If the arguments supporting the teaching of intelligent design (ID) to children is that teaching ID offers an alternative to evolution? That science is just a religion anyway and so scientific assertion is only philosophically based, then shouldn’t the flat earth theory be taught as astronomy?

The Flat Earth society is still going strong. Thats tenacity for you.

I think kids should have more say in what they learn. We should stop paying teachers too. Paid teachers care not a jot for their students. They just want to finish reading the unfamiliar material they from the textbook which they expect the kids to learn parrot fashion, get home or to the pub and relax where they can talk about anything but the kids they are supposed to be helping. Volunteers would do a better job. Even the ancient greeks knew that.

Give kids choice and dedicated teachers and they will become interested in what they are learning. Then watch them bloom.

I gather by your model WayneSmith by 2050 the witnesses in court swear on Harry Potter.The broom stick industry will likely be taken over by British Aerospace or Lockheed.

West - theonion.com did a story a while back similar to what you're saying. Something along the lines of "Religious Figures Back Teaching of 'Intelligent Falling Theory' as an Alternative to the Theory of Gravity".

Pretty much sums it up..

West, if anyone is producing any means of transport,
broom sticks, or any other, it sure won't be the British.
Remember Leyland?

Flat Earth theory is OK if you are reading "Navsat"; but West is so ridiculous in his understanding of other points of view, he will go to any length to display his ignorance.

Good on ya, West!
I reckon that teaching "flat earth" in schools is a terrific idea!
It would go along nicely with "Creation Science".
Come to think of it, it would dovetail nicely with the Howard government's plan to teach the benefits of nuclear power.

There is only one disadvantage - these teachings might cause some collateral damage, resulting in some unhealthy scepticism in some recalcitrant children - leading them to question and evaluate what they are taught. (We'd have to deal with those problem children!).
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com

West of course is being factious to suggest intelligent design and flat Earth are equally irrelavent theories to be debunked in education. His attitudes show preconceived brainwashed rejection rather than intelligent scientific questioning.

All human endeavour is learned by observing intelligent design principles. It is in the reflection and experimentation of the design of our Universe and consistent logicical outcomes that makes intelligent principles workable and consistent. All chemicals and conditions being equal the same result occurrs, and as we learn and understand change we are able to create a different outcome.

To suggest Flat Earth theory falls in the same paradigm is nonsense. It is as we by the naked eye can observe and measure a physical curve of the Earth we are able to calculate a line movement on the circumference of the surface of the earth to ultimately end up at the point from when we began. Flat Earth is not what we observe in reality, intelligence suggests we live on a designed sphere; such design functions best in gravitational fields of the universe.

Thankyou for the information spendocrat. After reading several sites concerning the subject I conclude 'Intelligent Falling Theory' is as credible as ‘Evangelical scientist’, the former irrational nonsense the later an oxymoron. There are some sites which place the theories origin as a joke which was taken seriously by Intelligent Design enthusiasts but it appears it is a product of a so called think tank dishonestly attempting to attribute it to Newton.

The shape of the earth is determined by people’s point of view Philo?

ChristinaMac yes it would suit Howard nicely as radioactive waste could simply be tipped off the edge of the Earth. The flat earth ‘point of view’ then would certainly explain why nuclear waste was dumped in the Atlantic.

An interesting point you make ChristinaMac, curious minds would have to be persecuted to allow the acceptance of a flat Earth. Intelligent design requires unquestioned acceptance of Orwellian directives and adjustment of information from a hierarchy of ‘think tanks’. To see how it works I recommend http://www.discovery.org/

Hasbeen surely British industry has benefited by its inclusion in the EU? Even if glory days are gone a flat Earth makes aviation cheaper as gliders could be launched off the edge of the world. The Brits simply teach their scientists the world is flat and following that ‘point of view’ will invigorate their aviation industry. A flying broomstick industry was too impractical as hardwood stocks world wide are depleting. The panacea for timber shortage is to teach the ‘point of view’ that the worlds forests are infinite.

This is an excellent system Intelligent Design boffins have invented. We could stop climate change by teaching the ‘point of view’ that there is no climate change.

Imagine the medical implications of such a system.

Hahahahahh, Fairdinkum, Is this some Post Modern Gee up?
Gold fish are more intelligent.

I suppose if you can PhD in Barbie dolls these days, then the flat earth science policy will only compliment intellectual consistency. E=M c Box head.

oooh I think I have to go to the closest hospital. I am dieing of laughter.

