Controversial creationist book hits Scots universities Academics fear the book could also end up in schools.
By Edd McCracken
Education Correspondent A CONTROVERSIAL book by an evangelical Muslim - claiming to prove that God created the earth, and calling evolution a "deceit" that was responsible for the Holocaust, communism and the 9/11 attacks - is being sent unsolicited to Scottish universities.
Seven copies of the lavishly-produced Atlas Of Creation by Harun Yahya have arrived at the University of Edinburgh, while the University of Glasgow has received two, leading to concerns that they may appear in schools as well.
Last year, the book caused uproar in France when it turned up in classrooms, prompting human rights watchdog the Council of Europe to report on Yahya, his writings, and his method of distribution.
"I find it quite staggering," said Aubrey Manning, emeritus professor of natural history at the University of Edinburgh. He houses his seven copies in a cupboard in the zoology department's staff room. "Every academic I know says they've got one of those. And it's peddling an absolute, downright lie."
He said the appearance of the books and the rise of creationist voices in the UK, within both Christian and Muslim groups, didn't affect his teaching but that he was "much more worried about primary and secondary school classrooms".
He added: "Christians do not have a monopoly on irrational thinking. I would be very worried what these fundamentalist Islamites are up to. I'm pretty sure they're not neo-Darwinians."
In contrast to many Young-Earth Creationists, who believe the earth to be only 6000 years old, the Atlas Of Creation says the earth is hundreds of millions of years old, but that species, including humans, have remained the same throughout.
Most of the 800 pages are taken up with glossy pictures showing fossils and their contemporary living equivalent unchanged in form, thereby, alleges the book, disproving evolution.
It states that "there exists not a single example within 100 million fossils related to 250,000 species catalogued by scientists until today that supports evolution".
It goes further in linking a belief in evolution to modern evils.
Under a picture of the collapsing Twin Towers, a caption reads: "No matter what ideology they may espouse, those who perpetrate terror all over the world are, in reality, Darwinists. Darwinism is the only philosophy that places value on - and thus encourages - conflict."
Harun Yahya is the pen name of Adnan Oktar, an Istanbul-based writer. Under his pseudonym, Oktar has produced hundreds of books, videos and articles.
According to Taner Edis, a physicist at Truman State University in the US who has written several books on Islam and science, Oktar is "the leader of a small religious sect and an art school drop-out."
Copies of Atlas Of Creation began appearing in American universities last year. Edis has two in his office. He said they caught academics' eyes because of their high production value, but also because it argued for creationism from a Muslim perspective, as opposed to the more widely heard Protestant Christian tradition.
"Creationism is a popular way of thought among Muslims, particularly among those exposed to more Western ways of thinking," he said. "In that sense, it's not out of the mainstream. However, the degree of emphasis Yahya places on how Darwinian evolution is the root of all evil in the world, that is unusual."
Islamic theologian Amanullah De Sondy, of the University of Glasgow, said he is wary of the Atlas Of Creation and Oktars's other writings. He said they are from "an evangelical, populist, very devotional" point of view.
"What he's always trying to do is show how Islam is far superior to everything else," he said. "It's very cleverly done. But you can't just show kids a Harun Yahya book and say this is the Islamic viewpoint. There are so many other viewpoints. That's problematic. The loudest voices or the prettiest books are being accepted as the voice. Usually the voices of reason are the quietest."
|
|
Posted by: James on 11:12pm Sat 5 Apr 08
Wasn't Hitler also an art school drop-out? It is worrying that so much money has been made available for the publication and distribution of this work of dangerous fiction.
Wasn't Hitler also an art school drop-out? It is worrying that so much money has been made available for the publication and distribution of this work of dangerous fiction.
Posted by: I'm no really here on 11:43pm Sat 5 Apr 08
James - please specify what the DANGER is!!!!!
James - please specify what the DANGER is!!!!!
Posted by: Plobotsky on 12:21am Sun 6 Apr 08
It's a book. Students aren't going to read it unless they're told to, for heaven's sake.
As far as school pupils are concerned, just give it to primary kids and tell them to cut the pictures out for scrapbboks.
Isn't this what they used to call a moral panic?
It's a book. Students aren't going to read it unless they're told to, for heaven's sake.
As far as school pupils are concerned, just give it to primary kids and tell them to cut the pictures out for scrapbboks.
Isn't this what they used to call a moral panic?
Posted by: I'm no really here on 12:42am Sun 6 Apr 08
I think the only danger is to the THEORY of Evolution, and if it's academic supporters get in such a state over a book such as this, then perhaps the theory isn't such a solid one as is made out.
People should ALWAYS be worried when one group seek to exclude and eliminate the views of others - in this Evolutionists and Muslims share a common goal.
I think the only danger is to the THEORY of Evolution, and if it's academic supporters get in such a state over a book such as this, then perhaps the theory isn't such a solid one as is made out.
People should ALWAYS be worried when one group seek to exclude and eliminate the views of others - in this Evolutionists and Muslims share a common goal.
Posted by: I'm no really here on 12:48am Sun 6 Apr 08
[quote]prompting human rights watchdog the Council of Europe to report on Yahya, his writings, and his method of distribution.[/quote] The publication of a book is a violation of peoples Human Rights?????
I think it is the case that the supression of the publication and distribution of a book is a violation of Human Rights.
Or is it the case that the Council of Europe no decides what we can read and write?
prompting human rights watchdog the Council of Europe to report on Yahya, his writings, and his method of distribution.
The publication of a book is a violation of peoples Human Rights?????
I think it is the case that the supression of the publication and distribution of a book is a violation of Human Rights.
Or is it the case that the Council of Europe no decides what we can read and write?
Posted by: I'm no really here on 12:50am Sun 6 Apr 08
Sorry, missed out the "w" in the last post
Sorry, missed out the "w" in the last post
Posted by: Gerald Fruzia on 4:45am Sun 6 Apr 08
Polls show over 60 per cent of Americans believe in Intelligent Design rather than evolution. As a college graduate I find the evolutionary concept to be preposterous. The educational establishment promoting evolution is essentially atheistic and uses evolutionary theory as their weapon of choice against people of faith. While I fear the advance of Islamic authoritarianism in society, I am intrigued by this book and hope to evaluate it.
Polls show over 60 per cent of Americans believe in Intelligent Design rather than evolution. As a college graduate I find the evolutionary concept to be preposterous. The educational establishment promoting evolution is essentially atheistic and uses evolutionary theory as their weapon of choice against people of faith. While I fear the advance of Islamic authoritarianism in society, I am intrigued by this book and hope to evaluate it.
Posted by: Watson Forrest, AR USA on 4:45am Sun 6 Apr 08
God created the heaven and the earth, anyone who thinks different is a blithering idiot...period
God created the heaven and the earth, anyone who thinks different is a blithering idiot...period
Posted by: Lobeydosser, Woodlands Road on 5:50am Sun 6 Apr 08
I see 'they' are out in force already this morning; must be the time difference.
Creationist theory is a theory based on biblical creationism and is belief, not science.
Evolution is science because it can be proven through scientific methods of proof and corroboration. Therefore evolution is fact, not belief, can be verified and helps our understanding of the universe.
Depending on your point of view, Genesis provides the 6 days, or periods of time, it took to make the stars, planets earth, seas, aninals, plants, mankind, etc. but science provides us with a more accurate time-frame and fills in the details. Therefore creationist cannot prove the 6 days in Genesis, they have to believe it - no questions asked (Mr Watson) However science can prove roughly, what happened, when it happened and possibly how it happenend - so we can understand.
Therefore there is nothing wrong with the book, providing it is used in context, and sensibly, with science and creationist theories as another discussion document, but it is not the definitive writing on creation.
I see 'they' are out in force already this morning; must be the time difference.
Creationist theory is a theory based on biblical creationism and is belief, not science.
Evolution is science because it can be proven through scientific methods of proof and corroboration. Therefore evolution is fact, not belief, can be verified and helps our understanding of the universe.
Depending on your point of view, Genesis provides the 6 days, or periods of time, it took to make the stars, planets earth, seas, aninals, plants, mankind, etc. but science provides us with a more accurate time-frame and fills in the details. Therefore creationist cannot prove the 6 days in Genesis, they have to believe it - no questions asked (Mr Watson) However science can prove roughly, what happened, when it happened and possibly how it happenend - so we can understand.
Therefore there is nothing wrong with the book, providing it is used in context, and sensibly, with science and creationist theories as another discussion document, but it is not the definitive writing on creation.
Posted by: emsscot, Glasgow on 5:55am Sun 6 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Watson Forrest[/bold] wrote:
God created the heaven and the earth, anyone who thinks different is a blithering idiot...period[/quote] Oh Lord, another bible belt thumper. Get over yourself and realize that not everyone who can see someone else's point of view or doesn't believe "blindly" is a moron. What a stupid, arrogant statement.
Watson Forrest wrote:
God created the heaven and the earth, anyone who thinks different is a blithering idiot...period
Oh Lord, another bible belt thumper. Get over yourself and realize that not everyone who can see someone else's point of view or doesn't believe "blindly" is a moron. What a stupid, arrogant statement.
Posted by: Matt, Fairfax, VA, USA on 8:03am Sun 6 Apr 08
[quote]Evolution is science because it can be proven through scientific methods of proof and corroboration. Therefore evolution is fact, not belief, can be verified and helps our understanding of the universe.[/quote]
What are you talking about? There is no proof of evolution. It's an hypothesis only because it FAILS the scientific method. The phenomenon is observed, questioned, and a theory is created. But the theories cannot by tested, and hence, cannot be proven. All that's available is observation of historical materials; the conditions that led to changes in the fossil record cannot be verified without qualified experimentation and testing.
