No one said you have to be bright to be a Senator

[johnhanks]

... first you outlaw creation in schools...

No, you remove creation from science courses, because it has nothing to do with science. Teachers of comparative religion or cultural history are free to discuss creation mythologies, and students are free to take those classes.

 

[johnhanks]

Is singing the opera something that would benefit [E. coli's] survival?

You bet. If you had a massed chorus of 'Nessun dorma' belting out of your backside X Factor would be yours for the taking; and boy, you'd be sure to take care of those little beauties...

 

[Man of Faith]

Is singing the opera something that would benefit their survival?

Note:
The purpose of evolution isn't to make everything into humans.

I see, so it is possible that they could sing opera at one time, due to a random mutation, but it wasn't beneficial for survival so it was lost. And why should humans be the only creatures that should be able to sing opera? If a mutation is truly random, then other creatures should have them also.

 

[Revoltingest]

I see, so it is possible that they could sing opera at one time, due to a random mutation, but it wasn't beneficial for survival so it was lost. And why should humans be the only creatures that should be able to sing opera? If a mutation is truly random, then other creatures should have them also.

It doesn't work this way. A genetic mutation won't be durably expressed unless it relates to a survival advantage.
Humans can sing opera because it relates to our complex speech capabilities.

But I have no explanation for the existence of this....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHPegoquV5I

 

[Agnostic75]

One research study showed that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept naturalistic or theistic evolution. Evolutionary theory is often very complex. The majority of people in the world do not know enough about biology to have informed opinions about evolution. They have the options of accepting the opinions of a large concensus of scientists, many of whom are Christians, or accepting the opinions of a relative handful of creationist experts. If they choose to accept the opinions of a relative handful of creationist experts, they need to know that a good percentage of those creationist experts also accept the global flood theory.

Man of Faith has basically claimed that laymen can learn enough about biology to have informed opinions about biology, but he was wrong. What about geology and the global flood theory? Would Man of Faith also like to claim that laymen can also learn enough about geology to have informed opinions about the global flood theory? And what about anthropology, paleontology, biblical criticism and history, and many other fields of education? A man would have to become a walking encyclopedia in order to learn a lot about every field of science that has something to do with choosing a worldview. It is obvious that as far as Man of Faith, and rusra02 are concerned, religion is the real issue, not science.

 

[BSM1]

You bet. If you had a massed chorus of 'Nessun dorma' belting out of your backside X Factor would be yours for the taking; and boy, you'd be sure to take care of those little beauties...

That is until you "clear your throat" on stage...

 

[rusra02]

And just what are these facts that continue to mount up against the theories of evolution?

Three will suffice.

1. Theory of common descent - "Recent research continues to contradict Darwin’s theory of common descent. For example, in 2009 an article in New Scientist magazine quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.” The same article quotes evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.

​

​

2. Fossils - “Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life,” says evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup, “what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.” (quotes from The Origin of Life - 5 Questions worth Asking.)
​

3. Biochemistry - Mathematician William A. Dembski wrote that the “intelligent design” evident in “observable features of the natural world . . . can be adequately explained only by recourse to intelligent causes.” Molecular biochemist Michael Behe sums up the evidence this way: “You can be a good Catholic and believe in Darwinism. Biochemistry has made it increasingly difficult, however, to be a thoughtful scientist and believe in it.” (g04 6/22 pp. 6-7) Evolution theory claims all the marvelous designs found in the natural world came about by undirected forces, but the available evidence makes clear that is not the case.

Add to the above the ToE has no foundation, since scientists cannot explain how life on earth began. Claiming it doesn't matter will not make the question go away, at least not to people who are willing to think for themselves.

 

[McBell]

Do we really need ANOTHER thread for creationists to embarrass themselves in?

 

[Agnostic75]

1. Theory of common descent - "Recent research continues to contradict Darwin’s theory of common descent.

Better stated, recent research only shows that Darwin's theory of common descent is not as tidy as claimed, and that evolution is still true. Darwin wrote "On the Origin of Species" in 1859. No reasonable person would have expected him to know more than he did about biology that long ago. For that time, Darwin's work was brilliant, and he is greatly admired by the vast majority of biologists today.

For example, in 2009 an article in New Scientist magazine quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.”

