Doreen, thanks for the videos: my brief review (religious)greenspun.com : LUSENET : Countryside : One Thread |
Hi, Doreen,I appreciate your taking the time and trouble to send me the video of this Kent Hovind guy. I understood you to say that these tapes would convert me to believe that evolution does not exist, there is no overpopulation on our beautiful planet, and the bible is to be taken literally.
I was some that skeptical, I must admit. But after watching Kent Hovind carry on his little sitcom, I did come to realize a certain truth: this man is GOOD! A good snake oil salesman. If he believes any of the stuff he's preaching at all, it is that the environmental movement is "not interested in the environment", and that anything the "government" does is the work of Satan.
In other words, he seems to believe that the only positive thing in the world is CAPITALISM, and he's living proof that capitalism functions extremely well indeed. You bought this tape, and, as P.T. Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute".
Sorry. The other thing Kent Hovind said which appeared to be true is "the way to lie convincingly is to sprinkle a little bit of truth in with the lies". He demonstrated his ability to lie and mislead with skill. He also demonstrated his willingness to deliberately use fake data and statistics. Mark Twain said "there are three types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." I'd like to paraphrase it to read, "lies, damned lies, and Kent Hovind"
This video was so transparent, so silly, so puerile, that I am disappointed to see that there were adults who sat there and laughed at his sarcasm and "humor". It's frightening, really. Disturbing to think that these gullible, lost souls, are actually in such need some false guru to help them cope with their lives that they actually seem to BELIEVE this fellow.
I can only suggest to you that, before you believe all the hateful b.s he is spewing out hook line and sinker, that you do some independent research. Good luck.
I realize that you will think I'm being very judgemental. You're right. You suggested I watch the videos, and I did so. I also told you I'd watch them on the condition that you be willing to discuss them. There's my discussion.
JOJ
-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), January 18, 2001
Uh....was that a thumbs up or thumbs down on that film? I was a little unsure of your opinion.Take that fight outside!
-- sharon wt (wildflower@ekyol.com), January 18, 2001.
A book that I highly recommend on debunking and skepticism is: Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer.Another one is: The Demon Haunted World - Science As a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan.
I've never heard of Kent Hovind but from Joe's description I guess I haven't missed much. :-)
-- Jim Morris (prism@bevcomm.net), January 18, 2001.
Sharon, you commented "Take that fight outside!" My comment to you is "take a hike." -G- We need good disagreement on this forum to learn and grow. Have at it boys and girls, men and women and, as the Irish say, anyone else that wants to join in.
-- JLS in NW AZ (stalkingbull007@AOL.com), January 18, 2001.
Joe, Thanks for your review. I have yet to view these tapes but my checks in the mail. So I will sometime soon.JLS, Got Prozac?
John
-- John in S. IN (jsmengel@hotmail.com), January 18, 2001.
Jim, I have recommended these exact titles here on the forum before...I am glad someone else reads them! Anything that will help someone reason is terrific. I also recommend the novel "Sophie's World" about a 15 yo girl that covers the history of philosophy. It is engaging and teaches critical thinking.
-- Anne (HT@HM.com), January 18, 2001.
Thanks for the information on Sophie's World, Anne. I hadn't heard of it before but after reading some of the reviews at Amazon.com I decided to put it on hold at my library. I'm definitely looking forward to reading it! :-)
-- Jim Morris (prism@bevcomm.net), January 18, 2001.
Thanks JLS.I like to hike.None meant,none taken.So,you're Irish,are you?You're right,we need good disagreement.Unfortunately,it then too often denigrates into just a bunch of name calling.
I,personally have a real problem discussing something I haven't seen.How about you? So,unless we've seen it, what's to discuss?
Thus,my opinion to take it off forum. Unless you just like to see the spectacle.
I'll go take that hike,now.I probably can see something out there far more interesting,maybe even a life and death struggle.Wanna walk with me?
I'll send you some lemon balm,if you'd like.
Now,If you want to argue,I'll have to go get Nick.He loves to.I'm the ~easygoing one in the family~.
Don't you agree?
-- sharon wt (wildflower@ekyol.com), January 18, 2001.
1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394 0414243444546474849505152535455565758596061626364656666768697071727374 757678798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100test the spirit - delete 1223456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839 4041424344454647484950516263646567686960707771727374757677787980881828 384858687888990919293949596979899100 test the spirit - delete took a walk - wonderful day. Sheepish - I was wonder how your little lamb was?? Is it getting any better??? Are you moving those legs around so that he can use them if he gets up? Oh my did I just talk about sheep again?????? (((((((hugs))))))))) Happy, Joyous, and Free
-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), January 19, 2001.
We've watched part of these tapes, and Kent Hovind didn't get a penny from us. We find them to be very educational with a sense of humor. They have clearly done away with lies and confusions. We already knew some of this, but it's just fascinating what else we have learned. Highly recommended. Gary and Cindy
-- Cindy (SE IN.) (atilrthehony_1@yahoo.com), January 19, 2001.
Wow Joe, it doesn't sound so much like a discussion as a diatribe....hmmm. Okay.I did think that we would discuss it in private email, but that's okay, too.What part of his science did you find the most particularly offensive? Or is it just the message in general that you so detest?
I don't think I ever said that the tapes would "convert" you. I understand it isn't a person that does converting, rather a spirit. Laying that aside, I did tell you I wasn't a scientist, but I would really like to know what aspect of his science was so repugnant to you that you felt compelled to slander the man (and his unwitting audience) without disclosing a single factual point in your dialogue?
As for being a sucker....well, I am a fool. I'm a fool for Christ. Whose fool are you?
Also of particular interest to me was the "hateful bs" ...? What did he say that was hateful?
Nice usage of puerile, yet remember that many members of the audience are ACTUALLY children and not nearly as sophisticated as yourself....yet.
If you can prove macroevolution, I understand you can make a cool $250k from your proof. So if you have that proof, there is no need to rail about it, just give him a call and arrange to prove it and get your dinero.
Thanks for watching them. I had hoped it would just give you an opportunity to look at things from a different perspective.
-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), January 19, 2001.
My question is this Joe, why did you feel it was necessary to do this "review" on a public forum? Why not conduct it in private? If you are trying to make less of Doreen, you have not succeeded. If you are trying to make less of yourself, I believe you may have.
-- (ratdogs10@yahoo.com), January 19, 2001.
I have seen all of Kent Hovind's tapes. While I don't always appreciate his unusual humor, he does have facts to back up all he says scientifically. For those who are unaware of Kent Hovind, he is an unashamed supporter of Creationism and a disprover of macroevolution. He gives some very interesting facts in the videos, and his presentation is lively. He also has tapes of debates between himself and evolutionists. I wonder, Joe, why you felt the need to be nasty? If you have an intelligent objection to the videos based on scientific fact, well, let's hear it. I think you can say you object to Hovind's personality and/or delivery without hate. I would be interested in knowing what you objected to in the content of the videos. Mary
-- Mary Fraley (kmfraley@orwell.net), January 19, 2001.
Take a good look around you. I mean really look. See how things change and alter to fit the environment. That is all it really takes to let you know where the flim flam men come from. There is a lot of money in what he does. Guess why he does it.There is a book called "The book of life" It had nothing to do with being a christian. But guess who made a movie of it taking credit for it?
I'm with Joe on this due to the fact that I hate Flim Flam men and women that take advantage of others using religion. The damage that they do far outweighs the good.
-- Nick (wildheart@ekyol.com), January 19, 2001.
Well, I'm going to jumo into this even though I didn't see the videos and I know I'm gonna regret saying this. Things DON'T alter and change to suit the environment! Yes, that's what Darwin taught, and he was wrong. I live in a cold climate. I haven't adapted to it by growing a nice, heavy fur coat yet, and don't expect to. white people living in africa don't turn black, and dark skinned people don't get lighter skin from living in temperate climates. What does happen is that life forms have tremendous potential for genetic variations, so if one type of a species dies off because it's unfit for the circumstances, another kind might live. The species will adapt and change within the boundaries of it's genetic potential, but no matter how well I feed my goats they'll never have 12 kids at a time, grow to be the size of elephants, or give 10 gallons of milk a day. Underfeeding them will not tun them into Pygmies, even over many generations. Darwin was wrong, because he knew nothing about genetics.
-- Rebekah (daniel1@itss.net), January 19, 2001.
Unless, of course, you get a mutation. If one out of a zillion mutations makes for a better adapted creature, it may survive longer than the other creatures, and thereby contribute to more offspring....which in turn spawn more offspring exponentially. If they genetically carry this mutation, it will pass on as a trait. Eventually more of this "mutated" version will be around than the others, and will either serve to eliminate the old version, or at least force some recessive characteristics way back in the gene pool. Over multi-millions of years (which nobody I know can contemplate, much less understand) you can get some interesting changes.Unless, of course, we humans interfere for our benefit...like developing polled cattle, etc. We like to think we are in control! ;)
-- (rborgo@gte.net), January 19, 2001.
Sheesh! slippery fingers today! I'll own up to my post....
-- sheepish (WA) (rborgo@gte.net), January 19, 2001.
Yeah, Sheepish. That adaptation is what's used to say that there is "proof" for evolution. But there isn't any fossil proof that a cow was ever born from a mammoth nor that a person was ever born from a monkey.The main points of the tapes are that it's a young earth. There is nothing over 4300 years old living.The biblical flood did happen, about 4400 years ago, as there is a lot of proof for that. The great barrier reef is the oldest estimated at 4300 years based on observations of it's growth rate. That evolution is a religion as there is no proof for it, so to say it's scientific fact is an outright lie. And of course that God did it, which is what most people who hold evolution so dear to their hearts object to the most.
The man Kent Hovind isn't the suave sophistocate that many people who work the lecturing field are...he's just a guy whom many people might find irritating and many others might find enjoyable. He does back his stuff up very well.
I just checked in to see if Joe had responded.
-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), January 20, 2001.
There are those that say that it's too hard to believe in God and that He created everything, well I find it hard to believe that "those" expect us to believe that we originally came from a rock. And even if we did, where'd the rock come from and where'd the stuff come from that made rock and where did the stuff come from that made the stuff that made the rock, and where...........??????? You can find the answer in the tapes. And Kent Hovind won't get a dime.
-- Cindy (SE IN.) (atilrthehony_1@yahoo.com), January 20, 2001.
Interesting that so many feel that god and evolution must be mutually exclusive. Is there no room for the thought that god ( or whatever deitie(s) you believe in) just got the process started? Evolutionary theory does not say that any organism will adapt within its lifepan to changes in its environment. It does say that those organisms better adapted by genetic change throughout generations will outcompete those less well adapted. We do it ourselves every day on our own homesteads by culling out those animals which do not provide enough wool, milk, meat, offspring, etc. Could a supreme being not have used the same tools on a maco level to create the heavens and earth over eons that we have used on a micro level over hundreds of years to create modern dairy cows which give hundreds of pounds of milk daily beyond that which their ancestors did? Lack of evidence is not proof. The ancients thought the earth was flat until proven wrong and many fought the truth even after that. Maybe all the evidence isn't in yet.
-- ray s. (mmoetc@yahoo.com), January 20, 2001.
