Epulopiscium fishelsoni, called "Epulos" for short, live on a regular schedule and produce 2 to (sources say as many as 12, but most are lower - 6 avg.) offspring. They also have tens of thousands of back-up copies of their DNA, and used to be the largest known bacteria.

Sources, sorted easy to more advanced:
http://people.ku.edu/~jbrown/babies.html
http://www.cals.cornell.edu/cals/micro/research/labs/angert-lab/intro.cfm
http://twistedbacteria.blogspot.com/2008/05/big-bacteria-with-lots-of-dna.html
http://www.accessexcellence.org/LC/ST/st12bg.php

To the extent possible, I think this evidence speaks for itself most eloquently, and I found some other tidbits, in case the Epulos don't spark conversation. Cellular Slime Molds could, one hopes to wish, provide some enlightenment as well.

An interesting organism indeed.

Evidence? evidence for what?

What type of conversation would you like to spark?

Do you consider symbiotic relationships to be a refutation of evolution? How so?

In attempting to prove that evolution occurs, you are only limited by the credulity of your audience.

The faith of evolution is so fundamentally flawed that the only feasible method of indoctrination is a play on existing emotional prejudices.

In attempting to disprove that evolution occurs, you are only limited by the credulity of your audience.

The faith of creationism is so fundamentally flawed that the only feasible method of indoctrination is a play on existing emotional prejudices.

See, I can make sweeping unsupported generalisations too, ignoring all the evidence for anything that's been presented here. It's right because I say so.

I am confused as to how this relates directly with the subject matter of this thread. Perhaps you are about to expound on how the "evidence" provided by CTD is showing the "faith of evolution" to be "fundamentally flawed".

I look forward to your in-depth analysis of the evidence.

I would anticipate a re-tread of the "it's too complex to have evolved" argument, though even that seems to be reaching a bit here. I'm pretty mystified myself. I'm also a little tired of how, when creationists here are unable to address evidence such as the foraminifera or human fossil records, they simply start new topics. I can't say that slime molds set my world on fire.

Perhaps your anticipation is based upon what your own eyes tell you? Better adjust your goggles, if you're starting to see things. If they still don't work, be careful about where you go shopping for a new pair.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/fittingglasses.gif" alt="" />


If the situation were as you say, and creationists were avoiding discussions, you should consider it a plus, because it would be evident for all to see that creationists can't cope.

But we know otherwise. The threads don't convey that message. What they show is evolutionists continually changing the subject, unwilling to discuss most topics, preferring rather to spam bunk & then say we have to debunk all of it; then stubbornly refusing to acknowledge even that which has been thoroughly debunked.

Although I agree with Russ, I think your best hope is in selecting victims with amazingly short attention spans & severely limited short-term memory in addition to credulity & emotional prejudices. You need people who will forget what's been debunked; and who will believe that which has been clearly demonstrated yesterday doesn't count when you say today that it has not been shown. People disinclined to use a scroll bar & see what was said a few posts back.

Now if you'd prefer not to discuss slime molds or bacteria, don't. I think they're interesting, and I don't think it would be good to introduce them in another thread where they don't fit. Just because I study evolutionists does not mean I intend to pick up their habits.

My anticipation is based on being familiar with the types of claims that creationists here continually make. Your links seem to be talking about how new things have been learned about certain organisms and how they appear to be more complex than was thought. Instead of being pleasantly interested in the fact that we're learning more abot life on earth, a creationist will say, "Look! Even the simplest-seeming life on earth could not have evolved." This statement ignores quite a lot of evidence to the contrary, however, including the fossil record, dating methods and genetics.


And the person who came here to start this new thread about a new topic is . . .?

As I recall, you refused to comment on the human fossil record and didn't have anything to say about the foraminifera fossil record either. I'm not asking you to "debunk" these, but to explain how you can claim that evolution doesn't occur when evidence like this exists. You either have to explain it, or ignore it, and you have chosen to do the latter.


Not much of a chip on your shoulder then.


Oh yes, since you've started the topic here, I'm fine with that. Maybe you'd like to explain the point you want to make.

Since when does anything in the fossil record, the cherry-picked dating methods, or genetics indicate non-living matter has the capacity to organize itself, encode itself with an amount of information so vast it hasn't yet been calculated, and add thereunto until the animal and plant kingdoms are fully accounted for?

Fossils don't demonstrate any capacity to encode information. Evodates don't. And genetics clearly shows that the exact opposite occurs in nature: information degrades over time, in spite of a battery of safeguards.

That every last lifeform is too complex to have evolved hardly requires explanation. A child of 9 or 10 can usetinker toys, legos, cards, toothpicks, mud & sticks, or whatever is available to construct more complicated things than random forces ever could. An adult can construct things which are more complex by at least an order of magnitude, and a team of adults can top this by another order of magnitude. Yet nothing made by man approaches life. That this should require to even be put into words is astonishing. This fact is surely one of the most obvious and self-evident of all indirect observations, with few rivals in serious contention for the title.
I think I explained the human & ape fossil mix quite plainly. The feet cannot be present if one desires confusion.

As far as debunking the foraminifera argument, I don't see that there's been any argument to debunk. It was just alleged that they prove evolutionism, but when I looked at them they didn't prove it, so I consider the hypothesis falsified.
Actually, I think these lifeforms debunk a handful of evoclaims on their own without explanation. Anyone aware of the claims can look at them and plainly see the claims don't match the evidence. Of course there are many, many evoclaims. I could indicate the ones they debunk, but then we just get into the boring "yes it does" & "no it doesn't" routine.

And the derailment attempts come, which are not just boring, they're irrational. What's your success rate with that tactic? Do you even keep track?

Now I'm not so silly that I don't understand the plusses involved. After you fail, you get to make a false accusation that a creationist is "dodging". So clever, so impressive... Since I'm obviously overmatched <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/sadblownose.gif" alt="" /> by your trickery, I'll hold off for now.

But if you're serious about not discussing these life forms, maybe you could pop over to the Big Joke and give RAZD a little help with his acorn story. He hasn't posted any evidence at all in support of his claim. In spite of the burdenless paradigm within which he chooses to operate, I'm sure he'd really appreciate any evidence you might find to support his extraordinary claim.

I believe in science...to a degree. I believe that "evidence" is sometimes misconstrued to make theories fit. (i.e. human fossils). I believe that humans have actually been on the earth for about 6,000 years, but that the earth itself has been around millions (??) of years, possibly, because I believe the creation was an organization of already existing materials to use for man's purposes. There is something to the theory of evolution because things do adapt....(white fox in the arctic, etc. etc.) but I do not believe humans evolved from animals or that we evolved from a random combination of bacteria. I believe we have a creator who is a GOD (think of those implications), that He is the literal father of our spirits...that he has power over the elements but uses natural law. You can believe in the creation and still accept viable science. Some things we just aren't going to know in this life, though. We have finite minds and its hard to comprehend things of an eternal nature which I believe all humans are!!! (Animals too, actually) Eternal that is....our spirits are. The theories of how we began within science are just that.....(theories).

Welcome to the fray Jeanie, I hope you enjoy your stay and take something positive away with you.

You of course realize that your belief - one way or the other is immaterial: what is real is real no matter what you or anyone else believes. For instance we can believe that the objective world about us is evidence that tells us the truth about reality, or we can believe that the evidence lies -- particularly when we think the evidence inconveniently contradicts what we feel comfortable believing. The problem with this is that then you believe that the truth about reality is that it - reality - is a falsehood.

All you need to do then is explain the evidence in a manner that is consistent and that includes all the evidence. This is what biologists, paleontologists, taxonomists and other scientists by the thousands have done.

Again, you are free to believe anything you want to. You can believe the world is flat too. The question, the issue, is whether you are willing to test your beliefs and discard false concepts when they are contradicted by evidence, or whether your would rather discard the evidence to stay comfortable in a cocoon of relative ignorance (= lack of knowledge on the topic).

