[quote]dcb wrote:
“The fresh unraveling of chimpanzee DNA allows an unprecedented gene-to-gene comparison with the human genome, mapped in 2001, and makes plain the evolutionary processes through which chimps and humans arose from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago.”
[/quote]
that statement is a very large leap from this one:
Because there are similarities between two species, this means that there was direct evolution between them?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
What bothers me is that anyone would base their entire concept of Christianity on a few idiots. That is like basing your concept of training on what you hear at GNC. Just like any other facet of life, if you don’t do your own research and search out people who are more than puppets, you will never gain any deeper understanding. For what does this not hold true for?
[/quote]
Well X, it would be one thing if it were only a few idiots, but it’s not. Nearly all that I have met are truly idiots. I’m not saying they’re idiots because they’re Christian, it’s just what I have observed. Yes, my opinion of Christians has changed, I know that there are intelligent, resonable ones out there. They are probably true Christians, as opposed to those merely say they are. However, the more stupid (or mean-spirited) a supposed Christian seems to be, the louder and more vocal they seem to be (of course, this is true for other groups as well).
If someone was bitten by 9 of 10 dogs they met, they’d be understandably wary the next time they encountered a dog.
Again, I know there are good Christians out there (and I consider you one of them), but they are, in general relatively quiet compared to their “fag-hating”, “clinic bombing”, “science fearing” bretheren. And that sucks!
[quote]For the record, the more I learn about the complexity of the human body, the more I believe in devine intervention.
[/quote]
And the more I learn, the less I believe in the existence of the God as portrayed by most Christians.
But hey, two people can see different things in a painting. So, I’m not surprised that we disagree here.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Ooh, that’s great. Reading reports now makes you a “scientist”. Wikipedia describes a scientist as someone who uses the scientific method in research. When have you met that qualification outside of school projects?[/quote]
Are you putting extra effort in misunderstanding everything? Let’s recap:
Stating I wasn’t a scientist, you asked how I’d now what “real science” was.
My reply implied, at least for adult level reading ability, that someone can, while not being professionally employed as a scientist, still read the literature and understand how science works. It’s not supposed to mean that I expect to receive research grants in my morning mail.
I do have a degree in Computer Science. Does that count? It has the word “science” in it, no?
If only computers weren’t such a great example of chaos from order.
Because having to ask for every little detail and minor clarification gets to resemble an interrogation more than a discussion.
Even on the “Made of Meat” thread, you got defensive after I asked a few questions. You asked if I was really interested or only “baiting” you…
I don’t believe that at all. In fact, quite the contrary. Do you think that I am not aware that a lot, even the majority of scientists I’d say, believe in a higher power? I don’t think that fact has much relevance as to their competence in doing their job.
I’d look up the exact quote, but I’m a bit tired. Bullshit it is.
How do you know that it cannot be duplicated from non-life?
Life chose? How can life choose anything? I do believe that life from non-life is a possibility. I don’t see how choice comes into it. Did the Earth choose to have a moon or the Sun to have 10 or so planets? If life has no special significance, it simply begins when and where the conditions for it to begin are just right. It could be in 1, 10 or billions of place in the universe.
Maybe I am a little slow. I find that often your answers are a little light on details. When that happens, I fill in the blanks. That’s probably where the misunderstanding comes from.
Again, when I asked for clarifications in the “Meat” thread, you said:
“Are you truly asking all of these questions because you really want to understand, or in an attempt to discredit what I believe?”
If I don’t ask questions, I get you wrong; if I do, I’m trying to discredit you.
Ok. That’s a bit better than nothing.
Now you’re just being stupid again. Why would a cat stick up there? The hypotheses for abiogenesis are not stuff a bunch of guys dreamed up after a night of heavy drinking. It’s not “I’ll zap some mud with a taser an monkeys will fly out.” But since a real scientist who likes real science tells me it’s crap, I’ll just buy that.
[quote]I can go on if you’re still wondering where the impression comes from…
Oh, please do, because this was pretty damn weak.
[/quote]
At least it got me more discussion than anything previous, so it wasn’t a complete waste of time.
[quote]dcb wrote:
Scientists Complete Genetic Map of the Chimpanzee
Differences From Human DNA Pinpointed
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 1, 2005; Page A03
“The fresh unraveling of chimpanzee DNA allows an unprecedented gene-to-gene comparison with the human genome, mapped in 2001, and makes plain the evolutionary processes through which chimps and humans arose from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago.”