Doreen, you're right. What you said was, "As for you being lost, I am sure you can read a map...but you're missing the biggest one way sign in the universe because you're going in the wrong direction". I guess I didn't remember quite right, but the meaning is pretty clear, I think.Look, folks, I don't have to justify writing about something on this forum. No one is forcing you to read it. Sorry if you haven't seen these incredible videos. However, I will also say that I received the video I have from Doreen, following a fairly protracted discussion on an earlier thread. Do a "find" for "creation" under the Religion archives, if you're interested.
Doreen, I was once asked by a good friend to read a tome about "scientific" creation written by the Jehova's Witnesses. I reluctantly did so. I was amazed at the arguments put forth. They were very convincing. I did more research, and concluded that they were incorrect, for the most part, but at least the arguments were cogent. Hovind's arguments, on the other hand, were not. They were weak. Very weak. They were pure, and transparent, propaganda, and he should be ashamed.
The reason I said he was "puerile", and I'm glad you liked my use of the word, is because of his style. For instance, he said, "Adam and Eve--and I have to remind you that God named them Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, snigger snigger, and I have to remind some people about that, snigger snigger" Puerile. Also hateful, as it seemed to be directed at a class of people whose philosophy was different than his.
I'm not sure what you're driving at about some "members of the audience" actually being children. What's your point?
You say, "If you can prove macroevolution, I understand you can make a cool $250k from your proof. So if you have that proof, there is no need to rail about it, just give him a call and arrange to prove it and get your dinero. " What a fascinating concept. Again, what is your point? Are you saying that if I cannot prove macroevolution TO THE SATISFACTION OF WHOMEVER SET THEMSELVES UP AS THE JUDGE, then I'm wrong?
I will offer you twice that much if you can prove CREATIONISM to be true. But remember, I will be the judge of whether or not you proved your point well enough to earn the "dinero". Don't hold your breath...
By the way, Doreen, I didn't slander Hovind. Slander deals with the spoken word. The word you want is "libel". And I did not libel him, since the statements I made about him are true. Sorry.
Mary, the problem with saying that Hovind has "facts" to back up his arguments is that most the "facts" are only "facts" because he labels them as such. Again, to quote Hovind, lies are more convincing if they are intersperced with the truth. This he does well, and judging from your post, he does it convincingly. There are many "facts" in his creationism video which are not only not facts, but so ridiculous as to be laughable. Unfortunately, I see that there are many people who are taken in by them. Obviously, they are not educated in the fields he misrepresents.
Rebekah, you don't understand the concept of eveolution. Of course you haven't adapted to the cold. No one said you would. Evolution is gradual. If the animals in a given area (and this is true, in a way, for human animals) were suddenly, or gradually, exposed to a changing climate, one which was much colder than before, the ones which naturally had better insulation, e.g. fur, would tend (TEND) to survive better, and thus tend to produce more offspring. Over a period of time, their progeny would outnumber the progeny of the animals with poorer insulation. Eventually, the average amount of fur worn by these animals would be greater than before. That is evolution.
This is a very, very abbreviated, and simplistic explanation. I'm cannot take the time to go into great detail here; besides, I'm already gettiing complaints about voicing this at all, and as you all know, I am loathe to offend.
I could list so many mistruths and outright lies about this man's presentation that my fingers would get sore typing. Iagree with Sharon and others that it's probably not the best place to do so, since so few of you have seen this mans theatrics. But there are a few; how many want me to type until my fingers fall off?
Cindy, you've brought out the first good argument in favor of creartionism yet! I agree that it is hard to believe that life came from a rock, and it's hard to understand where the rock came from in the first place.
I personally believe there are only three possibilities here: 1) God made the rocks, and perhaps the first life forms on this planet, as well as all the other places which most likely exist where there is life. (But that raises another argument: who made God? What was here before God?) 2) Everything came from a "big bang". I am also skeptical about this theory. What was here before the bang? Where did it come from? 3) Some other theory which I haven't ever heard.
I don't have a large enough brain capacity to figure out this very basic quandary. Maybe you do. Whatever. Perhaps we, God, rocks, monkeys, etc. have been here FOREVER. "Forever" is a long, long time. What was there before "forever", hmm? I can only say, "I dunno".
Time to go make my morning cuppa. Good morning to you all.
JOJ
Doreen, I will dispute any of my points with you, either here, or in private email. I suspect that there are at least a few people who are interested enough to be mildly disappointed if we privatize this discussion, but maybe not.
I would like to set the ground rule that we only debate one point at a time, though. I find that people who base their arguments on emotion typically choose to ignore those points they can't disprove, and move on to others. Whatdya say?
-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), January 20, 2001.
>>Doreen, I will dispute any of my points with you, either here, or in private email. I suspect that there are at least a few people who are interested enough to be mildly disappointed if we privatize this discussion, but maybe not.<<<Please don't take this discussion private...if you do..include me on your list as I am totally fascinated by it!
Now,...to throw another piece of meat into the stew...has anyone ever heard of Zacharia Stitchin (sp)...he has a theory, too. He said that a planet that circles the earth about every few thousand years has on it some beings who used this earth as an experiment that got out of hand. Two brothers, one a philosopher, one a scientist, came here to find minerals for their planet. They created two leggeds to do the job. Well, come around the next time, the 'beings' seem to be developing a 'mind of their own'...so..the brothers played around with some thoughts and genetics and developed a 'more intelligent' being. Next time around, oh boy...this being had become more independent...etc.... don't know the whole story yet...going to check it out...but somehow the brothers differed on their philosophy on how to handle these new critters and therein lies god and the devil (my interpretation). One brother wanted the creatures to develop on their own (with a little help from them, you know, metals, fabrication, inventions of sorts, and their own free will to do as they pleased. The other brother worried that the creatures would become too self sufficient and too much like themselves.
Now we are developing genetic codes, dna thingies...and ...oops are we at the point the brothers argued about?
Just a thought.
Idaho cher
-- Cher Rovang (fullcircle@nidlink.com), January 20, 2001.
With all due respect I have a questions for those that don't believe in Creation by God: Why is it that, if the origin of life is of non- importance, are people so passionate about it? If God doesn't exist then why do you get upset when Christians state their viewpoint? You can't see our emotion-on the forum, in most cases, so the evidence that you have is that we are just stating our thoughts. Why do you take it so personal?
-- Cindy (SE IN.) (atilrthehony_1@yahoo.com), January 20, 2001.
Cher, this story makes as much sense as any. I suppose if a person believed it strongly enough, they could start a church, write their own bible, and challenge others to prove they were wrong.Cindy, sounds like you're offended; are you taking this personally? JOJ
-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), January 20, 2001.
Cindy,I think the reason that some "nonbelievers" get so passionate about "Creation Science" (on this forum and other places) is that there are those who are trying to force it's teaching in public schools as *science*. If that were not happening then I think a lot of people really wouldn't care what Creationists believed.
Just my opinion. :-)
-- Jim Morris (prism@bevcomm.net), January 20, 2001.
Interesting point Jim. I am wondering since there is no positive "proof" for either "theory" why anyone would care if they were both taught in school as "theories"????? Maybe the passions of both sides to be "right" should be left at the sidelines and both be taught and let the children hear it all??? Just a thought.
-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), January 20, 2001.
Diane, would you also favor the theory Cher brought to our attention, above, being put into the agenda in the schools? How about that of Kurt Vonnegut, Jr, which regards the Tralfalmadorians? (this on was put forth in "The Sirens of Titan" if memory serves)Doreen, I just now heard, on NPR, a report on an unexpected effect of global warming. There are a whole mess of ice fields in the Yukon Territory, which are melting. Melting so rapidly that archeologists are thrilled, and anxious. Thrilled because they are discovering so many interesting artifacts, but anxious because there are so many items surfacing that they cannot keep up. They'd rather have these things show up gradually, so they'd have time to preserve them before they spoil.
For instance, they discovered lots of antelope shit under the area that was formerly under the ice. They were especially interested in this because there have been no antelopes living there for at LEAST several hundred years. T But here's the part that should ring your chimes: they found an arrow, or dart, or some such, made of a normal spear point, but which, although frozen for a long, long time, was still completely intact. The wooden shaft, and even the sinews with which the point was attached to the shaft!
Guess what?! They carbon dated the wood and/or the sinews (you have to have organic material to use carbon dating, as I am sure you are aware) and this artifact was 4300 years old! This made it the oldest organic artifact ever discovered in North America!
Please tell me if this number is significant to you, in regards to Hovind's theory of the age of the Earth, and the flood. OK?
JOJ
-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), January 20, 2001.
Hi Diane,I guess my question is where does it end? If we allow Creationism to be taught we'll have to allow every religion - in the name of fairness - their equal time to present their views. Sounds like a recipe for disaster in my opinion.
I wish I could go into this more but I'm heading out of town and won't be back for a couple of days. Hopefully the thread will still be active when I get back.
-- Jim Morris (prism@bevcomm.net), January 20, 2001.
Personally, I see no problem with the idea of teaching the origin of life as a great unknown and then presenting all the theories, within reason. Why not the different religious views. My real point was missed here, there is no real proof so why is one taught as "truth" just because it was a scientist's idea? We make a religion of science and don't own it as a religion so it becomes sacred and taught in all the schools to the exclusion of all other theories. Actually, I am old enough to remember when it was allowed to teach all "theories". When I was in sixth grade we did a comparative study of all the major religions of the world and made big charts showing what their beliefs were. I should have put Mrs. Dee Smith down as my hero on the hero thread,(my 6th grade teacher) because I think she was probably the only person I can remember teaching that we just didn't know. I think it would be extreme to teach the "creation according to Kurk" etc. but why not the other major religious theories along with the religion of science theory? In all reality the really honest scientists will admit - we just don't know. Evolution was a theory that could be completely wrong, but when you research with the idea of proving a theory, you usually can find things to support it. Look at the disasters we have had with drug research when we don't have all the facts. This is getting lengthy, so I will stop. I have just always found this particular debate very fascinating and can get carried away. :)
-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), January 20, 2001.
JOJ-I read not too long ago that there was a serious flaw in the carbon-dating technology. Can't remember where I read it, National Geographic maybe? Do you know anything about that?? This is a serious question by the way, I just haven't taken the time to search it out. Would be interesting in knowing more.
-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), January 20, 2001.
JOJ, forgive me, but I don't have that much time right now. If we are going to "debate" I would like to request the privelege of having a time set up in advance that gives each of us equal opportunity to prepare for a war of words, which is what a debate is to me. If we are going to discuss and I don't have to defend myself against technicalities like "slander" vs. "libel" when you w r o t e that I 'said' something previously then we can just chit chat back and forth, okay? :}Yes, that number is significant. Hovind's theory says the flood happened "about" 4400 years ago. Obviously, I haven't had time to check the story out, but it's a lot closer to the time frame of Hovind's theory than to the previous time frames of other archeological finds here in America.
The carbon dating problems were discussed in great length in a nat'l geographic article several years ago. The problems were akin to the radar guns that say trees are going 80 mph. Not terribly reliable. Hovind does cover that to some degree in one of his videos.I used to subscribe to Nat'l Geo, but let it go because of $$$. Kept C-side, though.
Also in recent scientific news, scientists have stopped light and sent it back on again! Now that's pretty incredible!
