Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
truethat

The Missing Link

400 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

SilverCougar

Yes, it is SC, heck some of the kids in UM chat can tell you how they know evolution is fact. Ask them, I have, they do not see it as theory, at best they have been told it's as good as proven, so *wink**wink* go ahead and believe it is true.

Gee I don't know.. maybe if kids paid more attention to the actually lessons then their social standings and cell phones.. we wouldn't have this problem now would we. ;) No wait.... It's more like being confused when creationalists and the like keep insisting that evolution is treated like fact and is wrong.. yet creation is the actual fact. ;)

So... go ahead and believe it is true. ;P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

Gee I don't know.. maybe if kids paid more attention to the actually lessons then their social standings and cell phones.. we wouldn't have this problem now would we. ;) No wait.... It's more like being confused when creationalists and the like keep insisting that evolution is treated like fact and is wrong.. yet creation is the actual fact. ;)

So... go ahead and believe it is true. ;P

I'm sure that may be part of the answer, but pick up a copy of Science or Popular Science or Discover (the "science" magazines the regular non-scientists usually read) and you will not find the words "theory of" before evolution. Their articles talk about evolution as fact, so, no it's not just a creationist knee-jerk reaction, it is happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

Iamson, here you fail to understand science. Science does not claim to know the absolute truth (it leaves that to the theologians). Science is a search for truth. It weighs up evidence and goes with what fits the facts best. Here it differs from religion. Religion claims to know the absolute truth and then disregards any evidence which does not agree as being false. This is wht science talks about theory, even if evolution is 99.999999999% proven scientists will always refer to it as theory. A hypothesis only becomes regarded as a theory when the evidence strong enough that it generally becomes accepted. The evidence for evolution is extremely strong. What is more as new scientific techniques become available (DNA profiling for example) they only strengthen the case for evolution.

A good theory often enables scientists to make prediction which can later be tested. If we are closely related to apes we should have DNA very similar to apes. This was predicted long before it was possible to test. Now we can test it we find that our DNA is more similar to that of a chimp than a horses is to a zebra. Is this absolute proof... no because science doesn't work that way.

The problem lies with peope who seem to think that because science doesnt know everything, science knows nothing. Funnily enough though these people will always reject scientists as ignorant but throw in a little quote from them when it seems to back up their case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shaftsbury

Carbon dating is not used to determin the age of dinosaur bones. Could that be because they can't make it work for dinosaur bones? So therefor since they can't make it work dinosaur bones must be older than it is capable of proving. Couldn't be that there is a flaw in the test. :no:

You obviously never even bothered to follow the links you were given. :no:

If you had, you would have known how the Carbon-14 testing works, and why it can't be used in ancient bones.

BTW the scientist in the article DID question the age of the bones. She stated "how can this have lasted 68 million years" and in addition she questioned the way scientists claim that bones fossilize. She's questioning a lot of things.

Funny how this was completely swept under the rug. Haven't heard a thing about it since it first happened? And other museums are refusing to crack open the bones to examine them.

Swept under the carpet? I think not, have a look.

Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”

By definition, there is a lot that scientists don’t know, because the whole point of science is to explore the unknown. By being clear that scientists haven’t explained everything, Schweitzer leaves room for other explanations. “I think that we’re always wise to leave certain doors open,” she says.

I don't know where you are getting your information from, but obviously not from her.

This article was published in may of 2006, is that recent enough for you?

Source: http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/...ay/dinosaur.php

Edited by Shaftsbury

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wolf MacCanine

I tend to find that some people really do not understand the meaning of certain words that are used within a certain context.So,without much ado,I will attempt to help some understand things a wee bit.

...

Theory:

1)A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

...

This above is the method which is used widely by science in it's attempts to form conclusions about a certain set of data.Notice the part about "repeatedly tested".This is how empirical evidence is gained.

...

6) An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

...

