How can it be doubted?

This is surprising. The only american colleagues I have are quite good general (normal) scientific level.
I think you will recieve some (stormy) replies concerning your statement. I believe americans are modest people. I mean don't appreciate exposing the "bad" aspect of things.
However this could be a good explanation of the American creatos disease. Lots of lost ewes...Honestly, it wasn't a so hard task to open a few dozen good scientific books.
Doesn't it?Denesha

don't forget the image of science from hollywoodmad or befuddled
socially incompetent

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

typical AIGthere are many species that are in apparent statis for millions of years, probably the most famous being the coelacanth.that does not disprove evolution nor prove supernatural creation.I bet that looking into the picture more closely will show (as you say) small differences that show evolution has still occured. Furthermore shell similarities do not mean that they house the same species.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

Boy, Crash, I really, really disagree with you here. I agree Americans are cynics, and that people generally feel good speaking bad about people they see as "above" them, but I think that in general scientists are the prophets of our age. They carry the same weight as clerics of the middle ages. People like to insult them, and they like to disagree with them, but when push comes to shove, they do what the scientists say. They'll take mom's advice when it's a cold, because anyone can bear a cold, but when it's cancer or it's much worse than a cold and they don't know what it is, you'll find them at the doctor's office, not mom's house.

That's a good point. I think that we're both right - American opinion tends to swing between dogmatic acceptance of the findings of science and a great love of finding out those eggheads aren't so smart after all.The position we wish they held would be somewhere in the middle - an understanding of the scientific process that would allow them to assess the claims of science with the proper mix of scepticism and confidence.

Despite the fact that even Richard Dawkins seems to have thought this was true, it's not. I got corrected on these boards on the subject.Coelecanth is an order. The modern Coelecanth is of the genus Latimera, and there are no fossil specimens of that genus. Perhaps that genus has been in stasis for millions of years, but there is no evidence of that. All that happened with the Coelecanth is that an entire order was thought extinct, but now a species, of a completely different genus than the fossil specimens, has been found today.I found the thread. See Quetzal's post hereI notice that UC Berkeley's page on the Coelecanth says 80 million years of stasis, although it says in basic morphology. This one, however, lists some of the changes, using creationist sites to address them.But, of course, your point was "there are many species that are in apparent statis for millions of years." I'm not trying to refute that. I just thought the Coelecanth info was interesting.{edited because my codes were so bad, the computer spat out duplicates of my mistakes...good grief}[This message has been edited by truthlover, 03-29-2004]

that is precisely why I said "apparent stasis" -- they appear to be the same but are not. And there are 2 current species, separated in two different undersea environments (on depth islands?) ... Latimeria chalumnae and Latimeria menadoensis (see http://www.dinofish.com/ for more)"While the living coelacanths retain many ancient features they have also, contrary to their public image, done some evolving along the way. Live bearing, for example, would seem to be a modern feature."Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

If you look at what they're saying, Young Earth Creationists aren't really arguing against a theory that explains the biological diversity that we observe on this planet (and, through the continuum nature of species, that diversity which we don't see). Instead, they use "evolution" as a scapegoat for everything that they don't like about the modern state of science, philosophy, and education.It's like Ann Coulter and "liberalism."

Hey, folks, let's not forget about the Stockholm Syndrome:"The Stockholm Syndrome is an emotional attachment, a bond of interdependence between captive and captor that develops when someone threatens your life, deliberates, and doesn't kill you"The result is the hostages become emotionally attached to their captors. After they have been freed, hostages suffering from the stockholm syndrome will sometimes raise money and try to defend their captors in court!Applying this to creationists, God threatens to kill them (by sending them to hell), deliberates, and instead sends his son to die. The result is that creationists are emotionally motivated to keep believing creation and reject anything else! Its a psychological problem.Make sense?More about the Stockholm Syndrome:yahoodi.com is for salehttp://web2.iadfw.net/ktrig246/out_of_cave/sss.html http://www.google.com/search?q=stockholm+syndrome...
{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-01-2004]