Three D wrote on May 30, 2008 7:26 AM:Ronald Hutchison's letter cites Jesus' statement to be perfect (from Matt 5:48). Jesus sets a goal, but does not say that failure to achieve it results in eternal damnation. If you believe that God does not discern various degrees of seriousness for wrongdoing, then the God you believe in is evil and unjust. If our legal system punished a jaywalking ticket the same as multiple rape/murder, would we call it just? Godlike? Didn't think so.
What about torture?
Rational, fair-minded people reject torture, but you expect us to believe in a God who would create us, and then subject us to torture, eternally, for the slightest breach of the Law?
Oh, but we can get around this? How? By killing an innocent man - something Jesus himself never taught! Again, please tell me how killing an innocent man atones for sin, when Jesus taught salvation through character transformation by practicing acts rooted in universal compassionate love.
Please understand why reasonable people reject your version of a religion that subverts Jesus' teaching of love and compassion and replaces it with Paul's vision of harshness and cruelty.

Three D wrote on May 30, 2008 7:29 AM:Howard Killion's letter disputes my statement that Paul wrote Hebrews. The most widely used version of the Bible, the King James, opens up Hebrews by identifying it as a letter from Paul. Several more modern versions of the Bible do not include this. So it is possible that it is not written by Paul.
The nice thing about not claiming to be inerrant/or infallible is that one can consider the possibility of being imperfect. It is possible that Paul did not write Hebrews, and is not the only person to mention sin transference. But he is the first, and his infiltration and domination of the early movement caused his view to prevail. Killion rightly notes this is reported by Luke, a follower of Paul, but his ascension is exactly what I have stated.
The bottom line, however, is that Paul introduced a concept of sin transference that directly contradicts Jesus' teachings on salvation through deeds based on universal compassionate love. If other later writers picked up on this, then all you have is additional Bible contradictions.
As for Leviticus chapters 4-7, on ritual sacrifices, there is no instance in which the animal literally takes up on it anyone else's sins. There are many types of offerings, but even the sin offerings are as penance for sin, not literal sin transference.

I agree wrote on May 30, 2008 8:22 AM:with Mr. Hutchinson. The thing Three D does not get is that hell was not designed for humans but for satan and his demons. However since we were seperated from God because of sin, and we can not get into heaven without being first made right in our relationship with God through Jesus, by the way was not "killed" as Three D puts it, Jesus knew why He came and what He had to do for us,the sinners of the world in order for us to enter into heaven. Three D continually brings up Paul, and totally disregards ALL of the words of Jesus as they pertain to salvation.

That is the great thing about God, He does things that we in our finite minds can not understand, such as the sacrifice of Jesus for our sins. All we can do is to believe and have faith in Him, if you say I am wrong, I say to you, I will take my chances with God rather than with man.

Zeus wrote on May 30, 2008 8:39 AM:Mark Corcoran obviously did his reading on intelligent design. Unfortunately he forgot to balance his critical analysis by reading anything having to do with evolution. Imagine that. I strongly suspect that Mr. Corcoran has absolutely no clue about anything he wrote about, and that he was merely parroting the false propaganda of other creationists. I challenge Mr. Corcoran to prove me wrong, by challenging him to (1) list a single piece of evidence (let alone the many pieces he claims exist) that has evolution “making a hasty retreat,” (2) list a single biochemical pathway that is actually known to be irreducibly complex (because with a little research Mr. Corcoran would discover the examples he gave fail miserably), (3) a single piece of cellular evidence suggesting there is no ancestral relationships between the major vertebrate groups (e.g. comparative genomics for strarters), (4) list a single fact that scientists “are afraid to discuss,” (5) reference a single peer reviewed paper that provides ”good evidence of intelligent design” (hopefully Mr. Corcoran realizes that this is where university scientists state their evidence) (5) and clearly describe how hominid fossils do not provide evidence of hominid evolution (Mr. Corcoran can began by clearly stating what the fossil record has to show if humans did in fact evolve from other primitive ape ancestors, and whether or not this is in fact what the fossil record shows). So Mr. Corcoran, you threw out a laundry list of creationist lies. Can you defend a single one of them? Or do you elect to be like Mr. Forbing, tossing out false statements and then refusing to debate them ?

Zeus wrote on May 30, 2008 9:04 AM:Mr. Forbing use to claim that all mutations are bad. After years of being challenged by evidence that proved him wrong he now sheepishly claims (admits) that mutations are almost always bad, meaning mutations are sometimes beneficial. Add to this fact (that mutations can be beneficial) the fact that there are numerous categories of naturally occurring gene and chromosomal changes, that genes can be exchanged between unrealted species (i.e. lateral gene transfers), that populations can be ridiculously large (meaning the number of possibly beneficial mutations each generation is significantly large), that each population tends to be distributed across environmental gradients (meaning that what’s selected for and against in one part of the environment is not what’s selected for or against amongst the individuals of that population in another part of their environment – this fact also means that labeling a mutation as good or bad (as Irvin likes to do) is naïve in the first place) and that evolutionary time is immense (meaning that there are eons of time for genetic changes to gradually accumulate). Based on these easily verifiable facts Mr. Forbing’s letter is merely his wish for how nature should be, not the way nature actually is. Such is the case when one tries to force square facts through round religious beliefs.

Three D wrote on May 30, 2008 9:15 AM:Agree at 8:22 a.m. agrees with Hutchison and Paul, but in so doing calls Jesus a liar.
Again, he is a Paulian, not a Christian.
Jesus taught very clearly in his last general teaching and the only time he himself describes the final judgment, that salvation is based on universal compassionate love expressed actively in deeds exemplified in feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, ministering to those in jail, welcoming the stranger and service to the "least of these." (Matt 25:31-46) He did not mention faith at all.
He does not say faith is not important; as his brother James later writes (James chapter 2) faith is important because it motivates compassionate deeds on which salvation is based.
You do this, you will be saved; you don't, you won't.
If you argue against this, you argue against Jesus.
I again cite the example I have used before:
Dr. Viktor Frankl, a German Jew who survived the Nazi concentration camps during the Holocaust, wrote in his book "Man's Search for Meaning" of rare but remarkable examples of men who dying of hunger, yet still gave comfort, along with their last crusts of bread, to their fellow sufferers to alleviate their suffering. Even torture and extreme deprivation could not cause them to abandon their deeply-felt compassion. But those prisoners described by Frankl were Jewish. They haven't confessed Jesus as their savior. I'm sure Paul would consign them to hell, while Jesus would embrace them and count them among His sheep. He said so!
To consign loving, joyful, compassionate Jews, Buddhist, Hindus or Pagans to an eternal Gitmo, while embracing multiple rapist/murders if they profess acceptance of Jesus on their deathbed is unjust and bordering on logical insanity. Again, this subverts Jesus' teaching of love and compassion and replaces it with Paul's vision of harshness and cruelty.
You say you take your chances with God.
No, you reject Jesus and take your chances with Paul.
Good luck.