Evolution a whole should not be discounted as we can see changes in species as they adapt to changing environments. But it cannot expain the fundamental question of where everything started, where the species came from in the first place. Until it can do that, it should not be promoted as scientific truth, and those who believe faith-based reasons for the universe should not be mocked by those who are biased against them in the first place. There's nothing open-minded about ridiculing other's beliefs when one's own belief cannot be verified, either.
Evolution is science because it can be proven through scientific methods of proof and corroboration. Therefore evolution is fact, not belief, can be verified and helps our understanding of the universe.
What are you talking about? There is no proof of evolution. It's an hypothesis only because it FAILS the scientific method. The phenomenon is observed, questioned, and a theory is created. But the theories cannot by tested, and hence, cannot be proven. All that's available is observation of historical materials; the conditions that led to changes in the fossil record cannot be verified without qualified experimentation and testing.
Evolution a whole should not be discounted as we can see changes in species as they adapt to changing environments. But it cannot expain the fundamental question of where everything started, where the species came from in the first place. Until it can do that, it should not be promoted as scientific truth, and those who believe faith-based reasons for the universe should not be mocked by those who are biased against them in the first place. There's nothing open-minded about ridiculing other's beliefs when one's own belief cannot be verified, either.
Posted by: chris erickson, tucson, az on 8:16am Sun 6 Apr 08
[bold]bold[/bold] [bold]Creation from any viewpoint is better than evolution from the most educated Atheist. Most evolutionists are Atheist. Atheism is the apex of arrogance. To say that one knows beyond a doubt that there is no God, is like saying I know all knowledge, I have all wisdom, I have been to every part of the universe and I know that there is no God. Not only is the Atheist arrogant, he is also a liar.
bold Creation from any viewpoint is better than evolution from the most educated Atheist. Most evolutionists are Atheist. Atheism is the apex of arrogance. To say that one knows beyond a doubt that there is no God, is like saying I know all knowledge, I have all wisdom, I have been to every part of the universe and I know that there is no God. Not only is the Atheist arrogant, he is also a liar.
Posted by: chris erickson on 8:18am Sun 6 Apr 08
He lies to himself, to others, and to God. Life comes from life. I challenge any evolutionist to turn any non-living substance into a living one. It cannot be done. Only the Creator, God, has that power. I find it ironic that many evolutionists and/or scientists often search the heavens for signs of off world intelligence yet deny creditable signs of a Supreme Intelligence right in front of their God given eyes and ears. Here we are the only floating, rotating ball of earth, filled with life beyond imaginations. The only planet as far as scientist can tell that has this kind of life in all the universe. Yet they say all this was an accident, an anomaly, a random act of lifeless eternal matter that suddenly exploded into what we see today. How crazy is that?
He lies to himself, to others, and to God. Life comes from life. I challenge any evolutionist to turn any non-living substance into a living one. It cannot be done. Only the Creator, God, has that power. I find it ironic that many evolutionists and/or scientists often search the heavens for signs of off world intelligence yet deny creditable signs of a Supreme Intelligence right in front of their God given eyes and ears. Here we are the only floating, rotating ball of earth, filled with life beyond imaginations. The only planet as far as scientist can tell that has this kind of life in all the universe. Yet they say all this was an accident, an anomaly, a random act of lifeless eternal matter that suddenly exploded into what we see today. How crazy is that?
Posted by: Chris erickson on 8:19am Sun 6 Apr 08
Yet the Creator has spoken. He speaks through creation saying I AM. We spend millions on telescopes and radar that we might see or hear some intelligent voice from the heavens, telling us that we are not alone in the universe. Yet the most Intelligent Being speaks coherently and logically through His Word, the Bible. Compare this Book to any other book in the world, you will see there is no comparison. No other book has the highest moral code or the most logical explanation for this world. You don’t have to examine every “scientific fact” or every religion out there to decide what is truth. Just stick to reality and honesty. Truth will find you. Now tell me what takes more faith to believe in: Evolution or Creation?
Yet the Creator has spoken. He speaks through creation saying I AM. We spend millions on telescopes and radar that we might see or hear some intelligent voice from the heavens, telling us that we are not alone in the universe. Yet the most Intelligent Being speaks coherently and logically through His Word, the Bible. Compare this Book to any other book in the world, you will see there is no comparison. No other book has the highest moral code or the most logical explanation for this world. You don’t have to examine every “scientific fact” or every religion out there to decide what is truth. Just stick to reality and honesty. Truth will find you. Now tell me what takes more faith to believe in: Evolution or Creation?
Posted by: wee folding bike on 8:25am Sun 6 Apr 08
Matt,
There is contemporary evidence. No doubt your next tactic will be to invoke "micro" vs "macro" evolution but that is not a meaningful distinction.
If religion says something silly it is available for mockery. There is no magic bullet whereby I can claim some crazy story then insulate it from derision by saying it is a religion.
Matt,
There is contemporary evidence. No doubt your next tactic will be to invoke "micro" vs "macro" evolution but that is not a meaningful distinction.
If religion says something silly it is available for mockery. There is no magic bullet whereby I can claim some crazy story then insulate it from derision by saying it is a religion.
Posted by: jackslad, Bathgate on 8:36am Sun 6 Apr 08
Hoo-eee !!! Have they opened the doors to the asylum? God is man made and was invented to control the minds of the people. Creationism is balonie. Intelligent Design my ar$e.
Hoo-eee !!! Have they opened the doors to the asylum? God is man made and was invented to control the minds of the people. Creationism is balonie. Intelligent Design my ar$e.
Posted by: Lobeydosser, Woodlands Road on 8:37am Sun 6 Apr 08
Matt, I am not having a go at anyones beliefs; that is the last thing on my mind but I will question beliefs if I do not understand them because I have seen some very strange things in my life that is espoused as belief, when in fact it is n't. So I am not mocking you or your ilk.
Unfortunately I do not have a PhD in Astrophysics so I am not at liberty to discuss the big bang many billions of years ago in detail as to whether it was a natural phenomenon or caused by something or someone else; I just do not know.
But I will not accept someones belief just because they say so; I will ask for evidence and possibly two independent elements to verify what is presented to me.
Matt, I am not having a go at anyones beliefs; that is the last thing on my mind but I will question beliefs if I do not understand them because I have seen some very strange things in my life that is espoused as belief, when in fact it is n't. So I am not mocking you or your ilk.
Unfortunately I do not have a PhD in Astrophysics so I am not at liberty to discuss the big bang many billions of years ago in detail as to whether it was a natural phenomenon or caused by something or someone else; I just do not know.
But I will not accept someones belief just because they say so; I will ask for evidence and possibly two independent elements to verify what is presented to me.
Posted by: wee folding bike on 8:37am Sun 6 Apr 08
Chris,
[quote] No other book has the highest moral code or the most logical explanation for this world.[/quote]
Can you sort this out for us then.
Genesis 1:1- 2:3 says this:
1. Heaven and Earth
2. Light (night and day)
3. Sky
4. Plants
5. Sun, moon, and stars
6. Fish and birds
7. Land animals
8. Man and woman at the same time
Whereas Genesis 2:4 - 2:25 has this order:
1. Man
2. Plants
3. Birds and land animals
4. Woman
Are they both correct?
[quote]Just stick to reality and honesty.[/quote]
In your reality donkeys can talk, people can fly and a man names Jesus lives up in the sky.
Chris,
No other book has the highest moral code or the most logical explanation for this world.
Can you sort this out for us then.
Genesis 1:1- 2:3 says this:
1. Heaven and Earth
2. Light (night and day)
3. Sky
4. Plants
5. Sun, moon, and stars
6. Fish and birds
7. Land animals
8. Man and woman at the same time
Whereas Genesis 2:4 - 2:25 has this order:
1. Man
2. Plants
3. Birds and land animals
4. Woman
Are they both correct?
Just stick to reality and honesty.
In your reality donkeys can talk, people can fly and a man names Jesus lives up in the sky.
Posted by: Mike MacKinnon on 8:43am Sun 6 Apr 08
I suppose we shouldn't be amazed that a large country like the US should have a large amount of ignorant cretins! These supposed 'xtians' believe in the ten commandments when it suits them and believe in Mammon at other times. These are the people who think that stone age children had pet dinosaurs and that the fifth commandment only applies to them! They apply no fact or reason to their rantings and justify it all in the name of 'belief.'
These people are the dregs of society, the kind that would have you murdered for failing to toe the line. They are not Xtians but followers of a false God. They are the 'Golden Calf' generation and are no better than the militant muslims they seek to deride!
Those whom the Gods seek to destroy, they first make mad.....
/rant off
I suppose we shouldn't be amazed that a large country like the US should have a large amount of ignorant cretins! These supposed 'xtians' believe in the ten commandments when it suits them and believe in Mammon at other times. These are the people who think that stone age children had pet dinosaurs and that the fifth commandment only applies to them! They apply no fact or reason to their rantings and justify it all in the name of 'belief.'
These people are the dregs of society, the kind that would have you murdered for failing to toe the line. They are not Xtians but followers of a false God. They are the 'Golden Calf' generation and are no better than the militant muslims they seek to deride!
Those whom the Gods seek to destroy, they first make mad.....
/rant off
Posted by: wee folding bike on 8:48am Sun 6 Apr 08
Mike,
Indeed. I have many friends in the USA. Unsurprisingly a lot of them are religious. One of them is even a Methodist pastor. They have no trouble with evolution and despair of their creationist countrymen.
