RunRyder RC
WATCH
 98 pages [ <<    <     17      18     ( 19 )     20      21     NEXT    >> ] 51872 views POST REPLY
HomeOff Topics News & Politics › Understanding Evolution
08-27-2013 03:11 AM  5 years agoPost 361
Thomas L Erb

rrKey Veteran

Alliance ohio

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Here is a good article discribing evolution vers creation and how it is taught in public schools without religious overtones. Good read

Articles
 
Send This
Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)
by Duane Gish, Ph.D.

This impact pamphlet was written by a scientist, and a science educator, and reviewed by an attorney, to provide a brief summary of the scientific evidence supporting creation. The text materials and references listed at the end together give a more thorough discussion of this scientific evidence.

Introduction

Public schools in many localities are teaching two scientific models - the creation model and the evolution model of the origin of the universe, of life, and of man. There is apparent scientific evidence for creation, which is summarized in this pamphlet, just as there is apparent scientific evidence for evolution. The purpose of this pamphlet is to summarize the evidence that shows that:

"The creation model is at least as scientific as the evolution model, and is at least as nonreligious as the evolution model."
This scientific evidence for both models can be taught in public schools without any mention of religious doctrine, whether the Bible or the Humanist Manifesto. There are text materials and teacher handbooks that have been prepared for a fair presentation of both models, creation and evolution. There are also seminars and audiovisuals for training teachers to offer both models of origins.

"This scientific evidence both for creation and for evolution can and must be taught without any religious doctrine, whether the Bible or the Humanist Manifesto."
"Creation-science proponents want public schools to teach all the scientific data, censoring none, but do not want any religious doctrine to be brought into science classrooms."
Definitions of the Creation Model and the Evolution Model

The scientific model of creation, in summary, includes the scientific evidence for a sudden creation of complex and diversified kinds of life, with systematic gaps persisting between different kinds and with genetic variation occurring within each kind since that time. The scientific model of evolution, in summary, includes the scientific evidence for a gradual emergence of present life kinds over aeons of time, with emergence of complex and diversified kinds of life from simpler kinds and ultimately from nonliving matter. The creation model questions vertical evolution, which is the emergence of complex from simple and change between kinds, but it does not challenge what is often called horizontal evolution or microevolution, which creationists call genetic variation or species or subspecies formation within created kinds. The following chart lists seven aspects of the scientific model of creation and of the scientific model of evolution:

The creation model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that: The evolution model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:
I. The universe and the Solar system were suddenly created. I. The universe and the solar system emerged by naturalistic processes.
II. Life was suddenly created. II. Life emerged from nonlife by naturalistic processes.
III. All present living kinds of animals and plants have remained fixed since creation, other than extinctions, and genetic variation in originally created kinds has only occurred within narrow limits. III. All present kinds emerged from simpler earlier kinds, so that single-celled organisms evolved into invertebrates, then vertebrates, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then primates, including man.
IV. Mutation and natural selection are insufficient to have brought about any emergence of present living kinds from a simple primordial organism. IV. Mutation and natural selection have brought about the emergence of present complex kinds from a simple primordial organism.
V. Man and apes have a separate ancestry. V. Man and apes emerged from a common ancestor.
VI. The earth's geologic features appear to have been fashioned largely by rapid, catastrophic processes that affected the earth on a global and regional scale (catastrophism). VI. The earth's geologic features were fashioned largely by slow, gradual processes, with infrequent catastrophic events restricted to a local scale (uniformitarianism).
VII. The inception of the earth and of living kinds may have been relatively recent. VII. The inception of the earth and then of life must have occurred several billion years ago.
I. The Universe and the Solar System Were Suddenly Created.

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total quantity of matter and energy in the universe is constant. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy always tend to change from complex and ordered states to disordered states. Therefore the universe could not have created itself, but could not have existed forever, or it would have run down long ago. Thus the universe, including matter and energy, apparently must have been created. The "big-bang" theory of the origin of the universe contradicts much physical evidence and seemingly can only be accepted by faith.1 This was also the case with the past cosmogonies theories of evolutionists that have been discarded, such as Hoyle’s steady-state theory. The universe has "obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design." Similarly, the electron is materially inconceivable and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects," yet a "strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer." "The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction," in the words of Dr. Wernher von Braun, the renowned late physicist in the NASA space program.

II. Life Was Suddenly Created.

Life appears abruptly and in complex forms in the fossil record,2 and gaps appear systematically in the fossil record between various living kinds.3 These facts indicate that basic kinds of plants and animals were created. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that things tend to go from order to disorder (entropy tends to increase) unless added energy is directed by a conversion mechanism (such as photosynthesis), whether a system is open or closed. Thus simple molecules and complex protein, DNA, and RNA molecules seemingly could not have evolved spontaneously and naturalistically into a living cell;4 such cells apparently were created. The laboratory experiments related to theories on the origin of life have not even remotely approached the synthesis of life from nonlife, and the extremely limited results have depended on laboratory conditions that are artificially imposed and extremely improbable.5 The extreme improbability of these conditions and the relatively insignificant results apparently show that life did not emerge by the process that evolutionists postulate.

