firstpusk

DeMann,

I never gave you my four answers because I wasnt sure you were addressing them to me.

1) Who is to know for sure? We are talking about something that happened billions of years ago. The fossil record is going to be incomplete in the best of circumstances. In this case it is miraculous that we have anything. You are asking for certainty, science doesnt work that way. This is probably an intellectual puzzle that folks will always argue about.

2) I think the question is when did man become man. We are obviously remained animals. In the creation story man ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, lovely metaphor. Man is self-aware and self-expressive more than any other animal. This is where the poetry of the Bible and the observations of science seem very compatible.

3) Excellent question. I would not frame it that way. I indicated in earlier posts that there are some profound truths in the Genesis account. So, I dont disbelieve it. I dont think it is an accurate historical or scientific account, but I do think that the notion of man becoming aware of moral choice and being able to articulate that is something profoundly human. These are deep moral and theological truths being expressed.

4) Right and wrong are not simply a product of enforcing Biblical values. If so, why dont you stone your children when they defy you, etc. I attended a Catholic university. There every man and woman was exposed to Aristotles Nicomachean Ethics. We were taught that we could decide right and wrong on the basis of reason. Although I dont agree with everything I was taught, it did show me that there are other sources of moral authority other than the church or the Bible. Go back to the tree in the Garden of Eden. We ate of the tree and now we have the responsibility to work this out. Can the Bible help guide us? You bet. The only guide, no. We would use church history and the early fathers'writings, also.

DeMann,

Thank you for acknowledging that I was correct on Nebraska man. I am sorry if studying evolution was emotionally tough for you in your school days. I am not insensitive to the struggles folks go through when confronted with these ideas.

"You, sir, are full of some stinky stuff. There is not proof anywhere..."

If you hated every minute of it, how likely is it that you would be able to accept any evidence regardless of how compelling it may be? Is that discomfort still not allowing you to look at the evidence?

I apologize if these questions are a bit too personal. It is simply that I have tried to give you my arguments straight up and even given links to back them up. You seem to be a bit too dismissive. I am not asking you to agree with me, change religions or anything like that. However, I am asking that you engage in the debate in a fair manner. I have offered evidence, not proof. You have a right to refuse to accept it. I would expect that you try to articulate the difference you have with the evidence. Instead, you flatly deny I have given you anything while addressing me with personal remarks. I have been pretty tough with you. I admit it. I apologize if it has offended you or your religious sensibilities.

"Sir, it was in my school textbooks! I was forced to take tests on that trash many long years ago!"

So DeMann,

Just how old are you and where did you go to school. The claim of Nebraska man, although always dubious, was withdrawn in 1927. You must be in your 90's!

Ed,

I understand and appreciate your position. As you said, you have stated it before. I have also stated mine. Evolution is not "just a theory" in the every day sense of the word your statement implies. It is an extremely well-established and suppoted scientific theory.

In terms of adaption/evolution, individual living things do not adapt or evolve. However, the populations they belong to do. The evidence is there in the laboratory, in the fossils and in the genes the creatures carry.

The theory of evolution is not an explanation that can claim to have been subjected to empirical testing or critical observation.

This is simply false. It is one of the most well supported theories in science. It has been tested for nearly a century and a half and is stronger than ever. You need to read something other than creationism.

The evidence is seen through the eyes of those faithful to Darwin and the absense of God in the creation of the world and all within it. In the zeal to continue the idiocy of macroevolution, evidence for previous forms of man include a pig tooth...

I pointed out to you that this was never in the scientific literature. The Nebraska man was based on over-zelous press reports. Have you responded? No you simply repeat the refuted claim. To persist without correcting your mistake is not honest. The fact is there are a lot of finds that do document human evolution. This is a good place to start.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

...a dig that held parts of chimps and man...

No source or link sited (typical). I must assume you are referring to some of the creationist articles with respect to Donald Johansons Lucy find of Australiopithocene afarensis. These have been thoroughly addressed and refuted by Jim Lippert. Heres a link. I know you wont read it. It doesnt appear you have read anything else I have given you.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html

From the text of this article a nice summary of what this is all about. You see that it is dangerous to simply take what these folks claim at face value.

