Posted on 02/18/2002 4:59:53 AM PST by cracker
Secondly, you're citing poetic license on the part of the author as proof that Homo Sapiens did not descend from Homo Erectus (which is proof that either you don't understand what you read or you purposefully twist the words -- lie -- to make them sound palatable. Have you asked God if it's all right for you to lie, especially after He specifically said not to?). Homo Erectus arose in Africa a little over one-and-a-half million years ago and spread throughout the northern part of that continent and southern and southeastern Asia. After they'd been around for awhile (about a half million years ago, or so), one group of H. Erectus evolved into Neanderthals. These displaced their ancestors in the Near East and spread to Europe where they were the dominant species. H. Erectus was still around in southern and southeast Asia, though. Then, a couple of hundred thousand years ago a new species of human , H. Sapien, arose from an isolated East African population of H. Erectus (isolation is a wonderful evolutionary catalyst). It eventually spread to Europe, displacing the H. Neanderthalensis there; plus H. Sapien spread to Asia, displacing the H. Erectus populations there. About 50,000 years ago (one researcher says 27,000, but I've only found the one reference to that date) the last remnant population of H. Erectus shuffled off this mortal coil.
Now do you understand, or will you be willfully ignorant, or twist my words so that you can prove your faith to God? You must be one of those Christians who believe the 10 Commandments no longer apply to you because you're special.
1) if it's creationism,
2) if it's non-Darwinian.
Well, you wouldn't know the latter so I'll help you out. It's Darwinian.
All your quote-engineering is dishonest and that's what he was exposing in his article. And beyond all that, what your post fails to address, is that in this post you accused me of what you routinely do, misrepresenting by misleading quote. You have not substantiated this claim and cannot do so. The article by Gould which I linked and extensively quoted exposes and repudiates your selected out-of-context snippets, which is all I was saying it does.
I have posted several sources that show this to be false. You have substantiated nothing but just keep spewing.
As usual when your back is against the wall you start denying what even evolutionists have been admitting to for decades (and what you have accepted as a true statement throughtout this thread) - that man did not descend from any of the monkey species - chimps, orangs or whatever. For decades they have been stating that man and monkey "branched out" more than 5 million years ago.And all the evidence I've ever cited to you is in support of what they do say and not what they don't. So what is all that spewing about what they don't say?
BTW - this discussion is of course purely for amusement since DNA evidence has already shown that whales are not related to hippos as evolutionists have claimed using "evidence" similar to the one presented by you and other evolutionists in this discussion.Nothing shows your cowardice and dishonesty more than the way you run away from this one. Nothing makes the lurkers wonder "What's wrong with that boy?" more than the way you cannot face admitting any sort of mistake when debating an Evo.-- gore3000
The thing is, it's really too late. You've let it go for 500 posts, a dozen or more unanswered challenges. There's no pretending anymore.
Yup as usual, the evolutionists playing the bone game. Redating bones, reclassifying bones as needed. Bones in Java reclassified according to ox bones when a gap shows up, Australopithecus being turned into a homo sapiens when the need arises. Are you folk now trying to give us the moronic theory that the ancestor of homo sapiens came out of Australia (that's where the date for 60000 comes from Australia)????? Your whole post on this matter is pathetic.The spew of garbage above is your idea of an answer to post 1346, which showed your claim that I invented archaic Homo sapiens (and drew the T.O. chart) to be ridiculous. That post also contains another timeline showing that there are species around to be the ancestor of modern H. sapiens.
How does your reply address any of this? Do you anywhere say "OK, you didn't coin the term archaic Homo sapiens?" Does it say, "OK, you have continuity of species throughout the last several hundred thousand years, at least according to those evolutionist paleontologists whose word you take over mine?"
No. You pretend you cannot see.
I'm going out for a late breakfast. Spew away and I'll expose the silliness when I get back.
Don't forget to visit the Crevo List for all the latest!
I first raised the issue in post 642. 1388 minus 642 ain't 500. (When I make a mistake, I admit it.)
Well, there's been a lot of hollerin' about it, but not much action. The attention will surely torpedo the state Senate and House bills. The Board of Education will not make its decisions on science standards until "later this year" - I'm not sure when. A cynic would suggest that the Evo/ID hearing was just to curry favor with conservatives in this GOP-owned state, so that the BoEd won't get it's funding cut. Ohio is also embroiled in a decade-long feud between the legislature and the Ohio Supreme Court over school funding inequities, so the BoEd may be trying to mollify the budgeteers.
Based on public statements by the BoEd members, there is a 7-4-8 split for evolution - ID - uncertain/decline to state. (ID proponents include those who favor both.) The following list is from the Feb 24th Cleveland Plain Dealer:
State Board Members on Teaching "Intelligent Design"
02/24/02
The Ohio Board of Education will decide this year whether public school students should be taught only the theory of evolution, or evolution and a controversial alternative called "intelligent design."