“On a practical level, researchers said, the work is likely to explain why chimps are resistant to several human diseases such as AIDS, hepatitis, malaria and Alzheimer’s disease – information that could lead to new ways to prevent or treat many human ills.”
For the entire article:
I believe that evolution is a fact as much as I believe the sun is going to come up tomorrow. Science has proved evolution occurs beyond any doubt in my mind.
However, I don’t see any conflict with the thought that a god started it all. For those who want to believe that God had a hand in creating life on earth, fine! I may be with you on that. But to say that ID has as much scientific merit as evolution is ridiculous. The theory of evolution has tremendous amounts of evidence to back it up. ID has absolutely no evidence at all. None. Zero. Nada.
I’m also not one of those who’s upset about peoples belief in creationism or ID, which are really the same thing. I think it’s great that people have faith. It’s been shown in scientific studies that people who have faith in a religion are generally happier and healthier than those who don’t have faith.
I’m not upset about anyone elses belief because I don’t have an ounce of personal feeling invested in my opinion that evolution is a fact. Evolution is simply far and away the best available explanation as to how life has developed on this earth. If another theory scientifically proves itself to be a better choice in the future, I’ll change my mind with no hesitation or regret. [/quote]
I like that article. To me personally, the more we are like the chimp, the more similarities we have the better. It will just show that no matter how similar we are, we are SOOOO different.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Even on the “Made of Meat” thread, you got defensive after I asked a few questions. You asked if I was really interested or only “baiting” you…[/quote]
That was because of the questions you were asking. They were the most basic as if you had no concept of religion…and I know that is not the case. You have proven that is not the case in every response since over more than one thread…meaning I was right to wonder why you were playing games. I’m sorry for not being that stupid.
[quote]
I claimed that life on this planet can not be duplicated from non-life or that it has never been observed to happen within recorded human history. Never once did I write that we are the only life in the entire universe.
How do you know that it cannot be duplicated from non-life?[/quote]
Weak. Notice the word OR and then ask that question again. I covered that base already. Maybe I should start underlining words.
That is the point, why would THESE conditions be right for life? So the only life in the rest of the universe must only be on planets that mimic Earth? Earth won’t even mimic Earth in a few more billion years if our own sun even lasts that long. If “life” is truly such a random force, why would it navigate through infinite space to the most uncommon conditions? Honestly, the off chance of it “just happening” are so mind boggeling that you would have to have FAITH that it happened.
[quote]
My honest belief is that there may very well be other life out there that was also created by the same force with a very similar purpose in mind. Again, you assumed otherwise…instead of simply asking for clarity. Why would you do that?
Maybe I am a little slow. I find that often your answers are a little light on details. When that happens, I fill in the blanks. That’s probably where the misunderstanding comes from.[/quote]
My answers aren’t “light”. I answer to the best of my ability and my position hasn’t changed. You put words in my mouth and then get pissed off when that corner you expected to back me into doesn’t exist.
I am fine with discussing abiogenesis. You find me all of these amazing studies that even hint that it happened and we can go from there. The reason it isn’t a major concept held is because so few would truly latch their name onto “we just popped out of nowhere”. I will never understand how it is ok for atheists to “pop out of nowhere” but the concept of being guided into creation just sends them into fits.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
That was because of the questions you were asking. They were the most basic as if you had no concept of religion…and I know that is not the case. You have proven that is not the case in every response sense over more than one thread…meaning I was right to wonder why you were playing games. I’m sorry for not being that stupid.[/quote]
Actually, I thought you had a different take on the basic Christian belief. I was not playing games, I was trying to get more information on that belief. Turned out I had misunderstood one of your earlier posts.
[quote]I claimed that life on this planet can not be duplicated from non-life or that it has never been observed to happen within recorded human history. Never once did I write that we are the only life in the entire universe.
How do you know that it cannot be duplicated from non-life?
Weak. Notice the word OR and then ask that question again. I covered that base already. Maybe I should start underlining words.[/quote]
The OR changes nothing. Our history’s been pretty short, especially from a scientific research point of view. Does that OR mean that you think that it could happen in the future, because I don’t think you do.
Why wouldn’t these conditions be right for life? That does not mean that other conditions could not lead to other similar or different forms of life.