The evidence shows that the oldest life is 3.5 billion years old, that hominids have been in existence for at least 3 million years, that Homo sapiens has been in existence for at least 200,000 years.

The evidence shows that the earth is at least 4.55 billion years old and that the universe is at least 13.7 billion years old.

Or the evidence lies, all evidence lies, the world is lies. Buddhists believe all is illusion ... perhaps they are right eh?

Okay: it wasn't random, but the result of selection.

But of course. Including the natural law that governs variation and adaptation, the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, descent with modification ... evolution ... in an endless display of diversity, including bacteria that give live birth and unicellular animals that reproduce by sex (but have only one sex?). The natural laws that build your body from exactly the same materials as the bacteria, and in fact need bacteria to survive..

And yet the creator gave us these wonderful inquisitive minds, more curious than a cat, to poke at the world and see what we can understand, for then we understand the creation better eh?

In all of science, in every branch, under every tree of knowledge that we have acquired by the principles of science we have evidence, the foundation, and theory. The theory explains the evidence and produces predictions that can be used to test if the theory is valid or false. It's a process of attrition in weeding out false concepts, for theories - no matter how well tested - cannot be proven, only disproven, falsified. But in science, theories are more than just ideas, concepts, guesses, because they have to explain all the known evidence and predict new evidence.

And then they have to be tested, tested, tested, tested. So long as a theory is not falsified by any of the testing then it can be considered a valid theory, useful for making predictions (like Newton's theory of gravity is useful in predicting rocket flights to mars).

And of course science is not the only avenue to knowledge - we also have logic and philosophy, and religion/s. So many different ways to understand the world, and the question, the issue (for those interested in the truth and not comfort candy) is how do we determine which is true and which is false.

Enjoy.

Aren't we just the intellectual?? I use to work with guys like you in a petroleum lab in the army reserves. Honestly I don't feel the need to debate the subject to prove what "I believe." But I am a truth seeker and don't just blindly "believe" these facts. I just think its nicer to put it that way cause I don't know for sure any more than you do exactly how the creation went down. Other than that I have indesputable evidence through experience about my faith. And I KNOW that we were created by a higher being.

It doesn't mean I haven't studied. I have about 5 years of college - couldn't decide what I wanted to go into - but did get an Assoc. in Science because I was going into Nursing which I changed my mind on. I just subbed in science classes for 2 months (as a special ed teacher) in high school and we just went through all this.

I'm not a religious fanatic, but do believe and have faith in things you can't see. (Which is not to say there is not evidence of those things...but sometimes you don't see it other than through your spiritual eyes). You can't argue about such things. I would have to get into my whole belief (KNOWLEDGE) system which is more spiritual than physical but controls the physical.

You really aren't going into this with an open mind. I just sat through all the current stuff with evolution theories, but it didn't sell me. Learned all about the bacteria issues you are talking about. So? What does that prove? Do you think we evolved that way? (I'm new on here and don't have time to retrace all the posts - just see yours as kind of lost so thought I'd throw in).

May I ask what your faith is or if you are atheist? You really can still believe scientific FACT and still be a believer in a creator. Do you believe in the supernatural? I totally agree about belief not changing facts. Just like NOT believing does not change FACTS. Either its true or isn't.

Hi again Jeanie,

How do you know if you have not tested your beliefs against reality? Why does just asking these questions get your back up? Defensive? If you aren't willing to consider that some of your beliefs may be false, then you certainly are not being open minded.

Ah, then you are an expert, and you can tell us what is wrong with evolution. Perhaps you would like to define what you think it is first, so we can start from one basic level.

And yet you do have beliefs where you HAVE been "sold" on the concepts. The question comes down to what you use to determine validity: does it fit your comfort zone?

Easy to say, hard to show. Particularly when I am the one asking how you validate which beliefs are true representations of reality, and you are the one that says: "[color:"red"] You can't argue about such things. [/color]"

Does it matter? Does that change the argument in any way? Does that change reality?

Enjoy.

I would add to this list history, the science by which all the rest are known.

All of this is old ground which we have discussed before, CTD.

Comparing life to a child building something out of blocks is a non sequitur. The underlying assumption is that life was designed. The idea that it could have evolved, step by step, over billions of years, is rejected outright. Yet this is what we see from the fossil record, genetics, and dating methods. Claiming that our information is "cherry-picked" without providing any rationale for why you think this is, shows that you don't appear to have paid much attention to RAZD's lessons in reasoned debating.



I asked you to read this detailed article about hominid fossil feet last time this subject was discussed. In particular, I drew your attention to the discussion of transitional characteristics of fossil feet of australopithecines and homo habilis. I also gave you a link which showed you diagrams of australopithecine pevlis, femur and foot bones showing transitional characteristics between an ape and a human. Ignoring the evidence doesn't make it go away.



So you think someone can falsify a hypothesis because they decide they just . . . don't believe it, even though they don't give a single reason for why. If this is the way creation "science" works then you have no reason to complain about why it is not taken seriously.

So now you are claiming that certain bacteria and slime molds could not have evolved because we have learned more about them and have had to change some of our previous ideas? If scientists were not willing to do this, we would still think the earth is flat and at the middle of the solar system.

How about posting some concrete information here, along with some inferences you've drawn from it, rather than the same tired snide remarks and logical fallacies.

Hi Jeannie, it's nice to have a new voice here. Thank you for sharing your ideas.

I think that you are highlighting part of the problem with extremes that currently exist in this kind of debate. On one side, there are people who read the Bible word-for-word and insist that everything it says is literal -- commonly called YECs (young earth creationists). On the other side, there are scientists like Richard Dawkins who are evangelical atheists and who believe that science is the only and absolute route to knowledge; whatever we don't know now, science is capable of discovering in the future. I've spoken to people like this myself. I am not one of them, I don't think anyone here is, and I think their outspoken agendas are frankly insulting to people who believe that spirituality and religion can be integral and wholesome parts of a person's life.

Most scientists have some kind of theistic belief, and there's no reason why this and science cannot co-exist. Why does accepting one, have to necessitate throwing the other one out? As RAZD has said, you can believe that God gave us brains and curiosity so that we could use methods like science to find out about the world.

Mainly what the evolutionists here have been doing is trying to tie discussions down to solid evidence. My own usual method of debate goes something like, "If you believe evolution could not have occured, how do you explain x, y, or z?" The main body of evidence I personally find convincing comes from the fossil record, dating methods and genetics.

Would you like to choose something in particular to discuss -- maybe something that recently came up at school which you were not "sold" on?

Thanks for your nicer tone (Lynn?) I don't claim to be an expert on any of this, but I don't have to dissect things quite as much to make my own assumptions or beliefs nor am I defensive. Just don't like debating. My SIL who is the same faith as me likes to debate natural health issues, too, and I won't go there. It is contentious to me and I don't feel the need to go there but it doesn't change how I see things. I'm sure to her, though, my state of health with mercury poisoning is "evidence" to her that my ways aren't good, but they've kept me as healthy as I am.

Concerning things that didn't sell me...I was "updated" I guess you could say with the newer theories out there concerning evolution and the newer information with bacteria, etc. I don't claim to be a biologist, but it still doesn't make me think we came from that or evolved that way. My science classes from college were back in 1979-81 so it had been a while. I was at one time open minded about evolution while still trying to fit it in with creation, but don't feel the need to do that anymore. I have some tapes that talk about how carbon dating isn't that accurate (which I haven't watched in some time so couldn't explain presently, why). How even strata dating isn't. (May not be the scientific name for it....but you know what I mean). I used to think I wanted to go into being a science teacher, but not anymore. I think it confuses too many kids. It is obvious there are things on this earth that have changed and grown and evolved, but I do not believe humans did. I don't believe in neanderthal. I really think, like I said, that men take fossils and make them what they want them to be. I know the differences between the bone structure of the pelvis, etc. etc., and the head and all that. Just doesn't convince me. And yes - I go by faith on some things. I just choose to accept some things "blindly" that I can't "prove" because it is what I've been told is the truth and my spirit testifies the truth of it to me. I don't feel the need to prove it to myself...let alone a zen rebel who likes to argue. (I looked into Zen myself at one time...) I was about to throw religion out the window at one point but found what I was looking for in a church. I don't want to debate religion either, though. If someone wants to learn with an open mind, I'd love to share, but refuse to debate something so personal and precious to me in a contentious manner. My point, I guess, is that I see the same evidences that Zen rebel does but don't interpret them the same way nor do I see them as evidence. Frankly you can get lost in evidence and not see the truth. You can find that with anything. You can surmise that all men are evil if you focus on all the bad things happening in the world. You can think God isn't there if you ignore Him and don't believe in Him and your own darkness will verify that belief to you. We are here to live in faith and THAT is when truth is revealed to you. But you have to be open to it. Truth has all the answers. Truth is reality. Truth starts with faith - even the size of a mustard seed. All this is really about that.

