Has anyone in this forum changed evo/creo sides?

Well there you are - for your religion to be true you need to "know" things that aren't true. There are plenty of transitional fossils.This page has photographs of an actual transitional fossil - a Pakicetidhttp://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Pakicetid.htmlThese pages has a photograph of archaeoptery and "fuzzy raptor" fossils
Sorry, that's a dead link (404) | Natural History Museum
Sorry, that's a dead link (404) | Natural History MuseumThis page has a photograph of the fossil of an early tetrapod - Pederpes Finnyae
YahooSo there you are.And empirical evidence shows that if you put 2 male and 2 female bunies together and wait you will end up with rather more than four bunnies.

I trust you carefully ignore all exit polls on election days, and that you ignore statistics compiled by Gallup and Barna (sort of a Christian Gallup). After all, those are based on "a few randomly collected pieces of information."When someone asks about people changing sides, others report when they see. When consistently it is seen that people change sides from creo to evo and few change from evo to creo, you can extrapolate from the gathered information. The more people that answer, the more reliable the data.I think I've seen enough to report with a very fair degree of confidence that more people switch from creo to evo than vice versa.It turns out statistics back me up. This page shows statistics for 1991 and 1997. Antievolutionists dropped from 47% to 44% during that time.I'm trying hard to find more recent polls, because I do not believe that there was a greater switch from creo to evo prior to the availability of the internet. The issue just wasn't important enough to the average person to research.As far as chiroptera's statement that people switch from creo to evo based on the evidence and from evo to creo only based on religious beliefs, that seems very, very likely to be true. Polls show that the more educated a person is, the less likely they are to reject evolution, no matter what their religious belief.I'd go hunt down the page with those statistics, but I can't right now, because I told my wife 15 minutes and I'd be ready to go .

Definite post of the month material. I really enjoyed that post.Um, and I don't believe the books of the Bible are as simple as "human-written." I think they're "God-breathed." Nonetheless, they say, "The skies declare the glory of God, and the dome of the sky declares his handiwork." Loud and clear, billions of years.However, on behalf of the literalists, what I really love about them (tongue planted firmly in cheek) is how consistent they are. It is heart-warming to see them giving away all their possessions, calling nothing their own, sharing as each person has need, having one heart and one mind so that it seems as though they are just one person, living together because of how good and pleasant it is, and encouraging one another every day, just as their book literally commands them to do.

Thanks for the compliment, truthlover.Although I don't believe, myself, that any part of the Bible is "God-breathed", I would never deny that there is a "truth" to be found in it.

I couldn't tell from my post or yours whether I made it clear that the only reason I mentioned my belief in "God-breathed" writings was to point out that I'm not biased against the Bible. I wasn't trying to argue a point.

No, no, I got your point. I was just trying to state that, despite my tendency toward irreverence at times, I do, even as a self-described atheist, have respect for the Bible.In fact, I'm afraid when I left Christianity I reacted pretty badly against it. So during my spiritual journey, I ended up discovering Lao Tzu as a source of spiritual comfort and guidance.Had I belonged to a more liberal Christian denomination, I may remained in the fold, so to speak; I may have still lost my belief in the literal existence of God, but I would probably have kept the Bible as a source of spiritual guidance, even if I didn't interpret it literally.Edited to correct a typo. (And I even use the Preview feature, too!)[This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 03-14-2004]

Im only going to get on the first link cause im in a bit of a rush then i'll get into the other ones.A fox, a coyote, and a wolf definetely come from a common ancestor but the model of the Pakicetidae that this link shows looks more like a rat to me than elder of the dog family. Im not good in biology so I have to ask how do you know its skin or fur looked like this just from anlyzing the skeletal remains. One thing is to construct the skeloton but to assume that it looked like it is showed on the picture is a bit hopeful to say the least.