The above is what many commonly mistake as the meaning of "theory" when used by science.It is more commonly used by those who lack an understanding about the actual work of science.

...

Hypothesis:

1) A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

...

Notice in the above,"tentative explanation".This means that the idea is formed (hypothesis) from limited data,then researched and tested...becoming the "theory" later on,after enough evidence is accrued to point to the "theory" as being a valid "probability".

...

Probability:

3) B) (Statistics) A number expressing the likelihood that a specific event will occur, expressed as the ratio of the number of actual occurrences to the number of possible occurrences.

...

This is the definition of "probability" used in science,as it is the result of repeated testing...which gives the statistical numbers needed to see if something is possible or not.

...

Faith:

1) Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

...

The above definition is viable for use in science because of the confidence gained from the weight of the empirical evidence of a theory or hypothesis that has been repeatedly researched and tested.

...

2) Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

...

The above definition is commonly used by those who do not understand the actual work of science.

...

This ends the lesson for today,class.Your homework will be to read this and learn to *comprehend* it all.

:geek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seraphina
I haven't got any answers typically. Just lots of looking down your nose.

Maybe because, when an answer is provided for you, you either ignore it outright or shout 'lies'! You seem to feel that every facet of science is full of liars, and it is clear by this point that nothing we say or do is going to educate you otherwise.

Frankly, you Sir, are a fundementalist, religious or otherwise. It is not so much a case of being ignorant of the evidence, it is a case of being thoroughly unwilling to even look at it...clearly, in your mind, science is all 'lies', and you won't give any of the answers provided to you the time of day. Frankly, I'm not surprised people are looking down their nose at you by this point...I'm surprised many of them even have the patience left to deal with you.

It's a waste of time to try and reason with someone who doesn't speak the same language as you. I say again...you show all the symptoms of fundamentalism. Enjoy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Samael

There is a decent amount of fossil evidence showing that early hominids and chimps split off from Dryopithecus or Aegyptopithecus (I can never remember which) c.4.5 MYA. A lot of it IS guesswork, but where would science be without guesswork? Stuck, that's where. No-one would have theories, therefore no-one would try to prove their theories, and therefore there would be very few or no new discoveries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

There is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the "general theory of evolution," and the evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis."

(Dr. G. A. Kerkut evolutionist)

Wow, it must not take a lot of evidence to convince scientists.

I have some strange looking rocks in my backyard, I should show them to some scientist, I'll probably be able to convince him an ancient civilization built a gigantic pyramid under my house and these are the only remains of that great civilization.

What was the purpose of posting this quote? What exactly do you believe that Dr. Kerkut is saying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

treuthat,

I hope that I am able to assist a little in trying to answer some of your questions by referring you to this article where it states that the discovery of the internal bone structure from the T.rex has led some scientists to question whether they are correct in their understanding of the fossilisation process and that many other fossils of all ages may have similar features.

For the carbon-dating, this site explains it much better than I ever could and it also explains why it won't work with fossils as old as dinosaurs (and why potassium-argon does).

As for evolutionary theory, well it is very dry and considerably heavy-going but Darwin's Origin of Species may help you understand why scientists put so much credence in it (if you haven't already read it that is).

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat

It was ignored because it is such an over simplification and off topic but as you insist...

The science and religious communities were virtually indistinguishabe in Darwin's time. The literal truth of the Bible was simply not questioned. Darwin was questioning the literal Genisis account and hence was simply ridiculed on religious grounds NOT scientific. Pre-Darwin virtually all Christian scientists were creationalists. The point is that Darwin changed that because (and here is that bit you are struggling with) he presented evidence. That evidence eventuallt convinced most scientist as to the truth of evolution.

All you offer is your opinion.

I haven't said otherwise. I have not presented a theory. I have simply refused a theory that is presented to the public. And for some reason the onus is on me to prove that evolution is NOT true instead of the onus being on the scientist to answer the questions.

