h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I prefer morphology to semantics myself...

~Gareis

Today I am responding to my editor.
Dear whoever the hell you are:
i often get corrected on my misspellings of words and improper use of grammer by friends/not friends who respond to emails and instants messages i have sent. Let me just say that i am very aware there are tools called spell/grammer check and that i have misspelled/mistyped any number of words in these messages i send.
However, i obviously dont care.
When i am typing an email or IMing to a friend, why does it matter that i misspell or mistype something. I also prefer to write in the vernacular when i am writing.
Of course you were right to point out that i should have identified who i was responding to and that a clear and consise argument might have made a better impression and point, i was too busy being angry and falling asleep at the same time to care(i work the graveyard shift).
In closing i would like to say, Who cares and Qh Well.
sincerely
researcher 225131

I thought this discussion was over but, apparently not!

225131:

I disagree. I've learned more just by watching nature shows on PBS and The Discovery Channel than I ever have by visiting a zoo. I simply think it's wrong to keep animals in captivity, especially if their habitat doesn't match where they came from originally (think - polar bears in a zoo in North Carolina or killer whales in a small, hot tank in Mexico). I'll never forget the sight of a dolphin at some two-bit animal show in Florida, kept in a pool all by itself. It's a social animal for crying out loud! I'm not usually one for anthropomorphism but I swear the thing looked depressed (though it was probably sick or malnourished).

How does training seals, dolphins, and other creatures to do stupid tricks educate the public? Oh sure, they supposedly conduct research but can't they do it without the sideshow? The show might help pay the bills but if they didn't keep so many friggin' animals in the first place, they wouldn't need so much money.

It seems to me that studying animals in their native habitat would be more valuable (in most cases) than training them to play basketball or jump through hoops. Sure sure, it might help keep the higher mammals (us and the animals) entertained and keep them from getting bored but wouldn't it have an adverse effect on things people are trying to study?

A quick visit to a zoo or aquarium can't be enough to "educate" anyone. It might be enough to get them interested in learning more about a particular animal but I think it's a sorry throwback to the days when people brought back animals from a trip as trophies. We're just putting a positive spin on it. A zoo seems to be some sort of status symbol for a city with the more exotic animals the better. Again, people can learn much more by reading, watching nature shows, or visiting the animal's native habitat. How can reading a two paragraph plaque and watching a lion or monkey lie around be considered educational? I'd much rather see them interact with each other and with other species in their own environment.

I agree, breeding in captivity IS necessary for some animals but I think only endangered animals should be kept in captivity. There are plenty of other ways to educate people. We can do it without forcing animals to exist in some sorry replica of their native habitat.

You just said, "i wish there were not a market for exotic animals..."

Then why in the hell do you have an exotic bird!!!??? And you're studying conservation biology??? That just boggles my mind, you're kidding right? I guess that's no worse than having a president with ties to the oil industry making policies that effect how our natural resources are used/abused. Maybe it's not even as bad as government heads with ties to the defense industry pushing us to go to war...

Why do you feel "insulted" and "aggravated?" We seem to agree on a few points, I just find your ownership of a possibly rare or endangered bird highly distasteful. I doubt you'd see Diane Fossey or Jane Goodall keeping a gorilla or a chimp as a PET.


GAREIS:

"I'll never be able to convince you that I am right unless you want to be convinced, and vice versa."

You seem to assume that I'm unwilling to listen. On the contrary, I would LOVE to find definitive proof either way but right now evolution makes more sense to me. Maybe there's some combination of the two, who says it can't be both? Maybe it's neither one. Who cares? My point is, I've already said I don't wan't to argue about it.

My objective was to show my displeasure with your putting humans on some sort of pedestal, as if we are the best thing that ever happened to this planet. Sure, most people are good and decent but there are a LOT of other people willing to do some really nasty things just for MONEY. I don't know how evolution got dragged into it.


"the event is in the past, and the only way to prove something is to observe it, and the past cannot be accessed"

Correction: Your "theory" that you just finished a glass of milk CAN be proven by simply examining the contents of your stomach, your waste, and even your blood. Secondly, if you just finished drinking the milk, that very act would be considered an observation because YOU saw YOUR hand lift the glass etc etc. Wouldn't it take the involvement of a second party for any theorizing to be done about your just having drunk a glass of milk (unless you're forgetful or schizophrenic)?

I couldn't resist, but I know what you were getting it though, you seem to think that evolution is unprovable because we can't observe it directly. What about fossils? Don't they show how plants and animals changed over time? We're talking SIGNIFICANT amounts of time here, not just the 5000 years or so that the Bible seems to indicate that we've been around. This may be a literal interpretation of the Bible timeline but the fact remains that the Earth is billions of years old, there's still too much we don't know.


"I cannot, however, ACCEPT someone else's views when they conflict with my own."

It seems to me that Islam and Christianity are BELIEFS, not views. I wouldn't call the acceptance of evolution a belief, though I'm sure you'll disagree. There seems to be plenty of science to support it whereas most religions seem to be based on really old texts that may or may not be true. Who's to say which religion is right, someone has to be wrong. Maybe the Native Americans had it right, or the Druids, who knows? Again, who cares? Also, I don't recall asking you to accept evolution as fact. I've already acknowledged that we disagree on that point and it would be futile to argue about it. I'm merely trying to get you to UNDERSTAND (if not accept) my opinion of (some, not all) humans and the devastating impact we're having on this planet, I'm not trying to convert you. Using your logic, I could say that you're trying to convert me to Christianity by arguing that evolution isn't possible.


"...submit to the Islamic government on pain of death..."

The Quran contradicts itself several times. In some places, it shows zero tolerance for other religions and in others it preaches that we should all play nice etc etc. The Bible has similar contradictions, doesn't it? Fanatics of all religions pick the inflammatory passages that suit them and ignore the rest. Similarly, peaceniks seem to focus on whatever passages gets THEIR message across. It's all too subjective in my opinion.

I'm no expert on religion (or any of this for that matter) but it seems to me that most Muslims and Christians are peaceful. You can't condemn all Muslims based on the actions of a few fanatics. I agree, most of the fanatics seem to come from Islam and it is troubling. Part of the problem seems to be the structure of most of their societies, with no seperation between church and state, how do you keep the clerics (fanatical and otherwise) from making bad interpretations from the holy book, and from making state policy based on that. Again, it's too subjective.

What about the Crusades, the Inquisition, or the Nazi's? Christianity hasn't always been a shining example of good will towards others. Sure, these events were also started by fanatics/zealots but do you see my point? By bringing religion into the mix, people (or governments for that matter) can justify some pretty nasty things.


"...you asked me to 'listen to' your side, which means that you want to tell your half without giving me a chance for rebuttal or to show my views."

Huh? Since when does suggesting that you listen to other views imply that you shouldn't respond? Maybe you inferred that from my reluctance to get into the creation/evolution debate but that wasn't my intention. By all means, feel free to espouse your views but don't cry "foul" for no reason.


