Report: In her memoir, Palin says she doesn’t believe in evolution.
Report: In her memoir, Palin says she doesn’t believe in evolution.
In the past, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin has been cagey about her views on creationism and evolution, saying that she believes “we have a creator” but she didn’t want “to pretend I know how all this came to be.” But in her new memoir, Going Rogue, Palin apparently writes that she doesn’t believe in evolution. New York Times reviewer Michiko Kakutani writes:
Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she “didn’t believe in the theory that human beings — thinking, loving beings — originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea” or from “monkeys who eventually swung down from the trees.” In everything that happens to her, from meeting Todd to her selection by Mr. McCain for the Republican ticket, she sees the hand of God: “My life is in His hands. I encourage readers to do what I did many years ago, invite Him in to take over.”
While running for governor in 2006, Palin said that she was “a proponent of teaching both” evolution and creationism in Alaska’s schools. ” In September 2008, she told Fox News’ Sean Hannity that because she grew up “in a school teacher’s house with a science teacher as a dad,” she has “great respect for science being taught in our science classes and evolution to be taught in our science classes.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Attention Right-Wingers!
Creationism is a myth. Period. It is a story, nothing more, and has nothing to do with how we came to be here.
The sooner you learn to accept that fact, the sooner you can advance to the 21st Century.
November 15th, 2009 at 1:48 pmAnd to think this witch would’ve been a heartbeat away. OY!
November 15th, 2009 at 1:49 pmThis is consistent with the far right Christianist viewpoint. It doesn’t matter which doofus sits in the oval office, because if their faith is true God handles everything.
November 15th, 2009 at 1:49 pm“My life is in His hands. I encourage readers to do what I did many years ago, invite Him in to take over.”
This is the essence of the Xtianist/Republican mindset. Pick some higher authority, real or imaginary, and hand over the responsibility for your life. That way, you always have someone else to blame. It also eliminates the need to do all that pesky thinking. Be a good follower and someone else will take care of you.
November 15th, 2009 at 1:53 pmWhy do the fundies seem to always assume that God and evolution are mutually exclusive?
November 15th, 2009 at 1:54 pmSo antibiotic resistant bacterial strains are the result of an angry god?
November 15th, 2009 at 1:55 pmSo antibiotic resistant bacterial strains are the result of an angry god?
I have a co-worker who always talks about how even the insects are “God’s creatures”, so he won’t try to swat any of them. But I bet whenever he gets a stoamch bug, he makes sure he takes his anti-biotics.
For some reason, people like that don’t view bacteria as God’s creatures.
November 15th, 2009 at 1:58 pmNot only do I believe in evolution, I believe in devolution, to wit, Todd and Sarah Palin.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:00 pmExactly why they are called fringe.
Scientists and evolutionists are much more open minded than creationists.
Scientists do not profess to any absolute as creationists insist on.
Creationists have an agenda and no science or facts to support what they insist that all believe on “faith”
November 15th, 2009 at 2:00 pmOh lord. Could this fundie twatt be any stupider?
I really don’t think so.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:01 pm“For some reason, people like that don’t view bacteria as God’s creatures.”
Haven’t they ever seen War of the Worlds?
November 15th, 2009 at 2:01 pmYEAH!!! We finally have the dream ticket for the republican party…Palin/Tancredo !!! That’s it…Nothing can stop them now except maybe a BILLION YEARS OF HISTORY FACT !!!!
November 15th, 2009 at 2:03 pmAnd this just in, more American soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Kalid is being tried in NY for 9/11.
Yea, I know those things are not nearly important as what Sarah Gump thinks about life and politics and we must talk a great deal about her so she sells more books so she can buy her husband his own snowmobile racing team.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:04 pmBy her logic, then, God decided that Obama should be President.
(shaking head)
November 15th, 2009 at 2:04 pmDon’t you think it would be too much of a challenge for such a vacuous individual to see, understand or appreciate any long term phenomenon such as evolution?
November 15th, 2009 at 2:04 pmI don’t know what it is but I always fall for any women that says twat.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:06 pmI encourage readers to do what I did many years ago, invite Him in to take over.”
That’s just creepy sounding even if you’re not talking about religion. Straight out of “Invasion of the Body Snatcher” or something similar.
That fact it is religion should make any thinking person scared of – or at least leary and skeptical – one of these “alien” believers if ever approached by same.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:08 pmShe misquotes science books as freely as she misquotes the bible and the constitution.
I like to think it’s a comprehension problem but in my heart I know it’s just dishonest deception on all counts.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:12 pmThe Hand o’God? In there fiddling around? Tinkering with the outcome? Cooo-ellll!
I hope Her Creator uses his foot next, and boots her silly butt into the middle of next week or somewhere else where she won’t be such a fracking nuisance. Can’t this broad just shut up and go away? (no answers required… snark)
November 15th, 2009 at 2:14 pmGod is either running things or he isn’t. If she believes he is, then she must believe it is God’s plan for Obama to be president.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:16 pmsaying she “didn’t believe in the theory that human beings — thinking, loving beings — from “monkeys who eventually swung down from the trees.”
These people are so embedded in their exceptionalism that their egos cannot fathom the possibility that coming from humble beginnings and growing into rational, thinking, caring beings is neither a bad thing nor impossible. By their own frailty, they deny the power of the very entity they fawn over.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:17 pmIf there is a God, it is quite possible that he/she is guiding Palin to do everything possible to destroy the Republican Party and the conservative movement forever.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:17 pmHow come it is so hard to summon an evangelical or some other voice to help us hold a discussion about this topic?
November 15th, 2009 at 2:20 pmSo, people wont evolve into light bodies when armageddon comes?
November 15th, 2009 at 2:20 pmI believe in God and evolution and have no problem with Palin beliving in either, both, or none of these things as a Private citizen.
That being said thank G-d she’s not a heart beat away from being President.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:20 pmHey, Mooseboogers! Which is harder to believe? A god that can make humans evolve from monkeys or one who made them from mud and bones? If I had to choose, the idea of being descended from a pile of mud just lacks class.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:22 pmshe “didn’t believe in the theory that human beings — thinking, loving beings — from “monkeys who eventually swung down from the trees.”
I’ve known quite a few thinking and loving beings who were not human.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:23 pmeyeswideopen1 says:
And this just in, more American soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Kalid is being tried in NY for 9/11.
Yea, I know those things are not nearly important as what Sarah Gump thinks about life
I basically agree with you eyeswideopen1 but, let’s face it, we’re going to be hearing about Sarah and her ‘book’ for the next three weeks whether we like it or not, and the opportunity to mock her a bit provides some catharthis and has the potential to be somewhat therapeutic.
Personally, I began to experience overload on all things Sarah oh, about a year ago or so. To think that I used to like that name…
November 15th, 2009 at 2:27 pmReport: In her memoir, Palin says she doesn’t believe in evolution.
– - She is a deeply disturbed individual whose grip on reality is very weak, and whose self-awareness is close to nil. This much is not a leap, let alone unfair. It is simply unavoidable if one examines her surreal invention of reality.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:30 pmNo man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon [wealth]
Sarah seems to be trying to follow two masters.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:33 pm“I didn’t come from no monkey … like that evil family in the Whitehouse did!”
Ignorant hag!
I sure hope someone has some really juicy dirt to drop on her this week … maybe the truth about Trig will finally get “leaked”
November 15th, 2009 at 2:35 pmBadmoodman says,
That description could be applied to Republicans in general and the right wing especially. Their detachment from reality is stunning.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:35 pmSarah has joined the ranks og Benny Hinn.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:35 pmSpeaking of fundies (and somewhat O/T):
Sullivan was working as an analyst at the Veterans Benefits Administration in Washington in early 2005 when he was called to a meeting with a top political appointee at the VA, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Michael McLendon. McLendon, an intensely focused man in a neatly pressed suit, kept a Bible on his desk at the office. Sullivan explained to McLendon and the other attendees that the rise in benefits claims the VA was noticing was caused partly by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who were suffering from PTSD. “That’s too many,” McLendon said, then hit his hand on the table. “They are too young” to be filing claims, and they are doing it “too soon.” He hit the table again. The claims, he said, are “costing us too much money,” and if the veterans “believed in God and country . . . they would not come home with PTSD.” At that point, he slammed his palm against the table a final time, making a loud smack.
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2009/11/bush-administration.html
November 15th, 2009 at 2:36 pmIt’s fine to have a belief in God. More often than not though, those people who put their lives in Gods hands and “invite Him to take over” turn out to be morally lazy.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:38 pmpoliticscorner says,
Or morally banckrupt.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:39 pm“My life is in His hands. I encourage readers to do what I did many years ago, invite Him in to take over.”
Are you suggesting, Ms Palin, that it was God who wanted everyone to shoot wolves from helicopters?
November 15th, 2009 at 2:40 pmI was reading an article that stated that white people are about 6k yo, thus mooseyak’s belief that the world is about that old.
She is basically stating the world wasn’t viable until her kind became visible.
Typical repug ignorance.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:42 pmWe should thank our lucky stars (and Obama) that she is not a heartbeat away from the presidency.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:43 pmShe would set us back even further than dumbya. We would be ruled by another backward-thinking, science-rejecting, autocratic, un-democratic, gun-slinger, who shoots first, then asks questions.
If there is an otherworldly being that led McCain to pick Palin as his running mate I’m pretty sure it wasn’t God, more likely Satan.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:47 pmDoes she “see the hand of God” in Obama being elected president? It’s interesting how these conservative christians only see God’s influence when it’s something they want.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:48 pmOne of the biggest problems I have with Creationists is the idea that the entirety of humankind is descended from two people. It is pretty common knowledge that trying to establish a viable species from two sources of genes is a physical impossibility.
Plus the idea of who was zooming who for those first few generations is just icky.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:49 pmapologies to Mary @14. I hadn’t read through the comments yet, but she makes my point well.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:51 pmoops and ninerfan @20, I jumped the gun.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:53 pmHoodathunk,
That and where did their sons’ wives come from?
November 15th, 2009 at 2:55 pmIf all species were created by a creator in some super weird universal coolness. shouldn’t that be all the more reason for perserving endangered species and strengthening land and environment protection legislation?
November 15th, 2009 at 2:57 pmPsssst, dbadass….twatt, twatt, twatt….
xoxoxoxo
November 15th, 2009 at 2:57 pm~A
Palin’s existence proves that evolution is a scientific fact. If Palin’s ignorance and meanness was a direct creation of a Supreme Being, it would mean that He makes a lot of mistakes, it would be an insult to the concept.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:59 pm“That and where did their sons’ wives come from?”
Didn’t you know Schneider they just popped out of the ground.
God didn’t even have to create a miracle.
(yes that is sarcasm)
November 15th, 2009 at 3:01 pmthere you go, db, making sense again. You clean up the mess from the fundie head explosions.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:02 pmPalin believes that God wanted her to get into politics. I wonder if he wanted her to be so lousy at it?
November 15th, 2009 at 3:02 pmShe is a thick, stupid person who is a member of a cult for thick, stupid persons.
It’s called Evangelicalism, and it’s the fastest growing mental illness in this nation.
Those folks obsess on Genesis, Leviticus, Revelations and the Second Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, and they push an Amero-centrist view of Jesus, all the while downplaying or eliminating the more controversial words of Jesus.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:03 pmAnd the worst part about it Wayne is that he did it again with Noah. Evidently the first crop was pretty nasty.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:03 pmBy her logic…hmmm God gave us Bush, to punish us for being Republicans and torture us and rain down the bird flu and the swine flu and Hurricanes and Chaney. Somehow this makes sense.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:03 pmHaving met some of Palin’s well catered to supporters I have seen ample evidence that humans were not always as bright as most are today.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:03 pmNinerFan says:
God is either running things or he isn’t. If she believes he is, then she must believe it is God’s plan for Obama to be president.
And this is why the monotheistic religions had to come up with a Devil. In the polytheistic religions, there was usually a god who did the bad things, while the top god could be thanked for all the good things. When they decided to take a step backwards and believe that everything was the work of just one god, they had to find a way to explain all the bad things (the Evil) that occurred all the time. There was no longer a mischief god, or a god who did the bad things. This must have been the work of their all-powerful, all-loving God. So they came up with a Devil who was responsible for all the bad things that happened, and leave their all-powerful, all-loving God to be worshipped as a good god.
People like Sarah Palin would probably view the election of Barack Obama to become president as the work of the Devil, not the God they love and worship.
Have I mentioned that a certain amount of disconnect with reality that has to happen for these people to honestly believe the things they do?
November 15th, 2009 at 3:04 pm“By her logic…hmmm God gave us Bush, to punish us for being Republicans and torture us and rain down the bird flu and the swine flu and Hurricanes and Cheney. Somehow this makes sense.”
Though I don’t think God is that petty were I God I would be annoyed at how ungreatful American’s were at getting Clinton for President.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:06 pmMonotheism leads to schizophrenia.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:08 pm♆Sarah Palen♆
November 15th, 2009 at 3:10 pmI.e. Don’t blame me! I’m not responsbile for any of the crap I say or do!
Honestly, Sarah, if you believe in God, you also believe He gave you free will. Pretend like you know what responsibility is and then maybe – MAYBE! – we’ll consider taking anything you say seriously.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:12 pmWhile running for governor in 2006, Palin said that she was “a proponent of teaching both “evolution and creationism in Alaska’s schools.” In September 2008, she told Fox News’ Sean Hannity that because she grew up “in a school teacher’s house with a science teacher as a dad,” she has “great respect for science being taught in our science classes and evolution to be taught in our science classes.”
**************************************************************
So was she lying then, or is she lying now? My guess is that it’s the former — she was lying in 2006 and 2008 because she was running for office, which meant every vote was precious and she couldn’t risk saying something which might very well alienate moderate voters who are financially conservative yet socially liberal. She has much less reason to lie now since sales of her book are to at least some extent less dependent on her views than votes to put her in office would be. The people who voted for McCain will probably want to read her book, and perhaps some of those who didn’t will read it as well (even if only for entertainment or shock value).
November 15th, 2009 at 3:13 pmShe’s thicker than George W. Bush, strangely enough.
Her record as governor, culminating in her flight from office mid-way through,
should speak volumes to the cretins who see her as presidential timber.
Her neo-con champion, the lying fool Kristol, has been wrong about everything on which he has served up his slop opinions, and he is dead-wrong on that Gucci Goober from Wasilla.
Take your own “conservative” advice, Mrs. Palin, and stay at home and take care of your children and your husband.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:14 pmBy her logic, then, God decided that Obama should be President
Which is precisely why they hope Obama fails!
November 15th, 2009 at 3:16 pmSarah operates under a common misconception about the whole Christian concept of accepting Jesus as Lord. A real Christian realizes this means listening to His teachings and following them. An Xtian just plays the lip service game and then proceeds to believe that any fool idea that comes into their head comes from god and is divinely inspired.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:19 pmPalin and Carrie Prejean are two peas in a pod. They hide behind the flag and bible as if they have a monopoly on patriotism and piety. They think these attributes shield them from criticism and their failings as human beings. They complain about their detractors being unfair while they invoke God, Mom and apple pie. In reality, they are just con artists trying to sell an image.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:22 pmRight wing nuts. Dumber that road gravel.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/frank-schaeffer-gops-evangelical-subcultur
Forget them. They are too much to deal with. Let them remain ignorant.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:25 pmJust say no to religion
November 15th, 2009 at 3:25 pm✞I’m going to have to disagree with you pags2.
Prejean is known for saying what she thought knowing fully well it would cost her.
Palin is known for saying what she thought people wanted to hear hoping they would pay for her costs.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:27 pmI am so looking forward to more tidbits of wisdom and philosophy from Sarah’s (ghost-written) memoirs. An earlier poster asked if this twat could possibly be any stupider. Well, that’s really an existential question.
What I think we will find from her latest round of exposure is that she is as stupid as she had ever been . . . however, she is even stupider than we could ever have thought of before.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:27 pmWow, someone voted me down for saying no to religion.
interesting. Care to comment on why?
November 15th, 2009 at 3:32 pmYou know, tom, one almost has to admire Sarah here. She has been complaining people have been picking on her and so she actually paid someone to document just how stupid she really is. That takes guts.
Who else would say…”think I’m stupid? Ha! I’ll show you stupid.”
November 15th, 2009 at 3:34 pmElsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she “didn’t believe in the theory that human beings — thinking, loving beings — originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea” or from “monkeys who eventually swung down from the trees.”
————————————————————–
And pray tell, Saruh, why would this be such a bad thing, considering the end product’s many achievements? Only a fool fails to acknowledge our connection to other organisms living on the same planet.
Your dad may have been a science teacher while you were growing up, but you were asleep during all of your science classes. A seat-warmer is what you were.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:38 pmYour dad may have been a science teacher while you were growing up, but you were asleep during all of your science classes. A seat-warmer is what you were.
Maybe she was too busy winking at the other boys in biology class.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:40 pmWhat the hell is a pro-gun and pro-death penalty person doing pretending to be a Christian? You are a hypocrite Bible Spice!
November 15th, 2009 at 3:42 pmThe nation’s corporations intelliguntly designed us. That’s why they are of #1 importance for tax cuts. Humans should spend their lives returning the favor to industries.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:44 pmIf everything is in God’s hands I don’t have to answer for my behavior. Of course to the true fundamentalist creationist, the earth–which is flat–was created in seven days 6,013 years ago. Anyone, claiming to be a creationist, who does not believe the earth is flat is interpreting the Bible, not taking it literally.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:45 pmThere is no such thing as devolution. Sometimes the “more advanced” species becomes extinct, leaving behind the more adaptive species.
