New Law Allows for Creationism in the Classroom [Mississippi]

So corn turning into corn is proof that fish turn into reptiles, monkeys, etc.. on down the line..

I will note that this is a misrepresentation of what was presented. A request was made for examples of speciation. That request was satisfied. No one claimed that such examples were "proof" that fish turn into reptiles, monkeys, etc. That is your inference. Morever, the examples provided were of speciation. You have chosen to ignore the established definition of "species", for reasons that I cannot understand, however your willful denial of the established definition of the word "species" does not change reality.

Proffered law of nature: Any plant will only produce it's own kind.

You have yet to define "kind".

Corn may produce corn; but, it has yet to ever produce green beans or anything elst but corn.

As has been explained, "corn" is a name that applies to a variety of plant species. That you continue to ignore this again suggests to me that either you are not being honest, or you are deliberately avoiding knowledge of basic biology.

Bring me one solid piece of unequivocal evidence that supports macro evolution that cannot just as easily be explained away

The mutation, common to people, chimps, gorillas and other great apes, that prevents the synthesis of ascorbic acid (Vitamin C).

Attempts to explain it away include:

1) It was designed that way. So why do we have all the needed enzymes except one? Why is that one broken in the same place in the apes, and no where else in the animal kingdom? It seems the designer has poor quality control.

2) It's a consequence of the Fall. The other apes are incapable of sin, so why would they be affected?

3) The same mutation occurred independently in half a dozen or more lineages. So why didn't it occur anywhere else? Is this statistically probable?

The simplest explanation, that the mutation occurred once and was inherited, invokes no currently unknown process (designer, the same mutation happening independently many times), so it wins by Occam's razor.

(Do a Google search on GLO, ascorbic, primate, evolution, etc, for many many discussions of this famous mutation)

On a related topic, and one I think is very germane to this discussion: One of the most disgusting things I have ever seen was a TV news clip of a 6 or 7 year old boy standing on a street corner shouting religious hellfire and damnation, at the top of his lungs, to all non-believers who passed. It seems that non-believers included all of those who didn't believe the exact same things his parents believed and taught him to parrot, being too young to know any different.

We've all seen them somewhere. I tend to think of them as truly horrifying examples of child abuse.

(don't like cattle).
the other critters are cute as all get-out!
glad to have been of service

The other apes are incapable of sin, so why would they be affected?

Collateral damage?

My point wasn't childish, my point was all you gave me was a list of could be's and said this is evidence, what I see is evidently some Canadian Geese have migrated to Hawaii, and though they have experienced some micro evo, guess what, ......They're still geese, they didn't become frogs, or dogs, or monkeys, not even pigeons, nope, they're still geese, yep, your right, this whole heartedly supports macro evo. Accept that it doesn't.

As I said before, if man evolved from apes, why are apes not still becoming men today?, If they are where are the living transitional specimen between men and apes? If they aren't, and no they aren't why not, and why did none of the transitional species live? They died, because they were not the dominant species through the process of natural selection? then why did the apes and monkeys not die off, they were not dominant? why do they still exist, but no other transitional specimen?

why if men existed on several different continents in different environments, and eco systems, did they not evolve with larger differences than skin color, and size of stature? Why if evolution is real does everything exist in specific species, and not a plethora and smattering of several transitions visible throughout creation, (oops I mean umm what would you all call it?) If nature is random, they why would all of one species regardless of continent evolve in similar patterns at the same rate?

I was asked to give some example questions to be shared in science classes by students. I suppose to someone as affluent in academia as yourself these questions must seem ignorant, and random, so please instill upon someone as ignorant and lazy as myself, (yalls words not mine) some answers that can't be shot down with a pellet gun.

Hey "whispering out loud" glad to see you are still around. Let me try and give your questions a go. As I said before, if man evolved from apes, why are apes not still becoming men today?

