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

Re: [SFC] Creationism defeated in Texas

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.