Expelled

[OzarkKid07]

One of the most interesting things about the whole Big Bang/Evolution vs. Creation/microevolution is who sees the evidence for each argument as reliable. Those who really want to see how fossils and DNA build and present a story that proves natural selection and evolution see it and are less than critical of the missing pieces of the story, HOPING and TRUSTING that science will eventually unearth the rest of the story and give us all insight into how insignificant we really are- better yet, show us that we are ultimately no different than our pets and the ingenius fish that we trick with Wiggle Warts.

And the Creationists who so willingly see a creative, intelligent Designer- some of whome even claim that they KNOW Him and have a relationship with him- are HOPING and TRUSTING that this Designer will ultimately show Himself and reveal that all this was made for US and that we are special, unique, cared for and loved.

It would appear that we each see exactly what we want to see and nothing more. Evidence or no evidence, those who want to believe in nothing do, and those who want to believe in something or someone do. There either is or isn't a Creator. We might be compost and we might not. The real point is that if there is a Creator, it seems that He really only gives us what we want- To see or not to see.

[jscheetz]

Trav, I didn't write this - wish I did, but I'll pass it on to you see if this sums it up for you.

You are the descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm washed up on an empty beach 3 1/2 billion years ago. You are a mere grab bag of atomic particles, a conglomeration of genetic substance. You exist on a tiny planet in a minute solar system in an empty corner of a meaningless universe. You came from nothing and are going nowhere.

Now go have a quality day.

JS

[Trav]

Tell me something I dont already know JS.

And today I had a great day!

Thanx!

[Al Agnew]

Boy Al, gotta disagree here. While you acknowledge gaps in the fossil record, but then say that's not a problem - I find that is THE problem. I am sure you will disagree - but to me, and many, the real lack of transitional fossils is a definite stumbling block. I will grant you that there is no question that we certainly haven't uncovered all the fossils out there and it is not really a priority for many in poor nations, so we may discover something new. But, I have read report after report from evolutionists claiming there are these transitions between species and after reading a 5 page dissertation on someones findings on a breakthrough fossil - you find that the author himself can't say for certain if that "extra bone" is from a leg or a fin! And the title of the page says - "Early fish to tetrapod transitional fossil". The various cases that I have read are really, really, stretching the whole transitional concept and are taking many "leaps of faith". Of course the punctuated equilibrium concept used to gloss over the lack of TFs is usually thrown out there, but that seems to have more holes in it than my last waders.

If there was absolute evidence of transitional fossils, evolutionists would be shouting it from the rooftops. - Hearken back to Nebraska man anyone? It was all over - all God fearing men were lunatics - Darwin vindicated - This tooth found in Nebraska was purported to be the "missing link" and we would finally see the connection. Except it turned out it was the tooth from a cousin of the pig. Bummer.... but back to that early tetrapod.......... I just haven't seen the fossil record "prove" the move from single cell organisim to me. I think those gaps are a problem.

And as an aside - since you are an incredible realistic and astute artist Al, I am sure you have studied the concept of Irreducible complexity. And isn't it amazing? Whether you believe we all happened via Chuck's path or by divine intervention - it is simply something that everyone should dig into - because this world is amazing and seeing it scientifically, how things work together and how everything from a simple forest eco system to the human eye works up close is pretty mind blowing.

Anyway, good chatting with you all.

JS

Hmm....so much to talk about here!

Transitional fossils...I've studied the latest findings on fish to tetrapod fossils, and I don't see any problems in what has been found. Are there disagreements among scientists? Yeah, some. Does it bother me that so few fossils have been found in the MAJOR transitions, like fish to tetrapod, amphibian to reptile, early mammals? A bit. But I also know that a lot of transitional fossils have been found, and I understand the concepts of why transitional fossils might be rare.

As for "Nebraska man"...you're doing the same thing that the global warming denialists do when they bring up the deal about "30 years ago scientists were worried about the next ice age and now they are worrying about global warming". Fact is that a small minority of scientists were "touting" global cooling back then, with a much greater number either disagreeing or at least questioning, yet the media picked up the story and ran with it for a while as if it was fact. Same thing happened with Nebraska man. Most scientists at that point were questioning its validity, but the questioning never gets the coverage. And it was one more "triumph" of the scientific method, in that further study proved it invalid and it was dropped.

Irreducible complexity...yep, I've read about it and studied both sides. We're getting back to one of the favorite subjects of ID people--that some organs or processes are so complex, and so specific, that there is no way they could have developed through natural selection, because their "primitive" components would not have been useful for the purpose. Yet when those components are studied in depth, it is usually found that the components were either more useful than nothing (or more useful than even MORE primitive components), or else they were useful for something else and were later "borrowed" for their consequent purpose.