"One example of the scientific evidence for creation is the sudden appearance of complex fossilized life in the fossil record, and the systematic gaps between fossilized kinds in that record. The most rational inference from this evidence seemingly is that life was created and did not evolve."
III. All Present Living Kinds of Animals and Plants Have Remained Fixed Since Creation, Other than Extinctions, and Genetic Variation in Originally Created Kinds Has Only Occurred within Narrow Limits.

Systematic gaps occur between kinds in the fossil record.6 None of the intermediate fossils that would be expected on the basis of the evolution model have been found between single celled organisms and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and birds or mammals, or between "lower" mammals and primates.7 While evolutionists might assume that these intermediate forms existed at one time, none of the hundreds of millions of fossils found so far provide the missing links. The few suggested links such as Archoeopteryx and the horse series have been rendered questionable by more detailed data. Fossils and living organisms are readily subjected to the same criteria of classification. Thus present kinds of animals and plants apparently were created, as shown by the systematic fossil gaps and by the similarity of fossil forms to living forms. A kind may be defined as a generally interfertile group of organisms that possesses variant genes for a common set of traits but that does not interbreed with other groups of organisms under normal circumstances. Any evolutionary change between kinds (necessary for the emergence of complex from simple organisms) would require addition of entirely new traits to the common set and enormous expansion of the gene pool over time, and could not occur from mere ecologically adaptive variations of a given trait set (which the creation model recognizes).

IV. Mutation and Natural Selection Are Insufficient To Have Brought About Any Emergence of Present Living Kinds from a Simple Primordial Organism.

The mathematical probability that random mutation and natural selection ultimately produced complex living kinds from a simpler kind is infinitesimally small even after many billions of years.8 Thus mutation and natural selection apparently could not have brought about evolution of present living kinds from a simple first organism. Mutations are always harmful or at least nearly always harmful in an organism's natural environment.9 Thus the mutation process apparently could not have provided the postulated millions of beneficial mutations required for progressive evolution in the supposed five billion years from the origin of the earth until now, and in fact would have produced an overwhelming genetic load over hundreds of millions of years that would have caused degeneration and extinction. Natural selection is a tautologous concept (circular reasoning), because it simply requires the fittest organisms to leave the most offspring and at the same time it identifies the fittest organisms as those that leave the most offspring. Thus natural selection seemingly does not provide a testable explanation of how mutations would produce more fit organisms.10

V. Man and Apes Have a Separate Ancestry.

Although highly imaginative "transitional forms" between man and ape-like creatures have been constructed by evolutionists based on very fragmentary evidence, the fossil record actually documents the separate origin of primates in general,11 monkeys,12 apes,13 and men. In fact, Lord Zuckerman (not a creationist) states that there are no "fossil traces" of a transformation from an ape-like creature to man.14 The fossils of Neanderthal Man were once considered to represent a primitive sub-human (Homo neanderthalensis), but these "primitive" features are now known to have resulted from nutritional deficiencies and pathological conditions; he is now classified as fully human.15 Ramapithecus was once considered to be partially man-like, but is now known to be fully ape-like.16 Australopithecus, in the view of some leading evolutionists, was not intermediate between ape and man and did not walk upright.17 The strong bias of many evolutionists in seeking a link between apes and man is shown by the near-universal acceptance of two "missing links" that were later proved to be a fraud in the case of Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus) and a pig's tooth in the case of Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus).18

VI. The Earth's Geologic Features Were Fashioned Largely by Rapid, Catastrophic Processes that Affected the Earth on a Global and Regional Scale (Catastrophism).

Catastrophic events have characterized the earth's history. Huge floods, massive asteroid collisions, large volcanic eruptions, devastating landslides, and intense earthquakes have left their marks on the earth. Catastrophic events appear to explain the formation of mountain ranges, deposition of thick sequences of sedimentary rocks with fossils, initiation of the glacial age, and extinction of dinosaurs and other animals. Catastrophism (catastrophic changes), rather than uniformitarianism (gradual changes), appears to be the best interpretation of a major portion of the earth's geology. Geologic data reflect catastrophic flooding. Evidences of rapid catastrophic water deposition include fossilized tree trunks that penetrate numerous sedimentary layers (such as at Joggins, Nova Scotia), widespread pebble and boulder layers (such as the Shinarump Conglomerate of the southwestern United States), fossilized logs in a single layer covering extensive areas (such as Petrified Forest National Park), and whole closed clams that were buried alive in mass graveyards in extensive sedimentary layers (such as at Glen Rose, Texas). Uniform processes such as normal river sedimentation, small volcanoes, slow erosion, and small earthquakes appear insufficient to explain large portions of the geologic record. Even the conventional uniformitarian geologists are beginning to yield to evidences of rapid and catastrophic processes.19