"According to evolutionist history, how many species have gone extinct..."

You don't have to be an evolutionist to acknowledge that species are going extinct. Granted, some may be dying out because they're being crowded out by other species or because of lack of food but chances are, humans either directly or indirectly played some part in it.

http://www.redlist.org/ (first link I came across, there are undoubtedly other sources)


"Evolution requires belief as Christianity, since there is controversy, and as much belief as Communism under Stalin, since it is enforced by the State, and as much belief as the Code of Hammurabi, since it is even further in the past, further than anyone has seen, yet all your friends insist it's true."

I don't get it. What does Communism under Stalin have to do with belief? Sure, it was enforced by the state but there were also many willing participants. Please explain.


Ok, work with me here. You acknowledge that people spill oil, cut down forests (not just in S.A. and India but in Africa and other countries as well), and pollute the air with our vehicles. My point is that people shouldn't consider themselves superior to other forms of life because of these actions. I'm not saying that all humans everywhere are bad, or that we do bad things everywhere. It's just the fact that we're the one species that has done more damage than any other makes your argument about the superiority of humans hard for me to accept.

We don't have the ability to clean up every drop of oil so don't pretend it's not harmful to the environment. It does plenty of damage to wildlife before we get around to mopping it up. Everything about it is harmful, from its manufacture into gasoline and other products (emissions & spills), its transport (spills), its use in vehicles (exhaust emissions and leaky engine seals), and its disposal (people who dump used motor oil into fields and/or streams).

Volcanoes emit toxins, sure, but it's a natural event. It's not something that's caused by humans. I also seriously doubt that volcano emissions come close to being as dangerous as the manufactured toxins that humans introduce into the environment, stuff that never existed on the planet before we arrived on the scene and takes hundreds or thousands of years to decompose.

The US may be managing its forests better but we've still decreased the habitat of quite a few animals and plants. The last refuge some have is in national forests and preserves. I can think of no better example of the sorry nature of people than the US policies in the 1800's regarding the Buffalo and Native Americans. We were perfectly willing to wipe out an entire species of animal in an effort to subdue the Native Americans. Again, my point is that some people will do just about ANYTHING. Maybe I shouldn't judge a whole species on the actions of a few but we've done some REALLY nasty things to ourselves and the environment.

We may have more forests than we did 100 years ago but it's still less than we had 200 years ago. We've cleared a lot of land for farming and habitation and continue to do so. Again, my point here is that we have altered and continue to alter the habitats of other species, usually making it worse for them. Modern humans seem incapable of living in an area without dramatically altering natural systems, either plant and animal or rainwater & groundwater (which also affects plants and animals).

You seem to imply that the less developed countries are the worst offenders when it comes to resource management (forests etc.). That may be but we should help guide them instead of letting our companies move overseas for cheap labor and resources. Sure, it looks like we're doing a better job over here but aren't we just transferring the problem elsewhere?

ok, so you obviously have a lot of time on your hands, considering the amount of writing you did to like 800 people but anyway.

I actually have my parrot(which is not endangered or rare, very abundant in fact because i rescued it from some as**ole who was not takeing care of. That is how i got my parrot. That is how i got all of my animals. I have never gone out to actually get a pet except for twice. Once my parents took me to the animal rescue league to pick out a dog when i was 7 and once when i was a teenager i got a few pet rats from a pet store so they wouldnt be snake food, i thought i was saving them. I have actually been saving and caring for wild/domesticated animals my whole life. My father who is a conservationist himself was a big influence on me. but on another point you said

>>
How does training seals, dolphins, and other creatures to do stupid tricks educate the public? Oh sure, they supposedly conduct research but can't they do it without the sideshow? The show might help pay the bills but if they didn't keep so many friggin' animals in the first place, they wouldn't need so much money.
>>
ive only ever see them do this with seals at an aquarium who enjoy the play. I think you are confusing aquariums and zoo's that ARE there for educational purposes and not to make some as**ole rich, with places like SEA WORLD, places that actually have licensed to capure a certain amount of wild life per year. I myself despise these places.
I think you need to get your facts straight before you start crucifying establishments that are there to help preserve what is left of this poor planet that we have trampled.

"...you obviously have a lot of time on your hands..."

Not really, this is one of few forums I take part in, maybe someone else has a similar monicker. Given your response to Gareis for criticizing something as trivial as spelling, I wouldn't think you'd take a jab like that at someone. Then again, perhaps I shouldn't jump to conclusions...

"...because i rescued it..."

Ah, I hadn't considered that - I stand corrected. Good show!

"ive only ever see them do this with seals at an aquarium who enjoy the play"

So why does the "play" require a reward of food after every trick or maneuver? (if not during the actual performance, certainly during training - they probably only do it because they'll get food) How can we possibly know if they actually "enjoy" it?

Some aquariums also do it with killer whales and dolphins, at least in the US. Both are known to be social animals, maybe they get a kick out of interacting with humans but the fact remains that their tank can't compare to their native habitat. Other places have birds that fly around on command. How educational is that? Like other tricks, it's probably done for the "wow" factor, nothing else.

What facts have I gotten wrong? I'm merely stating my opinion that keeping animals in captivity is wrong (unless they're endangered). Zoos and SeaWorld-type aquariums are the same as far as I'm concerned. They both keep animals that should be left alone in their native habitat.

The only benefit I see coming from zoos and aquariums, as far as the general public is concerned, is that they might encourage people to learn more about wildlife or change their attitudes in some positive way. Maybe the only way to spark that interest is for people to see the animals in real life. If so, then maybe they aren't that bad. I just hope the animals are cared for properly and are given a habitat that closely resembles that from which they came.

Nevertheless, I still find it hard to believe that these places provide any kind of MEANINGFUL education to the general public.

"...preserve what is left of this poor planet that we have trampled."

I'm glad we agree on something. I just wish we could do it without keeping animals of any kind in captivity.

ok, so you're gonna make me do the whole argument thing, *sigh*, sorry im lazy some times i dont fee like arguing or explaining things that seem very obvious to me. but i digress.

first, you said:
So why does the "play" require a reward of food after every trick or maneuver? (if not during the actual performance, certainly during training - they probably only do it because they'll get food) How can we possibly know if they actually "enjoy" it?

>> Seals are very social creatures, as you've noted dolphins are(and so are a number of marine mamals) they live in large groups and enjoy
each others company, of course they respond to the fact that they are gettin food in return for their display, but they also spend a lot of time with the people who are feeding them this food other than in the show, these people interact with these animals all the time and so have positive relationships that the animals respond to as well. The lack of a large social group of seals causes them to incorporate people into their group. Animal often do this. You see this in dogs and often hear people say that that their dog thinks its human, when in fact the dog thinks we're dogs. It acts, follows suit and corresponds to the leader(alpha male of the pack) whoever the head of the household may be and of course does his part in the family often being the protector.
but to continue

you also say :
Some aquariums also do it with killer whales and dolphins, at least in the US. Both are known to be social animals, maybe they get a kick out of interacting with humans but the fact remains that their tank can't compare to their native habitat. Other places have birds that fly around on command. How educational is that? Like other tricks, it's probably done for the "wow" factor, nothing else.