The fact that we’re here means that, at some point in time, the conditions on Earth where right for our kind of life. It says nothing about how common or not life might be elsewhere. It also precludes no other forms of life. They’re could be flocks of space-butterflies between the galaxies for all we know.
No. There’s no way to know from a sample of one. But that does not mean that the Earth is particularly special in any way.
Maybe if we just managed to explore our local planetary system with it’s 10 or so planets and many dozens of moons, we might find life in it. Finding nothing would be expected, but if we found life in another environment, or in 5 or 6 other places, then we’d have to reconsider our base assumption that life is rare.
Again with the anthropomorphization of the life phenomena. Life is not an entity. It does not choose; it does not navigate. Maybe it can just happen when the conditions are right. It could be that those “right” conditions are extremely rare; but in the vastness of time and space across the universe, you’ll get a lot of combinations of conditions.
Life does not have to happen in only one place at a time. It does not have to “navigate” looking for conditions to appear. It’s not a door-to-door salesman. Anywhere you get the right conditions for life, there’s a chance it’ll start. Or not.
I also allow for the possibility that abiogenesis is impossible; in which case God (or at least some outside, life-giving force) is required to exist. My personal feeling is simply that abiogenesis has a better than not chance of being possible given the right conditions.
Not “light” as in lacking in ability. Terse is the word I should’ve used.
And again, I’m not trying to back you in any corner. What is with you and “discredit” and backing into corners? Can’t we just have a discussion from two opposing viewpoints without turning this into a combat sport? The point is not to win. I simply enjoy discussing these matters, that’s all. Sometimes I learn something new, or get a new perspective on an idea.
Why is it so hard for two intelligent person to have a normal discussion. Most of what we write is a meta-discussion about the discussion.
Well any abiogenesis hypothesis would start from the assumption that it can happen. Actually supporting the idea with evidence is the hard part. And you’re right, currently we have no good evidence or exact idea of how it could have happened. At least, none of the hypotheses I know about have good data backing them up. For some reason, it appears to be difficult to get federal grants for that kind of research… And yes, some will avoid it out of fear of ostracization.
Creation through Divine Intervention or Intelligent Design just seems unscientific to me. It would mean that at some random time in the past, God intervened to defy the physical laws and force the birth of life to happen. He then periodically intervened, again defying physical laws and/or statistical probabilities to create every specie. So basically, the Creator sporadically tweaks his creation to guide it towards some unknown goal… right?
I didn’t wade through the whole thread, but skimmed and didn’t see the usual expose of holes in current evolutionary theory. Before you diehard keepers of the faith get too defensive-- understand that these arguements are most poignantly posited by the evolutionists themselves.
Much evolutionary theory would have to be exempt from what mathmaticians recognize as possible within the laws of probability.
Macroevolution (one species giving rise to another as opposed to variations within species like dogs which is microev.) has not been observed in any record fossil or otherwise. As incredible as the fossil record is, the missing link is still just that. Many evolutionists point to the fossil record taken as a whole as evidence of what must be actual species genesis, but have not produced those actual examples. Extraordinary diversity, and apparent archetypes of species, yes.
The chimp genome map story is misleading; if a structure is similar, the fundamental design of the basic core of the organism will not vary much up to the point that the species/structure is different (eg., testosterone, maybe?). If we share the same tear fluid composition with chickens, does this imply relationshsip, or same structure for same or similar purpose? Remember we are genetically similar to plants to a degree that surprised everybody.
There are no examples of beneficial genetic mutations. All observed genetic mutations are harmful. Genetic variations for adaptation to environments (incidental camo for insects, maybe) that result in natural selection for the promotion of a given type do so within species, are expressed via success in the population and are not mutations. This always results in a net loss of genetic information NEVER a gain. So all those extraordinarily complex creatures adapted to very specific life zones (say, Galapogos pick a bird)actually possess less genetic info than their ancestors.
It is a law of thermodynamics (or derivative thereof) that basically states that order descends into disorder, not the other way around (matter as a rule cannot increase in complexity without outside active influence, it must deteriorate over time)
These are not my arguements, these are the “challenges” evolutionary scientists will gladly admit they face and are confident they will find solutions for. No doubt they have many hypotheses dealing with these issues now, and this is what evolutionary scientists argue amongst themselves about. They will always come up with new theories to plug the gaps in their circular reasoning process. They all concur that they simply cannot afford to accept any suggestion that there is something outside the ‘random-spontaneous’ premise that the whole mess hinges on. That would be blasphemous.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Creation through Divine Intervention or Intelligent Design just seems unscientific to me. It would mean that at some random time in the past, God intervened to defy the physical laws and force the birth of life to happen. He then periodically intervened, again defying physical laws and/or statistical probabilities to create every specie. So basically, the Creator sporadically tweaks his creation to guide it towards some unknown goal… right?