VII. The Inception of the Earth and of Living Kinds May Have Been Relatively Recent.

Radiometric dating methods (such as the uranium-lead and potassium-argon methods) depend on three assumptions: (a) that no decay product (lead or argon) was present initially or that the initial quantities can be accurately estimated, (b) that the decay system was closed through the years (so that radioactive material or product did not move in or out of the rock), and (c) that the decay rate was constant over time.20 Each of these assumptions may be questionable: (a) some nonradiogenic lead or argon was perhaps present initially;21 (b) the radioactive isotope (uranium or potassium isotopes) can perhaps migrate out of, and the decay product (lead or argon) can migrate into, many rocks over the years;22 and (c) the decay rate can perhaps change by neutrino bombardment and other causes.23 Numerous radiometric estimates have been hundreds of millions of years in excess of the true age. Thus ages estimated by the radiometric dating methods may very well be grossly in error. Alternate dating methods suggest much younger ages for the earth and life. Estimating by the rate of addition of helium to the atmosphere from radioactive decay, the age of the earth appears to be about 10,000 years, even allowing for moderate helium escape. Based on the present rate of the earth's cooling, the time required for the earth to have reached its present thermal structure seems to be only several tens of millions of years, even assuming that the earth was initially molten.24 Extrapolating the observed rate of apparently exponential decay of the earth's magnetic field, the age of the earth or life seemingly could not exceed 20,000 years.25 Thus the inception of the earth and the inception of life may have been relatively recent when all the evidence is considered.26

"There is scientific evidence for creation from cosmology, thermodynamics, paleontology, biology, mathematical probability, geology, and other sciences."
"There are many scientists in each field who conclude that the scientific data best support the creation model, not the evolution model."
References