IRvin wrote on May 30, 2008 9:28 AM:Zeus asks
1. What would he consider evidence acceptable to him? None I assume.
Turn question 2, 3, & 6 around and,
2. Show me a few that aren’t.
3. Show some that do.
4. Obviously you haven’t seen “Expelled”, nor read any of the interviews with those who have lost their jobs by even breathing ID. Gentry, and Kenyon are two not mentioned in the film.
5. Peer review papers all almost always unacceptable for inclusion. Ave you seen Expelled, or tried creationist peer review papers?
6. What about Gould’s statement, “What has become of our ladder if there are three coexisting lineages of hominids (A. africanus, the robust Australopithicines, and H. habilis), none clearly derived from the other?”
Or Mary Leakey, Regarding evolutionary family trees, "I do not believe it is now possible to fit the known hominid fossils into a reliable pattern." "Disclosing the Past," 1984, p. 214.
Or Richard Leakey, “If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meager evidence we’ve got, he’d surely say, ‘forget it; there isn’t enough to go on’” Richard Leakey, “The Making of Mankind”, 1981, p.43
Or, Leslie Kaufman’s (A geologist at the Berkeley Geochronology Center), that Carl Swisher found that “a hominid species assumed to be an ancestor of Homo sapiens, erectus was thought to have vanished some 250,000 years ago. But even though he used two different dating methods , Swisher kept making the same startling find: the bones were 53,000 years old at most and possibly no more that 27,000 years- a stretch of time contemporaneous with modern humans." “that there is only one single species of humans.”

John the Baptist wrote on May 30, 2008 9:36 AM:to Zeus: That is quite a melange of misinformation in Corcoran's letter. I plan to write a rebuttal letter, though due to the word limit, I'll only be able to hit the high (low?) spots. Regards

Buddhist wrote on May 30, 2008 11:36 AM:Triple D's is right. What about compassionate Hindus and Buddhists, especially those who lived, say, hundreds of years before Jesus was even born?
Holding someone's ability to avoid the Eternal Gitmo based on believing in something should at least make sure they got some exposure to what they were supposed to be believing in.
What kind of cruel, sadistic monster would create a species of sentient, feeling beings, populate them in ancient Asia, Africa or South America where they have no chance of exposure to the "gospel" and then, since they never achieve a state of faith or belief, remand them to an eternal hell where they are forced to suffer the torture of never ending flames on their flesh, no matter how good, decent, loving or compassionate they might have been on earth?
Are you kidding me? How on earth do you expect any decent person to believe this?

Three D wrote on May 30, 2008 11:51 AM:The letters from Beverly Olsen and Hugh Lemon are technically correct, that the modern Mormon Church (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) does not practice polygamy today and is no longer affiliated with the Texas FLDS (Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). Technically accurate, but disingenuously misleading.
Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants (accepted as Mormon scriputre in addition to the Bible and Book of Mormon) specifically authorized the practice of plural "celestial" marriage, or polygamy, in 1843. From that time until 1890, when they found it politically convenient to have a "revelation" to change this scripture (as they again did in bowing to political pressure to change their views on African Americans holding their priesthood), polygamy was openly practiced among Mormons (including Mitt Romney's great-grandfather). Those of the FLDS broke away after the revelation because they did not accept the political accommodation as a basis for holding their views. In fairness, that view is consistent with the Old Testament, which also allowed polygamous multiple wives.
It is also interesting that this doctrine set up one of the most direct contradictions within Mormon scripture, between Doctrine & Covenants 132:38-39 which states that the many wives of David and Solomon were "given by God" and "in nothing did they sin," whereas Jacob 2:24 from the Book of Mormon, written some 13 years earlier, says that the multiple wives of David and Solomon were "wicked" and "abominable."
For the record, multiple Old Testament references do confirm that God sanctioned David and Solomons' polygamies, as well as many others throughout the Old Testament.
So much for "one man and one woman."

Ruminator wrote on May 30, 2008 1:47 PM:____TO IRVIN: Let me address some specific misconceptions in your message in a sequence of responses

re: '6. What about Gould’s statement, “What has become of our ladder if there are three coexisting lineages of hominids (A. africanus, the robust Australopithicines, and H. habilis), none clearly derived from the other?'"'

Gould was referring to the changed understanding of the hominid family tree from a simple sequence (ladder) to a "bush like" structure that is a common pattern in evolutionary theory. This can result in multiple species being simultaneous descendants.

If you think he was questioning human evolution as a historical fact, that is a flagrant misunderstanding of his intent. Gould became quite exasperated with creationists misrepresentations of him, particularly since they had no inclination to get the record straight.

Answer to Buddhist wrote on May 30, 2008 2:03 PM:Nietzsche spelled it out clearly over a hundred years ago. Christianity is a religion of resentment. It's a way for people who are downtrodden to feel superior, and to enjoy the prospect of others suffering. Only they have the secret key to paradise, and as others head to gitmo, even (as you say) having had zero opportunity to even make the choice, they smirk. (ThreeD, I'm pretty sure that Nietzsche was talking about "Christians" as they think of themselves, not as Paulians. In fact, this is just more evidence that you are right...Jesus' own words would never be characterized as full of resentment.)

Why Mr Forbing wrote on May 30, 2008 2:07 PM:Weeks ago you put your core doctrine on a post, saying that no matter what evidence there ever came to be about evolution, you distinguish that truth from your holy truth. OK, already. So why bother pretending that what we find in nature matters. I posed this to you recently: what if a group of generations of scientists DID actually observe and record the evolution of a new species by taking a fast-breeding population, splitting them into two groups, changing the environment of one group, and, in time finding that they could no longer reproduce with one another, meeting the definition of two species? If this was presented to you, would you change your mind about Darwin? Of course not! Since that's true, please do us all a favor and stop pretending to be an empiricist. You aren't one. You don't want to be one. You don't want to hear from people who are. Go pray and leave us be. Thanks in advance.

