Creation Museum in Kentucky [Archive]

jnettie

05-25-2007, 12:03 PM

Adam and Eve in the Land of the Dinosaurs (http://travel.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/arts/24crea.html)

By EDWARD ROTHSTEIN
Published: May 24, 2007

PETERSBURG, Ky. — The entrance gates here are topped with metallic Stegosauruses. The grounds include a giant tyrannosaur standing amid the trees, and a stone-lined lobby sports varied sauropods. It could be like any other natural history museum, luring families with the promise of immense fossils and dinosaur adventures.

But step a little farther into the entrance hall, and you come upon a pastoral scene undreamt of by any natural history museum. Two prehistoric children play near a burbling waterfall, thoroughly at home in the natural world. Dinosaurs cavort nearby, their animatronic mechanisms turning them into alluring companions, their gaping mouths seeming not threatening, but almost welcoming, as an Apatosaurus munches on leaves a few yards away.

What is this, then? A reproduction of a childhood fantasy in which dinosaurs are friends of inquisitive youngsters? The kind of fantasy that doesn’t care that human beings and these prefossilized thunder-lizards are usually thought to have been separated by millions of years? No, this really is meant to be more like one of those literal dioramas of the traditional natural history museum, an imagining of a real habitat, with plant life and landscape reproduced in meticulous detail.

For here at the $27 million Creation Museum, which opens on May 28 (just a short drive from the Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky International Airport), this pastoral scene is a glimpse of the world just after the expulsion from the Garden of Eden, in which dinosaurs are still apparently as herbivorous as humans, and all are enjoying a little calm in the days after the fall.

It also serves as a vivid introduction to the sheer weirdness and daring of this museum created by the Answers in Genesis ministry that combines displays of extraordinary nautilus shell fossils and biblical tableaus, celebrations of natural wonders and allusions to human sin. Evolution gets its continual comeuppance, while biblical revelations are treated as gospel.

Outside the museum scientists may assert that the universe is billions of years old, that fossils are the remains of animals living hundreds of millions of years ago, and that life’s diversity is the result of evolution by natural selection. But inside the museum the Earth is barely 6,000 years old, dinosaurs were created on the sixth day, and Jesus is the savior who will one day repair the trauma of man’s fall.

:eek:

Niobe

05-25-2007, 12:11 PM

Who paid $27 million dollars for that "museum" to be built? I'm going to be pissed if federal tax money was spent on that joke.

However, it does sound really funny and if I'm ever in Kentucky for some reason, I might have to check it out. I like the "dinosaurs were created on the sixth day" part. If an animatronic T-Rex eats Adam or Cain, I'm SO there. :p

ysolde

05-25-2007, 12:25 PM

I hear the voice of Fred Flintstone thundering overhead, "Willlllmaaaaaa!!!!!" Because, you know, that Flintstones stuff REALLY happened. :p

kedzieb

05-25-2007, 12:27 PM

I read that in the Times this morning. Hilarious! I love how it's controversial to show dinosaurs or fossils at all in a Creationist diorama. Doesn't that heathen know those fossils we're just placed in the ground by the devil to confuse us? Duh!

thelittlebabu

05-25-2007, 02:11 PM

I hope the "science" behind creationism in that museum is better than what Kirk Cameron uses on his show...

Kirk Cameron presents the atheist's nightmare: The banana (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Of90cKxSeuw)

Requests for Kirk to explain the pineapple went ignored.

jnettie

05-25-2007, 03:39 PM

LOL! That's an awesome video!

I've spent quite some time trying to find out what Paleontologists or Archaeologists they may have hired to create the exhibits in the museum. All they list anywhere are the artists and designers involved. I'd love to see where they got there "degrees".

Niobe, there's definitely a part of me that wants to go, too! I mean, I'd love to find out how Noah got 2 of every dinosaur on his ark, and how he kept the T-Rex from eating everything else!

DH is studying to be an Archaeologist right now, and I got to go with him on a dig back in January. I've held 10,000 year old pottery in my hands. I've seen how Archaeologist work, analyze, and come to their conclusions. "Museums" like this frustrate me to no end.

MLA

05-25-2007, 04:44 PM

Laughable.

krbb

05-25-2007, 05:20 PM

I live about an hour away from this museum and remember how funny I thought it was when I first heard about it.

They did a piece about it on Good Morning America. I think it was the people who built it stated how believing in evolution did not give you a good reason for morality and led to things like pornography. Huh? I didn't understand how they linked the two.

DS did get all excited about the dinosaurs they showed.

MLA

05-25-2007, 06:10 PM

I think it was the people who built it stated how believing in evolution did not give you a good reason for morality and led to things like pornography.

It also leads to bestiality, matricide, terrorism, and, of course, a general malaise about life in general. Didn't you know?

Leilynne

05-25-2007, 07:01 PM

MLA

05-25-2007, 07:37 PM

It makes me very, very angry when morons like the people who built this place make everyone who believes in creation look like uneducated idiots.:mad: We don't all believe that the earth is only 6000 years old. We don't all believe that Adam and Eve frolicked with dinosaurs. We don't all believe that the earth was created in six literal days. We certainly don't all believe that fossils were planted by the devil to sow doubt. This is why it's so difficult to have a rational conversation about this subject, idiot fanatics who make us all look bad.

You're right. They do make you look bad. Can I ask what your beliefs are? I know that there are lots of people out there who believe in a blending of creationism and evolution -- i.e. evolution is actually the work of god. I think that the two ideas are very compatible if you don't read the creation story of Genesis literally.

Leilynne

05-25-2007, 08:29 PM

You're right. They do make you look bad. Can I ask what your beliefs are? I know that there are lots of people out there who believe in a blending of creationism and evolution -- i.e. evolution is actually the work of god. I think that the two ideas are very compatible if you don't read the creation story of Genesis literally.
I think you can take Genesis literally and still not be a moron about it, lol. Genesis 1:1 say that God created the heavens and earth "in the beginning", a seperate action from what occurs from verse 2 on, which describe creative acts that prepared the earth for habitation. So the Bible allows for the earth to be any age. The word day even in our language now can mean many things, ie. "back in the 'day'", "my grandfathers 'day'" etc.. So the creative "days" could reasonably each be many thousands or even millions of years long. What is time to an eternal creature? Why on earth would God be in such a hurry? On the fifth and sixth "day" Genesis says that God made the many creatures according to their "kind". What is a "kind"? We all learned Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species in school, but that isn't a system God gave us it's one we invented. There could have been very few original "kinds" of animals that gave rise to the diversity we see today. That point helps explain Noah's problem of animals on the ark as well. I guess you could say that after extensivly studying the subject I believe in what the scientific community generally refers to as "micro-evolution" or adaptation and speciation, but not in "macro-evolution" for me the evidence is just not there. (I'd rather not start a big debate on that so can I ask in advance that we agree to disagree) I think everyone should study both sides (not in school, let's not go there), it's just as silly to blindly believe in evolution without study as it is to blindly believe in creation. Study, learn, examine the evidence for and against each idea for yourself, just not at this rediculous museum please.:)

KK812

05-25-2007, 11:30 PM

May I ask why it's acceptable for museums to base themselves on evolution, which is, in case anyone's forgotten, a theory, but it's not ok for a group to open a privately funded museum based on the belief of creationism?

And FYI, for those that are Christians (ya know, those of us that are ever so intolerant of beliefs other than our own), the Bible does mention dinosaurs and that the world was paradise in the truest sense of the word before the fall of man. This would lead me to believe that, yes, men and animals lived in harmony.

jesvet

05-26-2007, 12:17 AM

Not that it's a place I would choose to go, but if it's funded privately and no one is *required* to attend as part of a government funded education (I'm looking at you, Kansas Board of Education) I don't have a problem with it existing.

I'll put it on my list of Places I Never Need To See, right below Dollywood, the World's Biggest Ball of Twine and that dinosaur thing out in the middle of the desert.

KK812

05-26-2007, 12:47 AM

Not that it's a place I would choose to go, but if it's funded privately and no one is *required* to attend as part of a government funded education (I'm looking at you, Kansas Board of Education) I don't have a problem with it existing.

Would you feel the same way about a trip to the museum of man, or a similar evolution-based museum?

Niobe

05-26-2007, 02:10 AM

Would you feel the same way about a trip to the museum of man, or a similar evolution-based museum?

Well, there's a separation of church and state. This museum is seeking to teach religious doctrine, an evolution-based museum would not be teaching religion, therefore the evolution-based museum as a public school trip would not be violating the separation of church and state. (No, I'm not jesvet, but I would also have serious objections to this museum being a school field trip)

Fossils, the museum teaches, are no older than Noah’s flood

So, what is their explanation for carbon dating?

According to a Christian Science Monitor article (the source strikes me as humorous considering the topic at hand), Cro-Magnons recorded their history on cave walls as far back as 17,000 years ago. That's what, 14,000 years before the Earth was created? ;)

And, does any article actually state where the funding for this museum came from? I didn't see any mention of funding in the NY Times article.

MLA

05-26-2007, 06:52 AM

I think everyone should study both sides (not in school, let's not go there), it's just as silly to blindly believe in evolution without study as it is to blindly believe in creation. Study, learn, examine the evidence for and against each idea for yourself, just not at this rediculous museum please.:)
See, as someone who's not Christian, Jewish or Muslim, I disagree with you. I don't subscribe to the notion of a Judeo Christian god at all, so studying the Bible's account of creation would be more for social science reasons than hard science reasons for me. Does that make sense?

May I ask why it's acceptable for museums to base themselves on evolution, which is, in case anyone's forgotten, a theory, but it's not ok for a group to open a privately funded museum based on the belief of creationism?

And FYI, for those that are Christians (ya know, those of us that are ever so intolerant of beliefs other than our own), the Bible does mention dinosaurs and that the world was paradise in the truest sense of the word before the fall of man. This would lead me to believe that, yes, men and animals lived in harmony.