The article that you are referring to is at
Charles Darwin's tree of life is 'wrong and misleading', claim scientists - Telegraph. Unfortunately for you, the article shows that Dr. Bapteste accepts evolution. Consider the following:

Dr Bapteste said: "If you don't have a tree of life what does it mean for evolutionary biology. At first it's very scary – but in the past couple of years people have begun to free their minds."

Both he and co-researcher Dr Ford Doolittle stressed that downgrading the tree of life doesn't mean the theory of evolution is wrong just that evolution is not as tidy as we would like to believe.

Dr Doolittle, of California University, said: "We should relax a bit on this. We understand evolution pretty well it's just it is more complex than Darwin imagined. The tree isn't the only pattern."

The same article quotes evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.

But if you had bothered to check up on Michael Rose, you would have found out that he accepts evolution.

2. Fossils - “Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life,” says evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup, “what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.” (quotes from The Origin of Life - 5 Questions worth Asking.)

You first mentioned David Raup months ago in another thread, and I showed that the very same article says that Raup accepts evolution. He clearly said that although there are not as many intermediate fossils as claimed, there are still some. Raup definitely accepts evolution.

3. Biochemistry - Mathematician William A. Dembski wrote that the “intelligent design” evident in “observable features of the natural world . . . can be adequately explained only by recourse to intelligent causes.”

But Dembski's speciality is mathematics, not biology. In addition, the vast majority of experts disagree with Dembski. Further, Ken Miller's article on the flagellum at The Flagellum Unspun contradicts Dembski's claims about intelligent design. You have refused to comment on the article many times because you know that you do not understand it.

Molecular biochemist Michael Behe sums up the evidence this way: “You can be a good Catholic and believe in Darwinism. Biochemistry has made it increasingly difficult, however, to be a thoughtful scientist and believe in it.” (g04 6/22 pp. 6-7) Evolution theory claims all the marvelous designs found in the natural world came about by undirected forces, but the available evidence makes clear that is not the case.

But MIchael Behe accepts common descent. Consider the following:

Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” The Edge of Evolution, pp 71-72

The article shows that Behe accepts common descent, and only disagrees with Darwin about how common descent occurred.

Add to the above the ToE has no foundation, since scientists cannot explain how life on earth began.

But evolution does not need a foundation since it does not attempt to claim how life began, only how it changed. Just plain old common sense indicates that it is not necessary to know how life on earth began in order to study what happened to life after it began. There is not any reasonable scientific evidence at all that modern humans were instantly created, nor that a global flood occured.

If intelligent design is true, that would not tell us anything about the identity of the designer.

Do you object when people who know very little about biology, and geology, accept creationism, and the global flood theory? Do you consider yourself to be well-informed about geology? Do you think that the Bible requires that people learn a lot about biology, and geology, before they become Christians?

Your opinions are based upon biblical literalism, not upon your own personal scientific expertise. You do not even have a basic understanding of biology, and geology.

One research study showed that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept naturalistic or theistic evolution. Evolutionary theory is often very complex. The majority of people in the world do not know enough about biology to have informed opinions about evolution. They have the options of accepting the opinions of a large concensus of scientists, many of whom are Christians, or accepting the opinions of a relative handful of creationist experts. If they choose to accept the opinions of a relative handful of creationist experts, they need to know that a good percentage of those creationist experts also accept the global flood theory.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm always amazed at how dumb the leaders we elect can be.
As bad as this bone head is, we have even worse.
Do you know that there are many who believe we should solve our economic woes by increasing gov't spending?
No kidding....you can even find delusional economists who support them!
People is stupid.

 

[Falvlun]

I'm always amazed at how dumb the leaders we elect can be.
As bad as this bone head is, we have even worse.
Do you know that there are many who believe we should solve our economic woes by increasing gov't spending?
No kidding....you can even find delusional economists who support them!
People is stupid.

Now, now. Don't be conflating your revolting opinions with scientific facts.

 

[painted wolf]

I'm always amazed at how dumb the leaders we elect can be.
As bad as this bone head is, we have even worse.
Do you know that there are many who believe we should solve our economic woes by increasing gov't spending?
No kidding....you can even find delusional economists who support them!
People is stupid.

I know... it's almost as bad as people who think we can solve our economic woes by cutting our revenue.

So much stupid to go around.

wa:do

 

[dust1n]

50,000 generations from E. Coli to Opera? I'm pretty sure whatever E. Coli comes from, and whatever we come from diverged evolutionary paths millions and millions of years ago. 50,000 generations? Try 50,000,000,000,000,000 generations, and that's assuming it ever had a reason to.

