scientific theories taught as factual

False dichotomy.I am a Christian Evolutionist. Nonsense, that is a false dichotomy. In reality you either believe blindly that this universe was designed by a Creator or you accept the conclusion based on existing evidence and past experience (not belief) that man can explain the entire universe by strictly physical, mechanical, and chemical means. No but you can use observation, measurements and other objective tests. Sorry but that simply does not stand up to the evidence. In fact we are learning more and more each day about how this universe came into existence.But, and this is important, things we do not know yet go into the Unknown Category, not into GodDidIt. The GodDidIt answer is worthless as an answer or explanation. It tells us nothing, has no informational content, is simply a deadend. The problem with that is it is both lousy science and even worse theology. If you wish to look at some natural object and say "It is designed" then you must conclude that the Designer is Inept, Ignorant, Incompetent, Irrational and Ineffective.If there is any case for Design, the only place I can see it is perhaps at the very most basic levels, say at the level of the four forces and basic processes themselves. I have often said that I might be able to make a case for design if for example, we said that Evolution was "Designed" as a system to assure life continued. To look beyond that at actual critters being some desired output though puts the designer squarely in the Incompetent Corner.Some ID supporters then fall back on the old "You can't know the thoughts or goals of the designer" argument, but that then simply moves everything out of the realm of science and back into magic. If some outside designer can step in and do things outside the limits of natural, outside the limits of the process we call science, then there is no useful predictive powers to any science and we cannot count on anything we have learned. If on the other hand, the critters are simply the result of the processes we identify, there is no need to bring the designer in.In addition, no one has been able to present an example of something "That is designed".You can see more of my position on the concept of a designer in these and other threads: JAR's amazing theory of a Creator who doesn't Design (Faith & jar & invitees)
Creation Debate - Jar and Randman - 12-24-2005
Message 49
Message 8
Message 105
On the difference between Science and ID or Biblical Creationism
How can "Creationism" be supported?Enjoy.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

Dear JB1740,You state that it is “utterly false” that there are not transitional forms. Great, give me an example of a transitional form.As to me not knowing what ”Phyla’ (Hint: definition is “species, or group of animals”);-} I would be glad to. This means that the large majority of diverse life came into existence in the last 600 Million years; were as life has existed on this planet for something like 3.8 Billion years. So that would be roughly an eighth of the time life has existed. This link will take you to a chart that gives you a visual representation of what I am talking about.

---

For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life.

​

For God did not sent the Son in to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.
John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)

Polyploidy is observed in animals, a good example is the Xenopus family of frogs which has species which are diploid, tetraploid, octoploid and dodecaploid. Polyploidy is also inferred historically for a number of lineages, i.e. modern teleost fish have clear evidence of multiple whole genome duplications compared to mammals.TTFN,WK

No. I can certainly give you plenty of examples of transitional fossils, but that isn't my responsibility here. You made the assertion that there are no transitional fossils. You're asserting something that runs against common paleontological knowledge, so you need to demonstrate that this is an accurate statement. Take a fossil that is normally considered to be transitional by the paleontological community and deconstruct it. Demonstrate how it is not transitional. Well, species aren't equivalent to phyla. Moreover, your definition, "a group of animals" is broad enough to mean anything. How do you distinguish a phylum from a class, or an order, then?Regarding time: Okay...but we don't really consider half a billion years to be short, geologically speaking. That was what I found confusing. Yes, most of life's diversity has arisen in the last 550 or so million years, but that isn't a short time span...even to a geologist.

jrtjr1 Single celled life dominated for a great period of time and was followed by colonization of single celled life followed by multicellular life and then followed by sexual selection that allowed for huge increases in complexity that resulted in diversity of animal life as revealed in the fossil record.
Now why would it be a problem that the evolution of life hit huge strides in diversity when sexual selection made it to the forefront?

So, if a transitional species were to exist, what would it be like?