And me!
I just read that article on http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

and my favourite quote is:

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

When I read the above, I started laughing so much that God decided to push me off my chair and I ended up ROFL.
Just crawled back on, against the pull of gravity to say: thanks, West and others, this is hilarious.

The danger with Intelligent Design is the so called scientists that seem to give it credibility. (They seem to pop up now and then). The creation message can drown out creative thought with the “created in 7 days theory”. If you believe this you tend not to look any further and put it down to the work of the creator. EXAMPLE: Your house is blown down in a storm. As a believer in creation you accept this and move house or build another. As a non-believer you look for the reason your house blew down and introduce bracing or whatever it takes to stop it blowing down next time.

The concept of flatness only exists in our minds.In reality all things in this universe are curved,it is just a matter of what degree.Gravity and the forces between molecules make all things move to a curved shape.

Is it possible to teach something that defies all laws of nature and logic?

"Is it possible to teach something that defies all laws of nature and logic? "Arjay

It is possible to teach something that defies all laws of nature and logic and it is common to do so. Both Iintelligent Design and religion require magic as the base on which theories are built. Magic by definition defies all laws of nature and logic.

Westy that would not be appropriate. There is an unresolved controversy between scientists who subscribe to the evolutionary theory and those who subscribe to the intelligent design theory that is currently being debated. Both sides adduce scientific evidence to support their theory.

Contrarily the flat earth theory does not have any scientific support. It was a misperception based on lack of scientific knowledge. It is easily verifiably incorrect.

That is not to say that everyone would have easily been convinced that the earth is not flat. Just as people today who reject science dismiss intelligent design solely on the basis that some crackpot who doesn't believe in gravity supports it, flat earthers would surely have found comfort in deriding the more eccentric followers of the new theory.

In the circumstances it makes sense that the debate has flowed into the issue of whether both theories should be taught at school until the issue is resolved one way or another but there is no reason to consider teaching the flat earth theory.

I know I am taking your comments literally and they were hopefully simply intended to vent an emotion but how else can I respond?

"Westy that would not be appropriate. There is an unresolved controversy between scientists who subscribe to the evolutionary theory and those who subscribe to the intelligent design theory that is currently being debated. Both sides adduce scientific evidence to support their theory." mjpb simply it is not true.

Evolution is a principle of the phenomenon of biological change. Evolution is reinforced through the application and development of technologies which are based on evolution. From knowledge gained from evolution Genetics, biology and the understanding and treatment of disease and environmental management. Evolution occurs quickly as changes in habitat quickly extinguish hereditary lines. This can be as quick as a dry wet season , a few too many bushfires, a construction of a dam. Genetics have even exposed race as myth.

Intelligent design is nothing more than spin created to lend superstition credibility. The effect is because intelligent design is lie based it is the flat earth theory of the new millenium. Intelligent design is as scientific as witch hunting or making noise on New Years to ward off evil spirits. All are magic dependent.

West, I assume that those gliders, launched off the edge of your flat earth could never return.
This being the case I start to warm to your reality.

I will become a fully paid up subscriber, if I am allowed to write the passengers list for the first 200 gliders, launched.
I promise I will pick, only four OLO contributors.

West, the point Philo makes about FE and ID being very different issues is correct.

FE is an assertion which can be easily proven or disproven. I think that it has been fairly successfully disproven. It's place in the teaching of science is as an example of a failed theory.

ID on the other and is an attempt to deal with the why's and can not be proven or disproven, it has no place in science.

I think both have a place in education, as part of a "religious education" program. The course could cover the claims and history of the major religions.

In the case of christianity it could include a module on the various attempts to defend the bible as the literal word of god in the face of an overwhelming body of evidence which shows that the bible is not literal.

The defense of FE would be one part but far more interesting would be the myriad attepts to defend genesis as some kind of record of the history of the earth. Items that come to mind are the idea that god created the earth in seven literal days complete with a geological fossil record indicating an earth billions of years old and containing animals that never existed. The Creation Science mob should provide plenty of more modern attempts to do the same. ID would fit into this history.

A similar coverage of the history of science should also be included.
The times that science has had key theories wrong and how the change in understanding has come about.

This is stuff that students should have available to them as they attempt to evaluate the claims of various bodies of belief.

R0bert

R0bert ID has nothing to do with science. Evolution is the nature of biological nature; science is the investigation of nature. ID is anti-nature, supernatural, human mythology.
ID requires a magical intelligence.