We are both being snarky, but individuals do not a species make. Perhaps Todd and Sarah Palin are mutations, but they definitely are not a devolved species.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:46 pmcd says “Prejean is known for saying what she thought knowing fully well it would cost her.” But what if God wasn’t even watching the Miss USA pageant that night? They make their god so small.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:46 pmI mean, evolution assumes apes rolled over a couple times and, poof, humans appeared 3,500 years later.
(Aren’t my posts basting with stupidity?)
November 15th, 2009 at 3:46 pm@Wayne#56
That’s right, Wayne, and the story has it that God is ultimately more powerful than the Devil, so that might help fuel their fervor – doing God’s work against the Devil.
It’s a real challenge to our culture – dealing with a significant population that, for all intents and purposes, is suffering from a kind of insanity.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:47 pm74 comments and not a single science denier? What’s up with that?
November 15th, 2009 at 3:47 pmGOP REALLY, I’m a bit perplexed. On which day did God create corporations and decide it was good?
November 15th, 2009 at 3:47 pmAnd this nugget from Palin comes as the scientific world celebrates the significance of the fossil “Ardi” (I think her name is Ardi), the ancestor of “Lucy.” And, the startling number of extra-solar planets scattered all through out our own section of the galaxy leading some astronomers to suggest that there may be literally millions of habitable planets in our galaxy.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:51 pmSo did Palin discuss her thoughts on the Theory of Relativity? Einstein denialism is the new hotness among conservative science deniers.
After all, how can you insist on a 6,000 year old universe when there are so many things out there more than 6,000 light years away? Unless, of course, you say the speed of light changes.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:52 pmchiroptera toasterhead says,
November 15th, 2009 at 3:52 pmProbably at their creationist services getting their talking points. I’ve no doubt they’ll be here sooner or later.
And, the startling number of extra-solar planets scattered all through out our own section of the galaxy leading some astronomers to suggest that there may be literally millions of habitable planets in our galaxy.
All the more places to spread the good word. Except we would have to embrace science so we could get to them.
So confusing.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:53 pmLevi the Oracle says:
Pags2@8 said,
Not only do I believe in evolution, I believe in devolution, to wit, Todd and Sarah Palin.
There is no such thing as devolution. Sometimes the “more advanced” species becomes extinct, leaving behind the more adaptive species.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, one of the meanings of devolution is:
Biology – evolutionary degeneration.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:56 pmNinerFan says:
And, the startling number of extra-solar planets scattered all through out our own section of the galaxy leading some astronomers to suggest that there may be literally millions of habitable planets in our galaxy.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
____________
Though to be fair, there haven’t been any planets found that are remotely habitable, since the wobble method can only catch big gas giants. But I’m waiting patiently for the results of Kepler, which may indeed find something more Earthy.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:56 pmchiroptera –based on my recent visits to web sites where a lot of conservatives lurk and comment, they are planning their next moves to: 1.) defeat hcr and 2.)prevent the terrorist trials from taking place in NY. Another of their concerns centers @ NIMBY regarding holding terrorists in prisons in their states
November 15th, 2009 at 3:57 pmUnless, of course, you say the speed of light changes.
Ah yes, the old divine 5 speed. Just imagine, God, slap shifting through the gears, riding the clutch, slicks smoking in the emptiness of the heavens.
The ultimate Thunder Road.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:57 pmWe need to break churches of being political. It’s ok if they want to pay taxes but not as a tax free entity.
We have been putting pressure on churches in okla by recording their sermons calling for such political action and reporting them here:
http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=178241,00.html
It takes some time but all complaints are eventually followed up on. With a sound recording or vidio you can close them down. We have been doing just that.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:58 pmI don’t know if anyone noticed the problem here, but we evolved from leg sprouting fish and tree swinging monkeys. Sarah does not understand that the evolution of land dwellers far predates the first mammal, by a few hundred million years.
It’s not did we evolve from this or that. We evolved from both. I guess when you are willing to deny science to fulfill your need to comply with religious dogma, you don’t bother to understand the basics of theories you disagree with.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:58 pmThats right Bimbostien you ignorant inbred hick. We DIDNT come from monkeys. Darwin never said we did. Rather than Homo Sapiens and monkeys have a common anscestor. No doubt something much more sentient than YOU.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:59 pmIs anyone surprised? Bible Spice has personal witch-hunter so her disbelief of science is a foregone conclusion.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:01 pmDoes this really surprise anyone? The only science that Conservatives like are ones that make dark-skinned people go BOOM or helps us figure out where all of the oil is buried. Palin specifically singled out several important research projects during her campaign.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:02 pm#73 Wayne A. Schneider says:
“Maybe she was too busy winking at the other boys in biology class.”
I’m thinking that characteristic ‘wink’ is what has Kristol getting wood every time he thinks or talks about her.
Kristol is obviously in love with Palin, and thinks she’ll ‘repay’ his loyalty–nudge, nudge, wink, wink…
November 15th, 2009 at 4:03 pmWingers are becoming increasingly hostile to science and government (now that it’s in democratic hands).
I’m finding it difficult to distinguish them from jihadists.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:03 pmShe never ceases to prove why she is the biggest joke in America. Of course she doesn’t believe in Evolution. I’d be willing to bet she thinks we never landed on the moon, gravity is just God’s way of giving us a big hug, and the Earth is the center of the universe.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:05 pmI should also add that, like most any religious extremist, she expends as much energy remaining ignorant as rational people expend learning. It’s kind of sad, actually.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:06 pmnellre says:
Wingers are becoming increasingly hostile to science and government (now that it’s in democratic hands).
They have alway been this way…it’s called the repug club.
Ignorance is one of their prerequisite.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:08 pmI don’t like to deny people’s rights to believe in a higher power. If you believe in God, fine. I won’t deny the existence of God, because I have no way to explain either religion or evolution to the point of either or neither being right or wrong.
However, I ask that nay-sayers of evolution do the same thing. Stop being a party of “no”, even when that “no” refers to science. If the improbable can be explained as an act of God, I think we have every right to believe that the improbable can be explained as an act of science.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:10 pmPerplexed? As a liberal, you’re smart enough to be. The wonderful GOP and its followers don’t question anything.
God and the corporations partnered up to create humanity, where the corporations promptly overbilled God.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:13 pmPurple State says:
I won’t deny the existence of God, because I have no way to explain either religion or evolution to the point of either or neither being right or wrong.
I disagree. The overwhelming factual evidence supports evolution which cannot be reconciled with religion. My belief is that religion and government were invented as a means to restrain the have-nots from killing the haves.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:16 pmIf I were SP, I’d be mad that God didn’t want me to be VPOTUS.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:17 pmSo far two of her children are drop outs.
mooseyak believes we came from space.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:18 pmApparently God didn’t want her anywhere near the White House either.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:18 pmEvolutionary degeneration is a matter of opinion. If you are the species that is about to go extinct, then you might think the cockroach is not worthy of being the only survivor. Ten million years later, cockroaches could evolve into something that, from the point of view of an evolved cockroach person, lowly humans could never have achieved.
It is hubris to think that humanity is the final product of evolution. We are but one critter in a long line of critters, and our intelligence (or lack of it) will be our undoing.
Evolutionary degeneration is a matter of opinion. Nature does not have an opinion when it comes to Evolution. Nature doesn’t make a mistake when a species becomes extinct. Evolution does not have a brain that decides what species get to succeed, and which do not. Evolution does not mind when asteroids wipe out 99% of all life on the planet.
I ramble. My apologies.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:19 pmIf the improbable can be explained as an act of God, I think we have every right to believe that the improbable can be explained as an act of science.
Unless you believe that science is a creation of the devil. Religionists have this irritating way of saying anything that doesn’t directly support their mythology comes from the ‘other side. They conveniently ignore their own concept that their god created everything, including his adversary.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:19 pmThe processes of evolution are facts. The theory, as a whole, has no competition. Period. To say otherwise is a lie and to tell a child otherwise should be a crime.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:21 pmWhat are her husbands views and how far did he go in school?
She is out to destroy America and wants AK to secede. Now she is in our 48 spreading her lies to the 18%ers.
MOOSEYAK GET OUT OF THE STATES YOU HATE SO MUCH!
November 15th, 2009 at 4:23 pmWell pete I think they ought to believe what they want the problem comes in when they want to teach it in science class. NOTHING that cannot be taught WITH the scientific method belongs in science class. Saying God said it I believe it that settles it is like the OPPOSITE of science and belongs in church or a comparative religion class
November 15th, 2009 at 4:24 pmI look at the Bible as the history of a family.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:25 pmThere is no logic to theology. There is no proof, no definitions in reality. It is purely hypothetical. It is impossible to deny it because it is impossible to prove it.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:28 pmGod is either running things or he isn’t. If she believes he is, then she must believe it is God’s plan for Obama to be president. — NinerFan
**********************************************************
With all due respect, NF, you don’t understand how people like Palin think (if it can be called that, for it certainly doesn’t seem very logical much of the time). Conservative Christians like Palin believe that turning one’s life over to God and passively leaving all the decisions up to him is the only way to be certain of doing God’s will. Unfortunately, they all too often fail to remember that deception is thought to be one of the Devil’s greatest powers — the ability to make a person believe that they’re following God’s will when they’re really not. What people like Palin refuse to realize is that as often as not, the belief that one is following God’s will can easily become a means of unconsciously using God as a self-indulgent excuse for whatever one wants or intends to do even if it contradicts Christian doctrine.
Since people like Palin believe that turning one’s life over to God is the only way to be certain of obeying his will, this means that anyone who hasn’t done this is probably not obeying God’s will. This is how they manage to convince themselves that Obama’s election cannot possibly be God’s will — because they believe that only people like themselves who have turned their lives over to God can really know God’s will, and most of them voted of McCain. Sadly, they’re completely oblivious to the fact that their reasoning is not only conveniently self-gratifying but also circular — since they believe that they’re the only ones who truly know God’s will, anyone who disagrees with them could not possibly be right.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:28 pmWOW, five colleges and Sarah hasn’t learned the most basic scientific theorys accepted by no less than the Pope ?
You don’t believe in evolution, you understand it.
You believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:29 pmPalin- another stupid, stupid idiot that thinks humans & dinosaurs lived together. Another stupid right-winger who thinks fossils dating back a million years or more are lies or fabrications of science. Another evagelical airhead that believes the Adam & Eve folktale is a fact. And she thinks she should be president? Darwin help us.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:29 pmEvolution is easy to prove. Humans were interfering with Evolution’s natural course thousands of years ago. Humans bred dogs for all sorts of traits, effectively removing natural selection.
We wouldn’t have dachshunds if it weren’t for Evolution. Humans proved Evolution existed by interfering with it, long before Darwin realized what was going on and formalized the theory. To deny Evolution is to deny all the variety of dogs humans have created, along with the variety of horses, cattle, cats, and everything else we have been breeding since we discovered animal husbandry.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:29 pmEugeneDebs
Agreed!
It should be taught in church not in school, especially since everyone doesn’t believe in God. This is an intrusion of our freedoms.
Greek Mythology isn’t taught in science class.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:30 pmEugeneDebs,
True. Everyone will Believe what they wish no matter what and creationism, specifically, has no place in a science classroom. Nor does magic, astrology, or mysticism of any sort.
Personally, and conceding that such a thing is unforeseeable, I am dead set against raising children to Believe things. It can cause irreparable harm. In fact, I don’t see a moral difference between, for example, telling a child their parents have died and telling them supernatural beings exist.
To teach children a delusion, and reward them for their ability to maintain a delusion despite the evidence, leads to delusional people.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:37 pmI never understand the non-logic of people like Palin. You see someone who survived a plane crash say, “God was watching over me & saved me.” So then, for those who died, God didn’t care at all, wasn’t watching them, & let them all die? Do these people realize how they are trashing everyone who died?
November 15th, 2009 at 4:37 pmRufus Leaking says,
November 15th, 2009 at 4:37 pmand what you’re saying doesn’t matter either twit.
You mean for the ultra-rich oil and coal companies don’t you.
You’re warped.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:37 pmFunny, I don’t believe in Palins who have swung down from the Alaskan tundra…
Right-wing christo types invented creationism when science showed that humans had evolved in Africa over millions of years. That is, black Africa, which gave pale-faced-religi-fascist-christos the willies…
Your so-called g-o-d is merely an infinitesmally tiny speck of dust; if you are silly enough to “place your trust” in an infinitesmally tiny speck of dust, well, good luck on that…
November 15th, 2009 at 4:37 pmWell duh. She’s a blithering idiot.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:39 pm120, Your roof is leaking.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:39 pm“Palin says she doesn’t believe in evolution.”
Well bless your heart, you feather-brained dolt…Evolution doesn’t believe in YOU either!
November 15th, 2009 at 4:41 pm120, PS – I voted up on your comment so all mankind can see what an idiot a typical Palin supporter is.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:41 pmAh, there’s a clue – “thinking, loving” beings. Since she doesn’t think and only loves the sound of her own BS, apparently she failed to evolve, and now petulantly denies the truth of those who did.
What species is she, anyway?
November 15th, 2009 at 4:46 pmLevi @ 118: I never thopght of it that way before, but you make a good point. I wonder if ‘ol Todd knows his sled is being pulled by a contradiction to his beliefs …
November 15th, 2009 at 4:56 pmDear progressive friends, please do not be dominated by Palin apologists and teabaggers at any holiday events you may attend.
Challenge all their crap aggressively but politely, and do not let the Palinistas and the teabaggers shout you down, no matter how much they try.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:57 pmIt is sort of interesting that mankind has vast volumes of history, dating back over 2,000 years on the planet and all of its various civilizations and countries. In all of that documented history, there is not one single fact, not one piece of evidence, that any religious belief about the existence of a diety and its direct influence on any society.
Not a jot of proof of an afterlife. Not a tittle of fact that any given behavior is directly favored or approved. No divine interventions. No single religion proven to be correct or all encompassing.
The only proof that exists that there is some sort of higher power that exists is that we are still here. The planet still exists.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:58 pm#1. Wayne A. Schneider says:
Attention Right-Wingers!
Creationism is a myth. Period. It is a story, nothing more, and has nothing to do with how we came to be here.
In their minds if they say it over and over it becomes truth.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:01 pmCreationism is both a myth and a lie.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:05 pmEugeneDebs says:
Well pete I think they ought to believe what they want the problem comes in when they want to teach it in science class. NOTHING that cannot be taught WITH the scientific method belongs in science class. Saying God said it I believe it that settles it is like the OPPOSITE of science and belongs in church or a comparative religion class
…or a philosophy class.
I agree with you about Science Class. High school classes in Science are intended to teach the Scientific Method, so that students would know how Science is done and how it is furthered. There is a reason we know what we know about the Universe, the Earth, and Humans in general. It is because we studied these things, we hypothesized, we tested those hypotheses, and we determined what was confirmed and what wasn’t. Maybe our hypothesis was right, and maybe it wasn’t. Even one test wouldn’t prove it right, because the fundamental key to Science is the reproducibility of one’s results. If another scientist can’t duplicate what you claim happened, then it won’t be accepted that what you said really happened the way you said it did.
If you want to “put your life in His hands,” then you have no right to say that scientists are right or wrong about anything. Because they were the ones who tested what people like Palin said was so, and sometimes found it didn’t match what they observed in the real world. And what they did observe matched other theories much better. For crying out loud, if the Pope could accept that the Theory of Evolution has some validity (even if it is simply to say that it is God’s method of doing His work), then how could any Christian refuse to accept it is true. I know that the Pope does not speak for all Christians, but his beliefs are rooted in the same view of the world’s creation.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:08 pmpete personally I agree with you for the most part. Values are to some extent opinions. I want to give a sense of values to my daughter. Outside of that. I only want to teach her HOW to think not WHAT to think
November 15th, 2009 at 5:10 pmIt’s a shame that Palin doesn’t use her religious beliefs as a reason to actually effect some good in this nation, and to emulate the examples of Jesus in dealing with the poor and the outcast among us.
As is typical of the majority of her co-religionists, she uses her “faith” like a club to beat the doubting into submission.
She and her co-religionists have a “faith” so fragile that it cannot be sustained in the face of doubt or opposition, so these “believers” must use the legal system to enforce belief in the unprovable.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:10 pmNOTHING this broad says or does shocks me anymore. She is an embarrassment. I wonder how McCain feels about Sarah now? After all, she has humilated him, now she slams his entire staff in her book.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:12 pmWhat are the Christians ever to do if they can not convince others that our documented history dating back way beyond 2,000 years is a lie?
November 15th, 2009 at 5:12 pmhad enough says:
What are the Christians ever to do if they can not convince others that our documented history dating back way beyond 2,000 years is a lie?
They tell you to have faith. But that is what they told people when Galileo said the earth moves around the sun. He was excommunicated for 500 years. Now the church has unexcommunicated him. So much for infallibility and faith.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:15 pmPalin didn’t crawl out from the sea…but she did crawl out from under a rock.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:18 pmMany feel that it’s only Americans who are unconvinced by evolution theory as it stands.. on the contrary – over half of Britons are not convinced as well
We’ve found no ‘half a feather’ – we’ve found things with feathers and those that don’t have them
We’ve found no turtle developing a shell – we’ve found turtles.. and reptiles without shells
Matter of fact – the key steps of every development are missing. Not one, not two – but all – minus some leg looking structures on whales..