Ruminator wrote on May 30, 2008 2:11 PM:____TO IRVIN: re: 'Or Mary Leakey, Regarding evolutionary family trees, "I do not believe it is now possible to fit the known hominid fossils into a reliable pattern.'

That was a reasonable assessment on her part, given that 1) the accumulation of hominid fossil data in the last few decades of her life was becoming progressively more suggestive of a branching, bushlike structure of speciation rather than a ladderlike structure and 2) the record was quite incomplete.

She had no doubt - nor does anyone else who knows what they're talking about - that she was looking at a record of hominid speciation that goes back millions of years and that the path to modern humans wasn't clear (and still isn't).

John the Baptist wrote on May 30, 2008 3:22 PM:Re Irvin's Gould quote: as I expected, I found the quote on the Quote Mine Project website. Here's what Gould then wrote:
"At this point, I confess, I cringe, knowing full well what all the creationists who deluge me with letters must be thinking. 'So Gould admits that we can trace no evolutionary ladder among early African hominids; species appear and later disappear, looking no different from their great-grandfathers. Sounds like special creation to me.' (Although one might ask why the Lord saw fit to make so many kinds of hominids, and why some of his later productions, H. erectus in particular, look so much more human than the earlier models.) I suggest that the fault is not with evolution itself, but with a false picture of its operation that most of us hold -- namely the ladder . . . Gould, Stephen Jay 1977. "Bushes and Ladders in Human Evolution" (pp. 60-61)

Zeus wrote on May 30, 2008 4:33 PM:To Irvin: I challenged Mark to defend the ridiculous comments he had made in his leter. The best you can do in Mark’s defense is ask questions, not answer them. Creationists keep claiming they have evidence in support of ID (as Mr. Corcoran did) yet creationists never present the actual evidence. At the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial creationists were forced to present their evidence. While some creationists were cited for lying under oath, the guru himself (Michael Behe) had to admit under oath that the evidence for intelligent design was on par with astrology . In hopes that I can get you to answer a question or two I’ll play along and answer your questions. I’ll have to do this in two parts due to length requirements. For # 1, what would I consider as evidence that evolution was making a hasty retreat? The list is long, and would include any of the following: IF there was no evidence of beneficial mutations, no evidence of natural selection, no evidence of genetic changes in population gene pools, no evidence that evolution has had eons of time to gradually accumulate genetic changes, no fossil (historical) evidence of evolution, a human (or any mammalian fossil) positioned anywhere in the fossil record prior to the evolution of mammals, etc. Now it’s your turn, what is one line of evidence that has evolution making a hasty retreat? For 2, what is a single example of a biochemical pathway that is not irreducibly complex? How about every single one that Behe has offered up, without a single exception. Here you can visit the Pandas Thumb web site and click on irreducible complexity (other examples upon request). Now it’s your turn, please provide an example of an actual irreducible complex biochemical pathway. For 3, provide cellular evidence that there are ancestral relationships between the major vertebrate groups. Besides the fact the cellular structures and cellular processes are nearly identical in all vertebrates (i.e. where should I began), how about the beautiful correlation between the percentage of shared genes and degree of temporal separation (and how this parallels so nicely with fossil evidence). Now it’s your turn, please provide an example of a “single piece of cellular evidence suggesting there is no ancestral relationships between the major vertebrate groups .” (continued)

zeus wrote on May 30, 2008 4:37 PM:Irvin (cont): For 4 I guess you want a response to the scientists described in Exposed who were fired for discussing ID. Well the truth is they weren’t. If you did your homework you’d easily discover that not a single scientist described in the film was actually fired for favoring ID. For example, Exposed tells us that Dr. Richard Stemberg was fired by the Smithsonian Institute because he edited a paper on Intelligent Design. What Exposed doesn’t mention is that Sternberg was actually not even employed at Smithsonian (i.e. he had no job to lose). Then there was poor Guillermo Gonzales who wasn’t given tenure because he favored ID. The truth was Gonzales was denied tenure (as hundreds of other scientists are denied tenure every year) because he had an unacceptable research and grant record while at ISU. Did you ever hear the phrase publish or perish (as opposed to love evolution or perish)? I have a question for you Irvin, why would highly religious individuals such as Dr. Francis Collins and Dr. Ken Miller be so successful in science if (according to Exposed ) science doesn’t tolerate religious scientists. I’d also like your comments on Chris Cormer (director of science education, Texas) who was fired by the Texas school board for emailing an announcement for an evolution seminar. Where is the religious tolerance behind a science director being fired for notifying individuals of an upcoming seminar on science. It appears Exposed has this tolerance thing all backwards. How pathetic is the evidence for ID that they have to make up stories of creation scientists being fired for being religupous. And by the way, what evidence of ID was actually described in the film (i..e a film that was on ID)? I've heard none. For 5, aren’t peer review papers almost always unacceptable for inclusion? While being an obviously self-serving statement for creationists to make, I’ll begin with the military’s “don’t ask don’t tell policy.” What prevents creation scientists from submitting papers without broadcasting “hey, I’m a creationists.” Peer review considers evidence, not religious beliefs. So again Irvin, where is the creationist evidence (i.e. what evidence is not getting though peer review)? For 6, regarding human evolution , I see you intentionally elect to focus on the confusion over how to interpret hominid fossil evidence rather than focus on the evidence itself (e.g. the obvious trend of increasing brain size and bipedalism). I can’t believe creationists are foolish enough to quote Stephen Gould in defense of creationism, but they always do. I’ll respond to your Gould quote with a Gould quote related to how well the fossil record fits the creationist model -- “If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larger body size? Answer that Irvin, especially how the “unbroken temporal sequence” fails to validate predictions of what we should expect to observe in the fossil record if humans did in fact evolve from ape ancestors (or what we expect to observe if they were specially created).

A seventh for Irvin wrote on May 30, 2008 6:06 PM:While you're answering Zeus, Irvin, please give us a list (even a list of one) of actual, testable claims or hypotheses that any form of creationism or intelligent design makes. When did creation (of anything) occur? Did the thing just appear, out of nowhere? Tell us an empirically testable story about an alternative to evolution so that these theories can go head to head. Offer something real as an alternative. Is that too much to ask? All you have offered so far is some people saying, "Gosh, I just can't imagine how something like that could evolve!" Sorry, that's not enough. Still waiting, as always.