The cult of ID comes directly from the Discovery Institute via the Moonies and Islamists with much is attributed to Erik Von Daniken’s ID x UFO theory. The purpose of ID is clear, to brainwash young converts into becoming superstitious and to discredit science. ID is nothing other than a new age pop occult trend. The logic of ID runs on the premise that people are too stupid to understand anything remotely complicated and so will grasp onto the simplest explanation offered. Ironically ID is far more complicated than evolution because it claims that evolution is a product of magical interference from god or elite geneticists flying around in flying saucers. The fundamental foundation is absent. There are no aliens that ID myth depends to base the so called theory, no astronaut or god. There is no evidence of the occult magic a god would require to do such a task and no technology a Martian requires.

The ancient Greeks worked out the world is a sphere and this was rejected by Christians as a round world because a flat earth is simple and a round one remotely complicated. For this Darwin suffers the same persecution as Galileo for the same reason.

ID will not last the century as it is no more than a pop occult trend like crystal healing and chain mail. It requires the same level of faith in absence of fact.
Teaching children ID is irresponsible and if it is believed by them it becomes child abuse.

Evolution is here to stay along with Chemistry and Physics.

West, ID is definately not science, I think I stated that. In the school system RE is about the only place for it,

"Teaching children ID is irresponsible and if it is believed by them it becomes child abuse." - I'm more of the view that we need to teach them about some of this stuff but in context. Let them see how ID fits in with the pattern of attempts by some christians to find some way to keep genesis as the literal word of god.

I tend more to the view that the risk is not educating kids about the history and context of the things which they will probably be exposed to at some point anyway.

RE should not be an opportunity for recruiting by various belief groups but rather an honest coverage of the core claims of major belief groups placed into a real world context. Does what they say match what they do? Have key understandings of the revealed word of god changed over time as society has changed and if so what are the implications for the current absolutes? How do non thiestic systems of belief compare?

Teach the kids the parts which can be proven and let them form their own opinions.

R0bert

Well, this woud make an interesting school excursion!

Here’s some highlights form the article, and it’s fun to browse the museum’s website.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1946370,00.html

“The world's first Creationist museum - dedicated to the idea that the creation of the world, as told in Genesis, is factually correct - will soon open...

“The Creation Museum - motto: "Prepare to Believe!" - will be the first institution in the world whose contents, with the exception of a few turtles swimming in an artificial pond, are entirely fake. It is dedicated to the proposition that the account of the creation of the world in the Book of Genesis is completely correct, and its mission is to convince visitors through a mixture of animatronic models, tableaux and a strangely Disneyfied version of the Bible story.

“…Don't think for a minute that this is some sort of crazy little hole-in-the-corner project. The museum is costing $25m (£13m) and all but $3m has already been raised from private donations.

“…And, as we know, up to 50 million of them (creationalists in US population) do believe that the Bible's account of Creation is literally true.
($22million raised from 50 million believers? Not bad!)

“"We want to try to convince people using observational science," he says. "It's done very gently but forthrightly. We give both sides, which is more than the Science Museum in London does."

“Nothing contradicts the Bible's account of the origins."

“the museum's website, AnswersInGenesis.org. They are expecting 300,000 visitors a year. "You've not seen anything yet," he says with a smile."

Uhmmm how does one tell the difference between 'evolutionist' and 'creationist'?

50 million Americans believe this utter twaddle? Scary indeed.

That 'Answers in Genesis' website would be hilarious if it wasn't meant to be serious.

How many of them believe in a Flat Earth too? Or support their government's disastrous adventure in Iraq...

I bet they're highly correlated.

R0bert I agree with you up to a point because I don’t think there is a hierarchy of religious beliefs and so Christianity should not necessarily be taught except a broad outline but along side other relevant religions in a historical context.

ID has the potential to destroy Christianity. As Christianity is in the process of attaching its fortunes to ID. When ID sinks Christianity will sink with it. ID is Christianities Titanic. ID is unsustainable because there are too many ice bergs of truth. Despite Christian (and Islamist) attacks on science if ID is not supported by cold hard science it will not survive and will go down with the other new age beliefs.

Celivia it appears obvious the Creation Museum is like something out of ‘Deliverance’. Still good to know so the area can be avoided.