Mike,
Indeed. I have many friends in the USA. Unsurprisingly a lot of them are religious. One of them is even a Methodist pastor. They have no trouble with evolution and despair of their creationist countrymen.
Posted by: McSomeone, Scotland on 9:18am Sun 6 Apr 08
[quote]Yet they say all this was an accident, an anomaly, a random act of lifeless eternal matter that suddenly exploded into what we see today. How crazy is that?[/quote]
As crazy and as illogical as the belief in some supreme magician who creates life out of thin air.
Anyone who believes in immortality doesn't understand eternity.
Yet they say all this was an accident, an anomaly, a random act of lifeless eternal matter that suddenly exploded into what we see today. How crazy is that?
As crazy and as illogical as the belief in some supreme magician who creates life out of thin air.
Anyone who believes in immortality doesn't understand eternity.
Posted by: Mike MacKinnon on 10:24am Sun 6 Apr 08
Wee folder, I agree that not all religious people are ignorant cretins. It is, as you say, the creationists who are the non thinking minority.
Wee folder, I agree that not all religious people are ignorant cretins. It is, as you say, the creationists who are the non thinking minority.
Posted by: gw on 10:36am Sun 6 Apr 08
One lot says "God created everything" - the other lot says " A big bang created everything out of nothing"
Neither statement sounds particularly scientific to me - both sound equallu unlikely but scientists reject one version because they find the other even more unacceptable.
Hardly the basis for sound scientific knowledge is it!
One lot says "God created everything" - the other lot says " A big bang created everything out of nothing"
Neither statement sounds particularly scientific to me - both sound equallu unlikely but scientists reject one version because they find the other even more unacceptable.
Hardly the basis for sound scientific knowledge is it!
Posted by: wee folding bike on 10:41am Sun 6 Apr 08
[quote]Hardly the basis for sound scientific knowledge is it!
[/quote]
Strawman.
aedan
Hardly the basis for sound scientific knowledge is it!
Strawman.
aedan
Posted by: AyrshireScot, South Ayrshire on 10:47am Sun 6 Apr 08
Chris Erickson
"I challenge any evolutionist to turn any non-living substance into a living one. It cannot be done. Only the Creator, God, has that power"
I think the Urey-Miller experiment, which won the Nobel Prize, demonstrated that indeed non-living simple elements, when subjected to electricity identical to that constant in the Earth's atmosphere, does indeed yield complex organic molecules and amino acids, the building blocks of life.
Viruses every day show that non-living constructs of fairly simple molecules can reproduce in a "living" manner using cellular DNA, and those can indeed be made in a lab.
I don't know if God exists - the balance of evidence I see so far suggests he does not, but I cannot rule it out. You do however rule out evolution, despite all the evidence which proves it. That is the worrying difference between scientific and religious patterns of thought, enquiry and proof.
Chris Erickson
"I challenge any evolutionist to turn any non-living substance into a living one. It cannot be done. Only the Creator, God, has that power"
I think the Urey-Miller experiment, which won the Nobel Prize, demonstrated that indeed non-living simple elements, when subjected to electricity identical to that constant in the Earth's atmosphere, does indeed yield complex organic molecules and amino acids, the building blocks of life.
Viruses every day show that non-living constructs of fairly simple molecules can reproduce in a "living" manner using cellular DNA, and those can indeed be made in a lab.
I don't know if God exists - the balance of evidence I see so far suggests he does not, but I cannot rule it out. You do however rule out evolution, despite all the evidence which proves it. That is the worrying difference between scientific and religious patterns of thought, enquiry and proof.
Posted by: John Ericsson on 10:51am Sun 6 Apr 08
Interesting that people now one to turn to cosmology rather than debating evolution.
There is lots of evidence for the big bang, we know it happened and we know (approximately) when it occurred. We do not (yet)know the cause. There is no faith involved in the scientific position. Before Newton, which was the correct answer to "why do apples fall down?"
"god makes them!!!!" or "we don't know"
Interesting that people now one to turn to cosmology rather than debating evolution.
There is lots of evidence for the big bang, we know it happened and we know (approximately) when it occurred. We do not (yet)know the cause. There is no faith involved in the scientific position. Before Newton, which was the correct answer to "why do apples fall down?"
"god makes them!!!!" or "we don't know"
Posted by: AyrshireScot, South Ayrshire on 10:53am Sun 6 Apr 08
[quote][bold]gw[/bold] wrote:
One lot says "God created everything" - the other lot says " A big bang created everything out of nothing" Neither statement sounds particularly scientific to me - both sound equallu unlikely but scientists reject one version because they find the other even more unacceptable. Hardly the basis for sound scientific knowledge is it![/quote] Scientists do not reject God. We say there is no proof, evidence or data of any kind to support the theories that relate to him. However, evolution is a testable theory which can be observed, predicted and has been studied.
gw wrote:
One lot says "God created everything" - the other lot says " A big bang created everything out of nothing" Neither statement sounds particularly scientific to me - both sound equallu unlikely but scientists reject one version because they find the other even more unacceptable. Hardly the basis for sound scientific knowledge is it!
Scientists do not reject God. We say there is no proof, evidence or data of any kind to support the theories that relate to him. However, evolution is a testable theory which can be observed, predicted and has been studied.
Posted by: sam, greenock on 11:07am Sun 6 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Gerald Fruzia[/bold] wrote:
Polls show over 60 per cent of Americans believe in Intelligent Design rather than evolution. As a college graduate I find the evolutionary concept to be preposterous. The educational establishment promoting evolution is essentially atheistic and uses evolutionary theory as their weapon of choice against people of faith. While I fear the advance of Islamic authoritarianism in society, I am intrigued by this book and hope to evaluate it.[/quote] [quote]As a college graduate I find the evolutionary concept to be preposterous.[/quote]
As a sane human being I find your imbecilic posting to be preposterous.
Why does being a college graduate make any difference?
Your obviously one of these religous nutjob americans we here so much about
Gerald Fruzia wrote:
Polls show over 60 per cent of Americans believe in Intelligent Design rather than evolution. As a college graduate I find the evolutionary concept to be preposterous. The educational establishment promoting evolution is essentially atheistic and uses evolutionary theory as their weapon of choice against people of faith. While I fear the advance of Islamic authoritarianism in society, I am intrigued by this book and hope to evaluate it.
As a college graduate I find the evolutionary concept to be preposterous.
As a sane human being I find your imbecilic posting to be preposterous.
Why does being a college graduate make any difference?
Your obviously one of these religous nutjob americans we here so much about
Posted by: sam, greenock on 11:10am Sun 6 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Matt[/bold] wrote:
[quote]Evolution is science because it can be proven through scientific methods of proof and corroboration. Therefore evolution is fact, not belief, can be verified and helps our understanding of the universe.[/quote] What are you talking about? There is no proof of evolution. It\'s an hypothesis only because it FAILS the scientific method. The phenomenon is observed, questioned, and a theory is created. But the theories cannot by tested, and hence, cannot be proven. All that\'s available is observation of historical materials; the conditions that led to changes in the fossil record cannot be verified without qualified experimentation and testing. Evolution a whole should not be discounted as we can see changes in species as they adapt to changing environments. But it cannot expain the fundamental question of where everything started, where the species came from in the first place. Until it can do that, it should not be promoted as scientific truth, and those who believe faith-based reasons for the universe should not be mocked by those who are biased against them in the first place. There\'s nothing open-minded about ridiculing other\'s beliefs when one\'s own belief cannot be verified, either.[/quote] haw haw haw haw
the big man in the sky with the long white beard done it all
haw haw haw haw
Matt wrote:
Evolution is science because it can be proven through scientific methods of proof and corroboration. Therefore evolution is fact, not belief, can be verified and helps our understanding of the universe.
What are you talking about? There is no proof of evolution. It\'s an hypothesis only because it FAILS the scientific method. The phenomenon is observed, questioned, and a theory is created. But the theories cannot by tested, and hence, cannot be proven. All that\'s available is observation of historical materials; the conditions that led to changes in the fossil record cannot be verified without qualified experimentation and testing. Evolution a whole should not be discounted as we can see changes in species as they adapt to changing environments. But it cannot expain the fundamental question of where everything started, where the species came from in the first place. Until it can do that, it should not be promoted as scientific truth, and those who believe faith-based reasons for the universe should not be mocked by those who are biased against them in the first place. There\'s nothing open-minded about ridiculing other\'s beliefs when one\'s own belief cannot be verified, either.
haw haw haw haw
the big man in the sky with the long white beard done it all
haw haw haw haw
Posted by: sam, greenock on 11:13am Sun 6 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Chris erickson[/bold] wrote:
Yet the Creator has spoken. He speaks through creation saying I AM. We spend millions on telescopes and radar that we might see or hear some intelligent voice from the heavens, telling us that we are not alone in the universe. Yet the most Intelligent Being speaks coherently and logically through His Word, the Bible. Compare this Book to any other book in the world, you will see there is no comparison. No other book has the highest moral code or the most logical explanation for this world. You don’t have to examine every “scientific fact” or every religion out there to decide what is truth. Just stick to reality and honesty. Truth will find you. Now tell me what takes more faith to believe in: Evolution or Creation? [/quote] .........[quote]Just stick to reality and honesty[/quote]
I love the smell of fundementalists in the morning........heee heee heee heee
Chris erickson wrote:
Yet the Creator has spoken. He speaks through creation saying I AM. We spend millions on telescopes and radar that we might see or hear some intelligent voice from the heavens, telling us that we are not alone in the universe. Yet the most Intelligent Being speaks coherently and logically through His Word, the Bible. Compare this Book to any other book in the world, you will see there is no comparison. No other book has the highest moral code or the most logical explanation for this world. You don’t have to examine every “scientific fact” or every religion out there to decide what is truth. Just stick to reality and honesty. Truth will find you. Now tell me what takes more faith to believe in: Evolution or Creation?