Ruminator wrote on May 30, 2008 6:56 PM:____TO IRVIN: Since my last message was rather long, it didn't get through, so here's a short version.

In my first dialog with you (Nov. 2005) you gave a quote from Colin Patterson that you thought reflected doubt about evolution. I sent you a response that included in part his statement that, "I see the general historical theory, common descent, as being as firmly established as just about anything else in history... Because creationists lack scientific research or evidence to support such theories as a young earth (10,000 years old), a world-wide flood (Noah's), and separate ancestry for humans and apes, their common tactic is to attack evolution by hunting out debate or dissent among evolutionary biologists."

You had flagrantly misrepresented Patterson's position. But that was only the beginning of a pattern that I've watched for years. Irv, you've been caught repeatedly misrepresenting both the science and the comments of scientists on evolution for years - yet you have learned nothing. I seriously doubt that you will ever catch on that there's something profoundly wrong with what your selling. The only real problem is that you keep trying to sell it, so other people have to spend time exposing it.

Rudy wrote on May 31, 2008 12:49 PM:To Why Mr. Forbing:
You mentioned 2 fast-breeding populations being separated, and then not being able to reproduce. Is there an example of that happening before? The concept of speciation is subjective-many populations of bears, cats, birds, etc., are separated into species, yet could breed across the species line. Based on definition of species, the different dog breeds could be classified as different species. Dog breeding supports the concept of variation among a kind (dog kind) of animal. It does not falsify evolutionary theory, but it is somewhat neutral between the creation and evolution model. So again would be interested in an example of what you presented, or is it hypothetical.
Ruminator is correct - the path to humans seems unclear to our most well-known anthropologists Leakey, Johansson, etc. It is true that when these famous people are quoted, these quotes can be taken out of context. None of them, Gould, Leakey, etc. have/had any doubt about the fact of human evolution. But, the quotes do seem to indicate somewhat of a muddy picture of human anthropology don't they? Read a book by Lewin (not a creationist) entitled "Bones of Contention" to get a feel for the subjective nature of human anthropology. Lots of storytelling couched in scientific jargon. This goes along with my thought that not all scientific statements have equal weight.

What to make of it wrote on May 31, 2008 1:50 PM:How many times must we go through the frequent ritual of having Mr Forbing offer a letter or post only to have his claims shown to be misstatements, exaggerations, lies? Mr Forbing is, I assume, a religious man. Does his faith support a steady stream of falsehoods? Does his God feel it necessary to have a believer who must toss endless bull to support Him? This is not a matter of faith vs science. It's a matter of some serious personal problems driving Mr Forbing. Irvin needs help.

CAVEL wrote on May 31, 2008 5:13 PM:Rudy's post reminds of Humpty Dumpty's proclamation in Carrol's "Through the Looking Glass:" "When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'" The reference to Lewin's popsci critique of anthropology and science in general as being riddled with subjectivity and error rather reminds of the postmodernist claim that science is not capable of ascertaining truth since it it merely a human, subjective construct. I wonder what Humpty Dumpty's definition of "species" might be. "Science," what say you Humpty? It's the very nature of science that it consists of, among other factors, trial and error as part of the investigative process. There are no ultimate answers in true science, since such are only manifestations of human arrogance. "Science" is always open to new ideas, new evidence and hypotheses. "Subjective nature of human anthropology,"? but of course. Don't let that trivialize or confuse the OBJECTIVE findings and facts in anthropology or any other of the sciences. Anthropolgy is not mathematics nor is it chemistry or physics. Nevertheless, it is a science.

Ruminator wrote on May 31, 2008 5:39 PM:____TO RUDY: The biggest problem in paleoanthropology is egos. Too many field workers want to be the one who finds the most significant fossil, so they overstate their cases. However, as I think we've gone over before, Lubenow makes a fatal assumption that invalidates his critical conclusions. That assumption being that if one species is ancestral to another species, they can't both be around at the same time. That fundamental misconception of evolutionary biology would never have gotten through a peer review.

A good introduction to the field is 'The First Human' by Ann Gibbons and the best insider gossip is in 'Adventures in the Bone Trade' by Jon Kalb, who worked with Johanson and isn't as impressed by him as National Geographic and PBS.

to Rudy wrote on May 31, 2008 7:05 PM:I believe the closest thing to a definition of the word "species" is based on successful mating. As you say, though, this is not iron-clad. All the better for the evolutionists! So in cases where species are not the "types" that creationists believe in, they're in trouble. And when, as in the thought experiment, when a new species does develop, they're in even bigger trouble. But the point was that for 99% of the ID people, the hypothetical "new species" experiment would show that there is NO evidence that they would accept if it threatened their religious faith. They have every right in the world to believe what they wish, but they should have the integrity to admit that no evidence matters. Then they should leave the rest of us alone. Unfortunately, most of them lack this integrity. They want to bring up "evidence" as if it mattered. Then, time and again, when they are refuted by people foolish enough to think they are in an honest discussion, they run away to their faith. I find this extremely cowardly and, in a sense, rather insulting to their God. God, I'm pretty sure, does not need people being dishonest in His honor. These folks should be ashamed of themselves, with Mr Forbing leading the way.

Zeus wrote on May 31, 2008 10:12 PM:Rudy: If you’re really curious about speciation try doing a Google search on “Observed Instances of Speciation.” The problem isn’t observed speciation events, it’s the irrational demands of creationists. Consider the formation of Mount Everest. Even though we know the mountain continues to rise vertically today, and even though we know the mountains vertical geological profile matches up with adjacent lower elevation vertical geological profiles, and even though we know the upper sediments of Everest contain marine fossils Creationists would demand that until they actually see Everest rise 5 miles out of the sea, the chances are that God (of all other infinite possibilities) made Everest as we see it today – end of story. Detectives they are not. Likewise, Creationists want to see something like dogs evolve into chimps within their lifetimes (some like Forbing even carry the fiasco further by demanding to see a bacterium evolve into a human). Without these observations all genetic changes are classified merely as changes within a kind (where a kind is defined by creationists anyway creationists need to define kind -- as Cavel discussed). Creationists refuse to acknowledge that small genetic changes accumulated over immense periods of time would lead to significant genetic changes (as is reflected in 3.8 billion year fossil record and comparative genomics). They demand that millions of years be compressed into days, that billions of years be compressed into months. If you agree with creationists on this topic please explain (without worrying about whether or not poodles and wolves are the same species) why we can’t observe a wolf give birth to a poodle. It’s a simple question with a simple answer, but an answer creationists can’t acknowledge because it forces them to acknowledge the biological significance of small accumulated selection events over time.