Its their theory. They are the ones who need to prove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat

Mmnkay then. If you are so horribly against science and scientists in general, and apparently you're not into the whole religious scene...

Instead of furthering showing us that you can't get beyond Darwin's theories...

What do you purpose be tought then instead of all this. I mean, you say you want to leave it up to colleges, however as I said, not all colleges teach sciences. So, instead of having a bunch of ignorant masses out there because you don't think these sciences should be in high school... What do you suggest is tought instead?

What I think is more important to teach that is obviously not understood by the general public from what I see, myself included, is to teach HOW science is done.

Most people don't understand how science works. How theories are tested. Peer review etc. This is something that is far more useful to teach.

We have a tendancy to teach to the "test" in this country, teaching people WHAT to think. Instead of teaching them HOW to think. Teach them HOW to figure things out scientifically.

Then as people are faced with scientific theories they know how they came to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat

But it isn't tought as though it was fact. I remember clearly that evolution was tought as theory. Because any idiot and their scientist brother will tell you that it *IS* only theory.

It's people like crationalists, and truethat that keep insisting that it's fact.

If you scroll back in this thread you will see that it is referred to by a scientist in this thread as a FACT.

I am the one that says it is NOT.

IamsSon I agree with you completely. Its odd huh? The atheist and the creationist are on the same side! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

I haven't said otherwise. I have not presented a theory. I have simply refused a theory that is presented to the public. And for some reason the onus is on me to prove that evolution is NOT true instead of the onus being on the scientist to answer the questions.

Its their theory. They are the ones who need to prove it.

As far as the experts are concerned they have.

You are claimimg they are wrong. That IS a hypothesis. You are the one claiming that your "common sense" and opinion is superior to the knowledge and research of thousands of well educated experts. You have been asked on what basis you reject evolution and you have either refused or been incapable of doing so. As you are rejecting an established theory YOU must provide the evidence to show why the experts are wrong and you are right.

At least Iamson has a basis for his beliefs. He believes in the bilical account. I think he is wrong to do so but at least he can demonstrate a reason for the way he thinks. You just seem to think that your opinion counts for more than experts knowledge.

What I think is more important to teach that is obviously not understood by the general public from what I see, myself included, is to teach HOW science is done.

Most people don't understand how science works. How theories are tested. Peer review etc. This is something that is far more useful to teach.

I agree to a point. If people were taught this they would understand why the onus is on them to back up their ideas and the importance of evidence over opinion.

However teaching recognised facts (including evolution) is also important. It needs to be a combination of what is known and how it is known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QueenOftheCramped

*stares blankly at QueenoftheCramped*

.... :mellow:

*turns to Aquatus*

...Is she...related to you?

Oh,..how flattering! :blush:

Not so though, I am only a humble apprentice to the master...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seraphina
Not so though, I am only a humble apprentice to the master...

As are we all QC, as are we all :P

What I think is more important to teach that is obviously not understood by the general public from what I see, myself included, is to teach HOW science is done.

There is nothing stopping anyone from learning how science is done...all you need to do is take a science course. However, when this was suggested to you earlier, you seemed to find it highly offensive...even though it appears to be exactly what you're proposing now.

Strange man.

If you want to understand science - truly understand it...then there are a wealth of books, documentaries and other mediea, courses (short term and long term) that you could go on. There is absolutely nothing stopping you, or anyone else, from finding out how science comes to its conclusions...would it not have made more sense to go through this research stage before you started accusing the academic community of being a collection of liars?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QueenOftheCramped
truethat Oct 24 2006 03:15 AM

Exhibit A. Just because you call it a scientific fact does not make it a fact. Just because 1,000 scientists call it a scientific fact doesn't make it a fact.

Its not a FACT unless you can absolutely PROVE IT. And you can't. This is precisely what I am talking about.

Fair enough, as we cannot go back several million years in time, then observe several million years how our ancestors evolved, we will never be able to prove it 100% and as such I cannot call it a fact.