I would say Hovind's comment about "Adam and Steve" was more trite than hateful. It really didn't have any bearing on things being discussed, but I don't think it's "hateful". What else was hateful?
Oh, and the children were actually children, like under 12 cheaper to get into the movies kind of kids. Nothing hidden nor any kind of bizzarre subterfuge in the comment.
I feel the need to say that I don't think this man is infallible. I am not defending his perfection at all. I do think he gives a great deal of back up for his views and I found it to be well thought out and logical, but I won't be put into the role of defending his "perfect theory" because I don't "know" that it is.
Please tell me one point that was so wrong scientifically. That's what I am really interested in....as opposed to how much you didn't like the guy.(mona lisa smile) As I wrote previously, I am not a scientist, but I really did enjoy biology and theology and geology and sociology and psychology, and physiology, and when I was a kid I wanted to study archeology, so I have a layman's grasp of the "ology's". But I am not a scientist.
-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), January 20, 2001.
You can teach Creationism in public schools.
-- Cindy (SE IN.) (atilrthehony_1@yahoo.com), January 20, 2001.
Joe, perhaps we'd best define adaptation as opposed to evolution. Adaptation translates into survival of the fittest, agreed? Evolution means that one thing gradually becomes SOMETHING ELSE, agreed? Like primordial soup to rock to clam to dolphin to homo habilis to you, only longer and with some divergences in between, right?To quote you..." Evolution is gradual. If the animals in a given area (and this is true, in a way, for human animals) were suddenly, or gradually, exposed to a changing climate, one which was much colder than before, the ones which naturally had better insulation, e.g. fur, would tend (TEND) to survive better, and thus tend to produce more offspring. Over a period of time, their progeny would outnumber the progeny of the animals with poorer insulation. Eventually, the average amount of fur worn by these animals would be greater than before. That is evolution."
So your example to Rebekah for evolution is actually an example of ADAPTATION not a trans-species evolution. Growing more fur and living isn't evolution as they try to teach it in the schools, that is indeed adaptation. Natural selection or adaptation is proveable, scientifically correct and NOT the issue here. The issue is evolving from primordial ooze to you.
In breeding animals for either bizarre or special characteristics no species changes could occur. The dog won't give birth to a horse, but you can breed to get some awfully big dogs. Maybe even some terribly furry, horsey looking dogs. But not a horse.
To your supposition that there are three things that could have occurred, I'd like to add a fourth...here they are for reference purposes: 1) God made the rocks, and perhaps the first life forms on this planet, as well as all the other places which most likely exist where there is life. (But that raises another argument: who made God? What was here before God?) 2) Everything came from a "big bang". I am also skeptical about this theory. What was here before the bang? Where did it come from? 3) Some other theory which I haven't ever heard...... 4) God made it all just as he wanted to and we don't know where God came from because we are finite and He is infinite.
And as you said, we can't wrap our brains around that. We agree on that. But I don't think God wants us to wrap our brains around it, just our hearts.
You also said this...."I find that people who base their arguments on emotion typically choose to ignore those points they can't disprove, and move on to others"....I don't know why that was necessary here, but I would be happy to talk things out a point at a time as per your stipulation if you think that's best.
In keeping with that scenario, please refer to my first post and the question of what it is that's wrong with Kent Hovind's science. Thanks a bunch!
-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), January 21, 2001.
I will quote from a book, The Monk in the Garden, by Robin Marantz Henig. it's about Gregor Mendel, and includes some information about Darwin, who never read Mendel's paper on genetics. 'Darwin always considered changes in the environment to be the primary source of variation; the most highly adaptive changes were thse that persisted. If a bear living in a cold climate gradually laid down more an dmore fat, making it more likely than thinner bears to survive the winter, then it's cubs would be born already fatter than most. This notion of aquired traits was one of Darwin's most abiding beliefs, one of his mos persistent blind spots in his search for mechanisms to explain how natural selection worked'.Of course I don't expect to grow a fur coat-I was being facetious. But I'd like to point out that the eskimos, who have lived in the cold for a very long time, are no hairier than the rest of us. Luther Burbank, the great plant breeder, was a firm believer in Darwinism. He tried to develop a thornless cactus by pulling out the thorns from the prickly pear cactus, and talking to it, telling the plant that since he would nuture and protect it, it wouldn't need the protection of the thorns anymore! Somehow, he succeeded, but I don't think it had a thing to do with his pulling the thorns out. Another book, Biosocial Genetics, says that'Darwin believed that gradual change ocurred in the evolution of plants and animals through an inheritance of aquired characters.' He was influenced by Lamarck. to Lamarck, all variations ere aquired and all variations were heritable.(If one demonstrates large muscles owing to weight lifting, his children will have large muscles.) If this were true, then why aren't Dobermans born with shorter, more erect ears, and much shorter tails? No matter how many times I disbud my goat kids, their babies always have horns. Looks to me like Darwin was wrong.
-- Rebekah (daniel1@itss.net), January 21, 2001.
This should be read while thinking of me having a self-deprecating half smile of bemusement with an emphasis on the "why"......-You also said this...."I find that people who base their arguments on emotion typically choose to ignore those points they can't disprove, and move on to others"....I don't know why that was necessary here, ........ -
also, this whole thing of trying to describe what it is that your personality and delivery are supposed to be taken as seems like an attempt at making playwrights out of ourselves...(raised eyebrows, with a lilting sigh). Yet I have always tried to answer any direct questions and try to get others to answer direct questions as well.
-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), January 21, 2001.
Doreen, see below for a direct question (are horses and donkeys related?)Jim, I agree that teaching "every" religion in school would be a disaster. There would be no time for anything else. Anyway, I thought we had churches for the teaching of religion.
Diane, you don't seem to understand the difference between science and religion, or you wouldn't call evolution "science". Read this:
SCIENCE: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena.
Hope that helps. Sorry, I haven't read about a serious problem with carbon dating. I'm sure it's not perfectly accurate, but it has been used with great success for a long time. It is correlated by cross dating with other methods. Still, I can imagine that there is always room for improvement. When a method like carbon dating is proven inaccurate, current theories have to be changed to fit the new information. That's science. When was the last time you heard a "born again", to choose an extreme case, admit that there were new data, which necessitated a change in his/her dogma?
Doreen, sorry if the word "slander" was offensive. It was, however you who accused me of slandering Mr. Hovind. I didn't think I did any such thing. Still don't. Quit tilting at windmills.
Doreen, since you admit that you're not a scientist, ( "I am not a scientist, but I really did enjoy biology and theology and geology and sociology and psychology, and physiology, and when I was a kid I wanted to study archeology, so I have a layman's grasp of the "ology's". But I am not a scientist."), I'm afraid we're wasting our time discussing the scientific merits of Hovind's videos. You see, I AM a scientist. It would be somewhat akin to a blind man discussing color theory with a painter. I will reply to your last letter, though, where you want me to confirm your understanding of some terminology:
"Joe, perhaps we'd best define adaptation as opposed to evolution. Adaptation translates into survival of the fittest, agreed? Evolution means that one thing gradually becomes SOMETHING ELSE, agreed? Like primordial soup to rock to clam to dolphin to homo habilis to you, only longer and with some divergences in between, right? "
I don't agree with this. Evolution has never claimed that "one thing gradually becomes something else". Sorry. Maybe that's why we don't interpret things the same way. As far as " the question of what it is that's wrong with Kent Hovind's science." I can only say that it is obvious to any scientist that Kent Hovind is no scientist.
On the comparison of adaptation vs. evolution, that seems to be a question of semantics. If we forget, for a moment, the "origin of life" and the "origin of the universe", and instead look only at evolution, or adaptation in the time period more recent that the beginning of everything, if there was ever a beginning, I think evolution might be considered as the same as adaptation. Each generation's offspring is slightly, or sometimes considerably, different than its own. Look at your kids vs yourself or your parents. Some changes are merely cosmetic, others prove to be useful for survival and/or success in reproduction. These latter, since they give some organisms a slight, or a large, advantage, tend to change the species a little bit. Another change in an indvidual might change the species a bit more. Eventually, if there is a geographic separation in the species, and these changes take place independently, the change may become significant enough that the two branches of this group are no longer similar enough to be considered the same species. What's the big deal about that?
I have a question for those of you who don't believe this: Do you think that a horse is related to a donkey? How about a housecat and a bobcat, or a tiger? A butterfly and a moth? Two different types of insects? Lizards?
Give me your answers, and I'll explain why I think it will prove the existence of evolution. NOT the evolution of rock into humans, not the evolution of non life into life, not the evolution of nothingness into somethingness.
Rebekah, I think you are entirely wrong about Darwin following Lamarck. This is not Darwin's view at all.
Also, when a person puts on weight, it obviously does not change his genes and cause his progeny to be fat. However, if a person has genes which tend to make him fat, his offspring have a greater chance of having this same genetic trait. This is why two short people don't have extremely tall children, as a rule.
Eskimos have enough intelligence to adapt to the cold without experiencing obvious changes, since they can dress warmly, build shelter against the cold, etc. Many animals and plants don't have this advantage, which is why you're unlikely to see palm trees and Polar Bears coexisting.
RELIGION: 1. The expression of man's belief in and reverence for a superhuman power recognized as the creator and governor of the universe.
-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), January 22, 2001.
I haven't watched the tapes, but find it very flawed thinking to think of our earth as young. Certainly doesn't fit into my studies of the bible. From the first day that God made the heaven and the earth till he let there be light, none of us knows how many millions of years could be between those two periods. An certainly evolutionary type animals could have evolved along with and before the 5th and 6th day creation of all the animals and the 27th verse of "So God created man in his own image, in the image of god created he him: male and female created he them." And even from this period until Adam and Eve were formed in the garden of Eden (by the way these 6th day creation folks are the people in the Land of Nod of which Cain took a wife) there certainly could be dinosaurs (the bible talks about giants walking on the land) we certainly know there were giant people, Goliath for one, cave men? or where these the sons and daughters from the fallen angels an the women of the earth as in Chapter 6, "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair, and they took them wives of all which they chose." Were these not belonging to Noah's ancestry (in that his daughters had not married into these bloodlines,) or was it the sons of Cain that Noah's daughters didn't marry into, that made him pure in his ancestory to be chosen to build the ark?I think the bible and theories of evolution, are very plausabile when you start really reading the bible. The flood of Noah's time could have clensed the earth of not only the dinosuars, but also of evolutionary man? The reason for the missing link is it died off? Who knows? I look forward to the millenium in which there will no longer a need to have just faith, Jesus will be in front of us, and all our questions will be answered!
How about a discussion on God saying in Chp.1 vs. 28 to "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth....." If the earth was to be replenished, than doesn't the word replenish mean that it was full before, destroyed and this was his second or more attempt? Surely if I gave you a glass and asked you to replenish it you would fill it up again with whatever I was drinking before. If it was always empty, would you use the word replenish?
I just love to study the bible. Vicki
-- Vicki McGaugh TX (vickilonesomedoe@hotmail.com), January 22, 2001.
JOJ, the last time I looked, having the ability to use the dictionary did not necessarily qualify you to be a scientist. I have known some "scientists" in my life and every one of them was much more interested in promoting knowledge then themselves. I am very disappointed because I thought we might actually learn something here. The only thing you have demonstrated to me is that you never really intended to discuss anything, just belittle people, which I must say, you do have a gift in that department.
