Full of problems? If you mean that it will continue to be refined, you're right.

jwils, RX was clear that the statements came from evolutionists, so it is pretty clear that they are believers in that theory. But the problems they assert with respect to transitional species does not magically disappear because they still believe in the theory as a whole.

Other evolutionist quotes that further demonstrate the problem the theory faces with regard to transitional species:

"Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.

“At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the “official” position of most Western evolutionists. S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977.

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977).

Why do you suppose that evolutionists have had to resort to the "hopeful monster" /punctuated equilibrium models?

dad gum double post

[This message has been edited by Nederag (edited 5/19/2004 3:10p).]

NoAC, there is a big problem with talkorigins treatment of the reptile to bird transition, the linchpin of which is Archeopteryx.

Per the site, "Archeopteryx itself is really about the best we could ask for: several specimens has superb feather impressions, it is clearly related to both reptiles and birds, and it clearly shows that the transition is feasible."

And yet,“Archaeopteryx was, in a modern sense, a BIRD.”
Allan Feduccia (evolutionist), Science 259:790-793 (1993).

Moreover, full-fledged crow-sized bird fossils have been found in strata believed to be 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx (and as old as the oldest fossil dinosaur), making the “transitional” nature of Archaeopteryx (between dinosaurs and birds) less defensible than ever before. See Tim Beardsley (evolutionist), Nature 322:677 (1986); Richard Monastersky (evolutionist), Science News 140:104-105 (1991); Alan Anderson, Science 253:35 (1991).

Aditionally, re the theropods which the site posits as Archeopteryx's relatives, new dates place the China's Yixian Formation within the early Cretaceous period, making archeopteryx at least 20 million years older than the so-called “intermediates” leading up to it. The theropods from the Yixian Formation, like all theropods, now fall within the “temporal paradox.” That is, all theropods, despite their declared status as progenitors of birds, show up in the fossil record well after the first appearance of birds. See Alan Feduccia (evolutionist), The Origin and Evolution of Birds , 2nd edition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), p. 382.

This prime example of transition has some 'spainin to do.

And how does ToE explain the Cambrian Explosion?

Ms. Hunt takes many liberties in her publication. She fails to explain to the reader that many of the phylogeneies described in her work are tenative and/or changing if not hotly disputed. And really, none of her claims are accepted among paleontological authorities. Get back to me when the authorities on your side of the debate agree with a portion of her work.

quote:

---

And how does ToE explain the Cambrian Explosion?

---

a) You do realize that the "Cambrian Explosion" happened over 30 MILLION years? As explosions go, it was pretty benign...
b) The life forms prior to this period didn't have much in the way of body parts that would fossilize. Soft-celled organisms or soft-bodied life forms DO NOT fossilize very often - only under specific conditions.
c) The environment prior to the CE recycled them quite well, pretty much like it turns most humans into worm dirt after relatively short periods of time.




How does the ToC explain it?


Eric '90

A good spanking helps to settle a child's nerves

Here's a bit of fat to chew on:

I'm sure there's no mention of whom the teacher is, or his or her background, when evolution is taught in the classroom. A teacher certified in Biology by the state of Texas is enough to get across the ideas to the students.

What I'm imagining are all the certified teachers currently teaching Biology who might be teaching Creationism, especially all the non-Christian teachers.

Would anyone have a problem with a devout Muslim or Shinto or Hindu or agnostic teacher delivering the tenets of Creationism, especially since these certified instructors have received no formal training over this idea, have not grown up listening to it on Sundays, and may know very little about it.

Do you just need a warm body to recite something from a textbook?

What if a student, or group of students, had legitimate questions regarding Creationism and how it applies to Biology? Would it matter to you who the teacher is then? Would a Protestant be more versed than a Catholic? If your child was in a class taught by an atheist, would you demand a move to a classroom taught by a Baptist?

Who is the authority to turn to on Creationism if you're the teacher?

Typo police-I'm sure you meant over 300 million years ago and not 30 but whose counting-carry on.