rudy wrote on May 31, 2008 11:55 PM:zeus
I don't think creationists have a problem with accumulated changes over time. I would say dog breeding is a good example of that - over many generations, specific traits can be selected (intelligently, and artificially) and isolated, resulting in pretty amazing variation in several generations. If dog breeds were traced back 200 years, it could be seen that this large genetic variation in size/features was available in the ancestors. The fact that wolves cannot give birth to poodles is no more helpful than the fact that a pair of cocker spaniels cannot give birth to a King Charles spaniel. Creationists do recognize the significance of accumulated changes over time, within limits. The crossing over of defined taxonomic boundaries, through these accumulated changes, is what we creationists object to. Wolves, dogs, species, selective breeding -these concepts don't favor evolution over creation - evolution rests its case on the historical fossil record, geological history/column, etc. If that case is a good one, then yes the evolutionist would be able to assert that dog breeding is a very nice example of evolution/accumulated changes in action. The creation position, as you know, is that this historical/geological/paleontological case for evolutionary theory is based on first assuming the evolution model to be true, and then analyzing the scientific data in light of that.

Ruminator wrote on Jun 1, 2008 9:07 AM:____TO RUDY: Are you a Young Earth Creationist?

John the Baptist wrote on Jun 1, 2008 9:42 AM:Re speciation: Richard Milton, in "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism", asks "...why is that thousands of years of serious guided selection by humans has resulted only in trivial sub-specific variation of domestic plants and animals, while not one new species has been created?"
My question in return is: which of those breeders set out to create a new species? Obviously, none. Within limits, they accomplished exactly what they set out to do, which is to enhance some specific trait.
Milton is purportedly not a Creationist, but he has done a workman-like job of compiling an extensive list of Creationist myths about Darwinism.
Regards

Zeus wrote on Jun 1, 2008 1:15 PM:Rudy: First let’s be clear. In the 1800s the western world (Darwin included) began every observation with the assumption that the creation model was true (not the evolution model). As with all scientific theories it was evidence (not assumption) that caused the evolution model to replace the creation model. Have you ever read Darwin’s “The Origin of Species” to actually determine what Darwin actually proposed and the very specific reasons why he actually proposed it? If creationists accept genetic change over time please explain clearly why this change would have limits over time. There is absolutely nothing in the genetic makeup of populations that limits the degree of genetic change over time. Absolutely nothing. Such a claim is entirely an irrational creationist invention. If you don’t believe me run over to UCSD and politely ask a professor of genetics if there is any genetic mechanism that limits gene pool divergence over time. If I’m wrong please clarify what actually limits this change. My dog-wolf question asked why can’t we see a wolf give birth to a poodle? If the genes for poodles are within wolves (poodle ancestors) then why can’t we observe this? If you honestly answer this we can begin to discuss why it’s so ridiculous for creationists to ask questions such as “why can’t we see a bacterium evolve into a human, or a chimp give birth to a human.” Did you ever explore the Google search I recommended – if so, in your opinion, what is wrong with the numerous speciation events described (and referenced) on the TalkOrigins web site? You also stated evolution rests its hat on historical fossil record, geological history/column, etc. Hopefully your “etc” also refers to the immense field of genetics, biogeography, physiology, behavior, embryology, biochemistry, cladistics, etc. I’d say this is resting one’s hat on an immense amount of evidence, which you sale as being somewhat insignificant – why? Can you please clearly state what creationists rest their hats on (if you answer any of my questions, please answer this one)? To replace evolution (as with replacing any scientific theory) creationists need more to rest their hats on. As far as I know creationists have absolutely nothing to hang their hats on (this was made clearly obvious during the Dover trial – have you ever read the transcripts of that trial?). If I’m misrepresenting creationist evidence please describe (or refer me to) the evidence in support of creationism. I’d also be curious to know why you believe over 99% of the world’s experts (which includes religious individuals) in the diverse scientific disciplines related to evolution hang their hats on evolution, not the creation model you appear to support?

CAVEL wrote on Jun 1, 2008 4:32 PM:I note that Gould has been cited here as an authority. In that respect I highly recommend his "Wonderful Life, The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History," Stephen Jay Gould, W. W. Norton & Co., c 1989. I am rereading "Wonderful Life..." and it's just as fascinating and enlightening as the first time I read it. Although he only refers to his theory of punctuated equilibrium in a footnote, the story of the Burgess shale and the Cambrian explosion of organisms into a prolific bush half a billion years ago give support to that idea of Gould and Niles Eldredge. If "Wonderful Life" is not available, read "THE EVOLUTION OF LIFE ON EARTH" A SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN article.
October, 1994.' by Gould. This is easy to Google.

Creationists and IDists should at least read the Sci American article. Don't fear that it will shake your reveries in such nonsense as creationism, au contraire, it will destroy it or should I say, extirpate it.

CAVEL wrote on Jun 1, 2008 5:38 PM:To Rudy: "The crossing over of defined taxonomic boundaries, through these accumulated changes, is what we creationists object to." Not to be rude Rudy, but I really do believe that you are clueless about taxonomy and biology in general. Your discussion of dog breeds with the suggestion that each breed is a seperate species is, to put it gently, absurd. I am sure that you argue that homo sapiens are not descended from apes, with the picture of a modern ape such as a gorilla in mind. Indeed they are not, they simply share common ancestors. Evolution of biological organisms has occured over hundreds of millions of years, not the few hundred you cite. The evidence is overwhelming that life has evolved through mutation and natural selection from single celled to multiple celled to complex forms of life. Do yourself a favor Rudy and at least read the Scientific American article by Gould. At the same time just think how the earth itself has changed over the course of over 4 billion years. Change, that is what evolution is about. Creationist, such as yourself, stick to the creation tale in Genesis maintaining that current organisms have not changed or evolved since a deity created them a few thousand years ago. But why the Genesis fable? There are countless other creation stories all based on deism and the supernatural. It's simply because you were born into the Judeo-Christian culture and you are stuck with it. Those who were born 3,000 years ago into the culture of Ancient Egypt believed what they were fed by priests and manipulators, but where are they now? Gone, as will the fad of current deism disappear one day, to be replaced by logic and reason and facts.