-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), January 22, 2001.
Diane, did someone tell you that the ability to use a dictionary would qualify you to be a scientist?So you want to continue the discussion? Why don't you start by answering my query: "Are horses and donkeys related?" It's not a trick question, by the way.
JOJ
-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), January 22, 2001.
JOJ, I was merely quoting what two books had to say about Darwin, the books are; the monk in the garden, and Biosocial Genetics (Macmillan). The latter is a college textbook, and it's the one that says Darwin was heavily influenced by Lamarck. We know now about genetics,but Darwin did not.
-- Rebekah (daniel1@itss.net), January 22, 2001.
1234567891011121314151617181920....that's enough already.Intersting that you would select a horse and an ass to attempt to justify evolution as a science.
Donkeys and horses are closely related. Close enough that they can breed and produce off spring which CANNOT. This is no proof of evolution. It doesn't make a donkey turn into a horse, though. The entire theory of evolution is no greater than the theory that I ascribe to....#4 referenced above.
Joe, you have no proof. No one does. If you did have any proof you wouldn't feel the need to condescend and sling about not even thinly veiled insults at other people's intellects. Just because you have a religion that you can't even admit is a religion and want to see it taught in the schools therby making you part and parcel with those whose "narrow minds" you so abhor, gives you no right to elevate your "supposedly" vastly superioir intelligence above the rest of us little peons. If you'd like to see if I have the mental acumen to sit in a class under you, I can see if I can get my college transcrpits sent to you. Or if you would deem yourself willing to assume that all of us at least have the intellectual capacity of a sixth grader, you can tell us EXACTLY what proof you have.
I can teach a blind person color theory by using the senses that they have. There are sounds and tastes and textures and temperatures and smells that are fair representations of colors; tertiary colors and nuances can be imbued after giving the person a grasp of the basic primary colors. You so far have shown me that not only can you not prove evolution, you can't teach.
Joe, is it so hard for you to admit that your religion is evolution? Isn't that what it all comes down to here? Just out with your "proof" that evolution actually occurs or tell me what aspect of Kent Hovind's science is faulty and stop slinging insults. It does nothing to improve your standing in the scientific community.
-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), January 22, 2001.
Hi all,Could someone please post a link to information that DOES accurately report/hopefully explain Darwin's theory? I think we have a lot of somewhat accurate/inaccurate ideas about what the Theory of Evolution is about. It's hard to refute/support something when we don't even have an agreed-upon understanding as to what Darwin postulated! it seems that folks are discussing evolution, adaptation, Mendelian genetics, LaMarck's concepts, creationism. etc, as if eferyone had an understanding of them. I think re-reading these concepts would be helpful. Starting with Darwin would seem appropriate.
I personally find it difficult to refute or defend something when I make assumptions without re-visiting the source. It seems clear from the preceding posts that there are a lot of different versions as to what folks think Professor Darwin was saying, much less Kent Hovind.
I'm sorry I don't have a link, but I will search. I hope someone already has done the homework first, though...
-- sheepish (WA) (rborgo@gte.net), January 22, 2001.
Diane, you don't seem to understand the difference between science and religion, or you wouldn't call evolution "science". Read this:SCIENCE: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena.
O.K. I'm lost here, all cheap shots aside Joe, is evolution science or religion?
By the way, I am sorry my carbon dating question threw you for such a loop that you had to stoop to the "fundy" retoric. It was a sincere and honest question. You claiming to be a scientist and all I figured you probably had more current information on it.
I was not being sarcastic when I said I was disappointed that this was obviously not going to be a learning experience, unless you count learning how to be discounting of others as a positive learning experience. I read extensively, things of science, things of religion, and try to keep an open mind while I am reading.
Jay Blair and I may not see eye to eye on some things, but I sure have learned a lot from him about worms, and we have never been rude or discounting to each other.(that is just one example-the forum is full of them.)I really never even ment to be part of this debate, since I have not seen the films. I just had some observations regarding the conflicting "theories" from various things I had read.
I heard a program featuring a Nobel prize winner in Physics talking about how scientists have short changed themselves in regards to things outside their "tunnel". He believes they can't see the forest for the trees. The trees are beautiful but try and see the forest also. God Bless
-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), January 22, 2001.
Good idea. Here's the summary from Origin of the Species in which Darwin himself pines for fossil "proof" of his extrapolated adaptation = evolution theory. He had part of it right, but there has been no proof for his theory of evolution in 150 years.http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/ chapter-14.html
-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), January 22, 2001.
Hey Joe! Surely you can do better than that! These people have asked some intelligent questions here and methinks they deserve a calm and reasoned response. Try explaining, one issue at a time, why you disagree with the presentation in these tapes. I've always liked your spunk, but you sound a little defensive and angry here. I am told you identify as an atheist, which I take to mean someone who doesnt believe in god. Well, personally I don't believe in atheists.Anyway, even when I was a bible purist, I always believed along the lines of what Vickie said; seemed rather silly to think a day was a literal day, etc, so the two theories never conflicted in my mind anywho. Good debate amongst intelligent thoughtful people is always a source of enjoyment and enlightenment to me; as long as we treat each other with respect and kindness.
Go for it, Mr. Scientist!
-- Earthmama (earthmama48@yahoo.com), January 23, 2001.
Say, if anyone wants to see these videos so they know what exactly all of this about I would be more than willing to copy them for you. Just send me some blank tapes and you can have them for free. Just email me and I will send you the info on it. Thanks.
-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), January 23, 2001.
The verdict is still out as to whether I'm an atheist or not. I find myself identifying with atheists, but also with pagans, and with deists. I'm trying to be open minded (ok, stop your sneering, you guys!)I do admit, as I stated above, that I don't have the mental capacity to truly understand either "forever", "infinity", "god" ,or how the universe came into being. Was it always here? Maybe, but that's forever. Wasn't there a beginning? Maybe god made the universe. Certainly a possibility, but enquiring minds want proof of some sort, not speculation, or faith. That is the difference between science and religion, I think.
I don't know why some of you think I'm tryiing to be sarcastic with you. Perhaps I'm getting sarcastic about some of the ideas I keep hearing, especially from the shyster Hovind.
I really don't think I want to waste my time, or yours, going through all of Hovind's points from the videos. I have a life. These things are long. And, most important, Hovind's isn't worthy of the discussion. Can't we at least discuss someone who is more logical? I KNOW that even christians have spokesmen who are much more cogent about religion than Hovind. I used to be an episcopalian. My priest (Father Rogers) was a brilliant man, and I still have a lot of respect for him wherever he may be all these years later. I would LOVE to discuss religion with him, now that I am an adult, and have lots more knowledge and experience under my belt than when he was my priest (forty years ago, almost) But Hovind isn't in Father Roger's class. Not even close.
About the donkey and the horse. Ok, we agree that they are related. Thank you, Doreen for admitting that. to me, this is ONE example, among many, that evolution has taken place. To say that they are related means that they have common ancestry, right? Or do you have some way to explain their relationship? Gotta go pour concrete now; I'll see you later (Yeah, right, you say, not if we see you first :-)
JOJ
-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), January 23, 2001.
One other point. Doreen, you said, "Joe, is it so hard for you to admit that your religion is evolution?"Doreen, Doreen, you just don't get it. My religion has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is science. I just explained my religion (deism, paganism, skepticism, whatever.)
Haven't you ever met a christian, or a buddhist, a baptist, a catholic, or whatever, who also believes in evolution? They are totally different things:
RELIGION: 1. The expression of man's belief in and reverence for a superhuman power recognized as the creator and governor of the universe.
SCIENCE: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena.
Isn't this clear? How can I make it clearer? I'm sorry if this sounds sarcastic to you; it's not meant to. It's just so frustrating trying to get my point across, when it seems like you are going to play this psychological head game (called "ya-but), where a person can always, ALWAYS, find some reason to disagree.
JOJ. Really gotta go this time.
-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), January 23, 2001.
I believe in a young earth also. I loved Vicki's comments. First we must start with the basic issue of whether God exists. This, I believe is the core issue with which JOJ is struggling. From his view it is impossible to accept a young earth, because before you can accept it you must accept that there is a God. So his opinions are understandable. Then we must also ask ourselves that if indeed God exists, is he the God of the Bible? I believe He is. Without these two very important issues, the issue of a young earth is moot. The basic problem I have with the Evolutionary theory is that the general attempt by most scientific scholars has been to try to study the nature of the universe without taking into account the infinite God. Given the fact that i believe in God, my perspective is actually much different from those who don't. To me the study of the universe without including an All Powerful, Infinite, Supernatural, Creative God, is like trying to study Robins without taking into account that sexes exist. There is no way you can understand how robins live, reproduce, or feed their young without taking these things into account. So the question then becomes, if indeed you discount the most basic ingredient of any system, and you research and develop a hypothesis, is there any way that your eventual result will be correct. The answer is no! The result cannot be correct. My son is studying Einstein right now and reading some of his work. But even Einstein, with his incredible grasp of mathmatics was working with an incomplete set of statistics if he didn't take into account an infinite God. The basic principles of Mathematics assumes that things are always and have always been the same. Einstein said, " The supreme task of the Physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction" Einstein implies here that there are static laws that never change which can allow such a thing. The problem with that is that without taking into account a supernatural law maker and creator, you lose the mathmatical skill with which to accomplish reaching the truth. This is because the basic laws must be different with a God than without one. So there are two completely opposite views. One with God, and one without. The two different theories cannot come to the same conclusion, because they are mutually exclusive to one another. Similar to a train traveling south and a train traveling west at different speeds along an infinite line. Therefore, trying to fit evolution and biblical creation into the same mold is impossible. There are multitudes of christians who have tried to do just that, but unfortunately it just doesn't fit. You cannot take a hypothesis based on the presupposition that there is no God and try to make it fit into the Bible where God not only exists, but also controls everything. My question for Vicki is how many people were on the earth 2000 years ago? If we take a biblical flood into account approximately 4300 years ago, than is it not possible that the population of earth could have filled the earth within another 4300 years before the flood. That would make the earth about 9000 years old. Definitely younger than the millions and millions puported by evolutionary scientists.Little Bit Farm
-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), January 23, 2001.
The horse and the donkey do not prove evolution, but rather that God has a terrific sense of humor to have that be the best argument that you can find to support your BELIEF that evolution is a science as opposed to a theory or a religious belief. Your inability to discuss a SINGLE topic of science that Hovind uses to support a religious and scientific theory just shows that you have nothing logical or cogent upon which to convict the man's science.I rest my case.
-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), January 23, 2001.
JOJ, with all due respect I have a question for you. Are you as passionate about everything in your life as you are about this? No explanation needed.
-- Cindy (SE IN.) (atilrthehony_1@yahoo.com), January 23, 2001.
