President Obama and Evolution
 

How refreshing! (y)

Q: York County was recently in the news for a lawsuit involving the teaching of intelligent design. What’s your attitude regarding the teaching of evolution in public schools?

A: “I’m a Christian, and I believe in parents being able to provide children with religious instruction without interference from the state.

But I also believe our schools are there to teach worldly knowledge and science. I believe in evolution, and I believe there’s a difference between science and faith. That doesn’t make faith any less important than science. It just means they’re two different things. And I think it’s a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don’t hold up to scientific inquiry.“

Evolution is a faith based religion as well. Because there is zero hard evidence other wise. Why should my children be taught something that has zero merit just because some scientist thinks it does. Show me where I evolved from any thing prove it to me with out a shadow of doubt. You can't.

And I also don't think you are a Christian if you believe in evolution. To be a Christian you have to believe in God, you cant believe in God and Evolution.

I believe the statement he made was that as human beings we've evolved, maybe in a technological sense. Evolution in that sense, does exist.

Having said that, religion and politics in the same thread, this could get ugly.

I think all forms should be taught and let the kids and parents take it from there. I do think that its necessary to teach evolution as it has more evidence then the other alternatives. the evidence is one word - dinosaurs.

freedom though should allow schools to teach and discuss all options, not just those that are popular.

In our state minimum competency testing doesn't look at the god component

I couldn't have said it better myself.

If you research jewish history and hebrew dinosaurs were mentioned in the bible in Job

I've never been a big fan of mixing schools and religion. My kids go to church every weekend and attend gatherings that our church puts on during the week. We've never pushed it down their throats and I feel they are better because of it. They ask questions and we do the best we can to answer them.

just my lack of .002 for this.

okay if that works for you. one mention of behemoth or another of leviathon hardly solve the problem for me. And I'm a grad of a Christian college, several years without an answer to this issue for me.

and flying horses and sea monsters were mentioned in greek and roman texts.

Wow. I don't even know what to say. I'm a biologist by training and I know that every biologist worth his/her salt uses the theory of evolution as posited by Darwin as the basis for understanding of life sciences. I can say this. Evolution is fact. Forms evolve. There can be no dispute about that. The theory part comes in as to how this happens. And for 150 years, scientists have accepted Darwin's explanations for this and have corroborated his findings in every way possible.

To teach creationism as science in public schools is nonsense.

There you have it. Flame away.

You forgot the Flying Spaghetti Monstors. :smile:

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

may you be touched by his noodley appendage

Thats fine. its your beliefs. I am not asking you to be a a Christian thats your desicion. I feel Christ is just and lets you make your own choices. Im not here to judge you for it.


Bingo! Faith or hope or what ever. You don't know what caused it, I do God!

I tell you what you all believe what you want to believe and I will believe what I wanna believe and well leave it at that. We will see which one is still alive when the lord comes home.

Ok, why couldnt these be the dinosaurs? Everything was plush and green during the time of adam and eve right up until the flood. I believe there was still earth exposed during that time and this is where they were pushed back to the ones who didnt die.
Reptiles never quit growing there surroundings usally kill them first whether it be diet, enviroment or whatever.

I am not saying science isn't great and that there are things I can't explain.

But with simple geometry I can make an elephant climb a tree, but we all know its not really possible, right?

So I have explained my theory please tell me how man got here with out being created by the all mighty?

If apes have evolved into humans why don't we still have half ape half man things running around?

since this has nothing to do with the president any more then i'm going to put this out there.

it baffles me that people discredit ancient greek stories of mount olympus as myth and then take something like genesis as fact. the bible is as much fairy tale as is the tales of the roman gods and godesses or the lord of the rings stuff. there its out there.

thank zeus i live in a country that allows me free thought.

To inject a little humor here.....

We do! Come ride with me for a day!!!!! :)

Kris

You highlighted a sentence but ignored the sentence behind it. It's not faith or hope, it scientific evidence. And it's not who caused it but what it is. A theory based on overwhelming scientific evidence. There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support creationism or it's cousin Intelligent Design. So why teach that as a so called theory in public schools?

Because we've evolved.

What do we evolve into next? John Clark? :razz:

And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming...

