They've been agreeing for years.

Wonder if any American creationists will change their stance.

Most probably won't publicly. I'm sure many truly religious creationists in America do, but they aren't the vocal ones. The men and women of faith that I know that are educated and confident in their beliefs are very open minded and accepting of different ideas. They tend to try to find ways to bridge misunderstanding. Unfortunately the most vocal of the religious wing tend to be the devisive ones.

Not to try and out-nerd anyone, but I don't think Darwin actually suggested that we evolved from apes. As memory serves, he only observed the similarities, and other people attributed the idea to him as a point of mocking protest. Also, I think most scientists agree that we and the apes evolved from a common ancestor divergently. Ok, enough outta me.

They've become very adept at ignoring evidence and cold hard facts over the last few years, so I have no doubt that they'll be able to gloss over this without too much of a problem.

Cynical?

Me?

Yeah, the common ancestor part is their problem.
The fact that we began on the same "branch" really flies in the face of the "special" human/God connection that is prized by some religious folks that accept a partial "belief" in evolution.

Saw a program last evening that while investigating a human eye disorder scientists discoved a gene that is common to all eyes.
They found that every eye, in every living thing, in every single animal, human, fish and insect share this gene. You would think evolutionary evidence of this sort, which is becomming more and more common, would change some resistance to the facts.

It won't.

/Goes to join Pocksucket in the cynic's corner.

Just for the record...it ain't just us who are ignoring the evidence. We ain't all uneducated (in fact I have a few friends who are PhD's and others who are bona-finde geniuses). And we ain't the only ones who have closed minds...have you ever considered that creationism might be right?

*pregnant pause*

Didn't think so.
Cynical? Yup I admit it.

Thanks for answering for me there. Real open minded...

You're not so much cynical as judgemental and presumptuous in this instance. You know next to nothing about how I got to where I am and whilst I may speak out against things I see that strike me as wrong or inexplicable I have never within the pages of Plime explained my own beliefs or theosophy.

But feel free to draw your own conclusions without the backing of hard facts or evidence - that is, I believe, your MO.

So tell me then, what is the evidence of which you speak.

Are we going to get the banana video at this point? I do hope so. I love the banana video and the evidence it embodies.

Well there's certainly the lack of evidence...I believe it's known as the missing link. Ever think it might be missing because it doesn't exist. How about the fossilized footprints of man alongside the footprints of dinosaurs. How about the fact that neither evolution on the scale you are talking or creation have been recreated in a controlled environment, which of course would give it the scientific credence needed. Oh did I say that creation hasn't been proven scientifically either? Your right...it hasn't not enough evidence for that either. So who's closed minded and judgemental? I don't know...maybe it's the uneducated.

I love the irony about it that the banana actually was Charles Darwin's nightmare! Oh, the ship's logs from them sultry days...

The real tragedy is that he never spoke out against Kirk Cameron.

-edit: I keed.

If you want me to see your response it's best to hit the quote button like you did the first time. Unless you'd prefer to go unnoticed and unchallenged.

I don't know that you fully understand this concept. You use the definite article to specify one missing link. If you are going to do that you need to define your terms further. What are the two species you are trying to link.

But for the moment, I'll assume you're talking in general terms of missing links between distinct species. Each time a new species is identified from the fossil record it creates a new node on the evolutionary tree. There is then a point between the two previous nodes, reaffirming the connection and shortening the gap. The anticipation based on experience is that this gap will shorten and shorten further.

Read any palaeontology journal and you'll see "missing links" discovered weekly.

I presume you mean the dinosaur prints found at Paluxy River. Refer to Kuban's research into this for more details, but in synopsis the prints thought to be human were proven to be dinosaur prints distorted by subsequent sediment filling nearly 20 years ago. This was done by the simple act of removing the sedimentary rock. I'm sure Chinook would be able to confirm how easy it is to tell the difference between sedimentary rock and the base layer in which the fossils were formed.

So how are you proposing that millions of years of environmental influence be condensed into the 150 years since Darwin published OOTS?

What has been observed and documented is minor but persistent changes passed on from generation to generation by inheritance in response, either positively or negatively influenced by environmental factors. Further this is at a rate consistent with what would account for transition observed in the fossil record.

I have always been of the notion that there are more things in heaven and earth than are encompassed in your philosophy, to quote the bard and that nothing in Science is more than the fashionable coat of the season to quote Charles Fort.