To deduct from the fact that the Human Genome, consisting of around 3.2 billion base pairs, is about 98.3 % identical with the Chimpansee Genome, the fact that Humans and apes share a wealth of common morphological and physiological characteristics (opposable thumbs, for example, or nails instead of claws, stereoscopic vision, visual information from each eye transmitted to visual centres in both hemispheres of the brain) as well as behavioural characterisitics (tool use, f. ex.), that it is extremely convincing that humans and apes descend from a common ancestor is absolute lunacy, you 're right, and should never ever be taught in school.

I like how you mix some FACTS that can be proven in with THEORIES THAT CAN NOT> Typical.

I didn't mix anything. I answered statements of yours point by point, providing answers as to the state of current knowledge, hoping you would inform yourself & actually read the information, foolishly assuming that you are actually asking questions & are looking for answers. But it is quite evident that you are interested in neither. You are not looking for knowledge, you have a preconceived opinion, based upon what reasoning you don't even want to share with us, and you don't intend to budge on iota from this preconceived opinion.

Exhibit B. Who came up with the numbers to plug into this equation? WE DID. Is there some great genius of the universe that states that this is correct?

Carbon dating is not used to determin the age of dinosaur bones. Could that be because they can't make it work for dinosaur bones? So therefor since they can't make it work dinosaur bones must be older than it is capable of proving. Couldn't be that there is a flaw in the test. :no:

Again, you obviously didn't even bother to read up on radiometric dating on the links I provided, so obviously NOT interested in understanding what it is all about.

Nor did I. I didn't think I had to specifically state that it wasn't "Meat" which I did anyway. I also already pointed out that soft tissue doesn't mean "soft" but I guess you missed that while you were scouring the site for other unrelated arguments by me.

I am asking a question. Not stating a fact. I am stating that to me the answers don't add up. And everytime I raise a question about this I am treated with derision and as if I am stupid. If you are interested in a good example just re-read your post.

I haven't got any answers typically. Just lots of looking down your nose.

Pray, where in my thread do I treat you with derision & as if you were stupid? Your replies are insulting and arrogant. In my post I tried honestly, and without cynicism to answer your questions, provide you with infomation you can study yourself.

BTW the scientist in the article DID question the age of the bones. She stated "how can this have lasted 68 million years" and in addition she questioned the way scientists claim that bones fossilize. She's questioning a lot of things.

Funny how this was completely swept under the rug. Haven't heard a thing about it since it first happened? And other museums are refusing to crack open the bones to examine them.

I think this has been amply answered by others on this thread.

Far from being a CT type thing, this is a simple question that has been met with derision, ignored or hidden.

You completely misinterpreted my quote. I did not want to compare this thread to a conspiracy theory, but show you that in this thread, you commit the same faults in logic & reasoning that you accuse conspiracy theorists of in the other thread.

Now I ask another question. What makes a scientist believe that I should accept what they are saying when it doesn't add up.

I don't want you to accept anything I say. But I do want you to properly study the evidence & information provided by science, and THEN come to a conclusion. That is the beauty in science, all evidence can be studied, as well as the means by which this evidence was gathered. But you are apparently not interested in doing so.

I question EVERYONE> Tonite in my class we were discussing how people blame the media for distorting the truth. But the responsibility for finding the truth lies with the individual.

I agree. But science is not about truth, it is about facts. And they are there for you to study.

It is not the media's job to educate us. I find it interesting that when one questions authority they are treated like they are dangerous or stupid. WHY?

Since I don't watch television myself I have noticed that there is this tendancy to sort everyone into two opposing camps.

The Christians and the Evolutionists

The Patriots and the Bush Haters

And if you are like me, a person who questions everything, you find that people don't know how to deal with you unless they can lump you into a little category which they already are geared up to fight.

People don't know how to have a discussion any more. Only a fight.

The fight is in your mind. I don't want to fight you, I wanted to answer your questions and arguments. If you consider everyone who doesn't agree with you as wanting to fight you, you distort reality, and you've got a problem.

