Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-24-2019 11:49 AM
36 online now:
AZPaul3, GDR, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, ringo, Stile, Tangle, Tanypteryx, vimesey, xongsmith (11 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,596 Year: 9,632/19,786 Month: 2,054/2,119 Week: 90/724 Day: 22/68 Hour: 1/11


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
7891011
12
Author Topic:   Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy
Wumpini
Member (Idle past 3934 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 166 of 177 (471267)
06-15-2008 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Dr Adequate
06-15-2008 9:08 AM


Re: The Cambrian Explosion
Dr Adequate writes:

Make up your mind.

It seems that you are telling the wrong person to make up their mind.

Wumpini writes:

Phyla is a grouping of animals based on a general body plan. Once again the statement made by the “weaknesses” people is correct. During this period, basically all of the different body structures that are in existence today quickly came into the fossil record.

DA writes:

Utterly wrong.

The Cambrian, for example, contains no fish, no amphibians, no reptiles, no mammals, no birds ... are those not "different body structures that are in existence today"?

The “strengths and weaknesses” people say nothing about the Cambrian containing fish or mammals. They say that basically all of the different “body structures” or plans quickly came into the fossil record.

It seems that other scientists agree with this statement.

quote:
With exceptions of two animal phyla, Porifera and Coelenterata, which made slightly earlier appearances, nearly all other extant animal phyla sprang into almost simultaneous existence within 6 to 10 million years. The notion of the Cambrian pananimalia genome was advanced to explain various evolutionary consequences of this Cambrian explosion.

The reason for as well as the consequence of the Cambrian explosion in animal evolution.

quote:
Looking at this Tree of Life, biologists realized that phyla are deep branches where at the very beginning of the branch ancestral organisms developed a fundamentally new and different body plan. They concluded that all the descendants of this ancestor, living and extinct, form a group that can be called a Phylum.

The Animal Phyla

But my dear Wumpini, it is consistent with both. They both show the deepest taxonomic divisions occurring in the earliest times, and since the record for those times is so sparse, it could scarcely distinguish between them.

You are entirely correct. Both the “phyletic gradualism” and the “punctuated equilibrium” trees should show these “deepest taxonomic divisions” coming into existence suddenly during the Cambrian explosion. The problem is that neither theory explains why these divisions come into existence in the first place. That is the point! It is a major unanswered question! It should be taught as such.

Wumpini writes:

An estimated 50 to 100 phyla appear explosively at the base of the Cambrian. Fossil evidence suggesting their common ancestry is not found in Precambrian rocks.

Your information is sixty years out of date and counting.

It is not difficult to find out about Precambrian fauna, I suggest that you do so.

Since you are contradicting me and my sources, I suggest that you provide the evidence showing this "common ancestry."

I am not surprised that creationists find it easy to bamboozle you with this stuff. But this is no reason why science teachers, who should know better, should be required to bamboozle children.

You have given nothing in this post to indicate anyone is being bamboozled other than children and yourself. They are being taught as scientific fact something that lacks support in the fossil record. The fossil record does not support the traditional “tree of life.” If you believe that it does then provide the evidence.


"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce
This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-15-2008 9:08 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by BeagleBob, posted 06-15-2008 8:14 PM Wumpini has responded
 Message 170 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-15-2008 10:53 PM Wumpini has responded

  
BeagleBob
Member (Idle past 3847 days)
Posts: 81
Joined: 11-21-2007


Message 167 of 177 (471272)
06-15-2008 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Wumpini
06-15-2008 7:57 PM


Re: The Cambrian Explosion
quote:
You are entirely correct. Both the “phyletic gradualism” and the “punctuated equilibrium” trees should show these “deepest taxonomic divisions” coming into existence suddenly during the Cambrian explosion. The problem is that neither theory explains why these divisions come into existence in the first place. That is the point! It is a major unanswered question! It should be taught as such.

I wouldn't say this question is unanswered... I provided an answer under Message 156, under the Ecological section of the second question.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Wumpini, posted 06-15-2008 7:57 PM Wumpini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Wumpini, posted 06-15-2008 10:01 PM BeagleBob has responded

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 3934 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 168 of 177 (471298)
06-15-2008 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by BeagleBob
06-15-2008 8:14 PM


Re: The Cambrian Explosion
Hi BeagleBob,

BeagleBob writes:

I wouldn't say this question is unanswered... I provided an answer under Message 156, under the Ecological section of the second question.

Your ecological hypothesis is only one of numerous alternative hypotheses. The Cambrian explosion appears to be an unanswered question at the present time.