Hey Chiroptera,What drove you to become an atheist? If I am allowed to know

That's my bad. I had you confused with another poster. I apologize. I'm a funny man. Since Navy has seen fit to open an entire thread about my funny retort (though I wonder how a three-line remark can be considered a "tirade"), maybe you'd like to defend your statement over there? (The "Frog Tirade" thread.) Since over here you still haven't explained where you're getting your definitions of "theory" and "law", definitions that appear at odds with how they're actually used. For instance I assume you'll agree that the Germ Theory of Disease and the Kinetic Theory of Gases are more than supported by empirical evidence, right? Yet they remain theories, right?{Note from Adminnemooseus: The "Frog Tirade" topic was a response, by Navy10E, to a reprimand of him by me. I think the "Frog Tirade" is intended to refer to what Navy10E said about Crashfrog, and not to what Crashfrog said. Anyhow, the link's there, if anyone wants to check the thing out.}{Note from me: Oh. Yeah, that makes sense, doesn't it...}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-15-2004][This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-15-2004]

Pakicetids aren't closely related to the canids. They're an offshoot of the artiodactyls. And they're a lot bigger than rats.I don't see your issue with the skeleton - when you allow for the fact that mammals have bilateral symmetry most of it is there. You've got almost all the spine, the pelvis, most of the skull, the front legs, most of the back legs and some of the ribs.The bones will give you a lot of the muscle structure so it's just the outer skin and fur that are at all in question. And the transitional status of the specimen doesn't rely on those being exactly right.Now vcome on, you say that there are no transitional fossils. Well whaeres your support for that claim ?

quote:

---

Why is gravity only a theory? Because it changes according to your position in the universe? Because its a human invention made to explain certain things like why are we not floating in the air? Gravity exists.

---

You have missed the point.The fact is, we don't really understand gravity very well, and there are actually several competing theories which attempt to explain it.By contrast, we do understand evolution quite well.Why is it that you accept Gravitational Theories without question, yet you reject a much better supported theory?

quote:

---

It is not a law because its value changes according to your position so yes its a theory because its not constant.

---

No, it's a theory. The term "law" doesn't have a precise meaning in science; it's lind of thrown around a bit. there is no "graduation" from theory to law to indicate greater certainty.

quote:

---

Here we go again. Why dont you take up prayer and see what i mean. I'm tired of answering this question. Let God become a reality in your life and see what I mean.

---

So, God wants you to reject 200 years of scientific inquiry?Hmm, I guess you reject all of modern medicine, then? You must not be vaccinated, must not take any drugs and certainly you must not take any antibiotics.I'm not sure how you can justify using a computer, either.Now, regarding everything you said about the possible problems with the various radiometric dating methods, you ignored my question entirely!My question was:Why is it that all of the various radiometric dating methods return very similar results for the same rock sample?If they are flawed, how is it that they are flawed in such a way as to return consistent dates for a single rock sample?

quote:

---

Let me see if I got this. Youre basically saying that if you have two cookies and i give you two more the day may come when this adds up to five or three. Explain yourself I dont get you.

---

No.2+2=4 is not something that needs to be tested by empirical methods. It is an abstract numerical concept. Representing the abstract symbols on a computer screen as cookies does nothing to change the concept."Empirical evidence" is, by contrast, evidence which is gathered or recorded, not an abstract concept. It is the data of the universe which we attempt to gather up in the net of theories. Theories attempt to explain the phenomena which left the evidence.The fact that planets in orbit closer to the sun complete an orbit more quickly that planets in orbit farther away from the sun is empirical evidence, for example.

quote:

---

Youll have to forgive me on this one but ive never heard of this toe theory. Have any good links where i can learn about this?

---

Theory
of
EvolutionIt's the lingo.Now, I notice that you neglected to address several important points from my last post. Here they are for your convenience:

quote:

---

The ToE is an extremely robust and productive scientific Theory which has withstood probably millions of individual tests, including being confirmed by the evidence from the (relatively) new field of genetics.

---

quote:

---

Lastly, you mention something about Creation "theories". Since I assume you are referring to the scientific definition of "theory" could you please refer me to a scientific theory of Creation? I have never seen one that has positive evidence observable by anyone, is falsafiable, and that explains all of the observed evidence better than the existing theory.

---

You would have to be taking some weird drug to switch from evolution to creation.

Hi corkscrew,I think this was probably uncalled for. There may be any number of reasons why someone would change their minds, none of which have anything to do with drugs or mental instability or lack of intelligence. For example, there is a creationist and Bible Codes advocate poster on this board who believes in demons who was once a respected scientist and author of a well-regarded book on ecology. There are also quite a number who've never been exposed to any of the evidence underlying evolutionary theory, and who've become convinced by the caricatures and pablum portrayed by creationist organizations. These latter can probably truthfully (if not entirely accurately) state that they "changed sides".It is the job of the evo side in this debate to present the evidence in as clear and understandable a manner as possible to this second category. Simply insulting the "other side" is counterproductive.Of course, true clots like kendemeyer and Syamasu are sort of fair game through their own personalities and actions - not simply because they're creationists.