Large Scale Central

Record temperatures

David, you keep wanting there to be creatures that are half bat and half rat, that misses the way the process works. There ARE creatures that have some bat like and some rat-like features–the flying squirrel, for example, which is extremely common around here but rarely seen because it’s nocturnal. It glides using extended flaps of skin; it doesn’t fly and it doesn’t echo-locate, but glides through the air for long distances and hunts at night.

You don’t see creatures that look like what you want, which is a flying squirell on its way to being a bat, because bats are better adapted than half bats, and half bats all died off as a result. Why doesn’t the fossil record show this–It does. There are lots of fossils that show “primitive” versions of modern animals, most famously, the archeopteryx, the dinosaur with feathers. I don’t know the record of fossil bats, but bats are poor candidates to get fossilized because of where and how they live.

David,
unsuccessful species evolve or are exinct. If a native indian was to become extinct does that mean that it did not exist? If man was to shoot dead every living indian, then is their existence only the human memory of the slaughter. You want to see evolution at work, something hardly possible given the few thousand years your earth has existed. My earth has been around for billions of years, giving nature plenty of time to ‘experiment’. As Mike has pointed out, there is plenty of evidence of crossover experimentation. Remember that every bird that has existed has roots in the dinosaurs. Evolution is the adaptation of a species to its changing environment, sometimes the change is successful and the species survives and other times it is not and the species becomes extinct. Man has evolved from an ape-like creature that walked on four legs. Man, as we know him today, has only been around for a very short time (around forty thousand years) in the known history of manlike lifeforms. Homo-sapiens is just another step in the evolutionary chain. Our world will change and its inhabitants will either change or become extinct.

      I would have far more appreciation of the wonders of God, as seen through evolution,  than a god who simply created the finished product.  Evolution allows us to marvel at creation,  not just clap hands at some magic lantern show.  I prefer a true God to a showman dispensing snake oil.

Quote: “All of the so called pre-Homo sapien skeletons discovered have been found to be either diseased malformed skeletal remains, Homo sapiens with features still evident today, apes and in at least on famous case, bits and pieces from a few different animals including a pig.”

      Your quote is the old story,  used by sceptics who cannot come to terms with reality.  I do not know of your pig remains story,  but the remains of a dwarf humanoid, were found on an island in Indonesia, possibly Komodo Island, only in the last generation.  The detractors stated that it was merely a diseased, dwarf human who had stunted growth,  as they refused to accept that such a 'creature' could have lived and survived in its current form.  Fortunately,  there are those who believe in the evidence and not their stunted intelligence level and accept that such a 'prehistoric' human did actually live to relatively recent times,  in seclusion on a remote island.   Remember that the gorilla was only 'discovered' in the mid 19th century.  The search for fossils did not really begin until the mid-19th century.  

      What the book,  Origin of Species did,  was take man from the superstitious belief that religion was the only evidence of life and to look beyond their archaic beliefs to the real world,  as evidenced by the natural world around them.  I know of no other diseased remains found.  There have been numerous fossilised remains of an earlier form of man,  so using your analogy then because they do not resemble the exact features of homo-sapiens then they must be diseased individuals.  You want evidence of evolution and yet every piece supporting the theory of evolution is ridiculed by you because it does not fit your stifled thought process.  You believe in a god yet there is no evidence to support the god theory and yet any evidence that is presented to you is dismissed as false.  You believe in something that may or may not exist and deny the real world as presented by natural history.  You use false logic by a belief in nothing and yet deny reality as simply nothing.

Any transitional form fossilized remains should be even more prominent in the archeological finds than the so called completed species. The fact that there are none, and there are no living examples today shows the fallacy of the evolution model. You may choose to believe there is no gravity and that the Earth sucks, but that will not make it so.

A feathered reptile existed and became extinct, as did many other creatures. Just follow this bunny-hole backwards, where/how did life begin. Mud and a lightning strike and some Gene Wilder voice yells, “It’s Alive!”. Look at the complexity of a single celled animal and tell me you still believe that it could have formed by happenstance. How absurd.

David,

Have you ever heard that anyone found any fossils that would indicate the existence of a supreme being? Or any other indication other than the fairy tales/legends/fabrications that have been handed down and finally written up by various and sundry humans who had/have a definite bias?