Two things: The word "theory" in scientific language is used very differently than it's used in every day language. A theory is about as close to fact as you can come in the scientific world, as I'm sure you learned in your science classes in school.

Second, where are dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible? I went to church and Sunday school as a child and I studied some of the Bible in college, and I don't remember there being a mention of dinosaurs. I'm not trying to imply that you're not telling the truth. I'd just like to know where that mention is because I find it interesting. Thanks.

msnicolea

05-26-2007, 08:53 AM

Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY based on EVIDENCE, not simply a "theory" as in someone's best guess or idea.

Creationism has no place in a science curriculum, as it simply doesn't meet the standards of "science." You want to teach your kids to believe it in--go right ahead--that's aboslutely your perogative. But not with my tax dollars in my public schools.

This museum is like Disneyland--make believe, but with the bonus goal of indoctrination.

jnettie

05-26-2007, 09:22 AM

May I ask why it's acceptable for museums to base themselves on evolution, which is, in case anyone's forgotten, a theory, but it's not ok for a group to open a privately funded museum based on the belief of creationism?

I second MLA. And your post illustrates the complete lack of proper science education in this country. The word theory is used in very different way in science. Something becomes a theory after a certain amount of scientific observation and testing. Other things are theories, yet these are not attacked. There is, of course, the Universal Theory of Gravity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity), and I'm sure you wouldn't say Gravity doesn't exist, would you?

See, I don't mind creationism being taught - but as part of religious education or philosophy, not science. Creationism is not science, it does not use the scientific method. It's only source is the Bible. It disregards all scientific thought, research, testing, observation, and reasoning.

I think you can take Genesis literally and still not be a moron about it, lol. Genesis 1:1 say that God created the heavens and earth "in the beginning", a seperate action from what occurs from verse 2 on, which describe creative acts that prepared the earth for habitation. So the Bible allows for the earth to be any age. The word day even in our language now can mean many things, ie. "back in the 'day'", "my grandfathers 'day'" etc.. So the creative "days" could reasonably each be many thousands or even millions of years long. What is time to an eternal creature? Why on earth would God be in such a hurry? On the fifth and sixth "day" Genesis says that God made the many creatures according to their "kind". What is a "kind"? We all learned Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species in school, but that isn't a system God gave us it's one we invented. There could have been very few original "kinds" of animals that gave rise to the diversity we see today. That point helps explain Noah's problem of animals on the ark as well. I guess you could say that after extensivly studying the subject I believe in what the scientific community generally refers to as "micro-evolution" or adaptation and speciation, but not in "macro-evolution" for me the evidence is just not there. (I'd rather not start a big debate on that so can I ask in advance that we agree to disagree) I think everyone should study both sides (not in school, let's not go there), it's just as silly to blindly believe in evolution without study as it is to blindly believe in creation. Study, learn, examine the evidence for and against each idea for yourself, just not at this rediculous museum please.:)

Now, this I can actually agree with! :) Thanks for sharing.

To me, doesn't a literal interpretation of Genesis limit God? Saying that the earth could only be 6000 years old and that this is the only truth is saying that it's just not possible for God to have been around for millions of years. And, isn't is saying you know the mind of God, which would be blasphemous? I can't begin to think I know the mind of God. I can, however, say that I know that the Earth is not 6000 years old based on Scientific evidence. But the mystery of "why" is the stuff of God, and worth a philosophical conversation. And that conversation is not possible when God is invoked in absolutes.

What's more, I think that a literal interpretation of Genesis does more harm than good. Look at how the story has changed and has only become more absurd over time. Before, fossils were put in the ground by Satan to fool us. Now, this museum would have us believe that dinosaurs were, in fact, alive along with humans and are dragons! Yes! Dragons were real!

And with the millions upon millions of animal species out there, how exactly did 2 of everything, including giant Brontosauruses, get on the Ark? The Bible actually tells us how big the Ark was - in Genesis 6:15 that the size of the ark was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. The cubit, an actual form of measure that was the length of your arm from elbow to tip on index finger, ranges from 17.5 inches to 20.5 inches. Using 20.5 inches, the arc was barely over 500 feet long, 84 feet wide, and 50 feet long! (Source (http://www.csgnetwork.com/cubitscnv.html)) Now, come on! Every animal in the world? Including every extinct animal?

Genesis becomes much more valuable when viewed as metaphor. If you don't have to take everything so literally, you can read it for moral guidance and spiritual value - it's true purpose.

jnettie

05-26-2007, 09:26 AM

From Scientific American (http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=new_creation_museum_mostly_illustr ates_t&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1):

May 25, 2007
New Creation Museum Mostly Illustrates that Creationists Have Lots of Cash

The guy who developed the Jaws and King Kong rides at Universal Studios is behind the new Creation Museum, which is set to open May 28 just south of Cincinnati. (The Times has a great review.)

Pro: Now Cincinnati will be known for something other than race riots.

Con: Now Young Earth Creationism, which one would hope would be recognized as both bad theology and bad science, has its Mecca. (Can a Hajj be far behind?)

(For those of you unfamiliar with Young Earth Creationism, it's worth noting that one of its central tenets is that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, and that dinosaurs are in fact Dragons. Really!)

jnettie

05-26-2007, 09:34 AM

Also from Scientific American (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF):

Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

Leilynne

05-26-2007, 10:52 AM

wendalah

05-26-2007, 11:08 AM

See, I don't mind creationism being taught - but as part of religious education or philosophy, not science. Creationism is not science, it does not use the scientific method. It's only source is the Bible.

I am a Christian and I agree with this. I would actually go visit this museum out of pure interest, not out of solidarity with their beliefs. (But I'd go to Dollywood, too, just for the hell of it ;) )

I don't think anyone should be forced to become familiar with basic biblical principles, but I always wonder why one wouldn't want to, just out a social/literary/arts/cultural interest. There are so many things in our culture that are influenced by or have biblical allusion. But then again I am interested in religion in general and how it shapes cultural thought (and how people rebel against it).

msnicolea

05-26-2007, 11:27 AM

I am all for the idea of encouraging people to learn about religions other than their own--I think a survey course that presents overviews of the world's major religions would be very valuable for HS students.

Within that context, I have no problem with creationism being brought up --as long as it isn't presented as fact, but rather as "some people believe this."

msnicolea

05-26-2007, 11:36 AM

Yeah--this seems totally feasible:

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20070526/2007_05_26t114857_450x256_us_usa_museum.jpg?x=380&y=215&sig=hbkwUfQJi7aZn2eaW2u.2g--

MLA

05-26-2007, 12:00 PM

I don't think anyone should be forced to become familiar with basic biblical principles, but I always wonder why one wouldn't want to, just out a social/literary/arts/cultural interest. There are so many things in our culture that are influenced by or have biblical allusion. But then again I am interested in religion in general and how it shapes cultural thought (and how people rebel against it).

I agree with you. I've really enjoyed the classes I took in religion (both study of the Bible and study of eastern religions), and I feel like I'm a better rounded individual for having taken those classes. I think that comparitive religion classes should be taught in every school in this country -- it would make for a much more informed and compassionate populace, and maybe our view of the world would change for the better. But don't try to teach our kids creationism in a science class. And don't try to pass creationism off as science. That's where I draw the line, personally.

I see what you are saying and I assume you have your reasons for not believing in God. I have found it very interesting in my study of the Bible however, that there are many passages that explain complex scientific processes. You have to ask yourself how the Bible writers knew about these things thousands of years before they were "discovered" by scientists. In regards to dinosaurs in the Bible, in the fifth creative time period, God created flying creatures, great sea monsters, living creatures that moved about on the earth and swarming creatures. I believe that this period describes what we call the Mesozoic era. Other animals described as wild beasts, domestic animals, and moving animals, were created in the sixth period along with humans.

Just to be clear, I never said I don't believe in god. I said I don't subscribe to the judeo-christian notion of god. I'm actually agnostic (not an atheist, though I tend to lean that way).

Regarding the question you have about Bible authors and their knowlege of science, if you look back at history, you'll see that the Bible was being written during times of great intellectual and cultural flourishing. The Greeks and their scientific and philosophical theories were flourishing during the time that the Bible was written. If you'd like an interesting account of when and under what circumstances the Bible was written and how our notion of God has changed with the times, you could read A History of God: The 4,000 Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, by Karen Armstrong.

Regarding your answer about dinosaurs, I see why I never saw dinosaurs mentioned in the bible -- because they're not! You've chosen to interpret the fifth creative time period as being one in which the dinosaurs were created. I see nothing wrong with that. But now I understand why I didn't know what you were talking about!

mindy75

05-26-2007, 12:19 PM

I'm bummed that this place is closer to Ohio than it is to TN. I really want to see it for myself. The next time we go to King's Island I'm going to see if I can convince DH to stop to check it out. I've been to Dollywood too ;) . I'm all about oddities!

That video with Kirk and the banana is hilarious, esp if you turn the sound off and just watch the guy get all dirty with the banana. And to think, I had such a crush on Kirk back in the day.

jnettie

05-26-2007, 01:04 PM

Leilynne, thank you very much for sharing your views. :) I feel I've learned a lot from you today. I'll admit I have lumped all that believe in Christian Creation together before, but will try not to anymore. However, I'd argue that you don't read the Bible literally.

And, sure, God created the dinosaurs! I'll buy that. But, that doesn't mean that dinosaurs and men coexisted. If one uses Leilynne's method of interpretation, this is a reasonable conclusion.

O/T, but maybe our CC convention should be at Dollywood instead of Vegas? I know I've wanted to go for years! And we can all stay in Gatlinburg, quite possibly the most amazing town ever!

Leilynne

05-26-2007, 01:24 PM

Just to be clear, I never said I don't believe in god. I said I don't subscribe to the judeo-christian notion of god. I'm actually agnostic (not an atheist, though I tend to lean that way).