[/quote]
That actually isn’t what is believed at all. The belief is that God is right here. He is every tree, every blade of grass, and every molecule within you. Due to our reality, his presence is balanced with an equal presence of darkness. It places us in the ultimate situation of having to choose…with that being the entire point of our existance…the fact that we have choice. It places us on a different level than any other being he created before (and the bible does indicate that we were not the first by the simple presence of angels to start with…other life forms are simply not mentioned).
In short, the physical laws exist because God created this reality that way. It doesn’t erase the possibility of other universes (held to different laws), other dimensions, or any other spacial concept that we have held as a possibility.
In this thread, this has been called “myth”, “fantasy” and everything short of crazy. The truth is, the same concepts are held in science, they simply leave the presence of God out of it. It is easy to discuss alternate realties or the possibility of worm holes or dual universes. The whole show Sliders was based on that concept and science geeks watched that show religiously. For some reason it must make people feel “less than superior” to believe there is a greater power than man. I personally don’t fear that reality or run from it.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
dcb wrote:
Scientists Complete Genetic Map of the Chimpanzee
Differences From Human DNA Pinpointed
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 1, 2005; Page A03
“The fresh unraveling of chimpanzee DNA allows an unprecedented gene-to-gene comparison with the human genome, mapped in 2001, and makes plain the evolutionary processes through which chimps and humans arose from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago.”
“On a practical level, researchers said, the work is likely to explain why chimps are resistant to several human diseases such as AIDS, hepatitis, malaria and Alzheimer’s disease – information that could lead to new ways to prevent or treat many human ills.”
For the entire article:
I believe that evolution is a fact as much as I believe the sun is going to come up tomorrow. Science has proved evolution occurs beyond any doubt in my mind.
However, I don’t see any conflict with the thought that a god started it all. For those who want to believe that God had a hand in creating life on earth, fine! I may be with you on that. But to say that ID has as much scientific merit as evolution is ridiculous. The theory of evolution has tremendous amounts of evidence to back it up. ID has absolutely no evidence at all. None. Zero. Nada.
Okay you said it, it must be true. Check ICR.org, --come on surely you know of the credible scientists and research in this area, or I guess then you can admit that you havn’t bothered to check pros and cons of both theories. Nothing personal, but there is evidence and though one’s worldview generally affects the interpretation of the evidence, there IS evidence, on both sides of this argument. And see my post at the end of this thread to consider some holes in evol. theory.
I’m also not one of those who’s upset about peoples belief in creationism or ID, which are really the same thing. I think it’s great that people have faith. It’s been shown in scientific studies that people who have faith in a religion are generally happier and healthier than those who don’t have faith.
I’m not upset about anyone elses belief because I don’t have an ounce of personal feeling invested in my opinion that evolution is a fact. Evolution is simply far and away the best available explanation as to how life has developed on this earth. If another theory scientifically proves itself to be a better choice in the future, I’ll change my mind with no hesitation or regret.
This little tidbit is the real reason I chose to reply to this particular post. I truly believe we are approaching a time in which the theory of evolution will suffer a complete and very thorough dismissal from vigorous scientific thought. I say this not because of what the ID or creationists are saying, but rather because of the “challenges” to the theory evolutionists themselves will acknowledge. “If another theory scientifically proves itself to be a better choice in the future, I’ll change my mind with no hesitation or regret.” Hold onto your hat buddy! As a person of faith, I think an alternative is fast approaching that you will eagerly embrace as a world citizen in the not too distant future. The miserable failure of evolution as a scientific explanation of origins will ‘grease the skids’ for those among us desperately searching for answers to those vital questions, and they will as you have put it, not hesitate to embrace it. Don’t worry, it won’t be Christ.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Because there are similarities between two species, this means that there was direct evolution between them?
[/quote]
No, that means they share a common ancestor.
