TV01:

So be the mutations good or bad, they remain humans, no?

The thing with evolution among organisms like humans is the duration of time it takes and, how beneficial the mutation is to enable the organism propagate it through its progeny above that of those without a similar benefit.

TV01:

Simply stated, Kangaroo rats are not actually rats. We have just presumed to  label them that and assumed "evolution" from rats, as it can't be evidenced?

Would a phenomena such as lions and tigers or horses and donkeys being able to mate, but producing sterile offspring be more suggestive? And are there different species of human, as this is not the case with us? Surely there must be something to lend greater credence to the "fish to amphibian" postulation?

Thanks
TV

I posted some links about evolution being observed in recent times.

Here they are again for your perusal

here http://www.jstor.org/pss/2446125?cookieSet=1
and here http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v82/n1/full/6884120a.html

and here's a web page with a list of some instances of speciation. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5

KunleOshob:

^^^ the extent some people go to try and rationalize this illogical evolution myth.

What do you think illogical about evolution?
Why do you think it's a myth?

TV01:



So be the mutations good or bad, they remain humans, no?

Yup

However, yes, they are still humans, but one wouldn't expect just a known mutation here and there to cause speciation.

So what would?

For humans, given our population and genome? I'd say isolation of a small population and a lot of natural or artificial selection of thousands of mutations.

Simply stated, Kangaroo rats are not actually rats. We have just presumed to  label them that and assumed "evolution" from rats, as it can't be evidenced?

Kangaroo rats are, nevertheless, rodents.

Would a phenomena such as lions and tigers or horses and donkeys being able to mate, but producing sterile offspring be more suggestive? And are there different species of human, as this is not the case with us?

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking when you enquire about lions and tigers, and horses and donkeys. More suggestive of what?

There are no different species of humans - at least, not that has been found.

Surely there must be something to lend greater credence to the "fish to amphibian" postulation?

Thanks
TV

Yes, there are several somethings. Lungfishes represent a living example of fish with amphibious traits. And alternatively from the fossil record a transitional, Tiktaalik Roseae.

There are no different species of humans - at least, not that has been found.

So far over twenty different species of extinct humans have been found. Homo sapians are the last surviving species of humans. Maybe we survived whilst all others became extinct is because we killed them all off when we migrated out of africa. Homo sapians have in the past had a great tendancy for genocide when coming into contact with others who are slightly different to themselves.  God said "kill them all including women and children then burn everthing to the ground" and that was only recorded after writing was invented. We can only imagine how genocidal homo sapians were before then.

This is a very good book to read.
http://www.amazon.com/Last-Human-Twenty-Two-Species-Extinct/dp/0300100477/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276202670&sr=8-3

"Remarkable in scope and clarity, this stunning collaboration among scientists, scholars and artists reveals the vast panorama of hominid evolution. The project began when the Fossil Hominid Reconstruction and Research Team, led by anthropologist Sawyer and paleoartist Deak, began reconstructing fossilized skulls and skeletons, using meticulous procedures of forensic anatomical reconstruction to build three-dimensional models of contemporary humankind's known predecessors. Paleontological and anatomical data for each species were combined with anthropological and climatological research to produce this volume, covering 22 species and 7 million years. As chapters move chronologically from our most primitive antecedents, the poorly known "ape-men" of the African Sahel, through more well-known ancestors, such as the Australopithicines, Homo habilis and Neanderthals, the data grows in complexity and quantity; happily, fictional accounts of individual hominids draw readers into each new chapter. Illustrated with astonishingly life-like portraits of long-gone species, this volume also includes appendices that describe in detail how those portraits were achieved. Both inspiring and humbling, this look at humanity's ancestors-the worlds they inhabited, the challenges they faced and the legacies they left behind-is fascinating, informative, and deeply provocative."

And this one.
http://www.amazon.com/Extinct-Humans-Ian-Tattersall/dp/0813339189/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276202670&sr=8-1

There are also many other species of primates that we may never know about which have gone extinct and many more are on the verge of extinction due to us.

mantraa:

So far over twenty different species of extinct humans have been found. Homo sapians are the last surviving species of humans. Maybe we survived whilst all others became extinct is because we killed them all off when we migrated out of africa. Homo sapians have in the past had a great tendancy for genocide when coming into contact with others who are slightly different to themselves. 

This is a very good book to read.
http://www.amazon.com/Last-Human-Twenty-Two-Species-Extinct/dp/0300100477/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276202670&sr=8-3

"Remarkable in scope and clarity, this stunning collaboration among scientists, scholars and artists reveals the vast panorama of hominid evolution. The project began when the Fossil Hominid Reconstruction and Research Team, led by anthropologist Sawyer and paleoartist Deak, began reconstructing fossilized skulls and skeletons, using meticulous procedures of forensic anatomical reconstruction to build three-dimensional models of contemporary humankind's known predecessors. Paleontological and anatomical data for each species were combined with anthropological and climatological research to produce this volume, covering 22 species and 7 million years. As chapters move chronologically from our most primitive antecedents, the poorly known "ape-men" of the African Sahel, through more well-known ancestors, such as the Australopithicines, Homo habilis and Neanderthals, the data grows in complexity and quantity; happily, fictional accounts of individual hominids draw readers into each new chapter. Illustrated with astonishingly life-like portraits of long-gone species, this volume also includes appendices that describe in detail how those portraits were achieved. Both inspiring and humbling, this look at humanity's ancestors-the worlds they inhabited, the challenges they faced and the legacies they left behind-is fascinating, informative, and deeply provocative."

And this one.
http://www.amazon.com/Extinct-Humans-Ian-Tattersall/dp/0813339189/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276202670&sr=8-1

There are also many other species of primates that we may never know about which have gone extinct and many more are on the verge of extinction due to us.

To be fair, when I think of and use the term "human" I'm referring solely to Homo Sapiens not all hominids.

