Well of course then there's the old side-stepper of: "When they speak of the earth being created in 6 days, each of those Biblical days equaled a billion years(or so).
But thats silly too. Gets back to my point about how, if people arbitrarily decide when to read the Bible literally and when to say its a metaphor, then it loses all meaning entirely. "Yeah, they didn't really mean 6 days. And when Jesus said don't fornicate, he didn't really mean that. He mean't don't fornicate with over 1,000,000,000 people...because 1=1,000,000,000 in that case just like 1=1,000,000,000 in Genesis."
Have Religionists redefined Science to get rid of Science?
Rabbits fornicate.
I saw them.
Don't you think that God fornicates too?
I saw a Godlet the other day.
She spoke of integral calculus, while she stroked her summation.
But there you have it. To each their own. A formula divided cannot be equivalent.
gospelmancan2 wrote:I don't believe in evolution and here's why. I have read much on evolutionary theory and see no concrete evidence. This was my belief before I became a Christian (which happened later in my life) and has continued because all I have ever seen to back evolution is faulty conclusion built on faulty conclusion.
Perhaps you are simply wrong, and the vast majority of scientists who study this on a daily basis are better able to evaluate the truth than you are.
Like you, I have read much on evolution, and I do understand it, and because I understand it as well as I do, I know it is a fact. Luckily for me, my viewpoint happens to agree with that vast majority of scientists, otherwise I might suspect that I was wrong.
AUTHORITY!
We must appeal to AUTHORITY!
Because we cannot think for ourselve(s), such as that we are unto our lowly and un-thinking, migratory and mercenary, selves, appealing to all manner of intellectual crutches that may sustain us.
That's about the size of it, CodeBorg. I think "intellectual crutch" is too generous.
I know that borg is being snotty but. The subject of evolution is not hard to understand, and neither is the evidence. So many people reading it, a number of whom reject it. WHY? I believe its as CI said, they cant handle the evidence as its shown. It bursts too many bubbles.
Many religions have adopted evolution into their working creeds and have moved on.
Only a small batch of fundamentalists who, while denying most of the science that underpins other science, will continue making up really outrageous claims simply because those claims parallel genesis. Thats weird logic, no matter how ya slice it. Evolution has always started with the data, and has been modified to fit the level of data available at any one particular time.
farmerman
I like reading your posts, specially about evolution, because it is obvious you know what you are talking.
But this time I think you are being unfair. I have some doubts about evolution, and I am not a religious person. God has no place in my view of the world. About Genesis I see it as one of the many myths about creation, no better or worst that those of the Greeks, Hindus, Aztecs or even the Finland's Luonotar.
But, regarding evolution, as I said I have several doubts. Not in the case of man, as product of evolution from a distant primate, but in the case of man and all the living species of the present as the product of first unicellular beings.
I also have doubts about the concept of evolution in itself. We talk about evolution because we are seing the all process from the present. "Evolution" means a teleological process, almost metaphysical, not very far from Hegel and Marx conceptions of History in the XIX century. And that is what I don't like about the concept of evolution.
And there the problem of time: changes in a specie result from blind individual mutations. Those who show adequacy to the defy of external conditions, allow the individual of that specie to reproduce more than the others and it's genetic heritage creates more adapted individuals.
That is easy to understand and accept.
The problem is when we think of that since the first unicellular beings. Is there enough time to make possible changes so extreme as those who lead to the present species?
That's the easiest part, Val--unicellular organisms encompass thousands of generations in a year.
as set said, unicellular individuals, reproducing at an very fast rate, makes any variation almost a sure thing. Just like the lottery. Your chances are small but, as the pot grows, more people buy tickets and then somebody wins.Some unicellular species go through hundreds of generations in a few days, thats why its not so difficult to see bacteria mutate and adapt to new environments.
Once the RNA and DNA worlds were up and running, the thing t
hat most people miss is that if a trait is imprinted in the DNA and this confers some advantage, that trait remains active from specie to specie. Thus the issue of time is irrelevant. We can see from DNA cross plotting that about every 20 or so generations, mutations accumulate, (some good some neutral). Also, so much diversity i contained within a genome that mutation isnt the only means by which new species can arise. A lungfishes genome is about 5 times bigger than ours, so are many plants. Thats why we say that the genome records change it isnt necessarily the root cause f that change. And once the slight advantage is conferred upon a single individual, this individual translates that into a population by reproductive success.
man has a whole lot of shared genomic traits that go back to more primitive mammals, like mice. A side by side comparison will smack you in the head not for the differences , but the similarities of the genomes. Entire exons are the same, with differences piling up in the stop codon or intron regions. If we compare our genomes with those of a chimp, we find that we are closer to chimps than chimps are to gorillas. Theretention of a succeesful genomic section all the way from small to more "complx" animals is astounding and everyone who doubts evolution should make the effort to observe this and then try to conceive of the few ways thatthis fact can be explained.
