Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [SFC] Creationism defeated in Texas

Expand Messages
  • Allen Smith
    Carolyn, I understand your concern about what is taught and learned in school.  I don t think religious doctrine based on any religion should be taught in
    Message 1 of 14 , Jan 30, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Carolyn, I understand your concern about what is taught and learned in school.  I don't think religious doctrine based on any religion should be taught in school, public school that is.  Parents should make sure their children are well grounded in the gospel and in the principles it teaches, and not rely on someone they don't know, teaching they don't know what to their children.  The more government stays out of the business of teaching religion, the better it is for everyone, believers and non-believers alike.  Best wishes.
       
           Allen Smith

      --- On Thu, 1/29/09, Cathryn Paradise <ladycatexcel@...> wrote:

      From: Cathryn Paradise <ladycatexcel@...>
      Subject: Re: [SFC] Creationism defeated in Texas
      To: sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Thursday, January 29, 2009, 7:51 PM






      Personally, I am saddened by the bigotry of evolutionists. Who are unwilling
      to let the scientific arguments for creation to have a voice. I am a
      scientific creationist and a member of MENSA.

      The subject of origins is the the reason that Europe and Asia laugh at the
      USA. It is because we not longer have the guts to make a stand on anything.
      Even our war in Iraq is a joke since it is an unwinable war because we have
      no clearly defined enemy.

      Our schools have become jungles where rape,violence , drugs and murder are
      the norm. When the Bible was allowed in School, the worse crimes were
      cutting school and talking back to the teacher.

      When you teach someone that they are an animal, they behave like animals.
      When you teach that they are a unique creation of a higher power they have a
      higher sense of self worth.

      Cathryn Paradise

      On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:07 PM, <derhexer@aol. com> wrote:

      > URL to an interesting little article from New Scientist
      > _
      > http://www.newscien tist.com/ article/dn16485- creationism- defeated- in-texas. htm
      > l?DCMP=NLC-nletter& nsref=dn16485_
      > (
      > http://www.newscien tist.com/ article/dn16485- creationism- defeated- in-texas. html?DCMP= NLC-nletter& nsref=dn16485)
      >
      >
      > Maybe we are going to get a little sense inb our nation and stop being the
      > laughingstock in Europe and Asia
      >
      > First few paragraphs
      >
      > "
      > Creationism defeated in Texas
      > * 17:50 26 January 2009 by _Andy Coghlan_
      > (http://www.newscien tist.com/ search?rbauthors =Andy+Coghlan)
      > * For similar stories, visit the _US national issues_
      > (http://www.newscien tist.com/ topic/us- national- issues) and _Evolution_
      > (http://www.newscien tist.com/ topic/evolution) Topic Guides
      >
      >
      >
      > Campaigners against the teaching of creationism in science lessons last
      > week
      > celebrated a key victory in Texas.
      > In meetings to revise science standards in Texan schools, the 15 members of
      >
      > the _Texas State Board of Education_
      > (http://www.tea. state.tx. us/index3. aspx?id=1156) elected to get rid of
      > wording which has allowed the standing of
      > evolution to be attacked for 20 years in Texan science lessons.
      > The offending wording invites teachers and students to debate "strengths
      > and
      > weaknesses" of scientific theories. In practice, this was used as a pretext
      >
      > to attack evolution in lessons and textbooks.
      > "Removing the concept of 'strengths and weaknesses', when the supposed
      > weaknesses are completely bogus, is a real victory," says Michael Zimmerman
      > of
      > _Butler University_ (http://www.butler. edu/) in Indianapolis, Indiana, and
      > a
      > campaigner against creationism.
      > "Its removal is a huge step forward," _said Eugenie Scott_
      > (
      > http://ncseweb. org/news/ 2009/01/weakness es-removed- from-texas- science-standard s-004231)
      > ,
      > executive director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland,
      >
      > California, and a witness at board meetings last week in Austin, Texas.
      > Anti-evolution campaign
      > The clash in Texas is the latest between creationists, orchestrated by the
      > pro-creationism _Discovery Institute_
      > (
      > http://www.newscien tist.com/ article/mg198265 64.000-creationi sts-unveil- god-lab.html)
      > in Seattle, Washington, and
      > mainstream scientists.
      > It follows a much larger test case in 2005 in the town of Dover,
      > Pennsylvania, in which the Discovery Institute argued unsuccessfully for
      > science lessons
      > to include "intelligent design" - the idea that the universe is so complex
      > that it must have been created by an unspecified designer. The trial
      > exposed
      > _intelligent design to be creationism_
      > (
      > http://www.newscien tist.com/ article/mg188252 65.300-darwin- wins-one- fight-as- another-begins. html)
      > by another name.
      > The meetings last week were tense, as the elected board was finely split
      > between creationists and scientists. Zimmerman says that six, including the
      >
      > chairman Don McLeroy, are creationists, and seven are definitely
      > pro-science,
      > leaving two "floaters" holding the balance of each vote.
      > In most cases, science had the edge eight to seven. But the creationists
      > did
      > manage to slip through some late amendments, mainly because of abstentions
      > by
      > members demanding more scientific advice on the matter before deciding.
      > Transitional fossils
      > The most serious amendment, one of five in the standards for teaching Earth
      >
      > in space and time, sought to throw doubt on the validity of the fossil
      > record
      > as solid evidence for evolution.
      > The previous text invited students to: "evaluate a variety of fossil types,
      >
      > transitional fossils, fossil lineages, and significant fossil deposits with
      >
      > regard to their appearance, completeness and rate and diversity of
      > evolution".
      > The altered text, introduced by creationist member Barbara Cargill, slipped
      >
      > the phrase "proposed transitional fossils" into the text, implying
      > unwarranted
      > doubt about whether transitional fossils are genuinely evolutionary staging
      >
      > posts as species changed.
      > "Transitional fossils are not 'proposed'," says geologist Steven
      > Schafersman,
      > president of the campaign group _Texas Citizens for Science_
      > (http://www.texscien ce.org/) . "There is no doubt about their existence,
      > so insertion of the
      > word 'proposed' makes that part unscientific, since it suggests a false
      > uncertainty. "
      > Chris
      >
      > ************ **From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in between,
      > stay
      > up-to-date with the latest news. (http://aol.com? ncid=emlcntaolco m00000023
      > )
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


