Regarding the question you have about Bible authors and their knowlege of science, if you look back at history, you'll see that the Bible was being written during times of great intellectual and cultural flourishing. The Greeks and their scientific and philosophical theories were flourishing during the time that the Bible was written. If you'd like an interesting account of when and under what circumstances the Bible was written and how our notion of God has changed with the times, you could read A History of God: The 4,000 Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, by Karen Armstrong.

Regarding your answer about dinosaurs, I see why I never saw dinosaurs mentioned in the bible -- because they're not! You've chosen to interpret the fifth creative time period as being one in which the dinosaurs were created. I see nothing wrong with that. But now I understand why I didn't know what you were talking about!
I'm sorry I misinterpreted your previous comment, I thought you meant you didn't believe in God in general. I don't have a question about the Bible authors knowledge, it was more of a comment. For me that is an evidence of inspiration along with many other things. Also I never said that dinosaurs were in the bible that was KK812, I was just bringing out that the Genesis account doesn't rule them out as impossible, and that there is no reason for a Bible reader to conclude that they must have co-existed with humans. Thanks for the book suggestion, the title sounds very familiar I may have read it in highschool, but I will check it out.

Leilynne, thank you very much for sharing your views. :) I feel I've learned a lot from you today. I'll admit I have lumped all that believe in Christian Creation together before, but will try not to anymore. However, I'd argue that you don't read the Bible literally.

I guess it's just a terminology thing, what does it mean to take the Bible literaly? I believe the Genesis account contains literal history of the universe and the human race, but that Genesis 1 is a general overview not an in depth detailed exact instruction guide to creating a universe. It doesn't need to be because as many people have pointed out the Bible was not meant to be a sience text. Also I have spelled sience about 5 different ways during this discussion, not helping my own case to look educated and intelligent am I?:rolleyes: Spelling was never my forte.

MLA

05-26-2007, 02:56 PM

I never said that dinosaurs were in the bible that was KK812, I was just bringing out that the Genesis account doesn't rule them out as impossible, and that there is no reason for a Bible reader to conclude that they must have co-existed with humans. Thanks for the book suggestion, the title sounds very familiar I may have read it in highschool, but I will check it out.

See, there I go lumping creationists into one big category. I thought it was you who'd brought up the dinosaur thing. Thanks for the clarification.

Regarding the book, it was written in 1993, which means I certainly couldn't have read it in high school :o , but you may be younger than me. :)

And just an aside -- I really appreciate hearing your views. You seem like you've come to your beliefs in a logical manner, and I appreciate that.

I do have one question, though. Why don't you believe in macro-evolution? How is that contradictory to Genesis? To me, if you believe in an omnipotent god, who created the universe, I don't see why you couldn't believe that he'd put macro-evolution into motion as well as micro-evolution. That's something I just don't get.

Leilynne

05-26-2007, 07:01 PM

See, there I go lumping creationists into one big category. I thought it was you who'd brought up the dinosaur thing. Thanks for the clarification.

Regarding the book, it was written in 1993, which means I certainly couldn't have read it in high school :o , but you may be younger than me. :)

And just an aside -- I really appreciate hearing your views. You seem like you've come to your beliefs in a logical manner, and I appreciate that.

I do have one question, though. Why don't you believe in macro-evolution? How is that contradictory to Genesis? To me, if you believe in an omnipotent god, who created the universe, I don't see why you couldn't believe that he'd put macro-evolution into motion as well as micro-evolution. That's something I just don't get.

I could have read it in public school.:D
Why don't I believe in macro-evolution? It seems like that should be a simple question with a straight forward answer, but there is so much to it. If you take a good long look at the fossil record without trying to prove anything, don't think about evolution ofrcreation just observe what's there; there is no definitive evidence that one kind of animal arose from another. In "The Origin of the Species" Darwin stated that he expected that over time paleontology would discover many fossil records of interspecies development, but that if they didn't find these so called "missing links" that the theory of evolution would be disproved. There is plenty of evidence of micro-evolution, but we don't even have to go to the fossil record for that, it's around us all the time. I honestly think that if Darwin were alive today he would be revising his theories. But even ignoring that (because one person can see evidence where another person doesn't) I believe the Bible is a message from God because I've studied it and found that it contains information that could only reasonably come from a non-human source. The Bible contains prophesies with specific details written hundreds of years in advance whose fufillments are confirmed by secular sources. The Bible is not written as myth it contains dates, places, names, geneologies, details etc. The Bible contains a harmonious message despite having been written over thousands of years by over 40 different men. I have never read anything in the Bible that disagrees with established scientific facts, in fact as I have said before many scientific facts are found in the Bible. ie, the earth is round, a description of the water cycle, a description of the human circulatory system, a description of the nervous system, brain, and spinal cord, the universe is expanding. So the Bible tells us that God created many kinds of animals and that he created humans seperatly as a special creation to have dominion over the Earth and to care for it (sadly we are doing a crappy job:mad: ). So either this is just a story or it is true. It is presented as truth, why would God lie to us over something as important as where we came from? Sorry this is getting very long winded and I'm not even putting it well. I've also studied a lot of work by scientists who believe in God and Creation, there are way more out there than you might think and they have a lot of interesting things to say on the subject (and they express it better than I do). Thank you for having this conversation so rationally and respectfully, isn't it better when we all get along?:)

jesvet

05-26-2007, 08:17 PM

Would you feel the same way about a trip to the museum of man, or a similar evolution-based museum?

No, because I believe in evolution, so I would be interested to see it. And as the accepted theory in the secular academic and scientific community I am fine with trips to such a museum being part of a public school education since that is what they teach.

sue-bert

05-26-2007, 08:56 PM

As long as it's privately-funded, I couldn't care less.

jnettie

05-26-2007, 11:14 PM

I'd like to point out something that bothers me. One doesn't "believe in" evolution. Evolution is not a belief system. You wouldn't say "I believe in Gravity," would you? Or "I don't believe in Special Relativity."

I don't "believe in" Evolution, either. But I do find value in learning about it and think it is the best, scientific explanation to the development of life on Earth.

sue-bert

05-26-2007, 11:41 PM

I'd like to point out something that bothers me. One doesn't "believe in" evolution. Evolution is not a belief system. You wouldn't say "I believe in Gravity," would you? Or "I don't believe in Special Relativity."
Actually, unlike other scientific theories, I would say that many people do "believe" in evolution as an ideology. Many people with anti-religious leanings "believe" in evolution with tremendous -- almost religious -- fervor, even if they are not evolutionary biologists or otherwise experts in the field. They view it as a "line in the sand" that they must defend against conservative/religious socio-political forces.

jesvet

05-27-2007, 12:00 AM

I believe in its existence, is that better? I think you get the gist.

FWIW I believe in gravity too.

MLA

05-27-2007, 07:46 AM

sue-bert

05-27-2007, 10:20 AM

Well, I imagine the same was true when scientists were first saying that the earth revolved around the sun. The religious establishment wanted none of it, and scientists and their sympathizers had to defend it fervently and draw a line in the sand. So, do you think that now when we talk about the earth and other planets revolving around the sun that it's a "belief," too, since it was once defended with fervor and was a line in the sand issue?
I don't understand your logic. No, of course I do not think that all ideas which run counter to those once supported by the religious establishment are necessarily ideologies today. The roundness of the earth and the earth's revolution about the sun (just to cite 2 examples) are both things that can be (and have been) directly observed. Evolution relies somewhat more heavily on conjecture.

My point is that there are many people who support the theory of evolution out of blind political or religious (or anti-religious) ideology rather than on the basis of careful study of the theory itself. They often view those who believe in the Biblical creation narrative as ignorant morons, whereas they themselves haven't used in-depth studies to form their own opinions on the topic, but rather blindly follow their own secular ideology, which can be just as rigid and unyielding as those of the religious folks they are criticising.

MLA

05-27-2007, 10:24 AM

imagirliegirl

05-27-2007, 12:04 PM

I guess I don't see the big deal, or why this is even a worthy news story. If people think it's stupid, they shouldn't go. Pretty simple.

Not saying that I'm not defending it, I just don't get the fuss.

Leilynne

05-27-2007, 06:09 PM

My point is that there are many people who support the theory of evolution out of blind political or religious (or anti-religious) ideology rather than on the basis of careful study of the theory itself. They often view those who believe in the Biblical creation narrative as ignorant morons, whereas they themselves haven't used in-depth studies to form their own opinions on the topic, but rather blindly follow their own secular ideology, which can be just as rigid and unyielding as those of the religious folks they are criticising.
This is so true! I can't tell you how many times I've asked someone "why do you believe in evolution?", and they can't give me a reason beyond "because everyone does" or "that's what they teach in school" or "well I don't believe in God so..." or "because my parents do". Alot of people never take the time to actually study the subject before making up their mind.

I understand what you're saying, and I think you're right. The reaction of people against those who believe in the Biblical creation narrative comes largely from seeing stories like the one the OP posted. Stuff like that really reflects poorly on the whole lot of creationists, and it's not fair. I think that Leilynne's done a good job of explaining her thinking without looking like some sort of religious zealot who's blindly following the Biblical narrative, and I really appreciate that.

Thank you, I think that blindly is the key word there; no one should blindly believe in anything.

jnettie

05-27-2007, 11:09 PM

Actually, unlike other scientific theories, I would say that many people do "believe" in evolution as an ideology. Many people with anti-religious leanings "believe" in evolution with tremendous -- almost religious -- fervor, even if they are not evolutionary biologists or otherwise experts in the field. They view it as a "line in the sand" that they must defend against conservative/religious socio-political forces.

But that's my point - we have to be careful about the words we use. To say that evolution is a belief is saying it's the same thing as a religious belief, and it's not. We need to get away from saying "I believe in Evolution."

I'd agree it is a line in the sand. It's the ultimate example of the lack of proper science education in this country. Darwin published "The Origin of Species" nearly 150 years ago. Nearly the entirety of the reputable scientific community agrees that Evolution is fact, yet we allow religion to dictate what can be taught in a science classroom.