BTW what’s wrong with Zeus or any of the other gods from antiquity? They’re not smart or exclusive enough for you? There’s as much proof of their existence as there is of the fabrications you proclaim as your faith! Matter of fact there’s just as much credence in Erich von Däniken’s fabels as there is in your fabels! The only difference is: The sales pitch for your fabel had a 1900 years head start and as we all know that’s quite an advantage when you try to sell some highly unlikely story, repeat some fabel for long enough and there will be enough gullibles who will believe. Especially if they are so insecure that it must be someone else’s doing that they can’t make head or tail in their everyday life!

Actually, last week they announced the probable birth place of the real life Zeus. Mount Lykaion in Arcadia. If he was a real person, he would have existed many years before he became the mythical god of gods.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,490244,00.html

One of our German Shepherd’s is named Kommandant Zeus (after the god of Greek gods of course) and another one of our German Shepherd’s is named Fraulein Isis. Isis was an Egyptian goddess who was also accepted in Greek mythology… :slight_smile:

Jon.

Jon :smiley: I like that and for the dyslexics either one is a god.

David,
you follow a minor religion and yet you feel you have exclusivety to God. It may come as a suprise to you on the final Judgement Day when you find that your narrow-minded views on people and life are actually contrary to true christian beliefs. Do not be suprised if you find the pearly gates locked closed and see Darwin inside enjoying the fruits of his labour, along with the other revolutionary ‘anti-God’ evolutionists. I will repeat one more time as there seems to be an impediment to the natural flow of reasonable, rational thought, belief in the theory of evolution actually inspires one to believe in a supreme being, a God. This feeling is a natural emotion, not a sense of guilt dished out by a guy in a suit who comes knocking on your door peddling religion as if it were a vacuum cleaner and saying that if you refuse his word, you will be condemned to the eternal fires of hell. One hell of an advertising campaign and suprisingly no personal endorsements from satisfied customers. Would you buy a used car from that man, or even a home loan contract???

The God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob and the theory of evolution are antithetical.

Maybe your god is compatible with evolution. That’s fine.

'nuff said!

Deleted

David,
you say that evolution and your religion are unethical(?), but the very characters in your bible allow evolutionary evidence. Genesis points out that many early characters in the bible were a thousand years old when they died. As I really doubt that any of your current church elders are over one hundred years of age, then the apparent evolution from a one thousand year lifespan (six thousand years ago) to an average now of around 75 years expectancy, is evidence of the existence of evolution.

     One tool that model railroaders use when operatng to a timetable,  is a fast clock,  whereby actual time is accelerated so that a 24 hour operating time could be condensed to a three hour elapsed time period.  Is it possible that 'fast clocks' were being used in ancient times such that a day of creation is not necessarily a day as defined in Genesis as sundown to sunup and that perhaps a thousand years is a metaphor for a much less timespan?  Maybe the early characters actually lived a longer than average lifespan,  when compared to the mere mortal humans around them,  who would be lucky to see forty or so years expectancy.  Contrary to your beliefs,  man's life expectancy has improved over theyears.

Deleted

Tony,
along with the morphing, his brain cavity must have reduced as well. Evolution does occasionally cough up some mistakes, which hopefully will bypass the fossil stage. I would hate for his remains to be one day dug up and future man wonder how such a small-minded person could be elected to such high office for two terms.

TonyWalsham said:
As there is (supposedly) only one Christian God, that means Tim's God and your God are one in the same.

Or are you now saying there is one God for some Christians and another God for other Christians?

If so which one is yours and which one is for everyone else?


Tony,

There’s always but one god, but for some strange reason it never is the one the guy six rows over believes in. To have that starkness of absolute darkness and absolute light is a blessing for those who hate the trouble of all the shades of gray, or worse yet colour, there might be. Simple abstracts for simple people!

Deleted

Apologies for resrrecting this thread, but I am now in awe of Charles Darwin, after learning some personal information on his life. Like many of his era, he was a devout christian who followed the bible to the letter. As he progressed in his nature studies in South America, he came to the realisation that the evidence that nature presented, was totally at odds with his core beliefs that the earth was relatively young and creation occurred in six days. The realisation of the natural evidence about him, caused him both conflicts in his loyalty to his faith and importantly, caused him to suffer ill health for much of his life.

He had a weak constitution and the stress caused by the moral conflict between creationism and his findings, caused him to suffer greatly. It is said that after the publication of his ‘Origin of Species’, he was finally at peace with himself. Certainly this intellectual man, schooled in creation and coming to terms with his scientific beliefs, deserves more accolades. Very few of his time were prepared to stand in face of the religious farce that ruled their lifetime. He was an extremely intuitive man, who was able to put reason to the evidence of nature.