>> yes these animals have much smaller habitats than they should and that sux, but they usually do have very good and spacious facilities and the trainers again spend a lot of time with these animals and have a real relationship with them.
Same goes for the parrots: very social emotional creatures, that enjoy the interacions they have with the people who care for them.

As for the "wow" factor, you're right the shows are there for that, the shows are not usually what is the educational part though they usually do try to tell you about the animals themselves. But heres the thing you have one point right one point wrong. Its ALL ABOUT THE WOW FACTOR. IT is what gets people to come to these places where they spend their money, get amused by the animals and learn a little in the process. People are amused easily. This is what brings in the money. Here however is the part you have wrong; Yes that money does go towards taking care of the lots of animals they have but it also goes towards all the research and side projects that run out of these facilities. Most aquariums run hospitals for sick and injured animal they have rescued and have rescue and rehabilitation teams that are called when there are beached whales/dolphins/anything. They have behavioral research going as well. There are a lot of animals we can study in the wild but we can learn a lot more from them up close. And let me make it clear, i do understand you're sentiment that we should be able to study them in the wild and we shouldnt be taking them out of their habitat and we shouldnt be such assholes. I agree with you completely but unfortunatley ive learned that we are assholes. And we are gonna keep on killing whatever is in our path. The little amusement and tricks they put on is what keeps people interrested in animals at large. This is what gives people a connection to the animals. If they didnt have that, it would be a lot easier to just keep on killing, whatever gets in our way of doing whatever it is we want to do. We have to make some comprimises in order to save as much as we can. Diane Fossey and obviosly remarkable woman said that we should not interfere with the animals in the wild. People like Jane Goodall who was a good friend of hers at the time, approached her with the idea of eco tourism that would bring money to the goverment so the gorilla would be worth more alive than dead to poachers(who worked with the goverment themselves)because people would pay so much money to see these amasing creatures alive. But she wouldnt have it(this is when she was running the program) she ran a tight ship you could say, she had guards who worked for her and who surveyed the area, she said if you see a poacher shoot him, and god knows i share that sentiment as well. Ive said a million times if there were a a poacher in front of me i would shoot him. But, the point is her uncomprising ways were not going to save the gorillas, it just made people angry and aventually got herself killed, when alive she could have done so much more for the cause.

You see, people just dont care, there are some that do, obviously you do and i do as well, i wish there were more who did. But to most people if it doesnt benefit them monetarily or in some way or another ,its not worth their time. Make these animals a precious comodity(to me they already are) and you can save them. A sacrifice, but its something. We have to do what we can where we can to save whats left.

oh and going to the zoo Can have more than just a little bit of an amusement factor. Every time i go the zoo or aquarium which i do enjoy doing(some day i will work at one(someday soon actually) i am amased and in awe of almost all i see. I love animals and feel very strongly about protecting them. (hence the aggravation at your first response to my writing) but anyway i think iver responded to everything. im so awake.

Maybe I'm thinking about it too much in one extreme or the other (right and wrong, good and bad). I guess even a little education people might get at zoos etc is better than none at all.

I didn't consider some of the other work these places do. I have to admit I get a little narrow-minded every now and then.

I'd be tempted to bag a few poachers also. Some areas in Africa have "shoot to kill" orders don't they? They should be strung up by their fingernails if they're taken alive.

Thanks for explaining your position.

In places like the national parks they have in south africa they do have patrollers that have shoot to kill orders on poachers.

>>"I'll never be able to convince you that I am right unless you want to be convinced, and vice versa."
>You seem to assume that I'm unwilling to listen.

No, I don't. I assume that you don't believe in what I do and that you will not accept my beliefs without something more than me telling you that I'm right, even if I have good arguments.

>On the contrary, I would LOVE to find definitive proof either way but right now evolution makes more sense to me. Maybe there's some combination of the two, who says it can't be both? Maybe it's neither one. Who cares? My point is, I've already said I don't wan't to argue about it.

That God created some things as they are and some things evolved? What third choice exists--that everything is as it always was?

>My objective was to show my displeasure with your putting humans on some sort of pedestal, as if we are the best thing that ever happened to this planet. Sure, most people are good and decent but there are a LOT of other people willing to do some really nasty things just for MONEY. I don't know how evolution got dragged into it.

Humans are placed on that pedestal because we have spirits, unlike animals, and we have them because we are made in the image of God, who is spirit. That's how evolution vs. Christianity came here.

>>"the event is in the past, and the only way to prove something is to observe it, and the past cannot be accessed"
>Correction: Your "theory" that you just finished a glass of milk CAN be proven by simply examining the contents of your stomach, your waste, and even your blood.

That proves that there's some watery cheese mixture in my stomach. It proves nothing about how it got there.

>I couldn't resist, but I know what you were getting it though, you seem to think that evolution is unprovable because we can't observe it directly. What about fossils? Don't they show how plants and animals changed over time? We're talking SIGNIFICANT amounts of time here, not just the 5000 years or so that the Bible seems to indicate that we've been around. This may be a literal interpretation of the Bible timeline but the fact remains that the Earth is billions of years old, there's still too much we don't know.

That is one way of looking at the evidence. Another way of looking at it is that there were and are many varieties of each plant and animal, existing at the same time.

>>"I cannot, however, ACCEPT someone else's views when they conflict with my own."
>It seems to me that Islam and Christianity are BELIEFS, not views.

Um...a belief is a portion of one's worldview?

>I wouldn't call the acceptance of evolution a belief, though I'm sure you'll disagree.

I call trusting that a bridge won't collapse under my weight belief that the engineer was a good one.

>There seems to be plenty of science to support it whereas most religions seem to be based on really old texts that may or may not be true.

And on empirical data, people feeling God's presence. That is sensation of a different sort than is usually accepted in courts, but that does not mean that it must be false. Smells, tastes, and tactile sensations would be accepted, but they are not often used.

>Who's to say which religion is right, someone has to be wrong. Maybe the Native Americans had it right, or the Druids, who knows?

If the deities that exist care about people, they will ensure that theirs is a major religion. That leaves a list of Islam, Hindu religion, Christianity, Judaism, and Buddhism. If Islam is the correct religion, then all Christians and Jews will get into heaven. If it's Buddhism, then religion doesn't matter, as long as you have enough personal growth in the sum of your lives to get into heaven. If it's the Hindu religion, then there's reincarnation, so if you're a good person (not just if you accept that religion, as I recall) you'll improve until you get into heaven. If it's Judaism, then you're worshipping the same God as Christianity, and I do not think that He would be so cruel as to kill people for an accident of birth and being deceived by one who claimed to serve Him.