1. Slusher, Harold S., The Origin of the Universe, San Diego: Institute for Creation Research (ICR), 1978.
2. E.g., Kay, Marshall & Colbert, Edwin H, Stratigraphy and Life History, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1965, p, 102;
Simpson, George G., The Major Features of Evolution, New York: Columbia University Press, 1953, p 360: [Paleontologists recognize] that most new species, genera and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.
3. Note 6 infra.
4. E.g., Smith, Charles J. "Problems with Entropy in Biology," Biosystems, V.7, 1975, pp 259, 264. "The earth, moon, and sun constitute an essentialy closed thermodynamic system..." Simpson, George G., "Uniformitariarisrn," in Hecht, Max A. & Steeres, William C., eds., Essays in Evolution and Genetics, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1970, p. 43.
5. Gish, Duane T., Speculations and Experiments Related to the Origin of Life (A Critique), San Diego: ICR, 1972,
6. E.g., Simpson, George G., "The History of Life," in Tax, Sol, ed. Evolution after Darwin: The Evolution of Life, Chicago:Univ. of Chicago Press, 1960 pp. 117, 149:
Gaps among known orders, classes, and phyla are systematic and almost always large.
7. E.g., Kitts, David S., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution V. 28 1974, pp.458, 467:
Evolution requires intermediate forms betvveen species and paleontology does not provide them. For examples of the lack of transitional fossils, Ommaney, F. D. The Fishes, New York: Time Life, Inc., 1964, p 60 (invertebrates to vertebrates); Romer, Alfred S., Vertebrate Paleontology, Chicago Univ. of Chicago Press, 31 ed., 1966, p.36 (vertebrate fish to amphibians) Swinton, W.E., Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, Marshall, A.J., ed., New York Academic Press, V.1, 1960, p.1 (reptiles to birds); Simpson, George G., Tempo and Mode in Evolution, New York: Columbia Univ., Press. 1944, p.l05 (reptiles to mammals); Simons, E.L., Annals N.Y. Acad. Science, V.167, 1969, p.319 (mammals to primates).
8. E.g., Eden, Murray. "Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory," in Moorhead, Paul S. & Kaplan, Martin M., eds., Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Philadelphia: Wistar Inst. Press, 1967, p,109:
It is our contention that if 'random' is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilisticpoint of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws...
9. E.g., Martin, C.P., "A Non-Geneticist looks at Evolution," American Scientist, V. 41, 1954, p. 100
10. E.g., Popper, Karl, Objective Knowledge, Oxford: Clarendon Press 1975 p. 242
11. E.g., Kelso, A.J., Physical Anthropology, 2nd ed., Philadelphia, J.B. Lippincott, 1974. p 142
12. E.g., Ibid., pp.150,151
13. E.g., Simons, E.L., Annals N.Y. Acad. Science. V.102, 1962, p.293, Simons, E.L., "The Early Relatives of Man," Scientfic American, V.211, July 1964 p 50
14. E.g., Zuckerman, Sir Solly, Beyond the Ivory Tower, New York, Taplinger Pub. Co., 1970, p.64.
15. E.q., Ivanhoe, Francis, "Was Virchow Right about Neandert[h]al?", Nature V. 227, 1970, p. 577
16. E.g., Zuckerman, pp. 75-94; Eckhardt, Robert B., "Population Genetics and Human Origins", Scientific American, V.226, 1972, pp.94,101.
17. E.g., Oxnard, Charles E., "Human Fossils: New Views of Old Bones," American Biology Teacher, V.41, 1979, p.264.
18. E.g., Straus, William L., "The Great Piltdown Hoax," Science, V.119, 1954, p.265 (Piltdown Man); Gregory, William K., "Hesperopithecus Apparently Not an Ape Nor a Man," Science, V.66,1927, p. 579 (Nebraska Man).
19. E.g., Bhattacharyya, A., Sarkar, S. & Chanda, S.K., "Storm Deposits in the Late Proterozoic Lower Bhander Sandstone of ... India," Journal of Sedimentary Petrology. V.50,1980, p. 1327:
Until recently, noncatastrophic uniformitarianism had dominated sedimentologic thought reflecting that sediment formation and dispersal owe their genesis chiefly to the operation of day-to-day geologic events. As a result, catastrophic events, e.g.. storms, earthquakes, etc., have been denied their rightful place in ancient and recent sedimentary records. Of late, however, there has been a welcome rejuvenation of [the] concept of catastrophism in geologic thought.
J. Harlan Bretz recently stated, on receiving the Penrose Medal (the highest geology award in America), "Perhaps, I can be credited with reviving and demystifying legendary Catastrophism and challenging a too rigorous Uniformitarianism." Geological Society of America, "GSA Medals and Awards," GSA News & Information, V. 2, 1980, p.40.
20. E.g., Stansfield, Williarn D., The Science of Evolution, New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., 1977, pp. 83-84; Faul, Henry, Ages of Rocks, Planets and Stars, New York: McGraw-Hill Co., 1966, pp. 19-20, 41-49. See generally Slusher, Harold S., Critique of Radiometnic Dating, San Diego: ICR, 1973.
21. E.g., Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, New York: Pergamon Press, 1960, pp.138,139.
22. E.g., Faul, p.61.
23. E.g., Jueneman, Frederick, "Scientific Speculation." Industrial Research, Sept.1972, p.15.
24. Slusher, Harold S. & Gamwell, Thomas P., The Age of the Earth, San Diego: ICR, 1978.
25. Barnes, Thomas G., Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field, San Diego: ICR, 1973.
26. Slusher, Harold S., Age of the Cosmos, San Diego: ICR, 1980; Slusher, Harold S. & Duursma, Stephen J., The Age of the Solar System, San Diego: ICR, 1978.
"There are text materials and teacher handbooks for public schools that have been prepared for a fair presentation of the scientific evidences for both the creation model and the evolution model. There are also seminars and audiovisuals for training teachers to offer both models of origins."
The Authors:

*Dr. Gish earned his Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley in Biochernistry. He has worked as a research biochemist with Cornell University Medical College, the Virus Laboratory, University of California - Berkeley, and The Upjohn Co. Dr. Gish collaborated with one Nobel Prize recipient in elucidating the chemical structure of the protein of tobacco mosaic virus, and with another Nobel Prize winner in synthesis of one of the hormones of the pituitary gland. He presently is Vice President of the Institute for Creation Research.

**Other staff scientists at ICR who helped prepare this summary include Dr. Henry M. Morris, (PhD.), University of Minnesota, Hydraulics; Dr. Kenneth B. Cumming (Ph.D.), Harvard University, Biology; Dr. Gary E. Parker (Ph.D.), Ball State University. Biology; Dr. Theodore W. Rybka (Ph.D.), University of Oklahoma, Physics; and Dr. Harold S. Slusher (M.S.), University of Oklahoma, Geophysics.

***Dr. Bliss earned his Ed.D. from the University of Sarasota in Science Education, with a cognate emphasis in curriculum, instruction, and evaluation in science education. He wrote his dissertation on teaching the two-model approach (comparing evolution-science and creation-science) in public schools. He taught high-school physics, chemistry, and biology for many years and was the Director of Science Education for the large public school district in Racine, Wisconsin. He served as the science consultant for Educational Consulting Associates and for several major publishers of science textbooks, as well as for the University of Wisconsin Research and Development film series. He has written textbook materials for public school instruction in the creation model and the evolution noodel.