NOW, the big issue, as to the oriins of unicellular life. That is an entirely different question. Were not sure, and science readily admits that the origins of life are contained in many competing hypotheses.Evolution has always been silent on origins of life, not because of reluctance, because theres work going on all over re self replicating molecules and "primordial soups and muds" or meteoric "smackdowns" etc. Its mostly the non-scientists who , by commenting that since evolution cannot provide a comfortable theory for lifes beginnings, it must all be wrong. Not the case. Evo is so busy keeping tracks of the pattern of the rise in diversity all over the planet and comparing that with the geological record and genetic record that , although most workers have a "pet" hypothesis, there are only a few special conferences on the subject of origins of life.
Remember DArwin, in the "Origin..." kept his mouth fairly shut about 2 things
1 the origins of life
2 the "descent" of man (That took a whole nother book, when Darwin finally got his courage up enough to write it)
VAL, when you said I was being unfair, I assume you were speaking about my view of religionists who dont accept evolution because they are afraid of what they may find. FirstI didnt start that , CI did, I just agreed with him. Secondly, Those religions that have the grave doubts and problems accepting over 150 years of acxcumulated evidence are those that are of a simple minority. These are the religions who, by doctrinal dicta, cant accept most things that counterstand their personal religious tradition (not Biblical tradition). Their traditions force them into a fundamentalist doctrinal corner wherein they are forced to accept the Bible as a science book. Its their tradition that does so, not the Bible itself. Thats an important diistinction because we see, that, most Christian religions begin as a difference in some revelation that separates one breakout sect from the mainstream .AS far as fundamentalism, the concept that deals with evolution is primarily an early 20th century phenomena.Consequently, I have little patience for many of these fundamental views because they were conceived and put into practice by people often less bright than you or I.
farmerman
Thank you for your patience and for your bright reply. In some ways you have cleared some of my doubts.
farmerman wrote:We can see from DNA cross plotting that about every 20 or so generations, mutations accumulate, (some good some neutral). Also, so much diversity i contained within a genome that mutation isnt the only means by which new species can arise. A lungfishes genome is about 5 times bigger than ours, so are many plants. Thats why we say that the genome records change it isnt necessarily the root cause f that change. And once the slight advantage is conferred upon a single individual, this individual translates that into a population by reproductive success.
Very nice post covering several key points FM.
Thanks,
FAr mer man
What can you tell me about the Clustered water found in the DNA and how it relates to hydration. and mutation , or cellular surface neg. receptor sites caused by electromagnetic exposure? I feel we have advanced well beyond Darwins work. He would however have made handy use of the supercollider of today. With all of the similarities found in the genome on earth between species, He never fully addressed how we became so intelligent.
There are some things no man will ever discover. These things are simply missing from the physical realm he exists in. However we have at least discovered the mathematic probabilities of these realms outside of our tangible existence.
The truth is , however out there. Somewhere.
puglia, What makes you think we became so intelligent? It's my belief and understanding that man uses only a small fraction of our potential.
Yes- In a way your question is very pertinent because some of the evidence seems to point at how man has actually fallen from knowledge and I would say by the looks of things wisdom as well.
Everything I know about clustered water , I saw in a "mailer" a couple of months ago. I tossed it because it claimed that such water has a structural "memory". Thats a bit nonsensical to me.
As far as hydration, a reaction called "Hydrolysis" goes on all the time .
In it , water is exchanged or partially added or split off and a structural change can ensue.
The one thing that makes Darwin one of the great minds of the millenium. He deduced his theory by looking only at the results of "island adaptation " and breeding . He had no idea of genetics. He knew nothing, esxcept that he felt there was a mechanism inherent in the species that conferred change by adaptation to environmental change and time.
Yes weve advanced beyond Darwin, but , like any theory thats sound, we havent replaced it.
have Athiests Redifined Science to get rid of God?
I believe that should be the other way around.
And now, the Christian Right that has taken over our government has gone too far. I thought it was bad enough when they started publishing "tracts" about the Grand Canyon." But, they couldn't stop there...
Quote:Smithsonian to Screen a Movie That Makes a Case Against Evolution
By JOHN SCHWARTZ
Published: May 28, 2005
Fossils at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History have been used to prove the theory of evolution. Next month the museum will play host to a film intended to undercut evolution.