.........
Just stick to reality and honesty
I love the smell of fundementalists in the morning........heee heee heee heee
Posted by: McSoneone, Scotland on 12:05pm Sun 6 Apr 08
[quote]Yet the most Intelligent Being speaks coherently and logically through His Word, the Bible. Compare this Book to any other book in the world, you will see there is no comparison.[/quote]
I wonder if Chris has read the Sumerian Epic of creation, "Epic of Gilgamesh", or the Hindu epic of creation, The Mahabharatta, then there's the Mayan Epic of Creation, called The Popal Vu.
I recommend the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, as this was the original book that much of the old testiment was based on.
The bible as we know it has been translated and reinterpreted from ancient Greek, to Aramaic, to Latin and then to English and no longer bears any resemblance to the original. Unless of course god spoke the English of the court of King James!
If you want to know where your modern christianity came from then I suggest you research the Council of Nicea, where the Emporer Constantine brought together all the Empire's religious leaders to forge one unifying religion that would be acceptable thoughout empire and cotnrollable by Imperial Rome. It is a mix of the Roman belief of Sol Invictus, the Persian belief of Mithras, Greak and Jewish beliefs and well as Northern European. It ended up being hijacked by one group that created the religion we now call the church of Rome, or christianity.
It is always interesting to note that religious fanatics and fundamentalists always demand that evolutionists provide them with "absolute proof" of their theories but refuse to do so in the case of their theocratic "beliefs", saying that we must accept and believe unconditionally to make it true. When that isn't acceptable, it is then for us to disprove the existance of their god rather than on them to prove his existance.
Yet the most Intelligent Being speaks coherently and logically through His Word, the Bible. Compare this Book to any other book in the world, you will see there is no comparison.
I wonder if Chris has read the Sumerian Epic of creation, "Epic of Gilgamesh", or the Hindu epic of creation, The Mahabharatta, then there's the Mayan Epic of Creation, called The Popal Vu.
I recommend the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, as this was the original book that much of the old testiment was based on.
The bible as we know it has been translated and reinterpreted from ancient Greek, to Aramaic, to Latin and then to English and no longer bears any resemblance to the original. Unless of course god spoke the English of the court of King James!
If you want to know where your modern christianity came from then I suggest you research the Council of Nicea, where the Emporer Constantine brought together all the Empire's religious leaders to forge one unifying religion that would be acceptable thoughout empire and cotnrollable by Imperial Rome. It is a mix of the Roman belief of Sol Invictus, the Persian belief of Mithras, Greak and Jewish beliefs and well as Northern European. It ended up being hijacked by one group that created the religion we now call the church of Rome, or christianity.
It is always interesting to note that religious fanatics and fundamentalists always demand that evolutionists provide them with "absolute proof" of their theories but refuse to do so in the case of their theocratic "beliefs", saying that we must accept and believe unconditionally to make it true. When that isn't acceptable, it is then for us to disprove the existance of their god rather than on them to prove his existance.
Posted by: Observer on 12:42pm Sun 6 Apr 08
McSomeone - I made a post of a similar nature to part of yours a wee while ago on another thread, pointing out that it was rather strange for Christians to base their life choices around a book that no one knew who the authors were, and when the final draft wasn't actually settled until several hundred years after the events it purported to describe. I didn't half get pelters from the God Squad ! They might be heading your way.
But I would agree with the Professor that Christians do not have a monopoly on irrational thinking !
Sam @ 11.13 hee hee hee
McSomeone - I made a post of a similar nature to part of yours a wee while ago on another thread, pointing out that it was rather strange for Christians to base their life choices around a book that no one knew who the authors were, and when the final draft wasn't actually settled until several hundred years after the events it purported to describe. I didn't half get pelters from the God Squad ! They might be heading your way.
But I would agree with the Professor that Christians do not have a monopoly on irrational thinking !
Sam @ 11.13 hee hee hee
Posted by: zeno, www.thinkhumanism.co
m on 1:12pm Sun 6 Apr 08
There are two places for this book to go in the library: the fiction section or under 'myths and fables', although I suppose the humour section is another possibility.
There are two places for this book to go in the library: the fiction section or under 'myths and fables', although I suppose the humour section is another possibility.
Posted by: James on 1:19pm Sun 6 Apr 08
McSoneone
I enjoyed reading your post, because it put into historical context the myth of religious belief. Religious extremists seem unaware that other cultures pre-dating Islam, Christianity and Judaism have existed; and that key elements of the myths these cultures created are present in the major religions of today.
How many children, how many adults for that matter, will be aware of 'The Epic of Gilgamesh'? Very few, I contend.
McSoneone
I enjoyed reading your post, because it put into historical context the myth of religious belief. Religious extremists seem unaware that other cultures pre-dating Islam, Christianity and Judaism have existed; and that key elements of the myths these cultures created are present in the major religions of today.
How many children, how many adults for that matter, will be aware of 'The Epic of Gilgamesh'? Very few, I contend.
Posted by: I'm no really here on 1:27pm Sun 6 Apr 08
Of course Creation is a Faith not a Science. However, Evolution is also a Faith and not a Science. It is the Faith of Humanists who want to do away with any God and any Faith except Faith in Man's ability.
Always worry about anyone who wants to exclude and eliminate the views of others - it usually means they know what they believe is flawed.
sam, greenock on 11:13am today[quote]I love the smell of fundementalists in the morning[/quote] Does that include the fundamentalist Evolutionists? Will they start bambing people if Creation is taught in Schools.
[quote]Scientists do not reject God. We say there is no proof, evidence or data of any kind to support the theories that relate to him. However, evolution is a testable theory which can be observed, predicted and has been studied.[/quote] Which of the many contradictory theories are you talking about. The one that uses genetic mutation to destroy 99% of life about 250m years ago, or the one that uses genetic mutation as an essential part of evolution? - oops, sorry, their the same one.
Of course Creation is a Faith not a Science. However, Evolution is also a Faith and not a Science. It is the Faith of Humanists who want to do away with any God and any Faith except Faith in Man's ability.
Always worry about anyone who wants to exclude and eliminate the views of others - it usually means they know what they believe is flawed.
sam, greenock on 11:13am today
I love the smell of fundementalists in the morning
Does that include the fundamentalist Evolutionists? Will they start bambing people if Creation is taught in Schools.
Scientists do not reject God. We say there is no proof, evidence or data of any kind to support the theories that relate to him. However, evolution is a testable theory which can be observed, predicted and has been studied.
Which of the many contradictory theories are you talking about. The one that uses genetic mutation to destroy 99% of life about 250m years ago, or the one that uses genetic mutation as an essential part of evolution? - oops, sorry, their the same one.
Posted by: McSomeone, Scotland on 1:30pm Sun 6 Apr 08
[quote]I didn't half get pelters from the God Squad ! They might be heading your way.[/quote]
Not a problem [bold]Observer[/bold], I spent my childhood in nazareth house in the tender care of the "poor sisters of nazareth" and survived some pretty intense indoctrination by the blackedshirted jesuit thugs. I've already been excomminicated under the terms of the papal document issued by the present pope in 1962. So nothing to lose, not that I had anything to gain as acording to them we were already condemned because of our parents.
Document: http://tiny.cc/bcTFO
Website: http://tiny.cc/EWx3U
I didn't half get pelters from the God Squad ! They might be heading your way.
Not a problem
Observer, I spent my childhood in nazareth house in the tender care of the "poor sisters of nazareth" and survived some pretty intense indoctrination by the blackedshirted jesuit thugs. I've already been excomminicated under the terms of the papal document issued by the present pope in 1962. So nothing to lose, not that I had anything to gain as acording to them we were already condemned because of our parents.
Document: http://tiny.cc/bcTFO
Website: http://tiny.cc/EWx3U
Posted by: AyrshireScot, South Ayrshire on 1:36pm Sun 6 Apr 08
[quote][bold]I'm no really here[/bold] wrote:
Of course Creation is a Faith not a Science. However, Evolution is also a Faith and not a Science. It is the Faith of Humanists who want to do away with any God and any Faith except Faith in Man's ability. Always worry about anyone who wants to exclude and eliminate the views of others - it usually means they know what they believe is flawed. sam, greenock on 11:13am today[quote]I love the smell of fundementalists in the morning[/quote] Does that include the fundamentalist Evolutionists? Will they start bambing people if Creation is taught in Schools. [quote]Scientists do not reject God. We say there is no proof, evidence or data of any kind to support the theories that relate to him. However, evolution is a testable theory which can be observed, predicted and has been studied.[/quote] Which of the many contradictory theories are you talking about. The one that uses genetic mutation to destroy 99% of life about 250m years ago, or the one that uses genetic mutation as an essential part of evolution? - oops, sorry, their the same one.[/quote] What is the theory of genetic mutation which destroyed 99% of life 250 million years ago? I am really not clear what you are getting at here so please explain.
Are you saying genetic mutation does not exist? Or that it is not a component of evolution?
Just so I can understand your perspective, could you tell me how old you think (believe/ know) the Earth to be, and whether you believe that humans were placed here in their current form by God? Thanks in advance for your answers.