Sorry - Linda Lou....(not Lynn)<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/funnyfaces.gif" alt="" /><img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/fouragainstone.gif" alt="" /><img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/swordfighting.gif" alt="" /><img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/peaceok.gif" alt="" />

Hi Jeanie, welcome aboard!

This is a bit of a non-sequitur but a few points in your post made me wish to raise the following.

Citing that you (you in general) have "felt" the Christian god or that he has somehow "spoken" to you is not verification of his existence. I could just as well label this as delusional behavior and that would be no more or less of a provable statement (and no, I'm not saying you're delusional, just that that remark has the same amount of clout).

What's more, what happens when I interject and say that I have felt my gods, that they have spoken to me (and I them)? You speak of your god and of people ignoring him, what about other people's gods? By the sound of it, I'd say you're ignoring my gods -- but I'm not pointing fingers in that regard. I am sincerely asking as politely as possible and so I ask that you not take my query offensively but what's the difference? What's the difference between saying people are ignoring your singular god and for me to say that people are ignoring my plural gods? Or for that matter if an ancient Norseman appeared today and said we're ignoring Odin?

Incidentally, I don't think you need to take RAZD's posts as offensive or insulting. They looked quite straight forward and direct to me -- admittedly sometimes posts of this sort can come across as cold and clinical, and thus feel offensive or insulting. That doesn't mean they are. Personally, I take them to be observations and questions. Nothing more.

LindaLou, (and Zen Rebel)

This is off topic, but I noticed you are from England. I have a lot of ancestry there from my grandmother's side.

I appreciate your viewpoint on things. I reread through your posts. I am just not into debating, but you state your position well. Do you believe, then, that we did evolve or that the creation went down that way? My husband isn't sure what he thinks except always has said if we evolved from apes, then why do they still exist? I watched 9th graders squirm who were black because the theories implied THEY are less evolved and more closely related to apes. (Which I really and truly do not believe. I was even misunderstood in class when I told them I believe you can accept some things about Science and yet still believe in the creation - I live in the South now - the Bible belt where there is a lot of religious uh...passion : ) Obviously things - bacteria - evolve. I've seen "arctic" cats with more hair. Moose and bear are bigger in Alaska where we moved here from, etc. etc.. We have to be able to adapt to survive. I believe in the blood type diet, too. I've experimented with it and, for me, I do better with the proven diet that works best for Os. I don't necessarily, still, buy that we evolved the way even the author of Eat Right 4 your Type implies. It wouldn't even bother me to believe that we did evolve over time. But logically it doesn't even make sense to me. There is no way I believe we randomly came from bacteria, though, or that the creation needed to happen that way. Believing otherwise is not a comfort zone thing for me. And I do believe the earth has been here for who knows how long. It does not change my belief in the LITERAL creation, though. Not sure how old young earth creationists think the earth is??? (I've heard of them before but can't remember). I don't know if dinosaurs co-existed with man at any one time but they were obviously here and serve a purpose for us now! Before the flood the earth would mist from what I understand and the first rain as we know it happened with the flood. Before that it could be that animals got really really big (as well as men) because things were super nutritious before being diluted so to speak. The Bible itself mentions that men were giants at one time. They lived for near millenia at first. (Methusela was over 900 years old). I figure it had to begin that way for Adam and Eve to populate the earth cause, at first, brothers and sisters were marrying and pro-creating and there needed to be some generational distance there. For all I know there were these creatures mentioned (hominids/homo-sapiens) but even the evidence we have shows they were not related. I don't know enough about these fossils to know whether they really were what is thought. Lucy does not convince me. Her complete pelvic girdle wasn't even found. They reconstructed her. Even Darwin didn't believe in evolution as it is now being twisted. No matter what I do not believe they are related to modern day humans and that we evolved from them. I've known some schools of thought that believe Adam was brought from another planet. He didn't start out as a baby here as far as we know. (And YES I do believe there is life on other planets....) I had a personal experience I don't feel I'm at liberty to discuss on this forum but it ended my confusion on these issues and, frankly, its just a non-issue with me. I do not know the fine details of how our current earth with its life was formed. I do believe that time measurements with our Father in Heaven are not as we define them. Some say a day is as a thousand years for Him. He is eternal. I just know I do not separate the fact that we were created...even if it DID involve evolution... I'm curious, but it is one of those things that will be answered in full in the eternities. Of course knowledge is good and will give us an advantage in the next life the more we have of it. But if you leave the spiritual component out of the mix in figuring these things out, you will not get the whole complete picture. Just the contentious feel of the "argument" there reveals the lack of peace with that belief. There is a lot of false belief out there....lots of illusion. Science isn't the answer in its entirety. Its just another piece of the puzzle. And it has too many missing puzzle pieces to be complete. There are spiritual "evidences" just as much as physical. Sometimes they are seen from a whole different plane or other senses. There are evil unseen forces, too, happy to confuse us or bring us down.

Zen person - how do you see death? Yah - your belief matters cause it shows what makes you tick and what viewpoint you are coming from. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/flower4u.gif" alt="" />

You know the funny thing is I honestly believe there is more than one God out there.... I only have ONE Father in Heaven, though, myself. I have to get going here, but its interesting. I joined to get motivated to detox again, but getting sidetracked. Best wishes on all your quests for truth.

Love these little emoticons, too <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/babypacifier.gif" alt="" />

Robin - I'm not insulted or offended. He just seems to be trying awful hard to convince himself and others of these things. You are apparently a reader/poet/philosophizer. I'm bored.

Hi Jeanie,

Gosh, you've raised quite a number of issues in your post. I'll pick out a few to address.



I think the evidence for evolution having occurred is substantial. We don't know everything about how, and I expect we'll continue to learn as we study, but we seem to understand several of the mechanisms pretty well. I don't see a problem with believing that evolution is God's way of creating humans and all other living things.



Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor; they are two different lineages. To address the other implicit misconception here, a parent species does not necessarily die off when a daughter species evolves. This site explains pretty clearly and concisely.



The offense here is not the theory of evolution, but the fact that someone let these children believe that the theory implies that blacks are ape-like. Humans evolved from an apelike ancestor. We are all members of one species, homo sapiens, and the vast majority of scientists do not see enough variation in races to count any of them even as sub-species. This should have been explained to the children so that they did not walk out of school with the misconception that evolution equals racism. Why on earth would it?



Thank you for your honesty. I think this is true for a lot of people -- when beliefs are strongly held, we feel uncomfortable when new information comes to light that challenges them. The natural reaction is to ignore it or dismiss it. If you're brave, you might decide to alter your world view to incorporate it. I was there a few years ago when I learned about holistic medicine and realised that my doctor didn't know everything and in fact all he could do for me was prescribe toxic medications that made me worse. 99.9% of people seem to trust their doctors implicitly and it's hard to go against the grain like that. I wish I could go back to that comfortable little bubble where I could just tell the doctor what was wrong and a medication could put it right -- but my ignorance has forever been dispelled and I simply can't do that.

