Jump'n catfish! I go to work, and you fellers spool this one up without me!

Rick - here's the aforementioned book (I found my reference notes, not the actual) -
"G.A. Kerkut, The implications of Evolution"
Kerkut lays out seven basic assumptions that evolutionists must make. Bliss (another author commenting on Kerkut) noted, as Kerkut also noted, that these are assumptions - not conclusions demanded by the data."the evidence of evolution is assumed, then the data are interpreted to fit".
"1. non-living things gave rise to living material.
2. spontaneous generation could occur only once.
3. viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all interrelated.
4. Protozoa gave rise to multi-cellular organisms.
5. Invertebrates are interrelated.
6. Invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates.
7. all vertebrates are related."
Bliss again:
"He (Kerkut) lists these as assumptions. Who knows about this? The assumptions of evolution are magnificent, but the evidence from science is zero. There is no evidence that demands an evolutionary idea".

i suspect this will take some definitions for the above words -
'evolution', 'science', 'evidence'
each of these can and do mean different things to different people.
(a complete aside: the temp has dropped abt 35 deg f in the last hour or so here in VA - or so it feels to my tired old airframe - i gotta get home and check on my boss. have a good night y'all - looking forward to the posts tomorrow!)

This is essentially disinformation about disinformation.

Evolution: The change in the frequency of alleles (genes) over time. A recent example is the affect the great bubonic plagues had on human blood types; changed the alleles coding for human red blood cell glycoproteins.

Science: Defined among scientists, if not lay people, as a method.

1. Make observations
2. Form hypotheses
3. Perform experiments
4. Collect data ... and so on and so forth
...
8. Draw conclusions

If the conslusions are supported by extant data, and hold up under peer review, then it gets to be a theory, which can always be altered or disproven by new data.

Science uses the term 'data' more than 'evidence.' You wouldn't say "evidence proves...," that would seem to old timey. You'd say "the data suggests." Mosts scientists give a hoot about philosophical determinations, discounting them as mostly hot air from verbose cranks. But even philosophy, if exercised with a modicum of rationality and discipline has its utility.

Evidence too has definitional standards, but I think of it as more a legal term, like direct evidence, testimonial evidence, circumstantial evidence, etc.

Oh well, back to satan worship...I mean studying. I'll tidy up around here coem Thursday.

Oh, and vertebrates are related to vertebrates, and to invertebrates by Hox gene homology. I have a neat gene map showing homology from fruit flies to mice I'll give a link for later. It's has pretty colors.

lofty1

"if there wasn't a god, we would have created one"

and some have.

bullwyf

i can only speak for myself. jesus is dead, and even if he were not he might not "love" me.

i don't need a chill pill, but i do need ear plugs.

I believe in both. God created all creatures & gave them the ability to evolve & adapt.

Gene363

good one.

I'm saving my chill pills for tomorrow night. Last final! woohoo! Freedom never seemed so sweet. Cigars, pills, everything. Let my people go MF, woohoo!

hat

in a few short words i believe you have the correct answer for everyone.

lofty1

"if there wasn't a god, we would have created one"

and some have.




rick, i believe that's the point being made by the speaker of those words. god is a creation of man.

Why do those without a belief in religion suggest, or even insist, that it's due to thier intelligence?

With the lone exception of Rick on the non-believers side, this post reeks of self importance.

tailgater,
i can see why you'd say that, but i, personally, don't believe intelligence has anything to do with my belief. i simply haven't been convinced by creationism or evolution as an explanation of how we got here. as far as cexshun's statement applies to my own feelings, i think it's a matter my lack of willingness to accept things on faith. i've spoken many times to christians about religion, and we've always come to the conclusion that it's a matter of faith. you either have it, or you don't. that's why i say that my tendency to analyze situations keeps me from being a christian.

if you knew me, you'd certainly understand that i don't think i'm too smart to believe.