@TV
Thanks for your question, I will take time and shear my insights. I will answer in sections, in different posts. Before I proceed, I will advice you to take everything you read in this thread about evolution with a pinch of salt. Out of enthusiasm to prove that there is no God, people add all sorts of things to the theory of evolution, thereby making theory very weak. We live in the age of information, it very easy to get the right information on any scientific theory of you really seek. Adaptation is a fact and can easily be observed. Adaptation is not evolution per-ser, rather a step in the great journey of evolution. Just as not all steps lead to a journey, not all adaptations lead to evolution. Here(in this thread) we are dealing with evolution of species, how entirely new different species emerged from others. You are right in pointing out that adaptations which we observe on creatures do not result an entirely new species, this is a fact that nobody in his right mind will refute. But keep in mind that evolution(emergence of a species) takes a very long time-millions of years. I will deal more with why some adaptations are evolutionary and while or others are not and why I said some species are 'end product,' as I answer your questions in this thread.
Before I proceed; Let me give an analogy to help us better put things in place.
Imagine 'evolution'(in the context of this thread --the emergence of new species of another) as an international journey. And imagine adaptation as steps as 'travels.' Somebody can travel all his/her life and still stays in one country; such a person has not made an international journey. Thus not all travels lead to an international journey. Somebody can travel everyday from Lagos to Enugu and back, he may spend his lifetime traveling, but as long as he has not stepped out of Nigeria, he has not made an international journey. So when one argues that creatures adapt(which is a fact) as long the adaptation still remains within the confines of that specie it does prove that the origin of that creature was evolution and not creation. This is where creationists corner in pseudo evolutionists and make fun of them. I said pseudo evolutionists because authorities in evolution would not let themselves be cornered like that. So you are right in implying that adaptation has not been observed to yield a new species. But this fact does not debunk the theory of evolution. What evolutionists theorize is that a certain type of adaptation accumulated over a long period of time(millions of years) can yield a new specie.

Wait for the next section of my answers.

@TV

TV01:

@justcool, I must say, you've pretty much "owned" this thread - IMHO & thus far anyway - and the merits of your position apart, your very concise posts and patient unfussed responses has been great. You have my regards.

Thank you so much for the above. I will not take all the glory; I think almost every body in this thread has been very cordial, including you.

TV01:

From your first post (#4), its seems to me that you believe in both creation and evolution, indeed it appears that you consider they are somehow part of the same process. Apologies if I misascribe anything too you, but if I have, I expect the same deliberate rebuttal that has been your hallmark on this thread.
My position is pretty much what you'd call the"default" Christian one of creation, not by revelation or even study, but primarily because I haven't heard anything to convince me otherwise.

You are very correct, you don’t have to apologise. It is my perception that Evolution and Creationism are not mutually exclusive. Simply put, evolution is the process through which physical bodies are achieved on earth. Thus you might say that I believe in the creation of our physical bodies through the process of evolution. Every form of creation is achieved through a process, and evolution is the process through which our physical bodies where created. This does not contradict the creation story in Genesis, which never said that man appeared instantaneously on earth. It is unfortunate that some religionists misunderstand this story and wrongly conclude from it that the universe was created in six earth days(24 hour period).The creation story in Genesis is not a myth, it is a pictorial rendering of the making of the entire creation(including paradise), and not just the earth. I will explain further as we go.
Each day in the Genesis story represents an epoch, which could last millions of earth years. It is not difficult to figure out that Genesis days could not have meant 24hour period, if you consider that at the beginning of creation, the sun and the earth, the rotation of which causes the 24hour day have not even been created.
The writer of Genesis was seeing with his spiritual eyes, and the spiritual time frame is different from earthly time frame. Remember the expression, “A thousand years are like one.” The time frame of the Divine is even bigger than the time frame of the spiritual. So in the eyes of God, a day may correspond to millions of years on earth.
This is not hard to understand, you must have even experienced it. You must have had a dream where you experience an entire lifetime, only to wake up and find out that you have only slept for an hour. This shows you that perception of time is different in different planes of creation. The writer of Genesis was shown a Devine happening in a pictorial form and from that perspective, the process which took seven great epochs appeared like seven days to him.
Also keep in mind that your brain has to interpret visions shown to you so that you can grasp it and be able to write it down. The human brain could hardly handle large time frames (like eternality), so the brain had to reduce it to time frames that fit within the confines of the earth or the physical, because the brain, being physical, can only understand the physical. The time it took for God to create the entire creation(not just the physical realm) will appear as eternity to the human brain. Because, the brain being physical cannot grasp spiritual things and spiritual time frame, only the spirit and beings above the spiritual can grasp the spiritual. This is also why the Genesis story of creation can only be understood by the spirit, but unfortunately people examine it only with their intellect. The story of creation in Genesis is spiritual rendering, and a person that is not spiritual will never understand it, if he/she is a pastor or a pope.