Here is what one scientist says about your ecological solution.

quote:
We do not know why the Cambrian explosion could establish all major anatomical designs so quickly. An "external" explanation based on ecology seems attractive: the Cambrian explosion represents an initial filling of the "ecological barrel" of niches for multicellular organisms, and any experiment found a space. The barrel has never emptied since; even the great mass extinctions left a few species in each principal role, and their occupation of ecological space forecloses opportunity for fundamental novelties. But an "internal" explanation based on genetics and development also seems necessary as a complement: the earliest multicellular animals may have maintained a flexibility for genetic change and embryological transformation that became greatly reduced as organisms "locked in" to a set of stable and successful designs.

The Evolution of Life on Earth


Do you notice what he says? "We do not know why ..." You may say that you know why, but other scientists say they do not know why. They are examining the same evidence (or lack of evidence) and trying to use the same arguments. Therefore, I conclude that this question is unanswered.

I think we are in agreement Beagle. You have stated that "the fossil record of the Cambrian explosion doesn't fit evolutionary models." I agree. All I want is for high school students to be informed about what we have discussed on this forum. The only way we can be sure of that is to include this information in high school biology textbooks. We need to teach students the facts about the Cambrian explosion. The divisions appeared suddenly, the fossil record is not complete, and it does not fit into the current evolutionary model.

How can we honestly teach evolutionary theory, and leave out this portion of evolutionary history?


"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce
This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by BeagleBob, posted 06-15-2008 8:14 PM BeagleBob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by BeagleBob, posted 06-15-2008 10:52 PM Wumpini has not yet responded

  
BeagleBob
Member (Idle past 3847 days)
Posts: 81
Joined: 11-21-2007


Message 169 of 177 (471308)
06-15-2008 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Wumpini
06-15-2008 10:01 PM


Re: The Cambrian Explosion
quote:
Do you notice what he says? "We do not know why ..." You may say that you know why, but other scientists say they do not know why. They are examining the same evidence (or lack of evidence) and trying to use the same arguments. Therefore, I conclude that this question is unanswered.

It's important to remember that the Cambrian Explosion is a very complex event, and there were likely many factors involved. I only listed three (the filling of niches, predation, and the development of bony structures in fossilization) but there are lots of other factors: hox genes, climate change, etc. However, the main issues of niche-filling and predation is still central to most explanations of the Cambrian Explosion as I've seen. Even though it's not a complete picture, I feel that this is the best point to focus on in public education since the genetic and climate details are harder to frame in a pedagogical setting.

Let's go back to the main premise of the original article you cited, that we should "teach the controversy because evolution isn't all that it's cracked up to be." Lists like that and "Ten Questions to ask your Biology Teacher" center on an oversimplified view of the Cambrian Explosion, and utterly ignore the fact that very strong explanations exist to explain our observations.

It's fine to talk about the limitations of our knowledge, but this shouldn't be done in order to imply that scientists are wholly ignorant on the issue, or to imply that lack of knowledge on some details of evidence implies major problems or gaps in the theory behind it. It's tendentious to do so, and it's very dishonest on the part of Wells & Company.

EDIT:

quote:
I think we are in agreement Beagle. You have stated that "the fossil record of the Cambrian explosion doesn't fit evolutionary models." I agree. All I want is for high school students to be informed about what we have discussed on this forum. The only way we can be sure of that is to include this information in high school biology textbooks. We need to teach students the facts about the Cambrian explosion. The divisions appeared suddenly, the fossil record is not complete, and it does not fit into the current evolutionary model.

The problem is that statements like this imply that holes in evidence entail a deficiency in the theory (which is the point of the original article). This simply isn't the case: yes, the fossil record is incomplete, but this is primarily because the fossil record had only become reliable during the Cambrian, when bony structures were first developing (though elements that speed the rate of evolution is also a factor here).

This is what should be included in textbooks and lesson plans. It shouldn't stop at something fallacious like "The fossil record is incomplete, we don't know why, so evolution as a theory is incomplete."

Edited by BeagleBob, : No reason given.

Edited by BeagleBob, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Wumpini, posted 06-15-2008 10:01 PM Wumpini has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 170 of 177 (471309)
06-15-2008 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Wumpini
06-15-2008 7:57 PM


Re: The Cambrian Explosion
The “strengths and weaknesses” people say nothing about the Cambrian containing fish or mammals. They say that basically all of the different “body structures” or plans quickly came into the fossil record.

And this is not true. Because birds, for example, have a common "body structure" which does not appear in the Cambrian.

You are entirely correct. Both the “phyletic gradualism” and the “punctuated equilibrium” trees should show these “deepest taxonomic divisions” coming into existence suddenly during the Cambrian explosion. The problem is that neither theory explains why these divisions come into existence in the first place. That is the point! It is a major unanswered question!

