Slashdot Mirror
Human Genome Confirms Evolution
xpccx writes "Here is a very interesting article at MSNBC by Arthur Caplan, Ph.D., director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. He states that "The genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt, that Darwin was right - mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive animal ancestors. Our genes show that scientific creationism cannot be true." This is arguable but should spark quite a debate." Even Kansas agrees.
Do kids still read copies of Huckleberry Finn in school that don't have "Nigger Jim" edited out of them? (The term is NOT racist as used in the book nor in the context of the era in which it was written.) Just like the acronym NAACP was chosen by blacks themselves. But what does the "C" in that acronym stand for? And what would happen to someone who used that word to refer to blacks today? Why is there a demand to get rid of the rebel flag from the Georgia state flag but not for the NAACP to change it's name? Hypocrites everywhere!
This is probably one of the worst articles that Slashdot has ever had the misfortune of linking to.
As other people have mentioned:
1. The author misinterprets the basic tenets of Darwin's theory of evolution
2. The author implies that this is some sort of groundbreaking event, when we have already seen numerous instances of evolution at work.
3. The author attempts to say that this revelation somehow disproves scientific creationism, when such an achievement is impossible. "God willed it that way," the religious nuts will say.
To me, what's most galling about this article is the following passage:
"There is, as the scientists who cracked the genome all agreed, no other possible explanation."
So let me get this straight...because the scientists on the project (who are presumably all biased in favor of evolution) can't think of another explanation, then the Darwinian interpretation must be correct? You must be joking.
That's like saying: "Well, we can't think of any other reason for crop circles, so it must be extra-terrestrial intelligence at work."
Repeat after me, MSNBC: lack of contrary evidence does NOT constitute *proof*
If you have difficulty grasping this concept, check out "The Demon-Haunted World" by Carl Sagan.
Dating is typically based on the halflife of carbon isotopes. That works, and you can't dispute this. What makes a dating questionable is a) whether or not the original material contained the amount of carbon that you think it did, and b) if that carbon contained the percentages of each carbon isotope that you think it did.
It is easy to find one or two examples of rocks that have abnormally low levels of radioactive carbon isotopes, but your doing so doesn't challenge the validity of the dating process. Unless you can offer me a credible reason why I should believe that the strata around a fossil contains less radioactive carbon than normal, you are not going to convince me that the fossil is younger than the dating technique indicates.
Will I admit that the dating *could* be wrong? Of course!!! Anyone knows that it is possible for abnormal isotope levels to exist. There's no reason to expect this abnormal level, though, so the proper thing to do is to base your calculations on the guess that the carbon distribution resembled our current one. I would not bet on it being different unless you can explain *why* it was different. Especially not on it being consistantly low enough over the entire earth so that it can invalidate the entire dating effort so far.
As a fellow Christian, I am curious about one point -- suppose that, at some point, the evidence of the truth of Darwinian evolution becomes overwhelming to you because of new discoveries, etc.
How would this affect your faith? Would it be able to work around this (perhaps even embrace it as furthering your understanding of divine will and divine action) or would you then feel forced to turn away from your faith?
...until somebody can recreate it in an labratory. Please! I don't care what side you're on, you cannot undeniably prove that either side is correct until we can observe it happening. I'd say we have a while at least until this happens. Mean while, believe what ever you want too... as long as you don't start pushing down someone's throat as a truth. end rant
The division is not Catholic vs. Christian, it is Catholic vs. Protestant. Your decision to mis-cast this dichotomy as Catholic vs. Christian is ironic, given that Christ founded the (Catholic) Church which the Protestants abandoned 1500 years later, convienently forgetting that it was the Catholic Church that had codified the entire religion, compiled all the various parts and letters of the Bible, and kept the faith alive. To add insult to injury, Martin Luther even went in and cut several books and parts of books from the Bible, claiming that they were unneccessary or "Catholic additions", when in fact he was simply removing all references to those things with which he did not agree, such as the intercession of saints. (The current Protestant argument is that he removed those parts of the Old Testament that the modern Jews did not use in the Torah; this misses the point, since the Jews of the New Testament age, such as Jesus, did.) Luther attempted to have the book of Revelations removed as well, but even then it was wildly popular with the apocalypse-freaks and so he was shot down.
So you have the Catholic Church, which espouses a position that Christianity and Evolution are not contradictory, and then you have ultra-conservative Protestants who claim that the Bible is completely true and inviolable, yet the Bible which they are using is incomplete due to revisions made to it by the movement's founder!
d., a NC resident for 22 years
The idea that people are too dumb to understand the universe around them is incorrect, it simply takes time to adapt to a new world view in light of new knowledge. For what it is worth, fundamentalist christian ideologies that dictate taking the bible at face value does not help.
You really ought to read this and this before you say things like that. There are six documented mammalian speciations within the past 500 years
Bullshit. No scientist infers point #3 that way. #3 would just be "Fundamentalist Christians are wrong."
The "God doesn't exist" inference comes from a completely different process.
Maimonaides, a great philosopher of the middle ages have argued that the 7 days of creation should be taken literaly. I guess even religious men now know that he must have been wrong. Given solid evidence, they prefer classifying the bible as a book of morals, given in allegories. The allegory the bible and other religious texts use are an extremely shaky support to some "scientific foreknowledge" by the creator. Why would not any one of those books even once put a Lorentz transformation on paper, just to convince us, skeptics. No, it sticks to allegory in 100% of the cases. Sometimes it even goes wrong. If you inteview somebody for a C++ job, and every technical question you ask is answered by allegory, you may start wondering whether the guy has ever seen a .cpp file.
My 5 cents.
Newtonian physics seemed at one point like it would never be disproven, but the Laws of Thermodynamics don't apply as universally as we once thought they did.
What we can say at the moment is that, given the currently available evidence, genetic evolution of man from less intelligent primates appears to be the most credible theory concerning how we got here.
Some people may choose, as an article of faith, to reject this theory in favor of traditional religious accounts.
I don't, but I say that if somebody wishes to reject the best available scientific methodology, and instead believe that the world is made of Odin's tears, that's fine with me.
My personal belief is that we are probably wrong about more that 90% of what we think we know, so if somebody disagrees with me, whether for religious or "logical" reasons, all that it means is that they are probably wrong in a different way than I am.
To borrow from religious dogma, all of the wisdom of man is ultimately useless and futile. In the end, there abides only faith, hope, and love, and the greatest of these is love.
Why would the 2nd law mean God cannot exist? Is that because eventually God would have to duck to avoid being hit by matter? Look, I can do a computer simulation of an explosion and use a grid to track the exploding objects. If I program wisely, the only limit to the grid would be the system itself and the kind of numbers it can hold. What we regard at matter expanding outward is possibly just objects with properties, and some math. The objects might have collision detection routines so that things appear tactile. Our infinite universe may take up all the space of a microchip.
And if that sounds absurd, then perhaps at least consider that what we consider "infinite space" may be no bigger than God's shoebox. If things expand a whole lot, maybe he upgrades us to his fish tank after a few thousand more millienia. And what is a day to God may be millions of years to us. We think we're expanding fast, we think we're huge and taking up vast amounts of space, but relative to God, this may be a one week science experiment in a culture dish.
And that he created us in his own image (thats what the bible says)
Fortunately, this does not contradict the principle of evolution. We know, from common sense and genetic study, that humans evolved from bacteria. We know from the authors of the bible, that God created Adam in his image. Therefore, we can conclude that Adam was a bacteria and God's image like a bacteria. Michaelangelo's painting is all wrong -- the chapel's ceiling should have shown a wise, fatherly looking bacteria and a young naive bacteria, dramatically reaching toward one another with their cilia.
Of course, we may later learn more about where the bacteria came from, and learn that God's true image is something more primative, a proto-bacteria, or a clump of amino acids that happen to have a replicating feature. But of course, these were created from some non-replicating amino-acids before being hit by a cosmic ray, and those acids came from simpler chemicals.
In the end, creationism and reductionist science will harmoniously agree that God is a quark or something, and that the original subatomic particles (nay, the very first particle to have existed) was created in God's Image. We have the Good Book's incontrovertibly undeniable authority, combined with scientific reason, to thank for giving us this terribly important and useful insight.
It makes me feel special to know, that somewhere in the grand universe, a benevolent all-knowing quark, with a great creative scheme that we humans can only speculate about, and omnipotent irresistable power, is listening to my prayers.
Hold the phone here :)
:) )
;)
While some of your criticisms are indeed valid, there are some misconceptions that I want to clear up while I have the time.
1. Too many people do not make the distinction between "evolution" and the concept of "biological evolution by selection pressure". People who seek to disprove the second idea tend to abstract it to the first idea and then attack it on the grounds of the necessary ambiguity that exists around the ideas of the initial formation of the universe. If you want to attack evolution, please don't attack the Big Bang and then conclude that biological evolution is garbage.
2. Another misconception concerns the idea of the intermediate form. Probably the biggest fallacy concerning this idea is the conception of the "missing link"; that is to say, if humans came from chimpanzees, then we sould be able to find an organism that looks half homo sapien, half chimpanzee. This will simply not happen. Biological evolution is not a linear enterprise. Let me explain what I mean.
Your conception of evolution is like this:
chimp --> INTERMEDIARY --> homo sapien
However, this is not the case. Instead, think of it as like a family tree.
INTERMEDIARY --> chimp
|
|-> homo sapiens
(sorry for the poor tree
The point is that chimps and humans shared a common ANCESTOR. There is no species that's directly between the chimp and the human. Missing links don't exist, only common ancestors.
3. I don't believe the distinction between macroevolution and microevolution is justified. This point is harder to explain, but I will try my best.
If I read you correctly, macroevolution produces new species and microevolution produces variations between species.
** I had a nice looking, visually descriptive continuum here, but the lameness filter got it **
Say that the above continuums represent relative genetic diversity. The area in brackets represent the genetic range where one individual can successfully produce offspring with another individual. Therefore, in your view, microevolution can produce the variation within species A, but macroevolution makes no sense, because it is illogical to posit that incrememtal changes in species A can produce a species B that can't reproduce with members of the species of its parents.
(told ya the explanation would be ugly, didn't I?)
Now, look at it like this:
** the lameness filter is lame **
Now, here is what is interesting. The above continuum represents what current theory would predict. Now, recognize that "microevolution" within species A could produce individuals with the characteristics of species B, and so on. However, go down to the bottom. The continuua of species A and species E have no overlap. THEREFORE, A and E COULD NOT INTERBREED. According to current definitions of species within binomial nomenclature, A and E are different species. Congratulations, you not have "macroevolution", which came to be as a direct consequence of successive cycles of "microevolution". Problem solved.
I do have more to say to you; it seems that you have a skeptical, scientific mind, yet you have not know enough information to be able to make a completely rational evaluation of the theories and ideas in question at this time. If you would like to further discuss these issues with me, I would be happy to engage you in further conversation. You may contact me at inquis@SPAMIZBAD.hushmail.com.
As always, I invite discussion.
-inq, posting anonymously because it's his right
That said, many of these lab reports used single or multiple "observations" to prove the thing being tested. That is, the assumption was made by the student that the appearance of the phenomenon was proof of the truth of the hypothesis. It was amazing how many people came in believing this nonesense.
Scientific experimentation never ever proves anything. It can disprove only (the proof side involves checking on all possible permutations of things, and that is not possible in times long compared to the age of the universe). Hence, what one needs to investigate are the predictions of a theory. This was the other thing that students got wrong. A theory is a hypothesis, an idea, that makes predictions. If the theory does not make testable predictions, it is not a scientific theory. If you cannot objectively test an idea's predictions, how can you possibly assess the validity of the idea?
"Scientific Creationism" makes no predictions. It is an attempt to codify a system of beliefs into a particular language. As such, it is not a scientific theory. If it made testable predictions (say structural predictions on the form of proteins in similar organisms) then it would be testable and therefore falsafiable.
And that is the difference. Evolution, or rather, evolution-like theories, which make specific predictions are testable and falsafiable. If you find sufficient evidence that can convince a skeptical group of unbiased investigators that there is a disparity between the prediction and the observation, then you may rightly claim that the theory (or one area/mechanism) is false. The flip side of this is that if you find no such evidence, then your results are consistent with the theories predictions. One of the other more important aspects is that even if one particular mechanism in the theory is found not to be correct, it may not invalidate the entire theory, rather just that mechanism. From this, people build on existing theories with new theories that can explain the observations, and make more predictions. So even if Darwin's orginal mechanisms are not quite right, the latest proposed ones fit the data even better than before, and make testable predictions that are being looked at as we speak.
Compare this to a biblical dogma derived "theory" which makes no testable predictions, provides no method of falsification, and generally does not allow room for disagreement. "Scientific Creationism" is not science (as it fails the testable hypothesis portion of the requirement for a theory). It is dogma. In a new set of clothes. Do not be fooled.
All our genes are belong to Darwin.
That "even Kansas agrees" bit seems almost tantamount to Bill Gates saying, in 2004 or so "That Linux 2.6 kernel, it's grrreat!"
Alex Bischoff
---
Alex Bischoff
HTML/CSS coder for hire
The old saying that there is nothing more dangerous than a little bit of knowledge is proven over and over again in these debates.
Telomeres (for those of you who don't want to do a quick bit of research) are basically the "endcaps" for DNA strands. Each time a cell divides, the telomeres get shortened slightly, and once they are gone the dna unravels and the cell dies. If Adam and Eve didn't have telmeres (As was allueded to in the previous post) they would have died at birth (or creation).
As for the "conservation of energy" approach to biology I see used a lot in these debates; whose argument usually goes something like: Nothing can exceed it's creator, therefore each "iteration" of humanity is one step worse than the previous iteration, and God is the only one that we could have descended from. To this I can only say: what proof do you have? I've got all sorts of evidence of people exceeding their parents and ancestors (Einstein's Mother was NOT an elite particle physicist). It also tries to apply a theory from a different field of science that doesn't even make sense from a short term biological point of view (short term being only ~1 trillion years or so), and rarely (if ever) explains in what way we are worse than our ancestors.
Down that path lies madness. On the other hand, the road to hell is paved with melting snowballs.
I read the internet for the articles.
Speciation has been observed. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html gives several instances. Of course, what you're calling for is not speciation, but something else which will not happen on human timescales, so you may as well go away unsatisfied.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
You may be interested to know that the book Principia Mathematica by Russel and Whithead, a book which defined our system of mathematics from bare logic, took 211 pages before it got to the point where it could construct '1+1=2'.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
A creationist could simply say that God chose to create us with DNA containing similar components from other living things.
A philosopher might argue, however, that if God thought these through, then they happened in the mind of God, and thus did in fact happen.
Or God may have just wanted to give us these hints into his creation process, for reasons we don't and may never know.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Nothing can ever be disproven, things can only be proven. You cannot *prove* that you are not some program running in someone else's computer, you can only prove that you are here right now reading this.
This does bring some basis to Darwin's theory, as it now seems to fit better, but it certainly doesn't even prove that, let alone disprove Scientific Creationism.
The genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt, that Darwin was right -- mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive animal ancestors.
That is an opinion. An early one, and one to spark debate. I cannot believe a serious journalist reported that.
Our genes show that scientific creationism cannot be true.
Not only can something like that not be proven, as aforementioned, this statment is inflammatory.
Hey, if someone posted the *story* as a *comment* to this Slashdot story, it'd probably get modded as Flaimbait!
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
Have you read my journal today?
There is NO WAY this news will change the minds of hardcore creationists. All it will do is make them look even sillier in the eyes of those who know better.
Many creationists believe the entire fossil record was deposited by Noah's flood. If you ask them why there are different species at different layers, they will reply with the theory of "hyrdrological sorting". (What's that? See link below)
As soon as I read the article I knew what the reply would be, at least from some of them: a) God was economical and once he came up with genes that worked he used them over and over in other creatures, and b) there's no proof that the genes changed slowly over time instead of being created in one fell swoop. Never mind why that's absurd; when you question creationist "theories" they develop baroque rationalizations and ask idiot things like "how do we really know anything for sure except God's word?" AAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!
If you want to know what so-called scientific creationists think and why they're wrong, there's no better resource than The TalkOrigins Archive.
Groucho
No, religion doesn't ask anything, it simply tells and expects blind unwavering faith from the masses. There is no questioning the faith.
Python
Python
I've always wanted to confront one of those phony preachers that show up on college campuses and accuse him of blasphemy whenhe goes into his creationist tirade?
:)
Seriously: he, the creature, is attempting to limit the power of the Creator by placing limits on how He can Create. Just plain blasphemous . . .
but so far, my better judgment has stopped me
What you describe sounds very much like "flood science", a very entertaining field to study. Is "scientific creationism" just another name for "flood science".
The only form of creationism I know involves an omnipotent creator. Such a creater can obviously do anything (that's omnipotent for you), including faking evidence of evolution. However, any theory requiring an omnipotent creator is unscientific, as it can never be disproved. One requirement for a scientific theory is that is falsifable, i.e. it is possible to design an experiment with a possible outcome that would disprove the theory.
Which makes me wonder, what is this "scientific creationism" thing? Creationism without an creator? Or just another abuse o fthe word scientific?
Note that "scientific" does not mean "true". A theory can be scientific and false, or unscientific and true.
The odds that these identical sequences evolved in different organisms completely independently of one another are infinitesimally small. Either they were placed there by design, or one evolved from the other.
Fascinating. That's precisely the two assertions that are being argued. Creationists claim design. Evolutionists claim ancestry and mutation.
when you multiply six by nine?
--
God, being able to create the universe, must be even more complex than it, so his existence is even more incredible than its existance.
--
Quantum theory claims that things pop in and out of existance constantly, everywhere around us. So the universe itself might very well have popped up just like that, as a consequence of the laws of quantum mechanics.
Now, where those laws come from, that's a really good question. Maybe they themselves are God? That's Spinoza's (and Einstein's) view, basically. In that view, scientists are the ultimate theologicians because they study God.
--
"Evolution: A natural force for creating 'higher' beings from 'lower' beings. "
Well, I don't know what Darwin himself thought, but I (and I consider myself a Neo-Darwinian) don't see it that way at all. Evolution fills ecological niches -- there's no concept of "higher" and "lower". Lichen is as much a result of Darwinian evolution, and a success, as mankind is.
However, I don't think mapping the genome did anything to "vindicate" Darwin -- his ideas have been vindicated for a long time, to anyone willing to stop taking things on faith, and look at the evidence.
--
The evidence in the michocondria (sp?) indicates that the current human population can be traced back to between 1-3 female ancestors, which doesn't openly contradict anything in the Bible.
Second, the Bible (as currently exists) was always intended to be a HOWTO-Live guide and not a detailed history. On that basis, as the original poster noted, science and Christianity are orthogonal to each other and therefore one cannot falsify or contradict the other.
Thirdly, the "absolute" literal interpretation of the Bible does seem to be a relatively recent thing. The early Celtic Church, for example, based most of it's teachings around pre-existing fairy stories that were adapted as needed.
(Jesus, himself, is portrayed in the Bible as a guy who was more interested in story imagery than in teaching a History 101.)
IMHO, the Church's changing attitude is not so much hypocritical ('cos that's where they started from). But, rather, during their literalist, absolutist phase, they were guilty of "heresy" and "blasphemy". (Which is kind-of ironic!)
Last, but not least, the "truth" of the Bible depends on how you choose to define "truth". If you mean "the events recorded are 100% accurate", then probably no historic record on Earth is "true".
If, on the other hand, you mean "the events recorded are symbolic of the state of the culture at that time, and it's spiritual integrity", then you're talking a whole different language.
There again, if you mean "the events recorded are the remnants of verbal history that got written down after several major disasters, and where the writing itself was subject to a whole series of disasters, leaving For any Church to proclaim that they're right and anyone else is wrong is: (a) in violation of their own teachings, (b) stupid (given how little is left), and (c) ignorant (given that spiritual and physical matters really have very little to do with each other).
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
There is no point in trying to convince the "non-believers". The issue has been settled for so many years that the only people who even think of it as an issue are the ones who have religious objections. Religious objections are, by definition, not in the domain of science, and no scientist need waste their time answering them.
-Mars
First of all....if there is a god, it would be sexless, so in all theory, you know nothing of what would constitute a supreme being...
It makes sense that a God would be sexless, since there's only one (no reproduction). It doesn't follow that such a God would be genderless.
and as far as "scientific" perhaps, you would have to think outside the box to put "science" and "god" in the same sentence.
True. Same with "Science" and "Person" in the same sentence, and for the same reason. Ditto "history" and "science".
why would a supreme being be the pinnacle of creation? Of Life?...is it not a common theme in stories that the created eventually become as powerful or evolve to the same level as their creator?
A supreme being could by definition NOT be the pinnacle of creation -- if it were the pinnacle of creation, then something must have created it, and it therefore could not be supreme. A supreme being is outside of creation.
A God, in addition, to being outside of creation, is uncreated and infinite. Finite cannot possibly grow to become infinite.
Furthermore, a supreme being would have no reason to create different living things at once...no, instead they would create the environment that would be conducive to the creation of living things...
Quaint speculation, but hardly interesting.
which brings us, are humans going to eventually "play god"? in a way we already do, but we will, and rightfully so, be able to create life from nothing...because being able to do so is in a way the created having the same powers as the creator...the pinnacle of evolution..
To create life from nothing you have to first create a universe. At that point you would be a supreme being -- even a god. But not a God, unless you find a way to become infinite with respect to that universe. If so, you do become God for that universe. But not for the one you started in... That would require revolution, not evolution.
-Billy (random philosophy)
Hmm. From what Ive heard, creationism is fundamentally rooted in the concepts of a recent creation or at least a seperate creation. In otherwords, either humans were created, (along with the rest of the world) 7000 years ago, or humans were created seperately from the other animals-- which may or may not have "evolved" from "lower" organisms. But then again, I don't subscribe to a creationist viewpoint.
There have been many attemts to compare whole genomes-- and, in fact, you are likely to see such articles grace many a scientific journal. I'm not sure when a chimpanzee genome will be released-- the logistics of such a study are rather daunting. But rest assured, such a genome will eventually be published.