Little Bit, not a clue as to how to answer your question. If there were not eons between the days God made the earth, light, animals, people, and then Adam and Eve, then where did the folks from the Land of Nod come from for Cain to take a wife? Remember his wife would have had to at least have parents as old as Adam and Eve. This notion of a young earth doesn't take into account other cultures like the Asian's. I also believe that we were not all decendants of Noah, the bible clearly states he took two of every flesh, besides the animals which went in numbers of 5's and 7's, and yes some two by two, but clearly stating after Noah's family list, "and they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh." This would explain the son's of Cain, numbered in the book of Numbers, after the flood.I just don't see how this is such a big deal. The fossils are there for animals and humans that simply aren't here now, the flood and the timespan between God's 7 days, is a very logical explination. I certainly am not the only one who theorizes this. As I look out into the night sky, I simply can not believe that this solar system and all that we now see of it, was just made for us 4000 years ago. Perhaps God simply puts a new star or galaxy up for us when we get a more powerful microscope? Who knows, and that is the fun of it! Vicki
-- Vicki McGaugh TX (vickilonesomedoe@hotmail.com), January 23, 2001.
Hi Vicki,The point in this discussion is predominately that there is no PROOF for trans-species evolution. What they teach in school is that we started as slime and carried on until we became people arguing about our origins on the internet.I know, as that's what they taught me.
There are plenty of animals that have become extinct for which we have proof. There are references in the Old Testament to dinosaurs and to unicorns, also giants. My theory on the giants is that they were the Neanderthals. Could humans and Neanderthals have mated and produced off spring? Good question. I don't know.
What I do know is that in an AP article about 5 or 6 months ago a study conducted in Europe comparing the oldest known homo sapiens sapiens dna to neanderthal dna found no dna match between the two. No chance of relation. Neanderthal dna from widely diverse geological areas compared to each other showed that they could be related. Same for the homo sapiens from diverse areas. What does that tell us? We didn't evolve from Neanderthals. Secular article. Seperate creation. Just like the horse and the donkey.
As for the dual creation stories in Genesis, I have to say that I must study it out further. I don't know. But it is my understanding that the Hebrew word for day is used in Genesis as a literal translation for a 24 hour day...not eons and eons nor as "a day with God is as a thousand years". One thing is clear. God did it and we can't comprehend it, science tries to prove things so that we can comprehend it. I have no problem with science as a means of explaining the principles that govern the physical world nor with science postulating theories as to how things could occur. I DO have a problem with science taking a leap of faith and saying "we just haven't found proof for evolution yet, so let's make adaptation our proof and we won't tell anyone that it takes a leap of FAITH to make the theory plausible".
As for the Asians, Hovind says they have a flood story as well. He also says there are 270 other flood stories throughout the world...I have heard of a Native American flood story, but the others I don't know about. I'd have to dig and research it. Also of interest in the Asian area is a report I heard years ago regarding a group of Chinese who worshipped Yahweh...I think the pronunciation was different, but still...makes ya wonder.
-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), January 23, 2001.
A very nice person from this forum sent me the following link to information about Darwin's works. I am sorry that I still can't create a link, but you can surely use your mouse to cut and paste:http://www.tulane.edu/~guill/natural_selection.html
Well worth the trip.
I would also like to say a couple of things. Scientists, particularly physicists, do not hold to notions of a static universe, nor necessarily static theories anymore. If you have read the Tao of Physics or the Dancing Wu Li Masters, you would see some of this. Many believe that there is no such thing as an objective observation: that, indeed, every observed phenomenon is in fact influenced by the observer. It seems to me that with that kind of "out there" thinking, we here are oversimplifying things to assume we understand current scientific thinking and attempt to present it here...
As to God/Evolution, etc., I see no reason that they are incompatible. On another thread, I also pointed out that it's also really like the "Theory of God," too. I can't prove His existence anymore than I can the Theory of Evolution. I have also stated that both seem obvious to me. There probably is more empirical evidence for the fossil record and evolution, however! I do find it hard to imagine that the earth is only a few thousand years old. I think that notion was put to rest a long time ago. However, if you look at creation in terms of something like dog years, the sequencing makes sense.
The 2 creation stories in Genesis are from 2 of the at least 4 strains of oral tradition that can be found there. (there are two stories of the flood, too.) Interesting that the one creation version that we were always taught in Sunday school is the one that features Eve being created from Adam's side...not the one that says that man and woman were created at the same time in the image of God.
You know what puzzles me the most? Why does anyone even care whether or not somebody believes in evolution or not? Why bother to debate it at all? Is believing in Evolution somehow tantamount to not believing in God? Or not believing in God correctly? Really, it's like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin again, if you ask me. But you didn't...but I butted in anyway.
-- sheepish (WA) (rborgo@gte.net), January 23, 2001.
Doreen, I love how your mind works, really!... (so glad you didnt leave!).......I am so far terribly disappointed in my 'non biblical' colleagues! Not to criticize, cuz I feel at this point unqualified to contribute (although if this doesn't get any better, I may change my mind!).
OH. .... I havent heard of the Native flood story; please tell me where I can access it! Please!!
I too would love to read about the evidence about trans-species evolution......isnt there someone out there to enlighten us??
Doreen, when you say this:
"My theory on the giants is that they were the Neanderthals."
So do you have something in your research..(even if , please don't tell me that's its just the bible..:) that tells you that the Neanderthals were um...like.........really big compared to their peers?
" What they teach in school is that we started as slime and carried on until we became people arguing about our origins on the internet" how true...... HaHaHa.....you are crackin me up Doreen!
"What I do know is that in an AP article about 5 or 6 months ago a study conducted in Europe comparing the oldest known homo sapiens sapiens dna to neanderthal dna found no dna match between the two. No chance of relation. Neanderthal dna from widely diverse geological areas compared to each other showed that they could be related. Same for the homo sapiens from diverse areas."
I want some of you genius scientist type people to explain this one away for my satisfaction!! I really do!! Help!!
Thank you Doreen, for returning in top form! Kudos and blessings,
-- Earthmama (earthmama48@yahoo.com), January 23, 2001.
Nine million years ago when I was in college (allright, allright,33 years ago)I was taking a course in Theology, taught by a really cool Catholic nun..I broached the Creation/Evolution question with her and to date, I have not heard a better response from anyone.She opined that the two were not incompatible at all..specifically, that if one believed that God exists and has always existed (sorry Joe, that's where you lose interest)...and since God is omnipotent,why couldn't God have chosen to create the universe and directed flora and fauna to evolve? Then, when He chose to, He created man and woman. If one considers the murder of Abel by Cain and Gods' punishment of Cain by banishing him to go hang out with the folks in the Land of Nod...if they were regular folks, then what was the punishment? Big deal, you get to set up housekeping in another neighborhood...BUT..what if Nod were populated not by people, but by evolved primitive Primates who could not share the same intellect as Cain..therefore what a punishment indeed..to live exclusively with grunting dumb animals, unable to communicate...That always made sense to me and still does. Lastly, the reason that I personally dislike Evolution being taught in the schools is because it is, indeed a THEORY, not scientific fact...Do children in grade school learn in detail about the Theory of time travel???? Anything not scientific fact has no business being presented as such, and Evolution is presented as a fact, not a true theory....just some thoughts..God bless.
-- Lesley (martchas@bellsouth.net), January 23, 2001.
Thats' right gals, no proof of evolution, and really no proof of God. Which is what Joe is trying to say so poorly! I know, and that's just simply not enough for Joe to be able to understand. I have loved this thread! Vicki
-- Vicki McGaugh TX (vickilonesomedoe@hotmail.com), January 23, 2001.
Exactly....do not teach a theory as irrefutable scientific fact....and then say it's better than another religion. Say "I believe" not "this is a scientific fact".Earthmama, I still haven't decided if you're making fun of me or not, but here are a few of the TONS of links to Native American flood mythology. (Which by the way has been proven scientifically to have occurred)
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/0/0,5716,119490+9+ 110496,00.html
http://members.nbci.com/CandyLLand/index1.htm
The following is a research paper by someone detailing possible relations between the Biblical Nephilim and the Neanderthals. I haven't read the entire thing, but I skimmed it, and was a bit surprised to see someone else thinking like I did.
http://home.earthlink.net/~calknight/Nephilim_vs_Neanderthal.htm
Enjoy.
-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), January 23, 2001.
Lesley: I agree, that theory should be presented as theory and IF creationism is to be taught it should be presented as a biblical interpretation, which is subject to human error and therefore no better than theory.I'm not a scientist but the idea of a young earth seems silly to me. So far, the last I've heard, the roots of vedic culture has been traced back to about 7000 years. And yes, they have a comparable flood story. Their Noah was a guy named Manu.
As to the creation of the universe my own take on it goes something like this. Every discrete THING has a beginning and end. Planets, solar systems, galaxies etc. Whats a thousand gazillion years compared to eternity? Finite lives for all created things.
On the other hand, I heard on NPR a few months ago, an astro- physicist named John Hooper? Hooker? from Yale or Harvard said, "There's a high probability that the universe is infinite." IF you're talking infinite, you're talking absolutes. I don't know if you can have infinite without also having eternal. I suspect not.
Now we have an apparent contradiction---finite things having finite lives and an eternal, infinite universe. I suspect what the physicists will eventually conclude is that the "BIG BANG" is a "local" event in infinite space. Perhaps there is a singular mechanism that causes these "local" events but not a singular event. In other words, perhaps more than one big bang.
As to evolution, it just makes more sense to me and I do not find it incompatible with God.
-- john leake (natlivent@pcpros.net), January 24, 2001.
Sheepish, I meant to answer your spate of questions last night, but I forgot....sorry."Why does anyone even care whether or not somebody believes in evolution or not?".....For me BELIEF is the operative word in the question. I think it's good and healthy to question why you believe something.
"Why bother to debate it at all?"....because it is being taught as truth to children and it has not been proven to be so. In my opinion that's the same as lying to them.
"Is believing in Evolution somehow tantamount to not believing in God?".... No, not necessarily.It can be a stumbling block for a lot of people, though.
"Or not believing in God correctly?"....No, but it's certainly worthy of checking into why you believe what you believe, and how that coiincides with facts that we can observe in our puny little physical state.
"Really, it's like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin again, if you ask me"....I don't think it's nearly that subjective as there are observable and proveable facts to refer to on this topic.But if you ever find out the answer to that question, please share it!...my guess is it would have to be an awfully big pin. :)
-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), January 24, 2001.
I noticed Rebekah that all your examples dealt with man. Since man is the most adaptable animal on the face of the earth, he already has changed as much as he needs to. Look at the natural world for your changes. Since changes take generations or even thousands of years,I don think you will see them unless you look at the lesser forms. But you do have to open your eyes to see.
-- Nick (wildheart@ekyol.com), January 24, 2001.
When I was in school, it was always presented to us as the THEORY of Evolution. All science is, is a bunch of constructs based on theory and checked out by measurable and observable validation (or not.) Good heavens, think of Newtonian Physics....that idea worked great for the time period of understanding before we got involved in space/time, etc. It's still applicable to our everyday stuff like oh, calculating rocket trajectories, etc., but eventually "newer" physics has to be incorporated for anything much more sophisticated. I see theories as being dynamic and capable of being modified/refuted. I guess that's why I never get all bothered about whether anyone really believes them or not. I don't think scientists have to "believe" them to "use" them anyway. My public school education was always balanced by my religious exposure in Sunday School/church, so I was aware that there were at least two explanations, however implausible one seemed to me.What else is always EVOLVING is science. Any honest scientist will always change (albeit reluctantly sometimes) in the face of evidence presented that diffutes previously known "facts." The more we know, the less we know ....which brings me to one other thought for now (although there's a few nascent ones scrambling around in my head at the moment, but I've got to get to work....)