CJ you may have hit upon something there. Perhaps it was the flat earth mentality that created the war in Iraq. Until Iraq was news because of the Kuwait invasion Iraq was on the edge of the world in the nether regions. For most Americans the map ended at Israel and Palestine and western Iran. Beyond were the mystical lands of monsters and Orientals, Cyclops and fire breathing dragons where entire armies of the Raj and Romans disappeared. The discourse concerning Afghanistan and Taliban is still that of an unconquerable mythical land at the ends of the world. Im sure the Chinese have no such mythical regard and capable of domesticating the territory within weeks of pouring over the Pamirs.

Australia also has this flat earth view. We tend to look toward the Pacific. The Indian Ocean Basin is that out of the way place where Dutch pirates suffered the Batavia, Dampier took refuge , the spice islands of the East Indies, Ceylon and Zanzibar lay. The exotic pirate refuge of Madagascar, deep dark Africa and the much coverted India. The true edge of the world the southern ocean where Nuyts discovered Lillyput, stares down from a lonely windswept coast toward and beyond the South Pole into outer space.

I really don’t think I am getting this West; Evolutionary Theory by Charles Darwin has on a number of Occasion been consigned to the Theory bin, even a few notable Evolutionary Apologists who would not sign off on corrupting their disciplines found the exact same answers.
To actually believe in the chance of living organisms as complex as living creatures, were a result of Pond scum, or E T mixing his genes; well , it works in Science fiction movies but , not the real world.
The Flat Earth west; well, even if you go back and read the Book of Enoch, he refers to the shape of the Earth and names it, on his assent. Note; that is well before credible Astronomers arrived on to the scene. It would also bee poignant to note how similar this event sounded to Mohammad’s little story; these days it would be called “Plagiarism”, not just a coincidence.

Operational Science West has proven the complete opposite of what you assert; {‘Unless you mean Agnosticism}; It has proven all the Pan Utopian Ideals and theories false, It in part has proven that there is such a thing as a creator, How you go about explaining it is some what a different matter; primarily because we do not have all the answers; But we do know what it is not.
Perhaps from a theosophical perspective the Flat Earth you mention is of that dimension consigned to the Nephilim?

I better desist, everyone is going to sleep.

All , clearly you take your fantasies far too seriously, nothing you have said is true.I will tred carefully here I will not take you up on this as you appear delusional to a point where I suspect you suffer mental illness and appear to be in a delicate state of mind. Have a nice day :)

All, if the book of Enoch does include a description of the shape of the earth it reinforces another point in this discussion.

The lengths that many religious people go to in defending ideas supposedly because of their belief in the literal nature of the bible even when the bible says something quite different.

A belief that the bible indicated that the earth was flat was defended very vigorously based on one section of the bible regardless of what science was showing and apparently in contradiction to what is said elsewhere.

That scenario sounds somewhat familiar.

R0bert

I do have my moments of Infamy West, But indeed to suggest that others are delusional when you bleightantally discuss an Absurdity to then try to apply credibility by elusion, you sound like a Noam Chomsky Graduate and a very amateur con Artist.

If this means I am in a fantasy land and delusional West; then so be it. I have a chance!

I didn’t write it Robert, but if it is an ancient manuscript and history journal, then surely it must be worthy as a reference. Even if you do not agree with it!
And be careful not to trip over the International date line, or it will be you who will be the One man space station. It would be difficult to explain the physics with West’s theory, but let him fill in the blanks.

The problem West has is that he cannot prove there is NO intelligent or logical order in the universe. However it is by observation we conclude order and design in our universe. Even in evolution there is supposed order and design as the basic principle of the theory. He cannot accept a principle of design or order.

I am an engineer and recognise chemical and matters of physics must be adhered to in creation of structures. My mind tells me so by the history of my experience. They are not so by my thinking them so, they are so, so I think and take them into account.

West only has his own irrational mind to conclude there is no design or order in chemistry and physics it is all based in irrational and illogical happenings in the Universe. His position is not based in observation but on what others have told him to be true and he accepts them as true. The logical and wise conclusion of the human mind account for the reality. The reality is we must recognise design and intelligence in our chemical and physics; our human intelligence concludes that is wisdom.

Has anyone here read this debate, originally published in the Sydney Morning Herald?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/aus_skeptics_vs_aig.pdf

Philo and I guess ‘All’ Your argument supporting ID is that you want to believe in a magical being that runs the universe like a clock but now that evolution has been discovered square pegs can fit into round holes if you warp perception to make it seem so. You are saying if you squint hard enough you can see Jesus in the tea leaves. Obviously you have no grasp on the rational Philo even if you consider that being an engineer gives you the capacity to claim your fantasies are logical on the basis of your say so, the reality is you are still left with superstition or have you proved both god and magic exist?