Hello all! I guess I'm weighing in on this one a bit late so please give me grace as I attempt to catch up. One specific thing I would like to touch on is in relation to what this threads original intent was, that being the teaching of Creationism violating the separation of Church and State. I would contend that religion is being taught in our public classrooms, the religion of secular humanism, of which evolutionary theory is simply one of the many facets. There are many programs in our public schools with the express design and intent of molding our childrens moral attitudes toward a humanistic worldview. I do think that the theory of intelligent design could be offered alongside other theories without it becoming a religious issue. We don't have to be specific about the creator we simply have to imply that a higher intelligence may have been responsible for the world around us. The majority of the population of this country believe in some form of higher power so I don't think this would be all that difficult to implement. Coffner, I notice you seem to have "bowed out" of this thread but I was wondering if you were going to address some of my comments in your survey thread? No Ac, I have looked at the website you offered and I am planning on making some comments about it as well but I think I will do it on the survey thread as this one has already gotten badly "off track" in my opinion. Blessings in Christ!

Grace and peace in His name, Searcher

Per an evolutionist discussion of the Explosion:
"The Cambrian explosion is the fact that 543 million of years ago there were 3 animal phyla and 538 million of years ago there were 38 animal phyla. So in 5 million years 35 phyla originated". http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof60.htm

Evidence from China suggests that the explosion took place over a mere 2-3 million years. Further that the number of phyla went from 3 to 70 in this period. Evolution is totally inadequate to explain the phenomena, and the 30 million year figure is bogus.

quote:

---

Evidence from China suggests that the explosion took place over a mere 2-3 million years. Further that the number of phyla went from 3 to 70 in this period. Evolution is totally inadequate to explain the phenomena, and the 30 million year figure is bogus.

---

a) show the evidence from China
b) show peer reviews of the evidence from China
c) the definition of the Cambrian Explosion was defined by the scientists awhile back - you can't change it just because you don't like it.
d) do you have any idea how long "a mere 2-3 million years" is? man's written history goes back ~6K years. two to 3 million years is between 333 and 500 times longer than recorded history...a lot has happened since we started recording things. imagine how much could have happened in 333-500 times as much time...so, even if your figure is correct, it's still sufficient for evolution.
e) i take it that you're an old-earth creationist...

Of course, I've never understood old-earth creationism. They want to take Genesis literally with regard to the animals, but not to the earth or universe. I don't get it...

Eric '90

A good spanking helps to settle a child's nerves

Ag with kids, rather than me explain it, you may wish to refer to the following:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml?main#cambrian_fauna

http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/newarticles/index.shtml?main#chordate

I reviewed the PBS site you offered and noted that one of the evolutionary experts it cites, Simon Conway Morris, perhaps the premier evolutionist expert on the Cambrian explosion, seems much less sure of the evolutionist interpretation than his PBS interpreters. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=34314

The "ToC" handles the Camrian explosion in a number of ways, some of which are more scientific than others. What does that have to do with the inadequacies of the monopolistic theory foisted upon impressionable youngsters in misleading fashion?

dp

[This message has been edited by Nederag (edited 5/20/2004 7:19p).]

Ag w/-
So we are going to play the peer review game? It hasn't come up yet in this thread. None of the materials you have cited are peer reviewed, I've noted.

There are cites to peer reviewed materials in the materials in the post above.

The question is not how you define the term Cambrian explosion, though obviously the term is not as definitively fixed as you purport. Rather, the question regards the dates of the fossils. I'm not changing any definitions.

Yes, I'm aware how long 2-3 million years is. A little less time than evolutionists say transpired between "Lucy" and you, a much smaller change than the creation of 70 new phyla.

Keep guessing at my personal beliefs, you might even come close.

In regards to the original question, teaching Creationism is not a violation of seperation of church and state. Simply presenting a model that interprets data based on a deistic assumption, it not an attempt to establish any religion. For those who think that religious discussion doesn't belong in public education, give it some serious thought. Can you possibly teach world history without teaching the various religions of culture? I am a teacher of American literature, and I can't teach Puritan literature without discussing such concepts as redemption, predestination, and the Bible. Simply put, an honest education requires religious discussion. I would favor the teaching of Creationism because I would like to see honest debate in the secular classroom. Creationist frequently gripe about not getting a hearing in the public school system. Well, let's get it out there so we can have open dialogue. If you are concluding that I am a liberal in my ideas, you are incorrect. I am conservative both educationally, politically, and religiously. I personally reject macroevolution as a reasonable explanation for the incredible order of the universe. Again, religious dialogue in a public classroom, as long as it relates the the classroom curriculum, is not only legal, it's desirable.