Nah.....I'll save it for later....Y'all have a good day.
-- sheepish (WA) (rborgo@gte.net), January 24, 2001.
Gravity is a theory too. Tell that to the bowling ball about to drop on your foot.
-- Anne (HT@HM.com), January 24, 2001.
Anne, Gravity started as a theory and has since been proven, so now it is fact. Darwin, on the other hand, proposed theories that he HOPED would be proven after his death but in the nearly 150 years since no proof has been found. Even SCIENTISTS will tell you there is no proof in the fossil record. As a side note though, there have been MANY biblical events verified by archeological finds......hmmmm.
-- Spy (nolo@tattoos.com), January 24, 2001.
While not concrete proof of an interspecies link, recent reports have shown that humans and chimpanzees have as much as 95%+ of our genetic makeup in common. Chimpanzees also share with humans one blood type- ABO.Yes, the Bible is supported in many places by archeological fact in some of it's historic portrayals, but ask yourself what embellishments have been made to historical accounts of events throughout human history. 2000 years from now which account of goings on in the White House over the last 8 years will our descendants take as gospel.
-- ray s. (mmoetc@yahoo.com), January 24, 2001.
LBF, I figured you'd show up, sooner or later. I read the first part of your post: "...it is impossible to accept a young earth, because before you can accept it you must accept that there is a God"I have stated before (on this post, even) that there IS the possibility of a god. However, it is a NEAR certainty that the earth is a lot older than 6000 years. If there is a god, this is not inconsistent with the earth being a few billion years old, though.
Doreen, I'm glad you find the horse and donkey situation so funny. Too bad it stumped you. You say, "I rest my case. " Does that mean that you give up? You refuse to see that donkeys and horses have common ancestry? Does it bug you that this doesn't fit your meme? I believe you agreed you would accept my request that we discuss one item at a time. Please do answer this one question, as it seems intuitively obvious to me that horses and donkeys come from common, albeit distant, ancestors; this is evolution. I understand your belief that life didn''t come from non life; I don't understand why you are so hung up about evolution from horse ancestors to horses and donkeys. If you'll be so kind as to agree to this, I'll be happy to go on to any other topic from the video; I really don't want to try to do a review of the entire video at one time, though.
Sheepish, thanks for a very straighforward, calm synopsis of what has been going on here. Maybe you, as a christian, will be heard by some of the folks who seem to be refusing to hear me say more or less the same thing (maybe I'm not as good at expressing my thoughts, or maybe the hard liners are putting up a mental block against my views, I don't know)
Good one, Ray. In 2000 years, we'll be arguing about fossilized pecker tracks found in the fossilized white house, probably.
Cindy, in answer to your question: No.
-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), January 24, 2001.
Doreen, Apparently my ignorance made it look at though I was 'making fun of you'. My post was entirely sincere.
-- Earthmama (earthmama48@yahoo.com), January 24, 2001.
JOJ, with all due respect, I am not stumped at all.You would seem to be the one who is stumped as you an only offer up the horse and the donkey which is an admitted problem with the theory of evolution of species all the way back to Ole Charlie himself. Have you read Darwin? He was certain that scientists such as yourself would come up with proof for his theory....still waiting... and old Charlie has more than rotted in his grave.
I still have to ask you for your proof, and ask you what was wrong with Hovind's science and still....I get no answer. I get a donkey and a horse whose offspring is unable to reproduce and reknowned the world over for it's stubborness. Fitting?...yes.
Just admit that it is your opinion/belief that evolution exists and that you have no proof for it, but you choose to believe it anyway. Like I said very early on here,"I" can't convert you. All that I can do is challenge your suppositions and ask you to prove them....since you say it's scientific and not a religion I am not out of line at all in asking for your proof. That is supposed to be the modus operandi of science.
Ray, just because there are similarities in life forms doesn't mean that they are related. Why are you so quick to dismiss archeological proof for the veracity of the Bible and so willing to accept similarities between lifeforms as indicative of "proof" of trans- species evolution?
Everyone should go back and read Darwin's theory and see where it splits with reality and his own admissions of problems with his theory that have NEVER been worked out. It's not science when it can't be proven....when there is NO fossil record of an "in between" species it can be a theory or a religion and NO MORE.
-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), January 24, 2001.
Doreen, I am so pleased to give you an opportunity to practice your humor. However, the fact is that you are starting to waffle in your beliefs, or else you are seeing that you are kidding yourself, and don't want to admit it in front of "god and everybody".You just now, so to speak, said, "Ray, just because there are similarities in life forms doesn't mean that they are related". In an earlier post (Jan 22, above), you said, "Donkeys and horses are closely related". Which is it, Doreen?
To save you the trouble, I looked up the words, "horse" and "donkey" in my encyclopedia (New Standard, 1970). Yes, it's old, but it was bought when my kids were very small, and I now have the internet. Perhaps, if you think the New Standard Encyclopedia is part of the conspiracy of the millions of scientists who INSIST on believing in evolution, you can find a biblical web site which can offer its own definition of horses and donkeys. My encyclopedia referred me to "ass", when I looked for donkey. It says, under "ass", "Ass, a member of the horse family. It resembles the zebra, but the coat is not striped, except-in a few species-on legs and tail." Further down in the description it gives the scientific name: "Asses are of the genus EQUUS and of the subgenus HEMIONUS or ASINUS. "
Under "horse", the encyclopedia says, "The horse is a mammal belonging to the same family as the ass, mule, and zebra.....The horse family preceded man on earth by more than 50,000,000 years. Fossil remains of this family are found in both Eastern and Western Hemispheres, AND PROVIDE ONE OF THE MOST COMPLETE RECORDS OF ANIMAL EVOLUTION "(emphasis mine)
The encyclopedia continues by listing several of the "fossil" horses, with their scientific names. There seems to be a fairly complete fossil record showing gradual changes in the form from one epoch to another.
The encyclopedia continues, "By the end of the Pliocene Period, EQUUS, the modern rtype of horse, appeared in what is now the United States."
These are "facts", Doreen. The "missing links" you creationists keep insisting do not exist, are there for all to see. The descendants of the early horses are "related" to each other. They are "cousins", if you will. If you choose to state that they are propaganda used by the bad people who would dupe poor innocent school children, as Hovind claims over and over in his video, I will be forced to call you a name. You would be acting like a fool. Or an ass.
Open your eyes, Doreen. It took millions of years for your eyes to evolve. Open them and see. Stop this denial.
JOJ
-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), January 24, 2001.
Doreen- If you will reread my post I never stated genetic similarity as concrete proof, only offered it up as an interesting point although I personally think it is rather compelling. I also didn't dismiss the veracity of any of the historical events outlined in the bible and since confirmed by other means. Cities and towns did, in many cases exist where stated, battles were fought, etc. Still haven't seen the proof of virgin birth, parting of the Red Sea, people being turned into pillars of salt( fossil evidence?), etc. I do believe in the existance of a higher being, but I don't pretend to know exactly how he created things. There is enough evidence to make me believe that evolution was and is a viable tool that may have been used.
-- ray s. (mmoetc@yahoo.com), January 24, 2001.
Doesn't it seem a bit harsh to offer up something and then denigrate those who cannot refute it beyond a "shadow of a doubt?"As an example: Suppose I post that the stars are really the twinkles in the eyes of angels. The reason that I know this is b/c it was divinely revealed to me. (Whether or not there are other Angelic Twinklists who agree with me and whether or not our sheer number of yeas makes anything "right," is not the point here...)
I maintain that my thoughts are correct and true. I then challenge anyone to defy my thinking. Okay, realistically, how many astrophysicists do we have on a homesteading forum???? And even if we had 50 of them, how many of them could explain in laymans'/homesteader's terms how they could refute my assertion? So then, I can come back and say "see, you CAN'T prove it." And then, especially b/c I can't prove my statement either, we just digress into a high-falutin' pi**ing match...
It seems a bit odd to toss out something as complex as Darwin's theory and then expect average Joes (ahem)(and no offense to anyone) here to be able to "prove" it beyond a shadow of a doubt to all of us.
I suggest everyone go do their due dilligence, and all report back here in a year or so. When we have all completed our science and theology studies and have done our dissertations, then we can have an intelligent conversation about this stuff. Until then, this conversation is becoming rather circular.... :-)
-- sheepish (WA) (rborgo@gte.net), January 24, 2001.
Gosh, sheepish. Just when he comes out with a "fact" that I can refute you say STOP...? That's no fun....nor does it cause anyone to learn anything. Where's your sense of adventure? It's a good discussion and I haven't asked for proof beyond a shadow of a doubt....I've asked for proof of macro evolution which shouldn't be that difficult to come up with if it existed. Unlike the stars in your analogy, it should be on the same level as we are. I don't think that Darwin's theory is so complex that we can't understand it. He uses some big words and all, but I have a dictionary and it isn't that complex. What is complex is Darwin's manueverings around observable data to justify his theory. He claimed the geological record had to be wrong in order for his theory to work. He admitted there were numerous problems including the fact of hybrid sterilization and that future scientists could get around it. It's not all that difficult.I'm not interested in a p*****g match. I'm interested in the truth. Joe said he was a scientist so I thought he would have the facts to prove this theory of evolution, or the scientific facts to dispute the science Kent Hovind uses, since that is the subject of this thread. I never asked anyone except Joe for the facts that would validate it. because of his assertion that it wasn't a theory but true science.
Since we are homesteaders we should be a little more versed in biology and taxonomy than the average "joe".
So my apologies to you, sheepish, but I am not going to let it lie just when JOJ gives a "fact" instead of an opinion.
WARNING!!!!!THIS IS GOING TO BE LONG!!!!!!!
Joe, I made a semantic mistake and thank you for pointing it out to me. When I used "relate" in the first post you mentioned, I meant it in a biological proximity context. When I used it in the second post, I meant it in a descended from context. So I am not waffling, just using a word too freely.
Taxonomy is the science of categorizing species according to their observable traits. This is the order of the categorization:
kingdom phyllum class family genus species
Taxonomy was never meant to prove evolution but a way in which to study nature and group things together to make it easier to understand. That's what you're referring to in your dictionary, amd the fossil "evolution" of horses has been scientifically refuted. Not by creationists, but by the other kind. Here are a few quotes that you might find interesting....or if not you than perhaps some other people as there seem to be many interested in this topic...
Darwin... was embarrassed by the fossil record... we are now about 120-years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, ... some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." David M. Raup, Curator of Geology, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago; "Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology" Field Museum of Natural History, vol.50, no. 1, Jan 1979, p.25
Approved North Carolina biology textbooks [and many others] hold up the so-called "horse series" as proof of evolution. Dr. Niles Eldredge, a curator at the American Museum in New York, has said: ". . . the most famous example . . . still on exhibit downstairs is the exhibit on horse evolution. . .That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. . . The people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we've got a problem."
1. The horse series was constructed from fossils found in many different parts of the world and nowhere does this succession occur in one location.The series is formulated on the assumption of evolutionary progression, and then used to 'prove' evolution!