Creationist: We have the Bible, so creationism must be true!
Article: We have the genome, so evolution must be true!
See any difference? I sure don't. Articles like this with no scientific proof whatsoever are nothing but an embarrassment to those who believe in evolution. This guy shows a marked bitterness towards creationists for being "unscientific," and yet he's fallen into exactly the same trap.
As for which I believe in, I do in fact believe in evolution. But honestly, when someone claims to be a scientist, they should be scientific about things, not like this.
----------
This is a very well-written and interesting editorial... but it's not a scientific article.
Dr. Caplan does an excellent job of pontificating his viewpoint - that Darwin was right and "all those who thump their bible and say there is no proof" are wrong; he very clearly and concisely tells us that the proof of evolution is in our genes, and that every scientist worth his/her salt agrees that there is no other explanation other than Darwinian evolution.
However, not once does he lay out the proof of which he speaks. Whether Dr. Caplan's viewpoint is correct or not, this article is nothing more than an emotionally persuasive argument with no scientific credibility whatsoever. It's well and good to say that there is undeniable evidence of Darwinian evolution in the human genome - that's what most people have been hoping for, searching for; but if such a sweeping statement is going to be made, especially to the rather scientifically ignorant masses that MSNBC and other mainstream media outlets serve, then it must be backed up by the actual evidence in question, lest we fall into the trap of believing a Big Lie that simply gets repeated enough times.
Science is detailed observation of the natural world, and this article offers no such observations, only emotionalism. I would greatly enjoy reading a scientific paper on this subject.
... but a theory. Admittedly it's a theory with a lot of supporting evidence, but it's still a theory.
Science doesn't generally produce facts, but theories, which stand until they are falsified. There's no claim to "truth", just an attempt at ever closer approximation.
no taxation without representation!
I've always enjoyed the line from Frank Zappa's "Dumb All Over" off of the "You Are What You Is" album (c. 1983)
Whether or not you believe in the quote, there is an interesting catch of logic here that at least makes you think a second. Zappa has also been quoted for the line "95% of the world is dumb". Maybe you think he is dumb. That's your right as a person (void in countries where free speech and thought are not permitted).--
Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
Science just has the annoying habit of being based on observation. Religions could probably make more headway if they followed suit and reflected the observable world, instead of asking us to ignore what we see and take someone's word for it from a few thousand years ago.
Regarding evolution not falsifiable: I'm an armchair scientist, as opposed to a real scientist who knows what the fuck he's talking about, but it'd seem to me that to make something falsifiable, you have to come up with a list of things someone can look for, that if found, make the hypothesis (evolution) false.
Two problems I see right away with this. First, we're always learning more about evolution - so what looks like a showstopping discovery today (punctuated equilibrium) may be part of the theory tomorrow. Which to anyone seeking to falsify evolution, probably looks like "those darn sneaky evolutionists will just explain away anything that looks like it might sink their boat."
The other problem is that I suspect it IS kinda hard to write falsification statements for something so deeply rooted in observation. What can you do? You'd end up saying stuff like, if evolution isn't true, then we wouldn't expect to find animals appearing to be related in a treelike structure to each other. We DO find animals appearing to be related in such a way that they can be drawn on a family tree. Therefore the falsification statement sounds... flippant, like circular reasoning. But how else do you approach it? The 'proof' of evolution is in the observation - that's what started the theory after all. So to falsify evolution ENTIRELY you'd have to falsify the observation - you'd have to say animals that look similar, really aren't, you'd have to say the fossil record does not reflect age, etc.
But imagine for a moment that they caught an animal that looks exactly like the fish-crab hybrid from Phantom Menace. Such a thing WOULD falsify evolution - assuming it wasn't a) mimicry, it only LOOKS half crustacean, b) a hoax, or c) a genetic experiment by humans, this creature would represent the undoing of the 'family tree' concept by combining the fully formed features of two ORDERS of animal in a way that could only be explained by throwing out the rules of genetics as we know them. I use this fictitious animal because our current knowledge says that crabs and fish are not closely related and with literal mountains of proof to back this up - scientists would be unable to make this creature work as a "common ancestor", unlike such missing links as Archaeopteryx. Were such an animal found, it would cast serious doubts on the mechanism of evolution - it would be about as close as you can get to falsification.
~ radiographite: art by john shepard
Macroevolution (development of more complex organisms from simpler ones): sorry, not proven. First, there are no 'intermediate' forms found. Every single one is complete and functional. Darwinism states that evolution is a gradual process, taking millions of years. Hence, almost 100% of fossils should be intermediate forms, with clear links. The links are missing.
Why can't an intermediate form be complete and functional? I thought one of the tenets of evolutionary biology was that EVERY intermediate form had to be complete and functional - it has to function as an animal just well enough to reproduce and make another one just like itself.
Indeed I think a case can be made that ALL lifeforms are 'transitional' - those that have hit the plateau simply haven't had any pressure put on them that might make mutational changes come in handy, yet. Look at something like the coelacanth, with what look like primitive transitional legs - to the coelacanth they aren't transitional, it makes excellent use of them so they're "complete". What happens is that that coelacanth's grandson might have longer 'fins' that give it some sort of edge - so its children have an easier time finding food than the ones with shorter fins, who must either move away (and find a niche) or die off. Which is exactly what happened: some of them got better and moved away, others found a spot in Madagascar where they could survive without needing to evolve much.
We call lifeforms 'transitional' only because of our perspective - we've already seen things that evolved from them.
~ radiographite: art by john shepard
OK, I'm just a hobbyist and my brain is on order from Neptune while I battle a nasty cold, but here's my shot at them. Someone else could probably do better.
:-)
Where has macro evolution ever been observed? What's the mechanism for getting new complexity such as new vital organs? How, for example, could a caterpillar evolve into a butterfly?
Some guesses regarding vital organs:
- Simpler animals don't need nearly as many moving parts as humans have. Hearts, etc. aren't needed in a tiny seagoing animal that can absorb nutrients directly into every cell without needing a bloodstream.
- Organs wouldn't just spring fully formed into existence - they would evolve from simpler structures, or from each other.
- The heart is just a muscle. Imagine a tiny heartless animal - but one with musculature (someone help me out and name an example, I'm sure there are examples in the deep ocean - a jellyfish maybe?) - due to a genetic accident a muscle ends up wrapped around a tube where oxygenated blood travels from one end of the animal to the other. Voila - a heart.
- The brain is even simpler - a bunch of nerve cells accumulated at one end of the body, and it would simply get more complex over time.
- Lungs: cells that transcribe O2 and CO2 all end up in the same place, and over generations get optimized into a more efficient shape. Also see above about muscles.
- 'Filter' organs like kidneys: again, cells in the right place. A cell that can produce an enzyme to do something useful might well be useful if not connected to the right places - but once it mutates to be connected, it'll stay there through successive generations.
- Eyes - a single light-sensitive cell. Another cell appears next to it and you have resolution. A blob of gelatin forms on top of it and you have a lens. LIVING examples of just about all stages of this lineage are known.
Simple organs become more complex ones. The trick is getting the simple organ started.
Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there if your theory is right? Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions. Why don't we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both?
Everything that dies doesn't automatically fossilize. There WILL be gaps - huge ones - because only some tiny fraction of all SPECIES that have ever lived would be represented by individuals that happened to die in a spot conducive to fossilization.
Who are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects? The evolutionary tree that's in the textbook: where's its trunk and where are its branches?
Insects don't fossilize all that well. See above.
What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself? What about the 4000 books of coded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells? If astronomers received an intelligent radio signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacteria also imply an intelligent source?
Most of that DNA sequence is junk - which implies a random source, or an intelligent source that leaves scrap materials in the finished product.
How could organs as complicated as the eye or the ear or the brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes? How could a bacterial motor evolve?
From simple to complex. For an eye all you need is one light-sensing cell - anything that happens to mutate near it later will probably help it. Same with the ear - probably started with the same touch-sensitive cells that currently allow deaf people to feel low frequencies.
The brain of a tiny bird? Made of the same stuff as the brain of an earthworm. Only its size is different - and the complexity therein is a consequence of its size. Study how the brain works and this will make more sense than my ramblings.
If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Why do at least 6 moons revolve backwards?
Um... I wasn't aware the allele frequency of planetary populations changed over time, or that any reputable scientist ever said they did. Planets don't evolve.
The planets and moons that spin and revolve backwards were probably struck by large objects - stray moons, asteroids, or some such.
Why do we have comets if the solar system is billions of years old?
Because the processes that make a solar system didn't stop billions of years ago?
Where did all the helium go?
Since I don't know what this refers to, I'll guess: into the sun?
How did sexual reproduction evolve?
I don't know.
If the big bang occurred, where did all the information around us and in us come from? Has an explosion ever produced order? Or as Sir Isaac Newton said, "Who wound up the clock?"
Tunguska, 1908, made a random forest into a nice neat radial array of logs. Or is that not the kind of order you're looking for?
Creation science has yet to explain where God came from, so I suppose if we can't accept any theory that hasn't been explained ALL the way back, then no belief system will ever be valid. At any rate, evolutionary biology doesn't deal with the Big Bang - you want Quantum Physics 101, next door.
Why do so many of the earth's ancient cultures have flood legends?
Because floods are a natural occurrence? And this is a silly question anyway - wouldn't all the earth's ancient cultures be descendants of Noah and his family, and thus have a nearly complete version of the Biblical flood in their legends instead of just 'there was a great flood the year that so-and-so was king'?
Why don't the Chinese, with an 8000 year recorded history, mention having done time on the Ark?
Where did matter come from? What about space, time, energy, and even the laws of physics?
Dunno. You want Quantum Physics 101, next door.
How did the first living cell begin? That's a greater miracle than for a bacteria to evolve to a man. How did that first cell reproduce?
Maybe life isn't the miracle you think it is. What's a virus, after all, but the halfway point between living and dead. Not that bacteria would have evolved from virii (at least not as we know them today, since a virus can't reproduce on its own), but the concept is still there - a primitive thing made of DNA and RNA and simple proteins, that in the presence of enough of the compounds it's made out of, makes two of itself through a chemical process.
Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen?
Life doesn't depend on an oxygen-rich atmosphere. Before life appeared - and probably for a long time after - the atmosphere would probably have been something like ammonia.
Why aren't meteorites found in supposedly old rocks?
They'd have been destroyed or reshapen by the forces that laid down the old rocks, perhaps?
If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn't it take vastly more intelligence to create a human? Do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough?
It doesn't take intelligence to make a snowflake, a much more complex device than an arrowhead.
Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA--which can only be produced by DNA?
Ain't nothing magical about those proteins.
Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got there--any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data? Why aren't students told the scientific reasons for rejecting all the evolutionary theories for the moon's origin?
I see we're back to analyzing the genetic properties of planetary bodies again. I dunno - the moon could be left over from the formation of the solar system, like most moons, or it could be accumulated from debris from a massive impact into Earth early in its existence. It could be a captured moon from elsewhere in the solar system. The processes that made the planets of the solar system - namely, GRAVITY - also made littler planets too, planets that by being just far enough out from the sun, would have found themselves pulled into orbit around planets.
That the moon orbits with one side always facing Earth sorta hints that it wasn't captured, but formed in place from debris already orbiting Earth. Something like an early impact on Earth throwing up a huge amount of debris into orbit, maybe looking something like Saturn's rings but even larger - and over time, this spinning ring would have accumulated into a solid body.
Why won't qualified evolutionists enter into a written, scientific debate ?
It's been tried. Why won't qualified creationists participate in such a debate without eventually resorting to "God works in mysterious ways" when cornered?
Left out the bit about all of Earth's geologic features being explainable by the Flood, because their 77 pages of well-written refutations can be sent running home with one silly heretical question: Where did all the water GO?
Ordinarily I wouldn't waste the bandwidth, since my karma's already at 50, but what the heck.
~ radiographite: art by john shepard
...against scientific creationism does not mean that scientific creationism is, in fact, right.
Note that Caplan (who has said much more interesting things than this: see, for instance, his interview on cloning on the Charlie Rose Show) may not be actually saying as much as some people are assuming he's saying. He specifically states that the Human Genome Project results disprove "scientific creationism," not creationism. Since "scientific creationsim" refers to a specific movement, it is entirely possible they have made statements and predictions which are contradicted by this new evidence. He goes on, however, to imply that the new evidence proves something more broad about creationism in general, which is clearly false.
I believe that the best arguments against scientific creationism are not scientific arguments, but moral and religious arguments. I will offer two below: one theological and one practical.
My theological argument is based on the fact that I believe in a God of truth. If God created the world 4,000 years ago or so, then he created it as if it had existed for billions of years and as if life evolved slowly over time. Thus he is a God of deceit. Since it is more important to me that God be truth than that He created the universe a few thousand years ago, I choose to believe that those who believe the Bible says the universe was created (relatively) recently are wrong. Note that, even if I chose to believe that God was deliberately deceiving me, I would still have to decide whether I should accept that deception as what He wants me to believe.
When I go to the Bible to see what it says, I find that the statements there are vague and contradictory. It is not at all clear that the 7-day creation story is to be taken literally. There are other places where creation appears to take place over a long period of time.
I also note that my belief that God is truth is not unambigously supported in the Bible. While there are several places where "God is truth" is clearly indicated, Jeremiah just as clearly says that he saw God lie to other prophets in order to trick Ahab into an ill-starred battle. The belief on which I found this theological argument is a belief and nothing more. But I think it is preferable to the alternative.
We have seen other times when religious communities believed just as strongly as the creationists that the Bible said things which in the end proved to be untrue. An obvious example was the geocentrism on which many scientists were persecuted during the Copernican revolution and beyond. Today we do not believe that the Bible says the earth is the center of the universe, and it clearly is not. I suspect someday we will see virtually universal agreement that the Bible does not say anything one way or the other about evolution or about Darwinism. And I suspect we will find the current debate as quaint and silly as we now view the torture and excommunication of those who suggested the sun was at the center of our solar system.
This historical perspective leads me to my second argument against scientific creationism: the practical argument.
As a practical matter, it seems like the goal of Christians should be to generally encourage belief in God and to avoid things which discourage belief. I believe this is the central tenet of evangelism, that we should emulate the life of Christ, the Evangelist.
Observing history, it is clear to me that the Copernican revolution did some damage to belief in Western Europe not because Copernicus sought to sow disbelief but because the assumption of the church was that he would. By tying belief to a doctrine which was not in fact clearly indicated by scripture, the church ensured that (when the evidence came in supporting the heliocentric model) the community of Christianity was damaged far beyond what it would have been had it not taken such a dogmatic stand.
It seems to me that, as a practical matter, we Christians have a moral obligation to avoid taking a stand on evolution which will be as damaging to our community as was anti-Copernican dogma.
And it should be made clear this is, in fact, what most Christians believe. The vocal minority of scientific creationists may get the most press. But surveys show that many, if not most, people who believe in God (again a majority) also believe in evolution. Remember that Darwin was trained as a minister and never believed he was attacking the Bible or belief in God.
Indeed, the head of the public effort to decode the human genome, Francis Collins, is very open about his Christianity and his belief that genomics do not in any way threaten God. Here is a quote from him:
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
The "theory of evolution" has more proof than the "theory of quantum physics" does. That machine you just used to type in this nonsense on was designed to work assumming the "theory of quantum physics" was true. I can't believe you paid money for it, considering how unlikely in your mind it was that it would work!
However if creationists are religious, they should know that they are violating god's will! It is pretty obvious that god wants us to believe in evolutions.
Think about it: the earth was created with a vast mass of evidence that evolution happened. If everything God does is for a purpose, what is the purpose of this? Obviously God wants us to believe in evolution. Who knows what the punishment is for failing Him and questioning the very things he created? The creationists better watch it, they may be going to hell...
What moon landing? 2001: A Space Odyssey?
I'm glad we can finally know for sure that Aristotle's earth-centered model was wrong.
Jamie McCarthy
Jamie McCarthy
jamie.mccarthy.vg
Err, no. All science is based on the idea that all scientific theories must be able to be tested, that nothing is provable, only disprovable, and that if a theory is disproved, then it must be modified or abandoned. I'm really paraphrasing here, but that's the gist of it.
There are a lot of people here making fun of Christians and generally agreeing with an article that basically said nothing at all other than "we are right, Bible thumping hayseeds are wrong!". Have any of you actually read the scientific proof that the article talks about? Do you even understand what the article is trying to say? I didn't, because it never gave any scientific information.. only that Darwin is somehow vidicated.
It's sad how as Christians we are laughed at for believing in a omnipotent creator who designed and created this world for us, but scientists who subscribe to theories such as the "Big Bang" are not, even though they are physically impossible if you apply even rudementary physics to their theories. There is nothing wrong with a theory, but why do so many people believe them as factual evidence without a resonable amount of proof? Are we taught in public school to be so blind and un-inquisitive that we don't even challenge supposedly factual information based on a theory?
Both creationism and the evolution can not be proved 100%, but I can give you more concrete and physically possible examples to help prove creationism than a scientist could for evolution. That is why I believe it. Not because I know 100%, but because the proof that is avaiable points towards creationism and away from evolution.
To start off... scientists use circular reasoning (that is a bad thing) to figure out the age of old rocks, animals and plant matter. They use the rocks to determine the age of the plants and animals and use the plants and animals to determine the age of the rocks. No joke here.. the ages they place on things are only estimates.. as they rightly should be given the way they do it.
It's sad that this type of stuff is believed as true science.
We are a nation that was born out of Christian beliefs and the wish to worship our creator without anyone incarcerating or worse killing us.
No...
The book of "Job" specifically. I don't have a Bible with me, but I would be glad to get you a reference.
I'm not so stupid or arrogant to think that God isn't concerned with other things. The Bible doesn't not say specifically, but I would imagine that there are other planets that God has created with people (or the equivalent) on them. I don't know for sure, but I do know that He is capable and is not wasteful.
Rudementary physics is the basis for more complicated physics. Yes, those rudementary laws are broken (or appear to me in our limited knowledge) when you talk about quantum physics, but the laws always apply.
Anyone who has studied carbon dating knows that it's always an estimate and that the estimate is usually modified to fit better with the carbon dating number of other things in the location the object was found.
For example, if they dated a rock to 140mil years, but the plant matter only dated to 100mil years, they would adjust them both so that they are closer. The idea is that since they were both found in a location that is assumed to be old and they both are found together, the carbon dating must be a little off, so it needs to be adjusted since it would make no sense for them to be so far apart. You see how this is circular reasoning.
I'm not making this up. Study carbon dating, the process and how they come up with the numbers.. it's quite astonishing how much is guessed.
When we achieved sentience (and how that happened is wide open to debate), we took control of our own evolution, so to speak.
Confronted with climactic change, other species would migrate to new climes, evolve to cope with the change, or crawl into a corner and die. Not us. We invented the plow, agriculture, and the calendar. That way we knew how to plant, what to plant, and when to do it. And in doing so, we survived and prospered. Rather than evolving our physiology through multiple generations of breeding, we evolved our skill set.
The reason we progressed so quickly is that sentience and intellect are vastly more flexible than selective breeding. Changing your physiology takes hundreds of generations. Changing your mind takes but a moment.
Now that we have completed the Genome Project, it will be interesting to see if we seize ultimate control over our evolution, and risk tweaking our genetic code. Some would say such manipulation is "unnatural." But since we are ourselves creatures of nature, it could be argued that such manipulation is perfectly natural. The creature is evolving by directing selection at itself; the result is that it will either naturally delete itself, or that it will survive and prosper.
The biggest risk from such exploration is our chronic lack of forward-thinking. ("I need water; I'll build a dam here. Oh dear, this standing pool of water I've created is breeding mosquitos and infecting everyone with malaria.") As such, since it is our own lot we wish to improve by such tinkering, I would Modestly Propose that all genetic experimentation take place on live human subjects. This would tend to strongly encourage experimenters to think things through to the necessary degree before undertaking anything.
This also tends to suggest that, at least initially, the safest forms of human genetic tinkering are those which are purely cosmetic in nature (prettier eyes, straighter teeth, etc.). While this may seem trite, which do you think would be the wiser creation on this tiny resource-starved planet: People with rainbow-colored irises, or a normally-breeding uber-human living to 160 years and immune to nearly all disease?
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
We used to think the earth was flat -- We know it's round, now ...
We used to think the universe revolved around us -- We know the world revolves around the sun, which revolves around the center of the galaxy, etc
So... When you really think about it, No we were not Created.
This is a non-sequitor of extreme magnitude.
How does anything you said have anything to do with your conclusion? All you said was "we used to think something, but oops, we were wrong." What exactly does that prove? That stuff we think now might turn up to be wrong? No kidding.
How, pray tell, does the roundness of the earth have anything to do with whether it, or us, were Created?
I'm not going to bother with a long disclaimer about what I particularly believe, but it isn't strict 6000-year creationism. Not that you did anything to make me that way.
By the way, the word you are looking for is "bigot". And remember, it's not only someone else who is the bigot when they don't listen to you. It's a two way street, and it annoys the piss out of me when someone with the current "in" belief system calls anyone who disagrees with them a bigot.
The enemies of Democracy are
Yeah, and this annoys me somewhat. You will never be able to get these people to see your point of view.
They have faith in God, and thats all they need. The fact that the rest of us thinks its silly at best, and ludicrous at worst seems inconsequential to them.
Please distinguish between the "Bible-thumping zealots" and people who actually practice the tenets of Christianity while at the same time taking a reasonable viewpoint. By "reasonable" I do not mean "scientifically mainstream", however. The fact that living things change over time is quite plainly true. The fact that all DNA is constructed from the same basic building blocks is also true. The revelation that a fraction of the former estimates for human DNA are actually relevant is interesting, but ultimately it doesn't prove anything along the lines of "we are descended from bacteria". The fact that we may have genetic sequences in common with bacteria is not in itself proof; we're also composed in part from minerals like iron, and I see nobody suggesting that human beings evolved from rock. Shared components do not in and of themselves prove ancestry.
