evolution vs......

Mike,Message 23 please. Again you completely miss the point. The point was being made that a prediction of evolution is that transitional forms will exist. Your hand waving response that fossils represent the same creatures just bigger is false on soooo many fronts as to make the mind boggle.There has been a trend identified after mass extinctions of increasing body size, which directly contradicts you. At the end of the Cretaceous all mammals were no bigger than mice, by the Eocene they were giants. So much for degeneration! How many gigantic sauropods, or tyrannosaurian exivalent were there in the Triassic? None. So much for degeneration. The equine phylogeny as it pertains to stratigraphy also shows a net increase in size, again, so much for degeneration. Surely poor old Hyracotherium would be the size of a thumbnail if degeneration had taken place.How many birds today have bony tails? How many flapping flying reptiles are there today? How many trilobites have you stepped on? Ever eaten bread made from the flour of a seed fern (extinct in the mesozoic)? How many armoured fish (arthrodires) have you eaten? The list goes on & on......There are forms that have no living representatives today.That said, there are bauplane that existed from antiquity, but, alas, I suspect for every one that you can show that has got smaller, I can show you another that has got larger, which entirely destroys your point regarding degeneration, right?You asked for evidence of evolution, & were given the existence of transitionals as one. You have yet to refute that line of evidence.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

first of all what i am a wiz in is bulls--t.

---

Hmmm... it is as I feared.Many people appear to be very proud of this, though I can't figure out why.

quote:

---

as for 'we just got lucky' this does not satisfy me i guess.

---

... doesn't really have to be satisfying. Yes, I know. It is a lot nicer to think that we are the product of somebody's magic-- well, I mean, unless you are Schopenhauer .

quote:

---

but i still think gravity is a fact

---

You are dangerously close to equivocating on this term. 'Gravity' meaning, as Dan suggested, 'stuff falls down' is one thing, and it is pretty blatantly obvious. But it doesn't explain anything. Basically, its is just a label. Now, 'gravity' as Newton meant it and as Einstein meant it, is a theory designed to explain why things fall down and under what conditions, etc. You might think about the diference between the two conceptions.

quote:

---

as for evolution we can see by tests creatures adapt but its not necessarily evolution

---

Really? Adaptation, if passed to the next generation, IS evolution. That's it. The end. Working out the exact relationships is tough but the idea is very very simple.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

'Really? Adaptation, if passed to the next generation, IS evolution'who said anything about being passed to the next generation,besides apples will be apples chickens will be chickens, show me when they changed and i will believe evolution.'Many people appear to be very proud of this, though I can't figure out why.'cos some people actually dont take there views as gospel.i am full of bull we all are ,i must recommend you watch the movie 'accidental hero''Gravity' meaning, as Dan suggested, 'stuff falls down' is one thing, and it is pretty blatantly obvious. But it doesn't explain anything. Basically, its is just a label. Now, 'gravity' as Newton meant it and as Einstein meant it, is a theory designed to explain why things fall down and under what conditions, etcyes and their theory i think is true but convincing me of evolution , good luck.

quote:

---

who said anything about being passed to the next generation

---

If there is no element of inheritance there cannot be evolution. Perhaps you don't understand what evolution proposes?

quote:

---

besides apples will be apples chickens will be chickens

---

Apples and chickens both have ancestors. Those relationships can be inferred, but I bet if I pointed them out you wouldn't believe me or the hundreds of scientists who did the work to figure these things out.

quote:

---

yes and their theory i think is true but convincing me of evolution , good luck.

---

The tenor of your posts indicates that you really aren't interested in the information. Tell me I am wrong. No, prove it. Explain to me the ToE as understood by scientists. Please, no 'evolution proposes that rocks turned into men' crap. You don't have to believe it, just explain the general principles. The information can be found in a hundred different places. It shouldn't be hard.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Mike,23 & 31 pls, even if only to agree with me.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Greetings mike the wizFrom John

quote:

---

'Gravity' meaning, as Dan suggested, 'stuff falls down' is one thing, and it is pretty blatantly obvious. But it doesn't explain anything. Basically, its is just a label. Now, 'gravity' as Newton meant it and as Einstein meant it, is a theory designed to explain why things fall down and under what conditions, etc

---

mtw responds

quote:

---

yes and their theory i think is true but convincing me of evolution , good luck.