I'm no really here wrote:
Of course Creation is a Faith not a Science. However, Evolution is also a Faith and not a Science. It is the Faith of Humanists who want to do away with any God and any Faith except Faith in Man's ability. Always worry about anyone who wants to exclude and eliminate the views of others - it usually means they know what they believe is flawed. sam, greenock on 11:13am todayI love the smell of fundementalists in the morning
Does that include the fundamentalist Evolutionists? Will they start bambing people if Creation is taught in Schools. Scientists do not reject God. We say there is no proof, evidence or data of any kind to support the theories that relate to him. However, evolution is a testable theory which can be observed, predicted and has been studied.
Which of the many contradictory theories are you talking about. The one that uses genetic mutation to destroy 99% of life about 250m years ago, or the one that uses genetic mutation as an essential part of evolution? - oops, sorry, their the same one.
What is the theory of genetic mutation which destroyed 99% of life 250 million years ago? I am really not clear what you are getting at here so please explain.
Are you saying genetic mutation does not exist? Or that it is not a component of evolution?
Just so I can understand your perspective, could you tell me how old you think (believe/ know) the Earth to be, and whether you believe that humans were placed here in their current form by God? Thanks in advance for your answers.
Posted by: Fatih, USA on 2:25pm Sun 6 Apr 08
The fossil known as Java Man, discovered in 1891, and that given the
name Pekin Man, discovered in 1923, have both been exposed as false
intermediate forms. A single tooth discovered in 1922 and given the
name Nebraska Man was subsequently, in 1927, determined to have
belonged to a wild boar. The skull discovered in 1912 and known as
Piltdown Man was exposed as a hoax in 1953, have been placed on
display for the previous 40 years. The fossil referred to as
Zinjanthropus, discovered in 1959, was realised to have been just an
ordinary ape. Ramapithecus, discovered in the 1930s and exhibited as
an intermediate form for the next 50 years, was declassified with the
realisation in 1981 that it was just an ordinary species of baboon.
Research conducted in 1999-2000 showed that Lucy, discovered in Africa
in 1974, was also invalid. When it was realised that the fossil skull
known as the Taung child, discovered in 1924, was that of a young
gorilla, this was similarly removed from the list in 1954.
Those who still see Evolution as a scientic fact should search for a undeniable scientific reason :) !
The fossil known as Java Man, discovered in 1891, and that given the
name Pekin Man, discovered in 1923, have both been exposed as false
intermediate forms. A single tooth discovered in 1922 and given the
name Nebraska Man was subsequently, in 1927, determined to have
belonged to a wild boar. The skull discovered in 1912 and known as
Piltdown Man was exposed as a hoax in 1953, have been placed on
display for the previous 40 years. The fossil referred to as
Zinjanthropus, discovered in 1959, was realised to have been just an
ordinary ape. Ramapithecus, discovered in the 1930s and exhibited as
an intermediate form for the next 50 years, was declassified with the
realisation in 1981 that it was just an ordinary species of baboon.
Research conducted in 1999-2000 showed that Lucy, discovered in Africa
in 1974, was also invalid. When it was realised that the fossil skull
known as the Taung child, discovered in 1924, was that of a young
gorilla, this was similarly removed from the list in 1954.
Those who still see Evolution as a scientic fact should search for a undeniable scientific reason :) !
Posted by: Cynicus on 2:26pm Sun 6 Apr 08
[quote][bold]gw[/bold] wrote:
One lot says \"God created everything\" - the other lot says \" A big bang created everything out of nothing\"
Neither statement sounds particularly scientific to me - both sound equallu unlikely but scientists reject one version because they find the other even more unacceptable.
Hardly the basis for sound scientific knowledge is it![/quote] There is a difference in character between these two statements. The first one cannot be tested by human agency and is therefore outside science.
The second [italic][bold]can[/bold][/italic] be tested. The theory holds, for example, that the beginning of time can be ascertained, that the universe is expanding an different times of "everything's" component parts -matter and antimatter-when aggregated back together in space and time restore the original "nothing" we started out with. That very crude picture should give you the thrust.
If the second statement is false, we can design experimental tests to refute it and replace it with another model. This is what happened a few years ago when an earlier model of the universe -The Steady State Theory of the late Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe was replaced by Big Bang because the latter fitted better the experimental data.
Big Bang theory could explain all that the Steady State theory could and some experimentally testable theories that Steady State could not. Big Bang, in turn, may one day yield to a replacement if confronted with experimental results that falsify some of its consequences. Such a model would explain all that Big Bang explains and some more.
But, to interest science, any new cosmological theory must be one whose consequences can be experimentally tested, i.e. it must be [italic]falsifiable[/italic], in principle.
Theists and atheists alike can agree that this can never be the case with the "God created everything" position. That is not to say it is untrue, merely that it is an unscientific statement -which is not quite the same thing.
gw wrote:
One lot says \"God created everything\" - the other lot says \" A big bang created everything out of nothing\"
Neither statement sounds particularly scientific to me - both sound equallu unlikely but scientists reject one version because they find the other even more unacceptable.
Hardly the basis for sound scientific knowledge is it!
There is a difference in character between these two statements. The first one cannot be tested by human agency and is therefore outside science.
The second
can be tested. The theory holds, for example, that the beginning of time can be ascertained, that the universe is expanding an different times of "everything's" component parts -matter and antimatter-when aggregated back together in space and time restore the original "nothing" we started out with. That very crude picture should give you the thrust.
If the second statement is false, we can design experimental tests to refute it and replace it with another model. This is what happened a few years ago when an earlier model of the universe -The Steady State Theory of the late Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe was replaced by Big Bang because the latter fitted better the experimental data.
Big Bang theory could explain all that the Steady State theory could and some experimentally testable theories that Steady State could not. Big Bang, in turn, may one day yield to a replacement if confronted with experimental results that falsify some of its consequences. Such a model would explain all that Big Bang explains and some more.
But, to interest science, any new cosmological theory must be one whose consequences can be experimentally tested, i.e. it must be
falsifiable, in principle.
Theists and atheists alike can agree that this can never be the case with the "God created everything" position. That is not to say it is untrue, merely that it is an unscientific statement -which is not quite the same thing.
Posted by: Cynicus on 2:34pm Sun 6 Apr 08
I'm sorry. There is a typo in the second paragraph of my post above. Even I don't understand what I was trying to say! I [bold]think[/bold] my intention was [quote]The second can be tested. The theory holds, for example, that the beginning of time can be ascertained, that the universe is expanding and different items of "everything's" component parts -matter and antimatter-when aggregated back together in space and time restore the original "nothing" we started out with. That very crude picture should give you the thrust.[/quote]
I'm sorry. There is a typo in the second paragraph of my post above. Even I don't understand what I was trying to say! I
think my intention was
The second can be tested. The theory holds, for example, that the beginning of time can be ascertained, that the universe is expanding and different items of "everything's" component parts -matter and antimatter-when aggregated back together in space and time restore the original "nothing" we started out with. That very crude picture should give you the thrust.
Posted by: drdons, Ohio, USA on 2:36pm Sun 6 Apr 08
Evidence for evolution: (1) the world's fastest predator hunts the world's fastest runner; (2) blind cave animals are more similar to surface animals living nearby than to cave blind cave dwellers halfway around the world; (3) animals on islands are more similar to animals on the mainland nearby than to island dwellers halfway around the world; (4) young fossils are more similar to living animals than older fossils, the differences increasing with age. BTW, faunal succession and superposition reveal relative age of fossils.
Evidence for evolution: (1) the world's fastest predator hunts the world's fastest runner; (2) blind cave animals are more similar to surface animals living nearby than to cave blind cave dwellers halfway around the world; (3) animals on islands are more similar to animals on the mainland nearby than to island dwellers halfway around the world; (4) young fossils are more similar to living animals than older fossils, the differences increasing with age. BTW, faunal succession and superposition reveal relative age of fossils.
Posted by: Slioch, Scottish Highlands on 2:40pm Sun 6 Apr 08
Cynicus
Well said. Let us not forget the wisdom of Karl Popper.
Cynicus
Well said. Let us not forget the wisdom of Karl Popper.
Posted by: Cynicus on 2:45pm Sun 6 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Slioch[/bold] wrote:
Cynicus
Well said. Let us not forget the wisdom of Karl Popper.[/quote] An Unended Quest
Slioch wrote:
Cynicus
Well said. Let us not forget the wisdom of Karl Popper.
An Unended Quest
Posted by: McSomeone, Scotland on 2:48pm Sun 6 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Fatih[/bold] wrote:
The fossil known as Java Man, discovered in 1891, and that given the name Pekin Man, discovered in 1923, have both been exposed as false intermediate forms. A single tooth discovered in 1922 and given the name Nebraska Man was subsequently, in 1927, determined to have belonged to a wild boar. The skull discovered in 1912 and known as Piltdown Man was exposed as a hoax in 1953, have been placed on display for the previous 40 years. The fossil referred to as Zinjanthropus, discovered in 1959, was realised to have been just an ordinary ape. Ramapithecus, discovered in the 1930s and exhibited as an intermediate form for the next 50 years, was declassified with the realisation in 1981 that it was just an ordinary species of baboon. Research conducted in 1999-2000 showed that Lucy, discovered in Africa in 1974, was also invalid. When it was realised that the fossil skull known as the Taung child, discovered in 1924, was that of a young gorilla, this was similarly removed from the list in 1954. Those who still see Evolution as a scientic fact should search for a undeniable scientific reason :) ! [/quote] fatih (or faith) First of all please provide proof or links to show that they are [bold]all[/bold] false. Certainly some of them are and have been publically discounted.