Two great men born on exactly the same day, Feb 12th 1809.

Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln.

Jon Foster said:
Actually, last week they announced the probable birth place of the real life Zeus. Mount Lykaion in Arcadia. If he was a real person, he would have existed many years before he became the mythical god of gods.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,490244,00.html

One of our German Shepherd’s is named Kommandant Zeus (after the god of Greek gods of course) and another one of our German Shepherd’s is named Fraulein Isis. Isis was an Egyptian goddess who was also accepted in Greek mythology… :slight_smile:

Jon.


Wasn’t Isis one of the Go’a’uld? Season 3, episode 4? I’ll have to go back and look. :lol:

Tim Brien said:
Apologies for resrrecting this thread, but I am now in awe of Charles Darwin, after learning some personal information on his life. Like many of his era, he was a devout christian who followed the bible to the letter. As he progressed in his nature studies in South America, he came to the realisation that the evidence that nature presented, was totally at odds with his core beliefs that the earth was relatively young and creation occurred in six days. The realisation of the natural evidence about him, caused him both conflicts in his loyalty to his faith and importantly, caused him to suffer ill health for much of his life.

He had a weak constitution and the stress caused by the moral conflict between creationism and his findings, caused him to suffer greatly. It is said that after the publication of his ‘Origin of Species’, he was finally at peace with himself. Certainly this intellectual man, schooled in creation and coming to terms with his scientific beliefs, deserves more accolades. Very few of his time were prepared to stand in face of the religious farce that ruled their lifetime. He was an extremely intuitive man, who was able to put reason to the evidence of nature.


Darwin has had an impact on out society, but he himself doubted his own theory.


Was Charles Darwin Psychotic? A Study of His Mental Health
by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.

Was Charles Darwin Psychotic? A Study of His Mental Health
Introduction

Darwin's many lifelong and serious illnesses have been the subject of much speculation and study for over a century. Darwin stated that his health problems began as early as 1825 when he was only sixteen years old, and became incapacitating around age 28 (Barloon and Noyes, 1997, p. 138). Horan (1979, p. ix) concluded that Darwin was "ill and reclusively confined to his home in Kent for forty years." Darwinian scholar Michael Ruse even concluded that "Darwin himself was an invalid from the age of 30" (2003, p. 1523). And medical doctor George Pickering, in an extensive study of Darwin's illness, concluded that in his early thirties, Darwin became an "invalid recluse" (1974, p. 34). UCLA School of Medicine Professor Dr. Robert Pasnau (1990, p. 123) noted that Darwin also "remained ill almost continually" for the entire five years that he was on his HMS Beagle trip.

Dozens of scholarly articles and at least three books have been penned on the question of Darwin's illness. The current conclusion is that Darwin suffered from several serious and incapacitating psychiatric disorders, including agoraphobia. Agoraphobia is characterized by fear of panic attacks (or actual panic attacks) when not in a psychologically safe environment, such as at home. Darwin, as is common among agoraphobiacs, also developed many additional phobias—being in crowds, being alone, or leaving home unless accompanied by his wife (Kaplan and Sadock, 1990, pp. 958-959).

Agoraphobia is also frequently associated with depersonalization (a feeling of being detached from, and outside of, one's own body), a malady that Darwin also suffered (Barloon and Noyes, 1997, p. 138). A study of Darwin's mental condition by Barloon and Noyes concluded that Darwin suffered from anxiety disorders that so severely impaired his functioning that it limited his ability to leave his home, even just to meet with colleagues or other friends. This diagnosis likely explains his very secluded, hermit-like lifestyle (1997, p. 138). It also helps to explain the title of Desmond and Moore's 1991 biography of Darwin: Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist.
Other Psychiatric and Medical Problems

Colp (1977, p. 97) concluded that "much of Darwin's daily life was lived on a rack which consisted of fluctuating degrees of pain" that was sometimes so severe that Darwin called it "distressingly great." Darwin's many psychological or psychologically influenced physical health symptoms included severe depression, insomnia, hysterical crying, dying sensations, shaking, fainting spells, muscle twitches, shortness of breath, trembling, nausea, vomiting, severe anxiety, depersonalization, seeing spots, treading on air and vision, and other visual hallucinations (Barloon and Noyes, 1997, p. 139; Picover, 1998, p. 290; Colp, 1977, p. 97; Bean, 1978, p. 573). The physical symptoms included headaches, cardiac palpitations, ringing in ears (possibly tinnitus), painful flatulence, and gastric upsets—all of which commonly have a psychological origin (Pasnau, 1990). Colp noted that "behind these symptoms there was always a core of anxiety and depression" (1977, p. 97). Some speculate that part of Darwin's mental problems were due to his nagging, gnawing fear that he had devoted his "life to a fantasy"—and a "dangerous one" at that (Desmond and Moore, 1991, p. 477). This fear was that his theory was false and there was, in fact, a divine Creator.