My point is that there are many people who support the theory of evolution out of blind political or religious (or anti-religious) ideology rather than on the basis of careful study of the theory itself. They often view those who believe in the Biblical creation narrative as ignorant morons, whereas they themselves haven't used in-depth studies to form their own opinions on the topic, but rather blindly follow their own secular ideology, which can be just as rigid and unyielding as those of the religious folks they are criticising.

Maybe it's because I was raised by a Science educator and am now married to one, but I don't think this is true.

I guess I don't see the big deal, or why this is even a worthy news story. If people think it's stupid, they shouldn't go. Pretty simple.

Not saying that I'm not defending it, I just don't get the fuss.

The fuss is that America is falling very far behind in Science education. Most countries out there DO teach evolution as part of their Science curriculum. It's a constant fight - creationists are working hard to eliminate evolution from schools, and no one seems to ever even think to consult science teachers. Like I said, this is a regular topic of conversation in my house, because my DH has the fun task of trying to teach very basic scientific method and ideas to college age students who really should have learned all of this in HS.

HeatherFL

05-27-2007, 11:32 PM

There is a website on this that tries to educate people on why this museum shouldn't be opened. You can also sign a petition there.

DefCon America Online (http://www.defconamerica.org/creationmuseum/).

Also, it is arguable (as is everything) that dinosaurs are in the Bible. I get the theory that God created all land animals on the 6th day, therefore Adam and Eve would have lived amongst the dinosaurs according to the Creation Myth, but words like Behemoth, Tanniyn (aka dragons) and Livyathan haven't been proven to actually translate into dinosaur. Nowhere in the Bible does it literally say, "Yeah, dinosaurs exist." It's all what you believe the right translation to be.

~H.

HeatherFL

05-27-2007, 11:43 PM

I can't tell you how many times I've asked someone "why do you believe in evolution?", and they can't give me a reason beyond "because everyone does" or "that's what they teach in school" or "well I don't believe in God so..." or "because my parents do". Alot of people never take the time to actually study the subject before making up their mind.

Funny, when I ask people the same question about following religion, they give me the same answers.

~H.

Leilynne

05-28-2007, 06:19 AM

Also, it is arguable (as is everything) that dinosaurs are in the Bible. I get the theory that God created all land animals on the 6th day, therefore Adam and Eve would have lived amongst the dinosaurs according to the Creation Myth, but words like Behemoth, Tanniyn (aka dragons) and Livyathan haven't been proven to actually translate into dinosaur. Nowhere in the Bible does it literally say, "Yeah, dinosaurs exist." It's all what you believe the right translation to be.

~H.
Actually Heather many animals were created on the fifth day as I pointed out earlier, so there is no need for intelligent Bible readers to assume that Adam and Eve lived with dinosaurs. Also most Bible researchers agree that Behemoth refers to the Hippopotomus, and that Livyathan refers to the Nile Crocodile.

Funny, when I ask people the same question about following religion, they give me the same answers.

~H.
Thanks for only quoting a portion of what I said, did you even read the part where I said no one should believe in anything blindly? Many people dismiss evolution and blindly accept what they are told is in the Bible without researching either, that is not acceptable to most people. What alot of people seem to think is ok though is dismissing creation and blindly believing in evolution without studying and researching either, when really that is just as bad.

MLA

05-28-2007, 07:07 AM

What alot of people seem to think is ok though is dismissing creation and blindly believing in evolution without studying and researching either, when really that is just as bad.

You know, I've been thinking about this an awful lot, and actually, I'm okay with people accepting evolution as fact without studying it. The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that evolution is fact. I don't need to study the theory of relativity or the atomic theory or the universal theory of gravity to know that they're true, ya know? I don't see why evolution should be held up to a different standard than every other scientific theory out there just because it doesn't jive with some people's religious views.

amew

05-28-2007, 08:47 AM

You know, I've been thinking about this an awful lot, and actually, I'm okay with people accepting evolution as fact without studying it. The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that evolution is fact. I don't need to study the theory of relativity or the atomic theory or the universal theory of gravity to know that they're true, ya know? I don't see why evolution should be held up to a different standard than every other scientific theory out there just because it doesn't jive with some people's religious views.

Totally agree. I think people should accept as fact certain things that they are taught in high school science classes and that are widely accepted by the scientific community, regardless of whether they go on to put a lot of independent thought and study into it. There are a lot of things (evolution included) that I have personally studied in relative detail, know quite a bit about, and have well-formed opinions on, simply because that is where my interest lies. There are also a lot of things that I have learned about in passing and accept as true because I have been taught them by reputable teachers and/or because it's the prevailing view and I have seen no strong evidence to the contrary. I think it is fine to "believe" things that fall in both the former and the latter camps. Not everyone is going to study evolution in great detail; some people are more interested in other things and would rather devote their time to those. But that doesn't mean that they are unthinking, unquestioning, or wrong for buying into accepted scientific knowledge without doing a dissertation in it, any more than they would be wrong for believing that traits can be inherited through genes without in depth study and analysis of genetics.

HeatherFL

05-28-2007, 09:37 AM

Actually Heather many animals were created on the fifth day as I pointed out earlier...
I pointed out he created LAND animals on the 6th day. God created all the water species and birds on the 5th day, so I stand corrected on the birds part, since yeah they nest in trees and places on land. But the point was they fly and aren't structured as mammals, etc. From Genesis: 'Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.' Furthermore, nothing died before Adam and Eve died. So yes, that would mean dinosaurs too. So Adam and Eve would have probably lived with the dinosaurs, were the Creation Theory accurate.

Also most Bible researchers agree that Behemoth refers to the Hippopotomus, and that Livyathan refers to the Nile Crocodile.

Already knew this. Point is, there are a lot of people who are Bible readers and want to say that because of things that have to do with the tails of Hippos that a Behemoth is not a Hippo, and is in fact a dinosaur. As for the Livyathans they were considered mostly sea creatures. While crocodiles/alligators like the water, they are also land animals so it is widely argued that Livyathans are not crocodiles/alligators. The Bible also said that the skin is like iron and arrows cannot hurt it. Well, arrows can certainly puncture crocodile skin. So again, another of a handful of arguments that it's all about translation and what you believe.

Thanks for only quoting a portion of what I said, did you even read the part where I said no one should believe in anything blindly?
You're welcome. And yes, I did read what you wrote.

Many people dismiss evolution and blindly accept what they are told is in the Bible without researching either, that is not acceptable to most people.
That was the point I was making. It goes both ways.

~H.

Sarah

05-28-2007, 09:59 AM

Why don't I believe in macro-evolution? It seems like that should be a simple question with a straight forward answer, but there is so much to it. If you take a good long look at the fossil record without trying to prove anything, don't think about evolution ofrcreation just observe what's there; there is no definitive evidence that one kind of animal arose from another. In "The Origin of the Species" Darwin stated that he expected that over time paleontology would discover many fossil records of interspecies development, but that if they didn't find these so called "missing links" that the theory of evolution would be disproved. There is plenty of evidence of micro-evolution, but we don't even have to go to the fossil record for that, it's around us all the time. I honestly think that if Darwin were alive today he would be revising his theories.I agree.
I actually have no problem with believing in Biblical creation and also believing in macro evolution, I just don't see how it works scientifically. And I also don't think it's true that the entire scientific community believes in macroevolution, either. I have read a couple books and papers by scientists who are completely a-religious who just don't see the science as being there to support evolution in the sense that the above poster talked about- ie there aren't any of those middle species present. Comparisons to gravity or other basically proven true theories don't work, because we can observe them, but we cannot observe macroevolution at work. Micro, yes, but not macro.

It's frustrating for me, because my feelings on this have nothing to do with my faith, but because I am a christian everyone assumes I believe in literal 6 day creation and that's why I don't agree with macro evolution. If someone produced something convincing to me, evidence-wise, of macroevolution, I'd be fine with it- it doesn't threaten my faith at all.

The museum mentioned above is silly, IMO, but their business. If it's privately funded, I think it borders on censorship to try to shut them down, however.

HeatherFL

05-28-2007, 10:11 AM

ETA: It is also argued that it took 6,000 years to create the earth and not 6 days in the literal sense because of the verse in Peter that says that one day is with God as a thousand years. So while it wouldn't exactly match up to scientific theories about the age of the earth, timelines could certainly be at least a little bit off...

Leilynne

05-28-2007, 12:14 PM

Totally agree. I think people should accept as fact certain things that they are taught in high school science classes and that are widely accepted by the scientific community, regardless of whether they go on to put a lot of independent thought and study into it.
When you put it that way I have to agree with you. I guess I just feel strongly about this subject and in my opinion it's more important to be informed about this than say gravity which I can demonstrate to myself in my livingroom if I want to. It bothers me though when people come out of high school believing that there is an unbroken chain of fossils showing macro-evolution in progress. Creationists do themselves no favors by trying to get evolution out of schools beause when it's just glossed over yet taught as established fact that's how alot of people fill in the blanks.

I pointed out he created LAND animals on the 6th day. God created all the water species and birds on the 5th day, so I stand corrected on the birds part, since yeah they nest in trees and places on land. But the point was they fly and aren't structured as mammals, etc. From Genesis: 'Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.' Furthermore, nothing died before Adam and Eve died. So yes, that would mean dinosaurs too. So Adam and Eve would have probably lived with the dinosaurs, were the Creation Theory accurate.

Already knew this. Point is, there are a lot of people who are Bible readers and want to say that because of things that have to do with the tails of Hippos that a Behemoth is not a Hippo, and is in fact a dinosaur. As for the Livyathans they were considered mostly sea creatures. While crocodiles/alligators like the water, they are also land animals so it is widely argued that Livyathans are not crocodiles/alligators. The Bible also said that the skin is like iron and arrows cannot hurt it. Well, arrows can certainly puncture crocodile skin. So again, another of a handful of arguments that it's all about translation and what you believe.

ETA: It is also argued that it took 6,000 years to create the earth and not 6 days in the literal sense because of the verse in Peter that says that one day is with God as a thousand years. So while it wouldn't exactly match up to scientific theories about the age of the earth, timelines could certainly be at least a little bit off.