As far as the apparent randomness of evolution, who knows? You could believe that there's a divine design underlying the randomness, and that God subtly guides the direction evolution takes. I personally believe that there's growing evidence that the environment has more of an effect on organisms than we might think, and that there's very much a symbiotic relationship between a species and its habitat. I tend to lean toward something called the Gaia hypothesis, which sees the whole earth as one organism, though I think that idea itself is a bit simplistic. I certainly think that everything is interconnected. So again, while I think the evidence is clear that evolution happens, I think there are still things to learn about the complex ways in which it actually operates. Genes, while important, don't seem to have the paramount importance that was attributed to them a few decades ago. (Some call this biology's central dogma -- that we are controlled mainly by our genes.)

If we look at the fossil record, we can see a progression of life from single-celled organisms. More transitional fossils and more new species of fossils are found all the time. We also have dating methods which help us to understand how these pieces of the puzzle fit together. (BTW, creationist websites, books, etc, claim all kinds of things, and they also know they have to try to rubbish dating methods if they want people to believe that evolution did not happen. They rely on people who will take what they say at face value and not probe into it too deeply. But if you do study the actual details of what they say, you always find errors. Carbon dating is one of their favourites to try to shoot down, even though it isn't used to date anything more than about 40,000 years old anyway.)



Not the complete pelvis, but a substantial part of it. In fact, the skeleton is 40% intact, and as humans are bilaterally symmetrical, a great deal of information can be learned from her, including her probable methods of locomotion. What's more, there are other existing fossils of australopithecus afarensis and other australopithecines with which she can be compared. You can learn a bit more about her, and see the skeleton, here. You might also be interested in the diagram that CTD is unwilling to address, which compares the pelvis, femur and foot of australopithecus africanus to those of a chimp and a human. You can see which ones they most closely resemble for yourself.

To conclude here, I also believe that science is only one piece of the puzzle in the search for truth. it's a big piece, though, and I think some people are too willing to dismiss what it tells us when it conflicts with beliefs they have. Whatever I believe myself, it's rooted in some kind of evidence that I've found, even if it isn't necessarily the majority view. There are a few scientists out there, for example, whose ideas I am very intrigued by, even though the establishment tends to think they are crackpots. I won't tell you, though, that I simply believe they are right -- I can explain to you what they are studying and how, what they have learned, and how this doesn't have to conflict with everything we already know; rather, it adds to it, like Einstein added to Newton's laws of physics.

I think this is probably plenty to chew on for now <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I could never be bored by it.

Jeanie wrote:


Really? I don't get that at all from his posts. Could you show me any specific comments which make you think this? In a forum where the general (creationist) practice is to retaliate with emotional outbursts at anyone who disagrees with you, I find his posting style a refreshing one. Straight and to the point without any taunting. The general impression I get from him is that we can't change the facts of life but we can change how we choose to react to them. That may seem merciless to some but facts are facts and obviousness is obviousness. If evolution is indeed not true, then we live in a world where "God" has made it look like evolution is true. In this instance I follow the words of our fellow poster Russ Tanner: let the data lead you.


I'm not sure I follow you here (though I do like to think of myself as at least the first two). Was that random whimsy which prompted you to say it or is it connected with the rest of your post? Thanks.

-Robin Goodfellow

Ah, Jeanie, still fighting the shadows.

And the really funny part is that I look at evidence.

message #256691
Love that passive aggressive attitude.

You do know that the difference between buying a car and buying reality, is that there is only one reality, don't you?

As I said, you have "bought" information from other people without a qualm, because it fits your comfort zone. It seems your only criteria for judging the validity of a claim is whether or not it makes you comfortable.

So when it comes to knowldege being difficult we should choose ignorance, because it is comfortable. Better get rid of advanced maths too.

And you accused me of not having an open mind.

So you define "open mind" as someone who is willing to blindly and without question (that would mean debate) take your word for the truth, but you won't return the favor?

Ah, yes, the old "different interpretation dodge - another way to avoid the issue rather than get uncomfortable confronting it, because those "other interpretations" are never revealed nor is the way they explain the evidence ever discussed.

In science, the basic "interpretation" is based on there being a single objective reality. The alternative is an interpretation based on no single objective reality, but one for everyone, just subjective reality, where we all can just make up our mind/s -- is this your position? Should that position be taught in science class? (what would you teach?)

In science, the basic "interpretation" is based on the objective evidence we observe\experience\witness truly representing that reality. The alternative interpretation is to suppose that evidence is false, and full of lies -- is this your position? Should that position be taught in science class?

In science, the basic "interpretation" is based on the need to test our concepts against the evidence of reality to weed out falsehood and fantasy. The alternative is to suppose that we don't need to test concepts to weed out falsehood and fantasy, and a lie is as good as the truth -- is this your position? Should it be taught in school?

In science, the basic "interpretation" is based on all invalidated concepts being false and no longer relevant to understanding reality. The alternative is to suppose that we need to consider every theory that has ever been proposed as still possibly as true as any other regardless of the evidence -- is this your position? Should it be taught in school?

If you don't interpret the evidence as truth what are you left with?

Ah. No proof necessary, no validity required, subjective it is. Doesn't matter if it is a false concept, for all you need is faith. Yes "Vir-jeanie-a," the world is flat and Santa Clause is real, you can fly to never-never land, and all you need to do to return to kansas is click your heels.

Message #256696

Well you got one name right that time, and another half right. Just like when you only look at half the evidence and ignore the evidence that contradicts you ...

Well I thought you knew SOME biology, but if you don't know the answer to this hoary old PRATT (point refuted a thousand times) .... even AiG knows better.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

Of course your cousins all died when you were born eh? Will your brother's children die when yours are born?

The theories imply no such thing, for the same reason that the previous PRATT is wrong.

Are you less evolved than your brother? What if he goes around the world and you stay here?

Do you I wonder why?

And yet all your answers, all your sturm und drang, is about how you are uncomfortable with evolution and comfortable with your concepts based on faith and that you use no other test for validity than how you feel about the concepts, and any evidence that says otherwise is just lies.

Unfortunately for you, reality does care how you feel, nor is it influenced in any way by what you believe.

And elephants could fly. Now, instead of playing make-beleive, with spurious ad hoc off the cuff wishful thinking fantasy, how about dealing with reality first.

Let me invert two sentences of yours:

In other words, you don't know squat about hominid evolution, but you aren't afraid of pretending that you do.

Not really. The complete find can be seen here:

http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=22

As you can see, some parts are missing, some from one side and some from the other, but what you do not see is any "reconstruction" of the fossil itself. Now it is also fairly obvious to any logical person that you can take a fossil like this, and mirror parts to create a valid image of what the other side would be like. We can do this with the left thighbone (complete to the knee) and the right shin bone (from the knee down part of the shin) to see what the knee joint would be like. This was done with lucy's pelvis, which you can see on this site:
http://www.modernhumanorigins.net/lucy.html
Can you point out any errors in this method?

Scientists can also do this between fossils to build up an overall composite concept, but nobody (except some creationists) call these composites and mirrored parts "lucy" nor do they confuse them with the actual fossil AL 288-1

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/do74lu.html
Again, the fossil is 40% complete, but with mirror images we can assemble 70% of what the skeleton likely looked like whole, but no scientist pretends that one is the other.

You can also see on this site
http://www.anthro4n6.net/lucy/
How this composite pelvis and leg can be compared to chimp and human, and that it clearly shows intermediate development.

Perhaps you can enlighten us with an alternate interpretation of these fossils.

Not that it matters (evolution does not depend on belief, even from Darwin), but just for fun, perhaps you will share the evidence of this, rather than just make unsubstantiated assertions. I'd like to keep an open mind on it, but somehow just taking your word is not enough for me.

And you accuse me of not having an open mind.

Actually I like to find the truth and test it, not just take any old poorly thought out half vast (at best) concept on face value. And I am curious: how does 2+2=4 depend on my faith, beliefs concerning death, and my personal views of god/s? Does having a certain belief about death mean it is okay to think the earth is flat? Or do you just need an open mind to believe that?

Enjoy.

ps -- thank you for deciding NOT to be a science teacher.

