[nathanm]

Thanks for the links Anton!

I can see your point, Nathanm. You think all creation scientists have some hidden agenda.

Umm, no I don't recall saying that.  Besides, their agenda is far from "hidden"; heck, they've got it plastered right at the top of the page! "Upholding The Authority Of The Bible From The Very First Verse" or "A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry" - it's clear these are not seekers of 100% objective proof, at the root these are people who have accepted a foregone conclusion and are operating within the confines of their faith.  At least there's only 50 of these guys...

Now try to follow my logic.

Sorry, but as an atheist I can't follow something that doesn't exist! (JOKE)

Some people did not like the idea of any supreme being above them, stipulating some laws they had to follow. They did not like to follow biblical moral rules. They wanted to do what they wanted to. But as they were quite educated, they felt to be able to justify their desires / deeds. So, dispite all the evidence, they've come up with evolution theory. Now one can do whatever he wants to, the end is...

Despite what evidence?  The Genesis chapter in the bible? (With that kind of logic the Harry Potter books are evidence of wizards, witches and trolls! Ha!) You're suggesting evolutionary theory was invented solely for the desire to rebel against religion?  That Darwin had some vendetta against god?

Despite whatever personal delusions one may harbor, morals and ethics were not handed down by a supernatural being, they developed within mankind.  Scientific theories are not created as a childish act of rebellion against religious dogmas, they are made by observing and desiring to understand the natural world.  If anything other religions are made to counter unfavorable moral codes, not scientific theories.

The effort to reconcile science and religion is almost always made, not by theologians, but by scientists unable to shake off altogether the piety absorbed with their mothers' milk. The theologians, with no such dualism addling their wits, are smart enough to see that the two things are implacably and eternally antagonistic, and that any attempt to thrust them into one bag is bound to result in one swallowing the other. The scientists who undertake this miscegenation always end by succumbing to religion; after a Millikan has been discoursing five minutes it becomes apparent that he is speaking in the character of a Christian Sunday-school scholar, not of a scientist. The essence of science is that it is always willing to abandon a given idea, however fundamental it may seem to be, for a better one; the essence of theology is that it holds its truths to be eternal and immutable. To be sure, theology is always yielding a little to the progress of knowledge, and only a Holy Roller in the mountains of Tennessee would dare to preach today what the popes preached in the Thirteenth Century, but this yielding is always done grudgingly, and thus lingers a good while behind the event. So far as I am aware even the most liberal theologian of today still gags at scientific concepts that were already commonplaces in my schooldays.

Thus such a thing as a truly enlightened Christian is hard to imagine. Either he is enlightened or he is Christian, and the louder he protests that he is for former the more apparent it becomes that he is really the latter. A Catholic priest who devotes himself to seismology or some other such safe science may become a competent technician and hence a useful man, but it is ridiculous to call him a scientist so long as he still believes in the virgin birth, the atonement or transubstantiation. It is, to be sure, possible to imagine any of these dogmas being true, but only at the cost of heaving all science overboard as rubbish. The priest's reasons for believing in them is not only not scientific; it is violently anti-scientific.

...it seems they were already hard at work cranking out pantheon after pantheon of deities.

Absolutely.  And there will be more once the Christian, Islamic and other gods have worn out their useful life and are discarded by Man.  But of course, even though gods and their religions come and go, the important thing is this: THEY'RE ALL TRUE!  Hooray!

[rosconey]

well one good thing about religion is it is use for the creation of wars, this in turn has help in the evolution of man.
 clubs became obsolite when a man developed the bow, then came the gun and cannon, wich in turn helped the development of metals and started the industrial revolution. war has help economies and nations and help to thin populations .

religion is a convieniant excuse to start a war-or keep a war going.
its like silly putty it has a million uses but none worth a dam

[Anton K.]

Despite what evidence?