2. The number of ribs varies within the series, up and down, between 15, 19 and 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also changes from six to eight and then back to six.
3. Fossils of the three-toed and one-toed species are preserved in the same rock formation in Nebraska, proving that both lived at the same time,strongly suggesting that one did not evolve into the other (National Geographic, January 1981, p. 74)
Eohippus, presented as the ancestor of horse which has disappeared millions of years ago, resembles extraordinarily to an animal called Hyrax which still lives in Africa today. One of the evolution researchers, Hitchings comments as follows: "Eohippus, supposedly the first horse, doesn’t look in the least like one, and indeed, when first found was not classified as such. It is remarkably like the present-day Hyrax (or daman), both in its skeletal structure and the way of like that it is supposed to have lived… Eohippus, supposedly the earliest horse, and said by experts to be long extinct, and known to us only through fossils, may in fact be alive and well and not a horse at all a-shy, fox-sized animal called a daman that darts about in the African bush." The Neck of the Giraffe?, Francis? Hitchings, [Title and first name are not certain, sorry]
...over the years fossil horses have been cited as a prime example of orthogenesis ["straight-line evolution"] ...it can no longer be considered a valid theory...we find that once a notion becomes part of accepted scientific knowledge, it is very difficult to modify or reject it" (Fossil Horses, Bruce MacFadden, FL Museum of Natural History & U. of FL, 1994, p.27 ) "There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit down-stairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff." (Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist British Museum of Natural History, Harper's, p. 60, 1984.)
So it would seem that the scientific community has changed their mind since your dictionary.
Listen, if you want to end this, that's fine. I wanted to do it privately anyway, but it sure seems like a bunch of people are very interested and I am not trying to say to you that you can't think what you want....any of you. All I have been saying and all I intended to say was that there is another way to look at it and there isn't proof for evolution so other avenues shouldn't be discounted.
I choose God (yes, of the Bible) and I will take Him on His word and still maintain an interest in the mystery that we have to explore here on earth. I don't believe that I can come up with definitive scientific proof of God for all of you. I see it all around me, with my eyes that were created in less than nine months.;) You can choose to believe what you like. Just don't claim it's scientific and proven when it isn't...Peace.
-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), January 24, 2001.
Gosh, sheepish. Just when he comes out with a "fact" that I can refute you say STOP...? That's no fun....nor does it cause anyone to learn anything. Where's your sense of adventure? It's a good discussion and I haven't asked for proof beyond a shadow of a doubt....I've asked for proof of macro evolution which shouldn't be that difficult to come up with if it existed. Unlike the stars in your analogy, it should be on the same level as we are. I don't think that Darwin's theory is so complex that we can't understand it. He uses some big words and all, but I have a dictionary and it isn't that complex. What is complex is Darwin's manueverings around observable data to justify his theory. He claimed the geological record had to be wrong in order for his theory to work. He admitted there were numerous problems including the fact of hybrid sterilization and that future scientists could get around it. It's not all that difficult.I'm not interested in a p*****g match. I'm interested in the truth. Joe said he was a scientist so I thought he would have the facts to prove this theory of evolution, or the scientific facts to dispute the science Kent Hovind uses, since that is the subject of this thread. I never asked anyone except Joe for the facts that would validate it. because of his assertion that it wasn't a theory but true science.
Since we are homesteaders we should be a little more versed in biology and taxonomy than the average "joe".
So my apologies to you, sheepish, but I am not going to let it lie just when JOJ gives a "fact" instead of an opinion.
WARNING!!!!!THIS IS GOING TO BE LONG!!!!!!!
Joe, I made a semantic mistake and thank you for pointing it out to me. When I used "relate" in the first post you mentioned, I meant it in a biological proximity context. When I used it in the second post, I meant it in a descended from context. So I am not waffling, just using a word too freely.
Taxonomy is the science of categorizing species according to their observable traits. This is the order of the categorization:
kingdom phyllum class family genus species
Taxonomy was never meant to prove evolution but a way in which to study nature and group things together to make it easier to understand. That's what you're referring to in your dictionary, amd the fossil "evolution" of horses has been scientifically refuted. Not by creationists, but by the other kind. Here are a few quotes that you might find interesting....or if not you than perhaps some other people as there seem to be many interested in this topic...
Darwin... was embarrassed by the fossil record... we are now about 120-years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, ... some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." David M. Raup, Curator of Geology, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago; "Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology" Field Museum of Natural History, vol.50, no. 1, Jan 1979, p.25
Approved North Carolina biology textbooks [and many others] hold up the so-called "horse series" as proof of evolution. Dr. Niles Eldredge, a curator at the American Museum in New York, has said: ". . . the most famous example . . . still on exhibit downstairs is the exhibit on horse evolution. . .That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. . . The people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we've got a problem."
1. The horse series was constructed from fossils found in many different parts of the world and nowhere does this succession occur in one location.The series is formulated on the assumption of evolutionary progression, and then used to 'prove' evolution!
2. The number of ribs varies within the series, up and down, between 15, 19 and 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also changes from six to eight and then back to six.
3. Fossils of the three-toed and one-toed species are preserved in the same rock formation in Nebraska, proving that both lived at the same time,strongly suggesting that one did not evolve into the other (National Geographic, January 1981, p. 74)
Eohippus, presented as the ancestor of horse which has disappeared millions of years ago, resembles extraordinarily to an animal called Hyrax which still lives in Africa today. One of the evolution researchers, Hitchings comments as follows: "Eohippus, supposedly the first horse, doesn’t look in the least like one, and indeed, when first found was not classified as such. It is remarkably like the present-day Hyrax (or daman), both in its skeletal structure and the way of like that it is supposed to have lived… Eohippus, supposedly the earliest horse, and said by experts to be long extinct, and known to us only through fossils, may in fact be alive and well and not a horse at all a-shy, fox-sized animal called a daman that darts about in the African bush." The Neck of the Giraffe?, Francis? Hitchings, [Title and first name are not certain, sorry]
...over the years fossil horses have been cited as a prime example of orthogenesis ["straight-line evolution"] ...it can no longer be considered a valid theory...we find that once a notion becomes part of accepted scientific knowledge, it is very difficult to modify or reject it" (Fossil Horses, Bruce MacFadden, FL Museum of Natural History & U. of FL, 1994, p.27 ) "There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit down-stairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff." (Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist British Museum of Natural History, Harper's, p. 60, 1984.)
So it would seem that the scientific community has changed their mind since your dictionary.
Listen, if you want to end this, that's fine. I wanted to do it privately anyway, but it sure seems like a bunch of people are very interested and I am not trying to say to you that you can't think what you want....any of you. All I have been saying and all I intended to say was that there is another way to look at it and there isn't proof for evolution so other avenues shouldn't be discounted.
I choose God (yes, of the Bible) and I will take Him on His word and still maintain an interest in the mystery that we have to explore here on earth. I don't believe that I can come up with definitive scientific proof of God for all of you. I see it all around me, with my eyes that were created in less than nine months.;) You can choose to believe what you like. Just don't claim it's scientific and proven when it isn't...Peace.
-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), January 24, 2001.
Sorry about the double post....ooops!
-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), January 24, 2001.
Borrowed from another board and posted without comment:Sorry, but Dr. Hovind is involved in some pretty heavy intellectual dishonesty. This is going to take some space to get at all the problems, though.
First of all, evolution in common useage only refers to Hovind's point 6, that is, biological evolution. Forming planets and the beginning of the universe are not referred to as evolution by the scientific community. In grouping together physical, chemical, biological, and behavioural sciences into one big melting pot, Hovind is employing the machine-gun method of argument -- keep firing at as much as possible in the hope you hit something. The reality is that these sciences all involve different processes. The idea that the process by which humans evolved from monkeys and the process by which the Earth was formed from discrete matter in space are in any way the same is absurd.
The distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution shows a misunderstanding of what evolution is. So-called macro-evolution is simply micro-evolution over a time frame of millenia. It is the continual improvement of biological structures that offer advantages. So there was an advantage for the creatures with the first cell that could detect the existence of light. Since there was an advantage, they were able to succeed better in the ecosystem, and their genetic makeup was more likely to be passed on than those without light- detectors. Repeat the loop over time and you get eyes -- continually improved light-detecting structures. This also refutes Hovind's assertion that no animal has ever been observed changing into a fundamentally different animal. We have only been observing for 10,000 years (maximum, certainly much less) a process that takes millenia. Of course we haven't seen anything!
More problematic is Hovind's seeming insistence that evolution describes a series of linked discrete organisms. For example, the idea that Australopithecus existed unchanged for a while, then decided to transition into Cro-Magnons, stayed there for a while, transitioned, etc. Evolutionary theory does not describe discrete steps. It describes a continuum. There are no "transitionary" fossils in the way Hovind envisions them. Rather, every fossil we find, by definition, belonged to a transitional being. We are transitional lifeforms. And so Hovind's assertion about not observing inter- species changes becomes ridiculous. Every species ever in existence on this Earth has been in transition every second. There is no destination lifeform that species are changing into. Every animal has been observed changing, but the statement about "changing into a fundamentally different kind of animal" is meaningless from an evolutionary perspective. There is no change into anything, there is only change.
The idea that the Earth is not billions of years old simply contradicts available evidence. Many different radioactive decay methods, geologic stratification, and many other methods of determining the age of ancient objects all independently agree on the range of the Earth's age. It surprises me that this is even an issue to one purporting to have scientific knowledge, such as Dr. Hovind.
Oh, and the final assertion that we should, "Give up faith in the silly religion of evolutionism, and trust the God of the Bible (who is the Creator of this universe and will be your Judge, and mine, one day soon) to forgive you and to save you from the coming judgment on man’s sin," is an insult to the intelligence of every person who has ever read that page. Disproving evolution can not prove Biblical Creationism. This is simply because this is not a binary issue -- there are not only the two options of Biblical Creationism and Evolutionism. Rev. Rae has posted two beautiful Creation stories above. The Norse, Sumerians, Hindu, Iroquois, every human culture that has ever existed has had a Creation story. That doesn't even preclude the idea that a scientist may come up with a different theory of how we came to be. Evolution itself had changed since Darwin. If we are to be honest in our assessment of how we came to be, we must consider all possibilities. Which means that to establish Biblical Creation as the preferred explanation through Dr. Hovind's method, one would have to disprove every single explanation of how we came to be that humans have ever formulated. I can't wait for his challenge to prove Norse cosmology. ;-)
None of this, of course, proves or disproves the existence of anything Divine. That isn't part of this argument at all. I am simply saying that proponents of Biblical Creationism would do well to understand evolution before they attack it. They would also do well to note that science is continually improving. Newton's Laws have holes in them too -- these were corrected by Einstein and Schroedinger. Despite this, Newton's Laws are perfectly valid when not applied in very large or very small scales. A hole in a scientific theory does not disprove the theory, it merely presents an opportunity for improvement.
-- john leake (natlivent@pcpros.net), January 24, 2001.
Thanks for posting that, John. I'm going to call it a day. It becomes too tedious playing "yabut" with Doreen and her ilk.I was seriously thinking about calling Doreen a fool. I won't. She already called herself that. Thanks for sparing me that, Doreen.
I pity you.
JOJ
-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), January 25, 2001.