If you read the Genesis creation story, you see that it contains two accounts of the creation, each one containing a different account of creation of man. In first account, “So God created man in His own image.” and in second account, “And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
The first account does not to refer to the earth; also the man created in the first account was not man(human) on earth. Rather they are the Primordial Spiritual beings who exist in the primordial Spiritual plane, the highest plane in creation. The first account of creation refers to the creation of the Primordial creation, and not subsequent creation to which the earth belongs. When the word ’earth’ is used in the description of the first creation, this is only used to convey the concept of dry land, and does not refer to our planet earth. In the Primordial creation, we have the ideal prototypes of everything in subsequent creation, thus there we have, land, seas, creatures, angels, animals, and Primordial spirits. It is these Primordial spirits that are made in the image of God, not man on earth. The Primordial spiritual beings are created directly by the God and thus are perfect from the beginning of their existence and will remain perfect. In such proximity to God, it is impossible for imperfection to exist because God Himself is Living Perfection.
It is the second account of creation in the Geneis story that refers to the creation of man on earth. Subsequent creation, to which the earth belongs to, is only a reflection of Primordial creation. While the man(Primordial Spiritual Beings) in Primordial creation is made in the image of God, man in subsequent creation is modeled after the Primordial spiritual beings. Subsequent creation, being further from God, could not take on form immediately but had to gradually develop. Thus when it says “And the Lord God formed man from the dust of the earth…, ” This “formed” refers to the gradual formation and development on earth which yielded man’s physical body. Evolution is only the formation of the physical body of man, or a process through which the physical body of man was achieved on earth. The words “out of the dust of the earth” refers to the fact that man’s physical body came out of the earth--through the gradual process of evolution on earth. The purpose of human evolution is to achieve a physical body in the human form, which is the form of the Primordial spiritual beings. Then after the formation, then God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” This explains how after the human form was achieved by the animistic, God allowed the human spirits which originated in Paradise to incarnate into these animistic bodies. Only at this point did they become humans (a living soul). Prior to the incarnation of the spirits, it was only animistic beings. Thus to sumerise: The our spirits(the breath of God) originated in paradise, while our physical bodies orininated from the earth through the gradual process of evolution. Only after this formation of man's physical bodies, did the spirits incarnate into the bodies, and the bodies which used to be driven by animistic now became driven by human spirits. Let me explain further. The bodies which were besically animals, becuse thier animating core is animistic, evolved and was guided over millions of years to achieve the most highly evolved animals which had a form that closely resembled the human form. When the two nobelst pair of these higly evolved animals, which resembled the present day primates, breed, into thier offsprings were incarnated human sprirts. These highly evolved animals were only trasitional species which went extent soon after they gave birth to humans.
So the major difference between man and animal in not in thier physical bodies but in thier animating cores. The animal caries animistic as its core, while man carry spirit(the breath of God) as his innermost core. Actually it is this spirit inside us that is the real man, the physical body is only a covering which man wear on earth. And when he departs the earth, he leaves his physical body behind on earth.
I know this is very long and may be hard to follow but I will explain further as questions arise.

Wait for the next section

@TV

TV01:

I'm intrigued by your postulating evolution somehow bringing us to an "end point" as it were and would appreciate more on this if you care to indulge. Especially in light of this statement;
And my own thinking that humans beings, being in a fallen state, are if anything, for the most part spiritually and physically degenerating.

The Human form is the end point of human evolution. The prototype of this form already exist in the Primordial spiritual Plane (The Primordial Spiritual beings) The task of forming the worlds of matter and forming  physical bodies, as well as forming physical representations of animals which already exist above, was given to the animistic beings who are servants of God. The souls of animals is a specie of the animistic beings, there also other animistic beings who continually work on matter, forming and building it. These beings are invisible to the physical eyes, generally speaking, because they are not physical. They are called elementals, there are elementals who work in the air, they move and direct air currents. There are elementals who work on the earth(solid things); there are some who work in fire and etc. Each planet in the universe is under the protection of a particular elemental. Some of elementals are small; some of them are so big that they can hold the whole solar system in their palm of their hand.
It is these elementals that control things like the movement of the tectonic plates which results in earth quakes and natural disaster; they continualy work on nature, forming, remodeling, building and rebuilding it. A lot of people used to see them, some children still see them today, and animals not only see them but communicate with them. This is why animals usually leave the scenes of natural disaster before the disasters. The elementals achieved them best that they could, they achieved or evolved the body of the most highly evolved animals, into which the spirits(the breath of God) from Paradise incarnated. From them it became the duty of man who wears the physical body as a cloak to further evolve and refine this body, bringing it closer to the form of the Primordial Spiritual beings. All the human spirits needed to do to achieve this is to obey the laws of God and exercise their spirits; by exercising their spirits, the radiation of their spirits will affect their physical bodies further refining it. The degenerate condition of the human body today is as a result of the failure of man.
　
　

TV01:
　
To all and regards evolution at large, I am yet to be convinced that any variation amongst humans is anything more than adaptation based on what is contained within the human genome and I guess what I'd describe as phenotypical differences? I also fail to grasp how this variation - whether termed evoutionary or not, could give rise to a whole new species, or even if it did, why (a) the species being evolved from would necessarily have to disappear (to the extent that they are not easily traceable by fossils or some other evidence, or even co-exist and perhaps inter-breed) and how (b) these changes would somehow uniformly transmit amongst a whole population.
Appreciate any thoughts regards my position and concerns
God bless
TV

The above is a very good observation, it in lies the evidence that evolution was guided. The animistic(the elemental beings) affect matter(to which the physical belongs), by their radiations. It is through their radiations that they guided evolution. Just as certain radiations can cause bad mutation(cancer), the radiations of these elementals guide evolution by causing evolutionary mutations. Science cannot explain why these mutations occur, the best they could do it to attribute it to adaptation to the environment; but this is only one part of the picture. Even in this adaptation, the law of natural selection guides it; and even a child can decipher that where there is a law, it had to be as a result of something and where their a law that is strictly followed, chance is out of question.

What I don’t understand is how people could see laws(e.g. natural selection) that guides a process and still conclude that the process is random and initiated by chance.

Also the fact that the fossils of transitional species are hard to find goes to prove that these transitional species did not live long enough to leave as much fossil as end products. Transitional species only exist for the transformation from one specie to another. Once a specie is achieved, the transitional ones become extinct. I will give an example: If you go to a car factory, you can observe cars in different stages of completion, from parts lying around to fully made cars. You will also see more fully made cars in existence and cars in the making, because cars in the making are not preserved and maintained, but once a car is fully made, it gets maintained and persevered the way it is.

Also you can clearly see that nature not only removes the transitional species, but creates barriers between species. Otherwise fishes would be able to successfully breed amphibians. Each specie is only able to breed with the same specie, generally speaking; only closely related species(within the same family) having the same genus can breed. And closely related species man that force mate or reproduce by artificial insemination often produces a sterile creature. Eg mules.

