something tells me there is an imposture among us

Why would you come to that conclusion?

I believe in fairies, and I'm going to be a gardener when I grow up.

article of the day:

so the pope goes to africa...

"You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms," the pope told reporters aboard the Alitalia plane headed to Yaounde, Cameroon. "On the contrary, it increases the problem."

wow!

In a statement, Lisa Power, corporate head of policy at Terrence Higgins Trust, said: 'We deeply regret the continued misinformation around condoms, which remain the most effective way of preventing the spread of HIV.

'Both abstinence and condoms are valid weapons in the fight against HIV, but unfortunately abstinence has a far higher failure rate.'


...its a good thing this guy is put up on a pedestal and praised for the things he believes in.

I have a question for anyone that wants to answer it.



How can you believe in science without believing in evolution? I have Charles Darwins book and I have read it with my own eyes. He used the scientific method. And I will say it again. He used the scientific method. How can a person dispute that?

he used the scientific method to what?

How can you believe science and insist that Evolution is science?

What is "scientific" about evolution?

You dont know what the scientific method is? Darwin used the scientific method of gathering and analyzing information. The theory is based upon information gathered and analyzed in an organized fashion. Creationism is not. How can you compete with that? Creationism is based on faith alone. Evolution is based on evidence that was collected and analyzed in an organized and orderly fashion. Darwin was not making a political statement, merely a scientific observation. Creationism is a political statement and not based on information gathered and analyzed according to the scientific method. Darwins conclusions can be independently reproduced as is according to the scientific method, while there are many versions of creationism. I just dont see how creationism can compete with that.

Drawin was what would be considered a strong christian with an interest in nature, until the voyage to the Galapagos. It was during this voyage and his very detailed observation that he began to question creationism.

You cant deny that evolution is scientific.

Well you can, but then that would make you a joke.

I cant believe how many weak arguments are used by Creationsist on this subject, and how many strong arguments they deny.

So answer the question.

What is "scientific" about evolution?

Read Mirrors post, he explained it.

Of course I know what the scientific method is.

Now - answer the question.

What is scientific about evoluiton?

The discussion is not about Creationism being scientific - why bring it up?

The fossil record of the past that, when assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past four billion years. The picture may be smudged in places and may have bits missing, but fossil evidence clearly shows that life is old and has changed over time.

Evolutionary theory predicts that related organisms will share similarities that are derived from common ancestors. Similar characteristics due to relatedness are known as homologies. Homologies can be revealed by comparing the anatomies of different living things, looking at cellular similarities and differences, studying embryological development, and studying vestigial structures within individual organisms.


Understanding the history of life on Earth requires a grasp of the depth of time and breadth of space. We must keep in mind that the time involved is vast compared to a human lifetime and the space necessary for this to occur includes all the water and land surfaces of the world. Establishing chronologies, both relative and absolute, and geographic change over time are essential for viewing the motion picture that is the history of life on Earth.

The age of the Earth and its inhabitants has been determined through two complementary lines of evidence: relative dating and numerical (or radiometric) dating.

Relative vs. absolute dating

* Relative dating places fossils in a temporal sequence by noting their positions in layers of rocks, known as strata. As shown in the diagram, fossils found in lower strata were typically deposited first and are deemed to be older (this principle is known as superposition). Sometimes this method doesn't work, either because the layers weren't deposited horizontally to begin with, or because they have been overturned.
If that's the case, we can use one of three other methods to date fossil-bearing layers relative to one another: faunal succession, crosscutting relationships, and inclusions.
By studying and comparing strata from all over the world we can learn which came first and which came next, but we need further evidence to ascertain the specific, or numerical, ages of fossils.

* Numerical dating relies on the decay of radioactive elements, such as uranium, potassium, rubidium and carbon. Very old rocks must be dated using volcanic material. By dating volcanic ash layers both above and below a fossil-bearing layer, as shown in the diagram, you can determine "older than X, but younger than Y" dates for the fossils. Sedimentary rocks less than 50,000 years old can be dated as well, using their radioactive carbon content. Geologists have assembled a geological time scale on the basis of numerical dating of rocks from around the world.