Kris

Natural selection will get us there Lunk!

exactly, Christianity / Judaism / Islam comes 100% from written history and traditions. Ancient Greek religions and myths are based on 100% written / oral history, yet they are viewed as fairy tales & myths only.

Although, I do hear from many non-westerners that the main religions do sound like fairy tales.

I have nver said that anient greek or roam texts are false I think they all blend together to prove the truth.

Same as science it documented history but they cant connect the past The Bible does in deed connect the past.

I agree the Bible does connect the past, it mentions rulers and cities that did indeed exist. I think the point dmead and I were stating was that both Greek & Roman religions have the same such connections with the past.
Most of the world's religions talk of a flood that covered the world, often these are religions that are older than Christianity or Judaism as well. the connection to the past is something that does not by itself prove anything, faith is required. although faith is required for everything and every belief.

the bible connects the past "if" you buy into it. I personally don't. the same is true of ancient greek and roman texts.

I buy into some of the names and places mentioned in the old testament because science has found them or their final resting spots. Let's take King Herod for example. the man was real. this is well documented outside of the bible. he built tons of infrascructure in Israel. Howver the only documentation of him giving orders to kill all the infants under 2 is in the book of Matthew. None of the other testaments of Jesus (Mark, Luke John) make mention of this. There are no records outside of the bible that give any evidence to back this claim. Based on this I make my mind up that this is false or misinterpreted information. Perhaps the real story is lost in time and the many translations that have been done since those books were writen 100 - 200 years after the death of Christ.

just my .025 worth.

Dmead I went to a class one time that the instructor told the first person in the row a secret he was to inturn pass it around the room from one person to the next. By the time it passed through 30 men the story has completely changed. The main frame of the story was the same but the details changed. Each part of the four books tell a different perspective.

Ok, we've gotten a little off topic. So what is everyone's opinion on teaching creationism or it's identical twin, intelligent design in public schools? Should it be taught in science class?

Certainly.

If not, you are ignoring major truths.

I love it how the left loves to censor and ban teaching of certain ideas in our schools, just because they don't understand or even agree with them.

So naughty of you.

look, i don't think creationism should be taught in public school. if you want creationism or it's red-headed stepchild intellegent design taught to your children then you can send them to a christian school.

oops. you can't afford to send them to private school? i'm sorry then take them to church then. it doesn't belong in public school.

evolution however has scientific backing. just look at the Dodo bird. it evolved into extinction because it was too slow and dumb to outrun or outsmart it's predator.

please keep your hyprocricy out of my schools. and that is aimed at the entire christian right, not anyone here at this board.

Should it be taught in schools? Yes
Should it be taught in science class? No, humanities

Should it be optional or required? Optional

I think the bigger issue, when you get right down to it - is whether evolution should be taught as fact, or as THE theory, to the exclusion of any other possibilities. I think the biggest reason for the ongoing fight is because the way evolution is generally taught, part of what's taught is "your religious beliefs are wrong and false."

I'm for all ideas to be discussed and let kids and parents decide what they should believe. Same for all aspects of education such as sex ed. (not to thread jack).

Well I dont want my children taught evolution but its forced down their throats every year. Keep your hyprocricy out of schools as well. That way I dont have to tell my sons that their science teacher is an idiot.

I think that's exactly how it's taught now. As THE theory. And were talking about how forms evolve, not if they evolve. I think everyone agrees that evolution occurs. I don't know how it's being taught. I think those proponants (think Ben Stein) of ID like to say that the idea of how forms evolve is being shoved down kids throat, but I don't think that's the case. If there are alternative theories (and I'm talking about ideas that are advanced to a scientific theory) then by all means teach them. But there are no other explanations that can stand up to the scrutiny that the theory of evolution has withstood. If there are, enlighten me.

Wirelessly posted

Fascinating

So if a teacher truly believed that an alien came to earth 10,000 years ago and created life, do you think they should be allowed to teach that to their students? What is this 'teach all ideas' stuff? I just don't understand it. Why shouldn't we teach what is supported by science in the science classroom?

It is isn't it? ;-)

Ok, what major thruths are being ignored?

well ok, accepted ideas. i guess I meant the big three described here. I do think evolution science should be taught as just that, it has evidence to back it up so teach about the evidence and the theory that fills in the gaps. The other two should be taught as alternatives. Thats what I mean by teach all ideas. Exposing people to all viewpoints and ideas generally pays off in my opinion.

so were you talking of a scientologist creation story? if so then no it should not be taught.

ahhhh, tolerance at its best.