The difference though between Science and the non-scientific approach adopted by Creationists and other religious zealots is that when new evidence shows up to contradict previously held theories it is, by an large, following rigorous peer review, accepted and theories are advanced.

From what I have seen of Creationism (and feel free to refute this if you are able) is that their beliefs are concrete and that there is no acceptance of new evidence (as is seen by the now redundant references to Paluxy River).

And as we're having a little tennis here, allow me to bat one your way.

The appendix, aka the caecal.

Now from my point of view this is, in humans, a vestigial organ harking back to a time when our evolutionary ancestors ate more leaves as part of their diet. This is backed up by the prominence and function observed in herbivores such as rabbits and, as they are something of the topic of the day, koalas. In carnivores and more omnivorous animals both function and size is reduced. In humans it serves no observable purpose (although there is some conjecture that it has a function in the immune system, this doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis). The popular notion, and one I subscribe to, is that the appendix is something that is evolving out of humans at a gradual rate as it is no longer needed. Growing and maintaining one is a resource drain and a health risk and so there is environmental pressure to favour those who have ever smaller ones.

How does Creationism explain the appendix? If you have, or can locate a response to this then I'm genuinely interest to know. This is not a rhetorical or trollish question.

I guess it's comments like this that really get my dander up in these debates.

Implying that anyone that stands up for their beliefs are uneducated loudmouths. I am educated and well read, and think that both arguments have holes in them. Scientists keep talking about "new discoveries" that totally change the theory and I am reminded of my 4 year old telling a story with new elements every time he tells it...to make it more convincing. I stand on what people have believed as unchanging fact for hundreds (or thousands...certainly not millions) of years and you think I sound like an uneducated loudmouth.
My education started young, not in science but in religion. I was not taught to blindly believe in God, I was taught that I had to choose to believe. As my belief in God grew I heard someone say "we evolved" and thought...'hmm doesn't fit my belief". Then someone said "God made us using evolution" and I thought...'hmm doesn't really fit what I believe about God'. Am I uneducated because I don't believe what my educators believed. I read the writings of ancient kings and philosophers and find some that believed in God and others that don't. The ones that made the most sense to me believed in God. Maybe that's because it fit my belief, maybe I just followed thier logic better. But it is logic, not a mystical belief in some magical being. Could everything have happened through evolution? I guess so, but then that would make God a liar. If God exists I am not going to call Him a liar! If God doesn't exist...well saying that a non-existant God created everything isn't going to hurt me at all is it? I still believe in the ability of logic and reason to make great discoveries! You know we still haven't figured out where man came from and yet Scientists can still discover cures for diseases, systems for rapid transit, even figure out how to make this computer work for me. I guess my belief in God isn't going to change that, I believe in real science too. I just don't believe in a theory that changes every time someone digs a new hole.
I guess if that makes me uneducated, then I will send back my degree, shut down my school, and move into a doublewide to shout out loud and clear: "Yes there is a God, and yes He is powerful enough to make the heavens and the earth in 6 days!"

Now I now what you are going to say..."see he went to rhetoric instead of scientific research". You're right, I guess I'm a lousy scientist. Of course I'm not really a scientist, I don't know why God created the appendix, I couldn't tell you. I'm not God. I will say that most evolutionists I've talked to skip over logical debate and stick to stuborn reliance on what they have read in National Geographic. If you quote a scientific study done by a *gasp* Christian scientist, they yell "bias" and cover thier ears. I was taught to think, not quote the ideas of others. You want the ideas of others then look them up online...they are everywhere.

I was hoping for some substance from you. Colour me disappointed.

I've read that through several times now and all I can see is "la-la-la I can't hear you"

If you're not a scientist, then no, I don't expect you to behave like one. If you are a theologian then I'd expect some theology from you.

I'm not shouting you down, yelling bias, calling you uneducated (I don't know why you keep coming back to that) but I am hoping you could give me something that shows how you came to your conclusions.

I'm interested to know, because no-one has ever given me a convincing or even half-way coherent pro-Creation argument.

If you don't want to get into it in a public forum then PM me.

Prove yourself different to every other Creationist I've come across and give me something valid after an initial outburst. I challenge you.

I may even double dog dare you.

(addendum - if you want to PM me to say "STFU - get off my back" then I'll respect that too).

My question is...Who does it hurt if people refuse to believe they came from apes? NO ONE.