Nothing worth doing is worth doing today.
Beside the fact that the author seems to have almost no clue what he is talking about, this article is rather uninteresting. As somebody else pointed out, the evolution theory quoted in the article is not the one Darwin proposed. Also, the author seems to think we evolved from a combination of dinosaurs, jellyfish, and monkeys - something I seriously doubt. But the real kicker is his absolutist tone - I usually take that as a sign that a writer doesn't actually have proof, but wants to make up for that fact by making his thoughts sound like they have no proof against them. Rather bad science if you ask me...
Posted from the wireless couch.
Is that we still have alot of things to find out.
This is like Grape Nuts: no grapes, no nuts, just "Grape Nuts."
Christianity is a mighty fine death religion.
Which is ironic, because I'm pretty sure that there are several things that are undoubtedly true about Christ's goals during his later years:
- to reform the Jewish religion (not abolish it, and not to create a new religion).
- to get people to be nice to each other (not to punish each other with threats of damnation).
- to get people to worship god (not to worship his own self).
Instead, what happened is that his reforms were hijacked by Paul, who founded a new religion based on the worship of the dead man, and got really self-righteous about being mean to people.
I'm pretty sure "Christianity" is the antithesis of what Christ wanted.
Feel free to counterargue this, but please don't resort to flaming me on a personal level. That ain't nice, and it certainly ain't Christian. (If you're not Christian, and you do flame me, please explain why!)
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Nah, I don't believe that the essay is correct.
I'm pretty sure the Jesus story is constructed of wholecloth. I figure there was a fellow running around about 2000 years ago who tried to implement reform in the Jewish church, and was killed for it.
And I figure the story has been embellished to the point of myth. Which is where the essay you refer to does quite well: it points out a bunch of myths that were used to embellish the Christ story.
And in the end, I'm believe that Christianity is not at all what the original reformist agitator had intended to accomplish.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Jesus and his disciples were walking down the path when all of the sudden a BIG BRONTOSAURUS with a splinter and his paw. The disciples ran screaming 'what a big fucking lizard' but jesus was unafraid. He removed the splinter and they remained friend. From the man himself
Where?
Umm..can't you read? Like he said, the Old Testament. Explains animals, day/night, humans, all that stuff Dare I say it - holier than thou? Like he said, the Old Testament. yeah that's specific. Well, I'm sure you can forgive me, christian, for not reading the book of faq. I don't understand why some people find it so hard to believe that there actually could be a greater being. And that the being could have set things in motion, and also allowed for evolution to take place. Who said anything about doubt in a greater being? That hasn't been refuted here at all - just the old testemant version of what went down.
If DNA is god's signature, then all we need is his credit card number. And behold, let there be sixteen-way xeon systems! And the users did rejoice, and did feast upon the CPU cycles.
One who believes that there can be no proof of the existence of God but does not deny the possibility that God exists.
-- www.websters.com
"Here's 50 bucks, take this in case I get drunk and call you a bitch later." - Ricky (Vince Vaughn)Made (2001)
Yea, dont we all copy and paste from other projects, and then add tweaks to make it how we want the new one? Who's to say God didnt do the same thing?
> (can you actually prove something
> which you can't observe and recreate? and even > then is it proved?)
Um, evolution has been observed and recreated. There are now strep bactera floating around hospitals in the US that are resistant to all forms of anti-biotics used in the wild. This evolution of strep bacteria has happened in our lifetime.
We are ale to observe this small piece of evolution (and in a sense recreate it) because the bactera is in a hostile enviroment (one with lots of anti-biotics) and its life span is so short in compairson to ours. Of course you personally are not going to see evolution in mammles and other higher multi-celled life because it takes heaps of generations for evolution to work and you don't live long enough to see that many enerations of mammles.
--InfinityEdge
- By saying that religion tends to evolve and fit the scientific facts of the day, I have to point out that so does science.
That's what science is for, you idiot.How could an allegory be true? What's undeniable about it?
I'm ashamed to even share a border with some of these troglodytes. It's just YARSS (Yet Another Reason Slashdot Sucks)
1) Your position is dangerously close to Solipcism.
2) Are you really arguing that everything out there is fluid? Can I really make a scientific case that the planets float around on the backs of angels, if I am flexible enough with my definition of "angels"? You're taking just a little bit of knowlege, mixing it with some whacked out philosophy, and claiming that science is a faith because of it!
3) Science is not axiomatic. Mathematics, which you are confusing with a science, is axiomatic.
4) If you insist that something like physics are based on an assumption, then where is it? Reliance on your senses is not an assumption. There is evidence that I really can receive information from the world from my 5 senses. If you think the 5 senses are all imaginary, I wonder about the quality of your education.
5) The preceeding message was not meant as a flame!
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Open minded does NOT meant that you have to allow any foolish idea in without examination.
Open minded means that with evidence, you will change your mind.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Your missing the point entirely.
Faith is belief *without* any evidence at all. This is nearly the same meaning as the word "irrational".
Science demands evidence before stating something. Unless you're using a different dictionary than the rest of humanity, accepting something *with* evidence cannot by any stretch of the language be called faith.
It's very simple. If I am not being clear, please consult your nearest dictionary.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Evolution is NOT a theory.
Evolution is a fact. All life is evolved from other life forms. That much was obvious even in the 1800's.
The debate in scientific circles is how this evolution happened. Did animals evolve through process A, or process B? Those theories are confirmed or falsified all the time.
Hope this clears things up for you.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Scott played Bryan. He's the one who had his faith shaken and he died in the courtroom. I know that in the real trial, Darrow (the lawyer) ripped Bryan's testimony up, and the Judge had to stop the line of questioning. I don't know if Bryan actually collapsed in the courtroom though.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
You and the other person who replied to me are completely misunderstanding me.
:-)
Evolution is a fact. Species change from one form to another over time. Speciation has been observed at least twice, both in the laboratory and in the wild. No one disputes that evolution occurs.
There is a theory about how evolution occurs: It is called "The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection". That theory has a great deal of support. There is another theory out there. It is called "The Theory of Evolution through Acquired Characteristics." Otherwise known as Lamarkian Evolution. Lamarkian evolution does NOT have any support at all, and the theory is not favored by anybody now.
Get it?
1) Evolution is an observed fact.
2) Scientists have come up with theories to explain the fact of evolution.
3) The Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is the currently supported theory.
4) The Theory of Evolution through Acquired Characterists is not favored anymore.
5) Both theories described evolution. Both theories were about the fact that species change over time. One theory proved useful, one did not.
I hope that was more clear this time. As you can see, I am right.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
A lot of you are throwing around terms like: "creation", "creationism", "creationist", "creator", "evolution", etc, etc without really understanding what you are talking about. (The fact that you bristled when I said that, means you are probably one of them. NOTICE that I didn't say "everybody", I said "a lot of you").
...it is not the canvas that bends, but God:
Definitions, definitions:
First of all, let's start with evolution and break it down a little:
-evolution: process of growth or change.
-biological evolution: the theory that Darwin came up with. Has strong atheistic undertones.
-Big Bang Theory: has nothing to do with biological evolution although many Christians and others mix the two. The Big Bang theory has VERY strong creationism overtones. If you don't believe me, then search the Net for Albert Einstein "greatest blunder of my life."
-creation: the act of causing to exist. to bring something into being. Could be a painting, could be a thought, could be the universe.
-Creation (note the caps): the act by which the world was brought into existence.
Does God Fingerpaint:
Let me talk about "creation" for a second. Everybody knows what this word really means but when atheists (and many christians) aply this term to God they imagine him "creating" they assume "creation ex nihilo" which means creating from nothing. No animal, or human, or anything in existence is known to do this. An artists combines his experiences and used tools to create. In fact, he rarely even touchs the paint directly with his skin (how many good artists do you know that just finger-paint).
creation vs. creation:
Why do you assume that God creates only "ex nihilo"? The Hebrew Pentateuch (first five books) doesn't say this. Most of the words that are translated "create" mean "formed", "shaped" "made to appear", etc.
Big Bang == creation:
The Big Bang is a theory of creation. Scientists still don't have a legitimate naturalistic theory for how the original singularity was created (in the sense of come in to existence). The best theories to explain the Big Bang are all "supernatural". Not necessarily by God but in the sense that it was create "outside of the natural or outside of the knowable universe".
Biological Evolution == creation:
Biological Evolution is also a theory of creation (a process that brought into existence). But it can just as easily be argued from a supernatural as from a natural viewpoint. If there IS a truely omnipotent God, who is to say that he couldn't have used the 15 billion year span before life as his artist's brush which he used to create. He may not have changed the course of a single atom during that period, but that doesn't make him any less of a creator.
If you can only see one inch from the canvas, then the painting, the canvas, the moving brush and the ink all seem pretty naturalistic.
SUMMARY:
If God created the universe, it is perfectly logical to propose that he uses natural processes (such as biological evolution) as his "brushes and inks".
I'll make a bet with you...
For those of you haven't figured out yet whether I believe in God or not, I will leave you with a summary of Pascal's wager:
Those who DON'T believe in God will either lose or draw. Those who DO believe in God will either draw or win. Arguing the probabilities of win, lose, or draw is meaningless.
Pretty good summary, but you are missing some up to date information. Everything started with a Big Bang Actually, many people are now thinking that everything starting with a big expansion. There is no singularity. See supersymmetry and string/M theory. Spontaneous formation The SanteFe institute is doing some wonderful research on complex systems and organization. They have a number of theories and experiements which show how this can happen in a straightforward manner. Autocatalytic sets are the main interest here. magine an explosion. Stuff goes in all directions, approx. the same speed. Because in case of Big Bang, there's nothing to hit, the matter would fly in all directions forever, without hitting anything and without stopping, without forming anything. To particles cannot collide if they have the same speed. A nice thought, but your mising the effects of quantum mechanics, relativity, and forces in general. We do these types of tests all the time in particle accelerators and they show how all sorts of odd things happen when subatomic particles interact. Once you have atoms, gravity and chemistry / fusion kick into play. Generation of more complex chemical compounds. Not proven. Generation of amino-acids from the elements in primordial soup is chemically impossible. Nope, they have made amino acids in recreated environments similar to the primordial soup. However, the more recent more accepted theory is that these complex chemical seeds cam from space. They have found complex organic molecules, including amino acids, in space. They do and can form in a wide variety of places. Abiogenesis True, but there is very attractive research on this as well. See the autocatalytic sets above. Also, there are a number of simple aminoacid type chemicals when combined form a structure amazingly similar to a cell membrane. But i digress... Macroevolution(development of more complex organisms from simpler ones): sorry, not proven. First, there are no 'intermediate' forms found. Every single one is complete and functional. Darwinism states that evolution is a gradual process, taking millions of years. Hence, almost 100% of fossils should be intermediate forms, with clear links. The links are missing. There is a growing body of evidence that evolution is *not* a linear process, but has distinct jumps from organism to organism, feature to feature. Similar to the way quantum of energy is not a continuum, but a finite jump. This has to do with autocatalytic sets, so see those again. Also, the process would be similar to various adaptations occuring in stealth mode in an orgism, until a critical mass is reached, and the trait spontaneouly minifests. The details are many and very interesting, so I would encourage you to check them out.
Is how I find the article. Whether or not you believe in evolution, it seems quite unacceptable to me for a scientist/journalist to make bold and provacative claims about how the now-completely-mapped human genetic code proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that his religion is the right one after all (I say this because the article seems to make clear to me that evolution is his religion), and then not explain it with one shred of evidence!
Gee, I'm glad your religion does not ever make such profound assumptions!
I get offended when religious fanatics attempt to remove evltion from school curriculmn entirely. I get a bit miffed when they call all scientific reasearch, evidence, and effort into learning our ourigins complete and utter fiction with no justification.
Perhaps you need to take a look in the mirror and see the kind of prejudices you hold against any type of scientific evidience that does not agree with your assumptions.
but you can't prove that God doesn't exist to those who have experienced Him.
Which god are you referring to? There are thousands of thousands of religions with all sorts of gods.
As long as you dont mean to imply that only your god of your religion is true, then I dont have any beef with your self induced relationship with this psuedo-being.
I get really annoyed at people in any religion saying theirs is the only one thats true! Surprise! Everyone thinks their religion is true. But that doesn't make any of them right.
God is not a programmer, he is a comedian.
Enjoy the humor that is the human condition.
I see no proof in this article. All I see is a report about some scientist claiming to have found the truth.
That's right. The proof is not in the article, it would take far to long to explain it all. Read the research. See how common genes have travelled the various paths among organisms and the stepwise refinement introduced in species.
If you want to learn the truth you have to look for it! Scientific understandinf does not come through prayer (like faith).
But the only scientific evidence he has is that some bacteria DNA is found.
Whoah, where did you pull that out of? Have you not been paying attention to the human genome project? We have a ton of genes sequenced for a ton of species. This is not all based on a single bacterium!
Get educated man!
This article is not the proof, it is about the proof, which is from a large volume of genetic information from the humand genome, and many many other species, including the lowly bacteria, which comprise a complete tapestry of evoltionary history among a large group of species.
Before dismissing things offhand because they challenge your faith, try reading the deatils, and actually checking out the research refered to in the article. There is a surprising amount of work that has been done which most people overlook.
Perhaps because it is far easier to pray and have faith in god, than it is to work and toil with intellectually chalenging conecepts to understand the mysteries of life.
You absolutely, possitively (in science) CANNOT get something from nothing.
Apparently you have not heard of quantum mechanics. We get a ton of matter created and destroyed at random for nothing. Go look up hawking radiation for starters...
No, but the source of hawking radiation is the fact that matter and anti-matter spontaneously form for no reason, and at random all the time. Like magic.
I BELIEVE that God created everything.
Do you beleive this because you want to, or because of cold hard evidence presented to you?
Evidence for evolution: 122,345,566 pieces of evidence.
Evidence for creationism, aka GOD: 1 billion people attesting their faith.
Hmmm.. which one seems more logical. A large cult of fanatics? Or maybe reprodcuble, logical scientific fat... Hard choice!
Sorry, the Pope hasn't advocated biblical creationism ever. The Roman Catholic Church has embraced evolution from very early on.
m l
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~newman/sci-faith.ht
Read all about it.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
You should read some Karl Popper and Carl Hempel -- falsifiability is not a matter of "as close as you can get" -- it either is the case or not.
"Evolution as a concept like logic and math" is an analogue to "the 'glass onion theory of the universe' as a concept like logic and math" or "the 'Genesis account of creation' as a concept like logic or math" basically invites a Kuhnian paradigm shift -- because we see the world through a given paradigm, we are forced to interpret everything we see as fitting in to that paradigm, rendering all our theories useless when that paradigm is supplanted.
If we really wanted to get into the Philosophy of Science on this debate (which, I believe, is valuable), we ought to break out the underdeterminists. :-)
I still maintain that the evolutionists who choose to debate the "scientific creationists" not only sink to the creationists' level, but below -- the creationists *never* go ad hominem....
My point remains that speciation via natural selection is not observable and not falsifiable. Furthermore, I still maintain that evolutionists, rather than acknowledge their intellectually and scientifically shaky ground, resort to the same sort of mindless dogmatism, irrationality, and name-calling that they accuse the creationists of. Those who claim that science is borne of observation need to recall that the Greek pantheon of deities was borne of observation, as well (cf. Hesiod).
In any case, it's not every day that I get the honor of a rebuttal from a legend. :-)
The real reason why evolution is not science, though, is visible in the last paragraph of your reply -- one can replace "speciation" and its relatives with "correct predictions" and its ilk; and "evolution" with "astrology", and the last paragraph will be just as sensical as it is now.
Theories predict a "why". Evolutionists merely have a "what" -- and their "what" depends on their perceptions, which are heavily influenced by their unfalsifiable "why" -- their "what" may or may not even be correct. I sense that publishing a paper against the fossil record would have similar consequences for a modern scientist as Copernicus' rejection of Ptolemaic astronomy had for many before Copernicus.
Read Popper; also read Carl Hempel's _Philosophy of Natural Science_.
Some kinds of astrology cannot be falsified scientifically, and neither can evolution. As a result, either theory is science. Falsifiability is what we are concerned with, not truth or falsity. A false theory can still be a scientific theory, but a non-falsifiable theory is pseudoscience.
Since natural selection is a theory about why the world came to seem to a believer in natural selection as it does, it is not falsifiable, unless we can observe the entire process by which the world came to be that way. Falsifying the believer's perception of the world is irrelevant to falsifying the hypothesis, since another, equally non-scientific hypothesis could be proposed about the newly-accepted state of the world.
The point is not that evolution is wrong, only that evolution is not scientific, and that to believe in evolution is as irrational as to believe in any other theory of first causes.
I strongly suggest you read some philosophy of science before continuing in this discussion.
I will say that evolution is one of the better explanations we have today, but phlogiston was once the best explanation we had for combustion. Evolution is not falsifiable -- even if it were, no amount of science can disprove a mystical, revealed truth.
I guess I could also bring Nietzsche and Wittgenstein's views of "science as a religion, flawed like all the others" into the fray, but I fear I will catch enough heat for this.
It will be interesting to see how unique human
DNA is. The next "highest" animals fully sequenced
have been a a worm and a fly.
The lab mouse DNA should be published later this year
and will make and interesting comparison.
At the time of Darwin and Huxley there
were no known fossils between apes and humans.
However, now there are dozens of hominoid
supspecies going back continuously for six
million years.
In fact there are too many "missing links".
The issue is sorting out likely ancestors versus
side branches.
Science is perpetual doubting,
sorting out what is supported and what isn't.
Scientific theories have changed considerably
during my lifetime and will continue,
yet that is the way I choose to "know" things.
Just in the last month, the genome theory made
considerable adjustments. First, humans have
a smallish number of genes, a quarter of previously
believed. Second, we may not be able to discover
all the genes due to their complexity. There are
introna and exons, poly-expression of several to thousands
of different proteins per gene.
I would not doubt if ideas change significantly again in a few years.
> So, in other words, the bible is only a metaphor. SO if
:-)
:-)
> it's not TRUE, then why even bother?
WRONG. The word "Bible" means a "collection of books", and indeed, when you open the Bible, you will see many different books, about 72 (or 66) of them.
This hints at the fact that the Bible contains literary works of many different genres. Some of them tell facts: for example, the Gospels tells the life of Jesus. Some books are written in prose, some in poetry form; some tell real stories that actually happened; some tell parables that mean to teach us something. Some are praises to God, some are lamentations asking God for help. And yes, all these can be the Word of God. Whoever said that God only speak "Newspeak" and can't speak poetry?
God can use many different ways to deliver His message. The important thing is that He gets the message across. And thank God, not the entire Bible reads like a technical report or history book, for if that were the case, the Bible would be a really dry book!
Anthony
The Bible is very abstract at times (a thousand years -> longer than I can think about, anyone?).
It also doesn't say whether evolution is the way we were created or not (and I know I'm going to hear this, so here: Maybe God let things evolve up to us, and then created a special one (and then another) that was capable of being with Him).
We were created by God, and were/are the first (and only) ones capable of being with Him. I'll leave it at that.
(btw, I don't check back on comments, so if you reply or want to debate about it, send me an e-mail)
I guess the stuff I learn in University just isn't good science.
"It may be remarked in passing that success is an ugly thing. Men are deceived by its false resemblences to merit."
While your interview with the priest seems to shed light on the Catholic view of creation, I don't think it has bearning on scientfic creationism. Catholic's put less faith in the literal word of their Holy Bible than do other sects of christianity.
Only a few years ago the Catholic Pope officially acknowledged Darwinian evolution, roughly the same year that the scientific community began to adopt Prioginian evolution over Darwinian ironically. If you talked to a fundamentalist christian I believe you'd find little sympathy for a viewpoint that the book of Genesis should be taken as "folklore".
Amen to that.
Umm no, its actually a theory. Thats why they call it the Theory of Evolution.
It has not been proven and mostlikely will never be proven. I believe its true as well as most of the other free thinkers in this world. This does not mean its fact.
You could ask him about apostolic succession. If he gets all red in the face and begins roaring on about The Whore Of Babylon, you've got yourself a genuine Looney-Tunes Holy Roller on your hands -- doubtless Protestant.
(jfb)
To spur "enterprise Linux," Big Bang, the distributed two-phase commit.
Not that I disagree with him, but if I were a creationist I wouldn't find Dr. Caplan's article very convincing. He provides little real evidence or argument to back up his claim that the human genome "proves" that humans evolved via natural selection. In fact, the closest thing I can find to an argument is his observation that the genes for crucial human traits seem "jerry-rigged" in a fashion which seems incompatible with intelligent (or omnipotent) design. This article reads more like a statement of faith than one of science. Surely someone can do better.
"The deep-fried Mars bar is a symptom of a wider crisis." -- Nutritionist Ann Ralph, on the Scottish diet
There is a LOT of "non-coding" chunks of DNA (called "introns")
Wasn't there a Star Trek plot based on those?
I know I've those that mentioned in a Star Trek setting somewhere...
--K
I don't know what's nerdier: that I remember that, or that I posted about it.
mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive ... ancestors.
The same is true of the Linux kernel.
I agree with your fervor, but you are muddying the waters here. Evolution is not a fact, is it a theory about how things work. It happens to be the best theory so far on the basis of the evidence found and the predictions that can be made from it, but it remains a theory. The next step up from theory is to become a natural law, which is a theory that we're really really certain of. Even a natural law isn't necessarily considered to be a "fact", though.
I mean, you wouldn't want to be one of the folks in 1900 claiming that Newtonian physics is not a theory, it's a fact, right? There's always room for new evidence to change the interpretation or the substance of an older theory (quantum physics, for example).
Bottom line: people who don't agree with evolution will call it a "theory" as if that shows a lack of proof. In scientific terms, a "theory" is pretty damn good. If we weren't so sure about evolution, it would be a "hypothesis" instead.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
No way man, my parents love me! She does think my deadbeat brother-in-law is an earthworm, though :)
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
I think you are using "fact" in a rather larger sense than I thought you were. It is probably unquestionable that there are many kinds of life forms, but that is not the fact of evolution. It is not unquestionable that all life is evolved from other life forms, which you stated as equivalent to the fact of evolution. The fact that there have been two observed instances of this occurring, and that there is abundant evidence (fossil and biological) that this has happened in the past for other life forms, does not prove that all life is evolved from other life forms or even that this is the preferred mode of generation of new species.