Huh?

By a little process we call "evolution". One species splits off from another species. Look at the diagrams.

When it happens, the production of phyla looks like speciation (which it is) there's nothing special about it except in retrospect.

Since you are contradicting me and my sources, I suggest that you provide the evidence showing this "common ancestry."

The fossils are too scanty to trace any particular line of descent, but there are certainly fairly undifferentiated bilaterians in the Precambrian. To go better than that, we require the techniques of molecular phylogeny.

You have given nothing in this post to indicate anyone is being bamboozled other than children and yourself ...

... and all those scientists who've spent their lifetimes studying a subject of which you have just begun to scratch the surface based on your acquaintance with inaccurate children's textbooks.

They are being taught as scientific fact something that lacks support in the fossil record.

They are being taught lots of things as scientific fact that are not supported in the fossil record. Such as that the Sun is hot.

The fossil record does not support the traditional “tree of life.” If you believe that it does then provide the evidence.

The fossil record also does not contradict the "tree of life". The fact that it does not allow us to confirm every detail of it from the fossils alone would be of significance only if the tree of life was meant to be constructed based on the fossils alone, rather than on all the evidence, such as morphology and genetics.

By pretending that it is, or that it should be, based on only a proportion, sometimes quite a small proportion, of the evidence, creationists have managed to obscure their own understanding of biology, without, of course, making the slightest impression on scientists, who know better.

If we were to draw the tree of life based solely on fossils, we should have to leave off entirely at least seven (I'm still counting) of the 36 living animal phyla, because there are no fossils of these phyla, in the Cambrian or anywhere else!

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Wumpini, posted 06-15-2008 7:57 PM Wumpini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Wumpini, posted 06-16-2008 5:32 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 3934 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 171 of 177 (471408)
06-16-2008 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Dr Adequate
06-15-2008 10:53 PM


Re: The Cambrian Explosion
Dr Adequate,

It seems that you are misunderstanding the point of the “strengths and weaknesses” people. The point is that the FOSSIL RECORD (evidence) does not exist to support traditional evolutionary models leading up to the Cambrian explosion. There is no evidence in the Fossil Record connecting multi-cellular life with single-celled life. There is no evidence in the Fossil record linking to this explosion of animal phyla. I do not believe there is any disagreement among scientists about these facts. Reading through your post, it seems that even you agree that the evidence does not exist in the Fossil Record.


Maybe our problem is a matter of wording.

Let us look at the quote:

quote:
The Cambrian explosion quickly produced all of the basically different body structures, and some of these have since become extinct. This is very different from the evolutionary tree of life, which suggests a slow and gradual increase in body structures.

DA writes:

And this is not true. Because birds, for example, have a common "body structure" which does not appear in the Cambrian.

I do not know if you are arguing against my sources, or if you are arguing against the wording. I do not want to get bogged down in a long discussion over which terms are correct to describe what happened. Let us see if we can agree on wording.


Do you have a problem with the use of “basic body structure” verses “general body plan?” Either term works for me. You pick one, and we will use it.

Are you arguing against the use of the word all? I have no problem with the wording being “virtually all” or “essentially all” or “practically all” or something similar. This is the wording that I have seen in many of the scientific journals that I have been reading regarding this historical event.

Can we come to an agreement on the use of terms?


Is it possible that you are trying to deny that the Cambrian explosion took place at all? If so then you are making this assumption based upon evidence that does not exist, and you are contradicting the majority of the scientific world.


The question is: should high school students be made aware of the evidence that exists or does not exist in the fossil record to support the theory of evolution as it relates to the Cambrian explosion? Do you not think we should teach students what exists and does not exist in the fossil record?

I don’t believe that the “strengths and weaknesses” people are saying that science should not teach the different hypotheses regarding how this great disparity of life came into being. They are only saying that if you are going to teach that this fits into traditional evolutionary theory, then you need to teach that there is no evidence in the fossil record to support that statement.


"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce
This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-15-2008 10:53 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by BeagleBob, posted 06-16-2008 6:43 PM Wumpini has responded

  
BeagleBob
Member (Idle past 3847 days)
Posts: 81
Joined: 11-21-2007


Message 172 of 177 (471419)
06-16-2008 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Wumpini
06-16-2008 5:32 PM


Re: The Cambrian Explosion
quote:
The question is: should high school students be made aware of the evidence that exists or does not exist in the fossil record to support the theory of evolution as it relates to the Cambrian explosion? Do you not think we should teach students what exists and does not exist in the fossil record?