The sterility is a barrier that nature creates because such bridging of species is not in nature's plan in the first place. Each specie is an “end product” which must continue the way it is; further adapations only refines it the way it is and not towards a new species. Lions will always be lions, because the lion is the product and not a transition; it is an earthly representation of the Lion in Primordial Spiritual. And even when their offspring is not sterile, within a few generations all evidences of the mixtures can longer be seen. Here we see nature following a strict order.

Scientists tell us that creatures like the horseshoe crab has been on earth since the ordovician period--445 million years ago; and yet no one can answer why it had remained the same for such a long time. Despite all changes in the envirnment.

The odds of all the creatures on earth today being evolved by mere chance are less than one in a million.

Tell me why trees have remained trees, glued to a point. This immobility endangers their existence, why haven’t they evolved to mobile creatures?

Also, nature follows a very strict order that can be observed; the laws of nature never fail, and are always regular, i.e. the laws of gravity do not change, neither does natural selection. And how regularity can came out of chance. They very thought is very unscientific. Science does not deal with chance, rather they look for a strict uniform law; one can say that in ‘science’ chance does not exist. Yet people claim that the immutable and uniform laws of nature are as a result of chance.

I know my post is very long, please bear with me.


Thanks.

from Kag

To be fair, when I think of and use the term "human" I'm referring solely to Homo Sapiens not all hominids.

You are right of course, i wouldnt class all extinct hominids as human also. Homo Sapiens (humans) are the last surviving specie of a large family of hominids.

Respects

Mad_Max:

To kunleoshob and toba:

I partly understand your outlook, though I wasn't explaining things to either of you and it strictly wasn't any of your business. The hostility of some Christians to evolution is partly being caused by scientists themselves. Instead of simply presenting the facts, some atheist scientists hold up evolution as 'proof' that God doesn't exist, when it proves NO such thing, ridiculing and alienating Christians. Christians are then forced to fight back by rejecting the theory without understanding it. The more the theory is shown to be correct, the weaker the Christians who reject it look. Because some know-nothings have falsely tacked 'God does not exist' to the back of evolution, whenever the theory scores points, it looks like it's the idea that God does not exist that is winning, when it is merely evolution. Very sly and dishonest. Atheist scientists meddle with religion more than religionists meddle with science. What has any scientist ever found in the research field or laboratory that 'proves' God does not exist? NOTHING, and they never will.

The lunatic fringe of atheist scientists are idiots. If the facts of evolution had simply been presented without colouring it with their atheistic beliefs, Christians would have gotten to the point of knowing the bible isn't a science document much faster, and the theory would have been accepted. Scientists complain Christians aren't letting them teach evolution in schools. Why should they, when they know some daft scientists won't stick to the facts, but will dishonestly use the integrity of science, and evolution, as a propaganda tool to spread their own personal, unproven beliefs.

I have to add though that Christians comprise less than 20% of the world's population, so their view of creation is by no means the majority view. Other faiths and other cultures have their own beliefs. The nonsensical belief that the bible is infallible stifled progressive thought for centuries, a belief based on nothing but indoctrination, whose origins can be traced to the Vatican's quest to dominate the monarchies of Europe through the Church and who did not wish their authority and the bible on which it rested questioned.

That God exists is a belief. That God does not exist is also belief. Each side has reasons for its belief and neither has empirical proof of its belief. No position is more 'rational' or superior to the other. For some atheist scienstist to use evolution to spread their own beliefs, when they're two different things, is low and contemptible. But these people don't represent science. There are Christians, Moslems, Buddhists, agnostics, and believers of every faith who are scientists. Atheist scientists do not represent science in any way, and not all atheists in science engage in this irresponsible behavior. Only a few. They're free to spread their own beliefs, other faiths do, but not to use evolution, which is religion-free, to do it. Or label those who don't share their beliefs as 'delusional'. Science is one thing, your personal beliefs are another. Keep them out of science and state only the facts.

The above is just beautiful.

Evolution is a myth, if we came about thru evolution then why did it stop when we became humans?

Osama10:

Evolution is a myth, if we came about thru evolution then why did it stop when we became humans?

Do you really want to know?
The short answer to that is that we cannot say it has stopped in humans.

For the long answer to that, I think you should try to educate yourself a bit more on evolution.

That God exists is a belief. That God does not exist is also belief. Each side has reasons for its belief and neither has empirical proof of its belief. No position is more 'rational' or superior to the other.

I wager it is more rational to suppose that there is a cause of observed finite things than to assert that there is no cause.

The one is in tandem with everything observed in the physical universe whereas the other is quaint fantasy.

I have to add though that Christians comprise less than 20% of the world's population, so their view of creation is by no means the majority view

And the number of Christians who believe in Creationism and reject Evolution is probably less that that. Remember, even the Pope stated that Evolution was a viable theory. It's only those who blindly follow scripture with no recourse to logical thought who cling to the idea that Evolution is false.

Evolution is a myth, if we came about thru evolution then why did it stop when we became humans?

What one should also remember is that the pace of human evolution has slowed drastically.
Science is based on measurement but evolution has come to a crawl so it is very difficult to measure. Prior to the modern age, man had to adapt to his surroundings. Now man adapts the environment to his needs. This makes measurement almost impossible and explains why evolution has slowed down.

Basically, mankind has weeded out the majority of natural selection - the major factor in causing and therefore measuring evolution.