We have fossils of humans or apes which evolution claims are numerous different species of man.. different limbs of the tree – and yet there is only us. Some from as recent as 50-95,000 years ago.. but yet, we are the only survivors. The explanation that a better design wins everytime is infantile.
Example: a genetic change (mutation) in one family’s offspring which produces say.. a better ear.. would leave 99.9% of the population without such a development – to assume that this one better ear would lead to success that would overtake and eventually eliminate all of the rest of the population is not even realistic. This is the view of all evolutionary change – it’s the mechanism proposed – natural selection.
Natural selection – as in the case of Darwin’s finches – has been proven to be a change which reverses based on the environment.. their beaks become longer in certain weather cycles.. and return to their previous form when the environment returns to it’s previous state… there is no net change… no evolution. It’s a cycle.. a built in one.
Over half of both Americans and Europeans feel there are definite problems in evolution theory as it stands. The finds of evolution do not match up with our anticipation of it. Change occurs.. but change from one species form to another is not proven.. and true scientists would admit this rather than fighting to eliminate those who expose it’s failures.
My problem with Palin would be more that she hasn’t researched these types of things.. while I have – extensively.
Do you know that we not so long ago found that the Sea Anemone shares 80% of the introns that the human has?
——————————
Finnerty and his graduate student James Sullivan also looked in the anemone genome for 283 human genes involved in a wide range of diseases. They will report in the July issue of Genome that they found 226. Moreover, in a few cases, such as the breast cancer gene BRCA2, the anemone’s version is more similar to the human’s than to the fruit fly’s or to the nematode’s. . .
This implies that even very ancient genomes were quite complex and contained most of the genes necessary to build today’s most sophisticated multicellular creatures. . .
——
interesting..
There are plenty of problems.. and contradictions with current evolutionary theory – to not discuss them.. or act as if they aren’t there is completely dishonest.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:18 pmOT
Does anyone know where ELBruce and Joe C are? I miss their comments.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:24 pmActually, lux… we have found ‘half a feather’ or a proto-feather in some Dinosaur fossils…
interesting…
Sounds like there are plenty of problems with your reasoning, as well.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:25 pmlux…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/dinosaurs/6229800/Scientists-hail-new-species-of-feathered-dinosaurs.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/03/090318-new-dinosaur-feathers.html
See? Interesting, huh?
November 15th, 2009 at 5:27 pmlux says:
You are right that there is a lot we do not know when it comes to evolution, but there isn’t any debate in the scientific community that evolution is a fact.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:30 pmlux says:
We’ve found no ‘half a feather’ – we’ve found things with feathers and those that don’t have them
We’ve found no turtle developing a shell – we’ve found turtles.. and reptiles without shells
Matter of fact – the key steps of every development are missing. Not one, not two – but all – minus some leg looking structures on whales..
I don’t know what you consider to be a key step, but there is ample fossil evidence to support the evolutionary record. Saying it doesn’t exist does not make it so. Evolution does not posit that every change is dramatic, but rather a slow and subtle process.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:31 pm“Report: In her memoir, Palin says she doesn’t believe in evolution.”
Good lord, what a twit. I predict the Home Shopping Network will be calling for her in the future. Pass the popcorn…
November 15th, 2009 at 5:35 pmTheir religious beliefs allows them to make up rules and base laws on ignorance and lies. To them lies don’t exist if they are doing God’s work.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:35 pmP.S. lux?
We’re understanding more about how turtle shells developed, too…
http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/odontochelys_semitestacea_220_million_year_old_triassic_turtle_tells_us_how_it_got_its_shell
November 15th, 2009 at 5:35 pmLux, in modern day chickens we find in their DNA the gene for teeth and a tail. With some of these latest findings, its just more proof of evolution. The proof is overwhelming.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:37 pmI’ve seen these articles on the so called ‘proto feathers’ before..
The article itself reads ‘One of the dinosaurs, named anchiornis huxleyi, has extensive plumage and profusely feathered feet. ‘
That’s not ‘half a feather’ and it’s not the forming of a feather — it’s feathers.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:38 pmDo the Christians have a hand in Google search?
1. when searching for a simple world history time line I found little AND the bible version pops up first.
2. I did find this one, but with an error:
November 15th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
I, for one, can accept as true that several members of a species, even from different parents, can develop the same mutation. I once read that a cat’s colors can be influenced by the temperature of the kitten fetus during various stages of development. The same thing can happen to a group of one animal type in a particular geographic region. The next round of offspring could all have a slight change that actually gives them a better (though by no means guaranteed) chance to survive and reproduce. If the mutation hampers them in some way, they may not survive to reproduce. That’s just how it works and it can take thousands or millions of years to become dominant in the species.
I know that the Theory of Evolution can’t explain everything, but I believe that some of the questions raised about it may stem from a misunderstanding of what is supposed to happen. True, we haven’t found an example of every version of every species that ever existed, but we have found enough to lead us to understand generally what happened. But the fact that we haven’t found some of the things we might expect to see (or, hypothesize, to use a better phrase) doesn’t prove they didn’t happen. Not every living thing fossilizes once dead. I think that’s a weak argument to suggest that Evolution is no better an explanation for the Origin of Life than Creationism.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:41 pmLux you are SO wrong about so much it is astonishing. First of all there are STILL soft shell turtles which is EXACTLY half a shell also several dinosaurs had plated armor like an armadillo which is ALSO another HALF a shell. We HAVE found proto feathers. I could go on but it isnt even relevant. Pointing out what we DONT know about evolution is in no way an argument AGAINST it anymore than saying we dont know the exchange particle for gravity is an argument that there is no gravity. There is only ONE thing that is relevant here. Evolution CAN be taught with the scientific method. Creationism CANNOT. Talking about what we DONT know about evolution is in NO WAY a scientific argument FOR creationism. Until you can design an experiment or make provable assumptions about GOD creating the universe creationism will NEVER be science therefore it flat out DOESNT belong in science class no matter WHAT you beleive
November 15th, 2009 at 5:41 pmGame of Life says:
OT
Does anyone know where ELBruce and Joe C are? I miss their comments.
And where is Spencer’s Mom?
November 15th, 2009 at 5:44 pmlux, and your point is what? Do you even know what proto feathers are? First off you are wrong when you say proto feather are feathers. They are not fully defined feathers. Please do some reading before you post about something that it seems you know little about.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:44 pmbelaccifer lacca says:
If you read the article on turtle shells – you find that the scientists have issues with the finding.
‘There are problems with this idea, including studies of how shells form in turtle embryos as they develop within eggs, Rieppel said. Embryo studies show that the turtle backbones expand outward and the ribs broaden to meet and form a shell, he said. ‘
The ‘evidence’ of this basicly contradicts their views of how the shell might have developed – they are sweeping under the rug their old view in favor of this – whether it’s credible proof of anything or not.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:44 pmlux says:
November 15th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Of course there are “problems” with Evolution Theory — that’s what makes it science, not religion. It’s not faith based, it’s evidence based. It is never provable because there is new information coming in all the time. “Proof” is a very bad word in the scientific world.
Also, the fossil record is incomplete because not everything dies in perfect conditions for fossilization. Finding an intact fossil of anything is extremely rare, so the fossil record will NEVER be complete. And it goes without saying that we haven’t found all the fossils that exist, and likely never will.
Personally, I’ll go with evolution. Vast amounts of evidence actually exist, as opposed to some book or preacher telling me I just need to take their word for it.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:46 pmlux, there are many creatures that evolved. There are “half feathers” creatures as well as creatures that appear to be mixed with other species.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:48 pmPalin does believe in much i’m afraid. The one that matters most though is – She doesn’t believe in America.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:50 pmLux apparantly you havent researched it WELL look into the Dilong Paradoxus. Having what is described as branched protofeathers the PRECURSERS to feathers
November 15th, 2009 at 5:50 pmlux says:
Well, I did read it… and part of what science does is constantly re-examine all the evidence and constantly test its own theories… it’s inevitable that theories change over time as we discover more or reach a better understanding…
But what you said is that we’ve found no half shells on turtles… we now know that is wrong.
Also from the article:
“But Odontochelys has no osteoderms and it has a partial shell extending from its backbone, Rieppel said. It also shows a widening of ribs. Although Odontochelys has only a partial shell protecting its back, it does have a fully formed plastron – complete protection of its underside – just as turtles do today.”
November 15th, 2009 at 5:50 pmWe are trying to argue with somebody who refuses to be taught. These Evolution deniers are the most pigheaded. Some believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old. PLEASE! They rely on the Bible. Some idiot said Noah brought dinosaurs on the Ark! LOL!
November 15th, 2009 at 5:51 pmFrom a scientific standpoint, evolution is a fact. Creationists glom on to the word theory as a means of saying evolution is not a settled matter. However, they are wrong. Scientists say evolution is a fact even though it is called the theory of evolution. Paleontologists are finding new fossils that expand our knowledge of evolution and change our interpretation as to how something evolved. Just because we interpret evidence different at any given time, does not make evolution any less of a fact.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:52 pmThere are also creature that haven’t evolved such as the horseshoe crabs. Scientist have found million of years old horseshoe crabs.
Also evolution has shown that humans use to be very short.
Just as minds evolve so do bodies.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:53 pmPalin is one of those that are able to believe things in and out of existence, like evolution and God. If only it were true she would make a wonderful president.
Just imagine if Samantha Stevens were president. With a twitch of her nose [or wink of an eye in Palin's case] she could make all the bad stuff go away.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:54 pmhttp://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2h6yet5&s=3
For you, lux… you can show Sarah…
November 15th, 2009 at 5:54 pmpags2,
Arrgghhh!! Please! No “fact” word! That’s as bad as the “proof” word!
November 15th, 2009 at 5:55 pmGame of life as well as Ginko trees, crockodiles and the ceolacanth.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:55 pmEugeneDebs says:
There’s a vast variety of creatures.. if a reptile has a shell (and they do) it’s anticipated that others will have variations.
What evolution has no answer for is how all developments can be useful and beneficial in every step of the change. We, and all creatures on the earth would require 100’s of thousands of minute changes. These minute changes would have to be so beneficial to survival at every step for them to completely over ride the rest of the species living at the time. The idea is preposterous.. as I mentioned with the better ear – the idea that the rest of the species would simply be now ‘inadequate’ in comparison to the new species and die out.. is ridiculous.
It also fails to consider any of the other problems.. Look at a stick bug.. the idea of evolution is that a bug over time slowly changed into a form more and more stick like. How many changes morphologically were necessary for that to happen? How many steps of changes to it’s entire structure – which not only were not beneficial – but would be arguably detrimental in the intermediate. These mutant changes would allow for 100’s of thousands of stick bug variants.. at every step in the tree you would now have 2 species – and those 2 species would make 4.. then 8.. in the process of becoming what we now see as a stick bug. The evolutionary view is that every one of these thousands died out – or became a different species altogher.. odd to consider that when we know that we are LOSING SPECIES continually.. not gaining them. The math doesn’t support this idea – each trunk of the tree would produce more and more variants.
Or possibly we could look at Zebra’s camouflage – how many tries did evolution take to make a Zebra’s characteristic white and black stripes? The theory currently is that the white and black stripes serve excellently for camo because their main predator is the lion – and he’s color blind. When this striping took place by accidental evolution.. how many times did it try? Were there polka dot zebras.. and horizontally striped zebras? You would think since every animal has an innate interest in surviving that at least ONE of these variants would still be hanging on for survival.. but no.. not a one.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:56 pmLux,
You’ve been misled. Most of your doubts come straight from Kent Hovind and the charlatans at Answers in Genesis. I fear it would be useless to discuss paleontology, which is a small part of the theory of evolution, or even biology. They both require a working knowledge of taxonomy without which it’s really impossible to explain evolution. And that’s not even considering genetics.
Long story short, once one accepts “Goddidit” it’s impossible to reason.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:56 pmI find it hard to believe most Brits don’t believe in evolution. I read a study the Brits preformed on a bird living on their island, something to do with soot, and proved the bird evolved.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:56 pmSome people like to be in tune with, and to understand the world around them and the people in it. Not Palin.
Palin is only passing through the world and America on her way to better things. [or so she believes]
November 15th, 2009 at 5:58 pmSome people have never understood the word theory when used by science. Theory holds a higher standard then fact. It takes facts to make a scientific theory, not the other way around, which most people learned in high school science class.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:00 pmP.D. says:
Some idiot said Noah brought dinosaurs on the Ark! LOL!
I did not bring them on the ark. I let them drown and die out so as to confuse the hell out of scientists.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:00 pmLux you SAID there were not half shells or half feathers. Both statements are flat out WRONG, for the reasons stated. Once an adaptation is enough to find a niche it survives. We CAN show a broad evolution over a long time for some animals like eohippus to the modern Horse. That we cant show every step for all creatures is irrelevant and would be astonishing considering the special circumstances necessary for a creature to be fossilized at ALL. None of this is relevant. As I said you cannot show there is a PROBLEM with a theory by showing what we DONT know about it or cant SHOW about it anymore than it is evidence that there is no gravity because we cannot show what the exchange particle is, which we DO know for the other three forces
November 15th, 2009 at 6:00 pmlux says:
EugeneDebs says:
There’s a vast variety of creatures.. if a reptile has a shell (and they do) it’s anticipated that others will have variations.
What evolution has no answer for is how all developments can be useful and beneficial in every step of the change. We, and all creatures on the earth would require 100’s of thousands of minute changes. These minute changes would have to be so beneficial to survival at every step for them to completely over ride the rest of the species living at the time. The idea is preposterous.. as I mentioned with the better ear – the idea that the rest of the species would simply be now ‘inadequate’ in comparison to the new species and die out.. is ridiculous.
It also fails to consider any of the other problems.. Look at a stick bug.. the idea of evolution is that a bug over time slowly changed into a form more and more stick like. How many changes morphologically were necessary for that to happen? How many steps of changes to it’s entire structure – which not only were not beneficial – but would be arguably detrimental in the intermediate. These mutant changes would allow for 100’s of thousands of stick bug variants.. at every step in the tree you would now have 2 species – and those 2 species would make 4.. then 8.. in the process of becoming what we now see as a stick bug. The evolutionary view is that every one of these thousands died out – or became a different species altogher.. odd to consider that when we know that we are LOSING SPECIES continually.. not gaining them. The math doesn’t support this idea – each trunk of the tree would produce more and more variants.
Or possibly we could look at Zebra’s camouflage – how many tries did evolution take to make a Zebra’s characteristic white and black stripes? The theory currently is that the white and black stripes serve excellently for camo because their main predator is the lion – and he’s color blind. When this striping took place by accidental evolution.. how many times did it try? Were there polka dot zebras.. and horizontally striped zebras? You would think since every animal has an innate interest in surviving that at least ONE of these variants would still be hanging on for survival.. but no.. not a one.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
I’m sorry, lux, but by this comment you are demonstrating a lack of basic understanding of how evolution works. I’m not trying to be condescending, but if you could take a college level Biology 101 class, then you would learn some essential basics which might help clear up your misunderstandings. It doesn’t mean your religious faith will have to go away, but you would gain a greater understanding of the scientific concept of “theory,” and the workings of the evolutionary process.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:02 pmThe crux of the evolution argument is ‘random’
Nothing random has ever occurred — I can go into deep detail on this idea if someone wanted.. but everything that occurs has to do with a set of factors – there are no ‘accidents’ – everything is a reaction to a set of conditions.
And if there are no accidents.. then all that’s occurred was guided. You could say guided by nature.. but that posits limitless intelligence and planning into nature itself.
If you are comfortable with that.. then you are.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:03 pmCarrie Prayjohn is itching to be a stay-at-home mom and I would love to be the father.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:04 pmI need to address the number of species argument. Bollocks.
“Odds” and statistics are always tricky and especially when one is discussing evolution. The short version is that evolution doesn’t have an agenda and those odds are against the survival of any species. Far more die out without leaving any particular descendants than those whose traits are passed on.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:05 pmOops, I didn’t mean to repeat lux’s whole comment!
November 15th, 2009 at 6:05 pm175 Game of Life says:
I don’t believe in eggs. As long as i stay away from certain isles in the supermarket i am comfortable in my beliefs.
If you show me evidence of eggs i’m not impressed because the evidence may be faked, or God may have made it look like there are eggs when there are in fact not.
I’m satisfied with that and that i’ve made the right assessment of eggs. – still don’t exist.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:05 pmHey lux, ever heard of cynobacteria ? You know, that blue-green algae.
You wouldn’t be breathing oxygen right now if they hadn’t been
November 15th, 2009 at 6:05 pmone of the first life forms, and consumed hydrogen, and expelled oxgen over BILLIONS of years.
Game of life, I know what you are talking about. there was a species of bird that changed color during the use of coal in England from white to black, because of all the soot in the air. In its DNA code over time it shut off the gene that made them white, and turned on the gene that would make them black.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:05 pmZooey says:
I’m sorry, lux, but by this comment you are demonstrating a lack of basic understanding of how evolution works. I’m not trying to be condescending, but if you could take a college level Biology 101 class, then you would learn some essential basics
And there’s the same old typical reaction =)
November 15th, 2009 at 6:05 pmNothing random has EVER OCCURED? That may be the single dumbest statement ever to be written in the English langauge. There is no such THING as random? When you throw dice the outcome isnt random? The result of a roulette wheel isnt RANDOM? Do you KNOW what the word MEANS?
November 15th, 2009 at 6:06 pmlux says:
The crux of the evolution argument is ‘random’
November 15th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
No, sorry, the crux of the evolution argument is “adaptation.”