****Mr. Bird earned his J.D. from Yale Law School with numerous studies in Constitutional Law, publishing legal articles in the Yale Law Journal and the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy on the constitutionality of public schools teaching the scientific evidence for creation along with that for evolution. He was an Editor of the Yale Law Journal, and was the recipient of the Egger Prize of Yale Law School for his article published there.

You cannot legalize morality. It's internal not external. You either have it or you don't.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-27-2013 03:18 AM  5 years agoPost 362
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Now your a liar Tom

Your ignoring previous questions like typical creationist trash glossing over facts
Public schools in many localities are teaching two scientific models - the creation model and the evolution model of the origin of the universe, of life, and of man
LIE

Creation has been outlawed from school
There is apparent scientific evidence for creation
LIE

It was beat down in a court of law.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-27-2013 03:19 AM  5 years agoPost 363
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Who is behind this evolutionary propaganda?

Who exactly lacks scientific integrity?

Who is the real liar here? Is it the Smithsonian? The encyclopedia? Or UC Berkley a very credible university there Tom?

Or is some biased religious website Tom?

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

Ardi (ARA-VP-6/500) is the designation of the fossilized skeletal remains of an Ardipithecus ramidus, an early human-like species 4.4 million years old. It is the most complete early hominid specimen, with most of the skull, teeth, pelvis, hands and feet,[1] more complete than the previously known Australopithecus afarensis specimen called "Lucy." In all, 110 different pieces of fossilized bone were found. Ardi weighed about 110 pounds and could be up to 4 feet tall. Although she is a biped, Ardi had both opposable big toes and thumbs in order to climb trees.
Although it is not known whether Ardi's species developed into Homo sapiens, the discovery is of great significance and added much to the debate on Ardipithecus and its place in human evolution. Ardi cannot be a common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans.

Chimpanzee are specialised for grasping trees. Ardi's feet are better suited for walking because the middle of the foot is more stable, while a chimpanzee's foot is more flexible.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence...ithecus-ramidus
Ardipithecus ramidus was first reported in 1994; in 2009, scientists announced a partial skeleton, nicknamed ‘Ardi’. The foot bones in this skeleton indicate a divergent large toe combined with a rigid foot – it's still unclear what this means concerning bipedal behavior. The pelvis, reconstructed from a crushed specimen, is said to show adaptations that combine tree-climbing and bipedal activity. The discoverers argue that the ‘Ardi’ skeleton reflects a human-African ape common ancestor that was not chimpanzee-like

https://middleawash.berkeley.edu/mi...il_hominids.php

The Middle Awash research project has recovered the remains of fossil hominids spanning the last six million years. From oldest to youngest ("Ma" means millions of years) these are:

• 5.2-5.8 Ma. Ardipithecus kadabba is one of the earliest known hominids, from the Late Miocene. It was first announced in 2001, and further remains were announced in 2004.

• 4.4 Ma. Ardipithecus ramidus was first recognized as a new genus and species from the Middle Awash in 1994 and 1995.

• 4.1 Ma. The species Australopithecus anamensis is widely considered to be the ancestor of Au. afarensis. It has been found in the Middle Awash study area at upper Aramis and at Asa Issie, announced in 2006.

• 3.4 Ma. Australopithecus afarensis (the "Lucy" species), was named for the Afar region and people in 1978, three years before the Middle Awash project was initiated. Discoveries of this species made in the Middle Awash at Maka were announced in 1981 and 1993.

• 2.5 Ma. Australopithecus garhi is another species first recognized in the Middle Awash and found in sediments containing the first evidence for butchery of large mammals with stone tools. It was announced in 1999.

• 1.0 Ma. Homo erectus is a species known from across the Old World. Remains of this handaxe-maker were found at Bouri in the Middle Awash and announced in 2002.

• 0.16 Ma (160,000 years). The solidly dated and anatomically distinctive evidence of Homo sapiens was recovered from the Herto Bouri area and first announced as a subspecies "idaltu" in 2003.
.
.
.
.
Why would UC Berkley lie Tom, or are you posting lies?
creation is outlawed from public schools Tom, yet evolution is taught worldwide as higher education in every university everywhere!

Answer Tom, or bow out

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-27-2013 03:26 AM  5 years agoPost 364
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

hey LIAR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creati...ublic_education

Globally, evolution is taught in science courses with limited controversy, with the exception of a few areas of the United States and several Islamic fundamentalist countries

Tom your kind just got tagged with islamic fundies !!!!