I don’t believe that the “strengths and weaknesses” people are saying that science should not teach the different hypotheses regarding how this great disparity of life came into being. They are only saying that if you are going to teach that this fits into traditional evolutionary theory, then you need to teach that there is no evidence in the fossil record to support that statement.


Let's frame this in an example:

Creationists often argue that C14 radiometric dating can't prove that the world is 4.5 billion years old. They'll also say that there are problems with C14 dating because dating a live clam would give a result of the sample being 30,000 years old.

These points are true. However, they are also misleading. First, the upper range of C14 dating is about 50,000 years at most... if you want to date a rock layer that you suspect is in the billions of years range, you'd need Uranium-Lead dating. Second, C14 isn't meant to analyze animals that live in an aquatic or marine trophic chain, so of course C14 would give you an anomalous date. In fact, biologists take advantage of this to determine the diets of our ancestors, seeing how much of their food came from the land and how much came from the sea.

Teaching our kids that "C14 dating can't prove the world is 4.5 billion years old and C14 testing of live clams would give you crazy dates" is true, but it's done with the intent to mislead children. Without context it's an attempt to lead kids to the conclusion that "C14 dating can't be used at all."

The same problem exists for the Cambrian Explosion points on the list you posted earlier.

Technically it's true that much of the fossil record for the Cambrian Explosion doesn't support conventional models of evolutionary progress... but saying this alone, divorced from the broader scientific reality, is disingenuous. The idea that "the fossil record doesn't explain the Cambrian Explosion" alone shouldn't be what's taught, but instead what should be taught is the wealth of other observation and understanding.

I think this is the real problem with these points of contention and "Ten Questions You Should Ask Your Biology Teacher" things that Intelligent Design proponents put out. They miss the forest for the trees.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Wumpini, posted 06-16-2008 5:32 PM Wumpini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Wumpini, posted 06-16-2008 9:02 PM BeagleBob has responded

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 3934 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 173 of 177 (471432)
06-16-2008 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by BeagleBob
06-16-2008 6:43 PM


Fossil Record - Point 2
I think we are in agreement that there are questions about the Fossil Record leading into the Cambrian explosion, and that this lack of fossil evidence should be discussed in biology textbooks along with the different theories of science attempting to explain this event.

I am now going to present the second point under the fossil record “weaknesses” on the list for discussion.

quote:
Many life forms persist through large expanses of geologic time with essentially no change. Evolution theory suggests that mutations occur randomly over time and are selected to produce continuing change as the environment continually changes.

Message 78 or http://strengthsandweaknesses.org/Weaknesses/essential_weaknesses.htm


Let us look at the first half of the quote:

quote:
Many life forms persist through large expanses of geologic time with essentially no change.

Ichneumon writes:

Not a problem.

I think everyone should agree with this statement. This is a fact of the fossil record.


Now let us look at the second half of the quote:

quote:
Evolution theory suggests that mutations occur randomly over time and are selected to produce continuing change as the environment continually changes.

NosyNed writes:

This is not what evolution theory suggests at all. Another strawman.

I agree that this is a simplistic definition. However, I believe the point is that the traditional evolutionary model suggests gradual change over time that eventually leads to significant changes. The “strengths and weaknesses” people seem to be saying that this is not what we are always seeing in the Fossil Record. The Fossil Record is showing the passage of significant periods of time for some organisms with essentially no change. I believe that is why theories such as punctuated equilibrium have been proposed by some scientists.

Ichneumon writes:

First, most of the so-called "living fossils" have indeed changed from their ancestral forms, something this item admits when it says "essentially" no change instead of "no changes at all". Second, most so-called "living fossils" are hardly in what one would call "continually changing environments". Third, if an organism is optimized for its niche, there will be little selective pressure to change. Indeed, selection will enforce *not* changing, despite the tendency of mutations and genetic drift to do so lacking selection.

Before the creationists can critique any "scientific weaknesses" in evolution, they need to actually understand it.

What scientists need to understand is that science itself is critiquing the “theory of evolution.” It is science itself that has noticed that certain organisms in the fossil record can go through significant periods of time with essentially no change. It is science itself that is trying to come up with explanations or theories that explain this fossil record. All the “strengths and weaknesses” people are asking is that the truth of the fossil record be put in high school biology textbooks. This includes the fact that the fossil record shows some organisms going through great expanses of geological time with essentially no change. Obviously the different theories to explain this fact of the fossil record would be included in the textbooks also.