>>"...submit to the Islamic government on pain of death..."
>The Quran contradicts itself several times. In some places, it shows zero tolerance for other religions and in others it preaches that we should all play nice etc etc. The Bible has similar contradictions, doesn't it?

No. There are two segments: the old pact with God, which says in short: "Obey these rules, and if you slip up, make a sacrifice to God; then you'll get into heaven"; and the new pact, which says in short: "You can't obey those rules, but I had to give them to you so you'd know you need Me. Jesus is the final sacrifice for your mistakes. Acknowledge this and love Me, and you'll get into heaven." The sacrifices had been required as a measure of mercy. God did not want to destroy people just to tell them that they're less than they should be.

>I'm no expert on religion (or any of this for that matter) but it seems to me that most Muslims and Christians are peaceful. You can't condemn all Muslims based on the actions of a few fanatics.

The fanatic Christians forget or rewrite the Bible; the fanatic Muslims read and remember the Quran.

>What about the Crusades, the Inquisition, or the Nazi's?

The Crusades and the Inquisition had nothing to do with the religion of Christianity, but with the political power of the Catholic church. The Nazis created their own religion based partly on Christianity (so it would be palatable to the average German) and partly on Germanic paganism, which could be useful to the Nazis. They did not fully implement it before Hitler died.

>Christianity hasn't always been a shining example of good will towards others. Sure, these events were also started by fanatics/zealots but do you see my point? By bringing religion into the mix, people (or governments for that matter) can justify some pretty nasty things.

People can usually justify nasty things. "The Jews are stealing German jobs and German money"--economics. "The Jews are inferior to the Aryan people"--ethnics (though the Aryans lived to the south of the early Germanic people, an amusing Nazi mistake).

>>"According to evolutionist history, how many species have gone extinct..."
>You don't have to be an evolutionist to acknowledge that species are going extinct. Granted, some may be dying out because they're being crowded out by other species or because of lack of food but chances are, humans either directly or indirectly played some part in it.

If evolution is true, then humans are an agent of evolution, requiring animals to evolve quickly or die. If Christianity is true, then humans have the right to destroy species of animals but shouldn't without careful consideration.

>>"Evolution requires belief as Christianity, since there is controversy, and as much belief as Communism under Stalin, since it is enforced by the State, and as much belief as the Code of Hammurabi, since it is even further in the past, further than anyone has seen, yet all your friends insist it's true."
>I don't get it. What does Communism under Stalin have to do with belief? Sure, it was enforced by the state but there were also many willing participants. Please explain.

Evolution is enforced by the state, and there are also many willing participants.

>Ok, work with me here. You acknowledge that people spill oil, cut down forests (not just in S.A. and India but in Africa and other countries as well), and pollute the air with our vehicles. My point is that people shouldn't consider themselves superior to other forms of life because of these actions. I'm not saying that all humans everywhere are bad, or that we do bad things everywhere. It's just the fact that we're the one species that has done more damage than any other makes your argument about the superiority of humans hard for me to accept.

We should be careful about what we do to the environment, but I see no reason not to change it. Accidents happen, such as oil spills, but it does humans no good to stop transporting oil, and it does little ill to animals to do so. How many accidents of this sort are there per year? Two? Three? An oil spill every couple of years, a forest fire or two with humans as the source every year? Major accidents like these are

>We don't have the ability to clean up every drop of oil so don't pretend it's not harmful to the environment. It does plenty of damage to wildlife before we get around to mopping it up.

Surely, but it only affects a few square miles of coastland and perhaps twenty times as much in the sea before it's cleaned up, then it is in such small amounts that it affects the sea very little, as far as we know. We don't have sufficient data to measure its full effects, since we've been using oil for longer than we've been doing serious marine research.

>Everything about it is harmful, from its manufacture into gasoline and other products (emissions & spills), its transport (spills), its use in vehicles (exhaust emissions and leaky engine seals), and its disposal (people who dump used motor oil into fields and/or streams).

It is against a company's interests to allow spills or chemical emissions because those lose money. Therefore, we are trying to limit them as much as possible. Dumping used oil is illegal, I believe, and companies can make money by recycling it. It's more desirable to reuse oil, so people will do it. The usage, on the other hand--we have no information on its effects on the environment. Putting a plant in a container and pumping in exhaust will kill it, of course, but leaving the plant in that sealed container for a week will do the same.

>Volcanoes emit toxins, sure, but it's a natural event.

That was not an issue. I was comparing the two, wondering if humans are really that bad for the environment if all these volcanic eruptions that take place every year haven't killed the planet.

>It's not something that's caused by humans. I also seriously doubt that volcano emissions come close to being as dangerous as the manufactured toxins that humans introduce into the environment, stuff that never existed on the planet before we arrived on the scene and takes hundreds or thousands of years to decompose.

Research it. You won't believe any data I could give you. You'd call it right-wing propaganda, most likely, and demand to see what they based it on, and in the end you'd have to repeat their tests, unless you came to trust the testers.

>The US may be managing its forests better but we've still decreased the habitat of quite a few animals and plants.

We probably change the composition of forests, I'll admit.

>The last refuge some have is in national forests and preserves. I can think of no better example of the sorry nature of people than the US policies in the 1800's regarding the Buffalo and Native Americans. We were perfectly willing to wipe out an entire species of animal in an effort to subdue the Native Americans.

That was one of the worst examples of human care for the environment. (I believe that the extinction of most species of dinosaurs was the greatest change humans made on the environment.)

>Again, my point is that some people will do just about ANYTHING. Maybe I shouldn't judge a whole species on the actions of a few but we've done some REALLY nasty things to ourselves and the environment.

Yes. I'll certainly agree with that. But the question is "Is it wrong for humans to change the environment, or should we just be careful how we change it?"

>We may have more forests than we did 100 years ago but it's still less than we had 200 years ago.

I'm interested in that. Sources?

>We've cleared a lot of land for farming and habitation and continue to do so.

To do so, we need lumber with which to construct new buildings, which means we must maintain the forests.

>Again, my point here is that we have altered and continue to alter the habitats of other species, usually making it worse for them. Modern humans seem incapable of living in an area without dramatically altering natural systems, either plant and animal or rainwater & groundwater (which also affects plants and animals).

That's not unnatural, just more severe than what most animals do.

>You seem to imply that the less developed countries are the worst offenders when it comes to resource management (forests etc.). That may be but we should help guide them instead of letting our companies move overseas for cheap labor and resources. Sure, it looks like we're doing a better job over here but aren't we just transferring the problem elsewhere?

Lumber is a resource that is cheapest to get locally. Besides, why would companies go elsewhere for cheap labor when they can't sustain the work? It makes sense to pay a bit more and remain indefinitely rather than raping the land for a quick gain. Even if someone does that, another enterprising person could repair the damage.