When you've done that maybe you could bring forth your proof for the existance of an all powerful god who created the universe. That he created the world in six days, six thousand years ago. Surely after three thousand years of belief, based on the old testament, you should be able to provide some uncontestable proofs of your god existance and his work.
You're always happy to demolish others beliefs whether scientific or religious but you never ever support your own except by demanding unquestioning belief and obedience.
Fatih wrote:
The fossil known as Java Man, discovered in 1891, and that given the name Pekin Man, discovered in 1923, have both been exposed as false intermediate forms. A single tooth discovered in 1922 and given the name Nebraska Man was subsequently, in 1927, determined to have belonged to a wild boar. The skull discovered in 1912 and known as Piltdown Man was exposed as a hoax in 1953, have been placed on display for the previous 40 years. The fossil referred to as Zinjanthropus, discovered in 1959, was realised to have been just an ordinary ape. Ramapithecus, discovered in the 1930s and exhibited as an intermediate form for the next 50 years, was declassified with the realisation in 1981 that it was just an ordinary species of baboon. Research conducted in 1999-2000 showed that Lucy, discovered in Africa in 1974, was also invalid. When it was realised that the fossil skull known as the Taung child, discovered in 1924, was that of a young gorilla, this was similarly removed from the list in 1954. Those who still see Evolution as a scientic fact should search for a undeniable scientific reason :) !
fatih (or faith) First of all please provide proof or links to show that they are
all false. Certainly some of them are and have been publically discounted.
When you've done that maybe you could bring forth your proof for the existance of an all powerful god who created the universe. That he created the world in six days, six thousand years ago. Surely after three thousand years of belief, based on the old testament, you should be able to provide some uncontestable proofs of your god existance and his work.
You're always happy to demolish others beliefs whether scientific or religious but you never ever support your own except by demanding unquestioning belief and obedience.
Posted by: Dave, Embra on 2:50pm Sun 6 Apr 08
Matt, the credulous and misguided:
'There is no proof of evolution. It's an hypothesis only because it FAILS the scientific method. The phenomenon is observed, questioned, and a theory is created. But the theories cannot by tested, and hence, cannot be proven.'
That'll be a bit like your god then... In answer to the second poster, the DANGER is putative child abuse. i,e, teaching impressionable little children that they should live in fear of hell and retribution in another world or that there is a Big Man in the Sky looking down on everything they do and say.
Matt, the credulous and misguided:
'There is no proof of evolution. It's an hypothesis only because it FAILS the scientific method. The phenomenon is observed, questioned, and a theory is created. But the theories cannot by tested, and hence, cannot be proven.'
That'll be a bit like your god then... In answer to the second poster, the DANGER is putative child abuse. i,e, teaching impressionable little children that they should live in fear of hell and retribution in another world or that there is a Big Man in the Sky looking down on everything they do and say.
Posted by: Cynicus on 2:54pm Sun 6 Apr 08
[quote]Surely after three thousand years of belief, based on the old testament, you should be able to provide some uncontestable proofs of your god existance and his work.[/quote]-McSomeone, Scotland on 2:48pm today
I by "uncontestable" you mean testable by scientists then you are being unreasonable. Statements about the supernatural cannot be tested in science which deals only with the natural world.
Surely after three thousand years of belief, based on the old testament, you should be able to provide some uncontestable proofs of your god existance and his work.
-McSomeone, Scotland on 2:48pm today
I by "uncontestable" you mean testable by scientists then you are being unreasonable. Statements about the supernatural cannot be tested in science which deals only with the natural world.
Posted by: DrRJP, Florida, USA on 3:00pm Sun 6 Apr 08
"Evangelical Muslim?"
Are you kidding me? Talk about an oxymoron!
This is not about Creationism or Evolution, but yet another sneaky way to further the Islamisation of Europe.
I wouldn't be surprised to read that Eve wore a burqa in the Garden of Eden, and that Jews really are the "descendants of apes and pigs" as is the prevailing theory in the Muslim world.
"Evangelical Muslim?"
Are you kidding me? Talk about an oxymoron!
This is not about Creationism or Evolution, but yet another sneaky way to further the Islamisation of Europe.
I wouldn't be surprised to read that Eve wore a burqa in the Garden of Eden, and that Jews really are the "descendants of apes and pigs" as is the prevailing theory in the Muslim world.
Posted by: a.e.l. on 3:30pm Sun 6 Apr 08
Who is this man with nom de plume HARUN (Aaron) YAHYA (John)?
Born in Ankara, Turkey in 1956 as [italic][bold]ADNAN OKTAR[/bold][/italic].
A.k.a. ADNAN HOCA.
Considered by some to be a leading Muslim advocate of Creationism.
He is against Zionism and Freemasonry and sees them as interrelated movements, but denounces anti Semitism and TERRORISM.
In 1979 he moved to Istanbul to attend an interior-design course at Mimar Sinan Uni of fine arts (Mimar Sunin Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi, but left before graduation.
In 1986 Adnan Oktar published the book Judaism And Freemasonry. He was arrested and imprisoned and transferred to Bakrköy Mental Hospital and placed under observation. After 19 months he was released.
He started up two foundations in 1990 the Scietific Research Foundation (in Turkish BAV) and in 1995 the foundation for Protection of National Values, which network are used to contact other traditional Islamist and nationalist organasations and individuals.
The Atlas of Creation was published by Gobal Publ., Istanbul, Turkey in Oct. 2006.
Who is this man with nom de plume HARUN (Aaron) YAHYA (John)?
Born in Ankara, Turkey in 1956 as
ADNAN OKTAR.
A.k.a. ADNAN HOCA.
Considered by some to be a leading Muslim advocate of Creationism.
He is against Zionism and Freemasonry and sees them as interrelated movements, but denounces anti Semitism and TERRORISM.
In 1979 he moved to Istanbul to attend an interior-design course at Mimar Sinan Uni of fine arts (Mimar Sunin Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi, but left before graduation.
In 1986 Adnan Oktar published the book Judaism And Freemasonry. He was arrested and imprisoned and transferred to Bakrköy Mental Hospital and placed under observation. After 19 months he was released.
He started up two foundations in 1990 the Scietific Research Foundation (in Turkish BAV) and in 1995 the foundation for Protection of National Values, which network are used to contact other traditional Islamist and nationalist organasations and individuals.
The Atlas of Creation was published by Gobal Publ., Istanbul, Turkey in Oct. 2006.
Posted by: McSomeone, Scotland on 3:41pm Sun 6 Apr 08
[quote]I by "uncontestable" you mean testable by scientists then you are being unreasonable. Statements about the supernatural cannot be tested in science which deals only with the natural world.[/quote]
No, I mean uncontestable by observation and analysis. Surely that is not too much to ask. surely the chosen of god should be able to provide something as simple as that.
something simple, a priest curing the ill, make the lame walk. I'm not expecting them to raise the dead as tha't the sole perogative of their god. Maybe a little water into wine, or given the present price, Whisky. ;)))
You'd think that given the powers they accredit to their god, he could occasionally give us some sign. Like: [bold]McSomeone, you are really getting my goat and if you don't shut up I'm going to turn your wine to p1ss[/bold] Said in a very loud and thunderous voice in the sky.
You know just something small and minor like that.
I by "uncontestable" you mean testable by scientists then you are being unreasonable. Statements about the supernatural cannot be tested in science which deals only with the natural world.
No, I mean uncontestable by observation and analysis. Surely that is not too much to ask. surely the chosen of god should be able to provide something as simple as that.
something simple, a priest curing the ill, make the lame walk. I'm not expecting them to raise the dead as tha't the sole perogative of their god. Maybe a little water into wine, or given the present price, Whisky. ;)))
You'd think that given the powers they accredit to their god, he could occasionally give us some sign. Like:
McSomeone, you are really getting my goat and if you don't shut up I'm going to turn your wine to p1ss Said in a very loud and thunderous voice in the sky.
You know just something small and minor like that.
Posted by: a.e.l. on 3:42pm Sun 6 Apr 08
Read about - Adnan Oktar Part II and more.
Don't miss it!
Read about - Adnan Oktar Part II and more.
Don't miss it!
Posted by: jose, Toronto on 3:47pm Sun 6 Apr 08
To know more about the confused teachings of Islam,Pl visit [bold]http://www.fatherzak
aria.net/[/bold]
To know more about the confused teachings of Islam,Pl visit
http://www.fatherzak
aria.net/ Posted by: helen, Ca. usa on 4:19pm Sun 6 Apr 08
The Huntsville Times (Alabama US) calls it a "gorgeous, coffee-table-sized book".
Wonder what Oprah would say.
The Huntsville Times (Alabama US) calls it a "gorgeous, coffee-table-sized book".
Wonder what Oprah would say.
Posted by: Poltroon, Saudi Arabia on 4:19pm Sun 6 Apr 08
Darwinism, evolution, intelligent design!! What a lot of nonsense. Surely everybody knows that Google created Earth? Get your facts right before posting or the next thing you know we'll have people making outrageous claim for example; that Islam really is a religion of peace and tolerance. And what's worse - people will believe it. Laughable I know, but true.
Darwinism, evolution, intelligent design!! What a lot of nonsense. Surely everybody knows that Google created Earth? Get your facts right before posting or the next thing you know we'll have people making outrageous claim for example; that Islam really is a religion of peace and tolerance. And what's worse - people will believe it. Laughable I know, but true.