      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • derhexer@aol.com
      In a message dated 1/30/2009 11:47:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, ladycatexcel@gmail.com writes: Personally, I am saddened by the bigotry of evolutionists. Who
      Message 2 of 14 , Jan 30, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 1/30/2009 11:47:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
        ladycatexcel@... writes:

        Personally, I am saddened by the bigotry of evolutionists. Who are unwilling
        to let the scientific arguments for creation to have a voice. I am a
        scientific creationist and a member of MENSA.



        I would love to hear the scientific arguments for creation. I'd also love
        to hear how you plan to test these arguments.


        If these arguments can't be tested, can they be science, or just exercises
        in logic and semantics?

        Chris
        **************From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in between, stay
        up-to-date with the latest news. (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000023)


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Cathryn Paradise
        Evolution cannot be tested by the scientific method itself. Here is a link for a good article on the subject: http://ankerberg.org/PDF-Articles/creation.pdf
        Message 3 of 14 , Feb 1, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Evolution cannot be tested by the scientific method itself. Here is a link
          for a good article on the subject:

          http://ankerberg.org/PDF-Articles/creation.pdf

          On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 8:38 PM, <derhexer@...> wrote:

          >
          > In a message dated 1/30/2009 11:47:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
          > ladycatexcel@... <ladycatexcel%40gmail.com> writes:
          >
          > Personally, I am saddened by the bigotry of evolutionists. Who are
          > unwilling
          > to let the scientific arguments for creation to have a voice. I am a
          > scientific creationist and a member of MENSA.
          >
          > I would love to hear the scientific arguments for creation. I'd also love
          > to hear how you plan to test these arguments.
          >
          >
          > If these arguments can't be tested, can they be science, or just exercises
          > in logic and semantics?
          >
          > Chris
          > **************From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in between,
          > stay
          > up-to-date with the latest news. (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000023
          > )
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • membi_99
          ... unwilling ... also love ... exercises ... between, stay ... (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000023) ... Creationists have a voice here in the UK state
          Message 4 of 14 , Feb 2, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, derhexer@... wrote:
            >
            >
            > In a message dated 1/30/2009 11:47:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
            > ladycatexcel@... writes:
            >
            > Personally, I am saddened by the bigotry of evolutionists. Who are
            unwilling
            > to let the scientific arguments for creation to have a voice. I am a
            > scientific creationist and a member of MENSA.
            >
            >
            >
            > I would love to hear the scientific arguments for creation. I'd
            also love
            > to hear how you plan to test these arguments.
            >
            >
            > If these arguments can't be tested, can they be science, or just
            exercises
            > in logic and semantics?
            >
            > Chris
            > **************From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in
            between, stay
            > up-to-date with the latest news.
            (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000023)
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