"That God created some things as they are and some things evolved? What third choice exists--that everything is as it always was?"

That's not what I had in mind, something more like this; if there is a third option, maybe everything was created at the very beginning and then evolved into what we see today. If everything is as it always was, as creationists seem to imply, wouldn't we see fossils of present-day animals that are hundreds of millions of years old? Sure, some organisms haven't changed much over time (mainly some reptiles and plants I think) but where are the fossils? Why are the really old fossils so different than what we see today? True, there are fewer fossils from waaaaay back but it still seems like a pretty good argument for evolution to me.

"That proves that there's some watery cheese mixture in my stomach. It proves nothing about how it got there."

That's a yummy thought. Given the typical way people injest milk, I think it would be fairly obvious how it got into your stomach. The "watery cheese mixture" could be tested to determine what it's made of. Surely there are things in cow's milk that could come from no other source.

"That is one way of looking at the evidence. Another way of looking at it is that there were and are many varieties of each plant and animal, existing at the same time."

Ok, but doesn't it also show the changes that occurred in plants and animals over time? Again, the fossil record seems to indicate that a lot of present-day species simply weren't around millions or billions of years ago. How did they get here? Did the creation event end with the initial occurrence or is it still going on? Do whole species simply pop into existence every few million years? I don't mean to be flippant, I'm just trying to show how it looks to me.

To be fair, I suppose evolution must look pretty silly from your viewpoint. I think creationists would have an easier time of it if humans were taken out of the evolution equation. It must be galling for a creationist to think that we're descended from apes (or whatever the "common ancestor" would be called).



"And on empirical data, people feeling God's presence."
and
"...but that does not mean that it must be false"

I wouldn't exactly call that "empirical data," how can it be proved or disproved? Sure, it doesn't mean it didn't happen but anyone can claim to have experienced it.

"If the deities that exist care about people, they will ensure that theirs is a major religion."

There's more to it than that. You have to take into account outside forces; the unwillingness of others to tolerate the presence of "nonbelievers" (U.S. vs. Native Americans), the ability of a culture to survive and multiply enough for their religion to become pervasive (I'm referring to small native tribes in harsh environments like the Inuit, they seem to have a pretty stable population - hence, theirs is not a major religion) or even the practices of the religion itself (Maya or Inca practicing human sacrifice - that sort of thing would never last long these days). What about the so called "primitive" religions? How can they compete with the finances and recruitment activities of the major religions?

"...I do not think that He would be so cruel as to kill people for an accident of birth and being deceived by one who claimed to serve Him."

Are you referring to the Jews? Doesn't the Bible speak of the Jews being wiped out en masse during the final judgement or armageddon?

"The fanatic Christians forget or rewrite the Bible; the fanatic Muslims read and remember the Quran."

That may be but the Quran does speak about tolerance in places. Again, fanatical Muslims pick out the inflammatory parts that suit them. It's been a long time since I read it but I'm pretty sure the Bible speaks of dealing some sort of nastiness to the "non-believers."

I just think that religion has caused and continues to cause all sorts of trouble around the world (Bosnia, Kashmir, etc etc). Face it, people use religion as an excuse to persecute or subdue other groups of people.

I don't have a problem with the CONCEPT of religion per se, it's just the way it's been abused by people that troubles me.

"The Crusades and the Inquisition had nothing to do with the religion of Christianity, but with the political power of the Catholic church."

Ah, you just said what I tried to point out in an earlier post. Wasn't there little (or no) separation between the church and the state in those days? Just like Islam today, political (church) leaders back then were free to make whatever interpretations they wanted to and they often had the power of a state to back it up.

The Catholic Church was THE Christian institution back then wasn't it? I fail to see how Christianity wasn't involved in these acts.

"I believe that the extinction of most species of dinosaurs was the greatest change humans made on the environment."

Nope. Humans weren't around when the dinosaurs were here (65+ million years ago). Dinosaurs were, according to one theory, wiped out by an asteroid/comet collision that dramatically altered the climate. Most of them couldn't adapt so they died off. There's pretty good evidence for this the last I heard, worldwide debris layer about the same age as the mass extinction, big crater etc.

http://www.nmnh.si.edu/paleo/blast/k_t_boundary.htm

"But the question is 'Is it wrong for humans to change the environment, or should we just be careful how we change it?'"

Both, leaning more toward the latter half of your question. It's inevitable that we're going to change the environment but we should do it in a way that minimizes damage to existing ecosystems etc. People are perfectly capable of living in an area without disrupting things too severely. Even today, some people use mud bricks or portable wooden structures for shelter, cow dung for fuel, and hunt or grow just enough food to survive. That may sound extreme but my point is that most humans used to live in such a way and it was SUSTAINABLE. We didn't alter entire ecosystems or wipe out whole species of plants and animals (although maybe it happened in some cases but probably not on an industrial scale like today).

To the evolutionist, Africa is considered to be the birthplace of humanity. I used to wonder, if that's the case then why aren't they landing on the moon etc if they've been around so long? Well, maybe there's something to be said for living off the land, taking only what you need etc. True, some areas in Africa are having lots of problems but I think you'll find that others are doing quite well. Less "developed" peoples in other parts of the world seem to have gotten along quite well for a LONG time without significantly impacting their environments.

"If evolution is true, then humans are an agent of evolution, requiring animals to evolve quickly or die. If Christianity is true, then humans have the right to destroy species of animals but shouldn't without careful consideration."

Actually, I would call humans a PRODUCT of evolution, not an "agent" of it. Being an "agent" seems to imply that humans have some sort of active role in the process of evolution.

I guess, technically, humans would have the "right" to "destroy species" either way although I think a better way to phrase it would be; humans have the ABILITY to destroy a species. What makes you think we have the "right" to do something like that? I'm glad you at least acknowledge that we should be careful. Just because we have the ability to do something doesn't make it ok.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

"...but it only affects a few square miles of coastland..."

Exxon Valdez (11 million gallons spilled)
200 miles of shoreline were "heavily or moderately oiled"
1,300 miles of shoreline were "impacted by oil"

"...and it does little ill to animals to do so"
"...it affects the sea very little, as far as we know."

WRONG WRONG WRONG (I haven't checked out other spills, this one doesn't look very benign to me)

"How many animals died outright from the oil spill?
No one knows. The carcasses of more than 35,000 birds and 1,000 sea otters were found after the spill, but since most carcasses sink, this is considered to be a small fraction of the actual death toll. The best estimates are: 250,000 seabirds, 2,800 sea otters, 300 harbor seals, 250 bald eagles, up to 22 killer whales, and billions of salmon and herring eggs."

http://www.oilspill.state.ak.us/facts/qanda.html
http://www.itopf.com/effects.html

"It's more desirable to reuse oil, so people will do it."