Posted by: Chris Erickson, Tucson, AZ on 4:24pm Sun 6 Apr 08
TO ALL THE UNBELIEVERS...Think about this. I have and still live the best possible life in this world as a Christian. I have love and forgiveness.Even if God is not real and the Bible is not His Word. I lose nothing. But if God does exist and His Word is real. I also gain eternal life. But you may live very well also today if you don't get sick, maimed, rob, murdered, etc. And than after that nothing! But if God does exist, than you may have more that that: eternal punishment in Hell. I would rather believe now and have the benefits of belief in this life and in the nest.
TO ALL THE UNBELIEVERS...Think about this. I have and still live the best possible life in this world as a Christian. I have love and forgiveness.Even if God is not real and the Bible is not His Word. I lose nothing. But if God does exist and His Word is real. I also gain eternal life. But you may live very well also today if you don't get sick, maimed, rob, murdered, etc. And than after that nothing! But if God does exist, than you may have more that that: eternal punishment in Hell. I would rather believe now and have the benefits of belief in this life and in the nest.
Posted by: McSomeone, Scotland on 4:54pm Sun 6 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Chris Erickson[/bold] wrote:
TO ALL THE UNBELIEVERS...Think about this. I have and still live the best possible life in this world as a Christian. I have love and forgiveness.Even if God is not real and the Bible is not His Word. I lose nothing. But if God does exist and His Word is real. I also gain eternal life. But you may live very well also today if you don't get sick, maimed, rob, murdered, etc. And than after that nothing! But if God does exist, than you may have more that that: eternal punishment in Hell. I would rather believe now and have the benefits of belief in this life and in the nest.[/quote] Ah the old reliable argument: Believe and you will be saved, question and you will be damned!
That doesn't constitute proof, it's just a childish threat by those who don't have an argument.
All that you say happens to you can happen to me or anyone else. The truth is you will never know whether or not heaven exists, you may believe that but once you are dead it is irrelevant, you won't know. That is the beauty of what relgion offers and it worked well when the majority of people where uneducated serfs and had little to look forward too in life. An offer of eternity in paradise after a life of pain and servitude was an adman's dream.
All religions are founded on the fear of the many and the cleverness of the few.
As I've already said: Anyone who wants immortality doesn't understand eternity!
Chris Erickson wrote:
TO ALL THE UNBELIEVERS...Think about this. I have and still live the best possible life in this world as a Christian. I have love and forgiveness.Even if God is not real and the Bible is not His Word. I lose nothing. But if God does exist and His Word is real. I also gain eternal life. But you may live very well also today if you don't get sick, maimed, rob, murdered, etc. And than after that nothing! But if God does exist, than you may have more that that: eternal punishment in Hell. I would rather believe now and have the benefits of belief in this life and in the nest.
Ah the old reliable argument: Believe and you will be saved, question and you will be damned!
That doesn't constitute proof, it's just a childish threat by those who don't have an argument.
All that you say happens to you can happen to me or anyone else. The truth is you will never know whether or not heaven exists, you may believe that but once you are dead it is irrelevant, you won't know. That is the beauty of what relgion offers and it worked well when the majority of people where uneducated serfs and had little to look forward too in life. An offer of eternity in paradise after a life of pain and servitude was an adman's dream.
All religions are founded on the fear of the many and the cleverness of the few.
As I've already said: Anyone who wants immortality doesn't understand eternity!
Posted by: zeno, www.thinkhumanism.co
m on 5:02pm Sun 6 Apr 08
Chris Erikson
Yeah, yeah. Pascal's wager. We've heard it all before. There are plenty of websites explaining why it's not particularly fruitful. For example, see http://www.infidels.
org/library/modern/t
heism/wager.html.
Chris Erikson
Yeah, yeah. Pascal's wager. We've heard it all before. There are plenty of websites explaining why it's not particularly fruitful. For example, see http://www.infidels.
org/library/modern/t
heism/wager.html.
Posted by: chris erickson, Tucson, AZ on 5:22pm Sun 6 Apr 08
McSomeone
Childish or not. It is a reliable, logical argument. Not like yours that offers nothing. Who's augument is weak. The one who uses name-calling and belittlement? "uneducated serfs and had little to look foward too in life" Are you any better? Not much. True religion is not for the uneducated. God says, "Come, let us reason together" Isaiah 1:18
McSomeone
Childish or not. It is a reliable, logical argument. Not like yours that offers nothing. Who's augument is weak. The one who uses name-calling and belittlement? "uneducated serfs and had little to look foward too in life" Are you any better? Not much. True religion is not for the uneducated. God says, "Come, let us reason together" Isaiah 1:18
Posted by: wee folding bike on 5:28pm Sun 6 Apr 08
Chris,
You heard a god say this?
Chris,
You heard a god say this?
Posted by: sam, greenock on 5:38pm Sun 6 Apr 08
[quote][bold]I\'m no really here[/bold] wrote:
Of course Creation is a Faith not a Science. However, Evolution is also a Faith and not a Science. It is the Faith of Humanists who want to do away with any God and any Faith except Faith in Man\'s ability. Always worry about anyone who wants to exclude and eliminate the views of others - it usually means they know what they believe is flawed. sam, greenock on 11:13am today[quote]I love the smell of fundementalists in the morning[/quote] Does that include the fundamentalist Evolutionists? Will they start bambing people if Creation is taught in Schools. [quote]Scientists do not reject God. We say there is no proof, evidence or data of any kind to support the theories that relate to him. However, evolution is a testable theory which can be observed, predicted and has been studied.[/quote] Which of the many contradictory theories are you talking about. The one that uses genetic mutation to destroy 99% of life about 250m years ago, or the one that uses genetic mutation as an essential part of evolution? - oops, sorry, their the same one.[/quote] "Pray tell" how do you bamb someone........?
Who put the fun in fundemental, obviously not the fundementalists, as we all know they put the menyal bit in :o )
I\'m no really here wrote:
Of course Creation is a Faith not a Science. However, Evolution is also a Faith and not a Science. It is the Faith of Humanists who want to do away with any God and any Faith except Faith in Man\'s ability. Always worry about anyone who wants to exclude and eliminate the views of others - it usually means they know what they believe is flawed. sam, greenock on 11:13am todayI love the smell of fundementalists in the morning
Does that include the fundamentalist Evolutionists? Will they start bambing people if Creation is taught in Schools. Scientists do not reject God. We say there is no proof, evidence or data of any kind to support the theories that relate to him. However, evolution is a testable theory which can be observed, predicted and has been studied.
Which of the many contradictory theories are you talking about. The one that uses genetic mutation to destroy 99% of life about 250m years ago, or the one that uses genetic mutation as an essential part of evolution? - oops, sorry, their the same one.
"Pray tell" how do you bamb someone........?
Who put the fun in fundemental, obviously not the fundementalists, as we all know they put the menyal bit in :o )
Posted by: McSomeone, Scotland on 5:40pm Sun 6 Apr 08
[quote][bold]chris erickson[/bold] wrote:
McSomeone Childish or not. It is a reliable, logical argument. Not like yours that offers nothing. Who\'s augument is weak. The one who uses name-calling and belittlement? \"uneducated serfs and had little to look foward too in life\" Are you any better? Not much. True religion is not for the uneducated. God says, \"Come, let us reason together\" Isaiah 1:18 [/quote] If your argument is reliable then you should be able to substantiate it. Not use quotes from a book that is of dubious provenance and which in no way can constitute proof.
As to the "belittling" and "name calling", all I've done is make a statement of what life was like for the majority in the Middle Ages when the roman church was at the height of it's power in Europe. A condition that the church was interested in maintaining, as more than anything it feared an educated populace.
chris erickson wrote:
McSomeone Childish or not. It is a reliable, logical argument. Not like yours that offers nothing. Who\'s augument is weak. The one who uses name-calling and belittlement? \"uneducated serfs and had little to look foward too in life\" Are you any better? Not much. True religion is not for the uneducated. God says, \"Come, let us reason together\" Isaiah 1:18
If your argument is reliable then you should be able to substantiate it. Not use quotes from a book that is of dubious provenance and which in no way can constitute proof.
As to the "belittling" and "name calling", all I've done is make a statement of what life was like for the majority in the Middle Ages when the roman church was at the height of it's power in Europe. A condition that the church was interested in maintaining, as more than anything it feared an educated populace.
Posted by: sam, greenock on 5:41pm Sun 6 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Fatih[/bold] wrote:
The fossil known as Java Man, discovered in 1891, and that given the name Pekin Man, discovered in 1923, have both been exposed as false intermediate forms. A single tooth discovered in 1922 and given the name Nebraska Man was subsequently, in 1927, determined to have belonged to a wild boar. The skull discovered in 1912 and known as Piltdown Man was exposed as a hoax in 1953, have been placed on display for the previous 40 years. The fossil referred to as Zinjanthropus, discovered in 1959, was realised to have been just an ordinary ape. Ramapithecus, discovered in the 1930s and exhibited as an intermediate form for the next 50 years, was declassified with the realisation in 1981 that it was just an ordinary species of baboon. Research conducted in 1999-2000 showed that Lucy, discovered in Africa in 1974, was also invalid. When it was realised that the fossil skull known as the Taung child, discovered in 1924, was that of a young gorilla, this was similarly removed from the list in 1954. Those who still see Evolution as a scientic fact should search for a undeniable scientific reason :) ! [/quote] Oooh it was the big beardy man in the sky what done it all.............