Mad_Max:

To kunleoshob and toba:

I partly understand your outlook, though I wasn't explaining things to either of you and it strictly wasn't your concern. The hostility of some Christians to evolution is partly being caused by some scientists themselves. Instead of simply presenting the facts, some atheist scientists hold up evolution as 'proof' that God doesn't exist, when it proves NO such thing, ridiculing and alienating Christians. Christians are then forced to fight back by rejecting the theory without understanding it. The more the theory is shown to be correct, the weaker the Christians who reject it look. Because some know-nothings have falsely tacked 'God does not exist' to the back of evolution, whenever the theory scores points, it looks like it's the idea that God does not exist that is winning, when it is merely evolution. Very sly and dishonest. Atheist scientists meddle with religion more than religionists meddle with science. What has any scientist ever found in the research field or laboratory that 'proves' God does not exist? NOTHING, and they never will.

This lunatic fringe of science are dolts. If the facts of evolution had simply been presented without colouring it with their atheistic beliefs, Christians would have gotten to the point of knowing the bible isn't a science document much faster, and the theory would have been accepted. Scientists complain Christians aren't letting them teach evolution in schools. Why should they, when they know some daft scientists won't stick to the facts, but will dishonestly use the integrity of science, and evolution, as a propaganda tool to spread their own personal, unproven beliefs.   

I have to add though that Christians comprise less than 20% of the world's population, so their view of creation is by no means the majority view. Other faiths and other cultures have their own beliefs. The nonsensical belief that the bible is infallible stifled progressive thought for centuries, a belief based on nothing but indoctrination, whose origins can be traced to the Vatican's quest to dominate the monarchies of Europe through the Church and who did not wish their authority and the bible on which it rested questioned.

That God exists is a belief. That God does not exist is also belief. Each side has reasons for its belief and neither has empirical proof of its belief. No position is more 'rational' or superior to the other. For some atheist scienstist to use evolution to spread their own beliefs, when they're two different things, is low and contemptible. But these people don't represent science. There are Christians, Moslems, Buddhists, agnostics, and believers of every faith who are scientists. Atheist scientists do not represent science in any way, and not all atheists in science engage in this irresponsible behavior. Only a few.  They're free to spread their own beliefs, other faiths do, but not to use evolution, which is religion-free, to do it. Or label those who don't share their beliefs as 'delusional'. Science is one thing, your personal beliefs are another. Keep them out of science and state only the facts.

The facts you stated is only half of the story of the conflict between atheists and Christians. You did not highlight the persecution atheist had suffered in the hands of Christians through the centuries. At on time anyone holding contrary views to the Christians authorities would be put to death. You are not highlighting the damage being done by fringe lunatic of Christians.

Christians are the one still persecuting the atheists using more subtle approach. Christians first try to make the atheist see reason by peaceful means, preaching love of jesus, joy of christianity, etc, then the take it a step further with threats, like you will spend eternity in hell, you  like will be miserable for refusing Jesus, you are an agent of the devil, etc. If that fails to work, the go to the philosophical ream by asking the questions, like who do you think created you, the universe or all the mysteries contained?. The Christian further postulates that evidence and the bible clearly proves that it is the bible God. When the atheist attempts to offer scientific explanations to explain all these phenomenon and that the bible god is not required for the universe or me to exist. The Christain the switches to discrediting science and accepted and established scientific theories (even though they understand very little elementary science). It is even getting to ridiculous levels now as they attempt to equate science with atheism. I have never known a scientist or a science discipline that studies and tries to prove god or gods.  The irony is that almost most of the theories were propounded by Christian scientists.

Even when we point out that scientific theories has little to do with atheism and that there are many Christians that accepts theories like evolution of species, earths formations, relativity and even quantum physics, they fail to even see the argument and go on equating science with atheism. ( i even know the G.O of a church that accept the theory of evolution).

The major problem some Christian have is the attempt to confuse the aim of religion with the aim of science. The writers of the great religious books never intended it to be a science journal, and the same time science was never intended to answer theological questions. It is like tying to use an accounting book to answer geological questions.

Is is very annoying when some people say that science is the basis of atheism, i for one decide to become an atheist by 18, even though i understood very little science then. You will be surprised that many atheists and deists on nairaland understand very little science.

@ Mad_Max

The evidence shows that simply presenting the facts does not work. As was demonstrated with HIV causing AIDS, and now with the extent of humans affecting the climate. One that was resolved after a lot of noise was the link between smoking and lung cancer.

Also, I don't understand why people keep attacking scientists for doing what humans do all the time. Some have presented their views on religion and evolution in books. Should they not do so?
They feel the evidence of evolution supports their views. Should they not write these books out of fear of offending religious people? Some people have become non-religious due to these books others have learned more about other people's views which I consider a good thing.

When they do write text books for class education, they are reviewed and the bias is removed this is why text books unless written with some religious or political bent are good sources of information.

With regards to religious people who do not agree with evolution, I don't think there is a reason for any one to make excuses for them.
There are Christian groups that agree with the theory, and on this forum, there are religious people who also agree with it after reviewing the evidence.
In this information age and the presence of sites (some which have been posted on this very thread) simply presenting the evidence without a religious bent, they actively choose to ignore the evidence before them.

Atheist scientists meddle with religion more than religionists meddle with science.

The above quote of yours is simply untrue. Atheist scientists have not attempted to stop religious books or materials being published neither do they try to stop private religious practice. Religious people have tried and succeeded in delaying research in stem-cell at least in the U.S. This was just recently overturned.

thehomer:

@ Mad_Max

The evidence shows that simply presenting the facts does not work. As was demonstrated with HIV causing AIDS, and now with the extent of humans affecting the climate. One that was resolved after a lot of noise was the link between smoking and lung cancer.

Also, I don't understand why people keep attacking scientists for doing what humans do all the time. Some have presented their views on religion and evolution in books. Should they not do so?
They feel the evidence of evolution supports their views. Should they not write these books out of fear of offending religious people? Some people have become non-religious due to these books others have learned more about other people's views which I consider a good thing.

When they do write text books for class education, they are reviewed and the bias is removed this is why text books unless written with some religious or political bent are good sources of information.