[quote]Junior wrote:
I didn’t wade through the whole thread, but skimmed and didn’t see the usual expose of holes in current evolutionary theory. Before you diehard keepers of the faith get too defensive-- understand that these arguements are most poignantly posited by the evolutionists themselves.
Much evolutionary theory would have to be exempt from what mathmaticians recognize as possible within the laws of probability.
Macroevolution (one species giving rise to another as opposed to variations within species like dogs which is microev.) has not been observed in any record fossil or otherwise. As incredible as the fossil record is, the missing link is still just that. Many evolutionists point to the fossil record taken as a whole as evidence of what must be actual species genesis, but have not produced those actual examples. Extraordinary diversity, and apparent archetypes of species, yes.
The chimp genome map story is misleading; if a structure is similar, the fundamental design of the basic core of the organism will not vary much up to the point that the species/structure is different (eg., testosterone, maybe?). If we share the same tear fluid composition with chickens, does this imply relationshsip, or same structure for same or similar purpose? Remember we are genetically similar to plants to a degree that surprised everybody.
There are no examples of beneficial genetic mutations. All observed genetic mutations are harmful. Genetic variations for adaptation to environments (incidental camo for insects, maybe) that result in natural selection for the promotion of a given type do so within species, are expressed via success in the population and are not mutations. This always results in a net loss of genetic information NEVER a gain. So all those extraordinarily complex creatures adapted to very specific life zones (say, Galapogos pick a bird)actually possess less genetic info than their ancestors.
It is a law of thermodynamics (or derivative thereof) that basically states that order descends into disorder, not the other way around (matter as a rule cannot increase in complexity without outside active influence, it must deteriorate over time)
These are not my arguements, these are the “challenges” evolutionary scientists will gladly admit they face and are confident they will find solutions for. No doubt they have many hypotheses dealing with these issues now, and this is what evolutionary scientists argue amongst themselves about. They will always come up with new theories to plug the gaps in their circular reasoning process. They all concur that they simply cannot afford to accept any suggestion that there is something outside the ‘random-spontaneous’ premise that the whole mess hinges on. That would be blasphemous.
[/quote]
Those are very good points. The chimpanzee example you used is exatcly what i thought of this morning. Just because we see similarities does not proove common ancestry, it’s a leap of faith at best imo.
[quote]orion wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Because there are similarities between two species, this means that there was direct evolution between them?
No, that means they share a common ancestor.
[/quote]
What? We share some similarities between pigs. Why exclude them? Please prove that similarities in DNA mean evolution from a common ancestor between two different species. I think you will need about 2,000 missing links and unfounded reasons for why we don’t need them.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
orion wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Because there are similarities between two species, this means that there was direct evolution between them?
No, that means they share a common ancestor.
What? We share some similarities between pigs. Why exclude them? Please prove that similarities in DNA mean evolution from a common ancestor between two different species. I think you will need about 2,000 missing links and unfounded reasons for why we don’t need them.[/quote]
Excellent point, we do share a common ancestor with pigs. All mammals do. If you go back far enough all living things do.
----“circle of live” playing in the background—
Dawkins, 2004, “The Ancestor?s Tale”
And there is that “prove” thing again. Science is not in the “prove” business. It never was.
I just don?t get why science gets such a bad reputation for that. It is the only way of thinking that basically states right from the start: Hey, we don?t know, we might be completely wrong, please feel free to take a swing on any idea that you think is wrong.
It is not my fault that that approach leads to a “believe system” that is slightly more advanced than those that preceded it, because constant battle leads to the evolution of superfit ideas.
[quote]orion wrote:
Professor X wrote:
orion wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Because there are similarities between two species, this means that there was direct evolution between them?
No, that means they share a common ancestor.
What? We share some similarities between pigs. Why exclude them? Please prove that similarities in DNA mean evolution from a common ancestor between two different species. I think you will need about 2,000 missing links and unfounded reasons for why we don’t need them.
Excellent point, we do share a common ancestor with pigs. All mammals do. If you go back far enough all living things do.
----“circle of live” playing in the background—
Dawkins, 2004, “The Ancestor?s Tale”
And there is that “prove” thing again. Science is not in the “prove” business. It never was.
I just don?t get why science gets such a bad reputation for that. It is the only way of thinking that basically states right from the start: Hey, we don?t know, we might be completely wrong, please feel free to take a swing on any idea that you think is wrong.