WHY... wrote on Jun 3, 2008 1:18 AM:The on going veneration of Paul?

It smacks of praying to Saints for intervention and intercession, and the veneration of Mary the mother of Jesus...this is a dangerous stance to be taken by those professing to be protestants or reformers.

I just don't get it...there is only God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, three in one. Paul, Mary, Pope John II, Mother Theresa, et al, are just devout followers of Christ, no more no less, and those elevating them are guilty of violating "Thou shalt have no other god's above Me."

Three D wrote on Jun 3, 2008 12:41 PM:Attempt post 9:45 a.m.; try again 11:13 a.m.; third attempt 12:41 p.m.
The comment at 1:18 a.m. asks "WHY" the veneration of Paul, which I would agree is an excellent question, but goes on to describe Paul as a "devout follower of Christ."
I would also ask "WHY" this person can make such a statement?
How can you call someone a "devout follower of Christ" who devoted his entire life to teachings that completely contradicted the core teachings of Jesus on all of the most fundamental doctrines of belief?
I have repeated documented the extent to which Paul directly contradicts Jesus on how people are saved and what they must DO (not believe) to attain salvation.
Paul was not a "devout follower of Christ" - he was the anti-Christ.

To Why wrote on Jun 3, 2008 1:24 PM:I think you need to direct that question to Three D. He seems to think that Paul was not a follower of Christ but a renegade trying to get people to follow his own doctrine.

Paul was just as you say a devote follower of Christ, and preached the gospel to those he came in contact with. Just as anyone else who believes Christ came and died for the sins of man, and the need to believe that to be true (FAITH). If anyone thinks that they can deny Christ's sacrifice and still get to heaven are sadly mistaken, and are guilty of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit

To Three D wrote on Jun 3, 2008 2:18 PM:I think you need to read the Bible a little more closely. Paul continually speaks of Jesus as the Christ who came to redeem us from sin. The anti-Christ would not recognize Jesus as the Messiah, and that we would need to believe in Jesus for salvation.

When you use the teaching of the term "least of these", who is Jesus talking to? His followers!! Those who believed and first accepted Him for who he was, the Messiah!!

Three D wrote on Jun 3, 2008 2:49 PM:The person responding to "Why" at 1:24 p.m., sadly, has been duped by the renegade "apostle" Paul, who blasphemes and opposes the core teachings of Jesus.
"To Why" is correct that Paul teaches salvation is by faith in a bloody human sacrifice that somehow magically atones for sins by killing an innocent man.
In contrast, I have repeatedly cited specific scriptures, chapter and verse, where Jesus specifically states that salvation is ONLY by the active expression (DEEDS) of universal compassionate love, with no mention of faith or human sacrifice. There are numerous instances where Jesus says this, but the most dramatic is his final public teaching, which is also the only time Jesus himself describes the final judgment and how people will be judged, in Matt 25:31-46.
Please understand that this is not what I say. This is what Jesus is reported to have said. When you argue against that, you are arguing Jesus. You know, the guy you CLAIM to call your Christ, but whose actual teachings you repeatedly repudiate.

Butler wrote on Jun 3, 2008 4:04 PM:In reply to The Rev. Timothy Murphy: i believe that the Hand of God can be detected all over the Constitution of the United States of America and in the Declaration of Independence. I believe in the words from the Declaration , "WE hold the truths to be self evident, that all Men are created equal, That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, - - -." I also believe that it is my God given right, and Constitutionally protected right to hold on to and protect everything I and my forefathers have earned. I give to the needy and will continue to do so. However, I will not give to people who have knowingly crossed the border illegally, thereby committing a crime, and disrupt the way of life that I have worked very hard for to provide for me and my family. I also am a Christian and have been since my youth. I am not a rich person and you have no right to condemn me for protecting my family, and what I have earned, from people like you. When you support the illegals you are taking away from the homeless and needy of our country. Can't you see that? There are two sides to every coin and you are on the wrong side of this one. Get a job if you don't have one.
You could take your unreasonable bleeding heart to Mexico and see what kind of living you can make down there spouting off as you are. Better still get out there and pick some fruit or veggies and give the proceeds to the illegals. And there again, you could give it to the homeless of this country.

Three D wrote on Jun 3, 2008 4:20 PM:The person responding to me at 2:18 p.m. simply misses the point. Yes, Paul continually speaks of the Jesus as the Crhist who came to redeem us from sin.
But he is very wily and deceptive, pretending to believe Jesus as the savior, while teaching the exact opposite of what Jesus teaches.
Paul says salvation is by faith APART FROM WORKS, while Jesus explicitly said that salvation is based on compassionate deeds.
Jesus never said anything about a sins being transferred to himself based only on belief, he said the opposite.
As for teaching about "the least of these," he was describing the final judgment and setting the criteria for salvation. And you made my point perfectly: Jesus was talking to his followers who already believe in him and accept him. He did not congratulate them on already being saved. He said they better DO IT or they won't be. According to Paul (and you), they should already be saved. You are arguing against Jesus.
By the way, Jesus said the same thing to the lawyer, not yet a believer, who asked how to be saved, giving the parable of the Good Samaritan and then saying, "This DO and you will be saved."
Just think about who you are arguing against.

Three D wrote on Jun 3, 2008 5:09 PM:Butler at 4:04 p.m. says in response to a letter on illegal immigration, "I am a Christian" and also "I give to the needy but will not give to people who have knowingly crossed the border illegally" then later "You could take your unreasonable bleeding heart to Mexico and see what kind of living you can make down there spouting off as you are. Better still get out there and pick some fruit or veggies and give the proceeds to the illegals."
That sure doesn't sound like Matt 25:31-46, does it? Where Jesus identified the "least of those" including the "stranger" and those "in prison" (who seemingly knowingly broke laws).
Jesus clearly meant ALL of the needy. But as I have stated, I do understand that many Christians reject Jesus' teaching in favor of Paul. Just believe - you don't actually have to do anything.
We'll see where that gets you. Will you be counted among the sheep or the goats?

Confused wrote on Jun 3, 2008 8:52 PM:To Butler: Yes, you are quite the good Christian. I'm sure Jesus would say "keep the imporvished south of the border so old Butler can enjoy a margarita next to his swimming pool which he worked so hard for (because God only knows those folks south of the border don't work very hard at all). Butler, could you present a more confused persepctive if you tried?