With regards to religious people who do not agree with evolution, I don't think there is a reason for any one to make excuses for them.
There are Christian groups that agree with the theory, and on this forum, there are religious people who also agree with it after reviewing the evidence.
In this information age and the presence of sites (some which have been posted on this very thread) simply presenting the evidence without a religious bent, they actively choose to ignore the evidence before them.

The above quote of yours is simply untrue. Atheist scientists have not attempted to stop religious books or materials being published neither do they try to stop private religious practice. Religious people have tried and succeeded in delaying research in stem-cell at least in the U.S. This was just recently overturned.

Yes scientists hold religious or non religious views, but that has nothing to do with science as a discipline, its just personal views. The problem is that most Christians tries to cage the scientist by trying scientific questions with his religion. He ask questions like where humans come from, where did the sun come from, what makes thunder and lightening, what is life and he provides one answer - GOD. But when scientist explain that there is no observable evidence of his god being responsible for these things, the Christian starts attacking science and equate it with atheism.

Most European countries have have more than 50% of their populations not believing in any God, meanwhile most of them do not have a basic understanding of science.

Even the person that more or less "converted" me to atheism was Tai Solarin and he never understood or talked about evolution of species or big bang.

@ Mad max

I find it hypocritical when christians say that they believe in evolution, I was very suprised when I came to europe and discovered that most of the christians here believe in evolution, If you disregard the creation story in genesis 2 (Adam and Eve) and accept that humans evolve from a common ancestor with other apes, then why do you believe other stories in the bible? Why accept the Jesus story and disregard the genesis story? In what part of the evolution theory does it talk about God being responsible for the evolution of anything?. . . .

We keep hearing the claim that the bible is not a science book, but the problem is the bible was written to be taken as a true account of things that the writers thought however wrong they might be. . . . .Most of the people I know in europe will quickly tell you that the creation accounts in the bible is a myth or not factual but will still maintain that the God of the bible created the universe. How so?. . . .Isn't that talking from both side of your mouth?. . . .

^^

I really understand what you are saying, but I was just sharing my thoughts. . . . .

^^

Sorry abeg no vex. . . .

Mad_Max:

@homer
What evidence shows presenting the facts doesn't work?

I meant simply presenting scientific facts does not work. e.g presenting the facts that cellphones do not cause cancer has not worked, presenting the facts that cannabis use is not as dangerous as using either tobacco or alcohol has not worked, I could go on.

Mad_Max:

Is it presenting a personal religious interpretation to it that does work?

As a matter of fact that does work. But it is not an honest means of doing it. So is avoided in scientific text books and journals. Novels and biographies on the other hand ,

Mad_Max:

I accepted evolution because the facts were presented, as did many Christians. And not just Christians, but believers in other religions. By what other method but presenting the facts did you think we accepted it?

Maybe you did but you should realize that among many Christian groups, you would not be considered a Christian based on your acceptance of the theory.

Mad_Max:

There are atheists who don't accept evolution, who have their own weird ideas about how we got here. I'll repeat that: There are atheists who don't accept evolution. Evolution is not some Atheism Creed to which they must all automatically subscribe. There are atheists who understand evolution and accept it. There are a great many atheists who accept evolution because, well, 'what else is there?' And there are atheists who don't accept it: 'There's no God. But I didn't come from monkeys either. When you find out how we really got here, let me know.'

Of course atheism has nothing to do with evolution but some scientists feel it supports their view and they use it. It is something that humans do (i.e try to support whatever opinions they have with some sort of evidence).

Mad_Max:

Then there are a group of atheists who see evolution as a counterpoint to, and a substitute for, religion. They twist the facts and use it as a weapon to 'bludgeon' religion, which they hate. It is within this group that the lunatic fringe in science resides.

I doubt anyone sees evolution as a substitute for religion. The closest thing to a sort of moral philosophy with atheists is Humanism. I've read a few books written by some atheists and I've not come across this "twisting of facts to bludgeon religion". Could you give some examples?
Also, this "lunatic fringe" in science, I'm also not aware about. There may be scientists whose methods you do not approve of but calling them lunatics etc. really does not help your point unless you present what they did that you're classifying as lunacy.

Mad_Max:

There will always be people to challenge any new idea, whatever its merits. It has nothing to do with religion. The history of science is full of bitter rivalries and scientists whose correct and visionary ideas weren't accepted by their colleagues for decades, and sometimes not till after they were dead.

Of course there will but some do this solely due to their beliefs in some religious text. And are unwilling to look at the evidence presented unlike yourself who was willing to consider the evidence.

hi guys

Lol, homer.You seem unable to criticize something bad if atheists are doing it, and must offer a knee-jerk defence. You know Science is religiously NEUTRAL. They are about empirical ideas. It's the investigation of natural phenomena, extracting facts and what works from it. There is NO evidence in science for scientists to use to 'support' and promote atheism or any other unproven belief in the name of science. Disproving or promoting atheistic and other religious belief is the domain of academic Religion, Theology, Philosophy, Journalism, Art, Literature, etc and there are many atheists in these fields: yes, including Theology and Religion. Scientists promoting atheism and presenting scientific facts  in the light of personal belief, is NOT and has never been the domain of science and scientists. 

You know personal belief has no business in the interpretation and presentation of scientific facts by scientists, and you were saying a few pages back that religion should be kept out of science. I see now you meant Christians should keep their beliefs out of science, but "some atheist scientists feel it supports their view and they use it".  It's 'human nature', you know, since science/evolution equals atheism and it's their right. Very telling.

thehomer:

I meant simply presenting scientific facts does not work. e.g presenting the facts that cellphones do not cause cancer has not worked, presenting the facts that cannabis use is not as dangerous as using either tobacco or alcohol has not worked, I could go on.