It is not my fault that that approach leads to a “believe system” that is slightly more advanced than those that preceded it, because constant battle leads to the evolution of superfit ideas.[/quote]
You didn’t answer the question. You can’t claim that genetic similarities indicate a common evolutionary ancestor as if it is scientific fact. It isn’t. Neither should it be taught in schools as fact. Science is in the very business of discovery and explanation, often involving “proving” theories, not simply making them up and throwing them around. What the hell do you think all of that scientific method is for? Those tests aren’t just for the hell of it. Thank you for showing it as what it is…nothing more than scientific theory that you truly wish were more than that.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
orion wrote:
Professor X wrote:
orion wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Because there are similarities between two species, this means that there was direct evolution between them?
No, that means they share a common ancestor.
What? We share some similarities between pigs. Why exclude them? Please prove that similarities in DNA mean evolution from a common ancestor between two different species. I think you will need about 2,000 missing links and unfounded reasons for why we don’t need them.
Excellent point, we do share a common ancestor with pigs. All mammals do. If you go back far enough all living things do.
----“circle of live” playing in the background—
Dawkins, 2004, “The Ancestor?s Tale”
And there is that “prove” thing again. Science is not in the “prove” business. It never was.
I just don?t get why science gets such a bad reputation for that. It is the only way of thinking that basically states right from the start: Hey, we don?t know, we might be completely wrong, please feel free to take a swing on any idea that you think is wrong.
It is not my fault that that approach leads to a “believe system” that is slightly more advanced than those that preceded it, because constant battle leads to the evolution of superfit ideas.
You didn’t answer the question. You can’t claim that genetic similarities indicate a common evolutionary ancestor as if it is scientific fact. It isn’t. Neither should it be taught in schools as fact. Science is in the very business of discovery and explanation, often involving “proving” theories, not simply making them up and throwing them around. What the hell do you think all of that scientific method is for? Those tests aren’t just for the hell of it. Thank you for showing it as what it is…nothing more than scientific theory that you truly wish were more than that.[/quote]
I never claimed it to be anything else and I do not truly wish anything.
I think I mentioned that the consequences of ET are much more far reaching than most people realize. All on a theoretical level, yes, but it is a powerful tool nevertheless.
Now imagine a theory that is even more powerful in explaining things. That would be mindblowing! I don?t need to cling to ideas, because the next set of ideas will be even better!
Science rules!
[quote]Junior wrote:
Okay you said it, it must be true. Check ICR.org, --come on surely you know of the credible scientists and research in this area, or I guess then you can admit that you havn’t bothered to check pros and cons of both theories. Nothing personal, but there is evidence and though one’s worldview generally affects the interpretation of the evidence, there IS evidence, on both sides of this argument. And see my post at the end of this thread to consider some holes in evol. theory.
This little tidbit is the real reason I chose to reply to this particular post. I truly believe we are approaching a time in which the theory of evolution will suffer a complete and very thorough dismissal from vigorous scientific thought. I say this not because of what the ID or creationists are saying, but rather because of the “challenges” to the theory evolutionists themselves will acknowledge. “If another theory scientifically proves itself to be a better choice in the future, I’ll change my mind with no hesitation or regret.” Hold onto your hat buddy! As a person of faith, I think an alternative is fast approaching that you will eagerly embrace as a world citizen in the not too distant future. The miserable failure of evolution as a scientific explanation of origins will ‘grease the skids’ for those among us desperately searching for answers to those vital questions, and they will as you have put it, not hesitate to embrace it. Don’t worry, it won’t be Christ.
[/quote]
In response to your first paragraph, I don’t respond to threads without first doing my own research. In this case I have recently done a large amount of reading on the subject before this thread was ever started. Before I responded though, I re-read some of the pros and cons of both sides of the argument.
Since you and I haven’t exchanged thoughts before, I’ll forgive you for assuming that I had not exposed myself to alternatives to my own opinions. In the future you can assume that I have because that’s always the case with me. I spent some time on the website you provided. It was interesting, but nothing that I haven’t seen before, and did nothing to alter my thoughts. There’s still no evidence for ID.