 

[Father Heathen]

This guys is an example of why democracy requires an informed electorate in order to function properly. When cretins elect cretins it only cripples the country.

 

[Revoltingest]

I know... it's almost as bad as people who think we can solve our economic woes by cutting our revenue.
So much stupid to go around.
wa:do

Yes, it is clearly different from the faux reality proffered to us.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to rusra02: You have often mentioned examining evidence. Regarding African natives who live in remote jungle regions, and accept creationism, how much scientific evidence do you think they have examined about biology? How about geology, anthropology, and paleontology?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm always amazed at how dumb the leaders we elect can be.
As bad as this bone head is, we have even worse.
Do you know that there are many who believe we should solve our economic woes by increasing gov't spending?
No kidding....you can even find delusional economists who support them!
People is stupid.

You can find delusional economists to support any view. This is simply part of the delusional nature of economics - or the delusional nature of people - that they have any meaningful understanding of systems as complex as economics.

 

[Skwim]

Better stated, recent research only shows that Darwin's theory of common descent is not as tidy as claimed, and that evolution is still true. . . .


. . .If they choose to accept the opinions of a relative handful of creationist experts, they need to know that a good percentage of those creationist experts also accept the global flood theory.

Thanks for saving me the time to reply to rusra02. Nice job.

 

[Revoltingest]

You can find delusional economists to support any view. This is simply part of the delusional nature of economics - or the delusional nature of people - that they have any meaningful understanding of systems as complex as economics.

True dat.

 

[rusra02]

Better stated, recent research only shows that Darwin's theory of common descent is not as tidy as claimed, and that evolution is still true. Darwin wrote "On the Origin of Species" in 1859. No reasonable person would have expected him to know more than he did about biology that long ago. For that time, Darwin's work was brilliant, and he is greatly admired by the vast majority of biologists today.



The article that you are referring to is at
Charles Darwin's tree of life is 'wrong and misleading', claim scientists - Telegraph. Unfortunately for you, the article shows that Dr. Bapteste accepts evolution. Consider the following:
]

But if you had bothered to check up on Michael Rose, you would have found out that he accepts evolution.



You first mentioned David Raup months ago in another thread, and I showed that the very same article says that Raup accepts evolution. He clearly said that although there are not as many intermediate fossils as claimed, there are still some. Raup definitely accepts evolution.



But Dembski's speciality is mathematics, not biology. In addition, the vast majority of experts disagree with Dembski. Further, Ken Miller's article on the flagellum at The Flagellum Unspun contradicts Dembski's claims about intelligent design. You have refused to comment on the article many times because you know that you do not understand it.



But MIchael Behe accepts common descent. Consider the following:

Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The article shows that Behe accepts common descent, and only disagrees with Darwin about how common descent occurred.



But evolution does not need a foundation since it does not attempt to claim how life began, only how it changed. Just plain old common sense indicates that it is not necessary to know how life on earth began in order to study what happened to life after it began. There is not any reasonable scientific evidence at all that modern humans were instantly created, nor that a global flood occured.

If intelligent design is true, that would not tell us anything about the identity of the designer.

Do you object when people who know very little about biology, and geology, accept creationism, and the global flood theory? Do you consider yourself to be well-informed about geology? Do you think that the Bible requires that people learn a lot about biology, and geology, before they become Christians?

Your opinions are based upon biblical literalism, not upon your own personal scientific expertise. You do not even have a basic understanding of biology, and geology.

One research study showed that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept naturalistic or theistic evolution. Evolutionary theory is often very complex. The majority of people in the world do not know enough about biology to have informed opinions about evolution. They have the options of accepting the opinions of a large concensus of scientists, many of whom are Christians, or accepting the opinions of a relative handful of creationist experts. If they choose to accept the opinions of a relative handful of creationist experts, they need to know that a good percentage of those creationist experts also accept the global flood theory.

Whether a person believes in evolution or not is immaterial. The EVIDENCE shows evolution is false. The argument I hear from evolution proponents is: believe in evolution because a lot of scientists believe in it, and you're not smart enough to understand how we know evolution happened. Even though the earth and it's life shouts "Creative genius! intelligent Design!", our ToE advocates want us to shut our eyes and cover our ears to the obvious truth that "In the beginning God Created the heavens and the earth." That's my view.