To summarize: At least seventeen creationists have made this bogus claim. Three have never responded in any way to questions about it (Girouard, Menton, Willis). Another two have not responded to further inquiries (Brown, McAllister). Only five have shown a willingness to discuss the matter (Chittick, the Nuttings, Sharp, Taylor), but one (Chittick) cut off correspondence. Four have agreed that the claim was in error and agreed to stop making it (Hovind, McAllister, Sharp, Taylor), and two agreed to stop making it if further investigation showed that the claim was bogus (the Nuttings) but have continued to repeat it. One (Arndts) has indicated a willingness to believe that the claim is in error but no interest in researching further or offering a correction because the article in which he made the claim just used it as an example of a type of error in reasoning. One (LaHaye) has insisted that the claim is not in error, but agreed to stop making it at the request of the Institute for Creation Research. Three (Baugh, Huse, Mehlert) have not yet been contacted for comment. One (Brown) now denies having made the claim at all. Only three (Menton, Morris, Sharp) have issued public corrections or clarifications.

Lucy's Knee Joint

A Case Study in Creationists' Willingness to Admit their Errors

Copyright 1995-1997 by Jim Lippard

living aboriginals killed and displayed, etc.

Again, I called you on this and asked for a reference for this slanderous claim. I found a number of examples of aboriginal beheadings, especially in the earliest years of the colonization of Australia. None after Darwins book. None carried out by scientists in order to display and certainly nothing like your claim. In case you forgot, here is the outlandish, unsupported claim you made earlier.

In the name of preserving the myth of evolution, people have committed huge atrocities against each other such as the 10,000+ australian aboriginals that were beheaded so they could be displayed as "living fossils" in museums in this country and throughtout the world

You simply repeat the unsupport assertion. Again, such behavior is not proper. At least in today's post you drop the outlandish 10,000+ figure. Still slandering unnamed, unknown murderous scientists, tsk, tsk.

For one to compare it to other fields of science is absurd; evolution is much closer to a religion because the only basis one can accept it on is faith. There is not now nor has there been any empirical data available because it does not happen.

The only reason you can make such a claim is that you refuse to expose yourself to the data, which I have provided to you repeatedly. At least have the honesty to look into it and acknoledge when you are mistaken.

Because the evolutionists tell you that man evolved from one celled organisms does not make it data, does not show critical evaluation.

I know that it is pointless to ask, but, where did you pull this claim from. No scientist claims that. Mans ancestor is one that is common with the great apes. No one but a creationist would make such an absurd claim.

Ask yourself where are the intermediary fossils, the laboratory simulations, the experimentation that proves these statements of their faith in evolution.

I know you wont read it, but others might be paying attention and they need to know that you are completely wrong. So for those other than you that will look at the evidence here is a link about transitional fossils.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

...Evolutionists claim that those that follow God and Jesus can believe in evolution without conflict. That statement alone should alert a Christian to stand up and take note. If the bells don't go off with that one look at the fruits of evolutionary theory: legalized abortion, infantcide, genocide, gene enhancement, cloning, etc. Check out the ideas of Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood,eugenicist, and evolutionist or Peter Singer, bioethicist and evolutionist. The list is long and results have been devastating to entire groups of people thought by some to have inferior genes.

And there was no human evil before Darwin. I know that abortion, infanticide and genocide all existed long before Darwin. How do you hold evolution responsible? Will denying the theory of evolution make evil disappear from the world? No, you are confusing this for an argument that denies the scientific basis of evolution.

FirstPusk debates by claiming a lack of understanding of the ideas for people that disagree with the theories he espouses but when challenged to a biology test to set that idea to rest, he runs.

I really dont have to claim that you lack understanding of evolution. Your arguments prove that point for me. When you couple that with the refusal to admit you are wrong, the case is closed. On your vane little tests, as I recall, you have been the one running from a challenge and a simple one at that. Nearly a month ago you said, And of course there are always other viable scientific theories--some we may not be aware of yet but are we so vain as to think we have all the answers.

In response, I asked for only one viable scientific theory as an alternative to evolution. Instead, you make your grand challenge. An effort to ignore that you have been unable to substantiate a single point.