November 15th, 2009 at 6:07 pmPete
You’ve been misled. Most of your doubts come straight from Kent Hovind
Wrong. And typical.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:08 pmAnd there’s the same old typical reaction =)
And yet we never get the hint.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:09 pmBTW, modern humans are living in the midst of a mass extinction event. All current observations must take that into consideration. One could say that no human in history has actually lived in a “normal” or even healthy environment.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:09 pmlux… it’s fine to believe that some ‘limitless intelligence’ is guiding evolution.
Science has nothing to say on that topic because your hypothesis is not testable.
But to say that there ‘is no evidence’ supporting the theory of evolution is patently and demonstrably false… if you wanna talk about how evolution ’started’ or who may have ‘planned’ it, then you are leaving the realm of science and entering the realm of faith.
They are NOT incompatible but just as you cannot disprove faith with science you cannot invalidate science with faith, sorry.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:09 pmYes lux, a typical reaction to a typical lack of understanding of the basic concept
November 15th, 2009 at 6:09 pmlux says:
And there’s the same old typical reaction =)
November 15th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Well, if you’re not even willing to consider that you might now know everything worth knowing, then why bother arguing with the heathens?
I don’t have a problem with your faith, why do you have a problem with education?
November 15th, 2009 at 6:10 pm#
Zooey says:
lux says:
The crux of the evolution argument is ‘random’
November 15th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
No, sorry, the crux of the evolution argument is “adaptation.”
—
And adaptation occurs – how? By random mutation – hence evolution is not allowed to cite anything guided in anyway.. so it resorts to the idea that an animal adapts by mutation of it’s genome.. changes in it’s genes with no underlying cause other than some form of accidental errors in the transcribing of the genetic code.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:10 pmZooey..
I’m sure I look up information on Psuedogenes because of a lack of interest in education.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:12 pm189 EugeneDebs says:
I think the reference is to the fact that evolution is an “organizing” process, and as such has properties that can swim upstream against “random chance”.
To understand how evolution is not a random thing is to understand how an eyeball is the product of nature.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:12 pmlux,
I believe that the advantage of the zebra’s striping is that once in the pack, it’s a lot harder for a predator to pick a particular one off. Not a guarantee of any one individual zebra’s safety, but if the herd can escape with fewer members picked off, that heard of zebras will have a better chance to survive and reproduce. Along with their striping.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:12 pmLux ah so WHAT we DO know such mutations occur. Downs syndrome is just such a mutation. Probability and statistics make it apparant that as the number of those mutations get larger some of them WOULD be advantageous.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:13 pmlux says:
Zooey says:
lux says:
The crux of the evolution argument is ‘random’
November 15th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
No, sorry, the crux of the evolution argument is “adaptation.”
November 15th, 2009 at 6:13 pm—
And adaptation occurs – how? By random mutation –….
Sarah Palin needs to drop her health insurance, her car insurance, and give all her money away to put her whole life fully in the hands of gawd.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:14 pmHow about tiktaalik? It’s remarkable not because of it’s value as a transitional form very close to a foundational split but, the number of predictions it “proved” to use that awful word.
The people that found it knew precisely where, or when if you prefer, to look for it. Then, when they found it right where they expected it, it looked astonishingly like what they had predicted. An astounding find!
November 15th, 2009 at 6:14 pmlux says:
Zooey says:
lux says:
The crux of the evolution argument is ‘random’
November 15th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
No, sorry, the crux of the evolution argument is “adaptation.”
—
And adaptation occurs – how? By random mutation –….
That is not true. Adaption is not random but in response to the changing conditions.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:14 pmHey folks, lux left us long ago. We will never convince someone who believes that the Flintstones was a documentary.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:14 pmSorry about the double post.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:14 pmAnd adaptation occurs – how? By random mutation – hence evolution is not allowed to cite anything guided in anyway.. so it resorts to the idea that an animal adapts by mutation of it’s genome.. changes in it’s genes with no underlying cause other than some form of accidental errors in the transcribing of the genetic code.
And you don’t like the fact that there is no “intelligent designer” behind the whole thing?
November 15th, 2009 at 6:15 pmAnd Pete… as far as ‘extinction events’
science claims there have been several.
Rather hard to buy the idea that evolution can keep doing it’s millions of minute changes and heading towards a successful species.. when the board keeps getting wiped.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:15 pmApeman
You are probably correct I just couldnt get past the absurdity of a statement like nothing random has EVER occured and then the delusional followup statement pretending such an absurd statement could be backed up
November 15th, 2009 at 6:15 pmlux says:
November 15th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
No, no, no, not random mutation! To explain in a very basic way, certain features an animal (or human) might have is beneficial to its survival, those creatures with that feature will survive better, find better mates, and have offspring with that feature, and so on. Evolution has a purpose, it is not completely random.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:16 pmSarah believes in the ’survival of the fittest’ because she quit her governorship half way through proving that she is not a survivor or the fittest person for any job requiring responsibilities. See?
November 15th, 2009 at 6:16 pmhence evolution is not allowed to cite anything guided in anyway
in your dreams
November 15th, 2009 at 6:17 pmRepublicans don’t evolve. The rest of us do.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:18 pmShow me something random EugeneDebs
Demonstrate something which occurs and is not based entirely on underlying factors.
Some are so blind to my meaning they would say ‘rolling a die’.. a die roll is not random by any means.. it’s a group of factors – and given a knowledge of all those factors.. a computer would predict the result every single time. It’s not random – nothing is.
The only signs of randomness occur in the quantum realm – and it’s our first view of possible random events. Classical physics has nothing random.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:19 pmlux says:
I’m sure I look up information on Psuedogenes because of a lack of interest in education.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
What do pseudogenes have to do with anything? It’s interesting that you found something that can no longer evolve to make an argument against evolution.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:21 pmRather hard to buy the idea that evolution can keep doing it’s millions of minute changes and heading towards a successful species.. when the board keeps getting wiped.
REally?
Why?
It’s seems entirely likely to me that when there is a mass extinction there are suddenly brand new niches to be filled… when the board get’s wiped is the best time for new adaptations to emerge and be dominant, don’t you think?
November 15th, 2009 at 6:21 pmThe crux of the evolution argument is ‘random’
Nothing random has ever occurred — I can go into deep detail on this idea if someone wanted.. but everything that occurs has to do with a set of factors – there are no ‘accidents’ – everything is a reaction to a set of conditions.
And if there are no accidents.. then all that’s occurred was guided. You could say guided by nature.. but that posits limitless intelligence and planning into nature itself.
If you are comfortable with that.. then you are.
Bollocks, again.
Leaving the other semantic tricks aside, the jump from “there are no accidents” to “all that’s occurred was guided” is not supported by any observable fact.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:22 pmIt’s not evolution, it’s survival of the most adaptable mutants. Since God created man in his image, he has to have a p***s, but a horribly tepid sex life.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:23 pmI think I understand now.
Lux is unable to view anything without seeing the hand of god in it. Hence, any scientific knowledge we may be able to give him is seen through that filter, and therefore impossible.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m done banging my head on this particular wall.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:24 pmZooey
No, no, no, not random mutation! To explain in a very basic way, certain features an animal (or human) might have is beneficial to its survival
And what is evolution’s vehicle for attaining these adaptations?
You obviously can’t make it something Lamarckian and claim that they just wanted to change.
So the only mechanism left for that change is random mutations. Lucky accidents.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:25 pmApe-Man says:
Republicans don’t evolve.
That is not true. You have forgotten the evolutionary process from cockroaches to Republicans.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:25 pmOf course this moron doesn’t believe in evolution. Typical science hating Republican
November 15th, 2009 at 6:26 pmThe board doesn’t “get wiped”. Mass extinction events are examples of natural selection at a faster than “normal” pace. And each one has resulted in the fittest surviving to branch out into niches that the weak sisters originally occupied.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:26 pmLux so I see. You DONT know what the word RANDOM means. The fact that AFTERWARD you can explain something by micro mechanics does NOT mean it wasnt random
Random
having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective.
of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely
See IF you catch all the lights in a town green after entering the town from a highway THAT is a random event. The fact that AFTER you do you can say it is because you arrived there at 3:43 and 287 seconds at travelled at exactly forty miles an hour is WHY it happened does NOTHING to change the fact it WAS a random event.
When you throw the dice the outcome is DEFINITLY RANDOM. The fact that AFTER they are thrown you can dissect the angle and force to say THAT is WHY doesnt mean it ISNT random since you CANNOT PURPOSEFULLY throw a specific number it isnt physically possible as long as the dice are not rigged
November 15th, 2009 at 6:27 pmlux,
Sorry, I’m not interested in trying to discuss basic science with someone who’s not interested in learning. Just as you would have a very difficult time trying to discuss with me how your religion makes perfect sense.
Toodles.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:28 pm@ 19. Virtual Pebble says: … Can’t this broad just shut up and go away? (no answers required… snark) November 15th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
I apologize to broads worldwide for applying the title to a twit like Sarahcuda. She’s just a backwoods backstabber, a whiner, a liar and a cheat; she’s not even worthy of being an apprentice broad. She don’t have the chops. Again, my deepest and most sincere apology for dragging an honorable appellation through the slime of the Republipimp pol sewer.
But remember;
“Sarahcuda Palin/Liz Chinny 2012 – Pullin’ the Plug on America*”
*Any claims made were not verifiable by anyone with more than half a wit
November 15th, 2009 at 6:34 pmSo lux, I’m interested in your beliefs. Did god create everything in six days and rest on the seventh? Did Adam and Eve walk in the garden of Eden? Did humans walk with dinosaurs? Was Noah’s ark real? How about the great flood? Just wondering were you are coming from.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:36 pmEvolution is not a supernatural being in opposition to God. There is no intent, no desired end product, no will or “deciding” to change.
In it’s simplest terms, changes at the genetic level are an inevitable result of cell division. Mistakes are built into the code, as it were. The overwhelming majority of these mistakes simply result in dead cells. But, the “lucky” ones find a way to survive. They manage to adapt not just to the environment or a new niche but they manage to adapt to their own changed nature and a “new” life form is born.
The process is far more complex, and sexual selection plays a big part, with multi-cellular life forms but the lack of rules is the same. About the only thing that holds constant is the simple fact of change.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:37 pmDo the religious realize gawd does not exist? Doesn’t appear so, but yet, they’re the same people who believe they are the final word on everything.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:38 pmI got my first down vote on TP in about 5 years!
November 15th, 2009 at 6:39 pmAngels
I found it interesting that in the Tales of Gilgamesh. A flood story that not only FAR predates the bible but also is itself an obvious retelling, when Upnapishtim (Noah) built his ark he didnt take the ANIMALS two by two or seven, rather it says he “took of the seed of all living things”. I think there may have BEEN a Noahs Ark, just not a mid sized ship with pairs of animals on it.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:39 pmbelaccifer lacca says:
It’s seems entirely likely to me that when there is a mass extinction there are suddenly brand new niches to be filled… when the board get’s wiped is the best time for new adaptations to emerge and be dominant, don’t you think?
Only if they didn’t go extinct. If they went extinct then you have to start from ‘go’ again, and 100’s of millions of years of evolution are down the drain.
Also the scientific view of niches is juvenile as well.. After a mass extinction there would be land.. but no resources.. the cycle would start over and be stifled by the same conditions as when the process began. Not to mention the fragile co-existence of the eco system.. flowering plants giving oxygen for creatures that breath oxygen – all of these things need to exist simultaneously. We currently were concerned about the loss of just bees – they were dying rapidly – the fear was that without bees the majority of plants wouldn’t be pollinated. We also worry about killing off algae in the oceans.. or basicly any link in the eco chain – without one, the fear is the whole system could collapse. Evolution claims that this system was built from the bottom up.. even though we now know that the entire system is necessary to be in place… they are all symbiotic.
Did you know we’ve found insects in amber – that are dated to times before flowering plants existed? Oddly they are nearly exactly the same as current specimens… but by current theories would have had no plants to live off of.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:39 pmWell Walt I get them all the time. Then again I am basically meaner than you.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:40 pmCongrats, Walt! I’ll be truly thrilled when trolls have enough friends to vote me down into oblivion. :-)
November 15th, 2009 at 6:41 pm@ 144. lux says: Many feel that it’s only Americans who are unconvinced by evolution theory as it stands.. on the contrary – over half of Britons are not convinced as well(.)
We’ve found no ‘half a feather’ – we’ve found things with feathers and those that don’t have them(.) We’ve found no turtle developing a shell – we’ve found turtles.. and reptiles without shells(.) … November 15th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Would you like to restate your examples, lux? My recollection is that a couple of years ago or so, some researchers did find a “proto-turtle” fossil, perhaps more than one, a species with only a partial shell, not a fully formed shell, but otherwise clearly something in the turtle family.
Apart from that, any fossil found is intermediate, unless it’s in a terminal species.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:43 pmOkay, I seriously loathe defending Palin here, but that’s not exactly the quote MSNBC gave out:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/11/15/2127676.aspx
It seemed to me from the MSNBC excerpt that Palin *does* believe a bit in evolution, but that God controls it. So her stance on evolution and creationism doesn’t seem like the hypocrisy that ThinkProgress is making it out to be. In fact, it seems perfectly in line:
While running for governor in 2006, Palin said that she was “a proponent of teaching both” evolution and creationism in Alaska’s schools. ” In September 2008, she told Fox News’ Sean Hannity that because she grew up “in a school teacher’s house with a science teacher as a dad,” she has “great respect for science being taught in our science classes and evolution to be taught in our science classes.”
November 15th, 2009 at 6:44 pmPlainly put, Sarah Palin has absolutely no professional qualifications or credentials to be discussing the merits of the theory of evolution.
She will never be a scientific expert, and her educational background is so deficient that she doesn’t even understand the basics of the theory of evolution
November 15th, 2009 at 6:45 pmor the on-going scientific contributions to the discourse.
Is it possible that lux doesn’t know that amber is from a plant? Most likely a flowering plant? And that not all insects require flowering plants to survive?
Wow…
November 15th, 2009 at 6:45 pmLux your argument is ludicrous. What is your evidence that an extinction would wipe out ALL resources? Are you saying every SINGLE plant dissapeared? Every animal? I have never HEARD of that kind of extinction. Also what exactly is your evidence there WERE no plants with an analogous food supply as a flower? It wouldnt have to be exactly a flower it would only have to be a similar food source for an insect. Since plants DO reproduce those stamens and seeds were SOMEWHERE. Also since plants are even HARDER to fossilize than animals you cannot say with any certainty there were NO flowered plants at any given time
November 15th, 2009 at 6:47 pmOne thing is for sure. I don’t even want to know her opinions on anything simple, leave alone a complex issue like evolution.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:48 pmzooey I believe amber is from tree sap though some trees do in FACT flower
November 15th, 2009 at 6:48 pmSarah Palin believes in science? Oh boy. The RNC is going to be pissed about that one!
November 15th, 2009 at 6:49 pmEugene,
It’s clear that to lux, an “extinction event” means the earth would be reduced to a moonscape. Again, a definte lack of understanding of biology, environment, science, etc.
*sigh*
November 15th, 2009 at 6:50 pmevangenital
She couldnt have passed my 8th grade CIVICS class and she thinks she is qualified to be VP. Her qualifications for scientific conjecture is simply non existant no matter what is in her delusional mind
November 15th, 2009 at 6:50 pmI agree zooey.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:51 pmEugeneDebs says:
zooey I believe amber is from tree sap though some trees do in FACT flower
November 15th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Yes indeed.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:52 pmLux seems to miss that in this survey, evolution still carries more weight than the both creationism and creationism lite combined. 61% of Brits give these no credence at all. To be sure, it is astounding that so many still question evolution, but that could be because of the incessant noise from the (well-funded) fundamentalists.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:52 pmPets says:
Mistakes are built into the code, as it were. The overwhelming majority of these mistakes simply result in dead cells. But, the “lucky” ones find a way to survive
Exactly. And it’s not a logical claim for the production of every novel change in every plant and animal that exists.
It proposes, for example, an animal that produces ‘leg-like’ structures would develop them.. how? If a fish formed legs from fins… there would be by necessity a point where the fins were both bad fins and bad legs.. odd stump like features that provided no evolutionary advantage. On top of that – like most evolutionary changes.. it requires two (or even 4) symmetrical but reversed legs forming at the precise spot needed.. by accidental mistakes in the code. Not only would the changes require these two simultaneous legs forming.. let’s also consider that a good spot for a fin is not necessarily a good spot for a leg. As these two legs formed – which for the sake of argument we will assume somehow that it was a beneficial change at every step – we would have 1 family with the change, opposed to every other animal of it’s type without. This one example must not only survive.. but overtake the others with the benefit of it’s two (or 4) simultaneous inverted stumps. These types of changes require foresight to pull off.. with our minds we can’t even propose a ‘Transformer’ changing from a car to a person without having anomalies left over..
Let’s take another example – let’s say a fish began to form leg stumps… evolution has no goal – no intent – so as the leg stumps begin to form.. evolution instead decides to give them a hard spikey protuberance.. as a defense mechanism. so now it has two leg lumps with spikes… but then it changes it’s ‘mind’ again.. and now it starts to grow some sort of grasping appendages.. and maybe next goes on to improving it’s spikey defense. Evolution has no blueprint.. so the resulting animal would be a mess. Foresight and planning are necessary for such changes – they’re necessary for us.. and they’d be necessary for evolution – all evolution wants by definition is ‘improvement’ – not legs, so these improvements would not in any way be the orderly result we see.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:53 pmCan someone explain how Lady Slippers come to be? They just pop up out of the ground whenever they feel like it.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:54 pmbluesunflower
That is even worse. It doesn’t put her in an educational position, it puts her into her own made up bs.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:56 pmOk, that’s it. I have to leave this thread because the staggering ignorance of lux is beginning to make my hair stand on end.