[This message has been edited by The Lone Stranger (edited 5/21/2004 12:43p).]

Ag with kids, have scientists ever "observed" life spontaneously generating itself from inanimate matter?

Grace and peace in His name, Searcher.

The Lone Stranger speaks the truth.

The rational, convincing truth.

Surely atheists can see the reason in that.

quote:

---

Ag with kids, have scientists ever "observed" life spontaneously generating itself from inanimate matter?

---

Not that I know of.

However, what does that have to do with a discussion on the ToE? The ToE begins by accepting that life exists - no matter HOW that life came to be. THEN, the ToE begins to describe things...

Eric '90

A good spanking helps to settle a child's nerves

quote:

---

Not that I know of.

However, what does that have to do with a discussion on the ToE? The ToE begins by accepting that life exists - no matter HOW that life came to be. THEN, the ToE begins to describe things...

---

So you are saying that the ToE offers no explaination for the emergence of life? No primordial ooze...nothing? Do you have an opinion or a hypothesis as to how life began? Does this question concern you at all? Blessings in Christ!

Grace and peace in His name, Searcher.

quote:

---

Yes. That is EXACTLY what I'm saying. The ToE starts describing things AFTER life has emerged. It matters not one little bit HOW that life form became alive, just that it IS alive.

---

Evolutionists insist that ToE only deals with the evolution of lifeforms. Anytime someone mentions origins, they will respond back "that isn't ToE." However, they know full well that an atheistic theory of origins goes hand-in-hand with ToE. In other words, if ToE is taught in schools, then an atheistic theory of origins will also be taught in schools, because at some point one must be ask the question as to how things originated. It's a dishonest tactic.

You really still don't get this? The Theory of Evolution does NOT address the question of the origin of life. It does not claim to. In no way does it preclude divine creation, although it does suggest against a literal reading of Genesis. That is where the antagonism between evolutionists and religion comes in.

Bracy, just because a theory poses a question does not mean that it suggests an answer.

The question "where did we come from?" is going to arise whether you believe in evolution or not. I've known several evolutionists who answer it with a profound faith in a Christian God.

quote:

---

The question "where did we come from?" is going to arise whether you believe in evolution or not. I've known several evolutionists who answer it with a profound faith in a Christian God.

---

That may be so, but it cannot be taught in school. By separating abiogenesis off from Evolution, Evolutionists are then able to argue for Evolution being taught in schools without having to deal with abiogenesis, knowing full-well that an atheistic theory of origins will tag right along with the ToE.

quote:

---

they know full well that an atheistic theory of origins goes hand-in-hand with ToE.

---

Ha ha ha ha ha. Who knows full well? Not me. Nor the faculty that taught me both the Theory of Creationism and the Theory of Evolution. Nor the 650 other members of my graduating class. Nor the 2,500 students at my school. Nor the tens of millions of Catholics who are just at home with both theories.

Have your cake and eat it.

Wow. Several issues to discuss.

1. You're being loose with your vocabulary. As far as I know, there is no scientific theory (atheistic or not) that addresses the origins of life. Several hypotheses, but no theories. Remember, a "theory" is a hypothesis that has stood up when tested against the available evidence.

2. I disagree that an atheistic hypothesis of origins "tags along" with the ToE. Why do you say that it does?

3. When you say that "it" cannot be taught in schools, do you mean the question or its answer? I agree that the answer cannot be taught (especially since it's not known) and I doubt that any responsible scientist would do so.

The basic presupposition of both evolution and abiogenesis is the same, ie. naturalistism. In neither is there room for God, gods or other than purely natural phenomena. So while the issues are not identical, the universe of acceptable answers is (eg. time, chance, random interactions). In both, resort to God is "cheating", no matter how strongly the evidence suggests it. In both, virtual impossibilities and unfalsifiable speculations are resorted to because the only real alternative, God, is precisely what cannot be allowed.

It is disingenuous to insinuate that abiogenesis and evolution are not closely related, much more so that they are not widely perceived as being so.