No, I debate by calling you on your consistently false claims, asking you to support your contentions. I provide an argument in response (often with supporting books and links). I am not interested in your personal vanity. As I recall, you also wanted me to take a theology test and an intelligence test. You may claim your titile if you like. It will not change the fact that you can not support a single claim, that I have refuted your arguments and that you are still running away from the truth.

Evolution is not science and to disbelieve evolution does not put any valid advances in jeopardy. It is simply using the big brains God gave you to see the false religion that is being perpetrated on the world at large.

In response to your silly statement I can only say read this article, Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution

Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975)

Transcribed from The American Biology Teacher, March 1973 (35:125-129)

here is the link.

http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml

Before you come back do some real reading and a lot of thinking.

'Or as it was approprialty put in a Month Python skit

"I don't like spam"

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10'

Ed,

You deliver that line so convincingly. You wanna try it again? Here put this old kercheif on your head first ;^)

I am a believer that the Wood Badge beads should be worn with the field uniform as much as possible. I always want to encourage scouters that have not gone through this experience to have a taste of Gilwell. The neckerchief and woggle I wear for special occasions.

Although parents pins are not part of the official uniform, I have never called anyone on it. Don't think I have it in my heart to do something like that.

Would you cook it on a rock?

Could you cook it in your sock?

Can you cook it in a box?

And then serve it with some lox?

Not on a rock, not in a sock,

Not in a box, not with some lox.

Ed don't like this talk of SPAM,

Ed won't eat his eggs with SPAM.

SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, Lovely SPAM, Wonderful SPAM!

Hey, were those Minnesota Vikings singing?

DeMann,

There is a reason I gave you the link on the modern synthesis, you needed to understand what you were arguing about. You want to define evolution in any way that is convenient. I asked you to start your education there. I wanted you to understand that abiogenesis is not part of Darwin's theory nor the modern synthesis.

"Now, I have not seen any evidence (as you stated) of an organism with a different number of chromosomes from its parents and it being a viable, living organism."

You need to read carefully and for comprehension. Look, this is what I said about your chromosome question, "Actually, one of the links I gave ScoutParent lists several such examples." The key phrase is, "the links I gave ScoutParent". I apologize that I made an assumption that you had the ability to comprehend the phrase and perform a simple search on the thread to find the links. I won't make that mistake again. Here are the links I gave ScoutParent.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

"Come on, man. Why cant you just let God be big enough to speak into existence all that exists? If He can start life, why cant he make it varied? And lots of it?"

Why can't you look at the evidence that is all around you? Is it because you are trying to protect God from the theory of evolution? Why must you make God have to create in six days a few thousand years ago? I am not the one limiting the power of God. It is you who do that by insisting that the first chapters of Genesis must be true regardless of what the evidence shows. God doesn't need the kind of help you are offering. God needs us to use the big wonderful brains we were given.

littlebillie,

How do you get those cricket legs from between your molars? I've got one...

"read my post "we got fired". urban scouting is a joke and a PC smokescreen for councils to swindle money for their own agenda."

I am sorry you had such a negative experience. I hope you find a way to deal with what happened. However, your single experience does not mean that someone else cannot have a tremendous positive impact on youth by working the scout program in an urban setting. I have seen too many success stories to dismiss the program's potential in this setting.

DeMann,

First things first. I am not responsible for all that you are responding to in your last post.

You stated water was water. I said it is pretty simple to get them to separate. It takes a little energy. We get it every day from the sun. The attempt to use the second law as an argument against evolution is a threadbare old argument. That dog don't hunt.

"Again, you need to find the real definition of the second law."

Actually, I was waiting for you to articulate the law and explain how it precludes evolution. It is the accepted theory now, the burden is yours. I have explained why your argument does not apply.

"Sir, it is a fact that the modern evolutionary theory includes the former as well as the latter. Grab a textbook from your local college and see for yourself."

In what context do they mention abiogenesis? Generally they may have a sidebar that mentions the Miller-Urey experiments. You conflate that with the theory of evolution and boldly proclaim it as fact. I seen more than a few college texts but I have never seen one that misdefines evolution as you do.