The fact that those you are who are so closed-minded and unenlightened wish also to control what is taught is really disgusting.

Well I for one know that I have a heavenly father who loves me and has a home for me when I pass out of this world as hes done for my father and uncle who have passed recently. And for that I am thankful, I know he loves me because he can not for what I do.

What is being controlled. With specific examples.

But test, how are they to be taught? As valid science? Does creationism have valid science backing it up? If so, sure, teach it. But to this day, no one has tested any hypothesis about intelligent design or creationism successfully. So tell me how and why it should be taught in the science classroom. Shouldn't these ideas (they are not theories) be taught in humanities classes?

Apparently your mind mind and that of a couple other posters in this thread, for a few specific examples.

Typical. Very typical. All I'm asking is for your arguments. But you can't provide any. The entire movement of those who want creationism taught in school (like the Discovery Institute) depends on people like you.

Edit: Sorry about that. I'll try not to resort to personal attacks again. But if anyone wants to argue the merits of why or why not creationism should be taught in the public school system, then I'm ready.

I was speaking specifically of those closed-minded individuals such as are posting in this thread who advocate censoring ideas other than their own. Is that not enough?

No, it's not. I want to know what you think is being censored. Are you talking specifically about not teaching creationism in school?

And I have another question for you. Do think that the theory of evolution should not be taught in public school science classes?

Yes, that is what dmead was advocating in posts above. I see test54 said all ideas should be taught, but dmead's thoughts were much narrow.

Do you think teaching subjects in science class should be held to high scientific standard and be testable and researchable? I'm just asking. I don't know why creationism should be taught, in science class, because it cannot be tested. That's all I'm saying. And until such time that it can be and stand up to scientifice scrutiny, then it should not be taught.

Roger that. The scientific process is a very specific process, and to be eligible for instruction in a science class that process must be adhered to with considerable rigor.

Ideas are ideas, and are therefore also valuable, but just because any specific individual is convinced that an idea is "truth" does not make it truth in a scientific sense; it makes it their personal truth. In that context, however, I would add that teaching intelligent design even in a course on humanities would probably open up the necessity of teaching Muslim, Hindu, etc., perspectives on the origins of the universe.

And on a related vein, many of the very devoted scientists that I know are also quite religious within the Judeo-Christian -- largely because they have spent time understanding philosophy of science. The two are not at all incompatible

It appears to me that some individuals don't understand the potential difference between how and why in this "debate". One book seems to have a interesting desciption of how and the other has an interesting desciption of why. The real problem, in my opinion, is that there is a misunderstanding by some of the true age of the universe. The earth is made up of parts of an exploded star. Think about it.

well, I think science class is by default where it will come into play. Ideas or theories, thats fine as long as the students can be presented with the ideas.

Wow T, you care to expand on that? Not quite sure what you're getting at. I think I do, but come on man, tell us more.

A voice of reason. (y)

There's a very fine line test. It should be ideas that can be tested. That's what science is all about. Testable, researchable ideas turn into hypotheses. Hypotheses can be rigorously tested and proven over time to fit within a framework of ideas. If an idea has merit, then researchers will test it, plain and simple. This is clearly where the evolution of form sits now. Down to the molecular level. There's just nothing that can be tested with the notion of intelligent design. If there was, and proof could be achieved, there would be Nobel prizes in order.

yes i am being closed minded to a great extent, but then you can send your children to a school of your choice. you don't have to send them to the schools that don't teach your ideals. my point earlier is that you have a choice in what you want taught to your child by way of which schools you send them to.

mriff, to see some of how it is taught or comes across, look no further than this thread.

"the bible is as much fairy tale"

your own reference to "You forgot the Flying Spaghetti Monstors. :smile:" with the URL to the site which is pretty much in its entirety an attack on Christianity and clearly labels Christians as fools.

"please keep your hyprocricy out of my schools. and that is aimed at the entire christian right"

"evolution is fact" (hmm, but the scientific community calls it a theory)

Now, let me put my engineer hat on for a moment and call you out on one thing.
So you really are claiming that evolution explains why the starting point (apes) remains, but any and all midpoints have disappeared? Enlighten me! ;-)

And you wish to have the government support and fund those that teach what you wish, but not any others?