Mr Three D wrote on Jun 4, 2008 12:35 PM:why do you call the act of Jesus dying on the cross as a "magical event". This to me shows that you do not accept it. Why do you think Jesus came? It is funny how everyone wants to believe that "good works" are the only way to heaven. Jesus does say that we need to do good works, but He also says "I am the way the truth and the life, no one gets to the father except through me." Or how about "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." These statements are either not mentioned or spoken of as if they are unimportant. We can not pick and choose what we want to believe in the Bible, but we must accept it as the WORD OF GOD. If you do not read the Bible to grow as a believer, and to gain wisdom and understanding from God, but instead read it to find faults in Christians then shame on you.

To Butler wrote on Jun 4, 2008 12:42 PM:Unfortunatly I have to agree with Three D on this. I too am a Christian and even though I do not favor illegal immigration, it does not mean we do not take care of the needy. Half the time they are worse off in Mexico then when they cross the border.

rudy wrote on Jun 4, 2008 2:02 PM:Yes I'm a young-earther. Zeus-your statement that there is no mechanism for limiting gene pool conversion. I can't debate that point, so will take it as correct. Whether that is true or not - is there examples in recent recorded historical time, say 4000 years, of this gene pool convergence? My understanding is the major changes (alleged) from one group to another, ie fish/amphibian, reptile/mammal all occurred on the order of millions of years ago, which are/were not observed, only deduced from the fossil record. If I'm wrong on that, let me know - I guess the point is that no crossover from one major group to another has been observed. and you'll have to help me on the wolf-poodle point, I'm not putting that together, sorry. Are you saying the genetic material for poodles was not in wolves? I think the basic creationist position is that large amounts of genetic information was available in the ancestors, but after separation/selective breeding of populations, genes were isolated and resulted in different breeding populations, ie jackal, dingo, coyote, etc. The fact that some of the original genes are lost/separated doesn't have any bearing on the original premise, that all the genetic information was available in the ancestors. Cavel - if a rock pigeon is a different species than a passenger pigeon (is this correct?), then why is it absurd to state that a cocker spaniel could be classified as a different species than a Brittany spaniel? I understand the pigeons separated into breeding populations naturally, while the cocker spaniels were created by selective breeding, but technically they are both separate breeding populations. Just as a spaniel could breed with a coyote, different species of pigeon can interbreed. Is the domestic dog considered one species? if so why?
fun stuff.

Zeus wrote on Jun 4, 2008 6:53 PM:Rudy: If you’re a young earth creationists there is little I can probably say that will answer any of your questions. Spending years talking with young earth creationists I’ve yet to meet one capable of applying rational thought to any topic that even appears to challenge their fundamentalist religuous beliefs. This is of no surprise when you consider that young earth creationists must disregard nearly every branch of science in order for their world view to persist. Hopefully you’ll prove me wrong. My poodle-wolf example was used to indicate that we can’t observe wolves giving birth to poodles because it took thousands of years of artificial selection events to gradually select out poodles (it did not happen as an observable event). For the same basic reasons (accumulated natural selection events over even longer periods of time) we can’t observe the evolution of amphibians from fish ancestors. I gave the example of the formation of Mt. Everest to make the same point, that we can understand processes and events even though we unable to directly witness them. Detectives apply the same reasoning and approaches to solve crimes every day. I’d like to ask you that if amphibians did in fact evolve from fish what should be observed in the fossil record, and what should be observed in comparisons of anatomy, physiology, embryology, genetics, etc of fish and amphibians.? If you’re up for it you could also describe the creationist predictions to these same questions. I believe your answers here are critical for this discussion to proceed. For another question you aksed, I think you meant gene pool divergence (not convergence). To spare a little time answering this I’ll refer you back to the same Google search (TalksOrigins) on speciation examples (fully referenced) which I’ve mentioned three times now. You say ancestral dogs branched into jackal, dingo, coyote, wolves, foxes, etc. I don’t disagree. The first signs of carnivores shows up in the fossil record about 55 million years ago. At that period of time there were no modern canidae (dog family members). Over long periods of time this early ancestral group gradually diverged into all modern day carnivores, which includes the cat, hyena, bear, weasel, seal, mongoose, civet and dog families. The canidae continued to diverge after that into the over 14 genera and 34 species. Using flood geology these progressive sequential changes observed in the fossil record make absolutely no sense (yet creationists proceed regardless – why?). I have a problem with how you define ancestral group (and species). Why do you believe wolves (or some canidae species) were the ancestral group, why not the ancestral group to all cranivores (and why the ancestral group of that group, and on and on)? Would you suggest that Grey foxes can’t be an ancestral group from this point on, eventually giving rise to hundreds of other species over time (as you suggest occurred in the past for all 34 species of canidae)? If so, what prevented this same diverging trend prior to the first wolf ancestor, and doesnlt this beg the question all life forms are modified version of one another, all stemming from a common ancestor? In addition, if the different canidae share the same gene pool (i.e. separate breeding populations as you suggest) what about the different number of chromosomes in different canidae (Kit fox have 50 chromosomes, grey fox 66, dogs 78, Bengal fox 60, bat-eared fox 30, etc.). What about genomic similarities and differences between all canidae and between canidae and other carnivores? Any predictions (expectations)? I’d like to ask you a question so I can determine if you’re willing to have a rational debate or if this is merely a waste of my time. If you (creationists) claim all canidae are simply variants of the same ancestor, would you say the same is true of all apes, including humans. Why not? Surely you agree humans have ape characteristics (do a search on primate characteristics to verify this) just as coyotes, wolves and foxes share canidae characteristics. You can’t have it both ways. I’ll stop here for now to see where you are with this.

John the Baptist wrote on Jun 4, 2008 8:40 PM:to Zeus & Rudy:
Zeus, your patience is amazing!
Rudy, please make at least some effort. Go to Wikipedia and look up 'species", "speciation", and "Canis taxonomy", for starters.
Regards.