We can generalize from specific instances to the general case of life forms, and I agree with that generalization and find it the best way yet to explain the supporting evidence of evolution, but even a vast multiplicity of data points does not make something a fact. As I pointed out before, there were millions of data points of Newtonian physics available in 1900, but all of that data did not make Newtonian physics a fact, and eventually the theory was modified as new data was discovered. So it will probably be with evolution as well as with the theory of natural selection. In the worst case, we might determine that evolution has not in fact occurred, but things just looked so much like what we though evolution would look like that we were fooled, like the Martian canals. I don't think this is too likely, but to close off the possibility is to substitute faith for the scientific method.
I like evolution as much as or more than the next guy, but I'm extremely unwilling to chalk up anything determined through science as "fact" because of the many times that the "facts" have changed in the past. Just call it a good theory, the best theory that we currently have, and it's good enough for me.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
As hackers, developers and coders, many of us employ a technique called "code reuse". While neither making an argument for or against creation. It is unreasonable to call this proof of anything.
One can argue that the genome shows ancestry. At the same time one could argue that it shows that God had a basic codebase for life and was able to use it to base everything else off of, ergo. code reuse.
Evolution will always be a theory. It will never be possible to prove that life got here from evolution. Short of God popping by for a visit... or Armeggedon (the biblical one), Creation will always be a matter of faith (sort of like a theory).
Get a life, not a lifestyle. - Hikem Bey
No matter what side of the issue you're on, this article offered nothing to decide the matter. It didn't even look like it was trying to convince a non-believer, just a bluff to try to sound superior to "those who thump their bibles." (I just did a Google search on Caplan, it seems like that's his standard level of dialogue when he's censoring or chastizing a Christian point of view.) Why would a neutral person think that mapping the human genome decides the matter definitively? If it does, Caplan didn't even come close to showing that. And this clown actually gets paid to teach students?
Cheers,
Symptoms include: The acceptance of the Bible as validated experimental evidence; the invocation of a great flood in order to explain away geological evidence; and various contorted attempts to do away with general relativity, some of which sound plausible if you don't look at the math too closely.
-- Some things are to be believed, though not susceptible to rational proof.
Introns are just junk DNA thrown in there. ...They aren't comments ...
In a sense they are, it depends on what you mean by a comment. According to your own statement they work just like chunks of code that is commented out.
Religions are just plain silly, and large swathes of the human population have outgrown them, thankfully.
Unfortunately one belief is often just replaced by another, i.e. religion gets replaced by exaggerated confidence in science or in authorities. Today we also see an increase in "new age" movements, as well as bogus alternative medicine (not all alternative medicine is bogus thoug) that boils down to nothing but placebo. It's a great step forward to rid ourselves from religion, but we still have a long way to go.
You're missing like, oh I don't know, about 20 million steps in there.
That's where the principle of natural selection steps in. Variants of the blobs that are better than the average at copying and sustaining themselves gain an advantage. During the copying there are occasional errors that result in mutations. Most of the mutations are likely to be bad, but some are improvements...
and of course many believe this and almost nobody has a problem with it. But make no mistake - there's a very vocal sect which insists on a literal 6 days, and demands it be taught in public schools.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
What's so half-assed about code reuse and genetic algorithms?
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Because the desired outcome is a selection process. You see, he planted contradictory evidence. He planted DNA and dinosaur bones to suggest one possibility, and he planted divine revelation into holy book authors to suggest another possibility.
Now he watches and sees which evidence gets accepted. The evil perception and reason based souls will believe their senses, and are thereby selected to go to hell. The good devout faith based souls will believe senselessly, and thereby selected for heaven. Don't you see? Earth is a soul sorting machine!
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I just can't read that without being reminded of Dr. Beverly Crusher's amazing leap of logic: "If there's nothing wrong with me, there must be something wrong with the universe."
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
- A, B, and C have a sequence of introns that are similar to each other, but A's sequence is more like B's than like C's.
- A and B live on the same island, far away from C.
- The habitat for A is more like C's than like B's.
- A's anatomy is more like C's than like B's.
An evolutionary biologist can explain this constellation of facts very simply: A and B have a common ancestor-species that became geographically separated from C's ancestor-species, and "convergent evolution" led A and C to develop similar forms to solve similar problems in their respective habitats.How would a "scientific creationist" explain why the arrangement of introns corresponds more closely with the species' geography than with their morphology? (Before you say that A and B have an ancestor-"kind" that walked out of Noah's Ark after the Flood, read the Problems With a Global Flood FAQ.)
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
Of course, you could argue that an Intelligent Designer created all these species in an apparently jury-rigged fashion for a different purpose, but what is that purpose?
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
I like that! Civility on /.!
but it seems in this sense that since you could not find a solution to your problem, you say that some omnipotent being did it.
Yes, it's a really lazy way out, isn't it? Once you've postulated an omnipotent god, you don't have to explain anything ever again. "It's God's will!"
Your reference to cavemen is most appropriate - belief in gods is a caveman mentality, probably embedded in our genes as part of our evolved social programming, and very difficult for many people to overcome.
Sorry if I appear rude! ;)
You can just as easily apply this answer to the previous question, namely that the universe or a metauniverse which in some sense contains our universe has always existed. No God required.
Absolutely!
Then you get a God that does stuff with purpose and intent versus a metauniverse with some 'physics' that generates universes. Of course these can be bound to equivalence as well, so we could in effect say our religion is a theory of the physics of the metauniverse.
I don't see how these can be made equivalent. My point is that the existence of a metauniverse is a possibility we can't logically ignore, and if it did exist, would have consequences for some of the questions we have about our universe. Of course, we can't currently prove the existence of a metauniverse.
But a metauniverse that took sentient action in our universe, for example parting the Red Sea for Moses, is impossible to explain by any normal model of physics.
But I agree, there's no reason that Judeo-Christianity should reject the idea of metauniverses out of hand, unless they wish to continue arguing an anthropocentric point of view which might suggest that there can be only one universe, the one which contains us.
Well, I guess we're arguing about the likely or possible properties of a metauniverse. My point is simply that it's possible to logically distinguish between "simple" metauniverses, which merely exist as a substrate of some kind on/in which universes form (and may always have existed); and more complex metaverses, which might be indistinguishable from a God. Occam's Razor, while not exactly a natural law, would fall on the side of simpler metaverses.
Actually, 'normal' physics even has a window to bind through via quantum probabilities. Spooky action at a distance and omni-presence are not really that far apart without more evidence.
But the difference is sentience. Even assuming we don't find good explanations for spooky action at a distance, as far as we know it happens the same way every time, so we can assume there's some physical law we don't understand. But an active omni-presence that makes changes as "it" sees fit - perhaps depending on which humans are praying and what they're praying about - requires a major departure from what we understand as science or physics, and basically requires a conversion to the standard kiss-God's-ass mentality of the religious.
The latter view requires more evidence, in this universe, to be able to accept it from a scientific point of view. So my position is that a non-Godlike metaverse is possible, and not contraindicated by the evidence, whereas there's no evidentiary support (scientifically speaking) for a God-like metaverse.
Fun argument though, thanks!
It came from natural processes which followed physical laws: the coalescing of a gas cloud which was the remnant of earlier stellar explosions and thus contained sufficient heavy elements to form planets.
The point is this: that the existence of a big bang, which from our perspective "created" the universe, doesn't necessarily mean that the universe was created in the sense that we intuitively tend to think of. As such, the apparent appearance of "the beginning of time" doesn't necessarily raise the question of what went before.
There's always going to be a fundamental issue here which may never be resolved: at some level, we reach a point where no amount of observation, testing, or theorizing is going to yield any further information. At that point, all we can do is speculate about what lies beyond, as has been happening in this thread. However, simply because we don't have sufficient information to explain something, doesn't require the invention of an omnipotent being capable of explaining anything. As I've said elsewhere, that's a huge cop-out, logically speaking.
but we basicly agree and are now simply negotiating definitions of different sample points among the possiblity space.
Well, yeah, except one end of that possibility space includes "God", but to get to that part of the space requires as high an evidentiary standard as any other postulate. Scientifically, we need repeatable experiments (or even experiments that should be repeatable, but aren't) or consistent mathematical/theoretical proposals to give some support for the existence of a God-like entity, whether conceived of as a metauniverse or not.
My wording "'not contraindicated' and 'no evidentiary support'" was poorly chosen, so I'll rephrase it: all the existing evidence points to is that it is possible that there may exist something beyond the 4-dimensional universe we perceive. In other words, the evidence suggests that a valid answer may lie in the possibility space we're talking about. However, since we currently have no way of further refining this postulate, we can only speculate about it.
Making claims about its properties that go beyond what we have direct evidence for isn't logical or scientific. All we can really say about its properties is that it would need to have spatial characteristics that dimensionally go beyond the 4D spacetime we're familiar with it. We can then propose mathematical models that seem consistent in order to describe the possibilities, and there are quite a few of these, although we have no certain way of choosing between them. But attributing sentience to it just seems to have no basis, and not even any relevance unless we have evidence to support it.
This brief summary describes Hawking & Hartle's proposal for a no-boundary universe, in which the issue of what happened before the big bang is taken care of with some neat mathematics. The bottom line is that the progression of time from the big bang as a "beginning" is just something we perceive from within the universe - looked at from an appropriate conceptual/mathematical perspective, there's no problem.
In this model, what happened before the big bang is a little analogous to the problem of "where does all the water go that falls off the edge of the horizon?" was when we believed the earth was flat. The imagined problem disappeared once we comprehended the larger structure.
That's a very, well, Catholic point of view. Christianity does not offer one the freedom to choose to interpret a section of the Bible as "folklore." In Christianity, bible == word of god == truth. So, unfortunately, I don't see a good way for true, fundamental Christianity and Evolution to co-exist that peacefully.
You, sir, have a very narrow view of Christianity. Catholics *are* Christians.
Evolution and Christianity are not incompatible. Evolution and your type of Biblical Inerrantism are.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
There are a great many traditions and organizations that fall under the generic label "Christian". These groups disagree on many points of doctrine, but they all lay claim the the Bible and to represent the faith of the original disciples.
Christians do not always fall into such neat categories such as Catholic and Protetant. Roman Catholics are the largest such group in the world. There are various national churches that could be described as Orthodox -- Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Coptic, etc. There is an international communion of Anglican Churches that trace their tradition to the established Church of England. Among "Protestants" there are Lutherans, various forms of Calvinism such as Presbyterianism, Baptists and the Reformed churches. In the US, there are a large number of non-denominational churches which may or may not have national organizations.
Some of these groups have a very literal approach to the Bible, but not all do. Anglicanism, for example, allows a certain amount of freedom in doctrine and does not confine its members to specific dogma.
Your roommate sounds like an Evangelical Protestant.
I am an Anglican. I don't use the King James Version because, while it was originally trnaslated by the Church of England, its language is so archaic as to obscure the meaning of the text to modern readers. I accept Evolution and all Scientific theories for what they are -- explanations of observable and verifiable phenenoma. So it's clear, from my point of view, that one can be Christian while not rejecting reason and the things that we observe in the Universe.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
There was an article in Science (put out by the American Association for the Advancement of Science) in which a research did a language analysis of the introns and found that they had statistical similarities to a natural language. I can't find the article off hand, so you'll have to go to Google to find it (and there are a couple others as well).
--
Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
Dateline Vatican City(11:46 am) Pope-"Damn; What Were We Thinking"
In response to irrefutable proof that Darwinian evolution, not Creation, led to the existance of human life on planet Earth, Pope John Paul II is apparently looking for something else to do with his time. The Pope was reportedly "shocked and depressed" by the unimpeachable proof that Creation never really happened. The pontiff was quoted saying "Damn. So that Darwin guy that has been giving us trouble for all these years was right, huh? Wow. What were we thinking. Oh well. I guess we don't need a church now or anything. Time to look for new employment." John Paul plans to post a resume to popular job-hunting site Monster.com within the week.
The Pope is the spiritual leader of the so-called Catholic church, one of the world's leading organizations dedicated to spewing outdated, patently false beliefs.
--jwriney
That wailing denial you hear is the Board of Education and the legislature of the state of Kansas, United States of America.
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
I also can't disprove the existance of Santa Claus. Doesn't mean I waste any time considering the possibility.
Same with God. (Any argument that can be applied to the existance of god, can also be applied to the existance of Santa Claus.)
Reality has a liberal bias
- Kaatunut
- Kaatunut
PBLCs (PBLC) have there beliefs and will stick to them. We could find ETs and they would come up with a way to relate it to Genesis.
Since I link to the PBLC node above, let me also throw in a plug for an anti-literal world view Things creationists hate.
--
What follows is what I wrote to the columnist:
... must make new genes from old parts." But you don't say how the genome indicates this necessity.
Hi,
I read with interest your column on how the human genome proves "Darwin vindicated." However, I found more restatements of your conclusion and distractions than I found statements supporting your conclusion.
Half your article dealt with statements irrelevant to the conclusion:
reporters flubbed
missed headlines
ballyhooed competition
pause giving medical privacy considerations
genecount envy
I waded thru this to find words that support your headline's premise.
"The genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt, that Darwin was right -- mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive animal ancestors." This does a good job of repeating the original formula "Darwin vindicated," but I fail to see how it advances the argument beyond clarifying what "vindicated" means. Then you say, "Our genes show that scientific creationism cannot be true," which is another restatement of your conclusion.
Then you quote Eric Lander saying "evolution
I PRESUME that your unstated premise is that designs coming out of an evolutionary process will be characterized by a more "jumbled together"-ness, and that designs coming out of a creator's design bureau will look much more like Bishop Paley's watch found on the heath (with every element of the design contributing to the overall goal of the cosmic watchmaker's design).
If this is the case, and I may have misunderstood your argument, wouldn't the evidence support an alternate formulation: "If humanity were created, then the genome shows us the creator tossed together a horridly kludged design?" This moves the argument from one of what's possible, necessary, and/or sufficient, to the aesthetics of design.
Don't we see the same phenomena in other human designs? Consider the cam-operated push-rod valve lifter in your car's engine. It's a design concept lifted from the pre-electronic machine age--an idea used in steam-operated looms. But you find it in an internal combustion engine adjacent to a computer-controlled fuel-air emissions computer. These similar solutions to an engine's timing/regulatory problems use radically different technologies. This juxtapose of technologies is analogous to finding bacterial genes in the human genome. Can we draw analogical inferences about how engines are designed?
You wrote, "The core recipe of humanity carries clumps of genes that show we are descended from bacteria." This sentence assumes its conclusion. Is it more accurate to say that the human genome shares clumps of genes with bacteria? This states the facts without imposing an interpretation on the reader.
If I understand correctly, the human genome uses design elements drawn from much much lower forms of life. A bit of DNA that solves a bacterium's problems gets reused solving the same problem for humans. (apologies if my term "design element" seems to assume a creator/designer. I only mean by that term a "clump of genes solving a specific problem" without intending to imply how that clump came together. Saying "design element" is less wordy.)
You write, "No one can look at how the book of life is written and not come away fully understanding that our genetic instructions have evolved from the same programs that guided the development of earlier animals." But isn't this just a restatement of your earlier interpretation of the genome "showing we are descended from bacteria"? Repeating the conclusion is less satisfying than trotting out the data that support the conclusion.
You make another interpretation that I don't quite follow. Namely that the genome shows "slow" transformation from one form to another. Is there some time-code attached to elements of the human genome that you didn't tell us about? Does this "slow" transformation between forms throw the "Punctuated Equilibrium" formulation of evolutionary theory into doubt? Does the genome support Darwinian evolutionary thinking and undermine neo-Darwinian theories such as punky e?
Now, I'm not saying you aren't right in saying that the human genome vindicates Darwin. What I'm having difficulty with is connecting the dots between the data "here's this genome with a lot of cruft and a lot of reused bacterial code" and the interpretation "Darwin was right."
That's where the creationist/darwinist argument gets so damned annoying. Partisans are so busy restating their interpretations of the phenomena that the phenomena themselves are lost.
smiles and cheers,
steve
Finally Kansas is looking at the same facts that Physical Anthropology students have been looking at for years now, like vestigial organs, and the commonality of DNA among primates and man. Even mitochondrial DNA backs up the fact that we have evolved. Mitochondria are actually bacteria living in our cells, in a symbiotic relationship. Kansas, thanks for waking up, the rest of the world appreciates it.
> I mean, God could have been one half-assed programmer.
He (or she) apparently won the Obfuscated Genome Contest, and got the IP rights to planet earth as the prize.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Yeah, I just submitted an article to The American Journal of Flamebait.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Alas, when the author claims that "Our genes show that scientific creationism cannot be true", he grossly underestimates the ability of "scientific" creationists to ignore facts that conflict with (their interpretation of) divine revelation.
If you ever decide you want a quick synopsis of the creationist mode of thought, drop over to talk.origins and look a the asinine arguments and lame rhetorical tricks that creation advocates use over and over again, ever failing to address the actual evidence that is brought up to refute their claims.
You can also find out a lot about creationists and evolution by reading some of the FAQs at talkorigins.org.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
And the easter egg is a pop-up that says
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I agree. It's a standard practice of "scienticians" to jump the gun and apply findings way beyond what logical conclusions can be drawn. For example, here's one argument:
1) Fundamentalist Christians believe the universe was created in 7 days.
2) Science proves it is more like 10 billion years.
3) Therefore, God doesn't exist.
They take jumps such as those that are just as laughable as they call us Christians. Now, I'm not a "fundamentalist", and believe science is the pursuit of examining the miracle of God's creation. If we share 90% of the DNA of all other living beings, that proves that we share 90% of the DNA of other living beings, NOTHING else!
Why make such an illogical jump to "prove Darwin" or whatever that means?
There are many different views Christians have on Creation. Some, in fact, believe in what is called "evolutionary creation". These "findings" certainly don't disprove Creation, because creation is about the "why", not the "how".
-Mike
--- witty signature
. . I hadn't had my caffiene yet. . .
Science asks: How ???
Religion asks: Why ???
And now, I'll sit back, and await the flames from both the pure-science fanatics and the pure-religion fanatics. . .
Scopes monkey trial. A movie was made of it.
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
Everything is not based on faith... Take my word for it.
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
Is what I said somehow not true? perhaps you can "enlighten" me an this issue.
Lowmag.net
God, how many times have I heard the argument "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" Well, actually I've heard it as an actual question, which I think is completely legitimate, but otherwise is such a spurious argument...
-- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
Of course I don't take the bible literally. But the people to whom I'm responding do take the bible literally, for the most part, except when they don't, and there's no method to their reasoning. Remember that I'm responding to a guy who claimed that the bible states that the earth is spherical. I'm just pointing out that it really doesn't. At best (if you believe that all these references are analogies) it has no position one way or the other on the issue. I actually believe that, but I also believe that the writers' beliefs come through in subtle ways, and it is possible to reconstruct some aspects of their world view. In my opinion, it seems fairly likely that the writers of the bible thought the earth was flat.
Of course even if they didn't it doesn't prove the divine inspiration of the bible, as it is very probable that people knew the earth was spherical before the bible was written.
-- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
So if you're not a creationist, and you don't believe in evolution, just out of curiosity, what do you believe?
-- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
really doesn't prove that whoever wrote the bible knew the earth was spherical. In fact, if this translation is to be believed, they thought it was flat -- just like a circle. There are some who argue that the hebrew word used can also be translated as sphere, though it seems clear by the imagery used that a circle is meant -- if a sphere were meant they probably wouldn't have referred to the heavens as being spread out like a tent.
At any rate, there are plenty of other passages that clearly imply that the writer(s) of the bible believed the earth was flat. Check out Daniel 4:10-11:
and Matthew 4:8:
In order for a tree to be visible "to the extremity of the whole earth" in the first passage, or to be able to see "all the kingdoms of the world" in the second, the world would have to be flat.
-- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
I'll start by pointing out that I'm trained in paleontology, and think the theories of evolution are more or less right although Darwin's part is just a fair attempt at a small piece of the whole process. I don't 'believe' in evolution because that's not what you do with scientific theories.
Having said that - this article is a bunch of crap. While the human genome data strongly supports evolution it doesn't prove anything.
This is a lot of new data that is probably a map of human DNA. (Keep in mind that lots of experiments have turned out to be measuring something other than was intended.) A lot more work needs to be done before anyone can make serious claims about what the data says.
The statement that anyone seeing the data would come away with the same conclusion is nonsense as well. It just shows that the author is grasping at a new straw to try and convince people about his favorite theory. A creationist could just as easily conclude that God chose to build the same basic code in all DNA, and claim that it proves creationism.
This is the kind of reporting that pushes real science back rather than advancing it.
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
With Catholicism, it's possible. With Christianity, it's not.
Huh? News flash: Catholics are Christians! What are you smoking?
Catholics have a slightly more progressive view of the bible than Christians
See above, and many non-Catholic Christian denominations are a lot less conservative than the Catholic church.
A very few (but vocal) Christians believe that every word of the bible is true in a literal sense. Most believe that the bible is more of a handbook that doesn't cover every topic in exhaustive detail. After all, it's really not a very big book. There are even some Christians who have noticed that the bible doesn't say God created everything in six CONSECUTIVE days.
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
And, oddly enough, I never hear about any experiments designed to disprove the theory of evolution. Any clues on how that would look?
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
Well, you go digging for bones. If you find pigeon bones in Cambrian strata, then evolutionary theory is in trouble. :)
Nah, I used to be a geologist. We find wierd stuff in rocks all the time. The typical response would be something like, "Hey, look. A species of pigeon had already evolved by the Cambrian!" It would just cause a funny new branch on the tree.
Or, you check the DNA of humans versus chimpanzees. If they were vastly different (actually, they are something like 97% the same), then again, evolutionary theory would be in trouble.