Read this link. It gives a pretty good outline of the modern synthesis. This is a pretty good place to start. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html

This link explains why many common definitions cause misunderstanding of the scientific definition.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

"understanding of the people responsible for recording these words must be taken into account seems to infer that you cannot take any of the Bible as literal, or at least have no way of knowing what is and what is not."

Classic fundamentalist false dilemma. I didn't say none of the Bible could be taken literally. However, I do believe it is a mistake to take the first chapters of Genesis as a history or science text.

"Sir, I do not avoid any part of the Bible like the plague. I am sorry you see this with reproach."

Read it carefully. I was talking about interpretation of the Bible. Your approach wants to read it like a text book of history and science. Mine says that is not the way you should read it. Yours says it is always consistent. Mine allows you to read and realize the textual difficulties and try to understand what was going on. Yours accepts Genesis 1 and 2 and sees no difficulty. Mine says you have different stories from different traditions emphasizing different things. That is what your faith avoids like the plague. The realization that reading the Bible is not so simple and understanding the message may not be so clear cut. My mention of reproach may have been strong, but I do feel such a reading of Genesis that is overly simplistic and prone to error. I am pretty certain my approach is not one favored by you.

"Your ignoring my questions, though simple and yet so deep, makes me wonder what your faith is based upon."

I think I do a better job of answering your questions than you do mine. There are a couple of things I want you to consider. First, I don't care a whit about whether you question my faith. Your opinion about my belief is not important to me. Second, you are not reading my answers carefully. Finally your questions may be simple but I really don't think they are all that deep. The rest is littlebillie. I learned the hard way with him. A word of advice about him, you have to read him more carefully than you do me. He is much more circumspect than me. He got me eating crickets.

littlebillie,

I finally figured out why you are the only one promoting 4-legged crickets and where they went. You consider them a delicacy and you ate them all.

This just in, NCAA men's ice hockey final score from Durham, NH

(3) University of New Hampshire 5

(1) University of Minnesota 5 ot

It was a great game. I was so nervous I probably ate one of your crickets, too.

"Hi, my name is firstpusk and I - sigh - am an auditor. It all started when I noticed that the other employees were going through boxes of paper clips while I could scavange what I needed off the copy room floor. I knew I was different so I applied for the job in the department of audits. How was I to know that it would lead to. Pretty soon I was taking paper out of the recycle bin and using the blank sides for interoffice memos.

I would never tear the tape on my 10 key. Instead, I let it pile up on the floor across from my desk. When the tape came to the end of the role, I would carefully roll it back on to the spindle so that the other side could be used.

I knew I was in trouble when I made a tenderfoot scout sit through a six hour board of review. I knew he would finally come clean and admit that he paid an older scout in Ding Dongs to scribble the illegible initials we found in his book. When he finally stopped crying, I knew right then and there that I needed help from the Big Auditor in the Sky."

The above is totally ficticious except for the part about being an auditor in recovery. The BOR is supposed to be about making the program work for the boys.

I think the interview approach is fruitful. That was the one my wife always used when I was the SM. She couldn't test them because she didn't know the scout skills well enough. She did get to know them pretty well in a very short time. She was able to tell me the hard news more than once about problems scouts were having. I was always a bit surprised that some of the other people didn't give me this info.

Rooster7,

I am not offended in the least. Tradition to me is something I do take seriously and is kind short hand for faith tradition. Something passed down through the ages from one teacher to the next in an unbroken line to Christ. Yeah, I think I take it seriously. Scouting is my ministry and I do that instead of being more involved in my church. My troop meets there, so I feel I am making a contribution to the youth of my faith community. I didn't mean to wave any red flags, although it is clear I generally wave them more than the white ones ;^)

I enjoy mixing it up with you. And yes, you are in my prayers.

"by the way.....

who came up with Science, and who came up with the Bible? If God wrote one and man the other, who do you think is right? if man wrote them both,then how can we possibly know what God has to say?"