LindaLou, You are very reasonable and give convincing arguments with how you see things. The truth is - I really don't care about it that much. It doesn't matter, to me, in the scheme of things enough to put so much research or energy into. My methods of functioning work for me...always have. I suppose you could say I am instinctive about things and right on most of the time - and like the moderator says - ahead of my time. Always have been.... No need to snip and paste something nasty about that RAZD...you don't know me and aren't reading me right - you're too busy swatting at flys or threats to your beliefs... YES - BELIEFS).

What I believe to be true about life gives me all the answers I need including who I am, why I'm here, where I came from and where I'm going. I don't have a big enough ego to worry about how intelligent I may or may not come off in the Zen dude's intellectual pissing contest. Incidentally I'm watching 10,000 B.C. right now - the movie that just came out to DVD. Not exactly holding my interest. (No point to that - just weird timing. There must be a trend with this push.)

With all due respect if I have offended any of you I would not deliberately hurt anyone and apologize. I don't really have time for this...but it has been interesting. Best to y'all. Seriously....Hope you find what you're looking for and figure things out. I found this site researching mercury and stumbled onto this subject line. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and beliefs. I still hold my own perspective to be correct, though, regardless of how informed (or uninformed) I may be about all the fine details. It is interesting.....I'm just not passionate or worried about it enough to get into it as much as some of y'all are. RAZD - you're getting ugly, though. Lighten up dude..

See some of you on other subject lines - but hope the other ones aren't as argumentative. Sheesh....just here to find support and help as a fellow "homo sapien." You're quite the fighter RAZD. Makes me curious about what makes you tick. I think my love and real interest is psychology. I'm probably old enough to be your mother, though, so watch your mouth; learn from your elders you little whippersnapper. Fight amongst yourselves or debate or whatever it is you are doing..... Most importantly as RAZD likes to obnoxiously end his post....ENJOY!!!!!!!!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/abducted.gif" alt="" />

Gosh Jeanie, you cop an attitude and then blame me for it?

I'm sorry that the truth hurts, but that's reality. Nobody ever said reality had to be kind.

Listen up child, for you do not know what you are talking about, but you are happy to make totally unfounded assumptions and then pretend they are real.

You are the one attacking me, have from the start, when all I have done is question how you determine the truth of your beliefs, how we all determine the truth of our beliefs. You have made several assertions, and failed to support them in any way. Your argument about human evolution, for instance, appears -- frankly -- to be based on ignorance (lack of knowledge of the subject) and personal incredulity.

No, instead you talk about me derogatively and in the third person and pretend that this takes care of the issues, the evidence, the problems raised. Just because you refuse to deal with the issues doesn't mean that it goes away.

Of course you do. Everyone does this. You aren't however, entitled to your own reality, we all share reality.

Nor are you entitled to think that your opinion based on a lack of information has any real value or amounts to a hill of beans when it comes to evidence, especially evidence that contradicts your beliefs.

Like the evidence that shows your comments about Lucy to be false. You say that the difference is interpretation, but you don't really have an alternate interpretation, what you have is denial. So much for the "open mind" approach.

It's only obnoxious to those that take it so.

There's a story about a old man who has a new neighbor, the neighbor comes over and asks what the neighborhood people are like. The old man asks the new neighbor how the people were where he lived before, and the neighbor replies that they were rude, obnoxious, ugly people. "Ah," says the old man, "you'll probably find they are like that here too." A year later the neighbor moves out, and tells the old man "you were right, those people are rude, obnoxious and ugly." Shortly another family moves in, a young couple, and the young man comes over to the old man to talk, and asks what the other neighbors are like. "What were they like where you lived before?" asks the old man. "Kind, friendly and helpful" replies the young man. "Ah," says the old man, "you'll probably find they are like that here too." Five years later, the two are sitting in a neighbors back yard enjoying a neighborhood barbecue and the young man tells the old man "do you remember when we moved in and you said the neighborhood people are kind, friendly and helpful? Well you were right, this is a nice neighborhood to live in."

Enjoy.

Yes, Jeanie, everyone is entitled to their beliefs. As you've shared yours here, we've simply questioned your system for validating them. As RAZD has pointed out, it seems to be a matter of what you are personally comfortable with, regardless of objective evidence. I hope you'll be interested in clicking on some of the links offered here and learning a bit more about the subjects under discussion, but of course that's up to you.

What's not up to you is to walk into a science class, misrepresent what evolution is and what its implications are, and leave students feeling confused and disturbed. I am a high school teacher myself and this kind of thing makes me angry; our job is to help students learn about life and about themselves, and it means we need to understand what it is that we are teaching them for a start.

If you'd like to discuss any of the specific issues raised here, such as Lucy, please feel free.

The alternative? The old false dilemma fallacy. But which evointerpretation is RAZD's "basic" one? There is more than one sect even among evolutionists.

So much ambiguity packed into so few words. I suppose this is a talent or art of some form. Does 'science' here mean empirical science, or evolutionism, or still something else? Whence comes this term "basic interpretation"? We know there are several interpretations of things, yet one is to be designated "basic"? One wonders if there's a formula, or perhaps a panel of authorities has been appointed... ?

And the fallacy gets repeated. Again, and again, and again. Can't say that takes too much talent.
Care to enlighten us as to which artist drew the "basic interpretation" of Pithecanthropus, and which ones drew the alternative?
Why do you even suggest one shouldn't interpret evidence as truth? OH! I forgot... you're the one who links to conclusions & claims they are evidence. Yes, in that case your sentence would make a good deal of sense. Few, if any, of the conclusions you submitted were truth.

...and man evolved from minerals.

And Darwin did say this very thing should happen in the vast majority of cases. He claimed the new species, being more fit, would outcompete the ones they replaced resulting in extinction almost all the time.

Rather than claiming "straw man", you need to emPHAsize that 'almost'.

Some evolutionists claim not to be racist; it is supposed this is all the evidence one needs that evolutionism isn't racist.

Looks like it was no coincidence when RAZD omitted history.

How about in other words, Jeanie agrees with the scientists and/or evolutionists who study these things. Is this not a possibility? Have you bothered to read what they say, or do you go by talkdeceptions & outdated (often retracted) newspaper stories say?

Wouldn't bet on it. Shoot, that ain't even worth wastin' time on.

I just had to check out the responses one more time out of curiosity, but dark truth person - no - I'm not obsessed with this issue as y'all are. To me "it ain't" important. Not like you guys make it to be. Linda Lou - I could say the same about teachers like you making me mad. I was only subbing and left it open - I did NOT teach anything as fact - only that you could believe in the creation and still accept the science of evoluation in general as truth (saying I did not personally believe we evolved, however, and said I was saying it not as a teacher but how I personally felt). THEY thought I was saying I did believe we came from apes and bacteria which I do not. I straightened it out. Sheesh - kids don't know what sex they are half the time anymore. We are nothing but (albeit - higher) animals and don't need morals - that is outdated right??? Why the hell are we here? Oh yah - to prey on the weaker.... Personally I take a different stance and try and help those less able to care for themselves. I really care about kids....

None of these conjectures are FACT. And shouldn't be taught as so no matter how much proof, proof, proof you think you have. A Christian has no right to say it is Linda Lou... I don't care what BS evidence you claim you have. You guys can send all the websites you want. I've seen enough already and your obsession is an evidence in and of itself. I can give you evidences to the contrary myself but they are more spiritual in nature and I wouldn't dare put them up for your rabid ripping. You're being given the rope in "evidences" you need to hang yourselves cause you are determined to prove your point. I say again - your kind take "evidences" and twist them for your own purposes to prove what you want. These are things people write about...does that make it even true? I saw your essays RAZD.