It's more desirable to SOME people, other people will choose to pour it into a field or a stream because it's EASIER to get rid of it that way. Sure, it's illegal but people do it anyway. Major companies have done this sort of thing for decades, either dumping toxins or burying them illegally.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

"I'm interested in that. Sources?"

Ok. Here's a link I came across at the USDA Forest Service. Click on "US Forest Facts and Figures."

http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/

At first glance, it seems that our forests have been decreasing in area for quite a long time (since 1630 or 1850, depending on which chart you use). The only type of forest that has actually increased in size is the "Reserved Forest" but its gains don't even equal the losses of other types of forests (from 1953 to 1997). To my eyes, it looks like we have less forested land (9 million hectares) than we did even 50 years ago.

The first link I found didn't list their sources.

http://www.forestinformation.com/beta/Forest_Statistics.asp


"To do so, we need lumber with which to construct new buildings, which means we must maintain the forests."

I agree, some countries have learned to manage their resources but a lot of others haven't. Quite a few continue to clear cut their forests - even today with everything we know about ecosystems etc. My point is that given a chance, some people will gladly strip an area of all its resources no matter what the consequences.

"Lumber is a resource that is cheapest to get locally."

I'd like to see some figures on that. I remember seeing something about lumber in Africa being harvested and shipped to other nations but I can't remember where. It's probably cheaper to harvest there but it will also probably bring higher prices elsewhere, especially for specialty woods that can't be found elsewhere.

"Besides, why would companies go elsewhere for cheap labor when they can't sustain the work?"

I was thinking more about companies that manufacture things, not the ones that harvest resources. Our automobile industry has plants in Mexico and Canada and a lot of our food is grown in other countries. Why? Cheap labor. We either have to import the labor to work our fields or move our businesses elsewhere to make it more and more profitable.

You might as well ask, "why would countries send ships all over the world and hunt whales to the brink of extinction?" They had to have realized that their numbers were decreasing, why did they continue? It only stopped after other sources of fuel were found and/or people outside the industry started to realize the damage they were doing. I know, times have changed but some people continue to hunt and fish some species so much that they have trouble keeping up.

"It makes sense to pay a bit more and remain indefinitely rather than raping the land for a quick gain."

We realize that now but not everyone in the world would agree you. The poacher or logger in some remote jungle is probably thinking about how to feed his family. What does it matter to them if a hillside is stripped bare or a few birds or monkeys are sold off? There seem to be plenty more from where they're standing.

Sure, there are efforts to curb that sort of thing but who's going to "repair the damage?" Some of these countries can barely afford to provide basic medical services, how do you expect them to reforest an area?

"Research it. You won't believe any data I could give you."

Well, give me a link to a reputable web site and I'll check it out.

Correction - I suppose the Kashmir issue is more about territory than religion. The fact that it's a Muslim country vs a mainly Hindu country sort of stuck out in my mind.

"if there is a third option, maybe everything was created at the very beginning and then evolved into what we see today."

That's mixed evolution, which has God creating some things and allowing others to evolve, which is exactly what I said, but you said that isn't what you had in mind.

"If everything is as it always was, as creationists seem to imply, wouldn't we see fossils of present-day animals that are hundreds of millions of years old?"

Two strikes in the same sentence. No, the world is 6-10000 years old, which means that a year before that there was nothing. That's a major change. Carbon dating supposedly goes back 50000 years, but the system has three variables, only one of which can be measured. You need two of the following: age of the sample, its original C-14 content, and its current C-14 content. If you don't have at least two, then the date you get could be whatever you want it to be. You have to give the lab an estimate of the age of a sample when you send it in for radiocarbon dating, which seems suspicious to me.

As for fossils that are a million years old, how would you date them?

Site for this: http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/c14_treerings.php . Since it's avowedly Christian, you likely won't accept it. Perhaps no one else has courage to find flaws, since it would upset theories.

"Why are the really old fossils so different than what we see today? True, there are fewer fossils from waaaaay back but it still seems like a pretty good argument for evolution to me."

There are few fossils at all, and most of them are clams. Clam fossils are so common that you can buy them online for a pittance, unless there is something odd about the species or specimen.

(About proving that I drank milk): "That's a yummy thought. Given the typical way people injest milk, I think it would be fairly obvious how it got into your stomach. The "watery cheese mixture" could be tested to determine what it's made of. Surely there are things in cow's milk that could come from no other source."

I would bet that a lab could synthesize something similar enough to pass inspection, if not something identical. Besides, you can only guess at whether the same effects can come from a different cause. (It's a "pink elephant" problem: you can't prove that the two-foot-high pink elephants don't exist, just remove reasonable doubt, and that would take more than a lifetime.)

"Ok, but doesn't it also show the changes that occurred in plants and animals over time?" [rather than coexisting varieties of the same]

Like the equine evolution? If you arrange them in logical order according to the number of toes, look at the ordering based on number of ribs.

"It must be galling for a creationist to think that we're descended from apes (or whatever the "common ancestor" would be called)."

That isn't it. The fact is that evolution has little evidence for it when there should be a tremendous amount of evidence for it, and the evolutionists hold on to their reasons despite seeing flaws in them. There are a number of faked fossils used to support human evolution. Embryonic similarity to other species is ridiculous--if a creature has evolved, why think that the embryo would hold a record of it?--and Ernst Haeckel, who first used it, admitted in court that he had made it up, using pictures that he drew from memory.

"I wouldn't exactly call that "empirical data," how can it be proved or disproved? Sure, it doesn't mean it didn't happen but anyone can claim to have experienced it."

I could claim to have witnessed a murder that I never saw, too. However, that does not stop courts from accepting eyewitness accounts as evidence.

(About a real god being worshipped by many) "There's more to it than that."

Either God is popular, God doesn't care, God is limited in power, or God doesn't exist.

"Are you referring to the Jews? Doesn't the Bible speak of the Jews being wiped out en masse during the final judgement or armageddon?"

Everyone hates the Jews, it seems, and yet they always win every war, ever since the nation was remade, that is. "Also, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD unto the land of Israel; An end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land. Now is the end come upon thee, and I will send mine anger upon thee, and will judge thee according to thy ways, and will recompense upon thee all thine abominations" (Ezekial 7:2-3). But this is clearly justice, and that would not include genocide. Besides, God would not end all hope. Even when He speaks of destroying Jerusalem and all the people who live there, He says, "therein shall be left a remnant that shall be brought forth, both sons and daughters: behold, they shall come forth unto you..." (Ezekial 14:22).

What I meant in "an accident of birth" would be to be born a Gentile (anyone who is not a Jew). While there are proselytes into the Jewish faith, they are not much encouraged in their efforts.

"That may be but the Quran does speak about tolerance in places. Again, fanatical Muslims pick out the inflammatory parts that suit them."

But there are inflammatory parts there to suit them...

"It's been a long time since I read it but I'm pretty sure the Bible speaks of dealing some sort of nastiness to the "non-believers.""