In the United States, the Supreme Court has ruled the teaching of creationism as science in public schools to be unconstitutional, irrespective of how it may be purveyed in theological or religious instruction. In the United States, intelligent design has been represented as an alternative explanation to evolution in recent decades, but its "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions" have been ruled unconstitutional by a lower court

LIAR TOM

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-27-2013 03:54 AM  5 years agoPost 365
helimatt

rrElite Veteran

Lafayette, IN

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Whale evolution
Because it was brought up, wrt the "vestigal" whale pelvis etc, I thought it'd be interesting to look further- whale fossil evolutionary links are purported to be among the most compelling evidence of large changes in morphology. The idea is that they were once land creatures.

One of the early animals given the order cetacean is the genus Pakicetus. They were land dwelling, four-footed mammals with no aquatic features. Several university and scientific articles called them "land whales"- yup . The ONLY thing that lands them in the cetacean order is the structure of the inner ear, which is similar to other cetaceans. However the ear structure appears in every other way to be only adapted for land/air hearing. No other whale-like features at all from the fossil remains. They apparently look a bit like hyenas or large rats, size like a medium dog.

Early illustrations of this "land whale" (not shown here) were made when only a partial skull had been found. Since they were looking for whale ancestors, they painted a nice picture of Pakicetus diving deep, with fins and a long alligator-like tail, scooping up a school of fish. Hmmm. Later full skeleton found this was bogus. But this animal is prominent in the whale evolution tale.

The real break through, however is the Rodhocetus. The skeleton and illustrations (such as the one on page 14 this thread) show this animal in a swimming pose, with long tail, and perhaps smooth dolphin-like skin. Some illustrations have famously indicated it had a fluke, and fore-flippers or webbed feet. This is touted as the clear link- a mammal that could walk on land, but had structures for water propulsion like a whale. Even the tail vertebrae are noted as large, to allow strong muscle attachment necessary for the fluke/tail.

Problem is- none of those features exist. Not the tail vertebrae, not the fins, not the fluke. Dr. Phil Gingerich (U. Michigan), the discoverer and the person responsible for reconstruction and the "fleshing out" of Rodhocetus added the fluke, tail, and flippers. When challenged, he admitted that he "speculated that it might have had a fluke" even though there were no fossils to show one way or another. Since the museum and textbook illustrations were made, the forelimbs of this animal have been recovered, showing no flipper or such aquatic structure. He has since admitted that it "may not have had a fluke after all" and that the for-legs are best suited for land, not fin-like in any way. I appreciate his (belated) honesty.

All the text here is written by me- the pictures from Wiki. I added the captions. You can research this yourself quite easily, but be prepared to dig into some technical articles.

The whale "evolution" evidence is not really evidence at all, but at best hopeful speculation. On the face of it, a bit absurd.

Never, ever, ever, ever give up.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-27-2013 04:25 AM  5 years agoPost 366
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

More creationist lies again?
Since the museum and textbook illustrations were made, the forelimbs of this animal have been recovered, showing no flipper or such aquatic structure.
Two different species the forelimbs are to another species

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

Of a recently discovered species (Rodhocetus balochistanensis), the ankle bones were recovered, further strengthening the already well-founded link to artiodactyls, and weakening the link to mesonychids

looks like creationist lying trash are not only, not giving all the info, they purposely go for gaps in scientist knowledge as scientist try and rebuild what was actually in the past.

Rodhocetus (from the mid-Eocene) was named from the flank of the Rodho ‘bald’ part of the Zinda Pir anticlinorium on the east side of the Sulaiman Range in Pakistan. The first species to be discovered (Rodhocetus kasrani) exhibited such features as a large pelvis fused to the vertebrae, hind legs, and differentiated teeth.

The first fossils of R. kasrani were found in Balochistan Province, Pakistan in 2001 by Philip Gingerich. Dating from about 47 million years ago, they are one of a series of recent discoveries, including the pakicetids, which have thrown considerable light on the previously mysterious evolutionary origin of whales

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-27-2013 04:37 AM  5 years agoPost 367
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

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

Anyone can read this page, and you will notice, we could concede to creationist this one animal listed above, and it changes nothing.

Creationist paint partial pictures from ignorance, knowing theist following creation are not scientifically literate in any sense, generally speaking. The ones that are smart knowingly lie out of religious bias.

The cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) are marine mammal descendants of land mammals. Their terrestrial origins are indicated by:
Their need to breathe air from the surface;
The bones of their fins, which resemble the limbs of land mammals
The vertical movement of their spines, characteristic more of a running mammal than of the horizontal movement of fish.

The question of how a group of land mammals became adapted to aquatic life was a mystery until discoveries starting in the late 1970s in Pakistan revealed several stages in the transition of cetaceans from land to sea.