I thought not. Like all has demonstrated ID is fabrication dependent. The empty rhetoric that one cannot prove UFO’s or God do not exist is not rational as it puts the cart before the horse. “Ah” says the god believer but nothing truly can be proven, the curve of the earth is only a philosophy there is no real science. So thus the possible reality of god is exterminated by his own worshipper.

Attack me for neither accepting your fantasy nor sympathising with your frustrations at the heathens rejecting your fairytales Philo. Boasting about your career is not impressive nor does it demonstrate you have any grasp of logic or rational argument. You spin terribly for you failed to conceal your neglect of that essential point of your argument, proof of both god and the magic he facilitates ID with. Without such you are only inviting ridicule with your new age cultist notions.

Like God and Jesus and ID and the magical kingdom of heaven in your mind the world is flat. Don’t be so shocked that its so ridiculous in the real dimension.

YngNluvnt the amazing thing is the ID arguement is futile. ID is the emporers new clothes all over again.

The flat earth comparison is nothing but a crude red herring. Darwinian evolution is where the focus should be as the ability of random mutation plus natural selection to account for all life is a just-so story - a narrative of an unrepeatable, unobserved past. Anyone with any critical thinking ability whatsoever would immediately discern that RM plus NS explaining the origin of all species is nothing more than unfalsifiable speculation. Gravity and a round earth are not just-so stories but things that can observed, measured, and tested precisely and repeatably. Anyone who persists with the flat earth analogy either isn't playing with a full deck or is simply disingenuous.

All, I think it's great if Enoch describes the earth as a sphere. What is even more interesting about that is that christians have persecuted others for saying that the earth is round.

Something that should be kept in mind by fundy types as they cling to cherished interpretations of the bible and seek to foist them on others.

R0bert

R0bert is right as you Christians in this thread are clear indication that ID will sink Christianity with it. Rather than pour over your bible go back to the source of “bible science’ to the heathen astronomy of Ptolemy. Hebrews had no science as pre and later Judea were the Afghanistan of the classical world.

Perhaps the dungeons and dragons players (Christians) in this thread could explain why Stanley Miller and Harold Urey's initial experiments showing the conversion of terrestrial chemicals to organic compounds was wrong and why subsequent experiments creating life over the next 50 years were also wrong.

Perhaps the dungeons and dragons players could prove there is no geological origin of ribonucleic acid which contains the building blocks of DNA.

Perhaps the dungeons and dragons players could prove there are no pre bio-polymers containing thiamin and deoxyribose which directly connects all living things to dirt.

Although chemical engineers are pipe and heater people I am still amazed Philo holds no understanding of chemical synthesis and the role of catalysts and so in absence of that understanding decides that magic must be answer.

Children should be taught facts at school, not crap.
They can be offered theories but it has to be made very clear to them that these are theories only and are only ‘beliefs’ of some people.
Presenting unproven truths to children as if they were proven facts is cultural deprivation at least.

Since there is no evidence at all that there exists a God, religious schools should not be funded for teaching that there is one, as a fact.
Schools, teaching kids the ‘flat earth theory’ and other nonsense and present these things as facts or truths, should not be allowed to exist.

Teachers of ‘flat earth theory’ would have to stop kids from finding out the truth (that the world is not flat, square and stationary); would teachers actually go as far as telling kids that if they believe in a round earth, they go to hell? One may never question the bible!

If, according to creationists, God has always existed, then it took him longer than it took evolution (like billions of years) to create people, since God is said to have done his 6-days-magic about 6000-10,000 years ago. Righto.

The good thing about science is, that science exists to find out facts- it attempts to prove a theory without bias. It disposes of theories that are proven untrue, and are open to new theories.
The thing about religion is that it is stationary, dead, and, let’s call it ‘flat’.
Creationist will not admit that their theory is wrong or they’d have to admit that the bible is wrong, and as West pointed out, this would mean the end of their religion.