EVOLUTION IS NOT SENTIENT, YOU F UCKING MORON!
Ahhhh, that’s better.
Later all.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:56 pmUmm, lux?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcopterygii
Epic fail buddy…that’s three times.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:00 pmDid you know we’ve found insects in amber – that are dated to times before flowering plants existed?
A minor point but, I don’t recall that they found insects in the Carboniferous amber. If memory serves the bits found were not big enough. the prevailing theory is that preconifer gymnosperms evolved the mechanism to produce resin before the modern conifers became a separate lineage.
On to niches.
If a ecosystem is reduced from a mixed food base to one with a dominant form, that in itself is a new niche. Then everything’s limiting trait is their ability to utilize the new dominant fodder while the fodder’s success is limited by it’s ability to evade extinction. Both of those drive natural selection at an increased rate.
Conversely, eliminating top predators is notorious for crashing an ecosystem. Even long before humans it’s just as likely for a predator’s demise to precede it’s prey’s. Kruger National Park in South Africa is an infamous modern example. once the predators were gone the prey quickly succumbed to over population, starvation, and disease.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:00 pmNo randomness, huh? So I have bone tumors and a deformed skeleton for a reason? Heh. Somehow I doubt that. Although I *am* still pondering how this random mutation is beneficial for the future of the human race….
lux says:
——————————————————————————–
And Pete… as far as ‘extinction events’
science claims there have been several.
Rather hard to buy the idea that evolution can keep doing it’s millions of minute changes and heading towards a successful species.. when the board keeps getting wiped.
And yet, certain lifeforms survived those events. Survival of the fittest, y’know.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:01 pmFungi and palms were the first flowering plants. They predate insects. Pines were next, but like palms relied on the winds to support their propagation. About a billion years ago, with what we call flowers today developed brachia that attracted insects for the sole purpose of cross pollination. The unfortunate victims of entrapment in amber were only sucking sap in the wrong place at the wrong time.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:02 pmbelaccifer lacca says:
Umm, lux?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcopterygii
Fail eh?
You mean the coelecanth.. which lived then – and now, In nearly exactly the same form.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:02 pmYou mean the coelecanth.. which lived then – and now, In nearly exactly the same form.
Right… and the other ‘lobe fin’ fishes it was related to… the ones that left the ocean… you really are bad at this, huh?
November 15th, 2009 at 7:04 pmThey should ask Palin who invented her blackberry and cellphone
November 15th, 2009 at 7:07 pmSarah Palin (R-Bimbo)“My life is in His hands. I encourage readers to do what I did many years ago, invite Him in to take over.”
God doesn’t like people, like Palin, who murder wolves, polar bears, grizzly bears, and moose while flying around in airplanes. God is a huuuuge animal lover and He’s going to give Palin a lesson she’ll never forget.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:07 pmZooey..
EVOLUTION IS NOT SENTIENT, YOU F UCKING MORON!
I put ‘mind’ in quotes for a reason. My insistence is that for evolution to do what is claimed.. it would need foresight.. I said ‘mind’ making the point that of course by evolutionary theory it has none.. and thus no foresight, no planning, only accidents.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:08 pmAiiiiiieeeeeeeee!! It was Diablo that invented technology!
Throw away the cellphone Sarah and go live in a cave and dotn listen to the snake!!
November 15th, 2009 at 7:08 pmLux
Tikaalik. You are flat out WRONG again. It explains your specious objections. All of them
November 15th, 2009 at 7:09 pmwe would have 1 family with the change, opposed to every other animal of it’s type without.
Nope. Individuals, or families, don’t evolve. Populations evolve. I’m afraid that I haven’t the patience to try and help with understanding that basic cornerstone of the entire theory. If individuals, or single families, were to evolve independently then every species, and subspecies, on Earth would consist of inbred freaks.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:10 pmThe claim that evolution would NEED forsight is a tautology. It cannot be shown without assuming your premise is correct.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:11 pmPete says:
Kruger National Park in South Africa is an infamous modern example. once the predators were gone the prey quickly succumbed to over population, starvation, and disease.
And thus.. every extinction event would lead to more extinction.. and it’s claimed these have happened multiple times. These events would collapse the system as a whole.. as one group died out.. it would cause problems with the others that depended on them.. and they would die out. Like dominoes, until eventually evolution would need to begin anew – and they claim it has happened many times.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:12 pmPete says:
Nope. Individuals, or families, don’t evolve. Populations evolve. I’m afraid that I haven’t the patience to try and help with understanding that basic cornerstone
Is not evolution the result of a single point mutation in a given gene – which produces offspring superior to it’s predecessors in a given way?
November 15th, 2009 at 7:14 pmUh oh, Sarah is re-acting, again! She just had her publisher, Harper Collins, send an email to Palingates. Touched a nerve, eh Sarah? Was it the part about the wite-out on the bill for the abortion?
http://palingates.blogspot.com/2009/11/palingates-hit-nerve-letter-from-harper.html
November 15th, 2009 at 7:15 pmAn extinction event would lead to more extinctions? You just make arguments based on whatever floats to the top of your head without even TRYING to make sense dont you? That statement cannot POSSIBLY be shown to be correct. As some species died out there would be the resources THEY consumed going to other species. Niches would open up. Your argument is ludicrous. It doesnt even come close to making sense
November 15th, 2009 at 7:15 pmNo. Evolution does not “begin anew” after a mass extinction. It continues with the survivors. And, in the case of Kruger, once the predators were reintroduced that particular, admittedly artificial, ecosystem recovered. In such case men intervene and so they are only of so much use in discussions of natural processes.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:19 pmHeh, lux. I love how you’re failing to see that a common thread HAS survived all those “extinction” events – which by default, lends one of the biggest supports to evolution. After all, the line(s) couldn’t have survived if they hadn’t kept adapting. Like Darwin said, Survival of the Fittest.
But having said that, I’ve had experience “talking” with creationists before, and from that experience I tell you all: you will get nowhere. It’s nothing but a circular argument (assuming you get that far, as so often it’s more like talking to a brick wall).
So adapt, and leave lux alone to his delusions – otherwise this thread will end up with even more than the 1000 comments the Thomas Paine thread got.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:20 pmAll that exists is atoms and empty space – the rest is just opinion -Democritus of Abdera
November 15th, 2009 at 7:21 pmlux is okay we all have our opinions.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:22 pmEugenedebs -
The claim that evolution would NEED foresight is a tautology. It cannot be shown without assuming your premise is correct.
To claim it doesn’t require foresight requires a better mechanism than simply random mutation.
I would wager the best evolutionary development for survival would be an eye in the back of our heads.. no animal has one. The view that vision as we have is better evolutionarily is a tautology as well, as are the majority of evolutionary claims – they assume that something is so because it’s an improvement, then proceed to tell a narrative of why.
More simply put : circular reasoning. Something exists because it’s better… something doesn’t exist because it was worse. Some things that are millions of years old.. and still in their current form – well, obviously they had such a great evolutionary niche and still have it. On the contrary, if they died out – well then clearly they were inferior. That’s circular in reasoning.. it’s assumption – it’s not science.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:29 pmIf I walked backwards all the time and so did my offspring and their offspring would people grow an eye in the back of their head or would the grow the ability to twist ones neck 180 degrees?
November 15th, 2009 at 7:32 pmOne more dumb mooseyak’s quote.
mooseyak doesn’t want anyone to fact check her pamphlet. So we better not fact check science.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:33 pmXisithrus says:
lux is okay we all have our opinions.
Thanks Xisithrus..
This is the one point of contention I have.. on the rest we find agreement.
To me.. the idea that all debate on the subject need to be ’snuffed out’ is what’s aggravating.
I feel I have a need to defend my position.. otherwise I am being weak willed. I can’t simply let it go – although I’m sure there are many which see this post.. and do avoid saying a word – they know they will be attacked on all sides. I’m willing to pay such a price.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:38 pmWell, I think we are forgetting one important aspect to our existence and thats energy.
Without it we wouldnt move at all. Lungs wouldnt inhale, heart wouldnt beat, brain wouldnt create waves.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:38 pmlux says:
Is not evolution the result of a single point mutation in a given gene – which produces offspring superior to it’s predecessors in a given way?
Not exactly, though it’s more true with single cell organisms. Once sexual reproduction enters the scene it goes way past single gene mutations.
Melanistic cats are a good example. Black leopards, cougars, jaguars, and tigers are the product of a single gene mutation yet are not separate species or subspecies. Perhaps, as a matter of conjecture, the dark coloring will prove beneficial in Man’s world and, through sexual selection, the genetic makeup of the progressively darker cats could result in a new species.
A less dramatic example though would be the tendency of Man’s prey species to shrink in stature. Since the invention of cooperative hunting with weapons, Man has selected the largest prey animals. As eternal pragmatists we’ve figured we’re pretty much as likely to killed by a half-grown mastadon and an old “tusker” so it makes sense to take the one that carries the most meat.
Skipping on a few millenia we have examples like whales, modern elephants, and a host of others who, despite cessation of hunting and allowing full growth, seem to have diminished in stature. While it’s a fringe off-shoot of evolution as a whole, it has been theorized that predation by Man has led to many species developing smaller stature as a defense against hunters that selectively chose the largest prey.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:38 pmPete says
despite cessation of hunting and allowing full growth, seem to have diminished in stature. While it’s a fringe off-shoot of evolution as a whole, it has been theorized that predation by Man has led to many species developing smaller stature
Entirely speculative.. and a narrative being sold.
It’s as likely that a decrease in oxygen in the atmosphere promotes smaller size. A certain level of oxygen in the air is needed for the largest of animals to get oxygen throughout their body.. Dinosaurs as we see them from fossils couldn’t even survive in today’s environment.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:42 pmUneducated “people” often do not accept fact and logic such as evolution.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:47 pmPterodactyls – I recall reading someplace – wouldn’t be able to fly now. They’re far too large for flight.. but I’m without the article to point to.
The atmosphere was far different.
The argument of an asteroid hitting the earth – causing the loss of dinosaurs – is very thin. But at least something which produced huge volumes of dust in the atmosphere might kill all of the larger animals that need a higher concentration of oxygen to survive.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:47 pmYou cannot believe in something that you do not understand. Her comprehension of evolutionary theory is juvenile, over-simplified, and inaccurate.
Par for the course for someone whose actions have demonstrated that she does not value the importance of a sound (secular) education.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:53 pmIt is the height of hypocrisy for those that beleive they do the “will of god.” Lets remember that god does not know what we do with our free will. Every clergy person recognizes this limitation of god. For the bullshit artists like bush and palin who claim to be doing the will of god, means that they feel they are GREATER than god, since they actually know god’s will, yet god does not know our will.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:53 pmHow fcuking hypocritical does one have to get to get to this disgusting place?
I read a theory that gravity was less than it is today and that dinosaurs, the big ones, wouldnt be able to support their own weight.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:55 pmI’m done with the topic as well – no one enjoys arguing about it.. but still my view needed to be accounted for in the thread.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:55 pmLux,
You seem to be assigning human reasoning to evolution. We don’t know why creatures didn’t evolve an eye in the back of their head, but they didn’t. That doesn’t mean they couldn’t, it just means that it didn’t happen that way.
It is impossible to “know” why things evolved the way they did. We can speculate on why genetic adaptations might have been adopted by the entire species, but we are just guessing at best.
Evolution does not work in ways that are easily comprehended by humans, because we humans do not have the big picture. We think we are smart enough to “know” why evolution has done what it has done, but we don’t have enough information to make such judgements.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:55 pmyep, I read that one too Xisithrus.. there are multiple issues for Dinosaurs living today.. the question being – what event happened to cause them to vanish so quickly – but yes, gravity and oxygen concentration both are a problem.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:56 pmI would like to point out a regular feature on Andrew Sullivan’s DAILYDISH blog of the ATLANTIC MONTHLY.
This feature is titled “The Odd Lies of Sarah Palin,” and has been running for several months now.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/the-odd-lies-of-sarah-palin-a-roundup.html
My views on things are quite different from Sullivan’s in so many areas, but I agree with him totally on the breadth and audacity of Sarah Palin’s lies.
There was a story recently in the WALL STREET JOURNAL which says that Palin has been reading the Sullivan blog daily and was contemplating a lawsuit against Sullivan, which her advisers later discouraged.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:56 pmLevi
We can speculate on why genetic adaptations might have been adopted by the entire species, but we are just guessing at best.
I agree.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:57 pmOh lux, don’t get hurt there.
“I would wager the best evolutionary development for survival would be an eye in the back of our heads.. ”
DO you know anything about phylogeny or anatomy? Do you not know that frog and lizards have their eyes on the SIDES of the face which gives them 180 degree field of view out of each eye, which means they can see front and back. This is why their eyes also do not move conjugately.
Please stop taking singularities and say that this singularity is proof that evolution is not real. Evolution is beyond your thinking, because you cannot view the world as a living organism. YOu think it is some formed rock created by another’s hand.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:00 pmMan has come to dominate this planet like no other life-form by speculating. And the stuff about oxygen content is, again, straight from AiG. Insects, by virtue of their open circulatory system, are limited in size by oxygen content but there’s no such correlation in body size. Blue whales are the biggest creatures ever, with very high oxygen demand for diving, and seem to breathe just fine.
I’ve never seen any credible claim that “Pterodactyls” wouldn’t be able to fly.
The evidence for the actual impact is written in stone. It’s exact role in the nearly simultaneous extinction are indeed under debate but I’ve seen very few theories that would explain the extinction of the dinosaurs without it.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:00 pmI’m out too then. I just can’t stoop to acknowledging the fanciful “gravity theory”.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:05 pmXis,
The theory you mention is based on solid science. A very small planet that can support liquid water and an atmosphere will have larger creatures, simply because its gravity is less. As a planet gets hit by asteroids, it’s gravity increases, and so its creatures will get smaller.
In theory, the largest planets that can support life will only support small life forms. Wouldn’t it be interesting if the extinction of the dinosaurs was not caused from the immediate results of a meteoric event, but from the after effect of the planets increased gravity.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:05 pmIt must sux to be lux.
I am reading this thread backwards.
“And thus.. every extinction event would lead to more extinction.. ”
Huh?
“Extinction” is relative. The earthworms and vutlures and other opportunistic eaters, and plants and creatures of the soil that decay the organic material would all have bloomed a the extinction of the dinosaurs. It would not be the eradication of everything on earth all at once. Those that could survive in the new climate (look at deep sea creatures that live in no light, and deathly levels of sulfur) will survive and mutliply. Fore it is written in the buybull. “Go forth and multiply”
You first have to appreciate the earth as a living organism, living in a Solar system, living in galaxy, living in a universe…THEN you can fathom the lowly depths of the single cell.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:09 pmpete says:
Man has come to dominate this planet like no other life-form by speculating.
Funny, I thought roaches held that position.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:11 pmLevi,
November 15th, 2009 at 8:12 pmSo then the larger the planet the smaller the inhabitants? So, all planets of our size must therefore be able to support life like ours, correct?
Or is that it HAD to go thru the larger animals living on the planet FIRST and then have a mass extinction due to some cataclysmic event, and THEN we would have the right planet or environment for animals our own size?
November 15th, 2009 at 8:13 pmEvolution is the flowing of a river.
As it twists and turns, making eddies and rivulets that create cuts in the sand of the river banks, and then the sand falls into the water, thus exposing new opening into which the water can now flow, we find that with this natural tendency, the river “comes alive” as if it had a guiding hand. Some on the religious side like to look at this peaceful river flow and see the “hand of god” yet if the same actions were during a storm and the sand being washed away was to a bridge that then kills hundreds of people as it falls, no one from this group of religious people jumps up and says it was the hand of god that killed those pople. Yet, the same forces are at work at every moment. And if you do not think a river “evolves” just look at the great lakes which were from the same ice of the last Ice Age, and how changes to barriers of ice and earth gave way creating the lakes as we see them today.
Evolution is everything. Even relgion evoles.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:23 pmFrom:
Timeline – Ancient History: 12,000 BC to 500 AD
A few from the time line:
It is inconceivable how one can blindly believe in creationism when these FACTS clearly are present.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:23 pmRightwingers are not that into science:
November 15th, 2009 at 8:25 pmOnly Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans: Pew Poll
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/10/only-six-percent-of-scien_n_229382.html
Why bother with science if answers can be found in holy books?
Try this link as the other one does not work.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:26 pmCan one of the trolls please tell me what gawd’s purpose was in creating the following creature:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEdcMjcFASA&feature=player_embedded
November 15th, 2009 at 8:29 pmroaches don’t levels cities in minutes.
Then again that could be considered a point in their favor,
November 15th, 2009 at 8:30 pmapparently,
November 15th, 2009 at 8:35 pmcut n’ run palin deosn’t believe in keeping abreast of current events if you recall her katie couric interview.
I heard that ‘Creation Museum’ was closing down. After a bunch of Scientists went through it, they were shocked and appalled. They couldn’t believe people were teaching their children this stuff.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:35 pm1984 @ 301
I am surprised even six percent of scientists fall for the crap. Maybe they are in it due to bigotry or greed.
It is understandable how the very stupid, ignorant, uneducated could fall for the republican kool aid including creationism.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:38 pmlabman57 @ 283,
November 15th, 2009 at 8:39 pmI have found that to be the case with many people who have a problem with Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Understanding the theory requires engaging the mind. These people are missing a solid liberal education, and sound religious training.