One last remark, Doreen; anyone can find opposing views on most anything. Your conclusion that "So it would seem that the scientific community has changed their mind since your dictionary. " is ridiculous. Nice try, though. Here's an example:
HORSE EVOLUTION
This is merely the summary of a comprehensive article Horse Evolution by Kathleen Hunt which appears on The TalkOrigins. Archive
For many people, the horse family remains the classic example of evolution. As more and more horse fossils have been found, some ideas about horse evolution have changed, but the horse family remains a good example of evolution. In fact, we now have enough fossils of enough species in enough genera to examine subtle details of evolutionary change, such as modes of speciation.
In addition to showing that evolution has occurred, the fossil Equidae also show the following characteristics of evolution:
1. Evolution does not occur in a straight line toward a goal, like a ladder; rather, evolution is like a branching bush, with no predetermined goal.
Horse species were constantly branching off the "evolutionary tree" and evolving along various unrelated routes. There's no discernible "straight line" of horse evolution. Many horse species were usually present at the same time, with various numbers of toes, adapted to various different diets. In other words, horse evolution had no inherent direction. We only have the impression of straight-line evolution because only one genus happens to still be alive, which deceives some people into thinking that that one genus was somehow the "target" of all the evolution. Instead, that one genus is merely the last surviving branch of a once mighty and sprawling "bush".
The view of equine evolution as a complex bush with many contemporary species has been around for several decades, and is commonly recounted in modern biology and evolution textbooks.
2. There are no truly consistent "trends".
Tracing a line of descent from Hyracotherium to Equus reveals several apparent trends: reduction of toe number, increase in size of cheek teeth, lengthening of the face, increase in body size. But these trends are not seen in all of the horse lines. On the whole, horses got larger, but some horses (Archeohippus, Calippus) then got smaller again. Many recent horses evolved complex facial pits, and then some of their descendants lost them again. Most of the recent (5-10 My) horses were three-toed, not one-toed, and we see a "trend" to one toe only because all the three-toed lines have recently become extinct.
Additionally, these traits do not necessarily evolve together, or at a steady rate. The various morphological characters each evolved in fits and starts, and did not evolve as a suite of characters. For example, throughout the Eocene, the feet changed little, and only the teeth evolved. Throughout the Miocene, both feet and teeth evolved rapidly. Rates of evolution depend on the ecological pressures facing the species.
The "direction" of evolution depends on the ecological challenges facing the individuals of a species and on the variation in that species, not on an inherent "evolutionary trend".
3. New species can arise through several different evolutionary mechanisms.
Sometimes, new species split off suddenly from their ancestors (e.g., Miohippus from Mesohippus) and then co-existed with those ancestors. Other species came into being through anagenetic transformation of the ancestor, until the ancestor had changed appearance enough to be given a new name (e.g. Equus from Dinohippus). Sometimes only one or a few species arose; sometimes there were long periods of stasis (e.g. Hyracotherium throughout the early Eocene); and sometimes there were enormous bursts of evolution, when new ecological opportunities arose (the merychippine radiation). Again, evolution proceeds according to the ecological pressures facing the individuals of a species and on the variation present within that species. Evolution takes place in the real world, with diverse rates and modes, and cannot be reduced to a single, simple process.
A Question for Creationists:
Creationists who wish to deny the evidence of horse evolution should careful consider this: how else can you explain the sequence of horse fossils? Even if creationists insist on ignoring the transitional fossils (many of which have been found), again, how can the unmistakable sequence of these fossils be explained? Did God create Hyracotherium, then kill off Hyracotherium and create some Hyracotherium-Orohippus intermediates, then kill off the intermediates and create Orohippus, then kill off Orohippus and create Epihippus, then allow Epihippus to "microevolve" into Duchesnehippus, then kill off Duchesnehippus and create Mesohippus, then create some Mesohippus-Miohippus intermediates, then create Miohippus, then kill off Mesohippus, etc.....each species coincidentally similar to the species that came just before and came just after?
Creationism utterly fails to explain the sequence of known horse fossils from the last 50 million years. That is, without invoking the "God Created Everything To Look Just Like Evolution Happened" Theory.
[And I'm not even mentioning all the other evidence for evolution that is totally independent of the fossil record -- developmental biology, comparative DNA & protein studies, morphological analyses, biogeography, etc. The fossil record, horses included, is only a small part of the story.]
Truly persistent and/or desperate creationists are thus forced into illogical, unjustified attacks of fossil dating methods, or irrelevant and usually flat-out wrong proclamations about a supposed "lack" of "transitional forms". It's sad. To me, the horse fossils tell a magnificent and fascinating story, of millions of animals living out their lives, in their natural world, through millions of years. I am a dedicated horse rider and am very happy that the one-toed grazing Equus survived to the present. Evolution in no way impedes my ability to admire the beauty and nobility of these animals. Instead, it enriches my appreciation and understanding of modern horses and their rich history.
"All the morphological changes in the history of the Equidae can be accounted for by the neo-Darwinian theory of microevolution: genetic variation, natural selection, genetic drift, and speciation." (Futuyma 1986, p.409)
"Because its complications are usually ignored by biology textbooks, creationists have claimed the horse story is no longer valid. However, the main features of the story have in fact stood the test of time...." (Futuyma 1982, p. 85)
"When asked to provide evidence of long-term evolution, most scientists turn to the fossil record. Within this context, fossil horses are among the most frequently cited examples of evolution. The prominent Finnish paleontologist Bjorn Kurten wrote: 'One's mind inevitably turns to that inexhaustible textbook example, the horse sequence. This has been cited -- incorrectly more often than not -- as evidence for practically every evolutionary principle that has ever been coined.' This cautionary note notwithstanding, fossil horses do indeed provide compelling evidence in support of evolutionary theory." (MacFadden 1988, p. 131)
"The fossil record [of horses] provides a lucid story of descent with change for nearly 50 million years, and we know much about the ancestors of modern horses." (Evander 1989, p. 125)
"It is evolution that gives rhyme and reason to the story of the horse family as it exists today and as it existed in the past. Our own existence has the same rhyme and reason, and so has the existence of every other living organism. One of the main points of interest in the horse family is that it so clearly demonstrates this tremendously important fact." (Simpson, 1961, p. xxxiii)
So, I assume that, since you believe that horses, donkeys, and other members of the horse family are, in fact, not related, you also believe that members of the cat family, the birds, the lizards, frog, etc. are also not biologically related. All the facts, all the research that has been done is simply wrong. How convenient for you. You'r pathetic, Doreen
Goodbye.
JOJ
-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), January 25, 2001.
Joe, Do you present ideas to your scientific colleagues the same way, by belittling them and calling them names if they don't agree? Calling Doreen foolish and pathetic automatically discounts any ideas you put forward, after all, wasn't this supposed to be a discussion? So far Doreen has presented her points clearly---as with the debunking of horse evolution. She provides quotes from highly respected paleontologists, curators and even National Geographic(all clearly notated) You provide the paper of paleontologist K. Hunt who's theory that evolution can branch out, gaining, subtracting, gaining again until it gets where it is going is not quite the same as the clear straight line you proposed earlier.(the same straight line that is taught in schools and can still be seen in some museums) For those unfamiliar with Ms. Hunt here is her brief biography: Hunt, Kathleen: [1965-] 1. T.o. regular, author of FAQs on "Transitional Fossils", and "Horse Evolution". Ph.D. student in zoology at the University of Washington, studying physiology and animal behavior.It is obvious that Ms Hunt loves horses but her THEORY of evolution sounds more like breeding.(or maybe she is hiding the next obvious link in the horse line---the flying horse) My favorite quote from her paper is,"On the whole, horses got larger, but some horses (Archeohippus, Calippus) then got smaller again. Many recent horses evolved complex facial pits, and then some of their descendants lost them again." So how exactly is that evolving??? Wow, I have a great idea for my own Grad. paper---I'll go to a pet cemetary and dig up a terrier, a lab and maybe a wolf mix so I can show my theory that dogs are evolving, getting bigger, stronger, and with a larger brain capacity.(yes that was ridiculous on purpose) It seems to me that presenting THEORYS as FACTS has been the underlying problem in this discussion.
Did Doreen ever say that nothing was related??? I missed it if she did. I think quite the opposite, that we are all closely related because we were all put here by God.
I'm guessing you (Joe) think that science is infalible from the snotty ending of your last post, but lets remember that it was a widely believed scientific FACT that the earth was flat for quite some time......oops. The list of scientific research that is later overturned is quite long where again I will point out that more and more Biblical FACTS are being proven as time goes on.
-- Spy (nolo@tattoos.com), January 25, 2001.
JOJ, Thank you for answering my question. I don't know if it's the bi- focals or dysleia, but it takes me a long! time to read anything on this screen. You may have revealed this but I'll ask anyway.With continuing due respect for you and your opinion, why are you so passionate about this particular thought of creationism v evolution? If you don't want to answer hear and would prefer to e-mail me, that's fine. Or if you're not sure of the answer then would you please think about it?
A thought for everyone. If we were all alike then there wouldn't be a need for more than one of us.
-- Cindy (SE IN.) (atilrthehony_1@yahoo.com), January 25, 2001.
Hey Doreen, if you are "pathetic" then perhaps we should all strive to be so "pathetic"!! {grin} Have a great day!
-- Wendy@GraceAcres (wjl7@hotmail.com), January 25, 2001.
You guys have at it, and have a lot of fun! I've stated my $.02 already. If anyone changes their mind about anything, please email me. ROFL!!!On a more serious note: y'all have a good day!
-- sheepish (WA) (rborgo@gte.net), January 25, 2001.
What I put on the other thread should have been put on here. If you haven't seen the tapes , wouldn't it be better to do so?
-- Cindy (SE IN.) (atilrthehony_1@yahoo.com), January 25, 2001.
Well, it's just been a barrel of laughs.JOJ, sorry that you think I'm pathetic etal. Also, I just couldn't help but laugh at the horse and donkey thing...just tickled me to no end. Again, thanks for watching the videos, I was really hoping we could just discuss it as you suggested, but since I'm pathetic there isn't any point. You said you were going to reccommend some books to me to prove your take on things...are you, or did you change your mind?
Sheepish, as per LilBit's thread comment....I was called back. People emailed me and told me about this so I did what I felt was the honorable thing and came back to address it and saw some other things that interested me while waiting. Sorry if that offends you.
Earthmama, thanks very much!
Y'all take care, bye.
-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), January 25, 2001.
Doreen, you have never offended me...ever. And I guess making sheep sounds: "baaa-aack" coupled with an attached smiley emoticon must seem hostile to some....? Or else suggesting that there's a current conversation related to same topic as Lil bit chose to address? It was a suggestion to consider posting on this thread (both, for all I care) so that people wouldn't necessarily have to toggle between threads to try to follow a train of thought that seems destined to criss-cross back and forth between the two.I personally have stated my views; am willing to take a back seat to the conversation, and hope you all can converse and express yourselves the way you want to. That's all. I can say no more....(and btw, JOJ started this thread!! LOL)
-- sheepish (WA) (rborgo@gte.net), January 25, 2001.
Doreen, I don't think you should waste your time, since you would certainly not believe anything that went against your dogma.
-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), January 25, 2001.