Here is where board members stand and how to reach them.
Richard Baker
937-997-2101
At-large member first appointed by Gov. George Voinovich. Term ends in December.
"My basic thoughts are that you team them both or you don't teach either one."
Marlene Jennings
440-256-1585
Elected representing District 5. Term ends December 2004.
"Evolution is a valid scientific theory, but it hasn't been proven and I would hate to exclude the other evidence that is coming in."
Deborah Owens Fink
330-972-8079
Elected representing District 7. Term ends December 2004.
"I am open to discussing whether it would make sense to include intelligent design in the life science curriculum."
Jo Ann Thatcher
740-858-3300
At-large member first appointed by Gov. George Voinovich. Term ends December 2004.
"We have to go along with new scientific discoveries and issues, but I want all sides presented."
Michael Cochran
michael.cochran@ode.state.oh.us
Elected representing District 6. Term ends December 2004.
Did not return calls, but has proposed ordering a draft of science standards that includes intelligent design.
Thomas McClain
614-424-7728
At-large member appointed by Gov. Bob Taft. Term ends December 2004.
"I can't say I am undecided. I should not be stating a position at the beginning since I'm co-chairing the committee."
Cyrus Richardson Jr.
513-734-6700
Elected representing District 10. Term ends December 2004.
"The curriculum ought to include science and not go off on a bunch of tangents."
Jennifer Stewart
jennifer.stewart@ode.state.oh.us
Elected representing District 9. Term ends December 2004.
"I have very strong reservations against alternative methods. I doubt I will be swayed."
Carl Wick
carl.wick@ode.state.oh.us
Elected representing District 3. Term ends in December.
"I'm still unconvinced that intelligent design should be part of the curriculum. I'm quite concerned about the separation of church and state."
Martha Wise
440-934-4935
Elected representing District 2. Term ends in December.
"Alternatives to evolution to me relate to theology and religion . . . but they're not science and should not be taught in class."
Virgil Brown Jr.
virgil.brown@ode.state.oh.us
Elected representing District 11. Term ends December 2004.
"I'm going to do my best to keep an open mind. [Intelligent design] seems to be very analogous to creationism."
Joseph Roman
joe.roman@ode.state.oh.us
At-large member first appointed by Gov. Richard Celeste. Term ends in December.
"I haven't learned enough yet to make that decision."
Emerson Ross Jr.
419-537-1562
At-large member first appointed by Gov. George Voinovich. Term ends December 2004.
"I need a lot more information [about intelligent design] . . . before deciding to include it in the science curriculum."
G.R. "Sam" Schloemer
513-821-4145
Represents District 4. Appointed by Gov. Bob Taft in January to fill a vacancy; will face election in November.
"I really haven't had an opportunity to discuss the issue."
James Turner
jturner@cinergy.com
At-large member appointed by Gov. Bob Taft. Term ends December 2004.
"Unless . . . there is zero evidence of design in the universe and in humans, then I don't know why we wouldn't talk about it."
State Board of Education
DistrictsEleven members of the State Board of Education are elected from the districts shown on this map. Eight others are appointed to at-large positions by the governor.
Board members Virginia Jacobs of Lima (419-999-4219), Sue Westendorf of Napoleon (419-592-1786) and Board President Jennifer Sheets of Pomeroy (740-992-2151) did not return telephone calls.
The District 8 board seat is vacant.
KEN MARSHALL THE PLAIN DEALER
Actually, this is not that far from what I think -- though I doubt this board member shares my views. I think the best way is to include both -- that is, teach evolution, and debunk intelligent design/creationism. (I think RadioAstronomer first described this possibility.) Exploring the problems with the alternatives helps emphasize the explanatory power of evolution, IMO.
On the other hand, some folks would see ID-debunking as a gratuitous attack on Christianity, no matter how carefully the faculty avoided it.
At first blush, this seems like a reasonable way to go, but on further reflection, it raises a concern. My concern is that education is about teaching what we know (to the best of our knowledge), not debunking bad ideas.
If we start down the that road by debunking ID in the classroom, where does it stop? Do we need to set aside class time to debunk the Flat Earth Theory in geography class?
Do we set aside time in Math Class to debunk Numerology?
Do we stop in the middle of Astonomy to debunk Astrology and to explain why the Moon is NOT made of Green Cheese?
Do we halt chemistry students in mid-experiment to explain how Alchemy is folly?
Education is faced with the task to teaching a large volume of information in a very finite period of time. It is a zero-sum game in the sense that every minute taken to debunk a bad theory is a minute that is NOT available to explain the ones that work.
It is time to stop coddling and humoring the Creationists and their kissing cousin ID theorists; neither of them is a scientific Theory, let alone one accepted by the scientific community. It must be at least one if not both before it has any business in the science curriculum.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.