LSU89:

quote:

---

Ha ha ha ha ha. Who knows full well? Not me. Nor the faculty that taught me both the Theory of Creationism and the Theory of Evolution. Nor the 650 other members of my graduating class. Nor the 2,500 students at my school. Nor the tens of millions of Catholics who are just at home with both theories.

---

Of course you do. You know as well as I do that once a public school teacher begins to teach that the universe was created by a Creator, that this will be interpreted as sponsoring religion.


jwils9:

quote:

---

1. You're being loose with your vocabulary. As far as I know, there is no scientific theory (atheistic or not) that addresses the origins of life. Several hypotheses, but no theories. Remember, a "theory" is a hypothesis that has stood up when tested against the available evidence.

---

The terminology in this case is not relevant. Whether it is a hypothesis, or a theory, the fact remains that it is taught in public school textbooks. I can provide quotes from public school textbooks if you wish (I've posted them before, in previous threads).

quote:

---

2. I disagree that an atheistic hypothesis of origins "tags along" with the ToE. Why do you say that it does?

---

See my response to #1, directly above.

quote:

---

3. When you say that "it" cannot be taught in schools, do you mean the question or its answer? I agree that the answer cannot be taught (especially since it's not known) and I doubt that any responsible scientist would do so.

---

By "it" I am referring to teaching that the universe was created by Intelligent Design.

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 5/25/2004 1:22p).]

jwils, you are being overly tight with your vocabulary. Let me cite for you http://slate.msn.com/id/2100715/ from another thread.

quote:

---

"When I invented chaotic inflation theory, I found that the only thing you needed to get a universe like ours started is a hundred-thousandth of a gram of matter," Linde told me in his Russian-accented English when I reached him by phone at Stanford. "That's enough to create a small chunk of vacuum that blows up into the billions and billions of galaxies we see around us. It looks like cheating, but that's how the inflation theory works—all the matter in the universe gets created from the negative energy of the gravitational field. So, what's to stop us from creating a universe in a lab? We would be like gods!"

---

Note that this phsicist uses the term "theory" to describe his "hypothesis" that universes can be created from milligrams of matter. If you know of any experiments verifying that universes have been created this way, or that science in general accepts his theory as factual or accurate, I will humbly beg your indolgence. But lacking that showing, you should not try to berate others for using terms as science itself sometimes uses them.

Here are some of the quotes from textbooks that I was referring to:

quote:

---

“If the universe is expanding, then it must have once been much smaller. If you could run the life of the universe in reverse, like a film, you would see the universe contracting until it disappeared in a flash of light, leaving nothing. In the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing. Not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space and time. However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness, the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.6 billion years ago. This theory of the origin of the universe is called “The Big Bang Theory.” The Big Bang theory does not explain how the universe began. The theory only explains how the existing universe could have developed.” (HBJ General Science, 1989, p. 362).

---

quote:

---

“After many billions of years, all of the matter and energy will once again be packed into a small area. This area may be no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence. Then another big bag will occur.”
(Prentice Hall Earth Science, 1991, pp. 36-37.)

---

quote:

---

“As the nebula shrank, it spun faster and faster. Gradually, the spinning nebula flattened into a huge disk almost 10 billion kilometers across. At the center of the disk a growing protosun, or new sun, began to take shape. “ (Prentice Hall General Science, 1992, page 69).

---

quote:

---

“The Birth and Death of the Universe: How was the universe born and how will it end? Most astronomers believe that about 18 to 20 billion years ago all the matter in the universe was concentrated into one very dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller than a period on this page. For some unknown reason, this region exploded. This explosion is called “The Big Bang.” (Prentice Hall General Science, 1992, page 61).

---

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 5/25/2004 2:00p).]

Nederag:

"In both, resort to God is "cheating", no matter how strongly the evidence suggests it."

That happens to be the nature of ALL science. Which is why we now know, for example, that thunder is not just the Gods wrestling and rain is not God's tears.

Again, I reiterate: evolution and abiogenesis are NOT related. If "Joe Public" thinks differently, than Joe Public needed to pay better attention in high school.


Bracy:

The vocabulary IS important, because a theory is supported by the weight of scientific evidence. If you have evidence that a hypothesis of abiogenesis is being taught as a theory, then I agree with you that that is inappropriate instruction. There's no need to post it--I'll take your word for it.