~H.
Heather, I'm not trying to be hostile with you, I really don't know what you are trying to get at. Your comments seem to be directed at me, but I don't know what you are trying to prove to me?

I agree.
I actually have no problem with believing in Biblical creation and also believing in macro evolution, I just don't see how it works scientifically. And I also don't think it's true that the entire scientific community believes in macroevolution, either. I have read a couple books and papers by scientists who are completely a-religious who just don't see the science as being there to support evolution in the sense that the above poster talked about- ie there aren't any of those middle species present. Comparisons to gravity or other basically proven true theories don't work, because we can observe them, but we cannot observe macroevolution at work. Micro, yes, but not macro.

It's frustrating for me, because my feelings on this have nothing to do with my faith, but because I am a christian everyone assumes I believe in literal 6 day creation and that's why I don't agree with macro evolution. If someone produced something convincing to me, evidence-wise, of macroevolution, I'd be fine with it- it doesn't threaten my faith at all.

The museum mentioned above is silly, IMO, but their business. If it's privately funded, I think it borders on censorship to try to shut them down, however.

Let's be best friends Sarah.:D

Sarah

05-28-2007, 12:34 PM

BFF 4evah.
Let's be best friends Sarah.

jnettie

05-28-2007, 12:40 PM

First of all, I am really enjoying this debate! :) Thanks to all for participating in a thoughtful way!

When you put it that way I have to agree with you. I guess I just feel strongly about this subject and in my opinion it's more important to be informed about this than say gravity which I can demonstrate to myself in my livingroom if I want to. It bothers me though when people come out of high school believing that there is an unbroken chain of fossils showing macro-evolution in progress. Creationists do themselves no favors by trying to get evolution out of schools beause when it's just glossed over yet taught as established fact that's how alot of people fill in the blanks.

Oh, absolutely! What makes the most extreme Creationists look so foolish is that they sit there, expounding about what the "atheists" will say - and by "atheists" they seem to mean anyone that doesn't believe exactly as they do. Meanwhile, they are so totally off! Like that banana video - they don't bother to actually learn about the banana. If they did, they'd quickly find out that the banana has been domesticated by humans to become the fruit we know today. The banana that God made looks nothing like it.

FWIW, I'm often frustrated with Scientists that don't bother to learn about religion. Those that try to use Science to "prove" God doesn't exist are just as misguided, IMO. However, Stephen Jay Gould was known to be just as knowledgeable about the Bible as he was about Evolution, and could quote verses with the best of them!

I agree.
I actually have no problem with believing in Biblical creation and also believing in macro evolution, I just don't see how it works scientifically. And I also don't think it's true that the entire scientific community believes in macroevolution, either. I have read a couple books and papers by scientists who are completely a-religious who just don't see the science as being there to support evolution in the sense that the above poster talked about- ie there aren't any of those middle species present. Comparisons to gravity or other basically proven true theories don't work, because we can observe them, but we cannot observe macroevolution at work. Micro, yes, but not macro.

You know, this is actually a huge debate right now with Evolutionary Biologists. And that's the thing about Science - it's constantly tested. Darwin wrote his theory, but then others take that theory, test it, modify it, come up with their own theories, then other Scientist double check to see it the new theory holds water.

Sarah

05-28-2007, 02:05 PM

You know, this is actually a huge debate right now with Evolutionary Biologists. And that's the thing about Science - it's constantly tested. Darwin wrote his theory, but then others take that theory, test it, modify it, come up with their own theories, then other Scientist double check to see it the new theory holds water.
I know how science works. :) I wasn't saying I had come up with the macro vs. micro thing, just that it's annoying how generally people slap their foreheads and roll their eyes at me when I say that I don't agree with the theory of macroevolution, and then start spouting off about how obvious and proven it is, and how ignorant I am. It's not proven, it's not fact, and many reputable and intelligent people have serious issues with traditional evolutionary theory on completely non relgious grounds. I feel like basically it's such groupthink- either you agree with Darwin's ideas about evolution in totality, or risk being labelled an ignoramus.

jnettie

05-28-2007, 02:28 PM

Lol! Yeah, I realize you know science. Sorry, didn't mean to talk down. And I would totally agree with you that even those on the pro-evolution camp could stand to understand a little more about it. Hence the need for better education all around.

HeatherFL

05-28-2007, 03:47 PM

Heather, I'm not trying to be hostile with you, I really don't know what you are trying to get at. Your comments seem to be directed at me, but I don't know what you are trying to prove to me?

I'm not trying to prove anything. I was answering direct comments made to me. You quoted me, and I quoted you back. I felt you were incorrect, and I was giving alternative explanations as to the points made. It's not a matter of "proving" a thing-it's a matter of here's another way to look at it, and just because some Bible experts say one thing doesn't mean that it's right, there are other possibilities. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just saying that what was written was not necessarily correct either.

To further explain:
so there is no need for intelligent Bible readers to assume that Adam and Eve lived with dinosaurs.
As sort of a point of reference... (and I do get the bias here) My Uncle was an associate professor in Sociology and Theology at Yale, and now a head professor in Texas. I would consider him an intelligent Bible Reader. His viewpoint is that according to the Bible, Adam and Eve would have been created on the same day as dinosaurs. Of my handful of degrees, one is in Theology so I'd like to consider myself an intelligent Bible reader too (though I get that's all relative.) So yes, considering that God created land animals on the 6th day (leaving birds out which were created on the fifth day)-including Adam and Eve-it is reasonable and intelligent to some people to assume that Adam and Eve lived amongst the dinosaurs since the translations for the other words (Livyathans and Behemoths) we've already gone over don't necessarily mean crocodile or hippo. It is also reasonable to assume as I wrote previously since nothing died before Adam and Eve did, dinosaurs would have been around while they were alive.

As for the 6,000 year timeline that was just a general comment directed toward no one in particular.

~H.

Leilynne

05-29-2007, 06:16 AM

I'm sorry Heather, what I took from your post (#43) was that you didn't understand people's refrences to dinosaurs in the Bible based on your belief that behemoth etc hadn't been proven to mean dinosaur, that's what started this. All I was doing was explaining my thoughts on the subject, I wasn't trying to imply that there are no other ideas out there with merit. I also didn't mean to imply that you are not an intelligent Bible reader, I was simply saying that intelligent Bible readers do not have to believe that Adam and Eve lived among dinosaurs, I personnaly find that idea rediculous based on fossil evidence amongst other practicality issues so I apologize if my remark came off as sarcastic in any way. To me whether or not the various biblical refrences that anyone has made actually were meant to refer to dinosaurs or not makes no difference to my beliefs regarding evolution vs. creation which are as Sarah said sience not faith based.

msnicolea

05-29-2007, 07:50 AM

I would like to know how we could have co-existed with dinosaurs, and I mean this on a serious level--how could humans possibly have defended themselves? If we co-existed, it couldn't have been for too long, given what we know about the laws of nature. Take religion out of it--from a biological standpoint, this notion is completly preposterous!

LyLMyssChaos

05-29-2007, 08:19 AM

Wow, this museum is certainly interesting. I would like to see it and take my children to see it, if for no other reason than to point out where we don't agree with certain things.

I personally think that there should be a blend of creationism and evolution. My personal ideas go with the idea that God did create everything initially and things have evolved(by the guidance of God) within their own group. I have a hard time grasping the idea that things evolve from one species to a completely new one.

HeatherFL

05-29-2007, 08:22 AM

Leilynne No problemo. ;) I apologize for not being more clear in my original post. Darn internet, sometimes it's hard to get it all out in the right way. I'm working on it, though! :D

msnicolea I agree with you. I guess there are theories out there that "cavemen" did live with dinosaurs on earth, but I honestly don't know all that much about it.

General note...From a Biblical standpoint, I've heard arguments that dinosaurs were on the Arc with Noah, because God said ALL animals had to be on that Arc. Period. Interesting...

~H.

msnicolea

05-29-2007, 08:27 AM

Must have been one heck of an Ark!

HeatherFL

05-29-2007, 08:52 AM

temporary hijack...And how did all the sea animals live inside that Arc if that's true? It just seems a bit impossible...Or did they survive the Great Flood even though God said he was wiping out all life?

jnettie

05-29-2007, 10:31 AM

msnicolea I agree with you. I guess there are theories out there that "cavemen" did live with dinosaurs on earth, but I honestly don't know all that much about it.

Which begs the question, do creationist think "cavemen" are humans? (homosapiens) Heck, what does your average American think a "caveman" was? Something like the Geico commercials? :p

temporary hijack...And how did all the sea animals live inside that Arc if that's true? It just seems a bit impossible...Or did they survive the Great Flood even though God said he was wiping out all life?

I always just figured that the seam animals just stayed in the sea. I wouldn't think a flood would bother a whale.

I have a hard time grasping the idea that things evolve from one species to a completely new one.
Not to pick on you, but this is another example of how not teaching evolution in schools caused misconceptions. No, one species does not evolve into a completely new species. There are slow changes over time, often small genetic mutations, that slowly change a plant or animal. If that particular genetic mutation helps those animals survive better than the ones born without the mutation, then those with the mutation will live longer and breed more, hence making the mutation be the dominate characteristic - and now the same animal is slightly different.

But, I'd tend to agree with you - the why and how aspect (as in "How did this all start?") are very spiritual indeed! I personally subscribe to the idea that God (or whatever you believe in) kinda got everything in motion way back millions upon millions of years ago and things just started happening.

Sarah

05-29-2007, 12:12 PM

Not to pick on you, but this is another example of how not teaching evolution in schools caused misconceptions. No, one species does not evolve into a completely new species. There are slow changes over time, often small genetic mutations, that slowly change a plant or animal. If that particular genetic mutation helps those animals survive better than the ones born without the mutation, then those with the mutation will live longer and breed more, hence making the mutation be the dominate characteristic - and now the same animal is slightly different.But something we've been discussing is the fact that even Darwin himself admitted that in the future (the future as he was writing, the present for us) we would find evidence of these creatures which were the middle steps. But we haven't.

ginadc

05-29-2007, 06:44 PM

But something we've been discussing is the fact that even Darwin himself admitted that in the future (the future as he was writing, the present for us) we would find evidence of these creatures which were the middle steps. But we haven't.