I am surprised with the posting tonight and this point has not been touched upon. There is a religious thinking that proposes “no contradiction exists” between scientific findings and religious belief. In fact, it proposes a harmony should exist between the two. I see no problem with Genesis, and the big bang theory or Darwin’s theory. The very pictures from the Hubble Space telescope are convincing proof of a spectacular creation. Darwin’s theories are a revelation of the intricate associations that exist in nature.
What purpose is there to differentiate between the two, science and religion?
I have found that people who prefer to make the distinction on religious grounds, have something that is very lacking in understanding, and it goes far beyond science.
“Palin says she doesn’t believe in evolution.”
November 15th, 2009 at 8:40 pmi wonder if it’s because her african pastor; the one responsible for a modern day with hunt in his village, told her so.
Also.. if someone would like to explain to me the reversal process for ice ages. When the earth becomes a ball of ice.. what process turns that back around and makes the earth tropical again?
Also.. what survives an ice age?
November 15th, 2009 at 8:43 pmBozo@309, I still can’t beleive how MSM gave her a pass on that. In fact, the MSM lovefest for her is unreal. This week is going to be brutal. It will be all Sarah, all day with this stupid book tour. I think I’ll pass on MSM all week.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:44 pm“When the earth becomes a ball of ice.. what process turns that back around”
imagine that, a cancervative with a shaky knowledge of science who thinks an “ice age” means the earth turns into a huge ice cube like something out of a marvel comic.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:46 pmDeathCouncilor,
Unless our planet is at the extreme size either the largest planet that can support life, or the smallest planet that can support life, we can assume we are somewhere closer to the median. Therefore, we can probably safely assume that small changes in exactly what 1g is will have an affect on the structures life will adapt to.
For instance, lets assume a planet that has 10% less mass than Earth. If life is possible on a rock that size, than the life forms that evolve on it will be at least 10% larger on average. Much like larger life forms evolve in water, because it is more dense, and so can support the mass of a blue whale. Not only will the average creatures be 10% larger, they may assume forms that require much less support structure in the way of skeletons.
I don’t know at what point a rock would be to small to sustain life, probably at the point where its gravity could not contain an atmosphere. At that extreme, creatures would be able to evolve forms that require little support structure.
The other extreme is how big can the rock be and still support life? At some point, gravity just squishes all the life forms we have seen so far, but I speculate that life could exist at three times Earth gravity. While humans would quickly go extinct in such a heavy environment, other life forms would have no problem adapting. In a heavy gravity environment, the creatures would be smaller, proportional to the mass.
Although I have no scientific evidence to support it, my personal hypothesis is that life constantly evolves from larger creatures to smaller sizes, because the mass of a planet increases constantly as material descends into its gravity well. This would be a constant throughout the entire universe, assuming life exists beyond our humble rock.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:46 pmAnd come to think of it energy hasnt really evolved but our understanding of it has.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:52 pm“When the earth becomes a ball of ice.. what process turns that back around”
The core would still be molten but I would think precession and obliquity and the reduction of C02 would once again warm our whirled.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:56 pmLux,
Somewhere in our galaxy, there are planets that are in ice ages, where the equator is covered by huge archipelagos. The beaches go on forever, and the temperature is always perfect. The reason that I point it out is just because a planet is in an ice age does not mean that the planet is experiencing extinctions. In fact, some ice ages are when a planet becomes more habitable, as the water is turned to glaciers and more land is exposed.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:57 pmLux – I’ve read your silly arguments and I’m just sitting here shaking my head. You can look at photos of the moon, the pictures of the comet hitting Jupiter, the Meteor Crater in Arizona – and you can say that the chances of an asteroid hitting the earth “are very thin”…?
Take a look at the Gulf of Mexico and the Yucatan. Scientists have done studies of the cenotes in the Yucatan and have mapped the sea floor – and they perfectly match the print of one hell of a large impact crater.
Frankly, I find people like you more disturbing than the ones who are proud of their ignorance – you cloak yours in pseudoscientific babble – and then you expect us to take you seriously…?
No thanks. I have a brain – and I know how to use it.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:00 pmHere, check it out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater
November 15th, 2009 at 9:02 pmlol
Bozo The Neoclown says:
imagine that a cancervative … etc.
Shouldn’t make assumptions. I’m as liberal as they come and a Democrat for life.
I’ll explain in greater detail for you..
In Michigan I first noticed that as snow falls – it decreases the temperature – which in turn brings more snow.. and lowers the temperature even more.. until the entire landscape is composed of ice. This is seasonal of course, resulting mainly from the tilt of the world on it’s axis. Since it’s seasonal.. the process reverses. Although if you are to propose an ‘ice age’ to the scale they infer.. this icing process, steadily sending more reflected light into the atmosphere, would only continue to spread and exaggerate the temperature loss. It’s a snowball effect. An ice age is not something proposed by simply seasonal changes – it feeds itself.. more ice, more temperature decrease, more ice.. more temperature decrease -
November 15th, 2009 at 9:03 pmFrom the link:
The impact would have caused some of the largest megatsunamis in Earth’s history, reaching thousands of feet high. A cloud of super-heated dust, ash and steam would have spread from the crater, as the impactor burrowed underground in less than a second.[22] Excavated material along with pieces of the impactor, ejected out of the atmosphere by the blast, would have been heated to incandescence upon re-entry, broiling the Earth’s surface and possibly igniting global wildfires; meanwhile, enormous shock waves spawned global earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.[23] The emission of dust and particles could have covered the entire surface of the Earth for several years, possibly a decade, creating a harsh environment for living things to survive in. The shock production of carbon dioxide caused by the destruction of carbonate rocks would have led to a sudden greenhouse effect.[24] Over a longer period of time, sunlight would have been blocked from reaching the surface of the earth by the dust particles in the atmosphere, cooling the surface dramatically. Photosynthesis by plants would also have been interrupted, affecting the entire food chain.[25][26]
November 15th, 2009 at 9:03 pm‘Hypochondria’ may be a subtle expression of natural appreciation, and authentic gratitude, rather than complaints within a context of certain physical discomforts. Regularly, traditional religions have extrapolated one theistic notion, toward religious practices, which regularly divert one’s attention, and call for introspection, either individully or in groups.
Simply, large numbers of popular ‘isms’ shortly before, during, and after the two-world-war period, may have reflected our collective will to survive; yet, it may also be true that current health care reforms will reflect our resistance, to ‘intractable sickism’!
November 15th, 2009 at 9:06 pm“8350 BC Earliest known walled city at Jericho”
Most people hear this and are at least intrigued if not outright happy.
Idiots on the other hand are upset.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:08 pmLux,
The Earth wobbles on its axis like a top. As the tilt of the Earth changes, we go into, and come out of, ice ages. It is exactly the same effect as the seasonal change, except on a scale of thousands of years.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:08 pmlux says:
yep, I read that one too Xisithrus.. there are multiple issues for Dinosaurs living today.. the question being – what event happened to cause them to vanish so quickly – but yes, gravity and oxygen concentration both are a problem.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
____________
They didn’t vanish all that quickly. Dinosaur fossils have been excavated in strata dated to 64.5 million years ago, a full million years after the K-T extinction event. These outliers aside, the bulk of extinctions happened over a 40,000 year period following the impact event(s). That’s quick in geologic time, but not all that quick in terms of a species.
40,000 years is a very plausible amount of time for a species to run out of food when a geologic event disrupts sunlight and thus all species that depend on plants for food and then the species that depend on species that depend on plants for food.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:09 pmThylacine’s are a wonderful way of killing off dying animals.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:10 pmOMG,
“Although I have no scientific evidence to support it, my personal hypothesis is that life constantly evolves from larger creatures to smaller sizes, because the mass of a planet increases constantly as material descends into its gravity well. This would be a constant throughout the entire universe, assuming life exists beyond our humble rock”
You ARE kidding me correct? You are dumber than the “rock” you claim a planet is. It is not a ROCK dude. Planets are heaving, melting, freezing, flowing masses of energy in the form of matter. The generate energy from the gravity of the sun. To stupidly conjecture that lide starts out as large creatures has to be one of the stupidest fcuking ideas I have ever heard. YOu should be banned for being so fcuking stupid. YOu cannot even create a theory correctly. You jumped from one extreme to the next and then, with no basis of fact pulled this piece of shit “theory” out of your ass. It is ridiculous that you and I share genes of any sort. You would well versed to go investigate your big gravity theory, and take a trip to Jupiter. Try looking in the ocean to learn something of other worlds.
You are too stupid to breath. Take the gun out from under your bed, you stupid muddafugga and just shoot yourself, that is the only redeeming thing you can do now.
I got dumber just reading your drivel.
OH MY GAWD, Spaghetti monster save me.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:12 pmLeftside Annie says:
Here, check it out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater
November 15th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
___________
That may not have been the lone culprit, however – there’s some new evidence that Chicxulub came about 300,000 years too early. One of the current theories is that the Chicxulub impactor was one of a chain of meteors that hit in a relatively short time period, and the combined effect of these impacts caused the extinction event.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:14 pmchiroptera toasterhead says:
40,000 years is a very plausible amount of time for a species to run out of food when a geologic event disrupts sunlight and thus all species that depend on plants for food and then the species that depend on species that depend on plants for food.
And you are describing just the type of chain of extinctions I mean. Even by evolutionary theory, things develop off of other developments.. they become symbiotic. One creature finds a niche…and bases it’s existence on it. The niche goes – and so would the creature.. who was also a niche for a different creature.. and so on – until little to nothing would be alive. Those that were still remaining and had a niche would overpopulate and suffer disease.. it would become very one sided after such an extinction.. only a few species could even logically be proposed to call it an opportunity – and the new inhabitants of the world would reflect such a change.. for the most part – the entire direction of evolution would be altered dramatically. This they propose happened multiple times.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:16 pm“8350 BC Earliest known walled city at Jericho”
IIRC Socrates [Plato?] talked of a great flood some 10k years before his time.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:16 pm“Those that were still remaining and had a niche would overpopulate and suffer disease.. it would become very one sided after such an extinction.. only a few species could even logically be proposed to call it an opportunity – and the new inhabitants of the world would reflect such a change.. for the most part – the entire direction of evolution would be altered dramatically. This they propose happened multiple times.”
STop talking to this moron. You cannot help him/her. They are too far gone. There is no ability for them to recognize the fluid dynamics of evolution. They talk of symbiosis, but then give it no relation to the environment they describe. All of a sudden, the niche overpopulates and “suffers disease”. WTF???
Aren’t diseases a new lifeform, fighting in the mileu? OMG this twit is too stupid to recognize their own limitations of thought.
Get the gun.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:20 pmIt is beleived the flooding relates to the breeaking open of the Bosphorus in Turkey draining water from the Mediterranean Sea into the Black Sea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosphorus
November 15th, 2009 at 9:23 pmDeath Counselor says: ,,,,,,moron.. idiot.. blah blah.
lol.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:24 pmFcuk you idiot.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:25 pmWe can only hope that you stand outside on Dec 21, 2012 and get taken.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:26 pmI am guessing death councilor is name jacked or just seeking attention.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:28 pmI just stepped in and I have NO idea what is going on.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:30 pmDeath Counselor says:
You ARE kidding me correct? You are dumber than the “rock” you claim a planet is. It is not a ROCK dude. Planets are heaving, melting, freezing, flowing masses of energy in the form of matter.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
_________
Actually, there may be something to Levi’s theory, though I don’t think the math works. It’s estimated that the Earth gains 40,000 metric tons of mass per year due to meteorites, most of which vaporize in the atmosphere. This is offset a bit by the loss of atmospheric gas, but over the 230 million years since the dawn of the dinosaurs the Earth gained as much as 9.2 trillion tons of mass.
However, that’s a tiny drop in comparison to the 5,973,700,000,000,000,000,000 ton mass of the Earth, so its effect on gravity would be extremely minimal.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:30 pmAll the stuff that vaporizes in the atmosphere is still added to the mass.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:33 pmSo levi it lux. I got it.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:34 pmSo levi IS lux. I got it.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:34 pm“Although I have no scientific evidence to support it, my personal hypothesis is that life constantly evolves from larger creatures to smaller sizes, because the mass of a planet increases constantly as material descends into its gravity well. This would be a constant throughout the entire universe, assuming life exists beyond our humble rock”
Yes, we accreate material at a pretty good rate but the theory I read was where as our solar system rotates around Sagittarius A we get closer to the galactic center increasing gravity as well gravity reduces as we revolve away from the galactic center which would also affect ‘time’ as we sense it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolob
November 15th, 2009 at 9:34 pm“Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God [galacic center]. First in government, the last pertaining to the measurement of time. The measurement according to celestial time, which celestial time signifies one day to a cubit. One day in Kolob is equal to a thousand years according to the measurement of this earth, which is called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh.”[5]
This is awating moderation further up:
I do not suffer fools lightly. And lux is just that a fcuking fool. A person who thinks they can read something, but never does. They rely on others interpretation, just like the FCUKING BUYBULL and then incorporate that into their own mental images of what it must be if that person’s reality is true (and of course it must be true, they told me they experienced it.) I could care less what you levi and lux talk about in your own place, but to come here and try to put forth these insipid ideas that are beyond fact, beyond reality, as the others here keep trying to point out is just too much to handle.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:35 pm40,000 tuns per year times 200,000,000 years equals 8,000,000,000,000 tuns of mass. Over time the mass increase is significant. The longer the period of time, the larger the increase.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:37 pmIF gravity increased from increased mass, it did so over millions or billions of years. TOTALLY able to be handled by any evolutionary trend if said trend was able to remain relevant to the environment during that timeframe.
Why should anyone try to help you out of your moronic, mental gambit?
November 15th, 2009 at 9:39 pmLOL! It’s Sunday night, I’m tired, and you guys are talking circles around me. Guess I should have broadened my education.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:40 pmThe earth used to spin much faster which would also reduce gravity. Its why we have leap seconds.
Today we would weigh about half a pound less at the equator than we do at the pole.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:41 pmDo you drink alcohol Death Counselor?
November 15th, 2009 at 9:41 pmLevi the Oracle says:
40,000 tuns per year times 200,000,000 years equals 8,000,000,000,000 tuns of mass. Over time the mass increase is significant. The longer the period of time, the larger the increase.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
_____________
But in comparison to the weight of the Earth, it’s minimal. An extra 8 trillion tons added to the 5,973,700,000 trillion ton mass of the planet doesn’t change gravity all that much.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:42 pmHeh, PD, I just barely graduated high school. Hated it. Today I like to read/study alot of things. Teh Toobz is great for that.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:42 pmFCUKING DUH!!!!
8,000,000,000,000 / 5,973,700,000,000,000,000,000
Is 1.3392035087131928285652108408524e-9 percent.
NOT SIGNIFICANT, except in your mind.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:43 pmUmmm. The causes of ice ages has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. And every current form of life on Earth has either survived ice ages or is descended from those organisms that have.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:44 pmwhat she dont know could fill a wearehouse so this dont suprise me
November 15th, 2009 at 9:44 pmDo you drink alcohol Death Counselor?
No I show azzholes like you that you have no ability to do rationale thinking.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:45 pmXis@349, The way you guys are coming up with the figures and facts, I feel a little intimidated. I guess I could try a little harder, but damn. I’m tired and I don’t want too. LOL.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:46 pmXisithrus says:
The earth used to spin much faster which would also reduce gravity. Its why we have leap seconds.
Today we would weigh about half a pound less at the equator than we do at the pole.
Citation please
November 15th, 2009 at 9:47 pmSo, the old testament belief of creation is based on the book of Abraham which in turn is based on egyptian beliefs and they have confused creation of earth [six thousand years] with the age of earth.
Is it possible for a large amount of mass to accreate in six thousand years? [which really isnt much given earth is a mere speck when compared to the universe]
November 15th, 2009 at 9:48 pmAll I suggest is that a planet will increase in size, albeit slowly, and if there is life on that planet, it will have to adapt to those gravitational changes, however small.
I love throwing a theory out there and getting put on the spot to defend it. I guess some people don’t know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:48 pmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second
November 15th, 2009 at 9:50 pmpete says:
Ummm. The causes of ice ages has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. And every current form of life on Earth has either survived ice ages or is descended from those organisms that have.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
____________
Well, they do have some relevance – Milankovich cycles and the ice ages they prompt do affect evolution. Glaciers might isolate some populations of a species from each other, allowing them to diverge. Rising and falling sea levels will prompt population movements as well, causing them to adapt to new environments. Human history was greatly affected by the last ice age, which allowed us to get from the Rift Valley to Australia in 50,000 years or so.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:51 pmIt really depends on how accurate the estimate is of how much matter the planet accumulates. If a very large meteor hits the earth, it could significantly alter average numbers. Especially if several large meteors hit within a relatively short period of geological time.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:52 pmIn the past, when the Earth was younger and spinning faster, the stronger angular momentum caused the Earth to assume a more pronounced oblate spheroid shape much greater than the twenty-seven miles it is today. A 15% increase in the equatorial circumference of the faster rotating young planet, relative to its present rotation, could produce approximately 3600 more miles of surface around the young planet’s equatorial zone.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:53 pmReference: Chapter 13, (The Earth’s Slowing Rotation) “The MIND of MANKIND” – ISBN 09649265-1-2, Published 1996, Suna Press.