Indohyus

Pakicetidae

Ambulocetidae

Remingtonocetidae

Protocetidae

Basilosauridae

Dorudontinae

Are all transitional species to whales

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-27-2013 04:50 AM  5 years agoPost 368
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

http://guardianlv.com/2013/08/lead-...lligent-design/

A leading creationist and the president of “Answers in Genesis,” Ken Ham, has said that there is no scientific proof of intelligent design. In a radio advertisement last week, Ham told listeners that scientific proof is not necessary for belief in creationism because the bible is all the proof that’s needed.

Which is very ignorant because science doesn't prove anything. It observes and reports.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-27-2013 04:57 AM  5 years agoPost 369
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-27-2013 05:34 AM  5 years agoPost 370
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-27-2013 06:11 AM  5 years agoPost 371
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-27-2013 11:33 AM  5 years agoPost 372
Thomas L Erb

rrKey Veteran

Alliance ohio

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Here is a good article about invertebrates.

I just love the summery at the end.

http://www.icr.org/article/7237/

Summary

Looking at these popular invertebrates, we see they are amazingly sophisticated and, as predicted by creationists, complete wherever they are found in the fossil record.23 There is clearly variation within these separate groups, as in, for example, the large number of trilobite families. But these designed creatures remain within their basic kinds and display a discontinuity of both form and function.

Over 150 years have passed since the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species, and yet the secular community of scientists is unable to provide a compelling evolutionary sequence for any of the various kinds of invertebrates. The missing links are still missing. (scripture edited here )

You cannot legalize morality. It's internal not external. You either have it or you don't.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-27-2013 11:40 AM  5 years agoPost 373
Thomas L Erb

rrKey Veteran

Alliance ohio

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

A little off the topic ( sorry hoggy) but it has been foamingly expressed here and deserves rebuttal

CAN CREATION BE TAUGHT IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS?
Written by: Creation Today Tags: EducationDifficulty: Beginner
Not only can creation science be legally taught in the public schools, it can be taught right out of the Bible. The Bible can be used as a class textbook. We all know the effects of what happened in 1963 when the Bible was taken out, and evolution was put in to the schools. We have been deceived by that ACLU again! In 1963, the Supreme Court banned the use of the Bible to try to get kids saved, which is not good obviously, but it’s a lot better than what the ACLU has led us to believe. They did not throw the Bible out! We have thrown the Bible out because we have allowed ourselves to be deceived by the ACLU.
Rulings in Favor of Creation
In the landmark ruling of School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 225, (1963) the court held that, “it certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may be affected consistently with the First Amendment.”
In the ruling of Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 42 (1980), The Supreme Court stated that, “the Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like.”
In Florey v. Sioux Falls School District, 619 F.2d 1311, 1314 (8th Cir, 1980), the court found that permitting public school observances which include religious elements promotes the secular purpose of “advancing the student’s knowledge and appreciation of the role that our religious heritage has played in the social, cultural, and historical development of civilization.”
There are at least two other cases where the Supreme Court has ruled that the Bible may be used in its entirety for secular educational purposes such as history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, culture, and the morals on which this country was founded!
It is Legal to Teach Creation!
The Supreme Court never kicked the Bible out of schools in 1963. The problem is that Christians believed the lie that they did! The teachers are not allowed to try to convert students while on school time and property, but they can present creation. Now, it’s understandable that not being able to use the Bible to get people saved is discouraging. But, being able to use it to teach creation science or the morals that this country was founded on can and will reverse the current indoctrination!
Two states passed laws mandating that the schools teach creation. These laws were ruled unconstitutional. The teachers have always had the right to teach it. “The Supreme Court decision says only that the Louisiana law violates the constitutional separation of church and state: it does not say that no one can teach scientific creationism    and, unfortu- nately, many individual teachers do. Some school districts even require ‘equal time’ for creation and evolution.”1 However, in some cases, lower courts have misused this ruling to keep creation teaching out of science classes.
By law creation can be taught as an alternative origins theory, and the Bible can be used in schools. However, it would be wise for public school teachers to check with ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice, http://www.aclj.org, Jay Sekulow (757) 226-2489), or the National Legal Foundation (757) 463-6133, or the American Family Association Law Center (662) 844- 5036, or the Rutherford Institute (434) 978-3888 to get details and updates on this issue. The ACLU is busy threatening to bring law suits on school boards and districts. Funds are limited and officials are intimidated. The organizations in the reference section of this book under public schools would have good information and resources to help you formulate a wise plan of action. “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves; be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves” (Matthew 10:16).
Eugenie Scott, National Center for Science Education, Berkeley, California, Nature 329, 1987 p. 282 ↩

You cannot legalize morality. It's internal not external. You either have it or you don't.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-27-2013 12:11 PM  5 years agoPost 374
TurboRacer

rrVeteran

FL

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

If my daughter's school taught Creationism or any other religious beliefs, I'd be moving to get her to another school. School should teach facts and science, not fairy tales and lies.