Skip to next paragraph
Forum: Human Origins
The Discovery Institute, a group in Seattle that supports an alternative theory, "intelligent design," is announcing on its Web site that it and the director of the museum "are happy to announce the national premiere and private evening reception" on June 23 for the movie, "The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe."
The film is a documentary based on a 2004 book by Guillermo Gonzalez, an assistant professor of astronomy at Iowa State University, and Jay W. Richards, a vice president of the Discovery Institute, that makes the case for the hand of a creator in the design of Earth and the universe.
News of the Discovery Institute's announcement appeared on a blog maintained by Denyse O'Leary, a proponent of the intelligent design theory, who called it "a stunning development." But a museum spokesman, Randall Kremer, said the event should not be taken as support for the views expressed in the film. "It is incorrect for anyone to infer that we are somehow endorsing the video or the content of the video," he said.
The museum, he said, offers its Baird Auditorium to many organizations and corporations in return for contributions - in the case of the Discovery Institute, $16,000.
When the language of the Discovery Institute's Web site was read to him, with its suggestion of support, Mr. Kremer said, "We'll have to look into that."
He added, "We're happy to receive this contribution from the Discovery Institute to further our scientific research."
The president of the Discovery Institute, Bruce Chapman, said his organization approached the museum through its public relations company and the museum staff asked to see the film. "They said that they liked it very much - and not only would they have the event at the museum, but they said they would co-sponsor it," he recalled. "That was their suggestion. Of course we're delighted."
Mr. Kremer said he heard about the event only on Thursday. He added that staff members viewed the film before approving the event to make sure that it complied with the museum's policy, which states that "events of a religious or partisan political nature" are not permitted, along with personal events such as weddings, or fund-raisers, raffles and cash bars. It also states that "all events at the National Museum of Natural History are co-sponsored by the museum."
Evolution has become a major battleground in the culture wars, with bitter debates in legislatures and school boards, national parks and museums. Although Charles Darwin's theory is widely viewed as having been proved by fossil records and modern biological phenomena, it is challenged by those who say that it is flawed and that alternatives need to be taught.
When asked whether the announcement on the Discovery Institute's Web site meant to imply that the museum supports the film and the event, Mr. Chapman replied:
"We are not implying in any sense that they endorsed the content, but they are co-sponsoring it, and we are delighted. We're not claiming anything more than that. They certainly didn't say, 'We're really warming up to intelligent design, and therefore we're going to sponsor this.' "
Despite the denials of support, how does the History Museum think those viewing the film AT THE HISTORY MUSEUM will interpret it's content and location of showing?
And, for a lousy $16,000!
Theres been a fine line of "what science is" ever since Bush took office. There were 2 avowed Creationist appointees at the Smithsonian and, even tough theyve since moved on, the shenanigans of "presumed support" is hard to deny.
A few of the Speakers at Fallwells "Creation 2005" are some of these guys and they will , of course, tout the fact that they were briefly in the light with some real scientists , even though they were political appointees of Mullah GW Bush.
At least we don't have to argue about our govt. problems here, I will tell you that one of the first things I said when he was elected was that he was going to try to make this country into a religious state, and I cant allow that to happen to My America. I just hope he they haven't gotten control of the black box voting machines or he will steal America away from her beloved. We could argue DARWIN all day but it will never change the fact that he did not know that most people on this planet are related to one woman.
Recent DNA evidence points to the fact that when man crossed the Bering Straits when frozen, only about 70 different strains make up all of the indigenous population of the western hem.
If you are a fish in a fishtank and you saw your caretaker feeding you, would it reveal to you the origin of your creation, no would the fish have knowledge of his captivity, if he were born in that tank, no. Because the fish has limited intelligence due to its physically limited evironment, as do we in this fish tank we call planet earth. That is why the bible, and some major scholars have said that " no findings are leading us down the road to unconcievable discoveries. Remember Darwins theory is only a theory, and to teach out students only one theroem would be christianlike mentality, think about it. Do we not want all possible avenues searched, don't we want our children to be exposed to this, and either go out in the world and prove or disprove these presentationsn and make thier mind up for themselves, instaed of following blindly down the road that so many have been down already.
Quote:Remember Darwins theory is only a theory, and to teach out students only one theroem wouldbe christianlike
"and Claude Monet was only an eye, but what an eye"...
Do you understand what a scientific theory is?, and if you do, propose an alternative "Theory"just as rigorously evidenced. Cant come up with one can we?