            Creationists have a voice here in the UK state schools.It's just not
            in the science lessons that they are permitted to disrupt
            teaching.They have infiltrated the Religious Education lessons (which
            in my opinion as an educator) is the correct section of the syllabus
            for the discussion.

            Much as I try to respect theists this atheist is really annoyed with
            creationists for trying to imprint their own viewpoint on others who
            are not theists and whose children are not theist.Religious education
            here in the UK is of the right level in that many faiths and beliefs
            are addressed but I do at times think perhaps the subject should be
            treated in the same way it is in the US..kept out of the school and
            out of the syllabus.

            I see no reason why Creationists can't teach their children about the
            subject outside of school.Many other faiths manage to teach their
            children without leaving it to state schools.The tactics employed in
            Texas smack of indoctrination to me..Something that us British have
            got really sick of across the centuries..

            Here now of course we have the fanatics and certain redtopped media
            trying to fan the flames of religious bigotry.Thankfully the majority
            are refusing to play that game.
            >
          • Allen Smith
            ... a link ... am a ... also love ... exercises ... between, ... ncid=emlcntaolcom00000023 ... Creationism is itself a doctrine that cannot be tested or
            Message 5 of 14 , Feb 2, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, Cathryn Paradise
              <ladycatexcel@...> wrote:
              >
              > Evolution cannot be tested by the scientific method itself. Here is
              a link
              > for a good article on the subject:
              >
              > http://ankerberg.org/PDF-Articles/creation.pdf
              >
              > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 8:38 PM, <derhexer@...> wrote:
              >
              > >
              > > In a message dated 1/30/2009 11:47:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
              > > ladycatexcel@... <ladycatexcel%40gmail.com> writes:
              > >
              > > Personally, I am saddened by the bigotry of evolutionists. Who are
              > > unwilling
              > > to let the scientific arguments for creation to have a voice. I
              am a
              > > scientific creationist and a member of MENSA.
              > >
              > > I would love to hear the scientific arguments for creation. I'd
              also love
              > > to hear how you plan to test these arguments.
              > >
              > >
              > > If these arguments can't be tested, can they be science, or just
              exercises
              > > in logic and semantics?
              > >
              > > Chris
              > > **************From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in
              between,
              > > stay
              > > up-to-date with the latest news. (http://aol.com?
              ncid=emlcntaolcom00000023
              > > )
              > >
              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              Creationism is itself a doctrine that cannot be tested or proven.
              Which doesn't bother me, as I am a person of faith, I don't need the
              proof, nor do I think that the schools need to teach creationism.
              There are churches everywhere that can instruct people in religious
              doctrine. One of the tenets of my church is free will, the ability
              to accept or reject God's word and to accept the consequences of
              one's decision. To mandate the teaching of religion (and, what
              religion?) in public schools is just another way to force people to
              believe what the creationists believe.

              Allen Smith
            • Cathryn Paradise
              Evolution is a doctrine that CANNOT be proven as well. Only by speculative science can it be proven. Schools are allowed to preach against the truth that at
              Message 6 of 14 , Feb 2, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Evolution is a doctrine that CANNOT be proven as well. Only by speculative
                science can it be proven. Schools are allowed to preach against the truth
                that at BEST evolution is a GUESS and not a fact since the facts can be
                interpreted in other ways that prove a young earth. It all depends on the
                personal bias of the person examining the data. If a person wants to see
                evolution as a fact he will find proofs for that view. The same is true of
                creationism. Since there are no eyewitness accounts of evolution at best it
                is speculation, creationism, on the other hand, claims to have a written
                account given by an eyewitness, the Creator Himself. Evolution is every bit
                a religious doctrine as creation. Neither is provable by demonstrable
                science, therefore, both must be taken on FAITH. I choose to adhere to the
                one that gives me value as a human being,that I am not a accident and
                nothing more than an advanced animal with no real purpose in life witch is
                how I felt when I was an evolutionist taught by federal indoctrination
                centers (public schools).