"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce
This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by BeagleBob, posted 06-16-2008 6:43 PM BeagleBob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Coyote, posted 06-16-2008 9:14 PM Wumpini has not yet responded
 Message 175 by BeagleBob, posted 06-16-2008 9:55 PM Wumpini has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 277 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 174 of 177 (471436)
06-16-2008 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Wumpini
06-16-2008 9:02 PM


Re: Fossil Record - Point 2
What scientists need to understand is that science itself is critiquing the “theory of evolution.” It is science itself that has noticed that certain organisms in the fossil record can go through significant periods of time with essentially no change. It is science itself that is trying to come up with explanations or theories that explain this fossil record. All the “strengths and weaknesses” people are asking is that the truth of the fossil record be put in high school biology textbooks. This includes the fact that the fossil record shows some organisms going through great expanses of geological time with essentially no change. Obviously the different theories to explain this fact of the fossil record would be included in the textbooks also.

As a strength or as a weakness?

All the “strengths and weaknesses” people are asking is that the truth of the fossil record be put in high school biology textbooks.

Actually, continuing in the footsteps of the creationists, the creation "scientists," and the IDers, the "strengths and weaknesses" folks are doing what they can to undermine science in general and the theory of evolution in particular--all for religious (i.e., non-scientific) reasons. (And this is leaving out the "teach the controversy" and "it's just a theory" nonsense that they tried for a while.)

The Trojan Horse technique just doesn't work as well when they are all riding on its back cheering.

Why can't they just be honest and admit that it's all a religious viewpoint that is behind their efforts? Why do they have to pretend to do science, and when that fails to try to destroy science or change how science is conducted (read Behe's testimony at Dover)?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Wumpini, posted 06-16-2008 9:02 PM Wumpini has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by dwise1, posted 06-16-2008 10:57 PM Coyote has not yet responded

BeagleBob
Member (Idle past 3847 days)
Posts: 81
Joined: 11-21-2007


Message 175 of 177 (471443)
06-16-2008 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Wumpini
06-16-2008 9:02 PM


Re: Fossil Record - Point 2
quote:
Many life forms persist through large expanses of geologic time with essentially no change. Evolution theory suggests that mutations occur randomly over time and are selected to produce continuing change as the environment continually changes.

As we've seen from the Cambrian Explosion, evolution can occur at vastly different rates. Sometimes it can occur quickly, other times slowly, and sometimes organisms don't evolve very much at all.

Remember that evolution depends on two main factors: the first is the mutation, the second is environment. If an environment is in vast flux, or if the species is isolated, or if the environment is subject to very little change, you're going to see many different effects on the rates of evolution. Sometimes very fast, sometimes very slow, if at all. On the other hand, if a particular form is very well-adapted and successful, there may not be much of a need for an organism to evolve at all.

So really there should be no surprise that some species, such as sharks and crocodiles, have maintained relatively similar forms through a long period of time.

I don't think there's much else to say if the main premise is incorrect.

EDIT: What do you understand about punctuated equilibrium? It's a slightly abstract concept that is commonly misunderstood, so I don't quite know what you're getting at here.

Edited by BeagleBob, : Reason listed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Wumpini, posted 06-16-2008 9:02 PM Wumpini has not yet responded

dwise1
Member
Posts: 3491
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 176 of 177 (471450)
06-16-2008 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Coyote
06-16-2008 9:14 PM


Re: Fossil Record - Point 2
Why can't they just be honest and admit that it's all a religious viewpoint that is behind their efforts? Why do they have to pretend to do science, and when that fails to try to destroy science or change how science is conducted (read Behe's testimony at Dover)?

Epperson vs Arkansas, 1968. That's how they lost their 4-decades-old "monkey laws" and could no longer have the teaching of evolution banned for religious reasons.

That is when they started their deception of "religion has nothing to do with it; we object to evolution for purely scientific reasons."

And the deception just keeps changing its clothes every time it's exposed. Just like we're seeing now.


{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)

Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)

Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)

Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.
Robert Colbert on NPR


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Coyote, posted 06-16-2008 9:14 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3883
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 177 of 177 (471457)
06-16-2008 11:40 PM


This topic closing down in about 15 minutes
Percy's message 1 left a lot to be desired. It was essentially a bare link and nor did the the topic title give any information on what this "new strategy" was, which is to “teach the strengths and weaknesses.”

I feel we're having a lot of good discussion that is too far removed from the core theme of this topic, and is getting buried in this topic when it should be in a more specific topic. Example: Detailed discussion of the Cambrian explosion is a wonderful thing, but it shouldn't have been happening in this topic. It should have been in a "Cambrian Explosion" topic.

15 minutes to catch the messages in progress.

If Percy thinks his theme needs further pursuit, he should start a new topic that better defines the theme.

Adminnemooseus


  
RewPrev1
...
7891011
12
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019