It really depends on how accurate the estimate is of how much matter the planet accumulates. If a very large meteor hits the earth, it could significantly alter average numbers. Especially if several large meteors hit within a relatively short period of geological time.
I concur.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:56 pmSo we would add that to:
Each year nearly 40,000 tons of cosmic dust fall to Earth from outer space
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060727180833.htm
dork,
November 15th, 2009 at 9:58 pmYou threw sh|t against the wall, and think it is a “theory” Oh big dorkufuss thinks he knows how to put together a theory. No you do not. It is not based on background of fact, or experiential knowledge of significance you stupid fcuking stooge. It is some bullshit you made up in mommy’s basement and you think you are some big scientific guy now.
You are a rube, a jagoff, a turd blossom, a stooge who takes his own limited, self-related (also called self-gratifiying), thoughts and string them together to try and make what you think is a science based theory, but it falls flat on its face right out of your spewing point.
I have also read where a mars sized planet impacted earth creating the moon. Surely that altered the earths mass.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:59 pmLevi the Oracle says:
Especially if several large meteors hit within a relatively short period of geological time.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
__________
Sure, but any effect of the increased planetary mass on the force of gravity would be the least of the worries of any species living on the planet, what with all the ejecta blanketing the atmosphere and blocking out the sun and all.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:01 pmThe moon is made of green cheese we all know that already. SO what?
November 15th, 2009 at 10:02 pmThe Earth also loses atmosphere, mostly hydrogen, which counteracts the capture of matter to some extent. But the fact remains that I’ve never seen anything that demonstrates a change in gravity on a scale that would change the “laws” which determine the scale of a organism beyond a percent or so.
As for the spin down, as the spin decreases the diameter decreases so, since the surface of the Earth is closer to the center of it’s gravity well, it’s roughly a push and still not on a scale that would change the ability of animals to exceed a given size. And modern trees are taller than their ancestors.
In it’s simplest terms, the prevailing theory is that size was an advantage for animals that were becoming endothermic and, as nesting animals, size enabled bigger broods and/or more developed young. And it tends to be proof against many predators that prey on the smallest/weakest available prey.
Also, on their way to becoming birds, dinosaurs had lighter/stronger bones than most anything else. This adaptation that eventually enabled them to fly also enabled some freakishly large structures.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:02 pmIs it just me or does anyone else think Death Counselor is trying to pick a fight?
DC, I don’t care what you think of me, or any of my theories. You are just a punk behind a keyboard that gets his jollies out of insulting strangers. Your behavior is inappropriate even if you do disagree with me.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:03 pmSure, but any effect of the increased planetary mass on the force of gravity would be the least of the worries of any species living on the planet
Dinosaur: Run for the equator!
Heh
November 15th, 2009 at 10:03 pmThe moon is made of green cheese we all know that already. SO what?
Blue cheese. Sheesh. =P
November 15th, 2009 at 10:04 pmDinosaur: Run for the equator!
But, but, the world would be spinning faster, so they would get dizzy and all fall down, no?
November 15th, 2009 at 10:04 pmHighly charged magentotail cheese. Nom Nom.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:05 pmMagnetotail. My bad.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:05 pmXisithrus.
Technically, Earth wasn’t Earth before the proposed impact.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:05 pmBut, but, the world would be spinning faster, so they would get dizzy and all fall down, no?
How can we dance when our world keeps turning
November 15th, 2009 at 10:08 pmAHHH, Damn, I always forgetthe megnetotail. Keeps everyone stable and upright. But, wouldn’t that megnetopotential change with the greater mass, and this would make the donoaurs all stick together more, making for more dinosaurs, and then the baby dinosaurs would take over the land, and we would ahve billions of opposing charged tailed dinosaurs littering the landscape (Dinoscape by then) and these magnetic tailed dinosaurs would rule the earth for billions of years.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:08 pmBut, but, the world would be spinning faster, so they would get dizzy and all fall down, no?
Ooo, a new theory as to why the dinosaurs died out. Good one!
November 15th, 2009 at 10:09 pmTechnically, Earth wasn’t Earth before the proposed impact.
It was Dinoland. =]
November 15th, 2009 at 10:10 pmCorrect pete, it was called dinoland. Please look on the back of the playing cards for descriptions.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:10 pmHOLY SHIIT We said the same friggin thing. At exaclt the same time.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:11 pmDamn, I always forgetthe megnetotail. Keeps everyone stable and upright. But, wouldn’t that megnetopotential change with the greater mass,
I would think it would change with the suns output and the strength of earths magnetic field due to our iron core
November 15th, 2009 at 10:12 pmlevi is busy voting down anything I post. Love it!!!
November 15th, 2009 at 10:12 pm“I would think it would change with the suns output and the strength of earths magnetic field due to our iron core”
Well yes, but with all the extra mass, the iron core is growing by leaps and bounds, is it not?
November 15th, 2009 at 10:13 pmHOLY SHIIT We said the same friggin thing. At exaclt the same time.
Heh
November 15th, 2009 at 10:14 pmWell yes, but with all the extra mass, the iron core is growing by leaps and bounds, is it not?
With greater mass its probably being compressed
November 15th, 2009 at 10:16 pmX, I got it, Adam and Eve came along and got squashed by the meteors, no.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:16 pmchiroptera toasterhead,
True. Ice ages have profoundly affected evolution. I made a clumsy reply to one who seemed to think that the causes of ice ages were relevant to a discussion regarding the validity of current evolutionary theory.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:16 pmX, I got it, Adam and Eve came along and got squashed by the meteors, no.
Naw, it ripped out his rib and gave birth to Eve
November 15th, 2009 at 10:19 pmHeres a question DC, if a metal when heated above a certain temperature loses its magnetic qualities [telluric] how does a hot molten core create a magnetic field?
November 15th, 2009 at 10:20 pmBut the buybull says that Adam and Ever lived with the dinosaurs, so ho did THEY survive the meteors?
November 15th, 2009 at 10:20 pmXisithrus says:
I have also read where a mars sized planet impacted earth creating the moon. Surely that altered the earths mass.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
__________
Yes, that altered the Earth’s mass. So did all the comet impacts in the early solar system that brought water and organic compounds. Those certainly had an effect on the evolution of life on the planet.
The 40,000 tons of mass added to the planet every year, not so much. Try the math.
The acceleration of gravity at sea level is the Gravitational Constant (6.6742 x 10^-11) times [Earth’s mass (5.9736 x 10^24) divided by the square of Earth’s radius (6.37101 x 10^6). From this equation we get an average 9.822 m/s2 acceleration for the planet. A change in mass of 4 x 10^4 is really not going to shift that number by any noticeable amount.
Especially because the Earth is not a perfect sphere. There are much greater variations in gravity when moving between different points on the planet. For example, a species migrating from Paris to Madrid sees a change in gravity of .008 m/s squared, far larger than any effect of changing mass from micrometeorites, yet we don’t see animals in France shrinking compared to their counterparts in Spain.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:20 pmWell done CT.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:22 pmyet we don’t see animals in France shrinking compared to their counterparts in Spain.
True.
But when I go to Walmart and see really big shoppers I wonder if Walmart has low gravity.
Heh
November 15th, 2009 at 10:25 pmThe reason that pterodactyls can not fly today is very simple – they’re extinct! As Bugs Bunny would say, “Why cry over split hares?”.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:27 pmXisithrus says:
But when I go to Walmart and see really big shoppers I wonder if Walmart has low gravity.
Heh
November 15th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
____________
Yeah – Wal-Mart operates under different laws of physics. They source their gravity in bulk from China so they can sell it super-cheap, reducing its effect on their stores. It’s quite amazing, isn’t it?
A similar effect can be observed at NASCAR racetracks, no doubt prompted by all that localized acceleration.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:27 pm[Earth’s mass (5.9736 x 10^24) divided by the square of Earth’s radius (6.37101 x 10^6).
Yes, but the earths radius is some 27 miles wider due to its spin and this is why, I gather, we would weigh a bit [half a pound isnt squat] less
November 15th, 2009 at 10:27 pmXisithrus,
Walmart doesn’t have lower gravity but there may be some aerodynamic lift from the air rushing into all the empty vessels at shoulder level.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:28 pmA similar effect can be observed at NASCAR racetracks, no doubt prompted by all that localized acceleration.
Walmart needs banked curves.
/joking
November 15th, 2009 at 10:30 pmif a metal when heated above a certain temperature loses its magnetic qualities [telluric] how does a hot molten core create a magnetic field?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telluric_current
Here is another that theorizes the molten core acts as a crystal. Hmmm.
http://www.aracnet.com/~wpbenz/Site%203/Telluric%20Energy.html
There is mounting evidence that the Solid Core of the Earth functions as a single Crystal. This Solid Core appears to be one gargantuan Hexagonal Crystal of Iron 1500 miles across.
As such, it expresses a Magnetocrystalline Anisotropy. This is a fancy term meaning its resonant frequency can differ dependent on the spin-orbit fluctuations of its dipole, magnetic field. Which means it has a distinct directionality where energy flows faster along one axis than the other. A typical characteristic of a Crystal.
As the Earth’s surface floats upon a molten mass composed of an Iron-Nickel Core with a temperature hotter than the surface of the sun (6700°F), the Earth is anything but solid.
In fact, the Earth behaves more like a Liquid Crystal resonating at frequencies keyed to its composition, mass, and rotation. These frequencies are constantly being attenuated by the electromagnetic resonance it shares with the Sun and other Stars, some as far away as the most distant of Galaxies.
We experience this Telluric Energy as a Gaian Current distributing itself across the Earth’s surface in patterns dependent on the shape and composition of the mineral and water bodies it passes through, both above and below.
Usually, the full force of the Gaian Current stays beneath the Surface of the Earth, but abrupt changes in topography can deflect it to the surface and above. Because of its interactions with the rocks and water bodies at each location, we experience its varying characteristics as beneficial, noxious, or neutral.
I use the words noxious or beneficial cautiously because thinking of Energy as being anything but neutral, causes problems. Energy only becomes classified as noxious when prolonged contact gives one species less than an optimal experience. It is not intrinsically noxious because another species may find its effects delightful and thus, beneficial.
What initially may appear as ‘bad’ is actually a compassionate communication from Gaia about a particular location’s appropriateness for the flourishing of each specie.
Though I think the person who may have had the best understanding of it is Nikola Tesla.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:31 pmWalmart doesn’t have lower gravity but there may be some aerodynamic lift from the air rushing into all the empty vessels at shoulder level.
I have a rear wing to increase downforce when Walmarting.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:32 pmXisithrus says:
Heres a question DC, if a metal when heated above a certain temperature loses its magnetic qualities [telluric] how does a hot molten core create a magnetic field?
November 15th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
It wouldn’t. The Earth, however, has a hot solid inner core contained within a liquid outer core. The interaction between these two layers may be one of the reasons we have a magnetic field.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:33 pmThough I think the person who may have had the best understanding of it is Nikola Tesla.
Yes.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:34 pmAnd I’m quite sure that some enterprising, and obsessed, person will make a full-scale model of a flying reptile that will soar if not fly. The structure wouldn’t be much problem but stability and control is a nightmare. But I’ve seen models of seagulls and giant dragonflies so a pterodactyl should be doable.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:35 pmWell almost
November 15th, 2009 at 10:35 pmhttp://news.softpedia.com/news/How-Does-the-Earth-039-s-Core-Produce-the-Magnetic-Field-50827.shtml
It wouldn’t. The Earth, however, has a hot solid inner core contained within a liquid outer core. The interaction between these two layers may be one of the reasons we have a magnetic field.
Which brings us to the suns magnetic field which, that I know of, has no solid outer core.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:35 pmYes but your link provided evidence for the inner core to be fluid too, not solid, and just be rotating at a different speed than the outer core.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:40 pma few examples for you..
If you claim that World Trade building 7 is obviously a controlled demolition.. you stand at odds with the government – and the government agency which researched these things.. Agencies are not out to ruin themselves.. they are out to protect the hand that feeds them. – it’s a smoke screen.
My parents once had a house that had an illegal pesticide sprayed.. it was confirmed. As it works out though.. to file charges we would need to go against the entire establishment, the board of realtors who protect the mother agencies.. you would need to pursue an extremely expensive court case versus the groups which protect the agencies involved.. who have far more money – and far better lawyers. It was deemed a waste of time and money to pursue. They protect their own.. it’s hopeless to resist.
In congress we have the same thing.. we fight as constituents to insist on health care… yet the insurance companies we fight against have more pull than we do.. they have a network built to protect their own.. anyone that resists is at a severe disadvantage.
The National Science Foundation has the same pull.. and the same ways of protecting it’s own interests. Anyone who disagrees is outted.. is shunned, is attacked on all sides. Any who disagree are dissenters.. they are conspiracy theorists – and it’s in the NSF’s interest and connected agencies that depend on them to destroy the voice of the one that disagrees. Most scientists have decided there’s simply no point in losing their grants and their positions by disagreeing.
It’s sad to me that those who point out the suspicious events of 9/11 are ostracized for their position – feeding the government’s defense without them even needing to expend any energy.
In the same way.. those who might argue that random mutations and natural selection are not enough to account for all varieties of life on the earth are ridiculed for it.. saving the agencies from the need to quiet them. It’s handy for the government.. and it’s handy for the NSF.
The world is full of accomplices.. people without insurance willing to defend insurance company profits. People who lost relatives in 9/11, willing to defend the government that at the very least allowed it to occur. And people in the realm of science.. who, for the sake of continuing their research, must remain quiet about any objections.
Believe what you will.. but try not to ignore the pressures that are always at work to maintain their vested interest in the status quo.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:40 pmsolid inner core on the sun you mean, no one said anything about a solid OUTER core.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:41 pmGo to bed levi, you are already dreaming.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:43 pmI get frustrated studying the earth’s magnetic field before I can successfully deal with the effect of the magnetic field on all the models. Is a magnet a magnet on a planet without a magnetic field? Is it stronger or weaker? Could we artificially generate a magnetic field for Mars? Argh! it gives me a headache.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:43 pm“Is a magnet a magnet on a planet without a magnetic field?”
Excellent question pete.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:44 pmOops! That should have been “existing magnetic field”.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:44 pmsolid inner core on the sun you mean, no one said anything about a solid OUTER core.
I wouldnt call a molten core solid
November 15th, 2009 at 10:47 pmIs a magnet a magnet on a planet without a magnetic field?”
I would say yes. I recall that the Apollo guidance computer operating system was basically ’sewn’ thru magnets.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:50 pmSo the same question can be posed by asking:
Is a magnet a magnet in a zero Tesla environment?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_(unit)
And I would say the inherent item (magnet) is the thing that is magnetized, not the environment. The introduction of the item into the zero Telsa environment violates the zero environment. So it is the same as saying “can you see light in a dark room.”
November 15th, 2009 at 10:51 pmlux says:
Believe what you will.. but try not to ignore the pressures that are always at work to maintain their vested interest in the status quo.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
_____________
Except that science doesn’t work that way. Scientists aren’t under pressure to parrot the status quo, they’re looking for the breakthroughs, looking to overturn conventional thinking. Look at how physicists squabble over string theory – there’s certainly nobody maintaining the status quo, even among competing string theorists.
The reason so many scientists have reached consensus on evolution is because they’ve all reached the same results.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:51 pm“can you see light in a dark room.”
Yes. Cloe your eyes and dream.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:55 pmlux,
You still fail to give reliable evidence against evolution. The NSF is controlling scientists? Puhlease!
The overwhelming evidence produced and examined by generations of scientists examining millions of fossils from thousands of species by thousands of individuals has directly led to modern evolutionary theory.
The relatively infantile science of genetics and genetic paleontology are adding a whole new dimension to the whole field. And, despite the odd anomaly, the evidence fits. It fits not because of the wishes of closed minds but, because the evidence authored the theory. It’s not the other way around.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:57 pmHeh! I was just making up a rhetorical question that would exemplify the complexity of magnetism. Yes, all things being equal, a magnet is magnet outside of a greater magnetic field though some properties can change when it interacts with another magnetic field and…
There’s that headache.
November 15th, 2009 at 11:02 pmthere are so many issues with palin that I don’t know where to start.
November 15th, 2009 at 11:06 pm1) She hates women.
2) She hates smart people.
3) She loves to kill.
4) She thinks ignorance is folksy charm.
5) If you don’t believe in science then how does her cell phone work?
5) People that go to college verses people like palin who just make thing up from no where!
6) She is EXTREMELY arrogant to think that A) she know god’s plan, and B) that she is qualified to be president.
7) She reminds me of the guy from Napoleon dynamite who thinks he can throw a football over the mountains.
There’s that headache.
I have always like messing with magnets and dont get a headache from that north south thing but the bloch line [I think thats how its spelled] is what amazes me.
November 15th, 2009 at 11:08 pmlux,
there are at least five variables that can affect climate change.
Over hundreds of thousands of years, the Earth goes from an eliptical orbit, to circular.
The angle of tilt changes from 23 degrees, to 22 or 24.
The Earth wobbles on it’s axis.
Continental drift causes changes in ocean currents.
Volcanic activity causes increases in greenhouse gases
November 15th, 2009 at 11:11 pmPalin is probably a smart woman, she is kicking back at those who are advising her, somewhat, but the attraction of money is quickly leading her to spout misinformation for personal gain and fleeting fame.