Not really. Nothing about evolution specifically requires genetic similarity. That connection is often assumed, but consider that most of the evolutionary tree is deduced from fossil record. We don't have genomes for all of those dinosaurs, trilobites, etc.
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
The genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt,
that Darwin was right -- mankind evolved over a long period of
time from primitive animal ancestors.
Our genes show that scientific creationism cannot be true. The
response to all those who thump their bible and say there is no
proof, no test and no evidence in support of evolution is, "The
proof is right here, in our genes."
Despite the declaration, "The proof is right here, in our genes", he offers none! Where is the indisputable evidence that the human genome PROVES evolution? Dr. Caplan offers only this:
Eric Lander of the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Mass., said ... must
that if you look at our genome it is clear that "evolution
make new genes from old parts."
And how was this conclusion drawn? With all of the time that scientists have had to study the human genome... the decades... er, oops... I mean the few months that a few scientists have had. Using only the scientific method, all other hypothesis and theory have been eliminated? After all, evolution is a law of science -- right? What evidence proves this conclusively? Dr. Caplan offers:
The core recipe of humanity carries clumps of genes that show we
are descended from bacteria.
Hmmm, this is interesting. How does it "show we are descended from bacteria"? Which genes are they that prove this? What are their functions? Do they function the same way in man as they do in bacteria? Based on this premise, ALL creatures on this earth will cary the same genes (since all complex creatures evolved from the lower ones). If this is true, then we cannot make such a declaration until we have mapped the DNA of all creatures on earth to prove this. What if 99.9999999999999% of all creatures have these genes carried over, but one single creature does not... only one; that could have serious implications! That would PROVE what? Nothing, it would damage a hypothesis from which others have to be formulated and tested. Dr. Caplan, being a good scientist, uses the modified scientific method for evolutionists that goes:
Theory + Hypothesis = Fact
Using this new "proof" man should be able to trace its relationship to all existing creatures and trace the path back as far as DNA is retrievable. I suspect that such an idea will be challenged over the next decade by many valid scientific theories. It has been that evolution is the solution to questions that we can't answer. The truth of the matter is that scientists were surprised that man has much fewer genes then expected; that means, in general terms, that there is something else that controls the development of a species other the simply genes. Once again a new question is plugged with evolution. My take is that the new holes opened by the mapping of the genome has opened a new question... if DNA alone does not dictate what a species is... what does? Ultimately this new question can be plugged up with one of two popular theories that fill the void when we don't know something about man... evolution or God. Dr. Caplan asserts:
There is no other way to explain the jerry-rigged nature of the
genes that control key aspects of our development.
Until I learn more about the "jerry-rigged nature" there is no way that I am going to simply allow some guy (from MSNBC no less) tell me that something is true when we are only in our infancy of understanding of the human genome. I am surprised to see how many people jump on the "Hell Yeah!" bandwagon before this whole issue has been solidly debated in the scientific circles. Despite the fast food mentality of many, I need to see evidence and hear solid arguments before I even begin to formulate my final opinion in the matter.
The only conclusion that I have come to with this new information is that God was the first programmer to effectively implement reusable code ;)
"Perhaps most amazingly, votaries of 'diversity' insist on absolute conformity." -- Tony Snow
---
___
Cognitive Overflow
more than yo
To play Devil's Advocate:
I took a Darwin class in college and debated the issue Darwin VS God, where I interviewed a Catholic priest as a primary source, as well, as read through some Church documents. From what I gathered and remember, the Church states, God began the process of creating humans (The presence of a soul in humans separates man/woman from animals). In other words, he didn't say "Hocus Pocus, I am going to pull Adam and Eve from my magical hat." The "process of creation" could be something quite similar to Darwin's evolution theory. The Biblical tale of Adam and Eve should be interpreted as "folklore". So this story doesn't fully address nor fulfill "Creation vs. Evolution" debate in the present day. God and Darwin can be both correct.
-- ladies and gentlemen we are floating in space!
Clarence Darrow vs. William Jennings "Free Silver" Bryan. Great movie with George C. Scott as Darrow, if I remember correctly..."Inherit the Wind"? Isn't that the name of the flick?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Occam's Razor doesn't demand anything. It's more accurate to say that people who subscribe to Occam's Razor commonly use it to remove God from this equation. Occam's Razor yields True results IFF you have all the facts. Since some facts (the existence, omniscience, and omnipotence of God) are by definition unknowable and unprovable and based not on rationality but on faith, Occam's Razor may not give True results. Within a logical, rational framework, your conclusion is correct. But I do not Believe that a rational framework can completely and accurately model the universe, any more than pure Euclidean geometry can. Very very often, rationality provides useful conclusions, but then again so do Newton's Laws (which Einstein handily knocks into a cocked hat when you get right down to it).
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Explain to me how your assertion of "fact" is any more valid than the creationists assertions of "fact".
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Lemme play Devil's Advocate. (Considering the subject matter, that's pretty ironic.)
You could just as easily say that this God elevated a band of desert nomads to power, and engineered the Roman power plays to His (and His peoples') advantage.
When you presuppose an omnipotent being, ANYTHING is possible.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
I'm not challenging your definition of "fact" (although saying "That's just a given" and therefore excluding it from the conversation is EXACTLY the sort of games the Creationists play re: the existence of God), I'm challenging your assertion "It's not a troll. It's a fact. That's the problem with Creationists. They can't tell the difference between fact and fiction."
You say it's a fact that Creationists can't tell the difference between fact and fiction. The Creationists say it's a fact that God exists and he created the universe 6000 years ago with the species more or less in their current state. I'm trying to figure out how your "fact" is so much more reliable than their "fact". (Note that I don't agree with EITHER assertion.)
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Let me pick up on one of your minor points. The Bible doesn't need to have a foundation in historical fact in order to fulfill its purpose (I'm assuming for the sake of argument that the Bible is a divinely inspired work designed to show people how to live well and be righteous in the eyes of their Creator).
Galileo said "The Bible is not a book about how the heavens go, it is a book about how to go to heaven." The Bible's validity and utility in the lives of humans is in its message (loosely translated: Love thy God, love thy neighbor, love thyself), not in its historicity. Take the whole thing as a giant allegorical fable, and you detract not a whit from its impact and effectiveness at its stated purpose.
I don't believe God gave us these amazingly powerful minds so that we could get all our answers from something written down on pulped plant matter 2000 years ago. I think (S)He gave us these minds in order to take the lessons recorded for us by our forebears and Make The World Better. Backbiting and infighting about the mechanism of Creation between people of good conscience is as destructive to this goal as Nietzche's "God is dead" philosophy.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Occam's Razor demands
:)
It's official, this thread is now dead.
You are all nazis.
Sorry, just dancing on its' grave. This was a stupid thread to begin with
--Gfunk
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
It amazes me that people who say they support creationism also state that the earth must only be 6000 years old. The Bible only states that man has been on the earth for about 6000 years, but does not give an age to the earth and the universe. All it says is "In the begining God created the heavens and the earth"
Man and other life on earth came long after that 'begining'.
The problem with this is that there's a difference between evolution and adaption. There is a hell of a lot of evidence for adaption out there, and I've known Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, who have acknowledged adaption as fact.
Evolution, on the other hand, involves one species becoming a totally different species. Because of the time frames involved, it's extremely difficult to find examples. Yes, it's just an extension of the same principle, but it's certainly not evidence of evolution.
The other point of note, and something that's bound to come up in centuries to come, is that most of these group argue that we didn't eveolve, not that it's not possible for us to evolve.
Once you get to that stage, given that the only evidence we have of pre-historic life is in fossil or similar form, it becomes pretty much impossible to argue your point.
Noims.
This is not the greatest sig in the world. This is just a tribute.
Speaking as someone who was raised in a very bible-oriented "Christian" home, I can say this won't change any minds.
Yes, this may be a more impressive "proof" than the fossil record. But it still doesn't stand up to the unwavering faith these people have in their bibles.
The belief that their god created everything as part of his master plan doesn't really depend on implementation. Why are our genes the wacky way they are? Well, for the same reason dinosaurs walked the earth for so long only to die out -- because their god wanted it that way, and made it that way.
There isn't a fact out there that can challenge their beliefs. That's the whole point of faith, isn't it?
Not representing or approved by my company or anybody else.
He might be right, but pointing a finger at a large group of people and saying "Nyah, Nyah, the fabric that you culture was created on is wrong."
Their response should be "God created Evolution".
God can never be proven to not exist.
Sig missing. Reward.
You seem to be misusing Occam's Razor.
Now, I'm not going to go into the wider argument here. Hoever, you seem to place rather more faith in Occam's Razor than it warrants.
It is a way of establishing _probability_, not _truth_. It's also very definitely limited, as with any information system, in that it can't help you get a complete answer if you don't have all the data.
We may see this way that the Darwin-based theory is more probable (note the distinction - few modern evolutionary scientists would accept Darwin as true now, the game has moved on) - but that's all we have. We can't say it's definitely right.
We can all think of instances in our lives where something has happened for a monumentally improbable reason. That doesn't mean they didn't happen the way they did...
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
1000 comments for a story about support for evolution??? What the heck, you'd think this was a hot debate on Slashdot or something! When was the last time we hit 1000 comments? About something pretty much everyone here agrees about?
I am a creationist (possibly not in the strictest sense, ie. ignore evidence to the contrary). It has caused me a lot of difficulty over the past few years trying to weigh the balance between evidence of both sides (creation, evolution, theology, science...). Pursuit of truth is a lifelong process for me and I am trying to keep as open an outlook on things as possible. There is no question in my mind that power(s) exist beyond the realm of the human experience. The one thing that keeps me from taking the Bible or scientific evidence for absolute fact is that it has been translated and transformed by humans regardless of its origin (lab experiments or spiritual revelation) possibly in a self-serving way. Creationism in my mind at least stays fixed (although some people wish to adapt it to current thought, scientific creationism...), based upon the Bible, Evolution seems unstable and follows the latest scientific fads (big-bang, genome...). Will we spend the next 100 years trying to figure out our origin to find the Bible was right? Or will we find that the Bible has no more foundation than its message is accepted by a large portion of society? I hope that we as humans continue to pursue these questions and not jump to conclusions that block intellectual and spiritual growth.
For the most part I agree with your statements. I also have to agree with the previous two statements to a certain extent. The Bible indeed does not represent 'fact' in the scientific sense. But it does speak to ideologies and faiths. It provides me with a sense of conscience and faith that by doing good, good will come of it. I do not beleive in heaven going and many other normative Christian beliefs. I think that human destiny is here on earth and physical space. My goals are not to spend my life arguing over the minute, albeit important, details of how we came to be. Instead my major goal is to "Make The World Better."
It is imposible to ignore scientific evidence, but likewise it is impossible for me to ignore the spiritual realm as well. My thoughts change as new evidence appears, but my underlying principles remain. Sometimes evidence conflicts with my faith, which makes things difficult spiritually, but working out these conflicts is a worthwhile exersize.
To summarize my current thoughts:
- The Bible and possibly other works are divinely inspired and describe the human spirit.
- Portions of the Bible are suspect to human alteration for self serving purposes. I try not to fall into the same trap of using it in like fashion.
- I will not know the truth until I am able to have direct contact with the Creator.
- The Bible is largely about as you mentioned social behaviors (Love thy God...) and provided a basis for social interactions and provided the law for the Israelites and by extension through the Jesus community, Christians.
- The Bible today functions for me as a point of inspiration, guidance, and faith. Through it I obtain a better understanding of humanity, self, and life.
Thanks for your responses. I enjoy discusing these issues.
I mean, God could have been one half-assed programmer.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Yes, "more primitive versions of themselves". So we aren't animals?
They aren't really in competition: science relies on the repeatable experiment as its' basis, and religion relies on articles of faith as its' basis. It's not that they're incompatible, it's that they're asking totally different questions.
Scientists say that life evolved slowly over billions of years. Christian Fundamentalists say that living things were created whole, in a week, some 6000 years ago. (Yes, that means they deny the existence of dinosaurs, too.) I'd call that incompatible.
Cheers,
IT
Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
All the DNA evidence in the world can't disprove "scientific creationism." In fact, nothing can disprove scientific creationism. It's unfalsifiable, and therefore there's nothing "scientific" about it. A creationist could simply say that God chose to create us with DNA containing similar components from other living things. And who are we to question His choice? Maybe these virtually identical strands of DNA are God's creative signature -- his way of demonstrating that all life is connected to its Creator. I don't believe it, but hey, you can't disprove it.
Cheers,
IT
Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
His, her, and its are possessive pronouns. They do not use apostrophes.
I misread your comment and had thought you were telling the other poster to use the apostrophes.
I do not know about historical usage, but current usage as defined by A Writer's Reference 3rd Ed. by Diana Hacker says on page 338 that all of those are singular, possessive pronouns and does not mention possessive adjectives at all.
Anyway, I did not mean to correct something that you already knew. I noticed my mistake after I posted and hoped that you would ignore my post. I did not mean to start anything. My apologies.
Account for my English it's my second language. Don't pick on words.
Some background:
First, I think we all agree that solid science relies on facts (or, emperical data) and comes up with a plausible hypothesis to try to explain their relationships (like, cause and effect, interdependence etc) and once the hypothesis is shown to predict relyably the outcome of a certain process, the law is stated with a theory to support it (that is, a 'law' simply states how things shoud work - 'unsupported body falls until it meets the ground' and a 'theory' explains the mechanism). So, we have the distinction between 'facts', 'hypothesis', 'law' and 'theory' layed out here.
Clear minded science, obviously, should look at evidence first and form a theory basing on that.
'Facts', in turn, is something which can be observed and repeated.
So, on to the topic: here's how the evolution theory roughly goes:
Correct me if I'm wrong on this outline (well that was a rough one anyway).
An interesting observation: there is no factual prove of any of these steps having taken place . (the obligatory disclaimer: read before you flame).
Well here were few suspicions about the theory of evolution which so many hold as fact today. I tried to show that every step is taken on faith and is not proven scientifically (e.g. with facts) but instead explained away with more theories or ignored.
The suggestion is to rather have no theory at all than a lousy one, which is based solely on naturalistic world view of most of scientific community and s.c. 'public'. The fact that 'we are here after all' does not prove evolution yet.
I invite discussion.
__________________________________________
God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ --1Thes5:9
Man: God, what is a million years to you?
God: It is like a second.
Man: God, what is a million dollars to you?
God: It is like a penny.
Man: God, can I have a penny?
God: Sure, in a second.
--
+&x
--
A creationist could simply say that God chose to create us with DNA containing similar components from other living things.
Right. If God wants to make our DNA look like monkeys, there's nothing to stop him. If God wants to plant dinosaur fossils even if they never existed, then that's within the power of the concept of God. If God controls reality, physics, etc.. then any attempts to prove anything while residing in that framework are futile. Theres nothing to suggest that God didn't use the process of evolution to create Man, working at whatever speed he likes.
The analogy I like to use is that of root and an unprivileged user. Any attempts by a normal user to draw a conclusion about root by reading the logs are doomed to failure. Root can modify the logs.
There is no other way to explain the jerry-rigged nature of the genes that control key aspects of our development.
Scientific Creationism: The belief that a powerful being created the universe, the Earth and mankind through natural forces.
Evolution: A natural force for creating 'higher' beings from 'lower' beings.
How is anything proved/disproved here? This doesn't even proved Fundamentalist wrong. If a great power conciously created the world with dinosaur bones in the ground in such a way that they appear to be millions of years old, what to stop 'it' from funging some genetic data? At most, you can say that this is indirect data supporting the conclusion that mankind is a product of evolution (which is the only type of data we'll ever get until someone discovers time travel, BTW).
OTOH, don't argue with anyone who needs more evidence than what currently exist that evolution is the best explanation for why the Earth's biosphere is in its current condition. It's just not worth the pain and frustration.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
If God were a Good Programmer, he would realize that "making sustainable advanced life" is an NP-complex problem. Finding the optimal solution given the large number of input parameters and the extreme sensitivity to initial conditions is, to mortals, impossible, and to supreme beings, a large bore. But a useful (but perhaps not optimal) solution may be obtained by employing a genetic algorithm, as any student of numerical methods or budding deity should be well aware.
As evolutionary theory itself makes an enormous number of claims that are neither testable of falsifiable, I believe your argument fails.
s .htm, plus many more. The truth may not be so clear-cut as you think...
Too many people are too quick to dismiss one side or the other on the basis of "religion".
The fact is that this entire area of inquiry is full of VERY hard qustions, and there are extremely valid SCIENTIFIC reasons to doubt much of what passes for evolutionary gospel in today's scintific circles.
I recommend a few of the following articles from uber-hacker Do-While Jones' excellent web site, if you're open-minded enough to really analyze the facts as we see them presented in the real world:
Problems with the Origin of Mammals
Radioactive Dating Methods (PartI, Radiocarbon) This series explains the fallacies that underlie several dating methods, including several quite possibly invalid assumptions that are "taken on faith" by the evolutionist scientists.)
Radioactive Dating Methods, (Part II, Potassium-Argon, Rubidium-Strontium, and Isochron methods, with similar observations to above about the underlying assumptions.
A great expose about the bias that permeates evolutionary thinking and the genuinely bad science that has resulted, and is now accepted as in the evolutionary truth. This is a shocker for those of you that think science is squarely on te side of evolution.
All of these articles can be found at the index to Do-While Jones' excellent web archive of his scienceagainstevolution.org newsletter, Disclosure (see sig below, or http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/newsletter
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
In a nutshell, this proves the existence of God. The very act of presupposing these axioms to be true implies the existence of objective truth.
We've got hundreds of very good (or at least, logical) philosophers over the past two hundred years that have shown that if objective truth exists, then God must exist. Since they reject the notion of God, they then (corretly from a logical point of view) work backwards to prove that there is no objective truth, resulting a the slew of postmodernist humanist philosophies that fly in the face of common sense and observed reality. But they DO manage to deny the existence of God...
An easy (but certainly oversimplistic) example of this might be Douglas Jones' now-moderately-famous article about how the assumption of a Christian worldview is implicit in something as simple and innocuous as going to the store and buying milk.
There are *always* underlying assumptions - scientists that deny this are fooling themselves, and philosophers have acknowledged this to be true for thousands of years, so to claim otherwise is simply ignorance...
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
Thad
The Bolachek Journals
The study of evolutionary relationships between genes and protein structures is a well established field called Phylogenetics.
:-))
You can get an idea of how organisms are related in evolutionary terms by comparing the DNA sequences of genes in different organisms. The classic example is cytochrome C, a protein which is vital to energy utilisation, and is found in every organism, from primates to bacteria.
If you compare the sequence of either the gene or the protein from two different spieces you will find that the sequences are not the same. Furthermore the similarity between species is not constant; chimp and human cytochrome C are almost identical, whereas human and yeast cytochrome C sequences shows a much greater number of differences. If you analyse the differences you will find that they are not random, but point to an ordered relationship between species.
The explanation for these observations is that silent mutations (ie ones which have no effect on the funtionality of the molecule) accrue at random over time. The longer the time since two species diverged, then the more random changes will occur in their gene sequences. By cross referencing the differences between many different genes for different species it is possible to build up an evolutionary tree based purely on gene sequences.(note that this is independant to the trees drawn up by comparing the fossil record, but comes to the same conclusion, a strong indication that evolutionary theory might just be true
You can also try and workout a timeframe for evolution by estimating how often random mutations occur; however, this extension to the method is controvoersial, as it is not clear if mutation rates are stable across time or species.
Brittanic.com has an excellent summary, including pictures of evolutionary trees.
They sort of have, I remember seeing it on a nature program some time ago. Not completely, obviously, but our closest relatives are closer to us than you might imagine. The statistical percentage of correlation isn't just high, it was staggeringly close, above 99.99%.
Of course, as the article pointed out, we aren't that far from shrubs either. So maybe that's not a great measuring stick anyway. Using DNA shifts I mean.
The reason my be a lot of DNA is left in there and "shut off" using "switches" in the helix. So there is the code to make you an successful jellyfish species, but it's just included, not actually used, like functions that are never called, only defined.
To your point: When you say rapid, I say check again. Truth is... we didn't evolve that much. We just got a few really good tricks in release Ape 1.01 with patches, the basic design was finished long ago.
I'll concede, the extra features are great, but actual DNA change wise? Not much. It's my understanding you're dealing with a single eight character line of code in Win 2K for our closest relative ( an ape, but I forget which species ). But I'm not an expert in the field.
And it's also my understanding that more than a few lines and you'd be a camel, or possibly a lumpfish. Go figure.
Devaluing human life is the next logical step when you realize that we are nothing, but slightly improved apes.
We're not "improved apes", we have a common ancestor with apes. Not "improved", not "better", just different. I don't see how realising that "devalues" human life but in any event, what do you suggest? Lie to each other about it and pretend we're something else?
The story, I'm afraid, was completely useless. "This proves evolution!" they say. "These discoveries are the end of the argument!" they trumpet. But the story doesn't really explain HOW this result marks the end of creationism. Anyone seen a good scientific paper on this yet, or must we wait until they get published? Before alienating millions of fundamentalist Christians, it'd be nice to have the facts....
This is known as punctuated equilibrium. The idea is that unless some major environmental change happens, speciation never occurs. This wonderful theory makes evolution impossible to disprove, much like most religious beliefs.
We can't observe speciation occuring? That just means that we aren't in a critical point in evolution. Until we observe speciation it is unproven. It's funny how religion is criticized for being a belief in something unproven, unobserved, and defiantly undisprovable and evolution is not.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Um, no. "Evolution" means that the genetic makeup of a population changes over time. This is a fact as much as gravity is a fact.
That's adaptation. Darwinian evolution was a theory that attempted to explain the source of different species as being based on natural selection of random variations. The key here is that adaptation must be inherited and must lead to new species.
So far, we've seen inherited adapation, but we have not seen any fundamentally new species occur. At the scale of simple asexual creatures, it is difficult to define whether or not a variation is a new species of not. However, in sexually reproducing creatures, you can define the species line as whether or not two creatures can breed a non-sterile child. For example, lions and tigers can breed, but the child will be sterile.