The distribution of living things on the globe provides information about the past histories of both living things and the surface of the Earth. This evidence is consistent not just with the evolution of life, but also with the movement of continental plates around the world-otherwise known as plate tectonics.

Marsupial mammals are found in the Americas as well as Australia and New Guinea. They are not found swimming across the Pacific Ocean, nor have they been discovered wandering the Asian mainland. There appear to be no routes of migration between the two populations. How could marsupials have gotten from their place of origin to locations half a world away?

Fossils of marsupials have been found in the Antarctic as well as in South America and Australia. During the past few decades scientists have demonstrated that what is now called South America was part of a large land mass called Gondwana, which included Australia and Antarctica. Marsupials didn't need a migration route from one part of the world to another; they rode the continents to their present positions.

Although the history of life is always in the past, there are many ways we can look at present-day organisms, as well as recent history, to better understand what has occurred through deep time. Artificial selection in agriculture or laboratories provides a model for natural selection. Looking at interactions of organisms in ecosystems helps us to understand how populations adapt over time. Experiments demonstrate selection and adaptive advantage. And we can see nested hierarchies in taxonomies based on common descent.

People have been artificially selecting domesticated plants and animals for thousands of years. These activities have amounted to large, long-term, practical experiments that clearly demonstrate that species can change dramatically through selective breeding.

Broccoli and brussels sprouts bear little superficial resemblance to their wild mustard relatives (right).

If domesticated dogs were discovered today they would be classified as hundreds of different species and considered quite distinct from wolves. Although it is probable that various breeds of dogs were independently domesticated from distinct wild dog lineages, there are no wolf relatives anywhere in the world that look much like dachshunds or collies.

These observations demonstrate that selection has profound effects on populations and has the ability to modify forms and behaviors of living things to the point that they look and act very unlike their ancestors. Artificial selection provides a model that helps us understand natural selection. It is a small step to envision natural conditions acting selectively on populations and causing natural changes.

As predicted by evolutionary theory, populations evolve in response to their surroundings. In any ecosystem there are finite opportunities to make a living. Organisms either have the genetic tools to take advantage of those opportunities or they do not.

House sparrows arrived in North America from Europe in the nineteenth century. Since then, genetic variation within the population, and selection in various habitats, have allowed them to inhabit most of the continent. House sparrows in the north are larger and darker colored than those in the south. Darker colors absorb sunlight better than light colors and larger size allows less surface area per unit volume, thus reducing heat loss — both advantages in a cold climate. This is an example of natural selection acting upon a population, producing micro-evolution on a continental scale.

John Endler of the University of California has conducted experiments with the guppies of Trinidad that clearly show selection at work. The scenario: Female guppies prefer colorful males for mating purposes. Predatory fish also "prefer" colorful males, but for a less complimentary purpose — a source of food that is easy to spot. Some portions of the streams where guppies live have fewer predators than others and in these locations the males are more colorful (top frame). Not surprisingly, males in locations where there are more predators tend to be less colorful (bottom frame).

When Dr. Endler transferred predatory fish to the regions with brightly colored male guppies, selection acted rapidly to produce a population of duller males. This demonstrates that persistent variation within a population provides the raw material for rapid evolution when environmental conditions change.

Evolution predicts that living things will be related to one another in what scientists refer to as nested hierarchies — rather like nested boxes. Groups of related organisms share suites of similar characteristics and the number of shared traits increases with relatedness. This is indeed what we observe in the living world and in the fossil record. For example snakes and lizards share a large number of traits as they are more closely related to one another than to the other animals represented. The same can be said of crocodiles and birds, whales and camels, and humans and chimpanzees. However, at a more inclusive level, snakes, lizards, birds, crocodiles, whales, camels, chimpanzees and humans all share some common traits.

Humans and chimpanzees are united by many shared inherited traits (such as 98.7% of their DNA). But at a more inclusive level of life's hierarchy, we share a smaller set of inherited traits in common with all primates. More inclusive still, we share traits in common with other mammals, other vertebrates, other animals. At the most inclusive level, we sit alongside sponges, petunias, diatoms and bacteria in a very large "box" entitled: living organisms.