Reread my first 4 posts. There is a lot of evidence against evolution.
Take fossil record you reffer to so often. There are no transitional forms!
Tyson did a nice job and quoted in his post of Jan 30 what the evolutionists have for their defence. Yes, they can present 2-3 species which, if one wants it, can be called  transitional forms between fish and amphibians. Yet there has to be at least THOUSANDS of transitional forms to prove something.
Perhaps you may be interested what scientists have to say about fossil record? It is noteworthy, that since Darwin days, evolutionists' take on fossil record has changed. The facts did not support Darwin's predictions, so evoutionists had to adopt their views. Please pay attention what the evolutionists themselves now say about fossil record:

[Copied text deleted -- borg]

Do you want to know how well fossil record fits to creation? Just ask me if you'd like to get some links.

Anton

[nathanm]

That's all well and fine, however you suggested that evolution was "invented" simply to counter religiously-handed down moral codes which these evolutionists used simply because they 'wanted to do whatever they wanted'.  That's the idea I am saying is absurd, I am not the least bit concerned about this inter-scientist debate muckity muck.  It's not as if Darwin said, [sarcasm]"Damn, going to church sure suuuuxxx...boy I think I will make up a story about how the bible is wrong, then maybe I can Do Whatever I Want!"[/sarcasm]  Doesn't that seem a bit improbable?

It's one thing to challenge and debate evolutionary theories, it is quite another to suggest that they are flawed solely because there exists a divine creator responsible for creating it all in six days, and who watches over us and demands worship.  That is a faith-based religious issue, not a scientific one.  People with faith in a monotheistic religion do not need to justify their beliefs wih science, it only makes them look foolish IMHO.  Better to sing out "Jesus loves me this I know\cause the Bible tells me so!" That's all I'm saying.

Cheers, Anton.

Indeed Roseconey, war is great for that - we always get exciting new ways to slaughter each other.  Heck, I bet people in the future will be honored to get killed with the exciting new weapons they are developing today!  Well, at least the piece where the brain is.

[Eric]

Actually, none of the current theories of origins including evolution can be proved scientifically. To prove something scientifically you must be able to recreate it in a controlled environment. None of the current theories pass the test in this regard.

[Tyson]

Well, maybe someone could explain why the further you go back in time, the simpler organisms get.  Only as you get closer and closer to the present do more complex life forms emerge.  

And it should be observed here that there is a BIG controversy/debate in the scientific community about HOW evolution occurs (gradually over time, or as relative periods of stability followed by relatively rapid changes).  There is NO debate about whether evolution did occur, just HOW.  Anyone who says otherwise really cannot be taken seriously.

Of course you can trot out your "creation scientists", but they have an obvious (and stated) agenda, which by itself evicts them from the realm of science, since science is the pursuit of truth, not the pursuit of an agenda.

I know my attemts at perspective and rationality are futile, but I can't help myself. . .

[Tyson]

It should also be noted that Darwinism is not the same as evolutionary theory.  Evolutionary theory has evolved "from" Darwinism.

And Anton K's last post is pointing to the fact that the fossil record is only one part of the total, preponderance of evidence FOR evolution.  When vast, overwhelming amounts of evidnce all point to evolution having occured, you REALLY have to wonder about those people who state, in effect "This goes against my religious beliefs, so I am going to discount it on those grounds."

You tell me, is that rational?  But as I said before, faith and rationality are incompatable and the more that people try to prove that faith is rational, the more it is obvious that it is not.

[Tbadder1]

We literally have thousands of pieces of evidence of transitional figures.  First off, mutation is a form of transition.  That some people are now born without appendixes, and that that numbner is growing as a precentage is proof that species evolve.  That we don't have proof of transitions from one species to another is, in effect, its own proof because as soon as one thing becomes another it is in fact the other not the former.  Whoever said that evolution has to be gradual, no, it happens in fits and starts, and is often dramatic in it's changes.  It is often in response to catacylsmic changes, ie. dinosaurs to birds.  We have lots of proof.  What we have no proof of is that some guy decided-- POOF! the universe appeared.

[Rob Babcock]

One thing really bugs me about this argument:  so what if evolution isn't the truth?  Why would that automatically mean that Creationism is correct?  Even if you aren't convinced by the reams of evidence for Evolution/Punctuated Equalibriam, aren't there many other possible explanations for the universe that don't require divine creation?