                Cathryn Paradise

                On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 6:47 AM, Allen Smith <metron12001@...> wrote:

                > --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com<sciencefictionclassics%40yahoogroups.com>,
                > Cathryn Paradise
                > <ladycatexcel@...> wrote:
                > >
                > > Evolution cannot be tested by the scientific method itself. Here is
                > a link
                > > for a good article on the subject:
                > >
                > > http://ankerberg.org/PDF-Articles/creation.pdf
                > >
                > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 8:38 PM, <derhexer@...> wrote:
                > >
                > > >
                > > > In a message dated 1/30/2009 11:47:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
                > > > ladycatexcel@... <ladycatexcel%40gmail.com> writes:
                > > >
                > > > Personally, I am saddened by the bigotry of evolutionists. Who are
                > > > unwilling
                > > > to let the scientific arguments for creation to have a voice. I
                > am a
                > > > scientific creationist and a member of MENSA.
                > > >
                > > > I would love to hear the scientific arguments for creation. I'd
                > also love
                > > > to hear how you plan to test these arguments.
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > If these arguments can't be tested, can they be science, or just
                > exercises
                > > > in logic and semantics?
                > > >
                > > > Chris
                > > > **************From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in
                > between,
                > > > stay
                > > > up-to-date with the latest news. (http://aol.com?
                > ncid=emlcntaolcom00000023
                > > > )
                > > >
                > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > >
                > >
                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > >
                > Creationism is itself a doctrine that cannot be tested or proven.
                > Which doesn't bother me, as I am a person of faith, I don't need the
                > proof, nor do I think that the schools need to teach creationism.
                > There are churches everywhere that can instruct people in religious
                > doctrine. One of the tenets of my church is free will, the ability
                > to accept or reject God's word and to accept the consequences of
                > one's decision. To mandate the teaching of religion (and, what
                > religion?) in public schools is just another way to force people to
                > believe what the creationists believe.
                >
                > Allen Smith
                >
                >
                >


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • derhexer@aol.com
                In a message dated 2/2/2009 3:10:17 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, ladycatexcel@gmail.com writes: Evolution cannot be tested by the scientific method itself. Here
                Message 7 of 14 , Feb 2, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 2/2/2009 3:10:17 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
                  ladycatexcel@... writes:

                  Evolution cannot be tested by the scientific method itself. Here is a link
                  for a good article on the subject:

                  _http://ankerberg.org/PDF-Articles/creation.pdf_
                  (http://ankerberg.org/PDF-Articles/creation.pdf)

                  Are you sure about that? ""Thus, for a theory to qualify as a scientific
                  theory, it must be supported by events, processes, or properties which can be
                  observed, and the theory must be useful in predicting the
                  outcome of future natural phenomena or laboratory experiments." The theory
                  is made up of observable events in geology, chemistry, genetics, etc., and it
                  is predictable.

                  The main point of scientific theory is the last 2 words of the quote
                  "laboratory experiments." Experiments are being conducted all the time of the
                  theory.

                  I'm still waiting for someone to say how they will test the theory of
                  creationism. After wading thru the dense, 28 page documents, I didn't see that

                  So, until you can show how creationism can be tested, please don't call it
                  science.

                  Chris
                  **************Stay up to date on the latest news - from sports scores to
                  stocks and so much more. (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000022)


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • derhexer@aol.com
                  In a message dated 2/2/2009 12:40:54 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, ladycatexcel@gmail.com writes: Evolution is a doctrine that CANNOT be proven as well. A
                  Message 8 of 14 , Feb 2, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In a message dated 2/2/2009 12:40:54 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
                    ladycatexcel@... writes:

                    Evolution is a doctrine that CANNOT be proven as well.