Sorry, but that's just completely false. Wikipedia addresses misconceptions about transitional fossils and "gaps in the fossil record" here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

New transitional fossils are being discovered all the time--just last year, scientists on an expedition in Canada discovered the "Tiktaalik roseae," which appears to be--I hate to use the term--the "missing link" between fish and land animals. Read more about it here, it's really cool: Tiktaalik roseae's home page at the University of Chicago (http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/).

That's just one very recent example; there are a number of others. Will all the transitional fossils be found? Probably not; fossilization doesn't happen everywhere or to every organism. Far from it. But the evidence that's out there continues to bear Darwin out quite remarkably.

HeatherFL

05-29-2007, 10:34 PM

Which begs the question, do creationist think "cavemen" are humans? (homosapiens) Heck, what does your average American think a "caveman" was? Something like the Geico commercials? :p

I always just figured that the seam animals just stayed in the sea. I wouldn't think a flood would bother a whale.

Exactly!

Regarding the sea animals, I was wondering that. Now was it so violent they would have died?

~H.

Leilynne

05-30-2007, 05:27 AM

Sorry, but that's just completely false. Wikipedia addresses misconceptions about transitional fossils and "gaps in the fossil record" here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

New transitional fossils are being discovered all the time--just last year, scientists on an expedition in Canada discovered the "Tiktaalik roseae," which appears to be--I hate to use the term--the "missing link" between fish and land animals. Read more about it here, it's really cool: Tiktaalik roseae's home page at the University of Chicago (http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/).

That's just one very recent example; there are a number of others. Will all the transitional fossils be found? Probably not; fossilization doesn't happen everywhere or to every organism. Far from it. But the evidence that's out there continues to bear Darwin out quite remarkably.

I don't think a heavily biased Wikipedia article is the best way to support your views. I am also well aware of the Tiktaalik as well as other discoveries that have been touted as "the missing link", I'm glad you hate to use the term because according to evolutionary theory there are many, many missing links. I know how fossilization works, I don't need to be talked down to and "educated" about how abundant the evidence is, not everyone feels that way and those that don't are entitled to their opinion.

batgirl

05-30-2007, 06:21 AM

Oh for god's sake people, for the last time there is no "missing link"!

Its a myth fueled by creationists. Where's the missing link? Where's the missing link? Why aren't chimpanzees turning into humans? Why don't chimps talk at the zoo? Stupid!

There is no "missing link" in evolutionary biology. No reputable scientist is looking for it, the loch ness monster, bigfoot, whatever.

Instead of getting your "scientific" knowledge from church, how about trying the classroom?

end of rant...

ginadc

05-30-2007, 07:19 AM

sue-bert

05-30-2007, 07:23 AM

batgirl,

Your post is rude and uncalled for. If Darwinian evolutionary theory claims that species evolve into other species , then there should be many intermediary forms in the fossil record (assuming these fossils were well-preserved). The absence of these many intermediate forms is puzzling, and many believe it calls into question the legitimacy of the macro-evolutionary mechanism.

Oh, and believe it or not, many people who are not 100% convinced by Darwinism *do* realize that the theory does not purport that chimpanzees evolved directly into humans. You will be disappointed to know that not all people who remain unconvinced by Darwinian theory are ignorant bumpkins.

You will do a better job convincing others of your point of view if you do not insult them.

Sarah

05-30-2007, 07:44 AM

Instead of getting your "scientific" knowledge from church, how about trying the classroom?

end of rant...

You are so damned convinced that you know who people are, based on so little. I don't get anything about science or creationism from my church, and I am highly (secularly) educated. I am not some overalls-wearing idiot who thinks you're saying chimps talk or a monkey is my uncle. I will not discuss anything with you when you are being so disrespectful, patronizing, and rude. You seem incapable in viewing people as being more than stereotypes.

To state that "we haven't found any" transitional fossils is just wrong. You're right, Gina, I shouldn't have said any. I meant that IMO (and in plenty of scientist' opinions, too) there is not enough transitional fossil record.

batgirl

05-30-2007, 08:21 AM

batgirl,

Your post is rude and uncalled for.
Yeah, your right. It was a bit rude. Sorry. It just gets so tiring restating the same thing over and over and over...

If Darwinian evolutionary theory claims that species evolve into other species , then there should be many intermediary forms in the fossil record (assuming these fossils were well-preserved).
Yes, and they are called "transitional fossils", as ginadc pointed out (course people don't believe those either :rolleyes: ). But "the missing link" concept is completely different.

The absence of these many intermediate forms is puzzling, and many believe it calls into question the legitimacy of the macro-evolutionary mechanism.

Actually, its not puzzling at all. Transitional fossils are just that, transitional. They are not common in the fossil record because they didn't stick around for long. But just because there aren't many, does not mean they do not exist. There are many many example of transitional fossils. And more are found all the time.

batgirl

05-30-2007, 08:29 AM

You are so damned convinced that you know who people are, based on so little. I don't get anything about science or creationism from my church, and I am highly (secularly) educated. I am not some overalls-wearing idiot who thinks you're saying chimps talk or a monkey is my uncle. I will not discuss anything with you when you are being so disrespectful, patronizing, and rude. You seem incapable in viewing people as being more than stereotypes.
My comment wasn't directed at anyone in particular, so calm down. And honestly, I don't care too much what your background is. I read in the other thread your a teacher, (I assume not science). But like I said, my comment wasn't directed at anyone in particular. Only those that believe the "missing link" bs (or are confused by it).

You're right, Gina, I shouldn't have said any. I meant that IMO (and in plenty of scientist' opinions, too) there is not enough transitional fossil record.
Well of course plenty of scientists are hoping for more transitional fossils. That's how we will continue to piece together how things evolved.

Leilynne

05-30-2007, 01:55 PM

Leilynne, I was not talking down to you. I was not, in fact, addressing you specifically at all. If you will note, the quote I was replying to was from Sarah, not you...and I was not talking down to her either. She made a statement that is categorically, scientifically false, and I corrected it. To state that "we haven't found any" transitional fossils is just wrong. Sorry, but it is. If that's "talking down," well then, I guess my college professors, the scientists I interview, and many other people have "talked down" to me throughout my life and continue to do so, and I'm quite happy to have them do so if it means I learn something.

The Wikipedia article conveniently aggregated information that is also available from a wide variety of sources. It is not "biased" unless you consider scientific information biased. You can also find similar information about transitional fossils from Scientific American, the National Academy of Science, and many other highly respected scientific organizations.

I do realise that you were replying to Sarah however since she and I have been stateing similar beliefs I felt justified in responding. I personnaly found the article biased as it was written from the standpoint of combating "creationist misconceptions" on transitional fossils rather than a simple stating of fact in the encyclopedic style. And it was your last sentence that made me feel talked down to, every new person that posts seems to feel that if they could just show everyone who rejects macro-evolution this one more thing that we will just change our minds. I don't understand why it's so hard for some people to wrap their head around the idea that some of us have extensivly studied the subject and have simply come to a different conclusion than you.

Yeah, your right. It was a bit rude. Sorry. It just gets so tiring restating the same thing over and over and over...

Actually, its not puzzling at all. Transitional fossils are just that, transitional. They are not common in the fossil record because they didn't stick around for long. But just because there aren't many, does not mean they do not exist. There are many many example of transitional fossils. And more are found all the time.

I was sorry to see the tone of your original post Batgirl, because you and I have discussed this very rationaly and with a lot of respect in a previous thread. It gets really tiring having to explain over and over that one is not an idiot, as well. Just because something is not puzzling to you doesn't mean that it doesn't raise serious questions for someone else. We can all reason on the evidence in many different ways.

ginadc

05-30-2007, 07:31 PM

I don't understand why it's so hard for some people to wrap their head around the idea that some of us have extensivly studied the subject and have simply come to a different conclusion than you.

Hmm...now who's talking down to whom?

Leilynne, once again, Sarah made a point that was incorrect--that she has since admitted was incorrect. While we can disagree about whether the remaining gaps in the fossil record seriously call evolution into question or not, the original point--that transitional fossils have not been found--was just plain wrong.

You may feel that you know all there is to know about evolution. But that doesn't mean that in a general discussion of evolution, in which there are many participants, you are being talked down to when someone explains a fact that you happen to already know. In reality, many people aren't aware that there are not and never will be fossils representing all the various life forms that have ever existed on earth, and pointing out that fact is hardly trying to insult anyone.

Instead of complaining that you're being talked down to, perhaps you could talk about why you find the regular discoveries of transitional fossils, such as tiktaalik, that bear out Darwin's theories to nonetheless be unpersuasive?

Leilynne

05-30-2007, 08:26 PM

Hmm...now who's talking down to whom?

Leilynne, once again, Sarah made a point that was incorrect--that she has since admitted was incorrect. While we can disagree about whether the remaining gaps in the fossil record seriously call evolution into question or not, the original point--that transitional fossils have not been found--was just plain wrong.

You may feel that you know all there is to know about evolution. But that doesn't mean that in a general discussion of evolution, in which there are many participants, you are being talked down to when someone explains a fact that you happen to already know. In reality, many people aren't aware that there are not and never will be fossils representing all the various life forms that have ever existed on earth, and pointing out that fact is hardly trying to insult anyone.