We have seen extreme variation within a single species, such as the domesticated dog. However, all breeds of dog can be cross-bred. (Some crosses will have extreme difficulty surviving in the womb due to size differences, but they are not impossible.) We have not, however, seen evidence of new, incompatible species being created. Domestic and wild turkeys can still breed. This is what we have not observed, the creation of a new species.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Oh, but in many ways it is a religious belief.
The very fact that we share proteins and cellular structures in common with bacteria dictates that we must share genes in common with them. We've long known, for example, that mouse biochemistry is very similar to our own. Logically, we must share a great majority of genes with them. That the tools used to make similar structures are similar in no way denies divine creation of these things.
We have long known that we would share much in common with other creatures. I don't think any scientific creationist has ever denied this. Why should God use more complex tools to create life when so much of it is reusable? Perhaps as a software developer, I see the inherent need for reuse of code whenever possible that others might not. All this shows is that evolution would have had to do less work to get to the point that complex life has gotten to. It is in no way the smoking gun that proves the theory.
Let us remember what so many in the scientific establishment attempt to deny: evolution is nothing but a theory. It is a good one, and it is the only one that makes sense if you posit the lack of existance of a creating force. However the fanatical willingness to overlook flaws in the model is just as much a matter of religious (atheist) dogma as some of the twisted logic of some of its opponents.
The problem comes when one puts their faith in the belief that there is no God. Rather than accept the possibility that they are wrong and respect the beliefs of others, dedicated evolutionists will attempt to push their doctrine as fact, much as this author has done.
In truth, these people will hold their doctrine of evolution to less standards of proof than they would hold a religious man's beliefs. Though as religious man is treated a fool for believing in a being that he has never observed, evolution, which has never been observed, is not treated as rigorously. In fact, when confronted with gaps in the fossil records, evolutionists countered with the puncuated equilibrium theory. This theory holds that the reason for the gaps is that evolution suddenly happens across all species for a short period of time and then stops for millions of years. Brilliant! Now, if we cannot observe evolution it is not disproven because it may never happen in our lifetimes, or, indeed, in the lifetime of all of human civilization.
This gleeful "slam dunk" article that revels in taunting an evolutionist philosophical rivals is one of the worst examples of athiest zealotry that I've seen. In his rush to say, "I told you so," the author misses the simple fact that a divine creator could've used common tools in the creation of life just as easily as random luck. This is no proof, and this antagonistic little chestbeating is not worthy to be called news. Until we can see evolution definitively happen in a higher life form, we cannot accept the theory of evolution as proven no matter what other incidental evidence encourages support of the theory.
(Incidentally, I'm a theistic evolutionist. I believe very strongly that evolution is true, but that it was guided by a divine plan. However, as someone who does not assume that there is no God, I have no turned a blind eye to flaws in evolutionist doctine. I believe that they will be plugged one day, but I am not willing to outright dismiss the idea that evolution is the only possibility.)
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Okay. Traditional jewish (and thereby christian) belief states that God created the world in just 6 days (and spent some time chillin' afterwards). Now, how long is a day in the eyes of God? Could it be that we humans have been alive for mere minutes relative to Him? Seems to me that whoever created the universe was all about subtlety. After all, patience is a virtue in any religion...
And people forget that the bible was written by man. Divinely inspired, but still written by man. There are centuries of oral tradition bound up in that book, with stories much older than modern writing. We all played 'telephone' in grade school. It makes sense that some things, well, may NOT have gone exactly like the book says. But its still not a bad place to look for clues.
So what does all this make me? Can you be a creationist that believes in evolution?
Dirk
I keep trying to pick fights, but I can't shake this Excellent karma.
Science is about observing, creating theories, then testing those theories (if it isn't falsifiable it isn't a theory and isn't science). The amount of verification provided by the human genome is staggering (what creationist would have predicted junk or bacterial DNA?).
God (whatever he/that is) may or may not exist, but all the evidence points to the fact that he had nothing to do with the creation of life or evolution of species - these are well understood scientific phenomena, and no further explanation is necessary.
What about experiments like creating a stork with teeth (it's been done) as proof that our understanding of genetic coding and mutation are correct. You could say that god controlled the outcome of the experiment to fool the scientist, and there'd be nothing I could say to convince you otherwise because your beliefs are non-falsifiable. Mine are.
The point is that basic logic can show us that some of the evolutionary leaps required cannot take place unless many, many components change at the exact instant.
The only people to claim that evolution makes "leaps" are creationists. Punctuated equilibrium is about as close as we get to "leaps", and even then it's a matter of things happening relatively fast - on the evolutionary timescale of millions of years.
The major factors that creationists overlook to support this argument are:
1) The component features of our body CO-EVOLVE to become interdependent
2) Fully developed body structures get co-opted for alternate purposes under changing environmental conditions (e.g. gills turning into ears), whales evolving to leave the water, then go back in.
The typical creationist argument is something simplistic like saying what good are wings without feathers or vice versa, when the many possible answers to such questions are obvious, and in some cases the fossil record is even complete enough to tell us what the sequence of development was, and therefore suggest what the original functions were.
It's well documented that we can predict things like eye color and hereditary diseases from genes, and they way these genes combine when we mate (with dominant GENETIC traits prevailing), further proves that darwinian evolution primarily does occur at the level of genes, even notwithstanding their interdependent actions. Presumably there are also chemical reasons why gene markers exist - because the chemisty dicates that those are the points where "cut and paste" mutations are going to occur.
The evidence points to the fact that genes are indeed the level at which mutations occur, and natural selection operates, and so the onus is on us to understand how this can be given the interaction of genes, rather than to say that it can't be so!
Where did matter come from? It didnt' just appear one day on it's own, it had to be created. What was the driving force behind absolute nothing? Evolution? Heh, I don't think so.
Matter is all the time being created out of nothing and then disappearing - it's going on all around us all the time. Nothing mysterious about that - it's basic quantum physics.
The best theory for the creation of our universe is the expansion theory under which the universe started out as one of these "out of nothing" quantum blips, but then kept on expanding rather than disappeared, due to well understood basic physics.
Don't blame me if your own lack of knowledge leads you to jump to incorrect conclusions.
You want evidence supporting evolution? What are you looking to prove - it's not so much a theory as a simple observation that "the fittest survive". Q: If two things compete, which one wins? A: The "fitter" one (where "fitter" is defined as being the one which wins the most competitions!). Do you find that contentious?
What has changed since Darwins time is that we have discovered DNA and genetics. Darwin just made the survival of the fittest and hence evolution through competition observation - he didn't have a clue how this could actually work, but we now know. The existance of DNA and genetics is a discovery, not a theory.
Finally, if you really want to see DNA based evolution in action, then go to any research lab and see generations of flies or mice behave exactly as predicted.
There is nothing to prove about the "theory" of evolution - it's just the way things provably are - it's not a theory.
It sounds to me that you are not thinking this through. Matter is being created and destroyed all around us because...drumroll...there is matter here for it to do so.
No... quantum theory allows for matter to be created out of nothing. It's the law of conservation of energy which states that matter/energy can't be created/destroyed - only mutated - but that's a "law" of classical physics (i.e. more a law of statistics than anything else). At the quantum level there's no such restriction, but the the PROBABILITY of matter getting created out of nothing is vanishingly small as the amount of matter under consideration increases and the amount of time it "stays existed" increases. Expansion theory takes it from there.
You appear to be confusing "matter/energy" with the underlying quantum reality which is something that presumably always existed (even before the universe did). Time as such started with the big bang, so any notion of anything "before" then having to have a start or beginning would be wrong.
Don't blame me if your own lack of knowledge leads you to jump to incorrect conclusions.
Why do you insult my intelligence, I don't yours?
I wasn't insulting your intelligence - I was just pointing out that your common sense arguments of it not being possible to create matter out of nothing are wrong. It may be hard to comprehend, but quantum physics is probably the most successful theory ever - we may not understand it (maybe never will), but it predicts experimental outcomes with 100% accuracy.
There is no evidence PROVING evolution, just adaptation. Adaptation goes on all around us. Evolution is a myth, conjecture, a theory, dare I say a belief again.
Adaptation and evolution are the same thing. Two animals are considered to be different species if they can't mate and produce fertile offspring (and therefore their DNA will diverge as it no longer can combine). If a genetic mutation caused a lion to have stripes then it's still be a lion, but if it altered it's sperm so it could no longer breed with other lions then it'd be a new species. Call it adaptaion if you will, but it's still evolution - new species getting created.
If you have separated pockets of animals of the same species, then over time they are almost *certain* to diverge to the point where they can no longer interbreed! That's why different continents have different animals, yet if you know when plate tectonics caused the formerly joined contitents to divide and look for earlier fossils, then they will be the same.
Show me a timelapse of a fruitfly evolving into a mouse and I will show you evolution. Oh, that can't happen?
You're confused; that's like saying we're evolved from apes, when in fact the correct way to say it is that we have common ancestor with apes.
Fruit flies and mice are current day species, so the likely hood of one evolving into the other (i.e. evolution "reinventing" the mouse as an adaptation of the fruitfly) is unlikely. What is likely, and pretty much inevitable is that the fruitfly and mouse will both continue to evlolve, and in a few million years both may have spawned a number of new species.
You may believe in small "adaptive" changes, but find it hard to believe that genetic mutation can result in large/dramatic change, but you only have to look at things like two headed sheep or six fingered people to realize that large change can happen even in a single generation given the right mutation.
Well, science doesn't disprove anything (other than it's own theories). If god, or the hand of god, appears in a physics lab then theories will have to adapt to that reality, but so far the world appears to be 100% explicable by the combination of quantum theory and general relativity, hopefully soon to be combined into string theory. That's it - nothing else required to explain ANY other phenomena! All other scientific theories are higher level ones which are nothing more than convenience.
;-)
So, if there is a "god", while science may not be able to (or be trying to) disprove him/it, it certainly appears to have no need for him/it either. Given a world who's every content and behaviour can be predicted by science, where is there room for a god? It's a pretty wierd god that doesn't leave a single trace of its existence.
Finally, I did *not* say there was matter/energy existing before the universe - I said there was a quantum field - a bubbling field of probabalistic math and wierdness than not even the theory's creators claim to understand.
If you believe in god, then presumably you believe god always existed (else who created god), so you accept that there are some things (well, ONE thing) that has no beginning, but simply is and always was. My view is that the quantum field is and always was. Maybe this is my god.
The difference though, is that my god not only has rules, but we know the rules, and can predict what'll happen as a result of them. Pretty nifty, eh? Bet you can't do that with your god!
agnostic is still a religion. if somebody says they are not a part of any religion that means *any* religion. (at least in my case).
:)
Sorry I just hate it when I say I'm not religious or don't believe in god and I am instantly labled as agnostic or atheist. I think all religions suck period
-----------------------
Jeremy 'PeelBoy' Amberg
Well you are kinda right.
:)
:)
I mean.. Why would they go to church? hehe.. They would sit around and talk about..... well.. nothing?
But I mean. It's still a set of beliefs. They still have rules around them that I might or might not agree with. I just don't like the idea of being grouped in with other people just because we might have one or two of the same ideas. It makes me feel like cattle with one person telling me how to think or something. (not that they do that or anything, but I'm not going to risk it lol).. When somebody asks me if I am agnostic I say "No. I'm nothing. I believe what ever is in my head. Don't worry your little self about it. Now fuck off"
-----------------------
Jeremy 'PeelBoy' Amberg
True. But it's hard for something like that to not get misused.. It still turns in to a lable eventually :) That is why I am faily defensive about it.. I guess I have just had 1 too many religious discussions.
-----------------------
Jeremy 'PeelBoy' Amberg
Anyone ever consider creating debate.slashdot.org?
Something along the lines of
Ergh. Argh!
1) Fundamentalist Christians believe the universe was created in 7 days.
2) Science proves it is more like 10 billion years.
3) Therefore, God doesn't exist.
That is overly simplistic, and a straw-man in any case.
Most ahtiests (myself included) deny God's existence because He has steadfastly refused to show himself. We can see the Earth, the moon, the planets, but there is no God to be seen, especially one who does deeds which are so typically attributed to him in holy texts.
Let me tell you a story: During the recent struggles in Bosnia, there were several similar stories told by bereaved mothers. Their stories all had common elements, but there was no hard proof to back them up, alas. It went something like this: Bosnian troops would show up and begin harrassing a family of ethnic Albanians. The soldiers would make funny faces at an infant in its mother's arms, then hold a gun to its face. When it reached for the gun, wanting to play with this interesting toy, they would blow it's head off.
Where's your God, you fuck? And don't say it doesn't happen, because you know that shit like this goes on all the time in the world. If there is one thing that is common throughout history it is humanity's relentless brutality. Whether it's Genghis Khan storing the heads of conquered peoples under the floor of his dining hall, or the Turks nailing victims up to poles by their ears, or American troops in Vietnam raping 11 year olds, or Stalin or Hitler or the Bataan Death March or the Inquisition, it happens, and it happens over and over and over again. And God does nothing. Ever.
Darwinism is just another notch on the bedpost. And you know who's getting fucked? God. Consistently.
- Rev.Pendejo...
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
Actually the refreshing lack of "patriotism" is why I would like to move to a more progressive country like Canada... Ha ha ha! That is a good one. Actually the Whites in the U.S. are the ones that "celebrate" the 4th of July. To minorities it is just another day off from work.
African Americans are pissed off at being kidnapped and sold into slavery by White people. Native American are pissed off that they almost got exterminated by White people in a genocidal war. Chicanos are pissed off at the fact that our land got stolen from us by White people. Minorities in the U.S. are pissed off because they are treated like second-class citizens in their own country.
Please read some U.S. history before moving here. We have enough ignorant people here as it stands...
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
It must be because after I recently asked for a promotion to a programming position I was told I was unqualified even though I have over 220 college hours (60+ of which are IT classes with a 3.91 GPA) and know multiple operating systems and programming languages. Of course since Whites are not racist and there is no discrimination extant today then it has to be me, huh?Why even worry about he niceties of immigration? Why not make a run for the border? Don't you know that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) only goes after Mexicans, not Canadians? Well I made $27K US last year busting my ass in Operations, and I am living from check to check. If the White fuckers, err managers, above me would ever promote me then my answer to your question would be yes. As it stands I am making it but definitely not "affluent" (my main computer at home is a 300 mhz celeron with a 15" monitor!). If you are not sure of the meaning of a word, consult a dictionary, don't make up a new meaning that no one else agrees with. Maybe this will help: Progressive
As for taxes, I don't mind paying them. After all I get national defense, interstate highways, meat inspections, etc. Everybody knows that companies don't break the law or act unethically and you can rely on Ronald McDonald not to serve you a e-coli infested burger. I guess as long as your heirs can sue Mickey D's then all is well with the world... Jesus, as long a you get you history from the White Power movement then, yes you are correct. If you bothered to read some academic historical sources you would find out that that statement is false.
The Spaniards differed from the British in colonization methods. Whereas the British and Americans killed off the Native Americans, the Spaniards preferred to co-opt the natives. In short they intermarried with the natives and formed a whole new people, the Chicanos (this is before there was a border between the US and Mexico -- in fact this happened before the US and Mexico even existed).
And if you look at the so-called Mexican-American War, it was bogus, just like the Spanish-American War. Chicanos did not go out looking for a war, the White Americans did. What you don't seem to understand is that the Chicano people didn't come to the US, the US came to us and like the Native Americans we have been suffering ever since... White politicans acting in our name are the ones increasing the conflict level on the border. Your average Chicano believes as I do, however there are plenty of "Mexican Americans" and "Hispanics" who would disagree with me. These are the people that Blacks call "Uncle Tom" and Chicanos call "Tio Taco", people who come from a disavantaged background and have made it with some help, then turn their backs on their people because their money has somehow "Whitened" them.
Many Chicanos do feel as I do: an uproar erupted when a young Mexican was murdered by a U.S. Marine, who not surprisingly got away with it. They say it was an "anti-drug" operation but does the U.S. have armed Marines patrolling the Canadian border?
I consider Canada a more "progressive" place because they do not seem to shoot at people from the U.S. trying to sneak into Canada... When you can't attack the message, attack the messenger...I am working on a History degree from the University of Houston. I'll bet I have read many more history books than you have...
Come to a barrio in Texas or California and and spout the same nonsense you are going on about and I guarantee you will get your ass kicked. In fact, I only have one piece of advice for you: if you move to the U.S., move to Idaho. Maybe Randy Weaver's Ruby Ridge compound is for sale...
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
If Christians concentrated on the latter rather than the former then they would be among the coolest people around. Instead they concentrate on the religious dogma "fire and brimstone" part so they turn into humorless people who are against drinking, dancing, sex, etc. because it will send them straight to hell. It sucks when they condemn me to hell because I don't believe in their "God". They should just worry about their "salvation" and not worry about mine so much...
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
Both sides need to step out of their unyielding views and open themselves up to a larger picture. Who is to say that an omnipotent creator couldn't have come up with a blueprint (DNA) that would eventually result in a creature that is in his image?
God --> DNA --> bacteria --> fish --> mammals --> Human (Gods Image)
Is that so far fetched? Why must people be so closed minded? Why not be creative and come up with multiple possibilities?
Did anyone ever see that Star Trek TNG episode where they discovered encoded data in the DNA sequences of all the species, and eventually put it all together ad found out that a super-race had seeded all of their species? Think people! It's good to know that people like Gene Roddenberry are out there to dare to dream.
Execute? [Y/N] _
You'll notice that this recent discovery says nothing about religion. It tells us that evolution is fact, not theory. I don't know why you're getting upset. :-)
;-) My statement is not in defense of either religion or evolution. I have been searching all my life for middle ground.
I'm not getting upset, I am just speaking from experiences I've had with this subject in the past, with people from both sides of the discussion.
It's funny that you bring up Albert Einstein, I often use him as a point of interest in this argument. An amazing scientific mind, he also had great faith. He is really the closest "link" there has ever been between faith and science, and is definitely relavent to the discussion.
Personally, I find myself leaning towards deist philosophy quite often. God created universe, set laws of physics into motion, (created DNA?) and stood back and watched.
I just don't know why people can't find middle ground in discussions that yearn for it.
Execute? [Y/N] _
Well no duh. What did you expect from a site called "Geeks4christ"?
Nonetheless, you've made some errors in your post:
Other posters have addressed your poorly supported claims that "no beneficial mutation has ever been proven" (quick answer: antibiotic resistant bacteria evolve all the time and the mutation is quite beneficial to them -- bad news for us), "no fossil record" of transitional forms (consider the archeopteryx/protoavis, eohippus group, oconodons, sirenians, etc, etc, etc.), your interesting take on the scientific method vs. a historical science like paleontology (or astrophysics -- what do you do if we can't make supernovae to order in the lab, declare astrophysics a non-science?), etc.
--
"You've crossed my Line of Death!" "What? No! Where is it?" "Here in the fine print...."
That article states that the THEORY of evolution is the only way to explain our genetic makeup. This single sentence negates the whole article. He says that anyone who believes that evolution is a myth is wrong. Why? Evolution is a myth...er...theory. Therefore it is not true, it is unproven. He BELIEVES that evolution is true. I BELIEVE that God created everything. This is a common mistake or misconception from scientists and anti-christian nazis. Scientists are supposed to be open to any possibility, not BELIEVE dispraportionately one way or another. Evolution is a theory. Has everyone forgotten what the word 'theory' means? If you have, go get a dictionary, please.
LOL! Man, that's good stuff. Great post, man. I'm glad someone else is keeping an open mind, unlike most 'there is no god, only man' folk.
You again are striving to disprove the existance of God. Why don't you think on this for a while: If there is no God and there was a 'BIG BANG', where did matter come from. Scientifically you can't get something from nothing. There has to be something there for a Big Bang. You absolutely, possitively (in science) CANNOT get something from nothing. Where did that original something come from? Think about it before you answer, "...i cant explain it but evolution explains it for us..." bull. Even empty, open space is something. Where did THAT come from?
You say that gills turned into ears like it's true. You say whales evolved to leave the water and then went back in like it's true. Why do you cling to your theoretical BELIEFS? True scientists don't try to disprove the existence of God. They study their world and come to conclusions based on fact, not beliefs based on a theory, ie., evolution.
You cannot get something from nothing. Re-read Hawking...he believes in God.
It is very easy to take another's source code and experiement with it and create other apps. We could create a living human tomorrow in a lab from DNA but that doesn't in any way prove that creationism is false. What do you mean by (what creationist would have predicted junk or bacterial DNA?)? That has absolutely no relevence to your argument. Actually, all the evidence points to God and creationism. Name evidence which points elsewhere? Where did matter come from? It didnt' just appear one day on it's own, it had to be created. What was the driving force behind absolute nothing? Evolution? Heh, I don't think so.
My beliefs are my beliefs, non-falsifiable or otherwise. Your's are your's. A stork has nothing to do with God. God has everything to do with it.
So, evolution is when a species changes into a completely different one. Adaptation, then, is also evolution? You either adapt or evolve, right? Adaptation can be proven. Evolution cannot. There is nothing to lead us to think that evolution is fact yet, or have I missed the scientific boat? Here's Webster's thoughts on the subject:
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject
So now, according to Webster's Dictionary, a theory constitutes a fact, provided you have enough people to imprison or kill the non-believers. Hmm...bible prophecy?
Better watch out how you use that 'missing link' reference. Anti-Christian Nazis hate that and will be infuriated because it casts doubt on their theory. They don't like being proven wrong. Off with his head!
It sounds to me that you are not thinking this through. Matter is being created and destroyed all around us because...drumroll...there is matter here for it to do so.
Don't blame me if your own lack of knowledge leads you to jump to incorrect conclusions.
Why do you insult my intelligence, I don't yours?
I am looking to prove that evolution is a theory, which I have. There is no evidence PROVING evolution, just adaptation. Adaptation goes on all around us. Evolution is a myth, conjecture, a theory, dare I say a belief again.