...whereas the Bible teaches that you should love your enemies and pray for them, should forgive as many times as someone asks you to forgive them, should be patient and -leave the responsibility of judging to God- rather than harming nonbelievers. The church exists for two purposes: to facilitate fellowship between Christians and to gain new members. You can't convert a corpse, and killing someone isn't a loving thing to do ("Love your neighbor as yourself." Leviticus 19:18, Mark 12:31).

In the end, you get what you choose: God or nothing.

"I just think that religion has caused and continues to cause all sorts of trouble around the world (Bosnia, Kashmir, etc etc). Face it, people use religion as an excuse to persecute or subdue other groups of people."

That is not a flaw in religion, but in people. The evidence is in the fact that people do not use religion alone to persecute others; they use race and gender and sexual preference and many others.

"The Catholic Church was THE Christian institution back then wasn't it? I fail to see how Christianity wasn't involved in these acts." [such as the Crusades and Inquisition]

Because the Catholic Church spent a long period little concerned with Christianity and much concerned with politics.

"Humans weren't around when the dinosaurs were here (65+ million years ago)."

Neither were the dinosaurs, at that time. What of sites with dinosaur footprints right beside human ones, fossilized in the rock? There is one in Texas, USA, I believe.

"There's pretty good evidence for this the last I heard, worldwide debris layer about the same age as the mass extinction, big crater etc."

Mass extinction is a somewhat defunct theory now. New evidence has some species dying out gradually with others not affected and some expanding. And that was from an evolutionist channel.

"Even today, some people use mud bricks or portable wooden structures for shelter, cow dung for fuel, and hunt or grow just enough food to survive."

Then humans have no point except to survive and not harm the environment? It would be difficult to do more than that without affecting the environment much. There would be plagues. There would be a lot more death. There would be a lot less enjoyment of life, knowing that we once had the power to go anywhere in a day and now could barely get past home's horizon in that time.

"Actually, I would call humans a PRODUCT of evolution, not an "agent" of it. Being an "agent" seems to imply that humans have some sort of active role in the process of evolution."

Then what has an affect on evolution? Radiation, to mutate genes? Does survival of the fittest have nothing to do with it? I accept survival of the fittest; that's the stuff of microevolution, intraspecies variations, and it's a fact. Humans influence the environments that animals must fit into; therefore we must influence evolution (micro- and, if it exists, macro-).


I acknowledge that humans aren't the best thing for the environment, but I don't think that's our main function. If it was so, then the best thing we could do is stand back and let it work--without us.

At any rate, humans don't do much intentional harm to the system of the environment.

"That's mixed evolution, which has God creating some things and allowing others to evolve, which is exactly what I said, but you said that isn't what you had in mind."

Nope. I meant that it's possible that EVERYTHING was created at the beginning, and EVERYTHING could have evolved AFTER that. Not "That God created some things as they are and some things evolved." See what I'm getting at?

"No, the world is 6-10000 years old"

There seem to be quite a few websites putting forth that notion. How many of them reference actual research instead of their own faulty interpretations? Remember, people can put ANYTHING THEY LIKE onto a web page, you have to be careful what you read and decide to believe on the internet. I think only at the university, goverment, or OFFICIAL church level would you have any certainty of the information being accurate.

I guess you consider continental drift and plate tectonics crackpot theories also, despite the fact that there is evidence of millions of years of activity. (the following links just touch on the basics - you can find hard core documentation if you like)

http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/dynamic.html
http://kids.earth.nasa.gov/archive/pangaea/evidence.html (for kids but it lists the basics)

Some of the very volcanoes you mentioned in an earlier post have formed the Hawaiian islands. I seriously doubt they could have risen from the sea floor(?) to their present state in a mere 10,000 years.

http://www.nps.gov/havo/
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/maunaloa/

Take a look at the Grand Canyon sometime. You'll see layers of rock that represent a LOT of history. Not to mention the amount of time it took for the friggin' thing to be formed. Do you really think that kind of erosion can take place in just 10,000 years?

(by the way, we've dammed and diverted the Colorado River so much that it no longer reaches the ocean - I wonder how many animal and plant habitats we've destroyed as a result. How's that for human intervention in the natural world?)

What about stars, of which billions of them are millions of light years away from us? If it takes their light THAT LONG to reach the Earth, how the heck can the universe be only 10,000 years old? (assuming that the creation of the Earth and the universe took place at the same time) Given that the speed of light is a known quantity, and astronomers have checked and rechecked the distances to many stars both near and REALLY far away, how can you dispute their distances and therefore, the TIME it takes their light to reach us?

"There are few fossils at all, and most of them are clams."

C'mon. Haven't you ever seen dinosaur fossils, early mammal fossils, or impressions of plants left in rock from eons ago? Let me guess, they're fakes too right? (despite the fact that they've been scrutinized to the nth degree by people from a variety of fields or from all over the world - ie, from different religions and backgrounds than us so they might not even have anything to prove or disprove in the creation/evolution debate)

As for creationist claims that the ever-widening orbit of the moon proves that the Earth can only be 10,000 years old - there are too many other factors involved to only use that data (if it's even correct, I found no references). They don't even mention the possibility of outside influences by passing comets or asteroids or anything else that might affect its orbit.

_______________________________________________

"What of sites with dinosaur footprints right beside human ones, fossilized in the rock?"

I assume you're referring to this:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm

Searching the web for "dinosaur and human footprints" returned a whole slew of religious websites. It seems they've latched on this "evidence" as proof that humans and dinosaurs "co-existed."(sic) Heh, a term that you jumped on when I used it in an earlier post but let's not get into THAT again.

http://www.usd.edu/anth/cultarch/paluxybib.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/mantrack.html

Sure, there have been hoaxes in science also but isn't it time to quit using the same old tired examples? You mentioned the human bones that were passed off as being those of an early human. That happened in the early 1900's didn't it? And this Ernst Haeckel person seems to have died in 1919. I have a feeling science has advanced a LOT since then.

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns/fbns239.html (this web site uses examples of "fossils" found in the 19th and early 20th century as "proof" of "The Lies of Evolution")

It's time creationists found some new "evidence" instead of continually harping on the mistakes of the past. For centuries, the church refused to admit that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe - the sun and everything else rotated around us. Using the logic of these creationists, that would be good enough to discount the validity of the bible because they were wrong about that. In reality though, it's just the fact that noone knew any better back then. You see? Both science AND religion have made mistakes, it doesn't do either side any good to keep bringing it up.

"I would bet that a lab could synthesize something similar enough to pass inspection, if not something identical."

Ok, I'll grant you that. So why couldn't they do the same with the so-called "building blocks of life?" If the whole process really did start that way, why couldn't some chance encounter between the right materials start the process of evolution? You can't have it both ways. Earlier, you ridiculed the notion that such things had been created in the lab but NOW such technology is quite capable of reproducing the materials that make up cow's milk.