Fatih wrote:
The fossil known as Java Man, discovered in 1891, and that given the name Pekin Man, discovered in 1923, have both been exposed as false intermediate forms. A single tooth discovered in 1922 and given the name Nebraska Man was subsequently, in 1927, determined to have belonged to a wild boar. The skull discovered in 1912 and known as Piltdown Man was exposed as a hoax in 1953, have been placed on display for the previous 40 years. The fossil referred to as Zinjanthropus, discovered in 1959, was realised to have been just an ordinary ape. Ramapithecus, discovered in the 1930s and exhibited as an intermediate form for the next 50 years, was declassified with the realisation in 1981 that it was just an ordinary species of baboon. Research conducted in 1999-2000 showed that Lucy, discovered in Africa in 1974, was also invalid. When it was realised that the fossil skull known as the Taung child, discovered in 1924, was that of a young gorilla, this was similarly removed from the list in 1954. Those who still see Evolution as a scientic fact should search for a undeniable scientific reason :) !
Oooh it was the big beardy man in the sky what done it all.............
Posted by: GOD, HEAVEN on 5:49pm Sun 6 Apr 08
RIGHT YOU FUNDEMENTALIST BAWBAGS, WHO GAVE YOU LOT THE RIGHT TO SPEAK FOR ME.
LISTEN UP IT'S ALL A BIG JOKE PLAYED ON YOU GULLIBLE HUMANS(WELL SOME OF YOU ANYWAY) BY ME AND MY PALS, BUDDHA, THOR, MANITOU AND A FEW OTHERS TO NUMEROUS TO MENTION.
YOU HAVE ALL TAKEN IT TO FAR NOW SO GIVE IT UP, YOU'VE ALL BEEN HAD.
AS FOR THE PRIESTS AND RELIGOUS LEADERS THEY'RE ACTUALLY CON MEN JUMPING ON THE BAND WAGON, THEY'RE HEE-HAW TO DO WITH OUR WEEE JOKE.
RIGHT SEE YOU LATER WE'RE OFF BACK TO ALPHA-CENTAURI IN THE SPACESHIP.
RIGHT YOU FUNDEMENTALIST BAWBAGS, WHO GAVE YOU LOT THE RIGHT TO SPEAK FOR ME.
LISTEN UP IT'S ALL A BIG JOKE PLAYED ON YOU GULLIBLE HUMANS(WELL SOME OF YOU ANYWAY) BY ME AND MY PALS, BUDDHA, THOR, MANITOU AND A FEW OTHERS TO NUMEROUS TO MENTION.
YOU HAVE ALL TAKEN IT TO FAR NOW SO GIVE IT UP, YOU'VE ALL BEEN HAD.
AS FOR THE PRIESTS AND RELIGOUS LEADERS THEY'RE ACTUALLY CON MEN JUMPING ON THE BAND WAGON, THEY'RE HEE-HAW TO DO WITH OUR WEEE JOKE.
RIGHT SEE YOU LATER WE'RE OFF BACK TO ALPHA-CENTAURI IN THE SPACESHIP.
Posted by: Wake up you superstitous cretins on 5:59pm Sun 6 Apr 08
[quote][bold]I'm no really here[/bold] wrote:
Sorry, missed out the "w" in the last post[/quote] Maybe you left it at home with your brain.
I'm no really here wrote:
Sorry, missed out the "w" in the last post
Maybe you left it at home with your brain.
Posted by: ZEUS, HEAVEN on 6:16pm Sun 6 Apr 08
[quote][bold]GOD[/bold] wrote:
RIGHT YOU FUNDEMENTALIST BAWBAGS, WHO GAVE YOU LOT THE RIGHT TO SPEAK FOR ME. LISTEN UP IT\'S ALL A BIG JOKE PLAYED ON YOU GULLIBLE HUMANS(WELL SOME OF YOU ANYWAY) BY ME AND MY PALS, BUDDHA, THOR, MANITOU AND A FEW OTHERS TO NUMEROUS TO MENTION. YOU HAVE ALL TAKEN IT TO FAR NOW SO GIVE IT UP, YOU\'VE ALL BEEN HAD. AS FOR THE PRIESTS AND RELIGOUS LEADERS THEY\'RE ACTUALLY CON MEN JUMPING ON THE BAND WAGON, THEY\'RE HEE-HAW TO DO WITH OUR WEEE JOKE. RIGHT SEE YOU LATER WE\'RE OFF BACK TO ALPHA-CENTAURI IN THE SPACESHIP. [/quote] IMPOSTER - I HAVE A BIGGER BEARD THAN YOU !
GOD wrote:
RIGHT YOU FUNDEMENTALIST BAWBAGS, WHO GAVE YOU LOT THE RIGHT TO SPEAK FOR ME. LISTEN UP IT\'S ALL A BIG JOKE PLAYED ON YOU GULLIBLE HUMANS(WELL SOME OF YOU ANYWAY) BY ME AND MY PALS, BUDDHA, THOR, MANITOU AND A FEW OTHERS TO NUMEROUS TO MENTION. YOU HAVE ALL TAKEN IT TO FAR NOW SO GIVE IT UP, YOU\'VE ALL BEEN HAD. AS FOR THE PRIESTS AND RELIGOUS LEADERS THEY\'RE ACTUALLY CON MEN JUMPING ON THE BAND WAGON, THEY\'RE HEE-HAW TO DO WITH OUR WEEE JOKE. RIGHT SEE YOU LATER WE\'RE OFF BACK TO ALPHA-CENTAURI IN THE SPACESHIP.
IMPOSTER - I HAVE A BIGGER BEARD THAN YOU !
Posted by: Ali, Turkey on 6:20pm Sun 6 Apr 08
To all evolutionist: Please give A SAMPLE ONLY for the an living animal and for its ancestors which lost a part and evoluate to this comtemporary one with all process puted on by fossils. I mean when a organ is lost step by step but at the same time new one take the form step by step. I remind you that for each of million existing living things you should do same steps to prove the evolution but you cannot give any ONE Fossil group to prove this only one! But there are hundred thousand of fossils show the animals and plants which aare not changed since they lived. The period which they wait to see day light is hundred of millions of years. So if they evaluate, they must have changed but they wouldnot. They have stayed without any changes since hundred of millions year. So much so that the fossils of sea tulips which lives 500 million years ago is the same with contemporary ones. The period which i talked about is the cambrien time in which the first living complex organisms are seen in the world.
To all evolutionist: Please give A SAMPLE ONLY for the an living animal and for its ancestors which lost a part and evoluate to this comtemporary one with all process puted on by fossils. I mean when a organ is lost step by step but at the same time new one take the form step by step. I remind you that for each of million existing living things you should do same steps to prove the evolution but you cannot give any ONE Fossil group to prove this only one! But there are hundred thousand of fossils show the animals and plants which aare not changed since they lived. The period which they wait to see day light is hundred of millions of years. So if they evaluate, they must have changed but they wouldnot. They have stayed without any changes since hundred of millions year. So much so that the fossils of sea tulips which lives 500 million years ago is the same with contemporary ones. The period which i talked about is the cambrien time in which the first living complex organisms are seen in the world.
Posted by: matthew sunshine, edinburgh on 6:27pm Sun 6 Apr 08
this book is really great and contains great facts about the creation. i bought it and found it great it changed my opinion about evolution. the author wrote lots of magnificent books about every subjects his web site www.harunyahya.com is absolutely fantastic.
this book is really great and contains great facts about the creation. i bought it and found it great it changed my opinion about evolution. the author wrote lots of magnificent books about every subjects his web site www.harunyahya.com is absolutely fantastic.
Posted by: McSomeone, Scotland on 6:50pm Sun 6 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Ali[/bold] wrote:Please give A SAMPLE ONLY[/quote]
As requested.
2005 was also a standout year for researchers studying the emergence of new species, or speciation. A new species can form when populations of an existing species begin to adapt in different ways and eventually stop interbreeding. It's easy to see how that can happen when populations wind up on opposite sides of oceans or mountain ranges, for example. But sometimes a single, contiguous population splits into two. Evolutionary theory predicts that this splitting begins when some individuals in a population stop mating with others, but empirical evidence has been scanty. This year field biologists recorded compelling examples of that process, some of which featured surprisingly rapid evolution in organisms' shape and behavior.
For example, birds called European blackcaps sharing breeding grounds in southern Germany and Austria are going their own ways--literally and f iguratively. Sightings over the decades have shown that ever more of these warblers migrate to northerly grounds in the winter rather than heading south. Isotopic data revealed that northerly migrants reach the common breeding ground earlier and mate with one another before southerly migrants arrive. This difference in timing may one day drive the two populations to become two species.
http://www.sciencema
g.org/cgi/content/fu
ll/310/5756/1878
Then, in 1973, a married pair of evolutionary biologists, Peter and Rosemary Grant, now at Princeton University, began a study of Darwin’s process in Darwin’s islands, the Galápagos, watching Darwin’s finches. At first, they assumed that they would have to infer the history of evolution in the islands from the distribution of the various finch species, varieties, and populations across the archipelago. That is pretty much what Darwin had done, in broad strokes, after the Beagle’s five-week survey of the islands in 1835. But the Grants soon discovered that at their main study site, a tiny desert island called Daphne Major, near the center of the archipelago, the finches were evolving rapidly. Conditions on the island swung wildly back and forth from wet years to dry years, and finches on Daphne adapted to each swing, from generation to generation. With the help of a series of graduate students, the Grants began to spend a good part of every year on Daphne, watching evolution in action as it shaped and reshaped the finches’ beaks.
http://www.naturalhi
storymag.com/1105/11
05_feature3.html
If you really want to see evo
Comment | Read Comments (146)