Show me a timelapse of a fruitfly evolving into a mouse and I will show you evolution. Oh, that can't happen? But you say evolution is a fact. I'm so confused by your confusion.
Heh, nice long rant about your beliefs. You dis-creationists perplex me. You say that matter/energy existed before the universe...HOW?! There is no way that energy existed before the universe. Think for yourself and examine things from YOUR perspective, not scientist's. When you die, if there is nothing, then you will return to atoms from whence you came, which were created by some form of energy, which was created by...what? Nothing? Naw, doesn't happen that way. Common sense has nothing to do with it. Speak with a true, unbiased scientist and he will openly admit that there is no evidence which disproves God. You can't because you cant get something from nothing. Hawking, Einstein, etc.
Others have pretty much put holes all over your argument with sledge hammers. I can't contribute much, but I'll lend this in support of their arguments.
"Generation of more complex chemical compounds. Not proven. Generation of amino-acids from the elements in primordial soup is chemically impossible. First: water is deadly for their stability (if those *were* ever formed, they would instanteniously dissolve). Second: amino-acids are composed entirely of 'right-hand' compounds (chirality: elements having same chemical characteristics but being mirror image of each other). So, if needed compounds were indeed formed by chance, the result would be 50-50, which would cancel the whole reaction altogether."
Tell that to Stanley Miller of the University of Chicago who in 1953 showed that organic molecules could indeed be formed on primordial earth, given the correct circumstances. The experiment has been done before and it has been observed.
The water problem you speak of was circumvented in the lab by vaporising the water out of the solutions by a hot surface. The theory is that in nature the water was vaporised by waves against the smoldering rocks of a volcanic island. After the polypeptides are formed, they can exist in water and were probably swept back into the sea at some point.
Finally your point about there being only a 50/50 chance. A 50% chance is a fairly good chance in Nature- especially given that the first cells had millions of years to form. Thats millions of years of 50/50 chances.
Actually I think it's MSNBC. I'm sick of trying to actually swallow their plastic. MSNBC is the Britney Spears of Journalism.
this sig is deprecated
First off: firm believer in evolution here, no question. But I think the writer has the cart before the horse -- the evidence he provides is strong evidence only if you already believe in evolution and genetics.
The evidence (again): it appears that the genes making up the human genome are combinations of other genes used by lower orders. So, if you buy that humanity evolved, it seems very clear that as evolution progressed, the genes that were used were the ones that were around.
It's kinda like if you are walking down the street and you see a Mercedes wrapped around a pole. You can kind of assume that somebody drove into the pole.
But if you don't believe in evolution, there's no compelling reason to believe that just because DNA appears recycled necessarily means it is. Like, it could have just been made that way, straight ahead. The Lord moves in mysterious ways, after all.
To extend the example, it's UNLIKELY but POSSIBLE that the Mercedes you're seeing is an art project, and that the artist built the car from the ground up, right on that spot, from smashed parts from an entirely different accident. Actually, he might have built it from soda cans. If you don't believe in the paradigm of "internal combustion," you could possibly justify that the car was built right there.
The main difference between evolution and scientific creationism is that creationism depends so much on this undecidability and far-fetched alternate explanations. Evolution wins the day by the Occam's Razor approach, BUT that is not, formally, a logical proof. Like, just because evolution is more consistent, cohesive, and useful than creationism doesn't mean that it's provably true. Of course, real scientists just say, "Good enough, though," and move on.
People interested should check out the work of Thomas Kuhn, philosopher of science. These are interesting questions.
Evan Prodromou | evan@prodromou.name | http://evan.prodromou.name/
Just a note on Biblical descriptions of humanity. When God created man, he created us perfect. Yes that's right, humanity was perfect in every way. In order to let Adam and Eve know that they did have moral bounds that they had to stay within, God made the tree of the knowledge of good and bad. And you know the rest. (tree, satan, snake, fruit, eat). Anyway, their punishment was that they would no longer be perfect and live forever.
(by the way, other genetic studies have proven that humans should be able to live forever, and that the only thing that makes us grow old and die are telomeres which are attached to the end of DNA strands. Studies also show that telomeres are sort of stuck on to the end more like a code patch than a part of the strand)
Adam and Eve slowly drifted away from perfection and eventually died. However humanity didn't go from perfection to our condition over night. No according to biblical accounts, humanity continued to live lifespans of up to 965 years old (Methusela). Humans also had near perfect brains for a long time which sheds light on stuff like pyramids, etc. The bible also says that there was a time when God said "OK thats enough" and he limited humans to 70 or 80 years on average.
I submit that the genetic evidence does not indicate evolution, but devolution. Our genetic code has been unmaintained for over 6,000 years, and has slowly degenerated into our screwed up selves.
----------------------
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. --Sun-Tzu
did you even read the linked article in the original slashdot story? The article stated that human genes seem to be far to haphazard to have been created. "Jury-rigged" was even mentioned. That is the genetic evidence i was talking about.
the bible can be easily backed up by science. There are passages that speak of the "circle of the earth" thousands of years older than columbus or magellan. There have also been hundreds of archaological finds that prove the Bible's validity and age. As far as accuracy goes, for a long time there was practically a whole religeon formed around copying the Bible exactly. These guys invented the checksum, they had logs of the exact number of words and letters in each book and chapter of the Bible.
If I weren't at a place where I cant get to my library, i could dig up quotes from immenent scientists and mathemeticians such as Freeman Dyson, Sir Fred Hoyle, even Stephen Hawking has hinted at it. More and more scientists are starting to agree that the universe and life had to have a designer and creator.
one mathemetician (i think it was Hoyle) said that the odds against life arising spontaneously and evolving into what we know today, are greater than the total number of atoms in the universe to 1.
hehe, i love research
----------------------
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. --Sun-Tzu
God created man in a mature form, why then would he choose to create the universe in any other fashion?
The best way to accelerate a windows box is at 9.8 meters per second square.
By the time the Roman state got around to noticing the Christian church and decided to embrace it (after first trying to persecute it out of existence), most of the major disputes over what was to be considered "orthodox Christianity" had long been settled, including the Gnostic question.
Your point of view is still too narrow. That's probably not your fault, since of course vocal, intolerant minorities get more coverage and tend to shape one's opinion.
But I don't know any Protestant Christians who are uncomfortable applying to word "Protestant" to themselves. Very few of the Protestants I know would make a categorical claim that Catholics are not Christians. And most of the Christians I know, of any stripe, acknowledge that beyond a few core doctrines about the nature of Christ and salvation (and therefore what it means to be Christian), any disputes are dwarfed by our common bond of following Christ.
Now perhaps I'm among unusually enlighted Christians, but most of them are what you would call "fundamentalists".
> You can't beat ignorance with arrogance
/. that
But I guess it's still OK to try.
> there are plenty of people even within
> still want to believe in the tooth
> fairy/santa/god nonsense their parents fed them
> when they were kids
Most of the Christian students and grad students I happen to know around CMU are children of non-Christian parents. So don't jump to conclusions.
This is why I don't follow any particular religion, but am not an atheist. You simply cannot prove the existance, or non-existance, of an immaterial being.
Best Slashdot Co
Yep, that's pretty much my belief.
Best Slashdot Co
Funny, I base my scientific beliefs on observable facts, and mathmatic proofs. The only faith I need is that 2+2 does indeed =4.
EZ
"Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
Asimov wrote a short story once about evolution and God. Basically, Moses was dictating the Bible to Aaron, going through several billion years. But Aaron said he had only a couple sheets to write on, so Moses shortened it to 6 days.
Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
So, maybe the universe was created yesterday by a god who implanted memories in all of us. Or maybe I am just a brain in a jar being stimulated by electrical impulses. All I know for sure is that I exist (Je pense, donc je suis, thanks to Descartes). But what is the point of considering these possibilities when they are not in any way measurable and don't affect our experience in any way? If there is a god that is responsible for creation of the universe, it's not around any more, in any meaningful way. If it were currently influencing the universe, we could measure the effect, and the god's presence would be clear.
So the point... Sure, maybe a god caused the big bang. But who gives a damn? If it's true (which I don't believe it is), the god also provided quite a lot of evidence against its own existence and gave us the intelligence to find it. So it doesn't want us... screw it.
Ah, the argument from incredulity. Not very persuasive.--
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
Unfortunately, when one brings God into the context of an argument, there is no real counter-argument. One of the neat things about God is that he all-powerful and omnipotent, therefore anything is possible, including having human genes that are similar to other organisms.
With God, since we are not privy to his master plan, nothing "doesn't make sense." Of course it makes sense, it just isn't what you were expecting. So this argument of creationism versus evolution boils down to something ephemeral frustrating for scientists - faith. It is impossible to argue with faith, so don't try.
The article was really about some PhD who wants a headline and knows the easiest way grab it is to piss off a large group of people with a black and white statement -- "Darwin Vindicated, Creationism is Dead!" Instead, his headline should be "Genome Mapping Consistant with Previous Scientific Thought" because that is all the new evidence provides.
XJesus? Somebody forked him?
... is everyone who sits and waits for these articles to prove that their beliefs are correct and the opposing side is wrong.
/. post about an article that proves creationism is correct and evolution is garbage.
Remember when Big Bang was the end all. Remember when evolution was upheld, denounced, upheld, denounced, etc. I could go on but...
In 5 years, we will be seeing a
The vicious cycle has already begun. Throw more money at both sides and ignorance continues to stew.
ChozSun
ChozSun.com
So then that would make companies who are trying to patent genes both criminal and blasphemous ;)
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Don't forget the ask the next question...
Then who or what created God? Yes, I know, God is all-powerful and has always existed. The same could be said of the Universe.
It's an abuse of the word "scientific"
Actually they manage to survive like most low-inteligence/low-life expectancy species (insects, rabbits, etc.) : they reproduce in mass quantities...
Actually they weren't moroons, they invented and promoted a lot of good stuff that got lost in the dark ages, when they empire died and christians took control of Europe.
Think water aduction, city organisation, freedom of religion (yes, they were very open to religion, except to religions who were trying to force other people to convert like christianity).
IIRC, Genisis states that light was created on day 1, but the sun, moon, and stars were all created on day 4.
If you can read this, then I forgot to check "Post Anonymously".
-Omar
Nor can I disprove that God didn't create the whole universe (including this Slashdot post, and my memories of my life up to and including the moment when I clicked "reply") out of whole cloth fifteen seconds ago.
In science, the burden of proof lies on the person or group making the claim.
If it's not falsifiable (i.e. if it's impossible to find data that disproves the theory), it's not science.
It's quite possible to find evidence that would disprove evolution. Regrettably, much of the evidence for "Scientific" Creationism has already been falsified.
Evolution remains the most likely explanation for the origin of life. What's important in the MSNBC article is that genomics has discovered additional evidence (unrelated to rock-dating techniques) that supports the evolutionary theory.
Yup. As someone who's reverse-engineered code from raw assembler dumps, I'm struck by the similarities I see in molecular/computational biology.
Oftentimes, you get "dead wood" in a hex dump, bytes that aren't used by anything. As you grok more and more of the code, you find that it's not junk after all - it's a data stash read by a linked list, for instance.
I've got a standing bet with a cow orker that a good chunk of that "junk DNA" is just data for which we haven't found the code that reads it yet.
(On the other hand, since DNA isn't hand-tuned assembly, it's quite plausible that there are huge portions of space that contain "whatever stuff was in RAM at assembly-time half a billion years ago" and are neither executed nor read as data by any active code.)
The most exciting things I've read about the assembly-language:DNA mapping are the papers where you see things like "the bacterium can survive with only 300 of its 500 genes working". Then you see the catchphrase "when disabled one at a time".
This sounds remarkably like the technique I learned as "filling the code with water and seeing where it leaks" - stuff a data stash full of 0xFF and if you see white blocks on the screen where there used to be airplanes, you've found the graphics. Replace a subroutine with a "Return" instruction and if the airplanes disappear, you've found the routine that displays them. Fill too much stuff with 0xFF or return-out too many subroutines and you crash hard and reboot ;-)
It also says that the earth has corners (and thus must be a polygon) _and_ a disc.
A reference for such arguements can be found
at http://www.talkorigins.org which links to almost all of the falks of the talk.origins newsgroup.
---
RobK
Myddrin
Well, the "Creation Scientists" declare
the bible to be literally true.... so
we just follow their own claim and point
out that according to the bible
the value of pi is exactly 3, a bat is a bird
and all insects have 4 legs.
It's all documented on the site I list above. A truely interesting site.
---
RobK
Myddrin
erm. that comment about my math skills and not being able to evaluate... should have pointed out that I was interested in methods other than straight out plug-in-the-numbers-and-see-how-they-fall.
Carl Sagan's book (not the movie, which IMHO blew) "Contact" ends with the protagonist searching for 'numinous' evidence; the aliens have hinted that encoded in the deep structure of the universe there are hints that it has been created artificially.
IIRC she finds that if you search out in the trillions of decimal places of pi, all of a sudden the seemingly psuedorandom numbers stop and a sequence of ones and zeros starts, which when lined up in a square, paint a rasterised circle. That's a pretty neat idea of an easter egg.
Of course, now that you've given them the idea, all those people who like to search for clues in the Torah will start searching DNA for hidden messages from god. Most of them will find what they're looking for because statistically all short strings will exist in a much longer one.
However, it would be literaly mind blowing if something unmistakable, like a straight forward representation of the equations that solve the grand unified field problem were found nestled amongst the junk DNA I'm carrying around.
That would settle the issue rather decisively.
yes. Hence my argument that the Torah seekers always find what they are looking for, because they are searching for short strings.
however, in general, using an alphabet with X characters, to find a specific string of length M in a [random] string of length N+M is of likelyhood
P = 1 - (1 - X^(-M))^N
(that was much prettier before the lameness filter kicked in. Does anyone think that the lameness filter does more good than harm? I doubt this)
Is that right? Now, my math skill are kinda stuck.
I don't know how to evaluate the likelyhood of finding, say, 10^6 specific binary numbers (to represent a circle a-la Sagan) in a string 10^12 bits long.
You are right tho, that since pi is irrational, all strings of finite length MUST exist somewhere in its representation, so for Sagan to use this as a means of easter-egging, you'd have to encounter the message at a meaningful index. Then you'd have to calculate the probability of this happening randomly.
The human genome is finite, so eggs could be alot smaller and still be statistically significant.
Simple blobs improve their chemical processes and beget simple proto-cells.
Wow, that's a pretty big leap there. You're missing like, oh I don't know, about 20 million steps in there.
--
Don't lead me into temptation... I can find it myself.
There is a difference.
--
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
Some genes require full-gene alignment, and others require even double-gene alignment. Those introns are just padding to preserve alignment. Many earlier species died out because of bus errors (core dumped) during the sperm/egg copy constructor.
>I'm pretty sure you actally don't.
... it will never prove your theory.
I'm pretty sure he does.
>Any plausible explanation is wellcome as a theory
There. You just confirmed it. You don't know what "theory" means. You just defined "hypothesis".
>Anyway, I don't think you actually test the theory
You do if you're interested in doing science.
>Ensteinian theory, as elegant as it might be is not tested
Nonsense. Not only is it tested, it's been confirmed. Over and over again. In fact, few scientific theories, other than the round-earth theory, are better confirmed than Special Relativity and General Relativity. If you even bothered to do a web search, you would pick up things like this.
> unless
No theory is provable. By definition. (You do know the difference between "prove" and "confirm", don't you?)
Sure. No difference whatsoever. Whether or not you'll be killed if you jump off the roof of a skyscraper is just a matter of faith. Faith that God will save you, versus faith that F equals m*a. It's all faith.
Uh-huh.
Regarding "it is still a theory": That's a compliment. "Theory" is as good as it gets. The next step after theory is "falsified former-theory". "Theories" don't become "laws". Theories are explanations. Laws are general principles (e.g. "law" of conservation of mass) or simple equations expressing observed relationships (e.g. "Ohm's law"),
My point was that the earlier posters definition of theory, which you criticized, was, IMO, right on the money: "A theory IS a hypothesis that has been proposed and tested" [emphasis mine], although I would add "and confirmed". I've never heard the usage in which "theories suggest hypotheses". Nor do they "become laws", as claimed by the Henry Clay high school web site you linked to. Though, I agree with you that the over-touchyness about definitions is ordinarily much ado about nothing. But in the context of this discussion, the precise definition strikes at the very heart of the issue, since the creationist typical response is "evolution is only a theory", as if it ever gets any better than that. It doesn't.
:-).
I wasn't trying to "prove you wrong" so much as to make certain we're all speaking the same language (by which I mean using a consistent set of definitions for things like "theory" and "hypothesis", which apparently we aren't).
I've also never heard before of such a distinction between "theory" and "model", vis a vis testing one and not the other. That's interesting, since I've always heard the two used more or less interchangably, with "model" perhaps being somewhat less formal and quantitative.
>So the whole point was that someone said "sadly
>it will still be a theory" and I understood he
>meant "in the end, that won't be any proof that
>this is how things are", and I happen to agree
Yes, I do too.
>The only thing that really upset me is this:
>>Ensteinian theory, as elegant as it might be is
>not tested
>Nonsense. Not only is it tested, it's been
>confirmed.
>I don't know anyone who doesn't know about what
>you're talking about,
Sorry if I jumped to the wrong conclusion here. Spend some time listening to the kooks on sci.physics.relativity once in a while, who claim that there is no experimental confirmation of Relativity whatsoever and that it's provably false from the get-go, and you'll understand my reaction
This "Separating theory from its hypothesis" part still bugs me. This is a very unusual usage, in my experience. Oh well...
that was fun to read. thanks for the interesting point!
-- Betting on the survival of the media industry is a serious risk. I advise investing elsewhere.
To say that you CAN make a deceivingly - similar likeness of the Mona Lisa using a modified greasepaint - injected bubblejet printer and urine-yellowed canvas, is not to say that DaVinci did the same, or that DaVinci did not exist.
This article's argument is:
"We have 350 genes that are identical to a rat's, therefore we are descended from rats."
Great. Let's try another:
Elephants are grey. Rocks are grey.
Therefore, Elephants are descended from rocks.
"'Darwin was right - mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive animal ancestors'"
...
also
"he or she would learn that Darwin believed that all creatures evolved together from more primitive versions of themselves, not that humans evolved from monkeys who evolved from lesser creatures."
Ok, then.
If a "more primitive version of ourselves" is not exactly ourselves, than one could pick a threshold past which it would be 'too primitive' to be 'human' and would therefore be 'animal'. Therefore, "from primitive animal ancestors" would be exactly accurate.
Also, no one has indicated that humans evolved from monkeys. You are right, Darwin didn't. Neither did the article. Darwin, I thought, indicated that both humans and monkeys evolved from a common, monkey-like ancestor. Which, of course, would be a "primitive animal ancestor", as the article indicated.
I guess I just fail to see what actual part of that first quote you used you are disagreeing with. It seems more like you are disagreeing with a common misconception about evolution, but not one that is found in that quote and therefore the article. Hence, I wonder if your critique of the article is unfounded.
Justin Dubs
Actually, they think that a lot of the "junk DNA" started out as places where viruses inserted their genes into ours to reproduce. Our defenses then inactivated the viral genes but they stuck around as dead weight. Since they weren't doing anything, they were free to mutate, eventually turning into pretty much nothing but noise.
Not all of them appear to be noise. Sometimes the virus mechanisms were converted to other uses by the cell - especially the DNA editing mechanisms.
For instance, many grasses have such an apparent viral reminant: A "hopping gene" that activates when the grass is under stress. This is apparently the leftover of a RNA->DNA virus that would reproduce with the host's cells until the host was in trouble, then "loop out" to try to escape the dying cell and infect others (a common viral trick).
In the grasses, what happens is: when the plant is stressed the gene starts hopping around the plant's genome, making little mutations as it does so. On one hand it means the plant is less robust because it tends to lose cells when under stress. But on the other hand, when the plant is growing near an "edge" of its eco-niche it experiences an increase in mutation rate. One of its offspring may be better adapted to the now-modified niche, or able to colonize another. When times are good the grasses heredity is stable, when bad it tries to change to fit.
As individuals the extra mutation rate under stress is a loss. But as a (set of) species this is such an enormus evolutionary gain that most current grasses have the mechanism, having been better able to evolve out of failing niches and into new ones. The fact that is only activates under stress means the grasses can remain stable and strong in a niche they fit, while still producing a high enough mutation rate to "tune in" to new niches as they become available.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Sorry, but the genetic code is much more like bare assembly than a high level language. Each assembly instruction(base triplet) is translated directly into one machine code instruction (amino acid).
Agreed that it's more like an assembler than a high-level language. But remember that assemblers historically have had much more powerful macro and conditional assembly/compilation features than high level languages. The situation with C and its related assemblers (with a rather low-powered preprocessor on the HIGH level language and usually none on the related assembler) is a reversal of the typical situation when assemblers were in heavy use.
OTOH, there are some interesting aspects to the whole intron-exon structure.
Depending on which promoter activates the gene, the spliceosome, which chops out the introns, can splice the gene differently.
Some genes actually carry more exons than will be coded into a particular protein and will cut different ones of them out under different circumstances. The result is that a single gene can code for a small family of closely related proteins, or if you want to put it that way that a single protein can have several sequence variants.
So in addition to comment removal it has conditional assembly on a small namespace of global variables. ("-Dfoo" + "#ifdef foo", etc.).
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Why, when faced with biological processes that seem to work in the same manner [as human-created assembly languages], do we feel the need to deny a creator?
For starters, because a "Creator" doesn't explain the origin - just pushes it back an additional level. Who (or what) created the "Creator"? Who (or what) created THAT?
Where does the series end? THERE you have something that WASN'T created by a "creator". So by insisting on one or more intermediate steps you're just making the explanation more complicated without explaining the root cause.
Given that you need either a backward-in-time causality loop or a non-Creator explanation for the start of everything, can you get from the non-Creator origin to us without an intermediate Creator?