Mind-blowing? You bet it is. But what IDists don't seem to realize is that the incredible complexity and interconnectedness of nature is actually the best argument of all for natural selection. A key element of "intelligent" design is simplicity. The simpler you can make something and have it still serve its purpose, the better. Yet, nature is anything BUT simple. Natural selection is, as I said before, anything but random. Each creature evolves to fit its niche to near perfection, and each niche is exploited. And if a niche changes, the creatures that used it either evolve to fit the new one, or other creatures evolve to take their place. (I'm using "creatures" as a catch-all for everything from animals to plants to bacteria.) If life on earth was designed, it was done by a pretty mediocre designer, because extinction would be a failure of design, and totally different critters performing the same functions (like whales and whale sharks, for instance) would be unnecessary redundancies.

Hey Trav, feel free to back me up. But to all of you who "disagree" with evolutionary theory, all I ask is that you do so after some study of it. If you wish to believe God did it, that's perfectly fine. He certainly COULD have done it through evolution, or through some method that would give a BETTER explanation of what we actually SEE and KNOW. I can accept that. What I can't accept is that the word of a several thousand year old book, written by an ancient, poetic, but scientifically clueless people, negates everything we have learned since. Even if God dictated every word to some Israelite sheepherder back then, had He told the REAL story in all its complexity, neither the sheepherder nor anybody else for thousands of years would have understood a word of it.

[Al Agnew]

Trav, I didn't write this - wish I did, but I'll pass it on to you see if this sums it up for you.

You are the descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm washed up on an empty beach 3 1/2 billion years ago. You are a mere grab bag of atomic particles, a conglomeration of genetic substance. You exist on a tiny planet in a minute solar system in an empty corner of a meaningless universe. You came from nothing and are going nowhere.

Now go have a quality day.

JS

Why is it that some people assume you HAVE to believe in a higher power and an afterlife to have a "quality" life? I suspect (I obviously don't KNOW) that this life is all I'll have. I think the chances are very great that I am exactly what the writer cited above said. So what? Life is what YOU make it. I have a whole LOT of quality days. I feel very fulfilled and happy with my life, overall, and can't think of very many people, Christian or otherwise, with whom I'd trade it. I've had sadness and sorrow and loss, like everybody, and I'll probably have more. I've also had success and great joy. Precisely because I DON'T expect to have any other lives once I'm dead, I've tried to make the best of this one, to live it to the fullest and make to make a difference. I think I've touched lives in positive ways, and I know I've been touched by other lives both human and non-human.

Whether God or natural selection gave us our "minds", we have the capacity to use them for good or ill in THIS world. So what if it's an insignificant planet in a meaningless universe. Its significance is that it is OUR little planet, the only one we know, and WE are the ones who give our lives meaning. We don't need the universe (or God) to do so.

Edited to add: At least that's what I think. As Dennis Miller used to say, I could be wrong. And if your faith gives your life meaning, that's great. Happiness and fulfillment, it seems to me, must be a personal thing, and one person's meaning can't be compared to another's. There are only two things about faith and religion that bother me. One is when the religious person feels superior to others because of their religion, and the other is when they try to convert others by force and coercion, or use their religion to run other people's lives. If I've offended anyone I'm truly sorry, that was not my intent.

[zander]

Also we don't have to have transitional fossils for every transition to demonstrate a relationship. Look to comparative embryology. It is the activation and surpression of gene expression over time that causes animals (and plants) to distinguish themselves physically as we (they) mature. Different proteins get made, varying levels of mRNA floating around in the cytosol, etc ad nauseum. It is not easy to understand. BioChem 5763 convinced me I wasn't PhD material. I have never understood the resistance to evolution. Why? It doesn't make you something you are not. It isn't personal. You can't help it, and no one will blame you for descending from your ancestors. It wasn't your choice. Study it, try to understand it, and if you can't, ask questions until you can.

Case in point. Big controversy when I was in college about the evolution of birds. Did they evolve from dinosaurs or from a line of aboreal reptiles? My professor thought it ridiculous to think that they could evolve from highly specialized terrestrial dinosaurs. Several lectures worth of reasoning on how this is so unlikely etc. As the years passed, more and more evidence came down on the side of the dino lineage for birds. Half of the ornithologists in the world had to eat crow (bad pun I know). That is the beauty of science, it is accepting of sound evidence. It is a court of reason with limitless appeals.

We have been looking for fossils for maybe 170 years. It is not surprising we haven't found all of the transitionals. We discover new species of animals and plants still each year as well. Read about the founder effect and it will make more sense to everyone without getting bogged down in the molecular aspect of it.

[Flatlander]

Al,

Not once and for all. You do not get to throw out claims with no reference and claim victory for yourself. You don't get off that easy -- as you would like it.

You should get a book called "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell. He was someone who once thought as you do. I don't know how smart he is compared to you but he seems like a pretty bright guy.

Your position and it is not "once and for all", is that creationism cannot be so. How intolerant are you willing to be? Must everyone accept your position as fact? Just wondering.

You mention the fact that you were in college and you were able to learn what the professor taught you. My question is are college professors are the keepers of truth? (I've been around for a while and know better - I am one.)