Darwin's behavior also indicates that he suffered from a mental disorder. Although devoted to his wife and daughters, he "treated them as children" even after his daughters were fully grown (Picover, 1998, p. 289). Some of Darwin's statements to others also cast doubt on his mental stability. For example, in 1875 he wrote the following words to fellow scientist Robert Hooker:

    You ask about my book, & all that I can say is that I am ready to commit suicide: I thought it was decently written, but find so much wants rewriting. . . . I begin to think that every one who publishes a book is a fool (quoted in Colp, 1977, p. 228).

Colp noted that Darwin's son Leonard claimed that his father's illness even interfered with his feelings for his children. For example, Leonard once noted that

    As a young lad I went up to my father when strolling about the lawn, and he . . . turned away as if quite incapable of carrying on any conversation. Then there suddenly shot through my mind the conviction that he wished he was no longer alive (quoted in Colp, 1977, p. 100).

Darwin's mental problems were considered so severe that Picover (1998, p. 289) included Darwin in his collection of historical persons that he calls "strange brains . . . eccentric scientists, and madmen." That Darwin suffered from several severely disabling maladies is not debated; the only debate is what caused them (Pasnau, 1990, p. 121).
Other Possible Causes of Darwin's Condition

Others, including Darwin's own wife, argued that his mental problem stemmed from guilt over his life's goal to refute the argument for God from design (Bean, 1978,
p. 574; p. 28; Pasnau, 1990, p. 126). Most of the psychoanalytic studies have argued that his problems were a result of his repressed anger toward his tyrannical father and "the slaying of his heavenly father" by his theory (Pasnau, 1990, p. 122).

Diagnosis of the cause of Darwin's mental and physical disorders include parasitic disease (Chaga's disease—caused by an insect common in South America), arsenic poisoning, and possibly even an inner ear disorder (Picover, 1998, p. 290; Pasnau, 1990). All of these causes have largely been refuted. Many persons conclude he had a classic, essential mental disturbance bordering on psychosis (a severe, incapacitating mental disorder). Regardless of the diagnosis, Darwin's condition was clearly incapacitating, often for months at a time, and rendered him an invalid for much of his life, especially in the prime of his life.

Arnold Sorsby concluded that Darwin was also an obsessive-compulsive and gives the following evidence:

    If Chagas's disease did not cause Darwin's symptoms what did? My personal diagnosis would be an anxiety state with obsessive features and psychosomatic manifestations. Anxiety clearly precipitated much of his physical trouble, and regarding the obsessive component there are several important points. . . .

Darwin exhibited the obsessional's trait of having everything "just so"; he kept meticulous records of his health and symptoms like many obsessional hypochondriacs. Everything had to be in its place; he even had a special drawer for the sponge which he used in bathing . . . Then there is the health diary he kept. Days and nights were given a score according to how good they were; the score was added up at the end of each week, and there is evidence of frequent changing of mind in deciding whether a night was very good or just good (1974, p. 228).
Darwin's Own Words about His Condition

In addition to the diary on his health problems and complaints (Colp, 1977, p. 136), he frequently discussed his health problems in his letters and his autobiography. Darwin's own description of his condition included the following: "I am forced to live, . . . very quietly and am able to see scarcely anybody and cannot even talk long with my nearest relations" (quoted in Bowlby, 1990, p. 240). Darwin once complained that speaking for only "a few minutes" to the Linnean Society "brought on 24 hours vomiting" (Darwin, 1994, pp. 98-99). At another time, Darwin had a "house full of guests" and after he visited the parish church for a christening, he was "back to square one" and his good health "had vanished `like a flash of lightning'" and sickness (including the vomiting) returned (Desmond and Moore, 1991, p. 456). The suddenness of his illness, as illustrated by these incidents, indicates that his incapacitating episodes were psychological in origin.