I also notice that you completely ignored the point I made about Darwin fighting the SCIENCE COMMUNITY not the religious community while presenting his theory.

I ignored it because I wasn't interested in answering this point. That's anyone's prerogative. And, as myself and so many others have pointed out on other threads in the past, the fact that many new scientific theories & findings were first refuted by the science community, but eventually accepted because of the burden of proof, actually speaks FOR science, not against it.

Having written all this, I actually think it is absolutely pointless & that I'm wasting my time. You are not interested in a proper dialogue. You've made up your mind, on what evidence I really don't know, and any attempt to try to answer your questions is futile.

You don't want to debate, you want to make a point. Example: You say that human-ape common ancestry doesn't make sense to you. But you refuse to elaborate on how, which bits, what parts don't make sense. If you were to go into more detail, myself, as surely others, would be more than happy & willing to try to explain it to you. Then you could come back & say "yes, but:..." and I could try to answer it further, etc...

But, as I say, I have yet to see proof that you're really interested in increasing your understanding and are open to other points of views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat

I don't want to debate. Odd that you think that.

What I did was state my skepticism. And I was told I needed to take a class and do research and do all this stuff before I was ALLOWED to be a skeptic.

Um. NO.

I am allowed to doubt something. Its my perogative. I don't need stacks of scientific credentials to recognize that in the past scientists have been wrong about HUGE things. And I'm not an idiot because I doubt it.

My cynicism about the science community is that getting one to admit, that based on their track record its perfectly reasonable to say

"I've read your theory, I see your evidence and I don't think you've got it right. I think you might be close but I don't think this is it."

For some reason you have this blind spot regarding scientific error. Scientists brush off past mistakes and move on saying "Look we finally accepted it, that's the scientific process."

Well so is fighting like hell against people who think you are wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

What was the purpose of posting this quote? What exactly do you believe that Dr. Kerkut is saying?

There is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the "general theory of evolution," and the evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis."

(Dr. G. A. Kerkut evolutionist)

I assume that means (of course, I am not a scientist, so I may be misunderstanding scientist language) that from a scientist's standpoint the evidence is not strong/sufficient enough to give this idea the title of theory yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QueenOftheCramped

I don't want to debate. Odd that you think that.

What I did was state my skepticism. And I was told I needed to take a class and do research and do all this stuff before I was ALLOWED to be a skeptic.

Um. NO.

I am allowed to doubt something. Its my perogative. I don't need stacks of scientific credentials to recognize that in the past scientists have been wrong about HUGE things. And I'm not an idiot because I doubt it.

My cynicism about the science community is that getting one to admit, that based on their track record its perfectly reasonable to say

"I've read your theory, I see your evidence and I don't think you've got it right. I think you might be close but I don't think this is it."

For some reason you have this blind spot regarding scientific error.

Scientists brush off past mistakes and move on saying "Look we finally accepted it, that's the scientific process."

Well so is fighting like hell against people who think you are wrong.

*shrug* I give up. We seem to be living in parallel universes...That, or I am unknowingly posting in Chinese...

One last thing though: I most definitely do not have a blind spot regarding scientific error. I am as critical of scientific findings as of everything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

If you scroll back in this thread you will see that it is referred to by a scientist in this thread as a FACT.

I am the one that says it is NOT.

IamsSon I agree with you completely. Its odd huh? The atheist and the creationist are on the same side! ;)

Th world will end in 3... 2.... :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

I don't want to debate. Odd that you think that.

What I did was state my skepticism. And I was told I needed to take a class and do research and do all this stuff before I was ALLOWED to be a skeptic.

Um. NO.

Actually the only person questioning someone's right to an opinion based on knowledge was you.

I am allowed to doubt something. Its my perogative.

No one has denied this.

I don't need stacks of scientific credentials to recognize that in the past scientists have been wrong about HUGE things. And I'm not an idiot because I doubt it.