Yes, you could, homer. But it would be about a problem that no longer exists in science: How to present scientific facts and ideas effectively. Scientists have long studied what works in the presentation of ideas to the public and what doesn't. Dry recitations of facts, formulas, percentages, homilies, moralizing, scare tactics, technical language, etc, don't work. Other things- wit, humour, a 'fireside chat' approach, a story format, arresting visuals, lively sentences,etc- works. People who already have a deep interest in the subject may appreciate those things, but don't even need it. Science knows how to get its ideas across, and has been doing so very nicely for a millenia.

And if you're implying the public isn't interested in scientific facts, you're incredibly wrong. A glance at the non-fiction bestseller lists over the past several decades might be instructive. The public is ravenous for scientific facts and ideas, and have been so for ages. Newton's books were bestsellers, in spite of their difficult material. Darwin's On the Origin of the Species sold out. The trend continues to this day. If science couldn't present its facts effectively it would have closed shop long ago.

Presenting the facts does work. Science has been doing nothing else. What's the alternative you're proposing, lol,: presenting non-facts?
I don't know what would communicate 'it has worked' to you in telling people phones don't cause cancer, or cannabis isn't as dangerous as alcohol: if everyone bought extra phones, or if we all got together to get high? Would presenting the facts have worked then? Presenting scientific ideas and discoveries is one thing, telling people how to live their lives is another. Don't confuse the two.

Hey, Seeker.

It's nice to see the OP on the thread he started after so long. On to the discussion.

Mad_Max:

Lol, homer.You seem unable to criticize something bad if atheists are doing it, and must offer a knee-jerk defence.

This is news to me.

Mad_Max:

You know science and its ideas, like the theory of evolution, are religiously NEUTRAL. They are about empirical ideas. They have no religious colouration whatsoever. Science is the investigation of natural phenomena, extracting facts and what works from it. There is NO evidence in science for scientists to use to 'support' and promote atheism or any other unproven belief in the name of science.

But scientists who have done so have indicated several things in their personal books. e.g The imperfect "creations", the differences between conclusions drawn from evolution and that of various religious texts etc.

Mad_Max:

Disproving or promoting atheistic and other religious belief is the domain of academic Religion, Theology, Philosophy, Journalism, Art, Literature, etc and there are many atheists in these fields: yes, including Theology and Religion. Scientists promoting atheism and presenting scientific facts in the light of personal belief, is NOT and has never been the domain of science and scientists.

So you're saying scientists should just shut up and work in their labs? Do they not have any rights of personal expression? Your claim of presenting facts in light of personal beliefs not being in the domain of scientists is simply not true. Do not forget that there are scientists who are also religious they can also present these views. Saying that presentation of evidence to support one's opinions not being allowed for some people due to their jobs to me smacks of a poor class of censorship.

Mad_Max:

You know personal belief has no business in the interpretation and presentation of scientific facts by scientists, and you were saying a few pages back that religion should be kept out of science. I see now you meant Christians should keep their beliefs out of science, but "some atheist scientists feel it supports their view and they use it".  It's 'human nature', you know, since science/evolution equals atheism and it's their right. Very telling.

You have selectively gone through my posts. Here's one carefully explaining what I meant though it was in reply to someone else. It may have skipped your notice.

thehomer:

@ Mad_Max
. . .

Also, I don't understand why people keep attacking scientists for doing what humans do all the time. Some have presented their views on religion and evolution in books. Should they not do so?
They feel the evidence of evolution supports their views. Should they not write these books out of fear of offending religious people?

. . .

When they do write text books for class education, they are reviewed and the bias is removed this is why text books unless written with some religious or political bent are good sources of information.

. . .

So you see in context, my statements meant something different from what you were implying. What I'm saying is that when people write personal books, it is normal for them to present evidence in a way that suits them but, if the book is to be used in teaching, such biases should be eliminated with proper reviews and editing.

Mad_Max:

If I'm not considered a 'Christian' by some others because I accept evolution, it's because silly scientists have been on a campaign to equate 'science', 'evolution', 'rational' and 'high intelligence' with 'atheist'.

You're blaming scientists for your shortcomings. It is better for you the believer to educate other believers. If they are not willing to listen to you who believe similar things that they do, what makes you think they'll listen to scientists? Or do you think ordinary believers will not understand as you do?

Mad_Max:

It's the public that's now asking if promoting science is one and the same with promoting atheism.  Still, you heard Bastage say the pope has accepted the theory, and since he does the thinking for Catholics, that means Catholics may now be accepting it as well, and they constitute 80% of Christians. Needless to say many other Christians accept it, and are the ones who tend to view the fundamentalist, literalist minority group that hasn't as boffins.

Simply viewing these fundamentalists in that way is condescending. Have you tried interacting with them? They share some of your beliefs. Calling them a minority does not make it less significant. If you can say greater than 500 million people globally are a minority. And this is for Christianity alone.

Mad_Max:

Yes, you could, homer. But it would be about a problem that no longer exists in science:

The problem still exists that was why I gave you those examples.

Mad_Max:

How to present scientific facts and ideas effectively. Scientists have long studied what works in the presentation of ideas to the public and what doesn't. Dry recitations of facts, formulas, percentages, homilies, moralizing, scare tactics, technical language, etc, don't work.

I don't think that scientists use homilies, moralizing or scare tactics. That's for some other group.

Mad_Max:

Other things- wit, humour, a 'fireside chat' approach, a story format, arresting visuals, lively sentences,etc- works. People who already have a deep interest in the subject may appreciate those things, but don't even need it. Science knows how to get its ideas across, and has been doing so very nicely for a millenia.

So you think humour, fireside chat, story format etc are "simply presenting the facts"?
People who already have a deep interest in the subject and in science in general are quite few and in the minority. If it had been doing it well for a millenia, then why was the sudden increase in scientific knowledge more rapid over the past 400 years than the previous 1,000?