Dear Jar,You state, In other words you’re hedging your bets.Jesus Christ (I.E. the Person Christians follow) claimed to be the God of the Old Testament of the Bible; the God of the Bible claimed to have Created (Designed, formed, and fashioned) the universe (Genesis Chapter #1). On the other hand (Macro-) Evolution is a belief system that tries desperately to explain everything without the pesky problem of an Intelligent Designer; and you’re claiming to be both????You keep telling me I am wrong, and yet not giving me any reason that ”it ain’t so’. I have, repeatedly, shown things that were designed in my posts; and even though I get people who tell me that I’m wrong, they never seem to be able to come up with a ”logical’ ”reasoned’ reason I am wrong; their just sure I am.I’ll give you an example: Message #77Of course you’re precluding that it is a natural object (I.E. Not designed)’ and then claiming that it is preposterous to imply design.This is really the heart of the problem with people who have bought into the Macro-Evolution myth.It is presumed that Life {A} came into existence purely by natural processes, and {B} that adaptation is sufficient to explain Macro-Evolution. Therefore any thing that is critical of Macro-Evolution is obviously wrong.So why not assume, for a moment, that God created this universe (I.E. Designed, formed, and fashioned).Would not the Creator’s plans for what He wants to accomplish have something to do with how he created it? (I.E. You design a blender to mix liquids or to purée fruits and vegetables. So how well it functions is based on what it was designed for. Right?.)You’re claiming ”bad design’ assuming you know every purpose the Creator may or may not have had in mind.Lastly, before you call something “unscientific” why not test it using the 1 Scientific Method.Instead of assuming Macro-Evolution it true (or a fact) why not test it. Does science not test something before it is relied on?I know your going to write me back and claim that “Macro-Evolution has been proven”. So I’m going to preempt you here. No, it has not.Macro-Evolution has been assumed, and therefore used; if questioned (at all) the person (or persons) questioning it are called names (like irrelevant, a joke and of no worth or importance), and told that we must have an ”agenda’. (Assuming that “having an agenda” some how makes the evidence we present invalid) No evidence has ever been offered to support any of the major tenants of Macro-Evolution.As a matter of fact science has been offering evidence reputing Macro-Evolution theory since before Darwin’s thesis made the myth of Macro-Evolution seem scientific. Reasons.org is a good place to go to get some of the evidence I am talking about.So, if your going to say I am wrong about ”Macro-Evolution’ your going to have to give evidence, not just tell me I’m wrong, call me names, and accuse me of having my own agenda. Science demands evidence. (By the way this is one of the things that Science and the Bible have in common.) 1. Scientific Method:

​

Now, as I understand it, the scientific method goes something like this.

​

1. Correctly identify the frame of Reference.
2. Determine the initial conditions.
3. Perform an experiment, or observe the phenomenon noting what takes place, and when and where.
4. Note the final conditions.
5. Form an hypothesis.
6. Test the hypothesis with further experiments and/or observations.
{Taken from copies of transparencies use in the lecture series “Biblical Paradoxes” by Br. Hugh Ross}

---

For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life.

​

For God did not sent the Son in to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.
John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)

Just of you JB1740,phy”lon:-noun, plurala group that has genetic relationship, as a race.[Origin: < NL < Gk phlon race, tribe, class, akin to phyein to bring forth, produce, be]Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.spe”cies-noun
1. a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind.
2. Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
3. Logic.
a. one of the classes of things included with other classes in a genus.
b. the set of things within one of these classes.
4. Ecclesiastical.
a. the external form or appearance of the bread or the wine in the Eucharist.
b. either of the Eucharistic elements.
5. Obsolete. specie; coin.
6. the species, the human race; mankind: a study of the species.
-adjective
7. Horticulture. pertaining to a plant that is a representative member of a species, one that is not a hybrid or variety: a species rose; a species gladiolus.
[Origin: 1545-55; < L speciés appearance, form, sort, kind, equiv. to spec(ere) to look, regard + -iés abstract n. suffix]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.Phyla as in Species.