There you go! That's what should be being taught in schools! Stop the polarization that this thread clearly shows from BOTH sides! (y)

i don't want the government involved at all personally. unfortunately the government became involved long before even i started school myself. I think you have a choice though. If you want to teach your child creationism or intelligent design then send them to a school that teaches those "theories". if you don't like what is being taught to you kids then don't send them there. it is pretty simple. you always have a choice.

Well, I'm not even sure where to start. First of all, the scientific community cites Darwins conjecture that natural selection causes forms to evolve a theory. The theory studies and promotes research on how forms evolve. Not if they evolve. Do you deny that biological forms evolve? If so, then you should go to your medicine cabinet and throw out every antibiotic that you have and just stick with penicillin. Forms evolve, there's no dispute about that.

Sorry for posting on the Flying Speghetti Monsters. But that site is simply an illustration that teaching ideas that cannot be backed up by science is wrong and was started as a hoax.

And you clearly have not studied the fossil record or the science thereof. Human evolution has been studied and reported on extensively! Midpoints exist throughout the fossil record. The starting point was not Apes. I never said it was. Nor has any scientist studying human evolution.

Of course that is my choice. And as long as my tax dollars are being spent in public education, I have a right (more so a duty) to voice my opinion on what those tax dollars are spent teaching.

I haven't spent as much time investigating this as I perhaps should have, but isn't this largely a function of the tautological reasoning that is used to create the arguments underlying that approach. Note that I won't even call it a theory, because theories IMHO must be testable to qualify.

I wish to have the government support and fund those that teach science in the science class room. And that teach philosophy in the philosophy classroom.

Just more examples of far left liberal censorship tactics and small-minded thinking.

How so? Sounds like Rush talking to me.

I don't know. But resort to tautological reasoning they have. And believe me, it's working in some cases. Check out the recent 'freedom of education' law passed by the state of Louisiana. A similar law was almost passed last year in FL. It didn't quite work in Dover however. The school board that passed laws that creationism should be taught alongside the theory of evolution was repudiated to say the least. The Discovery Institute calls it the Wedge Strategy. Scary stuff.

Not even worth a reply.

The left hates to admit they've become what they fought in the past.

It all comes full circle.

I've been a registered Republican for 30 years.

Here's the question, plain and simple. Do you think the theory of evolution should be taught in public school?

Being a registered Republican in Florida means nothing other than what party declaration sits beside your name on the voter roll. I know Florida politics (and I work in them quite often, closer than I care to share here) enough to know what being a registered R or D means in that state. Nothing. And it certainly doesn't make any declaration of your base ideology. It is simply a label to define which ballot you get in a primary election.

As for teaching evolution in public schools, if it is explained that is another theory, not a fact, in regard to the origin of living things. I am willing to approach anything with an open mind, study it carefully, and consider it carefully. And taught along side creationism, yes. It's perfectly fine for me for the teachers to explain there is conflict here. Because there certainly is conflict. To ignore the conflict of thought is sticking your head in the sand. To censor what you don't believe is wrong, as well.

Many in this thread have a great intolerance to others' beliefs, and even a greater intolerance of the Judeo-Christian beliefs, and that is the small-mindedness I refer to.

What the hell does that mean? I have no idea.
Creationism has no basis in fact and cannot be tested. It's not science. A scientific theory only becomes a theory after it has been rigourously tested and found to fit all arguments surrounding the hypothesis. That simply cannot be said of creationism. So it shouldn't be taught as science. It is not science.

I don't have intolerance to others beliefs or to Judeo-Christian beliefs. I happen to be a member of a church that has no problem with the theory of evolution. I just like my science served up without interferance.

Here's a good description of what it means to be a Scientific Theory. The idea of creationism cannot pass this test. But the theory of evolution can and does.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that a theory never becomes a law unless it was very narrow to begin with. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science. Here is an oversimplified example of the development of a scientific theory:

You're the one who stated you've been a "registered Republican for 30 years". I see now you really don't know what it means. :)

Mriff, that is an excellent delineation of some of the basics of scientific theory.