Three D wrote on Jun 4, 2008 8:59 PM:The person responding to me at 12:35 p.m. asks why I call Jesus dying on the cross a "magical event."
I did not describe it that way. I call it the execution of an innocent man by the religious orthodoxy of his time because he dared to speak out against their established authority.
He knew the risks he was taking to teach a simple message of universal compassionate love expressed through actions, so in that way was a willing sacrifice of himself to benefit others, a real hero. "Greater love hath no man," etc.
Many through the ages have courageously, heroically, sacrificed their lives to save or benefit others.
That is heroism, it is not magic.
It also has nothing to do with MAGICALLY taking their sins away from themselves.
That is the strange MAGIC of bloody human sacrificial sin atonement that Paul invents. Jesus never taught it, and all those who argue with me still cannot find a single place where Jesus said he took anyone's sins from them and transferred them to himself.
But he did teach us how to transform our character so that sin is expunged. When you feel compassion for the enemy, the downtrodden, the hard-to-love, or the "least of these" -- the filthy faces of helpless children or aged seniors dying in the streets of Calcutta, where Mother Teresa says she sees God "in his distressing disguise," then you become transformed. And if you don't start out feeling compassion, then when you have worked among the poor selflessly, you will come to feel it, and become transformed.
Jesus knew what he was talking about.
He didn't need MAGIC. But Paul does, in order to undermine what Jesus taught and explain how you can get something for nothing. Paul teaches a selfish Christianity of greed and superiority. Jesus teaches a simple lifestyle of humble compassionate joy.
Sorry, but you are still arguing against Jesus, not me.
I merely quote what he says and, unlike you, cite chapter and verse.
As to "picking and choosing" from the Bible, yes, we can do just that, just as any other book.
These books were written by HUMANS. They are full of direct contradictions, failed prophecies and factual errors, which I have cited many times.
I reject what Paul wrote. Much of what is attributed to Jesus I find inspired and inspiring and quite brilliant. Darn right I pick and choose.
And so do you, when you choose Paul and reject Jesus.

To Three D wrote on Jun 5, 2008 8:10 AM:You did not mention my comment on "I am the way the truth and the life, no one gets to the Father except through Me." . This is a quote from Jesus signifying that the only way to God (heaven) is through HIM and through the accepting of His sacrifice as atonment of our sins, that is not Paul speaking but Jesus in John 14:6. Also refer to the garden where Jesus is praying prior to His betrayal, knowing what He was about to be subject to, what had been prophecied many years before He came, the taking of the sins of the world upon Him.

You seem to have skipped over that, since it does not say anything about works, which by the way I fully believe in that a Christian should take part in and perform to reveal their "true" faith in Jesus and to carry out His example. I am very active in reaching out to the homeless and caring for the less fortunate.

Zeus wrote on Jun 5, 2008 9:16 AM:To John the Baptist: I'm probably one part patient and nine parts foolish.

Three D wrote on Jun 5, 2008 9:42 AM:The person responding to me at 8:10 a.m. notes I did not address his comment about the statement attributed to Jesus from John 14:6: "I am the way the truth and the life, no one gets to the Father except through Me."
Your comment has two problems: you do not address the statement from Jesus in Matthew 25:31-46 that compassionate ACTIONS toward the "least of these" gets you into heaven, or the statements in Matt 22:36-40 and Luke 10:25-37 that if you DO the actions of loving your neighbor as yourself (with which Luke then introduces the parable of the Good Samaritan) and loving God (which Matt 25:31-46 says we express by doing unto the least of these what we do to God) you will have eternal life. So, the best you can do is claim to be offering a CONTRADICTION between the gospel of Matthew, written by one of the Twelve Apostles who actually lived with Jesus and was there when he said it, or the gospel of John, compiled by the Johannine Community almost a hundred years later after the church had already been corrupted by Paul.
Unfortunately, I cannot add this to the list of HUNDREDS of direct Bible contradictions I have uploaded on my website, because I don't find this to be an absolute contradiction. Jesus says in John 14:6 that the only way to be saved is through him. It does not say anything about literally transferring individuals' sins from themselves to Jesus. If you follow what Jesus taught - i.e., you do the ACTIONS of universal compassionate love - then because you have DONE what he said, what he taught, you are saved through him; through his teachings, whether or not you were consious of that or knew you were doing it or even knew anything about Jesus (otherwise you are imaging a truly evil, unjust god who would consign people to hell who never even had a chance to hear about this Jesus guy who demands belief in him whether or not they ever had the chance). And since so much of his teachings are about works, if you do what he taught to gain salvation then it necessarily does include deeds.
You can accept this interpretation or not. If not, then you are claiming this to be a Bible contradiction.
Are you claiming this to be a Bible contradiction?
As for your statement about being "very active in reaching out to the homeless and caring for the less fortunate." Congratulations. However, you don't need to be defensive. I never said anything about you nor have I tried to judge you. I don't even know who you are. I was stating general principles, not judging whether or not it applies to any specific individual.

rudy wrote on Jun 5, 2008 1:07 PM:John the Baptist/Zeus
yes, thanks for your patience, my time is short, so prob. can't continue. JB - I'll look up speciation - I didn't mean to imply that I think different spaniel breeds are currently classified as different species. My question was why shouldn't they be? Zeus: Apes-Humans, share characteristics, but could not produce offspring, correct? Dogs-wolves-coyotes; share characteristics and CAN produce offspring. Significant difference. Dogs/coyotes/wolves - same ancestor. Apes/humans - not. (my opinion). I'll leave you alone until I can spend more time on this.

Zeus wrote on Jun 5, 2008 5:24 PM:Rudy: I mentioned that different canidae have different number of chromsomes (Kit fox have 50 chromosomes, grey fox 66, dogs 78, Bengal fox 60, bat-eared fox 30, etc.). So although they share canidae characteristics they can't mate as you suggest they can. The same is true of humans and other apes (which I had asked you about). Do you now want to define "type" as populations with the same number of chromosomes? Careful, humans and sweet potatoes (and thousands of other species) all have 46 chromosomes. So here is where the inability to think rationally comes in. Given your understanding was wrong, what do you do? Do you change your views based on the new information, or do you create (seek out) a factless explanation (as you did in your last post) which allows you to reject the new information simply because it does not conform to your preconceived idea. If you're busy, a one sentance response will work. Thanks.

rudy wrote on Jun 6, 2008 1:22 PM:Zeus
short answer-don't recall including foxes in my list. wolves, dogs, dingos, jackals. My understanding is foxes could not produce offspring with dog/wolf kind. Point remains. (what was my point, I forgot) My ideas on origins were evolutionary until age 30. I'm working on more rationality in my posts, but I'm short a chromosome.