---

Would you care to explain the observations and data that support either Einstein's or Newton's theories? From your sentence you seem to imply they shared the same theory i.e. "their theory" Please clarify.
Can you give a concise description of the supporting evidence for the current theory of gravity?...following that, please indicate where the evidence you are about to provide is superior to that supporting the theory of evolution.Regarding your claim that evolution is not true because apples do not produce chickens..I will assume that you are being ironic and that you are not that ignorant...an apple producing a chicken would falsify genetics which in turn would falsify evolution and is thus a strawman argument...however, apples and chickens share a common ancestor...you do understand the difference?cheers,
M

mike the wiz asks:

quote:

---

and why cant creationist views be equally represented

---

Because they aren't equal to scientific views. Why should we treat unequal entities as if they were equal?How's this for a metric (and I picked this up from someone else whose name escapes me at the moment so apologies for stealing it):We'll teach science class as the scientific journals describe it. For example, if creationism were to occupy 10% of the journal articles, then we would devote 10% of the time to the study of the creationist claim.Would that not be a fair way of doing things?As it turns out, there are no articles about creationism in the science journals, thus creationism will occupy no time in the science curriculum.As for comparative religion, that's down the hall, third door on your left. This here is the bio lab and today we're conducting an experiment in real-time evolution on bacteria. Feel free to stay. Is your lab fee paid in full?I'm usually amused by the claim of "fairness" in the teaching of science. There is no such thing as "fair" or "equal time" or any of the other touchy-feely whines that come out of the creationist camp. Science isn't about being fair. It's about being accurate. We don't teach a lot of cockamamie ideas in science class precisely because they are cockamamie. We determine that they are cockamamie by the amount of evidence they have. If there is absolutely no support for the claim and the claim contradicts huge amounts of evidence with absolutely no justification for why all that evidence has been interpreted incorrectly, then the idea is cockamamie. You have our sincerest apologies if this hurts your feelings or if you think it's "unfair," but get over it.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

'You have our sincerest apologies if this hurts your feelings or if you think it's "unfair," but get over it.'well i dont recall being 'touchy' or 'feely' or saying that i was,and if you want to have a by jove class full of one siders all supporting each other good for you but i think kids should not be taught what to think but how to think, creation is self evident to many and even if the teaching is there just to be laughed at then fine, as long as the kids get the chance, the problem is scientists think they own science wheras ofcourse God does as he invented it.the evos are far too scared of creationists to let them into their club!

That's right - we're secretly afraid of the Paluxy tracks and your 2000-year-old book. Uh-huh.Oh, wait, we're not scared at all.The question is, what is so frightening about science that you and others can't be bothered to even learn the basic fundamentals? Should we include every ridiculous religious myth? American Indian stuff? Hindu myth? Wicca? Occult stuff? Those teachings are also "self-evident" to many.Or isn't it better to keep non-science out of science classrooms? Let's leave religion to the religion curriculum.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-24-2003]

i know the fundamentals Crash , and i think cold hard facts do not add up to evolution, creation can be scientifically supported , why deny this , why such i die hard evolution outlook what are you people so afraid of?

You've been asked to present the fundamentals of evolution over and over again, and have not to my knowledge done so.If you know the fundamentals, why not present them? It doesn't even have to be evolution. The fundamentals of science would suffice. Go ahead. Anytime you're ready. At no point, to my knowledge, has it been. Models that invoke the supernatural can't, by definition, be science. And supported by what evidence? I think you're just taking the words of Ken Ham and Kent Hovind on this. Creation isn't scientific. It can't be. Cuz it's not true. Why else? I'm afraid that ignorance will win out, and that a succesful movement to displace evolution in the classroom will spell out a Christian religious hegemony in this country, culminating in a unification of Christian church and state.And I don't like ignorance being passed as fact. So long as people are willing to trust a book instead of thinking for themselves no real positive social change can ever be achieved.

'And I don't like ignorance being passed as fact. So long as people are willing to trust a book instead of thinking for themselves no real positive social change can ever be achieved. 'Crash i do think for myself what your afraid in is people accepting God who you try to explain away but as for me you have not explained him away saying to people who believe you are ignorant and cant think for yourself is not true, we think we add it up and to us 2 add 2 makes 4 .

No, accept god. I think that's great. Go for it. If that results in a positive change in someone's life, I'm all about that. Seriously. I honestly wouldn't wish atheism on anybody. It's not a very fulfilling belief system. It gives little comfort in life's worst moments.I'm only an atheist not because I want to be - what I want is not relevant - but because I'm compelled to be so by the lack of evidence for the existence of gods.So, yeah, believe in god all you like. I wish you the best, and I know you'll probably be happier than me as a result. But in science, we deal with what is, not what we have faith in. So your god doesn't belong there, because as far as we know your god does not exist. The evidence is clear - as clear as 2+2 equalling four - that evolution happened and is responsible for all life on Earth, including us.

'It's not a very fulfilling belief system. It gives little comfort in life's worst moments.'then Crash, pray with me this minute let go for a moment i will also pray with you , search for faith within and ask in this prayer which i will pray with you ' if you are real Jesus make yourself known to me by your spirit and i will then believe in you' i have no hidden agenda Crash i and you right now , what have you to lose?

will he reply i hope he replys he doesn't have to be alone in life's worst moments .