This is just like those morons that think UFO's built the pyramids.  It annoy me that just because we can't figure something out we just assume that it can't be figured out.  And it's dismissive of ancient people and shows our arrogance.

[nathanm]

UFOs did not build the pyramids, everbody knows it was the aliens inside who did it.  Get your facts straight people!  Okay, so one time they did hoist a large block up from a quarry with one of the UFOs, but it was clearly designed for space travel and not heavy lifting under the stresses of earth's gravity.  Several Grays were killed when the block fell.  Not good!  The UFOs were mainly used as worker transports, nothing more.

Besides at the time they weren't even UFOs they were IFOs.

[Eric]

There is NO debate about whether evolution did occur, just HOW.  Anyone who says otherwise really can ...

This is really an opinion and not a statement of fact. There has never been any verifiable example of species to species mutation. To say that some one who disagrees with a theory can't be taken seriously is actually an example of what you are claiming creationists do, namely having pre-conceived notions of what the truth is.

Thre are scientists other than creeationists who are questioning some of the basic tenants of evolution.

[Eric]

Sorry, check below

[Eric]

One thing really bugs me about this argument:  so what if evolution isn't the truth?  Why would that automatically mean that Creationism is correct?  Even if you aren't convinced by the reams of evidence for Evolution/Punctuated Equalibriam, aren't there many other possible explanations for the universe that don't require divine creation?

.

The opposite is also truye. Just because creationism is deemd false, does not prove evolutionary theory

[Eric]

We literally have thousands of pieces of evidence of transitional figures.  ...

I would be interested to see your evidence

[Eric]

Well, maybe someone could explain why the further you go back in time, the simpler organisms get. ...

What is your basis for this statement?

[Eric]

Tyson wrote

Of course you can trot out your "creation scientists", but they have an obvious (and stated) agenda, which by itself evicts them from the realm of science, since science is the pursuit of truth, not the pursuit of an agenda.

Are you serious? Do you really believe scientists have no agenda?

I couldn't get the actual quote button to include this part of your statement

[Eric]

This is just like those morons that think UFO's built the pyramids.  It annoy me that just because we can't figure something out we just assume that it can't be figured out.  And it's dismissive of ancient people and shows our arrogance.

This is really not arguing fairly. To use an example then lable them as morons is not proving anything. It seems like it is just an attempt to bias the argument in your favor without any fact being established

[Tyson]

Well, maybe someone could explain why the further you go back in time, the simpler organisms get. ...

What is your basis for this statement?

Oh. my. god.  I refuse to have discourse with someone that does not have even a rudimentary grasp of the facts of the subject at hand.  

Tell you what, do a little reading on the subject - by that I mean read some mainstream science texts (not that creationist propaganda), and come back when you have.  We'll talk then.

Seriously, if you are ignorant of these extremely well known and common facts, then there is nothing I can say to you.  It's like someone saying they had never heard of a place called "China" and then insisting that you "prove" that China actually exists.   If such a person refuses to accept any/all the facts about China's existence, it should be obvious that NOTHING I COULD EVER SAY TO THEM WOULD CONVINCE THEM.

Yet another example of the irrationality of people that hold these beliefs.

Can't say that I'm suprised.  The foundations of Science and the foundations of religion are truly incompatable, and we are just seeing examples of that writ large here.

[Tyson]

And my "oh my god" reference was intended to be ironic (a joke), so don't anyone get their panties in a wad over that.

[nathanm]

I agree with Eric.  Rob, that was rude and uncalled for.  The correct term is in fact, "idiots".  

Semantically speaking, Eric is right considering the rather innocuous definition of agenda  but I think a better word would be mission.  The creationists have a mission to prop up their belief in the words of Genesis with allegedly scientific means whereas the scientists have an agenda to figure out what has happened\happening in the observable world.  If evolution was researched with the sole goal of disproving the existence of the Christian god this argument might hold water, but considering that isn't the case what you've got there is a funnel!

Tyson, you must remember that Creationists don't have a sense of humor.  So it's not polite to confuse them with such phrases!