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-27-2013 12:53 PM  5 years agoPost 375
helimatt

rrElite Veteran

Lafayette, IN

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Turbo, do you believe in the Land Whale?

Religion: from Merriam-Webster, 4th listed:
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Evolution,which cannot be tested, is a religion. Faith? Yes, believing what is not seen.

Never, ever, ever, ever give up.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-27-2013 01:33 PM  5 years agoPost 376
Hoggy42

rrNovice

Australia

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Ok so I have a lot to read back through. Firstly though Matt on the Lizards they have been studied at length and this is important given your last post. Evolution has been tested and tested again since the time of Darwin and is always confirmed. Further more due to these lizards we can see evolution in one life time.

Watch at YouTube

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-27-2013 01:38 PM  5 years agoPost 377
Hoggy42

rrNovice

Australia

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

To save me some time typing a couple of videos on fossils and genetics.

Watch at YouTube

Watch at YouTube

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-27-2013 02:10 PM  5 years agoPost 378
helimatt

rrElite Veteran

Lafayette, IN

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Yes, Hoggy, those croation island lizards did adapt- but genetically they have the same makeup- far as can be told because I don't see follow up reports. In anycase, this is hardly proof of changing even one supposed step in the "whale evolution" line- far too many large morphological changes that would require genetic changes for protien coding, controlling and "switching on" genes etc.

They should complete the lizard study by most up-to-date genetic makeup, then take a control group and a test group through differing conditions, like those on the island they were introduced to or similar, and watch for the morphological change to the muscles (which already existed) around the stomach/small intestine, and the head size etc. Then take those test and control groups, and repeat the genetic testing. That would be very interesting and may yield real useful understanding.

Yet I maintain, based on what was reported, no evolution, only adaptation. Could be called micro-evolution. They did NOT get new or altered genetic makeup necessary for large morphological changes such as getting a blow-hole, flukes, or the fatty-tissue mass (melon) used for under-water communication and echo-location in some whales.

I cannot see the vids or other things you posted while here at work (blocked). I'll check them out later.

Hope your child is getting better. Thanks for posting.

Never, ever, ever, ever give up.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-27-2013 02:42 PM  5 years agoPost 379
Hoggy42

rrNovice

Australia

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Yes, Hoggy, those croation island lizards did adapt- but genetically they have the same makeup
Matt see below quote
Researchers found that the lizards developed cecal valves—muscles between the large and small intestine—that slowed down food digestion in fermenting chambers, which allowed their bodies to process the vegetation's cellulose into volatile fatty acids.

"They evolved an expanded gut to allow them to process these leaves," Irschick said, adding it was something that had not been documented before. "This was a brand-new structure."

Along with the ability to digest plants came the ability to bite harder, powered by a head that had grown longer and wider.
That's one hell of an adaption you would indeed have to call it an evolution. Remember now we are 98-99% identical to Chimpanzees. That is to say we are pretty much genetically the same. You and I and every other Human being are 99.9% The same yet we are all very different.

There is no work around this from a creationist position.

Thanks for the concern guys my little Boy is ok he's just had a flu likewise myself and my wife it's just not been much fun as I'm sure you understand.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-27-2013 02:49 PM  5 years agoPost 380
Phaedrus

rrKey Veteran

S. Orange County, California

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

There is no work around this from a creationist position.
Sure there is.

"God Said It - They Believe It - And that Settles It"

No thinking required and all objective evidence can be rejected out of hand.

AMA Leader Member
Go FASST, or Go Home!!
Team Futaba

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 98 pages [ <<    <     17      18     ( 19 )     20      21     NEXT    >> ] 51872 views POST REPLY
HomeOff Topics News & Politics › Understanding Evolution
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 16  Topic Subscribe

Saturday, November 17 - 4:29 am - Copyright © 2000-2018 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

The RC discussion world needs to consolidate. RR is now one choice for that. Its software is cutting edge. It hosts on-topic advertising. Help RR increase traffic buy making suggestions, posting in RR's new areas (sites) and by spreading the word.

The RunRyder Difference

• Category system to allow Rep/Vendor postings.
• Classifieds with sold (hidden) category.
• Classifieds with separate view new.
• Answer PMs offsite via email reply.
• Member gallery photos with advanced scripting.
• Gallery photo viewer integrated into postings.
• Highly refined search with advanced back end.
• Hosts its own high end fast response servers.
• Hosts thousands of HD event coverage videos.
• Rewrote entire code base with latest technology.
• No off-topic (annoying) click bait advertising.
Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online