The problem is the evidence is all indirect on this one isn't it. The fossils are there and over time it looks like this is what happened, that man and ape decended from a common ancestor. But if you want me to drive you out into the wilds of Africa to show you the missing link, you are correct it isn't going to happen. Now... does that mean it did not? No. Is there scientific proof that it did happen? The fossils discovered sure do suggest it to be the case. Experts in comparative anatomy pretty much spend their lives working on this. I also point you to http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mchox.htm as one biological reference for how a small gene mutation can cause a rather large effect.

why if men existed on several different continents in different environments, and eco systems, did they not evolve with larger differences than skin color, and size of stature?

Good question...they did. The genus of Homo existed at multiple locations at the same time. Homo neanderthalensis (Neanderthal) existed up until 30,000 years ago alongside Homo sapiens. Even Homo erectus lasted in small portions of the world (like Java) up until 40,000 years ago. I refer you to http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html which displays the phylogeny of early humans.

Why if evolution is real does everything exist in specific species, and not a plethora and smattering of several transitions visible throughout creation

Well there are the monotremes, which are mammals that lay eggs like my favorite the the duck billed platypus. Compared to other mammals the DBP has a low body temperature (something like 90F), and it hunts its prey using "electroception", it detects the electric current in the body of its prey (rare for a mammal to do). The male has venomous spikes in its ankles. IT sure does seem this guy is in the "middle" of something.

Another example though not as strong is the Okapi. It looks like a mix between a striped zebra and long necked horse. You want something that "looks" like it is in the middle of changing take a look on the net at it. Genetically it is closely related to the Giraffe though.

And of course don't forget our friends the carnivorous plants. These guys get most of their energy by eating insects which is not like other plants at all, is it?

Now my friend I have tried to answer your questions as best as I can... So now I have a question for you. Can you give me some decent supportive evidence of ID? Please?!?! So far this has been a one way street... you ask questions... we answer... you ask more... we answer... so if you think Evolution is wrong... fine. Even if it was... that doesn't mean the real answer is ID does it? No. So you have to come up with something... ANYTHING PLEASE to at least tell me that ID is even a viable theory let alone one that should supersede Evolution.

So far Irreducible Complexity is about as best as I have seen and even that isn't very good proof (contrary to what Behe thinks). Dembski isn't very good saying specified complexity reliably detects design at all. (I could argue that the tax code is complex yet it certainly wasn't designed by an intelligence.) So please... tell us something.

guess what, ......They're still geese, they didn't become frogs, or dogs, or monkeys, not even pigeons, nope, they're still geese, yep, your right, this whole heartedly supports macro evo. Accept that it doesn't.

the above example of what you, and other Creationists, refer to as "macro" evolution is a fantasy generated from the septic depths of your own ignorance. I accept that you and all like you are ineducable, not because you are natively stupid, but that you have decided to make a fetish of ignorance.

I was asked to give some example questions to be shared in science classes by students. I suppose to someone as affluent in academia as yourself these questions must seem ignorant, and random, so please instill upon someone as ignorant and lazy as myself, (yalls words not mine) some answers that can't be shot down with a pellet gun.

I would have bothered if any of your imagined "gotcha" questions couldn't be shot down with a pellet gun, but someone else has beaten me to it. Anyway, none of the questions you posed could be posed about ID in the classroom, they are about imaginary deficiencies in evolutionary theory that you have managed to come up with. ID isn't a default answer even if you can undermine evolution. Its evidence has to stand on its own merits. Science doesn't do "default solutions".

You were much more honest and respectable earlier when you simply admitted that you don't know anything about boats. When you start coming out with know-nothing bull puckey about a subject that you haven't troubled to try to understand you simply make you, and your faith, look bad. If you genuinely want to learn about evolution, the evidence that supports it, why your questions are nonsense, can I suggest that you read a biology primer?

What really gets me about this is the arrogance of your position. You obviously know no biology (I can see that from your questions) and you've admitted elsewhere not having a general technical education when you said you did know anything about why boat designs would fail or succeed. Yet, somehow, in your ignorance, you fail able to reject scientific conclusions that are accepted by pretty much everyone who studies the relevant sciences, and that acceptance is in proportion to the level of knowledge and study (the more people know, the more likely they are to accept that evidence for evolution and an old earth is so solid as to be essentially beyond challenge). People spend their lives studying this stuff, but whisperingoutload knows better than them.