Instead of complaining that you're being talked down to, perhaps you could talk about why you find the regular discoveries of transitional fossils, such as tiktaalik, that bear out Darwin's theories to nonetheless be unpersuasive?
Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my last post but it wasn't your correction of Sarah's error that bothered me it was the tone of the last sentence of your original post which to me implied that you felt that she simply hadn't considered the evidence enough. If that wasn't your intent then I apologize for my reaction. As several of us have said those who believe in creation are often all lumped into one group and it gets difficult to stay calm when you have to keep explaining yourself over and over. The comment you quoted was a general expression of irritation over that and was not meant to be directed at you specifically. I have not claimed at any point in this discussion to know "everything there is to know about evolution", only that I have studied the subject before drawing my conclusions. I'd be happy to discuss why I'm not convinced by the fossil record, but right now it's very late here and I havn't had the best day. I'm also interested in what convinces you, how do you interpret the evidence as "proof" of macro-evolution. Alot of people will talk about this find or that find but rarely explain why that proves evolution to them.

batgirl

05-31-2007, 11:43 AM

I have not claimed at any point in this discussion to know "everything there is to know about evolution", only that I have studied the subject before drawing my conclusions.

Actually, I'm just curious how you (and other creationists) have "studied the subject"? Did you take an evolution course at your university? Have you read the peer reviewed evolution journals? (and I emphasize the peer reviewed part). Or have you just read books published by places such as the discovery institute. I don't mean to be snarky about this (and you were right, I was snarky/rude yesturday and I apologize). All I remember, Leilynne, is when we discussed evolution a couple of months back you didn't even understand what microevolution was. Maybe people who deny macroevolution just don't understand it or are getting misinformation from biased sources (a la Kirk Cameron).

And I do understand that macroevolution can be a real test of faith. That's why the church is so scared of it. I don't have any comments to make it any easier. I think most of us struggle to some degree. I also think that's why less than 20% of biologists believe in "god".

greenbunny

05-31-2007, 12:13 PM

The fuss is that America is falling very far behind in Science education. Most countries out there DO teach evolution as part of their Science curriculum. It's a constant fight - creationists are working hard to eliminate evolution from schools, and no one seems to ever even think to consult science teachers. Like I said, this is a regular topic of conversation in my house, because my DH has the fun task of trying to teach very basic scientific method and ideas to college age students who really should have learned all of this in HS.

This is from a while back, but I completely agree with this. It is hard to teach evolution. DH has definitely struggled with it in his classroom. His students are mainly Hispanic and almost all Catholic. When he attempts to teach evolution-based curricula, they will actually shout "Diablo, diablo!" at him and cover their ears. They tell him he's going to hell and they refuse to listen.

batgirl

05-31-2007, 01:12 PM

WisWis

05-31-2007, 01:35 PM

This is from a while back, but I completely agree with this. It is hard to teach evolution. DH has definitely struggled with it in his classroom. His students are mainly Hispanic and almost all Catholic. When he attempts to teach evolution-based curricula, they will actually shout "Diablo, diablo!" at him and cover their ears. They tell him he's going to hell and they refuse to listen.

Wow! I teach science in the bible belt but I have to say that I've never had a reaction quite like that! I usually have one or two students each semester that are very resistant to hearing about the big bang theory or the geologic time scale but we're usually able to talk though our differences. The rest of the students may disagree with me but find the topic interesting enough to listen and participate. We may not come to an agreement but they end up learning what they need to know even if they aren't totally sold by the idea. I know that I can't push anything down their throats, and I wouldn't want to do that. They're old enough to make decisions for themselves and I know that as they grow up their views will continue to evolve. Hopefully some of what I say will stick with them!

Scooter

06-01-2007, 04:08 PM

OK, I feel a little silly posting this, but I'm just not getting the Kirk Cameron/banana video. Maybe I'm not getting it because I'm not Christian. So I've got two quesions:

1) Is the point that a banana fits into our hand and is easy to eat, therefore a God must have made it that way, thus there is a God?? Obvious logic problems aside, it sounds so human-centric (if that's a word).

2) Do most Judeo-Christians believe God made the world for humans, and all flora and fauna were put here specifically for us? I'm not being snarky, I really am curious to know. :)

Sarah

06-01-2007, 05:16 PM

1) Is the point that a banana fits into our hand and is easy to eat, therefore a God must have made it that way, thus there is a God?? Obvious logic problems aside, it sounds so human-centric (if that's a word).

2) Do most Judeo-Christians believe God made the world for humans, and all flora and fauna were put here specifically for us? I'm not being snarky, I really am curious to know.
Speaking as a person who some of you might consider a "fundamentalist"(although I don't think I am) but who is definitely an evangelical christian-

1. KC is dumb. I mean, he was cute on Growing Pains but he doesn't really know what he's talking about, clearly.That's pretty dumb logic he's got there.

2. Yes, I do believe that the world was created for humans to take care of, to use, and be stewards of, but that doesn't mean it's ours to trash.

HeatherFL

06-01-2007, 05:59 PM

1) Is the point that a banana fits into our hand and is easy to eat, therefore a God must have made it that way, thus there is a God?? Obvious logic problems aside, it sounds so human-centric (if that's a word).

2) Do most Judeo-Christians believe God made the world for humans, and all flora and fauna were put here specifically for us? I'm not being snarky, I really am curious to know.

1) That line of thinking is in line with St. Thomas Aquinas (a Catholic priest and argued by some to be a misogynist.) He used to preach that an apple was small because it will feed one man, and that a watermelon was made larger so it could be shared by a family-just as God planned it to be.

I2) 'm not a Christian either, but I think God created everything to please Himself and wanted humans to take care of it. Then we went and f'd it all up... <pardon my tiny bit of sarcasm there>

~H.

jnettie

06-01-2007, 11:56 PM

But something we've been discussing is the fact that even Darwin himself admitted that in the future (the future as he was writing, the present for us) we would find evidence of these creatures which were the middle steps. But we haven't.

That's totally false. Sorry, but there is quite a bit of fossil evidence out there to support gradual evolution of many many many speices. Go to any reputable Natural History musuem and you can see displays showing, for example, the changes that the horse has gone through over millions of years. As for Darwin himself, he didn't have the extensive fossil evidence back in 1859. What we know now is based on finds over the years after Darwin.

Here is a chart (http://www.wsu.edu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/timeline.html)showing many of the know ancestors to homo sapiens. These are supported by the fossil record. Many are precursors to modern humans, others to apes, others to monkeys, still others to lines that went extinct. But all fossil evidence of primate evolution.

This is from a while back, but I completely agree with this. It is hard to teach evolution. DH has definitely struggled with it in his classroom. His students are mainly Hispanic and almost all Catholic. When he attempts to teach evolution-based curricula, they will actually shout "Diablo, diablo!" at him and cover their ears. They tell him he's going to hell and they refuse to listen.

At least one student each semester leaves the room when DH starts talking about evolution. And this is in NYC.

Leilynne

06-04-2007, 03:18 PM

Actually, I'm just curious how you (and other creationists) have "studied the subject"? Did you take an evolution course at your university? Have you read the peer reviewed evolution journals? (and I emphasize the peer reviewed part). Or have you just read books published by places such as the discovery institute. I don't mean to be snarky about this (and you were right, I was snarky/rude yesturday and I apologize). All I remember, Leilynne, is when we discussed evolution a couple of months back you didn't even understand what microevolution was. Maybe people who deny macroevolution just don't understand it or are getting misinformation from biased sources (a la Kirk Cameron).

And I do understand that macroevolution can be a real test of faith. That's why the church is so scared of it. I don't have any comments to make it any easier. I think most of us struggle to some degree. I also think that's why less than 20% of biologists believe in "god".
I don't think I should have to give anyone a list of what courses I've taken or what journals I've read to have my viewpoint respected. I do thank you for correcting my terminology in the previous thread as I was using the term "adaptation" to refer to micro-evolution and "evolution" to refer to macro-evolution (I think when the average person hears "evolution" they assume you talking about macro") I have always realized that these are two different things though, I don't know how anyone could not know that on some level or claim not to believe in some kind of "change within species" whatever they want to call it (why else would we need a new flu shot each year? it's a simple as that). You are definatly right about alot of people probably relying on biased info because it's what they want to hear. I try not to do that and always have an open mind, and i think Kirk Cameron and his banana video friend are pretty wacky. What it comes down to for me is that I think I just view the evidence differently which I explain more here (http://www.constantchatter.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20337&page=18).
This is from a while back, but I completely agree with this. It is hard to teach evolution. DH has definitely struggled with it in his classroom. His students are mainly Hispanic and almost all Catholic. When he attempts to teach evolution-based curricula, they will actually shout "Diablo, diablo!" at him and cover their ears. They tell him he's going to hell and they refuse to listen.
Wow, how disrespectfull! My parents always stressed that we should listen respectfully and participate fully in class, regardless if we agreed or not.

OK, I feel a little silly posting this, but I'm just not getting the Kirk Cameron/banana video. Maybe I'm not getting it because I'm not Christian. So I've got two quesions:

1) Is the point that a banana fits into our hand and is easy to eat, therefore a God must have made it that way, thus there is a God?? Obvious logic problems aside, it sounds so human-centric (if that's a word).

2) Do most Judeo-Christians believe God made the world for humans, and all flora and fauna were put here specifically for us? I'm not being snarky, I really am curious to know. :)

1)Someone should really tell Kirk that the wild banana looks nothing like the one in his video! I am Chrisian and I don't get his point either, so it's not just you!
2)For us in that we are to care for the earth and animals and for us in that God wants us to be happy and enjoy beauty and life; but not for us in that we are just so special that we deserve everything and can exploit it as we wish. Does that make sense?

Sarah

06-04-2007, 04:53 PM

At least one student each semester leaves the room when DH starts talking about evolution. And this is in NYC.
No! Really? In NYC, the bastion of sophistication, there are people who don't agree with you? Wow. They shouldn't let hicks in there like that!

I am a native NYCer, born and raised, FYI.

ysolde

06-04-2007, 05:17 PM

No! Really? In NYC, the bastion of sophistication, there are people who don't agree with you? Wow. They shouldn't let hicks in there like that!

I am a native NYCer, born and raised, FYI.