                    A scientist would not say a theory is proven, only that it has been tested
                    and passed that test at that time.

                    Chris
                    **************Stay up to date on the latest news - from sports scores to
                    stocks and so much more. (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000022)


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Cathryn Paradise
                    Evolution cannot be tested as well. Cathryn ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    Message 9 of 14 , Feb 3, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Evolution cannot be tested as well.

                      Cathryn

                      On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 5:49 PM, <derhexer@...> wrote:

                      >
                      > In a message dated 2/2/2009 12:40:54 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
                      > ladycatexcel@... <ladycatexcel%40gmail.com> writes:
                      >
                      > Evolution is a doctrine that CANNOT be proven as well.
                      >
                      > A scientist would not say a theory is proven, only that it has been tested
                      > and passed that test at that time.
                      >
                      > Chris
                      > **************Stay up to date on the latest news - from sports scores to
                      > stocks and so much more. (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000022<http://aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000022>
                      > )
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      >
                      >


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • derhexer@aol.com
                      In a message dated 2/3/2009 1:28:53 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, ladycatexcel@gmail.com writes: Evolution cannot be tested as well. Cathryn Wrongo, bongo. We
                      Message 10 of 14 , Feb 3, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        In a message dated 2/3/2009 1:28:53 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
                        ladycatexcel@... writes:

                        Evolution cannot be tested as well.

                        Cathryn



                        Wrongo, bongo.

                        We can look back through the fossil records and see species evolve over
                        time. Unless, of course, you follow the creationist line and discount the fossil
                        record. When we discover a new species of animal, we can expect to find it
                        close to species that resemble it (biogeography). We can also expect to find
                        in it DNA like in any other species for they all come from a common ancestor.
                        We have all read of germs becoming more resistant to antibiotics.
                        Organisms have been observed to adapt themselves to better survive in their
                        environment. Cockroaches have adapted to certain pesticides, and virii mutate to
                        become resistant to vaccines and antibiotics.

                        The test for Evolution is keeping consistent with the Fossil Record, and it
                        does. The consistency is indicated by a trend known as "progressionism." As
                        you dig deeper into fossil beds, fossils tend to get simpler and simpler in
                        form. Also, Evolution doesn't have to take such a long time all the time.
                        Creationists demand hard evidence of macro-Evolution, which is also known as
                        speciation. Macro-Evolution is when a species splits into two species, the old one
                        and the new one. The other type of Evolution, micro-Evolution, is easily
                        observable. Micro-Evolution is any small, adaptive change made by a species that
                        isn't significant enough to create a new species. For example, cockroaches
                        have, over the generations, adapted to certain pesticides and have become more
                        resistant to them. The adaptation to pesticides is an example of a mutation
                        that results in a survival advantage. However, this change in the cockroach is
                        not nearly significant enough to put the cockroach which has adapted into
                        its own species category. If the cockroach grew an extra pair of antennae,
                        enabling it to have a much better sense of its environmental surroundings than
                        its predecessor, this could be enough of a change to qualify as
                        macro-Evolution. Thus, the cockroach with extra antennae would then be classified in its own
                        species.
                        As an aside, even if we can't directly observe macro-Evolution, the two
                        processes are driven by the same mechanism. Even Creationists admit that
                        micro-Evolution occurs. So, they admit that a species will undergo small, adaptive
                        changes.

                        Or, see this article in the NY Times
                        _http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0DEFD61731F93BA25750C0A9659C8B63_
                        (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0DEFD61731F93BA25750C0A9659C8B63) , or this article from ABC
                        _http://abcnews.go.com/technology/dyehard/story?id=666435&page=1_
                        (http://abcnews.go.com/technology/dyehard/story?id=666435&page=1)

                        Chris
                        **************Stay up to date on the latest news - from sports scores to
                        stocks and so much more. (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000022)


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Cathryn Paradise
                        The evidence is interpreted according to the investigator s own bias. Can you give evidence of a *living species *that became a higher species? ...
                        Message 11 of 14 , Feb 5, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          The evidence is interpreted according to the investigator's own bias.

                          Can you give evidence of a *living species *that became a "higher" species?