"That is not a flaw in religion, but in people"

Hmmm, I already said that - "people use religion as an excuse to persecute..." I agree that there are many other reasons people pick on others but it seems especially heinous to use religion (given that most seem to promote peace etc). It seems to me that followers of a religion are more susceptible to being led down the wrong path because some of them seem to lose their objectivity (ie - fanatics of all types - Muslim AND Christian, cults, etc etc). The effect that religion has on some people is too powerful to be ignored.

"...people do not use religion alone to persecute others..."

If that's true then why do some conflicts around the world seem to arise along religious boundaries? They might also happen to occur along political boundaries but you can be sure that religion is probably a major underlying cause (Bosnia, Kashmir). The only other cause that I can think of as even being remotely as inflammatory as religion would be race - for some people anyway.

You have to agree that at least SOME people are perfectly willing to use their faith in that manner, particularly it seems, the Muslim fanatics who were videotaped storming a "house" and shooting at targets that had crosses painted on them. Weren't early Christians persecuted by the Romans until the emporer converted to Christianity?

________________________________________

"Since it's avowedly Christian, you likely won't accept it."

Well, I might have an easier time accepting it if there were references to resources OUTSIDE of that web site. I'm supposed to take this guy's word for it?

I've tried to provide links to university or government websites, places whose information is held up to some degree of scrutiny. I doubt this person's research could be held to the same standard as that done at the university level. If he's trying to disprove a theory, he should at least provide names of researchers (that aren't rabid creationists - one scientist referred to in an article is himself AND he's also the owner of the website - "Copyright 2002 Aardsma Research & Publishing") or the names of studies that were conducted. One outside link I found at that website refers to a forum with only 15 posts in the past 2 years.

Good grief, even all of the articles seem to be written by the same person. You're going to have to do a LOT better than that.

Two books that are referred are creationist by design. They will already be biased towards one conclusion and no other. Not good enough.

This is one guy's interpretation. He refers to sciences that most people in the general public are not too familiar with (including me) so he might as well be giving people instructions on how to grow feathers and fly. Neither he nor this website are under any obligation to provide the public with accurate information.

Nowhere does it state where he got these "facts" nor does he seem to provide any way to contact him. The only real references I see are those referring to the Egyptian timeline. Based on that, one can assume that everything else could either be completely false or interpreted in a way that misleads the average person.

See what I'm getting at? It's possible that what he's saying is true but looking at this web site I have NO reason to believe that it is. Maybe he's counting on people being too lazy to verify his "facts." I certainly am at the moment.

"Perhaps no one else has courage to find flaws, since it would upset theories."

Think about this; maybe noone takes the time to refute these claims because it would be a waste of time. The only people that seem to have a problem with the age of the Earth and/or the age of the universe are creationists but I could be wrong. If the age of the Earth and the universe were really that far off wouldn't more scientists be raising the alarm? There are plenty of scientists who also happen to be religious so don't try to say "they're atheists" or "it's all a scam" or something.

"Mass extinction is a somewhat defunct theory now."

Interesting, but I doubt it. Do you have any proof? Links to decent web sites?

"Two strikes..."

Hmmmm, it's ironic that you would use a term like that. It seems to me that you and every other hard-core creationist are going into this debate with two issues; the first is that you have an ingrained, possibly lifelong belief that things HAVE to be a certain way and no other. This makes it unlikely that any other option will be given serious consideration. Second, creationists are given frequent warnings of the dire consequences of not believing in creation and everyting else that goes with it. That seems like a powerful disincentive to explore other options.

I refer you to a statement you made in an earlier post; "I cannot, however, ACCEPT someone else's views when they conflict with my own." By its very nature, evolution probably conflicts with EVERY view that you have, therefore it is folly to try to have a reasonable discussion or debate about it.


__________________________________


"Then humans have no point except to survive and not harm the environment?"

Yes and no. I would say "no" to that question because I was trying to point out that we have the ABILITY to live in an area without stripping the land of all its resources etc. True, we're getting better about pollution and other things but we're (U.S.) doing it SLOWLY. I wonder why we rarely, if ever, sign onto worldwide agreements that try to curb pollution and other things? Big business, special interests, lobbyists - it's all about MONEY.

I could also answer "yes" to your question because like any other creature, the most basic point of our existance is to breed. If we can do it and live in some kind of balance or equilibrium with the environment so we don't have to continually increase the amount of land we need for farming and housing, so much the better. Plants or animals whose populations get out of control usually get into trouble; they could run out of food, water, or space to live. Humans are already having similar problems, just look at some of the countries in Africa.

"Humans influence the environments that animals must fit into; therefore we must influence evolution (micro- and, if it exists, macro-)."

Ok, I'll grant you that too but you've just reinforced my argument that humans have TOO MUCH influence on nature. If we actually affect the way organisms EVOLVE, we need to change the way we do things.

"...then the best thing we could do is stand back and let it work--without us."

We could at least try to minimize the impact we have on plants and animals. Again, we're getting better about it but MUCH more needs to be done.

I'm just a wanderer so ingore me if you wish or listen as I sometimes spit out a gem or two.

Firstly,

THere is no good in the universe only popular evil!

Secondly,

I'm strongly agnostic so the 'G' person probably not like me much.

The church that says Evolution is tat, is also the same church who insisted on the geocentric views that persecuted Galileo, and also the one that believed that God wouldn't allow for extinction and then quite merrily watched the Mauritius massacre! O for 2 not so good!

THe church's steady state ideas were blown out of the water by Hawking and Sagan, not to mention that Sagan and Hawking's theories that destroyed infinte universe were built on Einstein's mathematical research which was proven with the Concorde experiments!

As for the zoo bit! Well, that's where I get a wishy-washy attack. Ecology was always one thing I was empathetic for, but I'm also an omnivore, and my mother takes medicines that were tested on animals! Frankly I have to say that we cannot cut off our own arm to save 'test' animals, would I be happy with a new, nonanimal testing, yes, do I see my self feeling bad because a rat or dog died so I could, not really, not that I believe that I'm superior. It's that I'd rather be them and not me! Cars could be cleaner, but I'm not going to stop driving my car, I live in a rural community, detached from stores and what not! Do I think the disposable revolution is idiotic laziness, yes. Power could be cleaner, but I support fission and work on fusion technology! The zoos, well, they do provide education, I wonder how many ecologists, biologists and zoologists were born at Henry Doorly, some other zoo, I hate the circuses, the Seaworlds and the others though and the shows probably should be banned.

Well, I've said my piece (or at least 60% of it) feel free to respond; I may not respond back, but I will lurk here for a while! 'G' no hard feelings your free to your ideas, but before you say every modern biologist/geneticists(sp?) is a crack pot, just remember the church has had egg on it's face many a time, and their interpretation is from a highly biased area, (if you've ever watched Dogma, you'll get a sense of what I mean).