Hey, when my kids start hearing about the theory of gravity, they are going to let everyone know that it's "Just a theory," and walk out. After all, we all know it's the FSM that holds the world together! :D

wendalah

06-04-2007, 05:42 PM

No! Really? In NYC, the bastion of sophistication, there are people who don't agree with you? Wow. They shouldn't let hicks in there like that!

LOL. This reminds me of a party I was at, in which a girl who'd recently moved to the area informed me "Nobody in Los Angeles goes to church." Snort. Tell that to Cardinal Mahony.

jesvet

06-04-2007, 06:00 PM

LOL. This reminds me of a party I was at, in which a girl who'd recently moved to the area informed me "Nobody in Los Angeles goes to church." Snort. Tell that to Cardinal Mahony.

Or L Ron Hubbard. :D

ysolde

06-04-2007, 06:01 PM

LOL. This reminds me of a party I was at, in which a girl who'd recently moved to the area informed me "Nobody in Los Angeles goes to church." Snort. Tell that to Cardinal Mahony.

Check out All Saints Episcopal in Pasadena (OK, I know Pasadena has its own reputation). It's full every Sunday, IIRC.

jnettie

06-04-2007, 06:48 PM

No! Really? In NYC, the bastion of sophistication, there are people who don't agree with you? Wow. They shouldn't let hicks in there like that!

I am a native NYCer, born and raised, FYI.

You know, there's no need for snark like that. My post was in response to greenbunny's, who doesn't live here, so I was making a comparison. Sorry if I mispoke.

And, I grew up in a small town in rural Illinois where my 6th grade science teacher actually told the class that he wouldn't teach evolution because "it's only a theory." So, yeah, I find a little more sophistication in NY than rural Illinois schools.

This was a nice thread for a while. Can we please go back to discussion that is nice?

Leilynne

06-04-2007, 06:54 PM

After all, we all know it's the FSM that holds the world together! :D

If I ever change my mind about creation I'm definatly switching over to the Flying Spaghetti Monster camp, I love pasta.;)

Delta

06-04-2007, 07:00 PM

DH has definitely struggled with it in his classroom. His students are mainly Hispanic and almost all Catholic. When he attempts to teach evolution-based curricula, they will actually shout "Diablo, diablo!" at him and cover their ears. They tell him he's going to hell and they refuse to listen.This is strange considering Catholic dogma and evolution are not contradictory.

ysolde

06-04-2007, 07:01 PM

If I ever change my mind about creation I'm definatly switching over to the Flying Spaghetti Monster camp, I love pasta.;)

Pastafarians eat better! :D

Scooter

06-04-2007, 07:10 PM

2. Yes, I do believe that the world was created for humans to take care of, to use, and be stewards of, but that doesn't mean it's ours to trash.

2)For us in that we are to care for the earth and animals and for us in that God wants us to be happy and enjoy beauty and life; but not for us in that we are just so special that we deserve everything and can exploit it as we wish. Does that make sense?

Thanks to you both for your replies. I think it's an interesting viewpoint. I know early in Genesis it says something about taking care of the Earth and its creatures, but wasn't sure if the prevailing thought is that everything was basically put here for people. (ok I just looked it up--Gen 1:26 is what I was thinking of. Yes, I do own a Bible or two so that I can understand your religion. ;) But the word in that verse is "dominion," so I guess that is seen as people being kind of above or in charge of the animals.)

Delta

06-04-2007, 07:13 PM

Speaking of that word, I'm going to pimp a book by that name: Dominion, by Matthew Scully. (http://www.amazon.com/Dominion-Power-Suffering-Animals-Mercy/dp/0312319738)

It's about animal rights written from a Christian perspective.

wendalah

06-04-2007, 07:43 PM

Check out All Saints Episcopal in Pasadena (OK, I know Pasadena has its own reputation). It's full every Sunday, IIRC.

There are squillions of churches and temples in L.A. and they all fill up like gangbusters...to suggest "nobody goes to church" in any enormous metro area (especially Los Angeles, which has mindbogglingly huge Latino and Filipino Catholic communities) is absurd.

I wouldn't be surprised at all to hear that NYC schools have students who were raised by very religious parents.

wendalah

06-04-2007, 07:48 PM

Speaking of dominion:

http://www.all-creatures.org/cva/

The Christian Vegetarian Association! (I am a proud member!)

Leilynne

06-04-2007, 08:49 PM

Great site, Wendalah, it's FAQ section covers almost all the scriptures I was going to quote about animal cruelty, I'll just add this one: Proverbs 12:10 - The righteous man cares for his domestic animals, but the wicked man is cruel even in his mercies. And in regards to the Earth Revelation 11:16 says that a judgment will come "ruining the one ruining the earth". I've seriously considered going vegetarian, I don't have much of an appetite for meat anyway and I do believe it was our original design. Right now we go without meat at least one day a week. That said I don't think it's wrong to eat meat if one so desires, but I respect the moral views of those who think otherwise (even though it is a PITA when I have a vegan patient, had one today and it's so much extra work to read all the labels for dairy and eggs which show up in the sneakiest places).

Sarah

06-04-2007, 09:36 PM

Speaking of dominion:

http://www.all-creatures.org/cva/

The Christian Vegetarian Association! (I am a proud member!)
Hm. Interesting. I've got some serious issues with their scholarship, but that's another thread, isn't it.

:)

HeatherFL

06-04-2007, 11:58 PM

I'm not a huge O’Reilly fan, but here's a short video on this:

O'Reilly Factor Episode (http://defconblog.org/2007/05/lawrence-krauss-on-oreilly-factor-2/)

~H.

ysolde

06-06-2007, 10:23 AM

I saw an interesting documentary on this issue recently on Showtime: A Flock of Dodos. The director is a Biology Ph.D. (Harvard degree, student of Stephen J. Gould's). It is fascinating.

msnicolea

06-06-2007, 10:34 AM

Interesting op-ed by Senator Brownback in the NY Times re: his views about Evolution v. Creationism:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/opinion/31brownback.html?ex=1338264000&en=6ba424e5faddeff0&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

HeatherFL

06-06-2007, 10:36 AM

ysolde Thanks for the recommendation.

I found the trailer on You Tube: Flock of Dodos Trailer (http://youtube.com/watch?v=GU8V5oTIwKM).

I also wanted to recommend a book written by one of my favorite college professors...(He's Lutheran, so it's not slanted toward the non-believer's point of view.) It gives a good overview of several sides of the science/theology debates.

Religion and the Natural Sciences: The Range of Engagement (http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Natural-Sciences-Range-Engagement/dp/1597520845/ref=sr_1_1/002-5041202-6260852?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181148388&sr=1-1)
http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g230/HeatherJWFL76/MISC/10397230.jpg

~H.

ysolde

06-06-2007, 10:47 AM

Brownback is doing himself a disservice with statements such as this:
There is no one single theory of evolution, as proponents of punctuated equilibrium and classical Darwinism continue to feud today.

First of all, there is one single theory of evolution. Further, these "feuds" among scientists are what further science. Should Quantum not have been taught because there were competing theories until recently? Does that make Quantum any less valid or "real"?

Believe whatever you want (including FSM), but teach the science in science class.

ysolde

06-06-2007, 10:52 AM

This little bit on rabbits made me LOL!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NZR_jo_tCy0&mode=related&search=

ysolde

06-06-2007, 11:24 AM

I think his gives honest answers to the question of the beginnigs of life on Earth:

[QUOTE]NOVA: What do you think was the first form of life?

Knoll: It's pretty clear that all the organisms living today, even the simplest ones, are removed from some initial life form by four billion years or so, so one has to imagine that the first forms of life would have been much, much simpler than anything that we see around us. But they must have had that fundamental property of being able to grow and reproduce and be subject to Darwinian evolution.

So it might be that the earliest things that actually fit that definition were little strands of nucleic acids. Not DNA yet—that's a more sophisticated molecule—but something that could catalyze some chemical reactions, something that had the blueprint for its own reproduction.

NOVA: Would it be something we would recognize under a microscope as living, or would it be totally different?

Knoll: That's a good question. I can imagine that there was a time before there was life on Earth, and then clearly there was a time X-hundred thousand years or a million years later when there were things that we would all recognize as biological. But there's no question that we must have gone through some intermediate stage where, had you been there watching them, you might have placed your bets either way.

So I can imagine that on a primordial Earth you would have replicating molecules—not particularly lifelike in our definition, but they're really getting the machinery going. Then some of them start interacting together and pretty soon you have something a little more lifelike, and then it incorporates maybe another piece of nucleic acid from somewhere else, and by the accumulation of these disparate strands of information and activity, something that you and I would look at and agree "that's biological" would have emerged.
NOVA: In a nutshell, what is the process? How does life form?

Knoll: The short answer is we don't really know how life originated on this planet. There have been a variety of experiments that tell us some possible roads, but we remain in substantial ignorance. That said, I think what we're looking for is some kind of molecule that is simple enough that it can be made by physical processes on the young Earth, yet complicated enough that it can take charge of making more of itself. That, I think, is the moment when we cross that great divide and start moving toward something that most people would recognize as living.

- - -

How Did Life Begin?
An Interview with Andy Knoll

Origins homepage

What are the origins of life? How did things go from non-living to living? From something that could not reproduce to something that could? One person who has exhaustively investigated this subject is paleontologist Andrew Knoll, a professor of biology at Harvard and author of Life on a Young Planet: The First Three Billion Years of Life. In this wide-ranging interview, Knoll explains, among other compelling ideas, why higher organisms like us are icing on the cake of life, how deeply living things and our planet are intertwined, and why it's so devilishly difficult to figure out how life got started.

NOVA: When people think of life here on Earth, they think of animals and plants, but as you say in your book, that's really not the history of life on our planet, is it?

Knoll: It's fair to say when you go out and walk in the woods or on a beach, the most conspicuous forms of life you will see are plants and animals, and certainly there's a huge diversity of those types of organisms, perhaps 10 million animal species and several hundred thousand plant species. But these are evolutionary latecomers. The history of animals that we've recorded from fossils is really only the last 15 percent or so of the recorded history of life on this