November 15th, 2009 at 11:11 pmFACT CHECK: Palin’s book goes rogue on some facts
November 15th, 2009 at 11:17 pmIn my magnetic field I planted corn this year and bought a couple of hogs. WC and Raspberry. Its going to be a good year………
November 15th, 2009 at 11:27 pmslappy, seek ☤ help
November 15th, 2009 at 11:30 pmSlappyBastinado says: In my magnetic field I planted corn this year and bought a couple of hogs. WC and Raspberry. Its going to be a good year………
Did you put lipstick on them and curse them for digging up your crops?
November 15th, 2009 at 11:36 pmNo…you put rings in their noses…. and if that don’t do the trick you get out “the blade”….some folks calls it a “Kaiser” blade…..we always called it a “Sling” blade….then you make bacon.
November 15th, 2009 at 11:47 pmYou dont need a hog you need mustard and biscuits to sling blade
November 15th, 2009 at 11:49 pmWait. Did Slappy just go Czar on us?
Heh
November 15th, 2009 at 11:50 pmSo much for PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:04 amMy brother who is a staunch Republican cringes and holds his breath everytime Palin speaks. Now how would anyone guess the thread was going to fall into a creationist vs evolution debate?:)
japan rail pass
November 16th, 2009 at 12:51 amPoor, Uber-Victim Sarah never seems to realize that her double-speak always catches up with her. It’s truly breathtaking to have confirmation via her new “book” that she truly is a delusional, pathological liar with serious personality disorders and is quite probably a diagnosable sociopath.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:03 amMaybe Sarah will find out God doesn’t dole out TV shows to his favorites, nor does he have a hand in those ratings. I love the simpleton thinking that humans came as is, from a loving all mighty sitting the sky. If we were so perfect, wouldn’t have God made us as such without apparent flaws and without so many faults in fractured societal concepts that leave so many behind or suffering even when praying to him?
November 16th, 2009 at 1:10 amSlappyBeggerino
Looks like Slappy the moron is back begging us to pity him again. He has this compulsion. He is addicted to our pity. He showed us how stupid and pathetic he was and we made the mistake of pitying him and now he just constantly begs us for more pity. We vote his posts into the sewer where they belong but his compulsion drives him to beg us for more pity. It is a sad case. There is no more pity for Beggerino but he begs for it anyway. Obviously he will never have any concept of dignity or self respect so its constant begging from Beggerino. Crackwhores come to Beggerino for begging lessons.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:17 amSlappyBeggerino. Vote me down all you want. Notice my posts dont end up in the SEWER like ALL of your posts do. I know you THINK you are clever but really you are delusional. In fact you are stupid and pathetic and you always will be
November 16th, 2009 at 1:25 am@ 261. lux says: … I put ‘mind’ in quotes for a reason. My insistence is that for evolution to do what is claimed.. it would need foresight.. I said ‘mind’ making the point that of course by evolutionary theory it has none.. and thus no foresight, no planning, only accidents. November 15th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
And you’d be wrong about that, lux. An excellent example is our current effort in evolving anti-biotic resistant strains of bacteria and other uni-cellular organisms. Some people have put resistance off to something like Lamarckism, others to ‘purposeful’ evolution. All that is actually required is that the each species specific population of bacteria etc come with some distribution of random mutations, or random genetic variants, one or more of which may confer some small or great resistance. After exposure to the anti-biotic, only those with resistance survive. The distribution of mutations in each species is in a portion of the genome for the species which is not reflected as a species difference; you’d have to kill and run a DNA sequence each variant to see the difference – it amounts to subspecies differences. If one or more of the variants do NOT confer resistance, then the whole population dies on exposure, assuming a lethal dose of the antibiotic is administered.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:29 amLux your post was ridiculous
First you say
to claim it doesnt need foresight requires a better explanation than random mutation
No it doesnt. There a baseless assertion to answer a baseless assertion
Then you make another in your series of very weak arguments. You would WAGER an eye in the back of the head would be the BEST evolutionary development??? Really. Your evidence for this would be WHAT? You cant think of any problems with that? Then because of something arbitrary you made up in your head DIDNT happen THAT is somehow an argument AGAINST evolution? REALLY? You consider that a REAL argument?
Evolution isnt in any WAY tautological. They HAD a hypothesis. They MADE assumptions and predictions based ON that. For instance that we would find transitionary fossils. We DID. It explained a phenomena. We in NO WAY need to assume evolution true in order to make the argument that evolution makes sense. Is tautology another word you dont understand the meaning of like Random was?
Yes apparantly you do NOT understand circular reasoning. An EXPLANATION that works is NOT circular reasoning BECAUSE IT WORKS. My GOD you have no reasoning ability at ALL on this issue. The PREMISE that an animal with a nice WILL survive like say the crockodile relatively unchanged and it DOES happen or it WONT fit its niche or isnt adaptable enough to changes so it wont survive and it DOESNT is NOT circular reasoning IT IS REASONING. A classic example of circular reasoning was Decarte saying that God is perfect therefore he HAS to exist or that would be an imperfection. See if you dont ACCEPT the first part there is NO REASONING. That isnt true for the bilgewater you tried to pass off above. If you dont ACCEPT that evolution is a situation where some species can live millions of years unchanged because they are adaptable or found a niche and others WONT survive because they arent or dont then the reasoning that some DID and some DIDNT for exactly those reasons are still valid. You are free to come up with OTHER reasons or try. However the entire argument didnt dissapear when you discounted the premise. Try to keep up
November 16th, 2009 at 1:52 amBoth Darwin and the Pope said a creator and evolution are not contradictory in their view—-evolution was the way God did it.
You gotta be 300 lbs. nowadays to just open the doors at Wal-Mart.
November 16th, 2009 at 2:14 amOT –
Can you believe Zogby is racist?
November 16th, 2009 at 2:26 am
The actual truth of the relavistic age we endure, may be perceived in part, by only a few, or more likely, BY NOONE AT ALL! For, the larger issues persist concerning just how precisely the animal kingdom can be mapped onto the human race, and how useful, and safe or unsafe, is human mapping, to non-Euclidean spaces?
November 16th, 2009 at 2:40 am“Both Darwin and the Pope said a creator and evolution are not contradictory in their view—-evolution was the way God did it.”
For some reason small minded people find the idea of a God that can use evolution threatening.
November 16th, 2009 at 2:48 amCD
It works for me as a reasonable explanation. It just isnt something we should teach in science class.
November 16th, 2009 at 2:52 amEugeneDebs,
There really isn’t enough of creationism to teach (and nothing that comes under “science”). If it’s true, there might be in the future 100-200 years from now. BTW-I was just giving examples of those who thought Palin wrong, not necessarily my views.
November 16th, 2009 at 5:03 amFunny how she see’s the hand of God in everything, except the election of Obama? Maybe God wanted him to be president and not McCain.
If so, she shouldn’t be out there questioning the work of God.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:18 amcd says:
“Both Darwin and the Pope said a creator and evolution are not contradictory in their view—-evolution was the way God did it.”
For some reason small minded people find the idea of a God that can use evolution threatening.
Nothing is threatening, it is hypocritical that the church’s view has now EVOLVED into saying, “Yeah, that the ticket, gawd does it thru evolution” Yeah, thats it.
If one wishes to discuss threatening of anything, the spaghetti monster is threatening to gawd, and the fascist-dictatorship known as the pope and the catholic church. Their minimal construct of gawd has now been swayed to consist of evolution. No one ever said evolution is not part of bigger systems. We just say there is no gawd in such systems. You can jump up and down as much as you like, gawd has nothing to do with life.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:50 amVP @440
Virtual Pebble says:
And you’d be wrong about that, lux. An excellent example is our current effort in evolving anti-biotic resistant strains of bacteria and other uni-cellular organisms. Some people have put resistance off to something like Lamarckism, others to ‘purposeful’ evolution. All that is actually required is that the each species specific population of bacteria etc come with some distribution of random mutations, or random genetic variants, one or more of which may confer some small or great resistance. After exposure to the anti-biotic, only those with resistance survive. The distribution of mutations in each species is in a portion of the genome for the species which is not reflected as a species difference; you’d have to kill and run a DNA sequence each variant to see the difference – it amounts to subspecies differences. If one or more of the variants do NOT confer resistance, then the whole population dies on exposure, assuming a lethal dose of the antibiotic is administered.
Here this is even simpler for the mental midgets to comprehend:
A family of single cell critter siblings are out working in the field. Along comes a big storm. Critters #1-4 say “We are going to stay in the field”…they get killed. Critter #5 happens to hide behind a tree, he survives. Guess which one gets to have sex and pass on the gene that allows “hiding behind a tree when a storm comes.”
You idjits are stupid from listening to religion. Religion is quicksand for the mind. The harder you try to struggle from within it, the worse off you are.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:10 amSooooo….
http://whitenoiseinsanity.com/2009/11/16/did-sarah-palin-have-a-miscarriage-or-an-abortion/
Did Sarah Palin have an abortion or a miscarriage so very long ago and why does she mention a “typo” on a doctor’s bill in her new book, Going Rogue?
My, my, my….
November 16th, 2009 at 8:16 amWas there ever any real question as to what her beliefs were regarding evolution?
It’s sort of a no-brainer, if you’ll pardon the pun…
Of course she’s anti-evolution.
She’s the ditzy snow queen who can’t even seem to master basic Geography (the crap about seeing Russia from Alaska, oh wait, I’m sorry, the USSR, as well as not knowing that Africa was a continent, and not a single country), let alone Biology or Geology.
I find it amazing that there is no IQ test to be a public servant.
When you hold that much power and influence, there’s really no reason why an IQ test should be out of the question. It becomes a necessity.
Someone as inept as Palin in power is just plain dangerous.
It’s one thing to hold personal beliefs in supernatural beings and childish fairy tales, but when you try to implement those things into law that others have to obey, who do NOT share your fairy tale beliefs, then there’s a serious problem.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:20 amKayInMaine, technically a miscarriage is an “abortion” and would be proper to include in a medical history.
On a side note, this is particularly important with the new health care bill which will not cover abortions of any type. It’s dangerous language.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:22 ammen will always find women who are a little cute and a little dumb appealing.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:25 amGood for Sarah. I’m glad she came right out and said it – she doesn’t believe in evolution. This is a great development as her impending imploding campaign will allow us to have this debate front and center. It’s time for religion to be taken head on and Sarah will provide the opportunity. And as a side benefit Sarah will help rip the Republican party in two: those who bow to prophets vs. those who bow to profits. Should be fun. Thank you Sarah!
November 16th, 2009 at 8:26 amCorrect you are, but why would the doctor’s office (or Sarah) white out the word “abortion” on the bill? Funny that she had to mention this “typo” in her book, you know, it’s no different than how she usually operates which is to control the message!
Sarah also faked her pregnancy and used another form of “Wite-Out”….a fake pregnancy belly.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:33 amCorrect you are, but why would the doctor’s office (or Sarah) white out the word “abortion” on the bill?
November 16th, 2009 at 8:39 amSarah is very calculating. Can’t trust her!
November 16th, 2009 at 8:40 amOops. Hit submit by mistake.
To answer you question: Because she’s a f**king twit. The fact that teabaggers are such simple minded hicks incapable of grasping logic and reality, she knew that her myopic sheep wouldn’t be able to handle the truth that Silly Sarah had an abortion/miscarriage. That’s my guess….
November 16th, 2009 at 8:41 amDid Ms. Palin turn her life over to her god before or after she decided to resign her governorship and go for the gold by signing a multimillion dollar book deal? Is her god a quitter, a mercenary capitalist, an exploiting opportunist, a control freak who denies her a free will and self-responsibility, or is her god a tool she trots out to hide and deny her ignorance, stupidity, greed, ambition, dishonesty and incompetence?
Is her god the same god that fellow believers Newt Gingrich, David Vitter, John Ensign and Mark Sanford use to explain their adulterous cheating on their wives and families?
Is her god the same god that told George W. Bush to murder hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children and thousands of American soldiers in Iraq?
Is it her god that is telling today’s Republicans that the lives of the 45,000 Americans who die each year because they don’t have health insurance all deserve to die?
Or is her god really Satan in god’s clothing?
November 16th, 2009 at 8:42 amI have no problem believing that Sarah Palin evolved from intellectually challenged hairy apes.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:47 amHairy apes may have evolved from Palin’s ancestors.
Who knows?
November 16th, 2009 at 9:54 amosage says: Or is her god really Satan in god’s clothing?
You want to have some fun with the religious right wing trolls who love Sarah Palin?
Tell them she is the harlot from Revelations who comes from the wilderness, riding a scarlet beast.
Palin = Harlot
Wilderness = Alaska
Scarlet = The Republican party (Red)
Beast = The Anti-Christ and false prophets of the religious right/moral majority who represent the republican party.
Then watch their heads explode.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:55 amevangenital says:
Hairy apes may have evolved from Palin’s ancestors.
Who knows?
After seeing her hair during the interview with Oprah I think Bigfoot evolved from Palin’s ancestors. She looked like she was wearing a dead beaver on her head.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:59 amLOL, seriously I wish Palin would go crawl back under the rock from which she emerged.
RT
November 16th, 2009 at 10:43 amhttp://www.online-privacy.at.tc
@ 462. Divided We Fall says: … After seeing her hair during the interview with Oprah I think Bigfoot evolved from Palin’s ancestors. She looked like she was wearing a dead beaver on her head. November 16th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Now now, let’s not be fashionistas; that wasn’t a beaver on her head, and her claim is that her beaver isn’t dead…
November 16th, 2009 at 10:52 am@ 448. Death Counselor says: … Here this is even simpler for the mental midgets to comprehend: A family of single cell critter siblings are out working in the field. Along comes a big storm. Critters #1-4 say “We are going to stay in the field”…they get killed. Critter #5 happens to hide behind a tree, he survives. Guess which one gets to have sex and pass on the gene that allows “hiding behind a tree when a storm comes.” You idjits are stupid from listening to religion. Religion is quicksand for the mind. The harder you try to struggle from within it, the worse off you are. November 16th, 2009 at 8:10 am
I’d like to agree with you, DC, but I think if evolution was culling “teh stupid” we might have a few less Palins to go around.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:56 amI didn’t think I could have any less respect for Palin, but, whoops, there it goes.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:02 amQuote: “In everything that happens to her, from meeting Todd to her selection by Mr. McCain for the Republican ticket, she sees the hand of God: “My life is in His hands. I encourage readers to do what I did many years ago, invite Him in to take over.””
Translation: I am not responsible for my behavior. It’s all programmed. If you want a true Christian nation, a perfect theocracy, I’m your man, oops, girl. While, the Bible is wrong about a woman submitting to man, it’s right about everything else. ;-) (Palin wink)
November 16th, 2009 at 11:32 am“Creationism: Helping stupid people feel smart since 1987″<
November 16th, 2009 at 12:20 pmSarah Palin = white supremacist.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:37 pmHey Everyone, Sarah’s right, you’ re wrong…Evolution theory is impossible…anyone who believes it is an idiot…proof here – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthpicturegalleries/6255474/A-Child-is-Born-Photographs-of-the-foetus-developing-in-the-womb-by-Lennart-Nilsson.html
November 16th, 2009 at 1:11 pmnoteasily says:
Excuse me for being dense, but how is that ‘proof’ that ‘evolution theory is impossible?’
Thank you.
November 16th, 2009 at 3:03 pmI don’t believe in Sarah Palin. If I say it enough times, will she cease to exist?
November 16th, 2009 at 3:08 pmspearNmagicHelmet says:
men will always find women who are a little cute and a little dumb appealing.
***********
Dumb, definitely.
Cute, definitely not.
She looks exactly like every other sexist-designed barbie doll conservative woman: Tall, thin, generically “cute,” and basically poured into a mold that men consider physically ideal. Physically, she looks little to no different from Michelle Bachmann and Anne Coulter. All three of these female conservative figureheads share the exact same physical traits.
November 16th, 2009 at 5:47 pm“EugeneDebs says:
CD
It works for me as a reasonable explanation. It just isnt something we should teach in science class.”
OoO
I think ED just agreed with me.
I’m not sure it’s the sort of thing that even could be taught.
However I see no reason not to quote Charles Darwin’s stance on religion and evolution or his examples of Templton and Grey as being devoute men that were also supporters of his theory.
For an added bonus one should of course talk about Gregor Mendal when discussing genetics and if one really wants to stun the class inform them that he was a Priest.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:15 pmBob Loblaw says:
——————————————————————————–
“Creationism: Helping stupid people feel smart since 1987?<
November 16th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Should you not give the theory – the Theory of Evolution- its due, or is the theory only valuable for separating the smart people from the Creationists?
So tell TPers, please, what good is the Theory of Evolution?
November 17th, 2009 at 7:26 pmAttention Wayne A. Schneider and LEFT-Wingers!
Darwin’s Evolution of Man is a THEORY (read -myth). Period.
It is a story, nothing more, and has nothing to do with how we came to be here.
When considering how life began, there are only two options.
Either life was created by an intelligent source (God) or it began by natural processes (Evolution).
The common misconception presented in many textbooks and in the media is that life arose from non-life in a pool of chemicals about 3.8 billion years ago. The claim by evolutionists is that this formation of life was the result of time, chance, and natural processes.
Any hypothesis or model meant to explain how all life evolved from lifeless chemicals into a complex cell consisting of vast amounts of information also has to explain the source of information and how this information was encoded into the genome.
All evolutionary explanations are unable to answer this question. Prominent Doctors and Scientists agree that information cannot arise by naturalistic processes:
There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.
Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome. This shows that there are not the millions upon millions of potential mutations the THEORY [evolution] demands.
The sooner you learn to accept that fact, the sooner you can advance to the kingdom of God (in any Century).
November 19th, 2009 at 5:38 pm