Mad_Max:

And if you're implying the public isn't interested in scientific facts, you're incredibly wrong. A glance at the non-fiction bestseller lists over the past several decades might be instructive. The public is ravenous for scientific facts and ideas, and have been so for ages. Newton's books were bestsellers, in spite of their difficult material. Darwin's On the Origin of the Species sold out.

You did not mention the number of copies that were printed.
The public ravenous? I think the New York Times Non-Fiction Bestsellers lists disagrees with that statement.
Check the lists here the current list http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/books/bestseller/bestpapernonfiction.html?ref=bestseller
2008 list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Non-Fiction_Bestsellers_of_2008
2007 list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Non-Fiction_Bestsellers_of_2007
2006 list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Non-Fiction_Bestsellers_of_2006

I don't really want to continue on down but the glowing absence is the absence of scientifically inclined books.

Also considering the 100 books considered the most influential books written, I think one can count the number of scientific ones using the fingers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_100_Most_Influential_Books_Ever_Written

Mad_Max:

The trend continues to this day. If science couldn't present its facts effectively it would have closed shop long ago.

It almost did but was revived and it is unlikely to close shop now due to the quality of products made from these advances.

Mad_Max:

Presenting the facts does work. Science has been doing nothing else. What's the alternative you're proposing, lol,: presenting non-facts?

Hey there, Seeker.

No, my friend, it does not work. Like you've pointed out, presenting science to the general public requires stories and a story line, plots, antagonists, protagonists, suspense, tragedy and other elements that make a good movie. If you want just the facts, then attend scientific conferences that deal with a lot of abstract and similar elements and let us know how interested you were in simply hearing the facts of e.g the mechanism of action of the proto-oncogene c-myc in causing Burkitt's Lymphoma or methods of light speed reduction in a cold gas.

Mad_Max:

Presenting the facts does work. Science has been doing nothing else. What's the alternative you're proposing, lol,: presenting non-facts?
I don't know what would communicate 'it has worked' to you in telling people phones don't cause cancer, or cannabis isn't as dangerous as alcohol: if everyone bought extra phones, or if we all got together to get high? Would presenting the facts have worked then? Presenting scientific ideas and discoveries is one thing, telling people how to live their lives is another. Don't confuse the two.

No one is trying to tell people how to live their lives. One way of showing the communication has worked would be the reduction in fear of mobile phones and other electronic devices while in the case of cannabis, it would be demonstrated by better legislation on alcohol and marijuana.
Also, when facts are presented, it is generally expected that if they are agreed with, a change in behaviour is a good indicator on how accepted it is.

Mad_Max:

When I said look at the bestseller lists, it's so you could see books on science were bestsellers in every sngle year. The brief list on wikipedia you're presenting are not the best-selling books for those years, it merely showed which books were NUMBER ONE New-York times best-sellers for a given week. You do know what 'topped the bestseller list' means, don't you? Science is one non-ficition field of many. There are others, from politics to cookery to esoterica. A book may sell millions and not be at number one, because huge quantities of books in every non-fcition field are devoured. You don't have to be the number one best-seller, to be a best-seller.

You see going by the law of large numbers, it would be very surprising if no scientifically inclined books were bestsellers by your definition. The very fact that they are so few and far between should be an indicator of how popular they actually are. Why don't you simply present the source of your list to put this aspect to a rest.

Mad_Max:

There  are scientists writiing on difficult subjects whose every book have been bestsellers, like, one of many, Steven Pinker. There are and have been so many scientists writing best-selling science, I don't even know where to begin. Carl's Sagan's fact-presenting science tv progamme, COSMOS, was watched for its  entire duration by hundreds of millions of people in over 60 different countries. His books are bestsellers. From the late Stephen Jay Gould to E.O Wilson, hundreds of scientists wrote best-selling books on their field. Even NON-SCIENTISTS who write on science discover their books are runaway bestsellers, like Bill Bryson, who wrote A Short History of Nearly Everything, which explored almost every field of science from its origins. I have the book. One of the best books on science you'll ever read.

Once again, from the law of large numbers, those events should occur.
I've not seen Cosmos so I looked it up on Wikipedia. Looking at the first two episodes, I could see that the facts were not just simply presented.
In the first, there was an illustration of life on other planets but the fact is that we know no such thing or how they would look like.
In the second, there was speculation of life in Jupiter's clouds which is also not a fact.
Such methods are used to encourage viewers. It is not just a presentation of facts.
About the books, what you're doing is simply picking and choosing what may very well be exceptions. The fact that you have the book simply indicates that you're interested in science. But, the fact that the books did not make it to number one I think is a testament of what the public is actually hungry for.

Mad_Max:

To be perfectly honest, I have no idea what stand you've been taking, or what you've been arguing for, exactly. "Presentation of facts don't work" and "It is religious personal interpretation that work in presenting facts, but it's dishonest so scientists leave it out of journals and research". And all the rest. Argument for argument's sake, I don't do very well.

You have partially stated my stand though you've presented it as a false dichotomy. Firstly, I think it should be clear that some facts can only be presented mathematically and that any attempt at producing some sort of images will be inherently flawed. The alternative methods of presenting these facts also include dramatizations, illustrations, and other similar elements that appeals to people in general. Religious personal interpretation does work for some but it's not the only alternative method.
I indicated other elements there towards the end of that post.
So I don't think I'm arguing for the sake of argument. What I think is stated if it's not clear, I'll clarify it.

Mad_Max:

You do realise you're entitled to your own views on any matter, don't you? Perhaps we should get back to discussing evolution: Darwin, fossil records, evolutionary psychology, meteorites, the alien-origin-of-life ideas, hominids, dinosaurs, ice age, adaptation, trilobytes, primeval mud, etc. I've a lot of questions and I bet, so do others.

Of course we're all entitled to our views and I think presenting them anywhere means you're confident about these views and can take other opinions and criticisms that may not agree with these views.
Sure so on to the discussion of evolution?