Thanks Robert, but you would have found the Book of Enoch very interesting non the less, You also must take into consideration that when the BOOK was constituted , a great many other events were not recorded; contributing to this factor is the very same as you see today; You must also realize that throughout time Civilizations were raised and they were destroyed much faster, thus the world returned to primitivism and Barbarity: Do not think for a moment we are exclude.
But before anyone dismisses the case totally, Does anyone have much knowledge about Mexico and the South Americas for a different approach; I only mention this because the Time Line of Ancient History and Archeology pre dates the Egyptian Pyramids in the vicinity of 1 thousand years;
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/4032
It is a book, you are able to download.
It might shake Ranier up up bit.

Which brings me to another point West ;
Have a read of this publication from the 18 th Century; Relax, it is not a Religious book; but it may be of some interest to you.
That’s meant on a serious note not derogatory; It’s a bit hard to type emotions.

Celivia
I actually agree with you to a point, But it is also to be a good note that many professionals in scientific fields, both Physics of many types, and Advanced Astro physics and cosmology; etc The finding are quite remarkable, but the field that is becoming even more technical but even more revealing than D N A, (Boring Book), is Quantum quark Physics;
You are correct, it is near impossible to prove or disprove.

But that is why it is called faith; everyone is independent enough to believe in what ever they wish; or with in reason, I suppose that’s the whole point.
High quality knowledge can be obtained from most publications pre dating the 19 50's. The obvious point to that date line is from there after , is when epistemology was arrested and executed.
Actually More like Murdered.

Sorry Robert, I should have been more specific.
The Translated book of Enoch (Greek probably) then to Slovene language , was only discovered in the late 18th century, technically archived as “The Slovak Enoch”, and discussed in full by Prof Revlo Oliver. Chapter 9
To date they have only discovered small sections of Archived named Enoch 1 “Original”, and not in its full compliment.
The implications were it was hidden, and the Slovak Enoch was hidden deep in an ancient structure as it was believed it was the only remaining publication; estimated 2 to 3 thousand years old in writing, but obviously hidden deliberately from destruction by the onset of the Mohammadian wars.
Thus the difference in interpretations,
Also note Zoroastrian; Zarathustra.
Also note the time line; well before the Christian era, But.

A little bit more useless Archeological information for some; But valuable to others; to store.

West said "Perhaps the dungeons and dragons players (Christians) in this thread could explain why Stanley Miller and Harold Urey's initial experiments showing the conversion of terrestrial chemicals to organic compounds was wrong and why subsequent experiments creating life over the next 50 years were also wrong."

Are you aware that the Miller-Urey experiment essentially confuted the theory of abiogenesis? The experiment produced less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. Without the correct combination of 20 amino acids as a set, functional protein molecules cannot be produced. Subsequent experiments have yielded similar results. 50 years of "creating life" indeed. Maybe you should actually learn what constitutes life in the first place before you begin arguing in favour of spontaneous generation.

Oligarch;
That is right, and that is why now so many have rethought and revaluate the Evolutionary theory;
Even with lab technology and know how these day, they can only copy; (Clone), they can not create; and that is the principle underlying factor; D N A is only a copy of something that already exists, It can not copy something if it did not exist; Quite a simple principle some find hard to grapple with; That and the scientific implications of that.

You are right Oligarch dependent on the definition of molecular constitution of life. I don’t know where you get ‘spontaneous generation from, there is nothing magical about it is a process which in the field occurs continuously under in the favourable environment. Don’t confuse a low success rate with magic, the environment acts against success. The majority of pregnancies also self abort (not spontaneously, there is a reason) most sperm die, there is no ‘spontaneity’ in the beginning of life. Pregnancy is a good example of evolution as it mirrors the continuum and change in organism from the nutritional (geological) conversion in the parent to the resulting (so far) primate.

Of course genome reduction has come a long way in the past half a decade and we could debate where life begins especially if we are philosophically burdened and require neat classification to suite the trends of our times. In the end life exists and it evolved without gods or ufo’s. As far as getting across to the Stone Age minds that accept the new age cult of ID the connection Miller and Urey demonstrated is sufficient. There will be a fine line between self replication and ‘life’. The point being there is no magic, no evidence of magic, no omnipresent magician and no evidence of an omnipresent magician. There is evidence and evidence of direct connection between geology and biology. Yes the Greeks hit upon it through the self amusement of philosophy but the reality of evolution is not philosophy.

Alls notion is based on that some educated people are superstitious therefore superstition is given credibility. Evolution goes beyond the biological - tracking back to the evolution of elements. The catalyst for elemental transmutation is nuclear fission.

