this are my own. I just read widely in popular literature on evolution. It’s not a big deal.
motivemagus said, 10 months ago

PupWithoutFear - I’ve heard that argument before. But I tend to believe that if we found those “missing links” you would just complain about still finer intermediate steps. The evolution of the horse is extremely well buttressed, as are the four-legged land creatures that returned to the sea as whales. If indeed there are birds that predate archaeopteryx (and I’d like a reference on that, as I have heard no such thing), that still doesn’t mean it isn’t a “transitional form” along a different line. As someone put it, it’s a bush of life, not a tree.
Also, mutation is not the only mechanism of evolution!
InspectorWingNut said, 10 months ago

I don’t believe I’ve ever tried to conceal my identity… I originally made a second account to see if it could be done, because I suspected others of having multiple personas. Do you think I would Have chosen ThePupWithoutFear if I was trying to hide the fact that I am NoFearPup? I then found out I could keep track of more posters that way. Simon this is a non-issue but if GocComics tells me to get rid of it - which they probably will because you have a big unhappy mouth - I’ll get rid of it.
InspectorWingNut said, 10 months ago

Let it be known here that Evolutionists have no end to questions they can’t answer yet for them evolution must be true! Fossil records show a burst of Life (overnight, epochally speaking). lifeforms living unchanged through MILLIONS of years and then dying out in a mass extinction event. That’s your data! No mutations, no evolvement, no hopeful monsters, no magic, NEVER. Now tell me ONE species that you claim has evolved whether plant, animal or protozoan MOTIVE
Where is this “microevolution”? Do you mean like a Labradoodle is a Lab and Poodle mix?It’s still a dog. Creationist generally recognize microevolution but this a far cry from evidence of one species becoming another.
InspectorWingNut said, 10 months ago

Random words generated and matched to a pre-existing template do not a proof of evolution make. In fact it proves there must be a third variable tracking and tabulating the experiment for a pre-determined result…i.e. “God”.
Simon_Jester said, 10 months ago

The why do you continue to post under both identities sockpuppy, if you were only ‘experimenting to see if it was possible’?

As for your defense of your sockpuppeting, it can best be summed by the following:

“But Mommmmmmmmmm….Billy did it tooooooo!”

I may have a ‘big, unhappy mouth’ Junior…but at least mine doesn’t have my foot stuck in it.
InspectorWingNut said, 10 months ago

Okay I was a troll now I’m a sock-puppet. I’m a Trollish Sock-Puppet, finished?
HUMPHRIES said, 10 months ago

Simon_J … Thanks for confirming a point . I had often wondered about the close similarities of mind set, verbage and references of several posters.
InspectorWingNut said, 10 months ago

I think there’s more sock-puppets here than you realize SimpleSimon.
Simon_Jester said, 10 months ago

LOL!

“But Mommmmmmm….EVERYBODY does it!”

Keep it up Junior…please!

And was my first post, or was it not a generic comment about all sockpuppets?
NoFearPup said, 10 months ago

Sock-puppet, smock-puppet! What dif does it make OldLego knew who i was as well as others - there was no attempt to deceive ! I usually had the Avatars matched up for anyone who bothered to care.
acellist said, 10 months ago

I’m amazed anyone could even imagine that the meager fossil records found represent the complete examples of preexistence.
Talk about your closed minds!
The fact of infinite regression is easy to see and marvel over while infinite progression is immediately held at bay by the all present residual of the “Big Bang,” put another way, who does God hang around with?
motivemagus said, 10 months ago

Pup - what’s the deal? I tried to answer your questions honestly and with references. I took some time to do it. Previously you had appreciated that. You did not respond to several of my points, which leads me to believe you had no answer.

One key difference between religion and science is the former claims to have absolute answers, and the latter never claims any. No scientist worth his salt claims he or she has all the answers - because science is always growing based on new data. So it hardly hurts my feelings for you to claim I don’t have all the answers - I never said I did!
Microevolution, incidentally, is change of traits within a species, like shifts in coloration and so forth, which can lead to a new subspecies. It has nothing to do with dog breeding. (Try Googling definition = microevolution)
Incidentally, unless you exclude viruses and bacteria as life (and if you agree with Irish Eddie, you shouldn’t), there have been untold numbers of species evolving. I can look up the exact species believed to have evolved within human history, but I was quoting Scientific American, so I’m not overly worried about tracking them down.
fennec said, 10 months ago

To add a bit, MM, I’d say that the two most important things one learns as a researcher in basic science is how to say “I don’t know” (usually applied to finding out facts) and “I was wrong” (usually applied to evaluating assumptions and hypotheses). IMHO, it is not possible to discuss science with someone who does not understand this framework.
lalas said, 10 months ago

Wow! Lots of words.

Can’t we just agree that NFP (in any incarnation) is just an ignorant db and leave it at that.
HUMPHRIES said, 10 months ago

lalas … OK.
Corosive Frog said, 10 months ago

lalas; Not ignorant. He grabs to religion for reasons that are his own (and probably quite understandable).

Creationnists treat science like it’s a magic cristal ball pretending to know everything. That’s not what it’s pretending to be, no anymore. Science is a long road with holes to patch. Religion has no holes because they can be filled with anything, it doesn’t have to be proven. Also, they don’t seem to really understand the gigantic timeframe where evolution takes place (then again, it’s so huge that I doubt anyone can fully understand it.);

Sooky Rottweiler says;
Reminds me of when I was a pup. My human said if she planted a sunflower seed in the ground, a flower would grow. So she planted the seed and I stood there watching all day long, waiting for the sunflower to pop out and got back inside at night. Dammit, nothing! I had just been sc#ewed!
Anyways, days later I saw a tiny plant not bigger than my paw. My human said it was the seed growing. Weeks later, it bloomed high above my head.

We know stuff evolves. Think about bugs that now survive insecticide, about all those tiny bacterias and viruses that grow stronger as we expose them to antibiotics in the wrong way. That’s how we got Sars, maybe Bird Flu. On tiny bugs with many generations a day, it happened in a matter of years. Maybe in more complex beings, it happened in a matter of million years.

We have harnessed evolution before we even know it existed. Farmers, dog breeders, crossed breeds all the time to get better beasts.

Sooky Rottweiler says; I was raised on a dairy farm and my parents were cattle dogs. My human says the farmer wanted wanted rottweilers, but that were smart and gentle enough to be around cows and kids so he matched my parents together. I guess I’m what you get when you want that…
InspectorWingNut said, 10 months ago

Words, words to hide …nothing. I believe I made my point to those with ears to hear. You people act like I make money doing this, I don’t have time to check your theories out -I live in Obama’s world - I don’t have the luxury of playing ego games with the other schlubs at the lab or the think tank. You haven’t addressed your arrogance and I wont bother addressing your unbacked up points or the ones you hide behind scientific sophistry. Again NO PROOF FOR MICROEVOLUTION or EVOLUTION THAT CAN”T BE EXPLAINED BY OTHER FACTORS. And I don’t make any claims but that Jesus is Lord and I am a sinner, all these other arguments are expressions of your vanity, ego, and your selfishness. Yet as I said may the Lord give you ears to hear for your sake.