A species is not a race. A race is a subpopulation of a single species. Phylon is the wrong word. You were using the word Phyla before. Phyla is the plural of both phylon and phylum. For the context of this discussion you want the word phylum, which has this definition at Answers.com:

1. Biology. A primary division of a kingdom, as of the animal kingdom, ranking next above a class in size.

In other words, it has a very clear and specific definition, and it fits into the classification system of life like this:

• Kingdom
• Phylum
• Class
• Order
• Family
• Genus
• Species

As you can see, phylum is an extremely broad classification level, just under kingdom. The Chordates (mostly vertebrates) are an example of a phylum, and they include animals from people to sea squirts.So you were wrong to equate phyla with species (back in Message 23 you said "phyla (species, or group of animals)"). And you were also wrong to claim that phyla popped into existence in geologically short time periodsIf you want to instead claim that new species can evolve in geologically short time periods, I think this is something everyone here could agree with.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix grammatical ambiguity in first para.

Hugh Ross starts off with false assertions and then builds fallacy on fallacy so you won't get far dragging out Reasons to Believe. Hell no. I accept truth over falsehoods, that's all. Genesis 1 is just one of the creation myths found in the Bible and the point of that story was not even creation but rather one view of God, a view held by a much later faction than those who created the creation myths combined in the earlier tales found beginning at the second half of Genesis 2:4. The actual creation is simply not a very important part of either and more a plot device to talk about what the authors found important.But Evolution is a fact. That is not even in doubt, and the current Theory of Evolution is the only explanation to date that has any supporting evidence. There is no desperation. It is a simple conclusion.In the words of the Clergy Project, endorsed by over 11,000 US Christian Clergy: Uh, sorry but that is simply bullshit. I am not claiming bad design, I am showing why it is bad design. I provided links to seven threads where just that is discussed in detail. If you think that specific critters are the product of design, then you can only conclude that the Designer is Incompetent.To fall back to your position of not knowing the purpose of the Designer is also just plain stupid and useless. I address that in several of the threads and even provided links for you.The important thing is that like Hugh Ross and all the other carny folk getting rich off gullible members of the Christian Cult of Ignorance and the Christian Communion of Bobbleheads, there is no such thing as an ID model. They make stupid statements like "the more complex the item, the more intelligent the designer must be." when any designer, any engineer would tell them that simplicity is the goal.If you want to support Id or Creationism, read How can "Creationism" be supported?. Bring in the Designer and place the Designer on the lab table for examination. Bring the model. If it is designed then you MUST be able to explain the design purpose.To simply deny macro evolution is without value or use. Frankly, the current model explains it quite well. There is no limiting factor on what evolves. Man and Chimp and ultimately all life evolved from what came before. You may not like that conclusion but the current TOE explains it quite well.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

I notice that you have no idea what the theory of evolution is.Don't you think that it would be a good idea to find out?

Dear Larni, So, let me get this strait here; the design of the human eye does not meat your specifications of what you think it should be like so it is either a “bad design” or not designed at all?”Bad’ and ”Poor’ are subjective terms. All I have to say to this one is ”Cause and Effect’. I did not say that that the Bible’s account of Creation (the creation model) was scientific just because it said that the universe had a beginning. What I am saying is that every step given in the Genesis one account has been substantiated by science. {I.E. The big band [genesis1: 1], three initial condition for the Earth [Genesis 1: 2], etc} Each of these is verifiable.So, not just one chance correct answer, but correct on every count.

---

For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life.

​

For God did not sent the Son in to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.
John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)

Dear Sidelined, Please see my post (Message 30) in this string.

---

For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life.

​

For God did not sent the Son in to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.
John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)

Dear nator, That is a vary good question.Since there are no transitional forms in the fossil record, we can only guess at what a transitional form would look like if they did indeed exist.Using my ”fish growing legs’ example I guess we would have to find a species of fish that could live on land for brief periods of time, have the beginnings of legs, and still be viable enough to bring up a next generation that at some point in the far fetched future could spend more time on land. Of course if you assume this fish’s fins were becoming legs there would be several generations that could neither walk nor swim. Since those least capable of out running or out witting the predators get eaten; it is more likely then not that a species of fish that could neither swim in water nor walk on land would not be around long enough to bread a new generation.The problem here, though, is you have to have an organ before it can be changed into a new organ. Where did the fish get his fins before he had fins? Here again each of these things are vary complex; especially when you get down into the workings of a single cell.

---

For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life.

​

For God did not sent the Son in to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.
John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)

Here are an assload of 'em.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat