Missing link for bird evolution discovered

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Having followed Cheese' 'anti-religious' rants for months (maybe years) now, I can certainly say one thing. At least he's interested in debating the points. There is nothing wrong with questioning assumed truths and falsehoods. If one side is going to make a claim (ie, there IS a God) then they're going to have to back that up. If they can't, or don't feel like it, they don't have to... but it does hack away at the credibility of their faith, something I can't see any truly faithful person wanting.

As long as people here are willing to debate the issue with him, then he's not 'shoving' anything down anyone's throats. Its your choice whether or not you want to engage him in this debate, and if you do, then obviously there _is_ a point in discussing the issue with him.

I don't get people who say this debate is 'pointless', if there are people on both sides who are willing to be represented, then its not pointless. Hell, the fact that people even bother to say its pointless is contradictory, given the fact that they're reading and posting in this thread.

There _are_ people who read these threads who are actually influenced by the points made; chances are a lot of these people never post. Threads like this provide a fantastic array of 'options' people can mull over when considering the purpose of life.

Cheese is fighting the good fight, and I don't see any personal disrespect in almost any of his posts, despite what some people apparently see in his actions. He's going for logic and truth, I figure those are good things to be militant about. I find more often than not that he's pushing for facts and proof, and is getting hammered for what in any other field would be extremely reasonable requests.

Wow...thank you very much Agamemnon! I do appreciate those who do read what I write as its meant to be read...and understood.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Skyceman

That's a great cop out for the theory but I can see why proponents take that stance. The fossil record is the biggest problem and yes it can invalidate the whole theory since its foundation is based around it. It's far easier to say "well we just haven't found the thousands of gaps yet". As Francis Crick, discoverer of DNA so eloquently put, "Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts".

May be so but it's an older book now. There's even more material out there today to further dispute the theory.

How is it a cop-out? It could only be considered a cop-out if there was supposed to be one theory that was beyond question. No theory is beyond question, that's the whole point of it! The current theory is supported by the current data and observations. There's many examples of intermediate forms between different taxonomic groups.

I've seen all kinds of material that disputes the theory of evolution, but I haven't seen any that stands up to real scrutiny. If you have some I'd be interested to see it.

Funny you bring up Crick. With that quote are you trying to imply that Crick thought evolution isn't true?

"The age of the earth is now established beyond any reasonable doubt as very great, yet in the United States millions of Fundamentalists still stoutly defend the naive view that it is relatively short, an opinion deduced from reading the Christian Bible too literally. They also usually deny that animals and plants have evolved and changed radically over such long periods, although this is equally well established. This gives one little confidence that what they have to say about the process of natural selection is likely to be unbiased, since their views are predetermined by a slavish adherence to religious dogmas." - Francis Crick

Taking quotes out of context seems to be a common theme on pro-creationism media.

I agree with others, you mention gaping holes but don't say what the alternative theory should be.

[Skyceman]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Well, when you site lack of evidence for not beleiving a certain theory, that would imply you have a theory which is more sound than evolution which you believe in.

Then I suggest you source out the numerous scientists, geologists, biologists, and other related fields whom also disregard Evolution and see what they follow. I'm merely one crack pot who has just read alot on the subject and I suggest others do the same before becoming wedded to Neo-Darwinism.

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Having followed Cheese' 'anti-religious' rants for months (maybe years) now, I can certainly say one thing. At least he's interested in debating the points. There is nothing wrong with questioning assumed truths and falsehoods. If one side is going to make a claim (ie, there IS a God) then they're going to have to back that up. If they can't, or don't feel like it, they don't have to... but it does hack away at the credibility of their faith, something I can't see any truly faithful person wanting.

As long as people here are willing to debate the issue with him, then he's not 'shoving' anything down anyone's throats. Its your choice whether or not you want to engage him in this debate, and if you do, then obviously there _is_ a point in discussing the issue with him.

I don't get people who say this debate is 'pointless', if there are people on both sides who are willing to be represented, then its not pointless. Hell, the fact that people even bother to say its pointless is contradictory, given the fact that they're reading and posting in this thread.

There _are_ people who read these threads who are actually influenced by the points made; chances are a lot of these people never post. Threads like this provide a fantastic array of 'options' people can mull over when considering the purpose of life.

Cheese is fighting the good fight, and I don't see any personal disrespect in almost any of his posts, despite what some people apparently see in his actions. He's going for logic and truth, I figure those are good things to be militant about. I find more often than not that he's pushing for facts and proof, and is getting hammered for what in any other field would be extremely reasonable requests.

I agree with pretty much everything Agamemnon said here. While I don't necessarily agree with everything Cheese says, he does have strong arguments (which seem to be rare these days) and there is nothing wrong with asking for proof (without which the earth would still be flat and the centre of the universe). His postings on the theory and ideology of Humanism are interesting to say the least (I highly recommend reading about humanism if anyone is still unfamiliar). Without hearing both sides of the story equally a true conclusion can never be found.

To be perfectly honest I don't know what "religion" I follow because I'm still trying to figure it all out. I have a feeling that I'll be trying to figure that out the rest of my life.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Skyceman

Then I suggest you source out the numerous scientists, geologists, biologists, and other related fields whom also disregard Evolution and see what they follow. I'm merely one crack pot who has just read alot on the subject and I suggest others do the same before becoming wedded to Neo-Darwinism.

Why don't you let us skip that step and give us a summary of what they/you believe really happened.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Skyceman

Then I suggest you source out the numerous scientists, geologists, biologists, and other related fields whom also disregard Evolution and see what they follow. I'm merely one crack pot who has just read alot on the subject and I suggest others do the same before becoming wedded to Neo-Darwinism.

If you have studied it...or have read a lot about it...then why dont you give us say...6 examples of authors we should read? That way we will understand better whom you are quoting or from where your theories begin.

[Skyceman]

Originally Posted by photon

I've seen all kinds of material that disputes the theory of evolution, but I haven't seen any that stands up to real scrutiny. If you have some I'd be interested to see it.

For starters, explain the gaps in the fossil record - in particular the evolutionary distance between single celled organisms and the vast array of multicellular marine invertabrates. Also the marine invertebrates to the vertebrate fish.

Originally Posted by photon

Taking quotes out of context seems to be a common theme on pro-creationism media. With that quote are you trying to imply that Crick thought evolution isn't true?

I quoted you an article from the Herald that quoted Darwin - I agree out of context and I was not aware of that. But how was the second quote taken out of context? Are you trying to suggest that Crick is a proponent for Evolution with that quote? Because indeed Crick himself does not believe that life could have evolved here on earth and his reasoning is due to the severe complexity of DNA. He is also one of the proponents of "Directed Panspermia" which is a theory that claims we were transported here by a space vehicle.

Originally Posted by photon

I agree with others, you mention gaping holes but don't say what the alternative theory should be.

I didn't realize that was a requirement to exploring problems with a particular theory. Or can't Evolution stand up on its own?

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Skyceman

I didn't realize that was a requirement to exploring problems with a particular theory. Or can't Evolution stand up on its own?

Just like most theories, when they are fairly well established, you should provide an alternative explaination.

Is the thoery of evolution absolutely flawless?

Of course not, but you can find similar holes in the theory of physics - they cannot account for the absolutely everything in the universe, so does that mean it is a completely bogus theory?

That is exactly what you are trying to do to evolution. Point to one area, which is still under exploration and say "haha see it isn't real". Evolution has established itself as it presently stands as being a 500 piece puzzle with a few missing pieces. You can see the picture, but it isn't totally complete yet.

So infact, YES you do need to provide an alternative theory if you really want people to hop on board with you Sky and you should start by telling us what you believe.

I think you are just dodging the question repeatedly because you are a creationist and don't want to look like a tool for calling out a theory because of "lack of evidence", when you yourself are just pressing a double standard. That is my theory on you Sky and why you wont answer the question which has been posed to you. You can start by disproving that theory sir.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Skyceman

For starters, explain the gaps in the fossil record - in particular the evolutionary distance between single celled organisms and the vast array of multicellular marine invertabrates. Also the marine invertebrates to the vertebrate fish.

Alright, something I'll read up on. Though I have to confess biology and such isn't my forte; I'm more into the physics and cosmology side of things. You might want to check this out though:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CC

The concept that gaps are negative assumes that transition will be smooth, which it isn't predicted to be (gaps are expected).

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC201.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC201_1.html

There's a lot more info there too.

I think this had some data regarding transition to vertebrate fish:
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_..._6_99/fob1.htm
Again though my strength isn't biology.

In general though a lack of data in one aspect of the theory doesn't invalidate the theory. If there was NO data or questionable data then yes, but if you have a mountain of data on one had, and a "gap" of data on the other, you question the gap before you question the theory.

It could be no data has been found yet. Or in the case of a fossil record that the data was lost or was never created in the first place. Or the route from point A to point B might be totally different than expected but still within the theory.

Originally Posted by Skyceman

I quoted you an article from the Herald that quoted Darwin - I agree out of context and I was not aware of that. But how was the second quote taken out of context? Are you trying to suggest that Crick is a proponent for Evolution with that quote? Because indeed Crick himself does not believe that life could have evolved here on earth and his reasoning is due to the severe complexity of DNA. He is also one of the proponents of "Directed Panspermia" which is a theory that claims we were transported here by a space vehicle.

In my quote from Crick (which was later than yours I believe) he explicity says he believes in an old earth and he believes in evolution over that timeframe. Crick also wonders about when in evolution organisms developed a "soul", so he believes all life evolved from a common ancestor.

Where I think you are talking about with Crick's quote about DNA is the origin of first life. Crick entertained the notion of directed panspermia but wasn't really a proponent. From Wikipedia:

...the fact that Crick never held a belief in panspermia. Crick explored the hypothesis that it might be possible for life forms to be moved from one planet to another. What "drove" Crick towards speculation about directed panspermia was the difficulty of imagining how a complex system like a cell could arise under pre-biotic conditions from non-living chemical components. After ribozymes were discovered, Crick became much less interested in panspermia because it was then much easier to imagine the pre-biotic origins of life as being made possible by some set of simple self-replicating polymers.

They also mention that after that was resolved, Crick moved away from molecular biology to neuroscience.

Originally Posted by Skyceman

I didn't realize that was a requirement to exploring problems with a particular theory. Or can't Evolution stand up on its own?

Of course it can stand up on its own. Hundreds of thousands of reviewed research papers on PubMed, Library of Congress, trade publications, books.. each one is strictly reviewed, each one a new idea, a new test, a new experiment.. and the theory of evolution has withstood them all.

It's fine to sit back and try and shoot holes in a theory; that's what scientists do all day long; try and disprove it. Poke it, test it, stretch it. If it fails then it isn't completely accurate. But science isn't satisfied with "we don't know". If a theory isn't complete, they are always trying to bring a new and better theory that better describes reality.

Newton gave way to Einstien, who will give way to someone else. But just because Newton was supplanted doesn't mean his stuff gets thrown away; Newtonian physics still apply, just now we understand the limits.

[photon]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

That is exactly what you are trying to do to evolution. Point to one area, which is still under exploration and say "haha see it isn't real". Evolution has established itself as it presently stands as being a 500 piece puzzle with a few missing pieces. You can see the picture, but it isn't totally complete yet.

Nice analogy, that's a good way of putting it.

[Skyceman]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Just like most theories, when they are fairly well established, you should provide an alternative explaination.

Is the thoery of evolution absolutely flawless?

Of course not, but you can find similar holes in the theory of physics - they cannot account for the absolutely everything in the universe, so does that mean it is a completely bogus theory?

That is exactly what you are trying to do to evolution. Point to one area, which is still under exploration and say "haha see it isn't real". Evolution has established itself as it presently stands as being a 500 piece puzzle with a few missing pieces. You can see the picture, but it isn't totally complete yet.

So infact, YES you do need to provide an alternative theory if you really want people to hop on board with you Sky and you should start by telling us what you believe.

I think you are just dodging the question repeatedly because you are a creationist and don't want to look like a tool for calling out a theory because of "lack of evidence", when you yourself are just pressing a double standard. That is my theory on you Sky and why you wont answer the question which has been posed to you. You can start by disproving that theory sir.

Alright I'll stop playing games and level with you, Caramon. I am not a true Creationist - I would say close. I do share in some of their beliefs but I have my doubts. I'm also not a blind follower. I'm just a guy who thinks differently than some people. I stand by what I said and that science cannot nor never will be able to explain life.

Back to your points though, by your thinking, what do you call the theory of gravity? No one would ever question you on that theory because we can see it - we can prove it. Many accept the theory of Evolution as though it were the same way. Yet I can't go out and test it nor see it happen. It's a speculation based on a few supposed fossil links that should actually have a few hundred thousand transitional fossils to complete the puzzle. Another problem with alot of that speculation is that many can start a hypothesis, with an atheistic philosophy or a Creationist one, and get different answers. Is Creation the answer? Is intelligent design? They are not perfect either. But you have to admit that any theory is still asking for a great degree of faith. If Evolution, as you said, is a picture we can almost see - than who started making it?

Also, I'd like to appologize to some of the other posters here for not replying to your posts. I'm not trying to make excuse - I just have so little time with a week old newborn son in the house. I will try to reply to you when I can.

[photon]

Actually you can test evolution and see it in action. When you test a theory, you find predictions the theory makes and then find evidence for or against those predictions. This has been done with past and current predictions with evolution. Evolution in a species has been observed in the span of years. New species evolution has been observed in both the lab and in the wild. Predictions about the fossil record, anatomy, genetics, geographic distribution, and more have all been made and then verified many times over.

The question then becomes, as you say, who started the picture.

That is a good question, and as you say unless we go back and time we may not ever be sure. Even if we can reproduce 100% circumstances where non-life components give rise to exactly the precursors to our life, that's not proof. Just because I can demonstrate how I can do a trick that it looks like I'm bending a spoon with my mind doesn't prove you aren't bending it with your mind. However given all the information and knowledge of science, which is the most likely?

The cosmos is 14+ billion years old. The earth IS old. Evolution did and does take place. These are facts. The theory of evolution tries to explain the fact of evolution (that species have changed over time).

This doesn't preclude God's existence , or even the belief that God was the author of it all.

Consider this.. when a ball drops to the ground even the most ardent creationist doesn't say God moved it from their hand to the floor. They say God created the laws of the universe, including gravity. Evolution could be seen in the same light; God created the laws of nature that the theory of evolution describes. God created the watch and wound it so to speak.

Where it does conflict though is with young earth proponents and many Intelligent Design proponents... neither are based on anything resembling real science.

As an aside, Even gravity does still get questioned (and rightly so, there are observations which seem to defy current understanding of gravity).

And I totally understand about time and having a newborn. Work hard at getting them into a good sleep schedule, that's my only advice. It'll pay off more than anything else.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Skyceman

I stand by what I said and that science cannot nor never will be able to explain life.

Fine and dandy. As I said earlier, how life arose and why life arose are different kinds of questions. The theory of evolution, which is really not one theory but many, is only concerned with how. Many evolutionary biologists are themselves religious. I personally don't believe that science can explain every aspect of life--but as a limited kind of knowledge, the scientific method is an excellent path to understanding, as long as you ask the right questions. Science can't address questions like "does God exist?" or "why are we here?" And you know what? Scientists generally don't try--for the most part, they understand that their methods provide them with only one kind of knowledge. I should know--I'm married to one.

Originally Posted by Skyceman

Back to your points though, by your thinking, what do you call the theory of gravity? No one would ever question you on that theory because we can see it - we can prove it. Many accept the theory of Evolution as though it were the same way. Yet I can't go out and test it nor see it happen. It's a speculation based on a few supposed fossil links that should actually have a few hundred thousand transitional fossils to complete the puzzle.

I'll try to address your points one by one--I'm not myself a scientist, but I have 3 family members in the sciences, one of whom is an evolutionary and developmental biologist. Your comparison to Gravity is somewhat flawed--because gravity is the kind of phenomenon for which much more immediate empirical evidence is available. And yet, it's a telling comparison, because in a sense, you've described exactly the origins of evolutionary theory. Darwin didn't go out and try to debunk creationism. He attempted to explain the data that were available, and he and a few others before him discovered that the models that were currently in use were deeply flawed. This was in part because those models were informed by religious doctrine--and just as science shouldn't try to answer religion's questions, religion shouldn't try to answer science's questions.

As for the fossils--the incompleteness of the fossil record is a predicted result. To pretend that "incompleteness" debunks the fossil record is to assume that every organism that dies leaves a fossil--in fact, only a tiny fraction do--because fossilization is a process that requires very specific conditions. This also means that fossilization only takes place in certain geographic regions. It would be more surprising if the fossil record WEREN'T incomplete.

But more importantly, I think you're asking the wrong question about the fossil record. The question isn't "what do the gaps mean?" The question is "what's the best way to explain what's there?" Creationists frequently cite the gaps as evidence against evolution, but seldom attempt to explain the fact that a fossil record exists at all. So far, evolution is the only model that can explain the available data. Unless new data becomes available, it's the best theory.

Originally Posted by Skyceman

Another problem with alot of that speculation is that many can start a hypothesis, with an atheistic philosophy or a Creationist one, and get different answers.

Here's where I object a little to your characterization of science. Science proceeds in a manner that is exactly opposite to the one you describe. Hypotheses are only valuable if they can be tested, and if they are falsifiable. Evolution is falsifiable: if it's not true, there will be no fossil record, little morphological similarity between different species, and different species will have no DNA in common. Those are pretty broad strokes, but you get the idea. Science is based on the use of empirical data to prove or disprove a hypothesis--not to "start a hypothesis with a philosophy." In a way, this is exactly what's wrong with Intelligent Design. It takes as its premise that the earth was created by a divine being, and then chooses data which support that belief, however speciously.

Sorry for the novel. And congrats on the new baby!

[evman150]

Originally Posted by photon

As an aside, Even gravity does still get questioned (and rightly so, there are observations which seem to defy current understanding of gravity).

First, I'd like to thank Cheese for his eloquent and skilled debating. You think what I think and can expound it free of the emotion that is an infuriating veil shrouding my sense of reason.

As for the quoted post, I'd like to know what these observations are. Do they defy Newtonian gravity? General Relativity? Maybe something that can be explained if gravity is quantized? Or with M-Theory? Linky-poo please. I'm interested in this kind of stuff.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Skyceman

For starters, explain the gaps in the fossil record - in particular the evolutionary distance between single celled organisms and the vast array of multicellular marine invertabrates. Also the marine invertebrates to the vertebrate fish.



I quoted you an article from the Herald that quoted Darwin - I agree out of context and I was not aware of that. But how was the second quote taken out of context? Are you trying to suggest that Crick is a proponent for Evolution with that quote? Because indeed Crick himself does not believe that life could have evolved here on earth and his reasoning is due to the severe complexity of DNA. He is also one of the proponents of "Directed Panspermia" which is a theory that claims we were transported here by a space vehicle.



I didn't realize that was a requirement to exploring problems with a particular theory. Or can't Evolution stand up on its own?

Heres a great article below written by a Humanist where he discusses how Creationists bend ideas to suit their theories...without fact.
After his discussion on Noahs Ark he goes into greater detail on fossils etc. far better than I could.

Despite the fact that the purpose of Noah's flood was to destroy all life on earth, aside from the token delegations taken onto the ark, the Lord God of Sabaoth had to keep lots of living things held at the ready so he could use them to form particular deposits. For example, at least once per day he had to form algal reefs as much as six feet thick, in which live algae were caused to secrete layers of carbonate having the appearance of annual growth rings. Although he probably had less than a minute to do it, the Little Old Rock-Maker managed to form algal reefs looking for all the world as though they had taken at least 350 years to grow!

Periodically, insect larvae by the billions had to be trotted out to cast their exoskeletons in crowded layers between the varves. At other times, the deity took just the eyes and wing-scales of insects and made rock layers from them. Sometimes, for variety, he made layers out of the scales of ganoid fishes instead of the scales of insects. (Most of the organic layers, of course, are made up of the spores of algae and fungi and the amorphous remains of other vegetation.) Occasionally, he drowned a camel or sank a crocodile, and laid it out upon the varved clays. Just where these animals had been treading water during the preceding ten months of the flood is not revealed in Genesis, although the prophets at ICR could get a special revelation on the subject at any time.

Rock of Ages

Rock of Ages, cleft for me, Let me hide myself in Thee;
Let the water and the blood,
From Thy wounded side which flowed,
Be of sin the double cure,
Save from wrath and make me pure.

- Augustus M. Toplady

Christians desire that their children shall be taught all the sciences, but they do not want them to lose sight of the Rock of Ages while they study the age of rocks...

William Jennings Bryan,

Speech prepared for the
Scopes Trial (1925)

[photon]

Originally Posted by evman150

As for the quoted post, I'd like to know what these observations are. Do they defy Newtonian gravity? General Relativity? Maybe something that can be explained if gravity is quantized? Or with M-Theory? Linky-poo please. I'm interested in this kind of stuff.

Heh, you should know more than me!

I was thinking mostly of the Pioneer probes and the fact that they are slowing down for an unknown reason.

I remember reading an article a few years ago about a proposed "MOdified Newtonian Dynamics" where rather than using dark matter to explain the missing matter in the universe, the gravitational effects of mass supposedly change when the mass is accelerating very slowly, eliminating the need for dark matter. The article is subscription only now in Scientific American, but do a search for MOND and M. Milgrom (though I'm sure you've heard of this stuff).

Or maybe dark matter has an effect across smaller scales than once thought. Or maybe gravity has an increased effect over large distances?

Plus other stuff.. gravity waves are predicted but have yet to be observed (because of the great lack of our instruments so far no doubt).

And as you say, M-Theory which will hopefully resolve gravity with the other forces.

I wasn't thinking of anything wacky

[Skyceman]

Originally Posted by Cheese

If you have studied it...or have read a lot about it...then why dont you give us say...6 examples of authors we should read? That way we will understand better whom you are quoting or from where your theories begin.

Here's one for you Cheese:

Dr. Antony Flew, Octogenarian philosopher, teacher and eminent, world-renown atheist, and I mean no offense by it.

Here he is quoted after changing from a staunch atheist into a deist:

“This is the creature, the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”

According to Richard Carrier (2005), who has become sort of an unofficial mouthpiece for Professor Flew, Professor Flew now admits that he has been “mistaught” by Mr. Schroeder and also, astonishingly, blames Richard Dawkins for his own misunderstanding of abiogenesis, or the development of life from nonliving matter.

There was also this clip of a recent article:

Many scientists are breaking from Darwinian orthodoxy. The Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank, issued “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism” several years ago featuring this statement: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” Four hundred scientists now have expressed support for this statement, including Dr. Stanley Salthe, Visiting Scientist in Biological Sciences at Binghamton University and Associate Researcher for the Center for the Philosophy of Nature and Science Studies of the University of Copenhagen. Dr. Salthe had specialized in Darwinian evolutionary theory and now criticizes its reductionism, which essentially claims that all changes derive from the effects of competition.

Four hundred scientists all exposed to creation propaganda? Why would they all stand by such a statement?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Skyceman

Here's one for you Cheese:

Dr. Antony Flew, Octogenarian philosopher, teacher and eminent, world-renown atheist, and I mean no offense by it.

Here he is quoted after changing from a staunch atheist into a deist:

“This is the creature, the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”

According to Richard Carrier (2005), who has become sort of an unofficial mouthpiece for Professor Flew, Professor Flew now admits that he has been “mistaught” by Mr. Schroeder and also, astonishingly, blames Richard Dawkins for his own misunderstanding of abiogenesis, or the development of life from nonliving matter.

I had to look this Flew fellow up on the interweb and from the little bit I learned about him he may be a "deist" but he's no Christian and he doesn't believe in creationism in the way it's commonly portrayed.

His "unofficial spokesman" Mr. Carrier wrote this about him in 2005:

The fact of the matter is: Flew hasn't really decided what to believe. He affirms that he is not a Christian--he is still quite certain that the Gods of Christianity or Islam do not exist, that there is no revealed religion, and definitely no afterlife of any kind (he stands by everything he argued in his 2001 book Merely Mortal: Can You Survive Your Own Death?).

I don't know if I'd be using that guy as an authority to back your point.

Originally Posted by Skyceman

There was also this clip of a recent article:

Many scientists are breaking from Darwinian orthodoxy. The Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank, issued “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism” several years ago featuring this statement: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” Four hundred scientists now have expressed support for this statement, including Dr. Stanley Salthe, Visiting Scientist in Biological Sciences at Binghamton University and Associate Researcher for the Center for the Philosophy of Nature and Science Studies of the University of Copenhagen. Dr. Salthe had specialized in Darwinian evolutionary theory and now criticizes its reductionism, which essentially claims that all changes derive from the effects of competition.

Four hundred scientists all exposed to creation propaganda? Why would they all stand by such a statement?

Stand by what statement? That careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged? I don't know if anyone would dispute that.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Skyceman

Four hundred scientists all exposed to creation propaganda? Why would they all stand by such a statement?

It's generally wise to be skeptical of "think tanks." There's a reason these people aren't inside of the walls of the academy--and it's generally that they have some kind of axe to grind.

But let's look at the arguments here one by one:
1. There are gaps in the fossil record.
2. Abiogenesis seems unlikely. (though evidence of it is all around us--we know that there is life on earth now, and we know that there wasn't always. Isn't that just as compelling as the "evidence" of gravity? I sure think it is.)
3. There's something out there Science can't explain.

What each of these arguments has in common is that they're all arguments of negation. Why spend the energy negating a theory, if it's, as you claim, "full of holes"? Wouldn't it be better to come up with your own theory and use it to explain the available data?

Think about it: these "scientists" have already accepted the basic premise that the Theory of Evolution should be tested against the data. That means the onus is on them to provide a credible alternate theory. All they've produced, according to the links you've posted, is hand-wringing and weak attempts at debunking. Where's their pro-active theory? Where do they think life came from? How are they planning to TEST their theory?

Those are important questions to ask--I think the answers will tell us a lot.

[Skyceman]

Originally Posted by photon

Actually you can test evolution and see it in action. When you test a theory, you find predictions the theory makes and then find evidence for or against those predictions. This has been done with past and current predictions with evolution. Evolution in a species has been observed in the span of years. New species evolution has been observed in both the lab and in the wild. Predictions about the fossil record, anatomy, genetics, geographic distribution, and more have all been made and then verified many times over.

I think many people confuse evolution with adaptation though. They are two completely different things.

If a person exercises, the heart rate will increase and this is called a response. If a person trains for weeks with that exact exercise, then the heart rate will be lower than the initial response. That lowered heart rate for the same exercise might be called, adaptation. If such a modified response is instigated by an environment, then it may be called acclimation. If in response to a change in climate, then it may be called acclimatization. Calling any of these evolution misleads us because the immediate response is an attribute of the current physiological configuration from the DNA. From a store of arousal genetic reserves in the DNA, that configuration dynamically masters new requirements and stays current.Those reserves will synthesize the appropriate new proteins whether the stimulus comes from within, like the exercise, or from outside like the climate, or something else in the environment. By appropriating the four responses, evolutionists not only mislead us but they also complicate what is in reality quite simple. The design takes care of everything.

Originally Posted by photon

The question then becomes, as you say, who started the picture.

That is a good question, and as you say unless we go back and time we may not ever be sure. Even if we can reproduce 100% circumstances where non-life components give rise to exactly the precursors to our life, that's not proof. Just because I can demonstrate how I can do a trick that it looks like I'm bending a spoon with my mind doesn't prove you aren't bending it with your mind. However given all the information and knowledge of science, which is the most likely?

Exactly my point. So what started it all? Truly there is no answer to this question. It will always remain a mystery to science.

Originally Posted by photon

The cosmos is 14+ billion years old. The earth IS old. Evolution did and does take place. These are facts. The theory of evolution tries to explain the fact of evolution (that species have changed over time).

How do you explain gradual evolution if species depend on being optimal for survival? How could a species that depends on being optimal survive to adapt?

How does the second law of thermodynamics work with evolution? Things break down - they do not get better over time.

Originally Posted by photon

This doesn't preclude God's existence , or even the belief that God was the author of it all.

Consider this.. when a ball drops to the ground even the most ardent creationist doesn't say God moved it from their hand to the floor. They say God created the laws of the universe, including gravity. Evolution could be seen in the same light; God created the laws of nature that the theory of evolution describes. God created the watch and wound it so to speak.

I fully agree with that, Photon.

Originally Posted by photon

Where it does conflict though is with young earth proponents and many Intelligent Design proponents... neither are based on anything resembling real science.

I think they traverse with some science and faith together. I wouldn't write if off completely as not real science. There are many things in the scientific world that dumbfound science. Where the raw scientist is silent, a creationist follows holes up with faith and I don't see the crime in that. An outsider who has no spirituality will balk at their credibility and call them a nutcase but they do not understand where they come from.

I'd just like to add that not all Creationists or Evolutionists should be lumped up as one "type". Many are hateful individuals that bash one side all too hard and drum up "information" that is lacking honest clear data or research to give their side a false victory. I've seen and read them from both sides. There are many great evolutionists and creationists that I hold in high respect and trust what they are telling me. To me, the biggest danger is to turn off one's openness in understanding both sides. To often we hold onto a prejudice and pre-judge what a source maybe be trying to say. Anyway's my point is I do read and try and understand the links and sources you post and I hope you all do the same to keep an open mind.

Originally Posted by photon

And I totally understand about time and having a newborn. Work hard at getting them into a good sleep schedule, that's my only advice. It'll pay off more than anything else.

Thanks Photon - I appreciate that. While I'm here, would you mind if I ask how exactly you do that? My son seems to feed every 2 hours. How do you get him on a schedule when he needs to eat so frequently?