Oh, and just as an FYI to others in this thread, I have voted Libertarian for the past 36 years -- and don't go assuming that translates into liberal/leftist. Go read some Hayek. I recommend The Road to Serfdom. In my opinion, that reflects true conservative thinking, not what we have seen in the US in the past 20 years.

I was referring to your blathering spew about FL politics.

Some of us are convinced that Republicans don't know what true conservatives are.

I like to use that when someone says 'it's just a theory'. Theory in the dictionary is not the same as theory as outlined in the Scientific Method.

I completely agree, as long as I also have a choice to fund those schools which I feel are the best choice for my kids. That's why I'm in favor of school vouchers. Its currently not as "pretty simple" as you say, since those who "choose" to send their kids to other schools also have to continue paying for those they don't choose - which the other side doesn't have to do.

I quoted this once, but will do it again for emphasis. I think that's the answer. There's way too much intolerance on BOTH sides of this. And the ones (including in this very thread) saying evolution is the only answer AND therefore Christianity is fairy tales are as much of a problem as the ones on the other side advocating not teaching evolution or teaching creationism as science. More tolerance and understand, and what djm talks about above is what's needed and what should be being taught.

I too am a practicing Christian, and a Republican (who's not real happy with the party recently) but have long since reconciled my own beliefs and how they fit with science. I hate the intolerance that this issue always exposes on both sides of the argument.

Thank you. The two can co-exist.

I certainly agree with what you've written and if I came off any other way, then I apologize. One can be a Christian and believe in evolution. More tolerance and understanding is always good. I just have to draw the line when it comes to teaching creationism within the science curriculum. I guess you can tell by now that that bugs me. :smile:

amen to that. (y)

lol, unless it IS something of which you are intolerant. Got it.

Exactly. I didn't want you to know.

That would be about perfect timing (y)

Very true.

An article I was reading on the subject of how old is the earth

Creation Isn't Science
Author: Jonathan Sampson
Many evolutionists and atheists alike have - throughout history - shunned Scripture and the lessons learned therein by claiming that Creation Science isn't testable, repeatable, observable, and so forth. As this is true about certain aspects of Creation Science, this is also true about certain aspects of Evolutionary "Science". One cannot deny the overwhelming amounts of assumptions and un-justifiable dedications that materialists demonstrate.

Both Creation and Evolutionism start with philosophical assumptions. Evolutionists (traditionally) start with the assumption that God has no intervention in this world. This isn't a testable conclusion; they didn't come to this conclusion by science. Creationists have the philosophical position that God has partaken in the history of this earth, and that He has revealed the True history of the earth through His infallible Word.

As you can see, both Creation and Evolutionism start with philosophical premises. There are many aspects of the Creation Theory that are indeed testable also. For instance, the Bible states that earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago1, in six literal days2. Evolutionism claims that the earth came into existence some 3-5 billion years ago3, over a very long and tedious process of formation. Both of these teachings can be tested to some extent. It's important to also emphasize the knowledge difference between fallible man (who is a fallen creature), and the Omniscient God, Creator and sustainer of all.

When man inspects the earth, the biosphere, the world around us, we formulate hypothesis as to how things came to be as they are today. After data is brought in and analyzed, we can test our hypothesis and see what outcomes we're given. Creationists already have the Truth; the earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago1. Evolutionists wish to construct their own truth; the earth formed slowly over billions of years. Both of these are subject to the same scientific method. When we observe the outpourings of data rendered from the science, we can see that the evidence greatly supports the idea of a young-earth (6,000 years old).

Now, we can see that both Creation and Evolutionism have non-testable aspects about them, and also testable aspects about them as well. Creation Science Evangelism wishes not to invite Creation into public schools, but only to have incorrect information extracted from taxpayer-purchased textbooks. Schools have a legal, as well as moral obligation to remain truthful to our students. Unfortunately, many schools today have veered from this path and have accepted voodoo-science as part of their curriculum. Material such as the gill slits, the horse evolution, the human evolution, the evolution of the giraffe, and so much more are still presented to children as facts, and done so dogmatically.