Yes we do find new species every so often and NO! We have not located transitional evidence. You would think we would have by now - with people wanting to disprove the creationists and all.....

What is clear to me and maybe not to you yet is that you are still struggling with the issue. You are trying to use justification that feels comfortable to you and you are unwilling (intolerant) to other views that don't fit your "take" on things.

"Evidence That Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell - a good read..... If you have the guts!!!!!!!!!

Flatlander

[Trav]

Haha!!!

Al, I offered to have your back and you beat me to the punch with backing mine.

I have always said that if you need a crutch to except your being then by all means I will respect that. Just dont try to cover the truth that the human race is an invasive non-natural part of the ecosystem.

I will never think that there is anything other than what I can touch and feel. Science is turning into an exact reality and those of you that refuse to see the infestation are just as blind as Hillary was when Bill was "talking" to Monica while she wore that blue dress.

Saying that the human race was created is as unfounded as saying the sun is nothing but a big furnace. No different than saying the earth is more than a big dirt ball floating in space. With the rate than the Anthill is infesting this dirt ball, it wont be long before it is nothing but a pile of crap. I know something about piles of crap, my dog loves to roll all around in them. And it is no better smelling than the human race.!!

So you bible thumpers keep on fooling yourself for I am content with my part in the destruction of the only planet in this galaxy to support carbon lifeforms. All your convictions wont ever convince me that we as a species are nothing but trouble.

[Phil Lilley]

As I Christian, I am disappointed in "believers" who use religion to measure a man and his beliefs. They miss the point entirely. Christians arguing over theories like evolution and whether the Bible is the Word of God is so far from what we should be doing... discussing is quite different and I think this has been a good discussion but I think it's taking a turn I don't like.

What Christians should be concerned about, in the context of their "religion" is the condition of our neighbor's heart, not what he believes about how the world began. They should be working to take care of the poor and down and out, the widows and orphans, not forcing their beliefs on others by preaching when they should be Christ's examples here on earth, examples in how they live.

Even if Christians win every argument, very study and could say, "see I told you so!" would that really be a win in God's column or would just push unbelievers away further from God's love and much further from His people here in this life?

I'm sad to say I agree with Al's points about Christians in general. For the most part, we've lost respect of people all over the world because we say one thing and do another.

I'll let this topic continue as long as the discussion continues without malice... but if it heads south, I'll close it.

[OzarkKid07]

As I Christian, I am disappointed in "believers" who use religion to measure a man and his beliefs. They miss the point entirely. Christians arguing over theories like evolution and whether the Bible is the Word of God is so far from what we should be doing... discussing is quite different and I think this has been a good discussion but I think it's taking a turn I don't like.

What Christians should be concerned about, in the context of their "religion" is the condition of our neighbor's heart, not what he believes about how the world began. They should be working to take care of the poor and down and out, the widows and orphans, not forcing their beliefs on others by preaching when they should be Christ's examples here on earth, examples in how they live.

Even if Christians win every argument, very study and could say, "see I told you so!" would that really be a win in God's column or would just push unbelievers away further from God's love and much further from His people here in this life?

I'm sad to say I agree with Al's points about Christians in general. For the most part, we've lost respect of people all over the world because we say one thing and do another.

I'll let this topic continue as long as the discussion continues without malice... but if it heads south, I'll close it.

I agree whole-heartedly with what you're saying Phil. Sometimes Christians particularly are quite contrary to what Jesus actually wanted his followers to portray through their lifestyle, but in this age of relativism and comfort-based disbelief in the things of God, sometimes a good discussion standing up for God and his interaction with the physical realm is a great way to show someone that you care about them. It shows purpose, which is something that can not be found outside of God. For example, I know people who have no purpose and so they fish or play tennis or pick up girls or whatever, as if they are on a mission to accomplish it, teach it, live it. A self-gratifying activity becomes the purpose but when we stand up and say there's more to life it shows that there is a higher purpose to living besides just getting safely to the grave. The key is doing it because we really have a concern for the person, not a desire to just be right.

To address something you said Al, you talked about people having a "positive" impact in the world and having the power to contribute good or bad things. While it can be said that humans do have the power to arbitrarily commit good and bad acts, there's a scientific principle that says that all effects have a cause. In order for an act to be construed as positive or negative in the first place, it must be compared to an absolute value. Good and bad are different for each person if there is no origin of the values and philosophers from the beginning of civilization have not been able to pinpoint the physical cause of those values. I would challenge you to look deeply at your own concept of good and bad and see if it has roots in Christian theology. Assuming that you have not blindly accepted your definitions of good and bad at the behest of the people in your life or, even worse, from the media, your choices to identify your own positive actions must be rooted in something and I would wager that they're rooted in the teachings of Jesus.

I hope this isn't construed as an attack on anyone, I just really enjoy these types of discussions, even though when it gets really scientific it's out of my league. I'm more the philosophical type I guess, but I do enjoy the science that I can understand.