Alls there is no voodoo ID for science to grapple with.

Thanks west, you have actually activated a memory cell where I have read such things;
Merry Shelly
Isaac Asimov
And
Jacques Vallee.

I’ll have a few leptons on the rocks please.
Would you like them Fission Reacted or Particle accelerated;
Spare us please West ‘ I can’t handle this, you win.
Now where did I put that Voodoo doll?

There is no evidence that information is added to the DNA of a single healthy species by natural selection. It is currently being tried by outside intelligence. All the information of the species is contained within the species, and any changes by mutation is demonstrated to be detremental to the health of the species. Only be applying human intelligence upon the situation by introducing new genetic information to a weakness in the species or to make a species more select.

All experimentation is governed by an outside intelligence and dependent upon the intelligence; this does not happen in natural environment - detremental mutations are the result of natural environment. The natural order often drops genetic information it does not add information not found in the species. The situation should demonstrate there are more mutations from the original than there are from any emergence of species. From this observed demonstration evolution should have originated in the highest creatures / species of the life form and ended in evolution in reverse. Rather than beginning with primitive forms it began with the species with the most genetic information, and through mutation information is lost. Evolution does not prove life is emerging to higher forms but to lower lesser forms. That is why man now has to step in to add information to damaged and degraded life. Human intelligence is being applied because detoriation is occurring.

However there is no intelligence or design being applied from outside the species remember!

Absolute and complete and utter nonsense philo.

West is right- this is nonsense, Philo.

If you look at layers of rocks, like the Grand Canyon, it is evident that simpler forms of life were around before the more complex forms. It's only logic then that the complex forms (e.g. vertebrates, in the outer layer of rocks) evolved from simpler forms (e.g. invertebrates, in the inner layers of rocks).

But, of course, Philo will deny all this and claim that the Grand Canyon was created in a day.

Celivia,
I posted a link to a book earlier, at least read the first three chapters of that book, and it does adequately explains some Geophysics , in turn explains your question in full, and even gives details of other Geophysical events also recorded in history of land masses appearing and disappearing.
In fact, you can probably download Satellite digital surveys from the past 5 odd years of the Oceanic bed’s and compare them to day’s. Relax it is not VOODOO.

Yes absolute nonsense! I do not uphold the Universe was created in six days. However the assumed inherent power of evolution alone does not explain life and its more complex emergence with new genetic information being added.

You misrepresent my position for the sake of infantile ridicule rather than honest unbiased debate. Demonstrate how currently additional genetic information is added by natural selection. What is evident today is genetic information is being lost or deformed by natural breeding. Man is currently adding his intelligence to many situations endeavouring to right natural losses in species. What is the new science? Isn't it the harvesting of body parts from fertile embrionic fertilisation to replace deformed or lost information?

Intelligence is involved in what is considered an optomum species.

Philo can you understand how you can make more than 26 words out of a 26 letter alphabet?

All I ask West is how was new genetic information not previously found in any former species added to the emerging of toally new species with a totally new gene (or letters to the alphabet if you wish)? Natural selection demonstrates the opposite, as mutation are more likely to occurr and genes are lost.

Philo,
I am no expert but find it interesting to look at all angles. What you say is all new to me.

Do you have a link to some articles on this research that explain this idea?
It's new to me and I don't understand it right now.

All,
I'm not ignoring you and I have downloaded that ebook, thanks. I just haven't had much time to read it so I have only read a small part so far, but I will get back to you later.
But what does this book prove to you?

At this stage I don't see how a book about Atlantis could prove anything, but I'm trying to keep my (skeptical) mind open.

Thats OK Celivia ; The Book ; I suppose it is one of those Subject things we will possibly never fined definitive answers for.
But it does provide some information on the possible ecological / Geological events of days gone by.
And with the absents of Physical evidence, apart from what Archeology/ Manuscripts/ Tablets inscriptions etc, have provided and the more important Scientific view point beyond Post Modern philosophies.

And that other subject of Anthropology and that publications references are powerful.

I only found it interesting because of the similarities that are notable in some tribal behavior and Legends/ Myths; on all corners of the globe.
To have an open mind is all anyone can ask.

I'm just curious as to why Philo keeps asking the same question. It's been answered a number of times now.

Genes don't get 'lost', thats absurd. Genes mutate. Mutations eventually result in adaptation. It's pretty simple really. Learn basic biology, and stop wasting peoples time with ridiculous questions.