When will America - as well as the rest of the World - wake up and smell the indoctrination. Millions of children everyday are being presented with information that is testable, has been tested, and is now scratched off as untrue in the scientific literature. Even our SAT's are presenting incorrect information to our fervent studiers. Both Creation and Evolutionism are testable in certain areas and un-testable in others, both have been tested, and only one prevails - Creation. We were fearfully and wonderfully created, and we will soon stand before He that creates and give an account for the life we lived. Will you be ready?4

Additional Information:
These figures are found by adding up the genealogies found in scripture, and by Jesus' teachings of man's history.
Exodus 20:11, Mark 10:6, Matthew 19:4, and Genesis 1...
This number varies slightly with different evolutionists.
We're all guilty of breaking God's law. We've lied, we've stolen, we've disobeyed God, we've left Jesus' teachings, and we've followed after worldly things as opposed to spiritual things. On judgment day we will stand before the Creator of everything and we will give an account for that which was done. Will you be found innocent or guilty? Heaven or Hell? If you've not allowed Christ to be the substitute for your punishment, you will pay for your own sins - an eternity in Hell. But Christ came to earth, lived a perfect life, and paid our debts for us so that we might be reunited with the Father.

In general, the anti evolutionists tend to think the earth is rather young in the order of 5 to 6 thousand years old. The earth is made up of the material that results from a burnt out star blowing up. Figure out the time a star lasts before it goes super nova and the age of the universe is in the billions of years.

dawg, "When we observe the outpourings of data rendered from the science, we can see that the evidence greatly supports the idea of a young-earth (6,000 years old)."

I think that the majority of the scientific community (and many Christian scientists) would say that is not true. Both ideas are based on faith since no one has been around for over 6000 years, evolution however has evidence left that supports it, the Bible story of creation does not have any evidence.

This brings back that one word - dinosaurs.

But people are free to put their faith in whatever they want, thats why all ideas should be taught.

that is exactly why i don't buy the intelligent design hoopla. I have even had some them tell me that this is how "God" wanted it to look to us.

Listen we all are here on earth in this very day. I personally don't need to know where i came from or where i am going in order to survive. I personally don't care. My society dictates that i need money in order to live. so i go to my work everyday and i get money to buy things we need. i will continue doing this until it isn't necessary anymore or i die. Man created god in his image 6000 years ago so he could attempt to explain his existence. i truly believe that. we (homo sapiens) have been on earth for over a hundred thousand years. i truly believe this. there is nothing you can say or do that will change my mind about this.

since this debate is never going to end i am out of it before i call somebody a moron or a jackass. this thread will be the end of this subforum and i don't want it to be me that causes that. see you in another thread.

You see, it's not intolerance. It's understanding. There's a vast difference. Did you ever study life sciences JSanders? Got a degree in biological sciences by chance?

Ok, thanks. I got it. The earth is billions of years old. Maybe on the order of 4 to 5 billion. On this, 99.9999 percent of geologists agree.

You pretty much have already done that to all of us that don't agree with you. You just didnt come right out and say it.

If anyone is interested in further exploring the arguments that evolution explains development, this is a pretty good website:

TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

There are also two very good books by evolutionary biologist Sean Carroll:

Endless Forms Most Beautiful - focuses on the new science of Evolutionary Development (Evo Devo)

The Making of the Fittest - focuses on DNA analysis and compares development of form to changes in DNA

These are two very good books and highly recommended. They are written for the lay person.

Why do people stop going backward in time with the dinosaurs? There was another explosion of life before the age of dinosaurs which no one seems to talk about. One of the interesting animals in this period was the eleven toed proto mammal that sort of looked like a dog. I can' t remember the name of the thing but now I will start looking.

One thing that I think is rather humorous about this type of debate is that the main religious issue in the 19th century was not the one(s) that Darwin started with his book but the debate caused by discussion of "higher criticism." Now that is a subject for conversation along with "lower criticism."

There were many, many explosions as you call them. Stephen J Gould termed this phenomonen 'punctuated equilibrium'. Which is the notion that there are occurances in the fossil record of rapid change followed by stability. This also occured during the evolution of dinosaurs.

This is an interesting article. All they wanted to do was declare a Science Month. But some folks had trouble listing Charles Darwin and Galileo Galilei as actual scientists. Regardless of what you think about their research and discoveries, I think you have to agree that they were indeed scientists.

DispatchPolitics : Naming scientists now the holdup Columbus Dispatch Politics