I think there is a profound difference between our traditions. My tradition says man wrote but the word was inspired. I think your tradition would have more of a copyist view, i.e., the books were dictated or something like that. The

understanding of the people responsible for recording these words must be taken into account. I will agree that such an understanding is frought with difficulty. This is especially true for Genesis because it appears there is much that comes to us through a long oral tradition that was not written down until much later. These concepts are avoided like the plague in your tradition, or so I suppose. And your approach meets with reproach in mine.

"A scientist, sir, you are not."

Never said I was. A student of science with an interest in psuedo-science (creationism) I am, indeed.

Evolution would predict the resistance I gave as examples. The population responds to the environmental pressure that favors certain individuals. Certainly, such resistance comes at a cost to the individual and when the pressure is removed the resistant individuals may not be favored. The peppered moth example showed exactly that. The history of the earth has shown a number of longterm changes in the environment that have irreversibly shifted these populations.

"punctuated equalibrium? sir, that one was thought up when the creationists called the hand of the evolutionists..."

Please don't flatter the creationists. This theory was developed in response to the fossil record not the unsupported claims of creationists. Real scientists don't take such arguments seriously except in the political or legal arenas, which has been where creationists have chosen to fight their battles.

"Here is one I like. show me ONE example of any specie changing the number of Chromosomes"

Actually, one of the links I gave ScoutParent lists several such examples.

"take hydrogen and oxygen. they are difficult to break apart. it takes more energy to break them apart than they gave up when they combined. thus, water is water in our universe"

I suspected that you from an alternative universe. In mine we were able to break water into the constiuent components in my HS chem class.

"Darwin did not say that life came from mud, it was his followers some time later."

So you admit that abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution, glad you cleared that up. Oops, I guess you changed your mind...

"Sir, it is indeed the modern evolutionary theory that says that life came from the primordal ooze..."

The theory of evolution? I think, no, I know you are mistaken. Yes, there are scientists doing work on abiogenesis, but that is a different area of science. One that does not directly address the evolution. Let's keep our arguments to one theory at a time...

It is clear that you have some trouble with the scientific definition of theory. Nothing is proven in science. If you want proofs, do your geometry homework. Science is tentative. The theory of evolution could possibly be overturned by observation tomorrow at noon. Is that likely, no. Will our understanding of how it works in detail change over the next few years? That I would bet on.

"Could you be a little more specific? It's a pretty big leap from that small step to us."

That is true. But it is on small steps like this that evolutionary development is based.

"Why does bacteria remain bacteria in all laboratory experiments conducted? Of course they were trying to simulate evolution with the fruit fly. The fruit fly is the perfect candidate because of quickly they reproduce."

You still won't read those links. They explain alot about speciation. The experiments they do are to UNDERSTAND evolution. The scientists see the evidence for the theory from numerous sources. They want to understand how it works, not produce a new species. That being said there is literature sited in at least one of the links mentioning speciation events observed in the laboratory.

"The fact is harmful mutations occur in many species and of course those cause dysgenisis not evolution. Beneficial mutations are the pipe dream of a lessening number of die hard evolutionists."

Actually, beneficial mutations are quite common. Drug resistant bacteria and pesticide resistant insects being a couple of examples observed in nature. Mutations can be beneficial, harmful or neutral. Actually, the pipe dream is yours. Evolution is accepted by nearly all scientists and their number grows every year. There are a few creationist scientists. But those that actually are working in scientific fields are extremely rare and they never try to publish in peer reviewed journals. Why the self-censorship?

"Evolution has never passed any tests and has not been even close to being substantiated. Pig teeth, aboriginal heads (used as missing link), arthritic human remains( used as human predecessors) do not a theory make. A false religion, yes, but not a theory."

Pig teeth refer to Nebraska man. Touted in the press but never published in the journals. An error soon corrected by science. The aboriginal head issue I dealt with and asked you for a source, because it looked like it was a misrepresentation on your part. The arthritic human is the original Neaderthal. Is he an ancestor? Most scientist would say no at this time. Is he anatomically modern human? Close, but no - a separate species. Neaderthal remains are not that uncommon, but you won't hear that listening to "Moore on Life".