From http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

Unverifyable - conjecture at best. Faith based to accept this as "fact".



Though it might be "predicted" as such - that is not "evidence" of fact, as the premise is constructed to support the conclusion. There is no means of verifying this through empirical science. It is a faith based hypothesis.



Since it is impossible to determine the amount of daughter material inclusive in the parent material at the tme of the presumed formation of the test subject - any date derived from radiometric dating is as accurate as a phychic's prediction. Totally and absolutely faithed based, and absurd at best due to the requirement of universality of the earth's atmosphere throughout the life o the test object. Something which can easily be determined to be impossible through the scientific method of random expermentation within our lifetime. Impossible to presume for the planet 400 years ago, let alone 4 billion years ago.



Plate tectronics - another undemonstratable premise, while even possible - do nothing to support the idea of evolution. a world wide flood is just as plausable an explination, and no less rovable than plate tectronics. Faith based concluisons.



While natural selection is demonstratable, and even observable - this is not an idea originated from evolution. This is clearly seen in the biblical account as well as the Darwinian account. The difference being that Evolution creates the false presumption that imformation has been aded to DNA to account for the "tree of species" rather than the "forest of species" imlied by Creationism. It has never been demonstrated that any mutation has involved an addition of information - but rather a loss of information. It would be more appropriate to call it De-evolution, rather than "evolution", as what is occuring through mutation is a loss of information - not an adding of information. Something quite mysteriously left out of all text books and scientific accounts of evolution. Ever wonder why that is?



Amaizing. The same holds true of Creationism.



This is indeed an observable fact - however this does nothing to demonstrate that man evolved from a fish. It demonstrates that there is change within the sparrow population to adapt to the ever changing evironmental influences. (As opposed to Universalism, a necessary for evolutionary theory)



Here again - all Dr. Endler has done is demonstrate that there is change amoungst guppies. Period. To assume anything further from this, or to extrapolate it to the far distant past, is conjectre, and faith based.



This is also true of Creationism. Is there a point here?



The mere fact that there is a similarity between Human and Chimp DNA is not "evidence" of evolution - unless it can be demonstrated that even one chimp shows evidence of a chromisome fusing. What do you think the chances are that there going to prove through the "scientific method" of observation that this is verifyasble fact!!! Oh sure.. one day they will. Until then, we'll take their word for it that "this is what happened".

Bottom line. Unverifyable. Conjecture. Presumption. Faith based.

Now. Would you like to attempt to simply use your own idea of what it is exactly that is "scientific" about evolution?

Explain to me what is "scientific" about man and the chimp sharing a common ancestor? How it is possible through emperical evidence to demonstrate the world is 4.5 billion years old. Which, by the way, you would have to demonstrate how a world flood did NOT occur. Another unverifyalbe concluison which MUST be accepted on faith in order to beliueve evolution.

Are you suggesting that the bible offers better, more empirical evidence that world is significantly younger? Are you implying creationism is a more plausible option?

It is interesting to note that in most of the rest of the world, namely in Europe, India, and China, evolution is taught and discussed as it ought to be - a scientific theory not disprovable by a Bronze-age fairy tale.

Catch up, America.

My post was about evolution. I don't see any more plausible evidence to Evolution than I do Creatioism. The "belief" in either as an explination of origins is totally based on faith. Any observation of mutational change or natural selection is as easily explained by Creationism as it is by evolutional theory. The beief of either one depends solely o one's world view and what they chose to put their faith in. Since neither evolution nor Creationism can be scientifically proven - neither is science.

Oddly enough - though not disprovable by any theory - it is not provable as a scientific teory itself. There's no empirical evidence for it. It is just another world religion.

I understand your beliefs a little more now, thanks for sharing. Can I assume that you are familiar with the scientific process then? I don't see how you could suggest that there is not more empirical evidence for evolution than creationism. Evolution even according the scientists who study it on a full-time basis is not a complete science. No one claims that it is fully understood, but that does not take away from the science of it. We don't fully understand gravity, but you don't see any sane person religious or not questioning it. If you believe in neither creationism nor evolution, do you have an alternative hypothesis?