In regard to the second paragraph, you may be right! And if that day comes I’ll be glad to learn what the new prevailing theory has to say on the subject. As I stated, I’m not emotionally or spiritually attached to my views about evolution. If someting else proves to be a better explanation, I’ll change my views, move on with my life and be happy that I’m better informed.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
That actually isn’t what is believed at all. The belief is that God is right here. He is every tree, every blade of grass, and every molecule within you. Due to our reality, his presence is balanced with an equal presence of darkness. It places us in the ultimate situation of having to choose…with that being the entire point of our existance…the fact that we have choice. It places us on a different level than any other being he created before (and the bible does indicate that we were not the first by the simple presence of angels to start with…other life forms are simply not mentioned).
In short, the physical laws exist because God created this reality that way. It doesn’t erase the possibility of other universes (held to different laws), other dimensions, or any other spacial concept that we have held as a possibility.
In this thread, this has been called “myth”, “fantasy” and everything short of crazy.[/quote]
You said “The belief is that…” And that’s exactly what all that is. Belief. Faith. There’s no way to test any of those things you assert; except for the part where we have choice.
Those concepts do exist in science, but mostly as mathematical models or mental “toys” used to explore ideas. There is no experimental support for multiverses; worm holes (as tunnels thru spacetime) are on a pretty tenuous footing. Some scientist still dispute the existence of black holes, even as evidence for those keeps mounting.
I don’t really see how a TV show lends much credence to your point; except to point out that science-fiction on TV pretty much sucks.
As for running from “reality” or “fearing it”, what you mean is that you embrace the belief dearly. Claiming it’s reality doesn’t make it so.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
You didn’t answer the question. You can’t claim that genetic similarities indicate a common evolutionary ancestor as if it is scientific fact. It isn’t. Neither should it be taught in schools as fact. [/quote]
I’m sorry, ProX, did you just say that we shouldn’t teach Evolutionary Theory in schools? Or just that when we do, we shouldn’t tell the students that it’s real?
PS Genetic similarity DOES prove common ancestry. And by “prove” I mean “show an enormous amount of evidence to support”:
http://www.nmsr.org/round1a.htm
http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~bio336/Bio336/Lectures/Lecture5/Overheads.html
Please pay particular attention to the idea of vestigial organs, such as non-functioning eyes for cave fish who do not need them, ProX. You do know what an appendix is, don’t you? I had mine taken out when I was 14. Vestigial.
Unless I inherited the genetic code for forming an appendix structure from a different species which evolved the need for one, and then our species “un-evolved” the need for it, how do you explain my useless appendix? I suppose we could say that our creator God played a joke on us all… that prankster God – He’s so silly!
I suppose we could also say that the duck-billed platypus is proof that God smokes weed, too?
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
You didn’t answer the question. You can’t claim that genetic similarities indicate a common evolutionary ancestor as if it is scientific fact. It isn’t. Neither should it be taught in schools as fact.
I’m sorry, ProX, did you just say that we shouldn’t teach Evolutionary Theory in schools? Or just that when we do, we shouldn’t tell the students that it’s real?[/quote]
I meant exactly what I wrote. I didn’t use any difficult words and wrote it clearly. What do the words say?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I meant exactly what I wrote. I didn’t use any difficult words and wrote it clearly. What do the words say?
[/quote]
Okay. I will now do my “You’re Wrong” dance. Just thought I’d give you a chance to retract, that’s all.
Just curious: How can someone of your educational stature not understand the concept of heritance? That’s really basic stuff, man. There is no other way for us to carry a common genetic code with other species other than to introduce the concept of heritance between species.
We know how genes are passed down from organism to organism. It is not by magic. I got my genes from my parents. Now going back to the appendix idea, if I cut open a cow, and I see that it has an appendix just like mine, I can very easily say that we had a common ancestor at some point, because there is no other way for the cow and I to have the same genetic code for the same organ. How did the cow get the genes for the appendix? From its parents. The same way I got my genetic code for my appendix. At some point, there was one common ancestor who had acquired the code for that organ by mutation, and who passed it down to both the cow and I by different evolutionary paths.
But waitaminute, I correct myself, there is one other way for the cow and I to have the same genetic code, and that’s by splicing or some other mechanism which involves sharing genes among differing species without the mechanism of heritance. So aliens would have had to fabricate us in a laboratory and set all of us species free at their leisure. Now I share common genetic code with the cow because the aliens made me that way.
Sorry, my bad. I will stop dancing now. I guess this really is up in the air, isn’t it? I mean, until we somehow rule out the invisible alien fabrication theory, we’ll never know for sure, will we? Me and my smart mouth… always getting me into trouble.