OK, what's your hypothesis? Are all biologists stupid not to have spotted your objections? Or are they evil, spinning a lie to trap people for satan? Why would they do that? Or is it that some biologists are stupid whilst others are evil? Or do you have some other explanation for why those who study this stuff for a living (and who would get everlasting fame, Nobel Prizes, wealth, marry gorgeous actresses etc if they could overturn the established paradigm by falsifying evolution) pretty much uniformly find the evidence for evolution utterly convincing.

While I personally don't buy it, you might be interested in this site, which purports to have all sorts of theories about the design and building of the ark. http://www.worldwideflood.com/. I'd be interested in your thoughts about their theories, but that's probably for another thread.

Sorry about the delay in replying, the site did give me some amusement, so thanks for posting it.

I think "all sorts of insubstantial conjectures" rather than "all sorts of theories" would be closer to the mark.

To fully dismember the arguments on that site would be the work of days, and it isn't worth it. But I'll point out some of the more egregious errors and inconsistencies.

The site acknowledges that a wooden boat of the ark's size couldn't work without metal bracing (actually it wouldn't work with it either, but that is another story...) so they just handwave their way round it, by postulating that Noah had recourse to a brass foundry (of modern industrial scale, because that is what he would have needed, though "curiously" they fail to point that out) to make the necessary bracing parts. Or maybe he even had an iron foundry, they suggest. Heck, why don't they just postulate a bronze-age carbon-fibre works and have done with it? Anyway, the Bible explicitly states that the ark was made of wood and tar. Bronze and iron are not mentioned.
They demonstrate the size of the ark is feasible using misleading comparisons with modern ships such as Fleet Carriers and oil tankers of steel construction to show that it isn't really all that big....puhlease. They chuck in some ancient boats, none with even a tenth the capacity of the ark or remotely similar design but whose profile looks vaguely equivalent, like an ancient catamaran that could purportedly carry 3000 soldiers according to a single ancient description (but was of 1/20 the tonnage of the ark).
They postulate enormous hull timbers, planking a foot thick and internal members even larger. They handwave past how a bronze age technology could put together the vast number of enormously heavy such timbers that would be required into a boat. They postulate gigantic A-Frame cranes built of wood that would require teams of hundreds of men to operate them (who Noah curiously then left to drown after they'd built the ark for him), and then show models of the ark that both omit the enormous thickness of the timbers and show laughable little cranes next to it.
Their structural calculations assume that the decks are "plates". Plate is an engineering term for a single solid sheet of material with uniform bending characteristics in every direction. An immensely strong concept typically realised in modern reinforced concrete constructions. They omit the little detail of how you construct a plate the width of the Ark in wood. Simply joining deckplanks won't work, they don't have any bending resistance across the members.
They postulate clever wood joins along the length and width of the ark, without explaining how the joints are going to resist bending at the join. They don't explain how such huge timbers can be crafted and slotted so precisely (putting together stuff like this so that it fits isn't easy, even in steel with powered cranes there are difficulties that result from differential expansion of such a large partially completed structure as the day's sun heats it)
They postulate that trees were much bigger in Noah's time, despite the complete lack of archeological or paleontological evidence for any such thing. These are the same people who say the fossil record is the result of the flood, remember, so where are these trees in the fossil record?
Their calculations show that stresses would be within acceptable limits (if you allow the plates and joints that resist bending) but they don't mention strain/deformation. As I've already pointed out the real problem with a large wooden ship isn't whether the timbers can take the stresses on the boat. They can. The problem is that in doing so they deform differentially, and water floods through the gaps thus formed. This point isn't even mentioned as far as I can see.

Naval Architecture. Teach the controversy!

Thanks for your info. It's so helpful to get the insight of people with practical, working knowledge when we are confronted in this day and age with conclusive answers from those with only a superficial understanding (but they are so, so knowledgeable).