So I refuse to believe I came from a monkey...so what? It doesn't change anything about me or how I view life. I believe in a higher power (who is a kid with a magnifying glass I think), but I still believe. If when I die, there is nothing, then there is nothing. It doesn't change anything.

Why do people get in such a tiff about others who do believe in God? I never understand what the deal is. You don't see me all in your face having a cow because you don't believe in god.

Heck, if I want believe in fairies and unicorns, then let me. It makes no difference to you or your life about what I believe.

What about the kids in the Kansas school classrooms who have to sit and listen to their teachers talk about creationism and evolutionary theory as if they are on equal footing? What if those children want to pursue a real scientific career someday and they can't get into a nice school like MIT or Berkeley because of their "unscientific" upbringing?

I love to hear creationists spouting about how evolution is just a theory and theories are unproven drivel. What about the theory of gravity? Should we chuck that in favour of the "God gave us all magnetic feet" hypothesis?

Personal ignorance usually doesn't hurt anyone, but when you apply that ignorance to a wide scale and start teaching it, it does hurt people.

What, are you suggesting that he didn't?

When personal beliefs influence public education, there's a problem.

When personal beliefs are mandated as law, there's a problem.

When personal beliefs are taught as truth, on equal footing with science, there's a problem.

When people are punished for developing and using critical thinking skills, there's a huge problem.

What part do christians who believe in creation have in this argument really? If you truly believe in your doctrine what does winning an argument like this truly achieve? Does the anger and frustration or hurt feelings witness to the message you are trying to deliver? Does it gain you a foothold in the heart and mind of the person you are arguing with? It seems that over the years I have seen so many of these arguments played out and inevitably I get to the point where I ask these questions and the stunned look is always the same. The message at the heart of the teachings of christian doctrine is more powerful than the debate over belly buttons or apes. It is cheapened and lost by the anger over the need to be right and so I really wonder if the christians that fight these fights haven't missed it.

If there is a god i have to believe she is more creative than the harry potter "poof" there it all is. I believe she would have real power to do it as creatively as possible.

P.S. out of the shadows and using Unforgvn1 if thats ok :)

For me, I don't really care what others say. I just want to know what people who don't believe in God care so much about the ones who do. Not all of us are looney crazed psychopaths *cough* westboro *cough* who are hellbent on making others see our way. That would be my parents religion, who believes that anyone NOT following THEIR way, is going to hell. Aww..so lovely to hear that from dad. At least mom had the sense to not condemn us constantly, just on occasion..lol. (and they wonder why my brothers and I choose to find our own path in the form of religion, and not go with theirs..lol)

I'm along the lines of, if I die, there is no God/afterlife, etc..I'm dead, and really won't care anyways will I..lol.

I do get annoyed at the ones who think all people who believe in god do not believe in anything in the scientific world. Its not true. There are alot of us who believe alot when it comes to evolution and other things...however, we just refuse to believe we came from apes. We're not ignorant, most of us are very well read in scientific studies, we just kinda go glossy eyed over the ape theory..lol. The same as non-creationist go glossy eyed over the God theory.

Well, just to nitpick it, we didn't come from apes.

We simply evolved on the same branch until that branch sprouted it's own twigs. We are so close to chimpanzees genetically it's hard to believe there's much substance in denial.

I believe the non-believers are really just upset about the influence the Christains try to wield over the lives of others.

The belief in a God of some sort isn't the problem by itself.

I didn't imply that, but I have found the most vocal arguments against evolution are not based in profound faith but in said person of faiths fear and insecurity. Keep in mind, that has been my experience, which I will acknowledge is limited. I am not saying that believing in creationism means your are uneducated, and I am not implying that you are uneducated. I said that the educated theologians that I have met are confident in their beliefs and don't get defensive. They'll argue their beliefs and in many cases find ways to bridge the gaps of understanding trying to bring people together to exchange ideas. MOST of the MOST VOCAL creationists are not just supporting creationism, they are lambasting evolution and using devise emotionally based arguments.

How would that make God a liar? Did God say that evolution isn't true? I missed that one. Oh yeah, there's religious texts written by humans and edited and translated and edited again, sometimes by the most corrupt of men. I'm sorry if you take offense to this but taking the bible literally is like playing "Telephone" with thousands of people speaking different languages over thousands of years. I remember how distorted messages got when I played that game with 5 friends.

Honestly, the theory of evolution does not change very often. The over arching theory and school of thought is pretty consistent. What changes is the hypothesis about the specific details.