No one has said you are an idiot for this reason

My cynicism about the science community is that getting one to admit, that based on their track record its perfectly reasonable to say

"I've read your theory, I see your evidence and I don't think you've got it right. I think you might be close but I don't think this is it."

Now this is where you do need to have stacks of qualifications. Unless you can present evidence for your opinion it is scientifically worthless. Not all opinions are equal. In the field of palentology the opinion of those who study and research it far out ways the opinion of someone who goes in what he thinks is common sense.

For some reason you have this blind spot regarding scientific error. Scientists brush off past mistakes and move on saying "Look we finally accepted it, that's the scientific process."

Well so is fighting like hell against people who think you are wrong.

This is where you have a blind spot understand a very simple concept. The scientific process proceeds by trying things and rejecting them if they are wrong. It is wrong far less often than people think, generally new theories improve on what has gone before not over turn them altogether. It's called learning. When people have suggested you try it you seem to get upset.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QueenOftheCramped

*sighs deeply & defers from pulling out hair by the bushels*

Thanks Waspie... :wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

Wow, same article fits in two threads. Cool. Read. Enjoy!

The Key Deception

by John H. Calvert, J.D., BA (geology)

October 19, 2006

I became interested in the science of origins in the mid 1980’s due to three findings. First

the finding of extraordinary evidence of design in living systems, second the finding that

mainstream science uses a rule called scientific materialism or methodological naturalism

to suppress that evidence, and third, the finding that the use of the rule is also hidden from

the public view. The effect of this systematic deception is to cause the public to believe that

modern evolutionary theory, which argues against design, is true, while its explanatory

power is actually very much dependent on a hidden counterintuitive doctrine that

effectively protects it from challenge.

My specialty in private practice was stock fraud. Most stock frauds are perpetrated by

undisclosed accounting practices that have the effect of overstating the financial condition

and results of operations of the issuer. Enron and World Com are well-known examples. I

came to understand that evolution today is promoted today in much the same way. Its

advocates use rhetoric and deception rather than candid scientific analysis to make their

case for an origins story that has an enormous impact on Religion, ethics, morals and

government.

The key to the deception is the lack of awareness among the public of the use and effect of

the Rule. Because of the non-disclosed use of the Rule the public is led to believe that the

scientific alternative to evolutionary theory fails because of a lack of evidence, when the

failure is actually due to the use of an unsubstantiated Rule. Since “mainstream science” is

not regulated by an SEC, a major focus of my work has been to expose the use and effect of

the Rule.

To that end I submitted to the Kansas City Star the op-ed shown below for publication in

early August 2006. It was submitted in response to a series of editorials that had been

published that used rhetoric and omission to oppose very objective Kansas Science

Standards adopted in November 2005. The editorial was designed to explain to the public

the key issues in origins science and how mainstream science uses rhetoric and the Rule to

skew the explanation “rather” than claimed “clear thinking.” In connection with the

submission I asked that it not be edited because of its complexity. However, without my

consent the key paragraph that exposes the non-disclosed use of the Rule was removed.

The edit had the effect of once again misinforming the public of evolution’s hidden offbalance

sheet liability. It is a classic example of deception used to promote a so-called

“theory” that has a major impact on both theistic and non-theistic religion.

The article published on August 19, 2006 is shown below. The key paragraphs that explain

the use of the Rule to the public that were deleted are shown in bold face italics.

The Kansas City Star (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/opinion/15309190.htm)

Posted on Sat, Aug. 19, 2006

JOHN CALVERT ON ORIGINS

Teaching Origins demands Clear Thinking, not Rhetoric

A recent editorial seeks “clear thinking” about origins, but its inflammatory rhetoric undermines that goal.

“Where did life come from?” isn’t easy to answer. I believe clear thinking starts with four conclusions

that most can accept, although we may argue about the details:

First, accounts of origins are generally built on one of two causal concepts: Life derives from (a) only

material causes or (B) from both material and intelligent causes.