I DON'T CARE.......I DO NOT BUY IT. PERIOD. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING IN A COMFORT ZONE. You are twisting and making even my viewpoints fit what you want to keep YOU comfortable. I am signing off for the last time cause I have a life. It has been an eye-opener listening to all of you..... Blah blah blah.... I've actually said I could even see it IF that is how the Lord made it happen and that would not bother me - but I have EVIDENCE - EVIDENCE to the contrary..... Call it delusion. I think Y'all are crazy. Please, carry on in your misery. Whether I believe it or not this IS a waste of time and I do not care to hang out in your company any longer. You guys can't handle anyone disagreeing and attack. And yes - RAZD - WATCH YOUR MOUTH. ENJOY!!! You can't say I haven't given you some fodder to chew on!!!!!!!!!!!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/stretcher.gif" alt="" />

Jeanie, I was thinking of your comment that the black students in the class were uncomfortable with thinking that evolution means they are "less evolved." it does not. Was it you who actually allowed them to leave the classroom thinking this?

Secondly, you can reiterate however many times you like that you don't believe in evolution. That's clear. What's also clear is that you refuse to deal with one iota of the evidence in favour of evolution and simply dismiss it all without looking at it or understanding it. As I said earlier, that's fine if it works for you; not OK if you're meant to be teaching science to a class full of students. When you want to discuss any of the actual details presented here, let us know. You could maybe start by explaining what australopithecines and neanderthals are, since you said you don't "believe in" neanderthals. You're very welcome to state the evidence backing up your own ideas here, as we have done; I'd particularly be keen to hear how the spiritual evidence you mention overrides any physical evidence to the contrary, such as the fossil record. I suspect, however, that this discussion has moved you out of your "comfort zone" and that we will only be hearing more emotional outbursts. I don't think anyone here deliberately wants to upset you so maybe you might want to leave this kind of discussion until such time as you don't feel you will take offense if the factual foundation of your creationist beliefs is questioned.

I think it's quite possible, actually, that we won't be hearing from Jeanie again.

Right, so we've had lots of "I know what's right and you don't, but I'm not going to explain," and we've experienced lots of emoticon-punctuated angry statements from more than one creationist. It would be nice to have a reasoned, thoughtful, challenging discussion of physical evidence with someone. I'm not holding my breath.

Slime molds, anyone?

LindaLou wrote:


That's what I've been waiting for all along. I would be only too thrilled to see a rational rebuttal come from the creationist side. This isn't said as a challenge, either. I honestly want to see this side of the debate supported -- I just wanted it supported maturely and with the guidelines any proper debate should adhere to.

It is my personal challenge to CTD that he post one sincere post without any emotional outbursts, snide remarks or insults. Saying that his opponents do the same thing (which is quite ironic considering that they don't) is no excuse. If your side of the argument is founded on truth and nothing more, then there is absolutely no reason for emotional outbursts whatsoever.

In fact, is there any friendly wager we can spark here, folks? Obviously money can't be at stake in this virtual world here so what else can we bet on? If CTD (heck, or any of the current creationist posters) can make a thoughtful and sincere, honest-to-goodness debate-style post sans emotional outbursts, I'll shave my legs and post a before and after picture! I'm open to alternative propositions. I'm just quite confident it won't happen: a mature post from the creationist side supported with verifiable evidence. (Note: links to videos do not constitute as evidence.)

...come to think of it though... I'm not even asking for evidence here. Just a mature post without the need to pepper it with snide remarks or passive aggression. That alone would be quite a start.

Ooooh, naked legs!! You promise?

I'm trying to think of debates with creationists that I've read which fulfill your criteria. Sometimes you come across a website by a creationist with a scientific degree, or an exchange some such person has had with evolutionist scientists. That's probably as good as it gets. I'm fascinated and repelled in equal measure by the way these kinds of creationists use what they do know about science to misrepresent it to others whom they know will accept it unquestioningly.

However, if the foundation for your argument is lacking stability (i.e. a solid factual basis), I suppose you have no option but to resort to the sorts of tactics we keep seeing: emotional arguments, logical fallacies, insults, avoidance of evidence, arguments from ignorance, straw men, etc etc.

You never know though, we can hope, and we may see your naked legs yet!

No. Most people I know are not as obsessed as I am, and rightly so. There are tons of other important issues, and people have lives to lead.

Actually I think you realize it is important, although you have other priorities. You made a case yourself that this is not entirely trivial:
Nice argument, if short.

I wouldn't recommend intense engagement in these discussions, not for most folks. It's not pretty, and frequently it's unpleasant. When there's not enough funny to counterbalance the ugly, it's downright depressing. Fortunately, there's quite a bit of funny most of the time.

Prudent.

Observant.

Can't say I'm glad to hear this, but your priorities are yours to set.

Farewell J-teacher.

Good money! What's the deal with this junk? Did you skip every third word in my post or something? My explanation certainly did not assume its conclusion. I'm no evolutionist, so I have no need to employ circular reasoning.

It's common knowledge that there are many methods of dating things, and evolutionists don't use methods which don't give them the results they desire. This is called 'cherry-picking'. Do I need to provide further rationale beyond the obvious? If so, why? (I'm guessing just because you're disagreeable.)

I'm a bit curious where RAZD has provided this instruction that obvious things and common knowledge requiring extra elaboration.

The hypothesis was tested and failed. I tested the hyptothesis by following the link and looking at what was there. According to the hypothesis, this should have proven evolutionism to me. It didn't.

What do we do with falsified hypotheses? Some of us throw them out, and some of us print them in textbooks as 'evidence of evolutionsim', that's what we do.

Swing & a miss!

It is a common pattern that the more one learns about things, the more difficult it is for one to believe falsehood. Of course it depends on learning something relevant - not just any learning will do.

How about posting some concrete information here, along with some inferences you've drawn from it, rather than the same tired snide remarks and logical fallacies?

And if you mean to imply that I employ logical fallacies, I defy you to produce two or more examples of a real logical fallacy (not just something you don't want me to say) which I have posted. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bunnydance.gif" alt="" />

Hi CTD.

Well, I'll take "an alternative" if you can show that there really is more than one. Ball in your court.

Perhaps if you spent less time confusing yourself over what is evolution and what is other sciences, this would be clear to you.

But here's a hint: I said science. This of course includes evolution along with all the other sciences.

What is basic to all science. The foundational assumptions that are used to logically evaluate evidence. Can I assume that you are familiar with Popper and the principle of falsification?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
Please note that this applies to all science, not just evolution, and that he claims that no theory can be proven by any amount of evidence --- I'm still waiting for you to provide substance for your claim that other sciences have proven theories, and that scientists in other fields have proven theories. But I'm not holding my breath either.

Sorry, but this is false. I have not said conclusions are evidence, what I have said is that they are testable by the evidence.

And your point is? That either an "argument from authority" is a logical falsehood, for the authority can be wrong, or that he was right to use almost? If speciation occurs in isolation and the two daughter populations never come into contact then how does your extinction occur?

That would be a logical start, for it would be difficult to argue that it wasn't racist if all evolutionists were racist eh? Then if you could show that no non-evolutionist was racist you might begin to make a case. As it sits, my personal opinion is that there are more racist non-evolutionists on a percentage and total number basis than there are racist evolutionists.

Last time I looked, "Dumbo" was not listed as an historical document. Or perhaps you have some historical reference that supports Jeanie's fantasy that "[color:"red"] Before that it could be that animals got really really big (as well as men) because things were super nutritious before being diluted so to speak. [/color] " ...

That scientists disagree on how various hominids are related, and which branches are related to other branches, I am not aware of any that think we are not descended from hominids, nor that all hominids are intermediate between humans and our common ancestor with the chimpanzees, nor am I aware of any scientists that "don't believe in Neanderthals" so no, Jeanie does not agree with scientists on this issue. One wonders what she means by saying she doesn't "believe in neanderthals" -- that they did not exist? that they are not different from humans? that they are apes? None of these is correct, as DNA evidence shows. It reminds me of a comedy routine I heard in childhood, where a guy claimed he didn't "believe in Ohio" as it is just as problematical.

The formula is testing the interpretations against the reality of evidence, and the panel of authorities is the reproduction of experimental results and the discarding of falsified concepts. Notice that one of the basics of the scientific method is the principle that for tests to be valid they must be reproducible by others, and that intrinsic to this, foundational, is the basic interpretation that there is one reality for everyone.