Hmm, I don't recall ever bringing up intelligence. If you are referring to my "scientific mind" phrase, I meant that I need proof, in front of my eyes. Or at least someone else of high reputation to have solid proof. I was not implying anything about intelligence or education.

Hey Hog, you brought up a great point about the ribs.
Evolutionism would tend to believe that if man was created out of evolution, then man would have more ribs than woman, as man was the stronger of the sexes and would need the extra rib for more organ protection.
As most species, the stronger of the sexes has evolved in some unique way to protect themselves or their mate.

Why then, would man evolve with less protection than woman?

On the other hand, why is there artifacts of man, pre-dating theology's account of creation?

Just some thoughts.

tailgater

hey, i reek too.

========================================
Author: 0patience Date: 12/14/2004 11:44 PM
... why is there artifacts of man, pre-dating
theology's account of creation?
========================================

take a look at the response I posted in the "How old is the planet earth" thread ...

Steve,
I agree with that. And artifacts are pretty clear in the fact that earth was created far before the theological account of creation.

It is also clear that man evolved from the point where man appeared and theological events. Something creationism doesn't account for.

Even scientists are having a hard time with the sudden explosion of life when the earth started to evolve.
And they still haven't accounted for a huge gap where man all of the sudden appeared.

Carbon dating is fallible, but it has been proven to be accurate enough that they can date things with in a thousand years. So if something carbon dates at 50,000 years, you have to figure it is fairly close.

The problem is Rickmaven and others assume the Genesis account is a scientific account of creation. I don't believe it is science and it certainly does not read like science. Rather, it is an artistic account of creation which means it is telling Who created and What was created. If this is true then it is inappropriate to treat it as science.

The probability of everything coming into existance without a Creator is impossible. As one scientist put it, the probability for the conditions to be such that this could happen without an intelligent design is so imporbable it would make the lottery look like a conservative investment. No one has proven evolution, do you evey wonder why there is no example of creatures between the stages of evolution? For example, a human that has not lost their wings. So are you willing to accept this to define who you are?

You also have a bigger problem, an epistimological one. To have true knowledge you have to know both exhaustively and comprehensively. That is, you would have to know everything about everything and I am sure you can't claim that. So your knowledge at best is suspect and another piece of information could turn everything you know upside down.

What you really need to do is take the time to read the Bible, start with a book like John and give it an honest read. Give it a chance to win your trust. The Bible is durable because it is truth but your hostile approach does not allow you to give it fair treatment.

Glad to discuss this further if you wish.

Thing about radio-dating is it's statistical in nature. You take a lot of readings and do an average of the decay states of the element and you get some higher readings, and some lower, but the vast majority of readings give you a good estimate of how old a compound might be. So when people say 'carbon dating is inaccurate because different readings are found for the same compound,' that's just statistical error. Radio-dating methods can give you a rough guestimate within reasonable deviation from the mean. Science, especially paleontology, is far more about probabilities than certainties. And human-kind didn't just pop up out of nowhere. Since we're such a recent species the fossil record is rich and has many branches. Heck, neandertals, the 'other humans' died out only about 40,000 years ago or so. We have tons of 'cousins.' Numerous australopithecines, homo habilis, homo erectus, heidelbergensis man, neandertal...and that's just scratching the surface. Homo sapeins, the talking, hairless ape. You gotta love it!

========================================
Author: David123 Date: 12/15/2004 12:56 AM
What you really need to do is take the time to read the Bible, start with a book like John and give it an honest read. Give it a chance to win your trust. The Bible is durable because it is truth but your hostile approach does not allow you to give it fair treatment.
========================================
Who were you directing that to?
If it was me, then I am not certain what you are referring to as hostile.

I have read the bible.
Now my boys are reading it.
I keep an open mind. What I believe isn't the issue.

Also are you certain that the bible is actual factual accounts of everything that happened? Or is it an interpretation of what happened?
Kind of back to that "true knowledge" thing. ; )

I'm not arguing with you, just discussing the "what if's".