Evolution is a scientific theory not a religion. I go to church on Sunday. I may go to the Science Museum after, but it is not religious service. You really should read something other than the creationist tracts that you keep pushing my way. Start with those links. I still want you to give me a scientifically viable alternative to the theory of evolution. I assume you still haven't found one...

"Okay, lets try this, please explain how a one cell creature became more complex."

Evolution works by selecting the better adapted individual in a population. The cell reproduces by dividing. Over time a population of these individual cells survive better when they remain connected in a colony. A small step, but one that indicates greater complexity. And this is exactly the kind of thing we find when we go back to the most ancient forms.

"Let's see, why is that after applying radiation to fruit flies to stimulate the evolutionary process, the best scientists can come up with is a fruit fly with an extra set of useless wings that render the fly incapable of flying or supporting itself?"

What was the real purpose of the experiment? They probably weren't trying to create a new species. They probably got flies with different colored eyes and extra antennae, too. I really don't think the wings are the best scientists come up with. Look around the world. They have done a lot to provide for a better world.

Still waiting for your theory. And I really think you should read those links.

DeMann,

Finally, on your view of the Bible. Not every Christian reads Genesis the way you do. It is not a requirement for membership in all churches. I see very important truths in Genesis, but I don't believe it is an account of the origin of the earth and life that is historically accurate or scientifically valid. Your view would put every believer on the horns of a dilema. Accept my view or deny God. Sorry, that view does not speak to me or for me.

DeMann,

A theory in science has a different meaning than the word does in everyday speech. An idea that is considered a theory in science has been proposed and tested and explains the observations made in the world. Evolution has met all of the criteria and has been tested for nearly a century and a half. It is as solidly accepted as a theory can be. A theory is not fact. It is provisional explanation.

The claim you make about science requiring repeatability is a rhetorical trick. It is kind of along the lines of Ken Hamm's question, "Were you there?" It reflects a lack of understanding of how science is done in this field.

Sorry DeMann,

I can't trust you on your reading of thermodynamics. For your argurment to be of any use, you need a closed system and no energy inputs. Get up from the computer and go outside. Look up at the sun. Think. Then come back in and type me a reply that says, "You were right, don't trust me on this one."

And I didn't even have to ask a college professor for help...

"3) Firstpusk talks of needing another alternative of science. well.....Louis Pasteur did that. he proved that the idea of spontaneous generation was false."

Sorry DeMann,

This has nothing to do with evolution. This argument could be applied to the question of abiogenesis, the origin of life itself, but even this would be a stretch.

Evolution explains the diversity of life after its appearance. The formulation you present is the classic creationist technique of redefining the term, in this case evolution, into something it is not.

Even if I were to grant you that Pastuer's work means that life could not develop naturally, that would not refute evolution. Also, you aren't presenting an alternative theory for the development of diversity in life on earth, much less its initial appearance.

The problem for creationism is moving beyond intellectual rock throwing to actually building a positive framework that explains the world we see. Creationist arguments are based on a crude formula that insists the science can't be true so you have to accept a literal reading of Genesis. You aren't even throwing rocks at the right house.

YoungBlood,

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has been used by creationists for quite a long time. It has been thoroughly refuted for at least two decades. The argument keeps popping up often in slightly varied form. It sounds like you have been exposed to a variation from the newest form of creationism to evolve, Intelligent Design. This form conflates evolution, thermodynamics and information theory. Don't feel bad, you are the first guy confused by this stuff. I know you won't be the last...

Nice SNIP, ScoutParent,

the whole quote should read:

"Why do you need to know what church I go to? If you need to know it, I will tell you. First you need to provide the answer to my question. If you can't provide me with a viable scientific alternative to evolution, admit it. Then I'll even tell you the name of my dog and favorite brand canoe paddle."

I assume you are admitting that you can't provide me with the viable scientific theory I have requested the first time back on September 24. The day before you said, "And of course there are always other viable scientific theories--some we may not be aware of yet but are we so vain as to think we have all the answers." I am not asking for all of the answers, just one. You told me I may not be aware of these other theories. Do you know of any or were you just blowing smoke?

The IQ, biology and theology test posts by you seem only to be an effort to cover up this inability to provide the answer or admit you were wrong. Just own up, you will feel better about it.