Another side of Darwin revealed his sadistic impulses. His own words taken from his autobiography give a vivid example:

    In the latter part of my school life I became passionately fond of shooting, and I do not believe that anyone could have shown more zeal for the most holy cause than I did for shooting birds. How well I remember killing my first snipe, and my excitement was so great that I had much difficulty in reloading my gun from the trembling of my hands. This taste long continued and I became a very good shot (1958, p. 44).

The fact that he loved killing so much that killing his first bird caused him to tremble with excitement could certainly indicate a sadistic streak in Darwin. His passion for killing birds is well known. One wonders if this "passion" for killing may have, in part, motivated his ruthless "survival of the fittest" tooth and claw theory of natural selection.
Conclusions

Darwin was clearly a very troubled man and suffered from severe emotional problems for most of his adult life, especially when he was in the prime of life. The exact cause of his mental and many physical problems has been much debated and may never be known for certain. Since Darwin wrote extensively about his mental and physical problems, we have much material on which to base a reasonable conclusion about this area of his life. The diagnosis of the cause of his mental and physical problems includes a variety of debilitating conditions, but agoraphobia with the addition of psychoneurosis is most probably correct.

Unfortunately, most writers have shied away from this topic, partly because Darwin is now idolized by many scientists and others. Often listed as one of the greatest scientists of the nineteenth century, if not the greatest scientist that ever lived, Darwin is one of the few scientists known to most Americans. To understand Darwin as a person and his motivations, one must consider his mental condition and how it affected his work and conclusions.
References

Barloon, Thomas and Russell Noyes, Jr. 1997. "Charles Darwin and Panic Disorder." JAMA 277(2):138-141.

Barlow, Nora, ed. 1958. The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882. NY: Norton.

Bean, W. B. 1978. "The Illness of Charles Darwin." The American Journal of Medicine 65(4):572-574.

Bowlby, John. 1990. Charles Darwin: A New Life. NY: Norton.

Colp, Ralph Jr. 1977. To Be an Invalid: The Illness of Charles Darwin. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

Darwin, Charles. 1994. The Correspondence of Charles Darwin. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University. Vol. 9.

Desmond, Adrian and James Moore. 1991. Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist. NY: Warner Books.

Grigg, Russell. 1995. "Darwin's Mystery Illness." Creation Ex Nihilo 17(4):28-30.

Horan, Patricia G. 1979. Foreword to The Origin of Species. NY: Gramercy Books.

Kaplan, Harold I. and Benjamin J. Sadock, ed. 1990. Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry/V. Volume 1 Fifth Edition. NY: Williams and Wilkins.

Pasnau, R. O. 1990. "Darwin's Illness: A Biopsychosocial Perspective." Psychosomatics 31(2):121-128.

Pickering, George. 1974. Creative Malady. NY: Oxford University Press.

Picover, Clifford A. 1998. Strange Brains and Genius: The Secret Lives of Eccentric Scientists and Madmen. NY: Quill William Morrow.

Ruse, Michael. 2003. "Is Evolution a Secular Religion?" Science 299:1523-1524.

Sorsby, Arnold, ed. 1974. Tenements of Clay. NY: Charles Scribner's Sons.

*Dr. Bergman is on the Biology faculty at Northwest State College in Ohio.

David,
Quote:“Unfortunately, most writers have shied away from this topic, partly because Darwin is now idolized by many scientists and others. Often listed as one of the greatest scientists of the nineteenth century, if not the greatest scientist that ever lived, Darwin is one of the few scientists known to most Americans. To understand Darwin as a person and his motivations, one must consider his mental condition and how it affected his work and conclusions.”

And the point of your whole googling??? Unlike those around him, Darwin, regardless of his conflict between his religious beliefs and the natural evidence around him, was able to step outside the idiocy of creationism, to see what was fact and what truly was fiction. Darwin had the proof that nature unfolded. Exactly what truth is there in religion and what facts are there that a god actually exists. The bible is not a fact of existence, it is written by man, based on folklore. You cannot disprove Darwin as you are basing your beliefs on a hypothesis that there is a god. Show me your proof. As they say, put up or shut up!

Proof of God or proof Darwin’s ideas were wrong? I have given plenty of evidence of the misplaced belief in Darwinism, to prove God (or an intelligent Creator) one only needs to look carefully at the complexity of life and His Creation.

You may have faith in Darwin if you choose. I may point of the fallacy of such belief, but I would never personally insult you in the way you choose to insult millions of Christians, smoe of whom are our greatest scientists, Patriots and inventors.