Enjoy.

You shout "circular reasoning" everywhere on this forum. Yet you fail to demonstrate how you think it has been employed. Your assumption, as I explained, is that life must have "assembled itself" for a goal in the same way that a child assembles blocks to make a building. Does a hand of cards also assemble itself? Whatever hand you are dealt from a deck, the odds are astronomical that you will have received that exact combination out of all the possible ones. According to this line of reasoning, this is virtually impossible, so your card hand must also have been designed by God -- particularly if you win with it and decide this was somehow meant to be.

You can see the way that life has changed, step by step, through the fossil record. It's these in-between steps that creationists leave out when they claim it's impossible to get from a single-celled organism to something like a human being. 3.5 billion years is a very, very long time for evolutionary processes to be operating. It hasn't taken us long just to get dogs from wolves, to use one of RAZD's favourite examples.

What's more, evolution isn't a linear process. For every evolutionary line that succeeds, there are many dead ends which do not; and the vast majority of organisms which have ever lived, have become extinct. It would be beneficial for you to look at the link I gave to Jeanie which briefly explains anagenetic and cladogenetic speciation, because most creationists seem to assume that the only kind which is possible is anagenetic -- that is, a straight progression from A to B. (More detail on this here.) The effects of environment on the organism are also ignored -- if the environment has changed little in millions of years (say, at the bottom of the sea), then there's little reason for an organism to change much either. It tends to be when the environment changes, that a species is forced to adapt or become extinct. I'm sure RAZD could give more details about the various understood mechanisms of evolution, not to mention a good Google.

The whole picture is more complex than A to B, with B as a "goal,", which shows why claims that single-celled organisms could not have "become" human, or any other complex organism, is a strawman argument based on ignorance of the way evolution actually works.


No it's not common knowledge, and yes you do need to give evidence. Anyone can claim anything they want without giving a scrap of proof to back it up. I suspect you don't know the first thing about dating methods and will avoid discussing this like you avoid discussing most everything else here, including the topic of this thread you began.


As I said, you simply decided "I don't believe that." The fossil record shows millions of years of foraminifera evolution, with no gaps anywhere. That's pretty solid physical evidence. Instead of attempting to engage with that information in any detail, you simply come here and say you don't buy it. Hot air again, unless you can give any actual evidence for your own ideas.

Pwcca, I don't think you'll be shaving your legs any time soon. I'm quite tired of reading the same unfounded claims here again and again. Is there a creationist in the house who is willing to do more than say, "You are all wrong but I'm not explaining why"?

The alternative is to admit that there's more than one way to interpret evidence. Guess there is actually some demand for explanations of the obvious.

I didn't ask about falsification or assumptions. Is this Popper's term, this "basic interpretation"?

Don't see it in the wiki, but I did see this:
You included links in a post & said they were links to evidence. Yet the links led to conclusions. 'Member? I pointed this out at the time, but it didn't seem as if you cared.

My point is that it's bogus to belittle people who raise a simple, fundamental objection to evolutionism which was acknowledged privately by the principal prophet of the religion.

Your "isolation" excuse doesn't seem to apply to well either, given that chimps inhabit the very same parts of the world where your religion says humans evolved.

And that has what to do with history? Talk about a silly distraction technique... Just up & mention Dumbo to change the subject? Wow! Is this your own invention, or is this a new trend we can expect to see employed by other evolutionists?

Jeanie's "fantasy" was a plausible proposal based upon history & science. You cut the history out of the quote in your effort to misportray the conversation, but you got sloppy: you didn't cut out the "it could be".

To save folks from having to scroll up (and because more than one participant will neglect to do so anyhow) here's a fuller version of the quote So where's the fantasy now? And where's Dumbo? And where is there any room to doubt that there's history which supports what Jeanie said happened and might have happened?

What say, folks? Should I play RAZD-for-a-day & get silly taking things out of context & distorting posts? I bet I could do it better & funnier!
Case closed. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

This is kinda fun. Let's try some more!
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blah.gif" alt="" />
Testing interpretations of evidence vs. the reality of evidence? Is that supposed to sound impressive, or deep? What is the purpose of typing something so utterly void of meaning?

This half of the sentence is little better. RAZD either refutes his own argument, or talks utter nonsense. This is a mixed metaphor because hypotheses are what we discard - not evidence. To say that an interpretation is an hypothesis is to acknowledge the likelihood that other valid hypotheses exist (interpretations) and there is no "basic interpretation".

Back to the game:
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/felix.gif" alt="" />
Couldn't find a way to make that one very funny. Guess it depends on the raw materials sometimes.

Thanks CTD.

But I did not say there was only one way. Just that there is only one right way. Of course there are uncountable ways to misinterpret information. People that never test their concepts against reality are particularly good at it.

Right, so we start with some basic assumptions\interpretations. That there is one reality, that we can understand reality through objective evidence, and that the objective evidence is a true representation of reality. That the table in my room is a table and not part of my imagination, and included in that is the concept of repeatability: that other people can walk into my room and put things on the table. Everybody does this, but this is also the basic foundation of all scientific thought.

The links presented evidence and they also had the conclusions of the scientists, but you don't have to reach the same conclusions if you have a valid alternative explanation for the evidence. All you need to do is explain the evidence of what the fossiol record of the foraminifera show to actually in fact have happened over the course of over 65 million years.

That the scientist says that he has observed hundreds of instances of speciation in the fossil record of the foraminifera is not a conclusion, but a statement of fact that is in the evidence, 1 species becomes 2, no conclusion needed. When the scientist says that the foraminifera fossils change gradually with time, that is not a conclusion, but a statement of fact of what the fossil evidence shows, slightly different fossils in adjacent layers of sediment. When the scientist says that the fossil evidence shows a massive die off at the time of the dinosaur extinction \ yucatan meteor event, he is not presenting you with a conclusion, but a statement of what the fossil record in fact shows, a decline in the numbers and types of foraminifera in the sedimentary layers from those times compared to lower (previous) and higher (later) layers. When The scientist then says that the amount of change in foraminifera fossils occurs at a greater rate immediately after this extinction event, with a higher rate of speciation at the same time, it is not a conclusion, but a statement of what in fact the fossil evidence shows.

These are facts from the evidence, facts that anyone can look at the fossil evidence and see, no conclusion, no interpretation needed.

The conclusion that this fossil record shows evolution over 65 million years is based on the evidence of change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. The conclusion that the evidence shows gradualism rather than punkeek is also based on the evidence.

Well I'm glad that you agree that "Dumbo" is not history, or science. But the issue remains - what history and which science make Jeanie's fantasy "plausible"? You were supposed to provide this, not just repeat the assertion:

Still no evidence from you about history or science that says that this is anything but made up fantasy on her part.

Perhaps some fossil evidence of giants and of a noachin global flood? Evidence that shows a lack of rain up to one point in the fossil recored?

The problem is that there are lots of examples of very ancient fossilized raindrop imprints, and a simple google gives quite a few hits -- "about 13,600 for oldest fossil raindrops"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1713001.stm
http://www.tew.org/archived/mountain.heights.html
http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/oct252001/1116.pdf

Where "Ga" is a unit of time equal to 10^9 (one billion) years. So we are talking about raindrops as old as, or older than, the Cambrian.

So if there was no rain before the assumed flood, then this flood could not have occurred after 2.5 billion years ago, which is also before any dinosaurs or mammals walked on earth. That would indicate that Jeanie was engaged in wishful thinking fantasy rather than any logical development based on actual evidence of what is theoretically possible to have occurred.

And this is different from what you usually do, how? This is just more classic CTD issue avoidance behavior -- and it doesn't deal with the issue or in any way refute my argument/s.

Any time you want to actually deal with the issues rather than play these silly games, all you have to do is start talking about the evidence and substantiate your assertions.

Enjoy.

Nonsense. Suppose a dead man is found with a suicide note. The note can be interpreted as a message from the dead man, or as a ruse. Until the truth is discovered, both interpretations are valid.