Stories about materialistic origins argue that because we cannot observe an intervening intelligent cause,

nature is a self-existing product of interactions of matter, energy and the forces. Chemical evolution

explains how life might have arisen from a chance combination of chemicals. After replicating life starts,

biological evolution writes the rest of the chapters using imagined random mutations and natural selection.

Articles about teleological origins argue that many natural systems, such as the genetic code, are

observed to have all the characteristics of systems designed by human intelligence, such as the Morse

Code. Since material causes alone are challenged to explain these information-rich systems, it is logical

to infer their origin from intelligence. Although we cannot observe the past intelligence at work, it can be

inferred from what has been left behind.

Second, all explanations about ancient origins are scientifically controversial. They rely on a constantly

changing mix of circumstantial evidence and lots of imagination to construct subjective historical

narratives about unobservable remote events not amenable to experimental confirmation.

Third, any origins story unavoidably affects religion, ethics, morality and even government. Materialistic

theories support religious views such as atheism, humanism, scientism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc., while

teleological theories support traditional theistic religions like Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

Materialists use “human reason” and science to provide direction to life, and traditional theists rely on

prayer and wisdom reflected in religious texts.

Fourth, in our country, government is constitutionally required to be neutral as to religion. Public

schools may not take sides in any debate “respecting” “religion.”

Any clear thinking requires schools to avoid any bias that favors one origins story over another. This

scientifically controversial subject that unavoidably affects religion cries out for scrupulous scientific objectivity.

The current origins story favored by “mainstream science” is not scientifically objective because it

uses a subtle and generally unstated materialistic bias that is absolute. We must assume life derives

only from material causes. Although students are led to believe the story is an empirically tested

scientific conclusion, it actually is an interpretation of facts that fit a preconceived materialistic

assumption that is not religiously neutral. This model skews public education to favor the non-theist

over the traditional theist. (this paragraph was deleted by the Editor)

Science standards adopted last year in Kansas reject preconceptions in favor of critical scientific analysis

of the prevailing materialistic origins story. It is not entirely objective, because it does not encourage

discussion of the alternative. However, it is a move toward better origins science that is religiously

neutral.

To advance clear thinking about origins, we need reporting that will exchange rhetoric for critical

analysis of the current standards. (this paragraph was deleted by the Editor)

John Calvert is managing director of Intelligent Design Network Inc., a nonprofit organization seeking

institutional objectivity in origins science. He lives in Lake Quivira.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lufia

these type of discussion never get anywhere. just have an open mind on both sides and everything will be alright.

Edited by lufia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
icebear

The "missing link" was supposed to be the neanderthal. But there was always a big mystery as to why there was never any evidence of crossbreeding between modern humans and neanderthals despite the two appearing to have lived in close proximity for long periods of time, and then in the late 90s DNA studies on neanderthal remains resolved the mystery. Neanderthal DNA was shown to be "about halfway between ours, and that of a chimpanzee", totally eliminating the neanderthal as a plausible human ancestor since to be descended from something, at some point, you have to be able to interbreed with the something, and we could no more interbreed with neanderthals than we could with deer or horses.

The problem is that all other hominids are much further removed from us THAN the neanderthal. To honoestly go on trying to claim that modern man evolved, you'd have to produce some new hominid, closer to us in both time and morphology THAN the neanderthal, and the works and remains of that closer hominid would be all over the map and very easy to find if he had ever existed. In real life of course, nothing of the sort has ever been found.

Moreover, the present claims of the evolutionites, i.e. that both we AND the neanderthal must be descended from some more remote third party 500,000 years back, are plainly idiotic. That's like claiming that dogs could not be descended from wolves, and must therefore have evolved directly from fish.

No real science theory is defended the way evolution is, i.e. to the last man, at all costs, and the truth be damned. Only religions and lifestyles are defended like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.