                          On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 6:36 PM, <derhexer@...> wrote:

                          >
                          > In a message dated 2/3/2009 1:28:53 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
                          > ladycatexcel@... <ladycatexcel%40gmail.com> writes:
                          >
                          > Evolution cannot be tested as well.
                          >
                          > Cathryn
                          >
                          > Wrongo, bongo.
                          >
                          > We can look back through the fossil records and see species evolve over
                          > time. Unless, of course, you follow the creationist line and discount the
                          > fossil
                          > record. When we discover a new species of animal, we can expect to find it
                          > close to species that resemble it (biogeography). We can also expect to
                          > find
                          > in it DNA like in any other species for they all come from a common
                          > ancestor.
                          > We have all read of germs becoming more resistant to antibiotics.
                          > Organisms have been observed to adapt themselves to better survive in their
                          >
                          > environment. Cockroaches have adapted to certain pesticides, and virii
                          > mutate to
                          > become resistant to vaccines and antibiotics.
                          >
                          > The test for Evolution is keeping consistent with the Fossil Record, and it
                          >
                          > does. The consistency is indicated by a trend known as "progressionism." As
                          >
                          > you dig deeper into fossil beds, fossils tend to get simpler and simpler in
                          >
                          > form. Also, Evolution doesn't have to take such a long time all the time.
                          > Creationists demand hard evidence of macro-Evolution, which is also known
                          > as
                          > speciation. Macro-Evolution is when a species splits into two species, the
                          > old one
                          > and the new one. The other type of Evolution, micro-Evolution, is easily
                          > observable. Micro-Evolution is any small, adaptive change made by a species
                          > that
                          > isn't significant enough to create a new species. For example, cockroaches
                          > have, over the generations, adapted to certain pesticides and have become
                          > more
                          > resistant to them. The adaptation to pesticides is an example of a mutation
                          >
                          > that results in a survival advantage. However, this change in the cockroach
                          > is
                          > not nearly significant enough to put the cockroach which has adapted into
                          > its own species category. If the cockroach grew an extra pair of antennae,
                          > enabling it to have a much better sense of its environmental surroundings
                          > than
                          > its predecessor, this could be enough of a change to qualify as
                          > macro-Evolution. Thus, the cockroach with extra antennae would then be
                          > classified in its own
                          > species.
                          > As an aside, even if we can't directly observe macro-Evolution, the two
                          > processes are driven by the same mechanism. Even Creationists admit that
                          > micro-Evolution occurs. So, they admit that a species will undergo small,
                          > adaptive
                          > changes.
                          >
                          > Or, see this article in the NY Times
                          > _
                          > http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0DEFD61731F93BA25750C0A9659C8B63_
                          > (
                          > http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0DEFD61731F93BA25750C0A9659C8B63)
                          > , or this article from ABC
                          > _http://abcnews.go.com/technology/dyehard/story?id=666435&page=1_
                          > (http://abcnews.go.com/technology/dyehard/story?id=666435&page=1)
                          >
                          > Chris
                          > **************Stay up to date on the latest news - from sports scores to
                          > stocks and so much more. (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000022)
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                          >
                          >


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • derhexer@aol.com
                          In a message dated 2/5/2009 6:36:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, ladycatexcel@gmail.com writes: The evidence is interpreted according to the investigator s own
                          Message 12 of 14 , Feb 5, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            In a message dated 2/5/2009 6:36:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
                            ladycatexcel@... writes:

                            The evidence is interpreted according to the investigator's own bias.

                            Can you give evidence of a *living species *that became a "higher" species?



                            OK, here are some articles on the fossil record for evolution of horses
                            _http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html_
                            (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html)
                            _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse_
                            (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse)
                            _http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm_
                            (http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm)

                            And here's some sites for evolution of dogs
                            _http://www.nhm.org/exhibitions/dogs/evolution/evolution.html_
                            (http://www.nhm.org/exhibitions/dogs/evolution/evolution.html)
                            _http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/5/l_015_02.html_
                            (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/5/l_015_02.html)

                            I am not sure what you mean by 'higher"

                            Chris
                            **************Stay up to date on the latest news - from sports scores to
                            stocks and so much more. (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000022)


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.