It is the work of seconds to think up examples which show your claim for what it is.

Wrong. Assumptions are not interpretations. And neither of these are observations , so you needn't bother to falsely equate them either.

Every last one of these things you call "facts" is a conclusion. There are no exceptions, not even one!

Read that one at an inopportune time and coughed aloud. Would've laughed, but it just took me off guard. I should know better by now.

To even assert that the priests of evolutionism have the power to alter reality with their conclusions... that's just one screwball religion right there! Obviously, if they had such power I would not exist. I'm happy to be of service and demonstrate that this idea is false.

I suppose I should thank you RAZD, for removing all doubt by intentionally posting posting conclusions and saying they're not conclusions. LindaLou may <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/applause.gif" alt="" /> and PWCCA may <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cheerleader.gif" alt="" /> but everyone else can see the truth. Actually they may well see it too, evogoggles notwithstanding - that's just in-your-face.
So you credit Jeanie with writing Genesis? I think we have some pretty good evidence that this is not the case.

But in circular fashion, you cite antihistorical conclusions based upon the assumption that there was no flood.


And this is different from what you usually do, how? This is just more classic CTD issue avoidance behavior -- and it doesn't deal with the issue or in any way refute my argument/s.
Oh, don't care for <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/takingpills.gif" alt="" /> your own medicine? What a surprise!

* There seem to be problems with the forum these days. Probably a side-effect of the improvements I see. Anyhow, I can't respond to LindaLou's posts. I cut up my response above and the workaround was successful once, but it didn't work last night. If it doesn't clear up, I plan to PM Russ with the details & error message.

Oh! I get it now. Proclaiming something to be evidence makes it evidence. Well, in that case those fossils are evidence for Skunk Funk. Actually, all fossils are evidence for Skunk Funk as originally posited, so I guess that should clear things up.

This is hot air, unless you can demonstrate that fossils aren't evidence for Skunk Funk. But Skunk Funk has already been tested against the existence of fossils, and passed with flying colours. More fossils just means more evidence for Skunk Funk. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/whistling.gif" alt="" />

*I have figured out part of the problem. Posting works better if I take out quotation marks and apostrophes. So the quotes that follow will have contractions decontracted, that this may post instead of giving me an SQL error message.

Incorrect. This assumption is yours; it is neither explicit nor implicit in what I wrote. In fact, what I said is incompatible with this assumption. One might expect better straw men, if one believed the practice-makes-perfect rule.

Not without goggles, you cannot.

Well CTD, you keep missing the point.

The point is that both cannot be true, and that the way you differentiate the truth from the many possible false interpretations is by testing, by investigating until the truth is discovered. Many people, Creationists included, seem to think having an alternative is good enough, that they do not need to test their concept for validity.

Science is based on one truth being possible and then investigating to determine that truth, and not resting on comfortable "alternative explanations" no matter uncomfortable the truth may be.

Thus we come back, again, to the founding interpretation that there is one truth -- even you make this interpretation when you say "until the truth is discovered" -- and that we can uncover that truth by further investigation.

The truth.

But interpretations are assumptions, they are possibilities that can be used as working hypothesis to test against reality for validity. The better the interpretation is the better it explains the evidence.

We can interpret the evidence of the world around us to consist of one reality that is true, that is objective, or we can interpret it to consist of mystery and magic. The problem with the mystery and magic interpretation is that it cannot be tested, whereas the the one objective reality interpretation is testable. Your dead man with a suicide note could have been done by mystery and magic: can you provide evidence that will validate or invalidate that claim?

Every one is a statement of fact. It's like saying "there is a table in my room" when there is a table in my room. The fact of the table actually existing in my room does not rest on my concluding that the table is there, it rests on the fact that it is there. This is the facts from the evidence, facts that anyone can look at the table in the room evidence and see, no conclusion, no interpretation needed.

But they don't alter reality by stating what the evidence is. When I state that 1+1=2 that is not a conclusion and it doesn't alter reality. When I state that the earth is round and orbits the sun, that is not a conclusion and it doesn't alter reality. When I state that the earth is at least 4.5 billion years old, that is not a conclusion and it doesn't alter reality. The fact that this reality is different than your personal comfort zone view is not their or my problem.

And still you dodge the issue. The truth must be uncomfortable to you that you avoid it so.

The issue is to provide actual evidence that supports in any way Jeanie's assertion that "things were different" and that there were "giants" and a period of time that had no rain, that her "interpretation" of her faith was in any way credible and could be true. So far you have provided zilch, which leaves me with the distinct impression that you do not have any.

No, I look beyond the suicide note, beyond the comfortable explanation, to determine the truth. The evidence shows that rain has in fact occurred throughout the natural history of the planet. The evidence shows that sedimentary deposits world wide are inconsistent with a biblical flood. There is one truth on the history of life on earth, and there have been many myths and fantasies based on magic and mystery that have been invalidated by the evidence. Such evidence can only be "antihistorical" if you cling to a false interpretation of "historical" as truth, rather than test it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History
We again come around to there being one reality, that we can investigate with objective evidence to determine which concepts are valid and which are invalid.

The City of Troy was once considered an element of mythology, of mystery and magic, but then they found the city using information in the Greek stories. This demonstrates that Troy was in fact a part of history, but I don't see anyone claiming that this means that Achilles was real.

Enjoy.

The improvements are good, but I miss the "mark all messages as read" button. Not a biggie.

The point is how to properly investigate history. I have responded in the appropriate thread.

Still dodging CTD.

And you are still stuck with the basic starting point that there is one reality. You are still stuck with the objective evidence being either true to that one objective reality or it is false, and so far you seem to be on the side thinking the evidence is false.

Enjoy.

Oh No... ((( Smiles )))

I know I'm going to get in trouble here..
But some of the evidence is false..

FORGED " EVIDENCE "

Some fossil " evidence "
that was once loudly hailed as proof that birds evolved from other creatures has since been shown to have been forged.
In 1999, for instance , National Geographic magazine featured an articule about a fossil of a feathered creature with a tail like a dinosaur's.
The magazine declared the creature to be " a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds. "
The fossil, however, turned out to be a forgery, a composite of the fossils of two different animals..
In fact no such such " missing link " has ever been found.

----------------------------

Another Fake Fossil...

A fly, suspended in a chunk amber , or fossilized tree sap,
was long revered in scientific circles as a perfectly preserved specimen from 38 million years ago .

However, New Scientist magazine reported that this prize specimen has actually turned out to be an " an entomological
crime on par with the Piltdown hoax.

" It seems at least 140 years ago, some con artist actually sliced open the piece of amber , made a hollow in one of the halves ,
and placed a common latrine fly inside.

This " fossil " was sold to England's History Musuem back in 1922 and has since been examined by top scientists ,
even being mentioned in a book on fossils as recently as 1992..

-----

Still...
Many appreciative scientist see the hand of God in creation..
Following are a few examples:

"The significance and joy in my science comes in thoses occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, "
So thats how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan."
--- Henry Schaefer, professor of chemistry..

" As to the cause of the Universe , in context of expansion, that is left for
the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without
[ Him ] God."
--- Edward Milne, British cosmologist

" We know that nature is described by the best of all possiblites mathematics because God created it."
--- Alexander Polyakov, Russian mathematician.

" In our study of natural objects we are approaching the thoughts of the Creator , reading his conceptions,
interpreting a system that is His and not ours."
--- Louis Agassiz , American biologist.

These fakes are excellent examples of the conspiracy to convince the world that there is no God.

Since there is no evidence for evolution, evidence has to be made up, and this likely happens much more often than we think. The "entomological crimes" that are found out are probably just a small fraction of the ones that actually exist.

This is not unlike the myriad of lies that exist in textbooks that attempt to convince students that evolution is real:

Lies In the Textbooks

Thanks for posting this excellent information.

Discoveries keep coming in.

AOL News Link

There's even more to the slime molds.


http://www.icr.org/article/5167/

Can't say the topic of this thread didn't have potential...

Not much I can add to this article on the hydra.