If you can, then you can try to figure out how to distinguish the cases. Or you can just assume the simpler explanation until something shows up that seems to require the complication.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
A fellow I once worked with wondered:
There is a LOT of "non-coding" chunks of DNA (called "introns") mixed in between and within the genes, that get edited out between the copy into RNA and the actual production of the protein.
Could those be the comments?
And if so, do they qualify as "holy writ"?
(And I wonder: Is the mechanism that edits them out the preprocessor? Can it expand macros?)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
An infallible omnicient God (as generally postulated by the monotheists) should be able to figure out in advance an ideal design and just impelemnt it. So the only way to reconcile the observed tight fit to evolution with the hypothesis of such a God as creator is "he wanted it that way".
But what if the creator was something more fallible. Say a hacker. Or an engineering team. (Angels?) Or a series of engineering teams over a long period, such as you find in an industry. (Think "automobiles".)
Such projects are very cut-and-try, make mistakes, re-use previous workable designs with minor changes. It isn't for nothing that people refer to "the evolution" of aircraft, or trains, or warships. How WOULD you distinguish them - especially if they take place in an "intellectual property" enviornment that would limit transfer of designs from one line to another.
Of course you won't find the "Scientific Creationists" postulating a fallible God or long-term teams of fallible angels. But it makes for interesting speculation. B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Who is to say God didn't brew the primodial stew...
Mmmm... primordial brew. I like that.
--LordEq
Tho' your promise count for nothing
Actually, I think we found out that
SOMEBODY SET UP US THE DNA!!!
To say that Kansas agrees with the statement that the Genome undeniably proves evolution is, well, a statement without any fact backing it up.
-bugg
Why does Darwin get all the credit? Anaximander theorized that humans evolved from fish (possibly from studying fossils) over 2000 years before Darwin - around 600-500 BCE I believe.
> This says exactly the opposite.
So? Anyone can spin news. Try giving a *reason* why it's the oposite.
> After all, Darwin himself stated that his theory would be invalid if there were complexity found at the cellular level.
Is that relevant? Darwin wrote his theory in 1859, about 100 years before DNA was discovered. Very little was known about cells then, and the theory of evolution has well, evolved into somethigna lot stronger since then.
Try reading a modern neo-darwinist. such as Dawkins or Dennett. They don't take that approach.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
Sure, god created us just to fuck with. While I'm not saying you're wrong, that is not the theory of Christianity I was brought up to believe. Of course, I stopped believing about age 8, but that's another story.
Man asks "Why is man created only to suffer and die?" God answers "Why not?"
-- Kilgore Trout, "Venus on the Half Shell"
http://drteknikal.blogspot.com/
First, as was pointed out, this was an opinion piece. Somewhat of a summary overview without citation or supporting detail.
Second, from the religious point of view, this is heresy, even blasphemy. As such, any technical merit is completely beside the point.
Religion has been at odds with science for millenia. Decrypting the genome isn't going to convince true believers.
Now if we could find the genes that control religion, we'd be on to something...
http://drteknikal.blogspot.com/
All those people who believe the earth is less then 10,000 years old, please SHOW me the scripture where you are inferring that.
Please read the orginal hebrew of Gen 1:2 paying close attention to the Hebrew words of hayah, tohuw and bohuw.
i.e.
http://reluctant-messenger.com/creation.htm
--
"Science explains the HOW. Religion explains the WHY."
I really think that everyone puts way too much of a burden on a man living several thousands of years ago. Creationism is not disproven in the least.
If we assume for a second that God the creator is explaining the complex origin of the universe to a man living 3000 years ago, can we assume that that man's description of the specific processes being communicated to him might be somewhat er-uh LACKING?
I submit that if God explained the creation of the Universe to Einstein, that even Einstein's description of the account would be prone to a few inaccuracies. The generally accepted story of creationism seeks to explain the origin of man and the role God played in the creation of man, it is not a scientific journal or recipe for how to make men from dirt.
Let's say that God did tell Moses that he created man from DNA, should Moses be expected to transcribe that God created man from the "Deoxyriboneuclaeic Acid" scattered about the planet or can we stretch our imaginations to conceive that where God saw DNA, Moses saw dirt. OR perhaps where God saw a "Big Bang", Moses saw "and God said, let there be light".
Before anyone just totally discounts creationism, let us remember that other than a decay of the material body, the smartest scientists in the world have NO CLUE what happens to us after death (and that's something we all experience). Can we extend this idea to suggest that just as science is not the final authority on death, that maybe (genome project notwithstanding) it is not the final authority on life either?
Furthermore, that if we can accept these two premises, can we entertain the idea that there remains room for creationism after all?
I'm not trying to push my or anyone else's religion on anyone. I'm just trying to suggest that there is something inherently unfair about comparing the writings of a man (or any man) living 3000 years ago to findings from today's technology.
I just think that EACH accounting should be considered within the context of the material being presented (the creation of man) and the time in which it was evaluated (now vs. 3000 years ago). Scientists once claimed that the earth was flat, so can we cut Moses some slack?
Moses: "So er-uh God, could you explain that creation of the earth thing to me? I'd let to get it down for posterity."
God: "How much time have you got, this could take a while."
Moses: "Look at me... what??? I got an 2:30 appointment with Pharoh or something? Oh yeah, I forgot... I DO Have a 2:30 appointment with Pharoh... You got a cliff notes version???"
God: "Yeah, Here goes... Basically allowing for the time dialation associated with the Einsteinian special relativity involved with working from a parallel yet cohabitational dimension at faster than the speed of light, I created the Earth in about 5.68 of what you know as the equivalent earth days."
Moses: "Er-uh... OK... and God created the Earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th day... Sound Good??"
God: "It'll have to do..."
If one were to actually read The Origin of Species, he or she would learn that Darwin believed that all creatures evolved together from more primitive versions of themselves, not that humans evolved from monkeys who evolved from lesser creatures.
True, Darwin did not say that humans evolved from apes in his most famous work, The Origin of Species, but in 1871, he wrote a little book called The Descent of Man. It was in this book that he proposed the theory that humans evolved from the great apes.
So if we're not even improved or better than the apes but just 'different' than what gives us superior rights to animals? What gives animals inferior obligations to us? Either we have to imprison/kill all animals for not obeying the law (which is stupid) or it's testing makeup on little Billy's eyes time because his folks needed the money.
There is a lot of foundational stuff in terms of morality, law, and ethics that this plays around with. The consequences of screwing around with this stuff (rights theory) without thinking it through are horrible, for two nasty examples see international socialism (Communists) and national socialism (Nazis). The combined body count was about 150 million.
Just ask Terry McAuliffe how much hot water you can get into for saying colored people except when expanding out the initials of the NAACP. Frankly I don't like McAuliffe and think he should be in jail for some of his Clinton fundraising BS (Teamsters money laundering, etc) but he is a perfect example of what the parent post was talking about.
DB
NYC public school per pupil expenditure 9k
NYC catholic school per pupil expenditure 4k
Who gets the higher test results, the higher graduation rates, the higher college acceptance and graduation rates?
Just guess
Oh yeah, it's all about money.
BTW: before you go pulling the BS about catholic schools cherry picking, there's an open offer from the Archdiocese of NY to the NY public schools that they'll take the worst school disctrict in the city and in three years turn it around with no extra expenditures and no change in student body. For some reason the teacher's union is dead set against the experiment and has been against it for 10 years +.
DB
Anything more than anecdotes? I think not. There is quite a bit of historical evidence for Jesus and there are more early copies of the Bible available than most ancient texts that are treated as fact.
In those Bibles, however, are certain passages that do make it pretty evident that navigating the spiritual world is something that God wants us to have faith, not just fear of an ultimate God that you absolutely are certain can kick your butt if you get out of line. This is why the fundamentalists who branch out into scientific creationism are often so comical. Honest science hasn't disproven God and there *are* miracles that defy explanation that happen to this day.
There's enough evidence to argue over for a lifetime and without faith neither side is going to make the jump to the other.
Christians! Live the life of Christ! It's the best witness you have, and the most convincing.
As far as the human genome 'proving' evolution, I'll wait for the peer reviewed text. Anything else is just propaganda.
DB
Actually, the reason Galileo got in trouble was that he started doing Bible interpretations and saying that the flat earthers were religiously incorrect. He pissed off the Jesuits who were his closest supporters and generally did everything to be disagreeable and nasty and turn his judgers against him. Of course that doesn't justify what happened to him.
The church sinned in not forgiving all of that and judging on the merits of the case. They finally got over it and apologized and if you dig, you can read about the apology on the Vatican web site.
DB
Actually, it's the noisy ones that are getting noticed and I don't think that they hold the majority opinion. You need to be quite careful in your definitions here. The idea that God created, by a mechanism that is not specified in the Bible and could possibly well be evolution but it's not been proved one way or the other is actually the position of the Catholic Church and has no bones to pick with science at the current time. Now saying that evolution exists and is not divinely inspired is an entirely different thing, but certainly you can't say that it's science.
DB
Either you are an extremist or there is a cheap pool of IT talent that isn't being exploited. The best revenge in these sorts of situations isn't to get mad, it's to hire the racially discriminated against at lower wages and drive those racist companies into the ground with your cost advantage. You'll either end up on top, pissing on their corporate grave, or your wage advantage will be arbitraged away by racists waking up to the fact that they're going to have some chicano laughing at them as they go bankrupt and they cut that crap out.
Now isn't getting rich a lot more attractive than whining and moaning on slashdot?
DB
Actually, not true. When God comes back, if he cares to share the truth of the story and *he* debunks the literal interpretation of Genesis then even the scientific creationists are going to fall in line.
Another method that will swallow up the scientific creationists is for Christian unity under one of the more sophisticated varieties of Christianity that is evolution compatible.
Other than those two methods, I can't think of any other method either.
DB
That just begs the question. We can kill the old, the disabled, and the young easier than we can kill a bull. If might makes right, why are the first three unacceptable but not the last?
DB
Disclaimer: This remark is meant to be ironic.
Yes, you are right there. -- Another glass of champagne?
This is completely tangential to the thrust of his argument, of course. There are a lot of odd genomic features which can yet be argues both pro (look at all the junk! how could that be designed in?) and anti (general complexity: all our genes appear to interact in many more ways than previously thought) evolution. The jury's still out, and forever will be: remember the 'fake dinosaur skeletons' that the mice were building into the Earth Mark II in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? There's no scientific argument that says that the same thing might not be done by an onmipotent God (once one has assumed the existence of such God -- but here our argument becomes circular).
In any case, the article author's "descended from bacteria" claim is a grossly inaccurate canard.
[
I would suspect that rejecting this theory because it makes God a "liar" or "cheat" is more likely due to fear and insecurity than reasonability.
Personally, I find most Christians to be an unreasonable bunch. It is impossible to take a verbatim approach to the Bible, for instance, because the Bible contradicts itself. Yet some Christians will fight to the death to protect the notion that the Bible is perfect.
From a completely realistic pespective, though, I think that if there were an omnipotent power creating a universe, he would bring it into existance under his own terms. I'd like to believe that the creation of mankind was a seperate step from the creation of the rest of the universe - we'll never really know.
But I don't see how believing that God created the universe with an apparent age - with rock formations seemingly millions of years old, despite being perhaps only 10,000, I don't see how that would make God a con-man. Just creative.
What if I gave you three dollars? How much? Thr-- four dollars? Keep talking, I'm listening.
First of all, I don't understand the desire to prove Creationism impossible.
The response to all those who thump their bible and say there is no proof, no test and no evidence in support of evolution is, "The proof is right here, in our genes."
Thump their bible?
The genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt, that Darwin was right -- mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive animal ancestors.
Indisputably and beyond serious doubt?
Regardless, it's rather easy to prove that it is possible that God created the universe.
Let's assume for a moment that God did create the universe.
Boom - there's the Earth. Now, if we take the Bible at face value, the claim is that everything happened within a span of six days. So God didn't really have time to wait billions of years for Earth to become habitable - he would have had to create it already habitable.
Boom - there's Adam. Again, God didn't sit around for 30 years and wait for Adam to become fully-grown. Adam was supposedly created as an adult. I'm sure by every scientific standard, Adam would appear to be 30 years old.
So which came first - the chicken or the egg? Well according to the Bible, it would be the chicken. God didn't create eggs and then wait for them to be hatched.
It's rather possible that God, if there is one, created the universe with an "apparent age." Furthermore, it's impossible to prove that there isn't a God, and that God didn't create the universe based on specific rules.
Assuming God did create the universe, and he did so in six days, then Adam was born with hairy armpits and a full bank of sperm. If you and I were to see him a day or two after creation, it would appear to us that he must have gone through puberty.
It's a rather simple argument that obviously does not attempt to prove God's existence, but to disprove any claim that God's existence is impossible.
What if I gave you three dollars? How much? Thr-- four dollars? Keep talking, I'm listening.
-----------------------
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
Fantastic book (with lots of bio-babble) about man's next leap.
Link to book here
Indeed, in retrospect, the reality of fundamentalist Christianity was largely an attempt by a biologically rural ethnics to survive urbanization. For these (my) people the environment had grown increasingly hostile to their real evolutionary psychological needs as recent immgrants to the cities. So, far from denying Darwinian theory, I see fundamentalist Christians as living it. Indeed, they are "pro-Darwin" in the sense that their practice actually tends to support fertility rates that are equal to or above replacement -- unlike the rural-heritage adherents to the more secular religions of modern urbanization such as Freudianism, Marxism and Political Correctness.
If you have a bunch of memes being broadcast into the rearing environments of particular ethnic groups that are effectively sterilizing them, it is incredibly cruel, to the point of genocidal, to hold against members of those ethnic groups any "irrationality" to which they may adhere in order to innoculate themselves against those biologically toxic memes. In this respect I think Christian Fundamentalists have gotten a monsterously "bad rap" -- especially in the last few decades.
Seastead this.
You know driving around my nieghborhood I notice the similar components in building structures. First bird houses look strikingly similar to houses in my subdivision and the bigger buildings downtown also have similar constructs.
Therefore I conclude buildings have obviously evolved from each other since they have common parts. Or maybe they had a common creator.
I am not a creationist but just hate to see faulty logic.
I guess that what I was trying to get across was more the point of Scientific proof of evolution rather than my believe structure (and I obviously didn't do a good job ;)
What I was trying to say is that this whole genome thing is just evidence that might point towards evolution, it is not proof.
The problem with the whole evolution thing is that you cannot approach it with the usual scientific method.. Can you observe evolution taking place? Can you say, hmm I think the mechanism is X, devise an experiment, and then test your hypothisis? - No. The only thing you can do is look at the historical evidence and find a theory that looks like it fits the facts.
Because of this it is very difficult to prove, nobody can come along and try new experiments to disprove it. All you can do is believe that you have found the right answer, you cannot prove it.
If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, let'em go, because, man, they're gone.
Ok, I'm a Christian and a scientist and I would like to point that I do think evolution could have happened.
However, I would like to point something out which I think people usually fail to take into account. If we take as red for a moment that there is an almighty, all powerful God who created the universe. And that he created us in his own image (thats what the bible says). Well, I have a sense of humor so I think that God probably does to.
Given all of this, what is to stop God having created us the way he did, and then leaving a couple of "jokes" for us to fall for? I could just imagine him laughing... ha, you guys have got it sooooo wrong!
But as I said I actually think that evolution is correct, but is it really "proved" (can you actually prove something which you can't observe and recreate? and even then is it proved?) does knowing that we evolved actually help? Where did the whole universe come from? - the big bang? Well what created the big bang? Don't forget the ask the next question... I found that it led me to God. I find believeing that we are only here because of random chance impossible to believe, just look at the work around us - it's incredible, I can't believe it wasn't designed by God.
If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, let'em go, because, man, they're gone.
Check out: http://www.mchawking.com/music.html
For crazy sh1t like this:
Fuck the Creationists
Trash Talk
Ah yeah, here we go again
Damn! This is some funky shit that I be laying down on your ass.
This one goes out to all my homey's working in the field of
evolutionary science.
Check it!
Verse 1
Fuck the damn creationists, those bunch of dumb-ass bitches,
every time I think of them my trigger finger itches.
They want to have their bullshit, taught in public class,
Stephen J. Gould should put his foot right up their ass.
Noah and his ark, Adam and his Eve,
straight up fairy stories even children don't believe.
I'm not saying there's no god, that's not for me to say,
all I'm saying is the Earth was not made in a day.
Chorus
Fuck, fuck, fuck,
fuck the Creationists.
Trash Talk
Break it down.
Ah damn, this is a funky jam!
I'm about ready to kick this bitch back in.
Check it.
Verse 2
Fuck the damn creationists I say it with authority,
because kicking their punk asses be me paramount priority.
Them wack-ass bitches say, "evolution's just a theory",
they best step off, them brainless fools, I'll give them cause to fear me.
The cosmos is expanding every second, every day,
but their minds are shrinking as they close their eyes and pray.
They call their bullshit science like the word could give them cred,
if them bitches be scientists then cap me in the head.
Chorus
Trash Talk
Bass!
Bring that shit in!
Ah yeah, that's right, fuck them all motherfuckers.
Fucking punk ass creationists trying to set scientific thought back 400 years.
Fuck that!
If them superstitious motherfuckers want to have that kind of party,
I'm going to put my dick in the mashed potatoes.
Fucking creationists.
Fuck them.
This is a bit like announcing that the latest pictures of earth from space prove that the world is not flat. It's true, but it isn't going to change anybody's mind--because anybody who is still convinced that the world is flat in the face of already-overwhelming evidence has already built such an impregnable structure of rationalization that no additional piece of data, no matter how convincing, is going to sway him.
The biggest success of Creationism has been the creation of the illusion that there is serious scientific doubt about whether evolution occurred. Fortunately, the courts have been mostly successful in preventing them from teaching this lie to children.
"However, it would be literaly mind blowing if something unmistakable, like a straight forward representation of the equations that solve the grand unified field problem were found nestled amongst the junk DNA I'm carrying around."
What would be really funny is if a wrong answer was found, due to degradation in DNA caused by mankind's habit of living in toxic environments created for/by humans.
Cop's pulled over my brother in law a year or so back, ripped him out of the car, and beat him senseless.
Which has exactly what to do with racism?
The same thing happened to me in Seattle and I'm white.
This is the point another poster was making. People seeking to avoid taking responsibility for their lives and actions play the race card on everything whether or not it's justified.
---CONFLICT!!---
I wonder what useful would come of making up your own axioms...
Well, assuming you pick good axioms, quite a few things actually. Euclid's 5th(?) postulate was proved to be independent of the others. This means that it can't be proved from any of the others. So you can either accept it or choose its contverse as an axiom. Accepting the postulate leads to Euclidian geometry accepting its converse leads to non-Euclidian geometry. Depending on how you phrase it you get either hyperbolic or......I forget, but another type of geometry. Both are fascinating from a purely mathematical perspective, and one is essential to the construction of general relativity.
Another example is the so called "Axiom of Choice" usually first encountered in upper division undergraduate math classes. It essentially says that given any collection of sets you can say "Take one element from each set" which is a common step in proofs. For finite sets this is obvious and for countable sets ( the natural numbers 1,2,3..... for example) it is pretty simple too. But notice there is nothing in it about the size of the collections. There are several commonly used equivalents to the axiom of choice as well:
Zorn's Lemma, the Well Ordering Principle and
Tychonov's Product Theorem: any product of compact topological spaces, when equipped with the product topology, is also compact.
I had to look up the statement of Tychonov's theorem since it's been a while. If you care, I found an interesting article regarding the equivalences here.
Anyhow, it was proved (by Gödel I think) that this axiom is independent from the other axioms of set theory meaning you can accept it or accept its converse and still be as consistent as you were before. There was a big debate about this back in the day when it was discovered that using it you could take a sphere, take it apart and reassemble it into 2 spheres the same size as the original. Eventually it was accepted by the mathematics community and rejected by the physics community. One of the consequences of the axiom of choice is that there exist sets which are not "Lebesgue measurable" which has a big affect on the integrability of functions on these sets. Every non-measurable set I've seen is totally pathalogical, so the physics people who actually have to do integrations save themselves the step of seeing if their domain is actually measurable before they start integrating by rejecting the axiom. The converse of the axiom can be stated in this case as "There are no unmeasurable sets".
So, yes it could be useful to make up your own axioms, but it isn't easy to pick the "right" ones.
---CONFLICT!!---
There's now more to be sought in emergent & material properties and mathematical functions. And that's up till now not a widely researched field.
Could you provide some more information on this or perhaps a link (in English please). I don't understand why simpler would be a setback.
---CONFLICT!!---
It's really sad that you try so hard to come across as reasonable and open minded about these issues and then throw in such a slimy dig at Nietzsche.
His "God is Dead" philosophy is in no way destructive of your stated goal of "take the lessons recorded for us by our forebears and Make The World Better." It actually provides a much better method for this than religion does. Nietzsche's whole point in Thus Spoke Zarathustra (Originally in German titled Also Sprach Zarathustra which is the title of the main theme from 2001. Coincidence? I doubt it)
is that since we are no longer held back by all the crap and baggage of religion and god that we as human beings have the ability and the responsibility to ourselves to overcome our condition and move on to something greater.
Please explain exactly how this philosophy is "destructive"?
Your statement is a good example of "backbiting".
---CONFLICT!!---
It should, at the moment it strikes your foot, achieve a speed of 32 feet per per second exactly
Wow, it looks like someone needs to take basic physics.
a=acceleration, v=velocity, d=distance, Int()=integration.
(1)a=32f/s^2 (acceleration due to gravity)
(2)v= Int(a)dt = at + v0 (v0=0 since we're starting from rest)
(3)d= Int(v)dt = at^2/2 + d0 (d0=0 convenient choice of coordinate system)
So in one second it will achieve a velocity of 32f/s by equation (2) but only have traveled 16 feet by equation (3), or halfway to his foot.
Granted, he should still eat his hat though.
---CONFLICT!!---
Wow, you really need to better inform yourself.
;-)
One good source would be a book called The Bible As History. I forget the author. The book is an examination of the historical aspects of the bible with respect to modern archaeology. The author is actualy a christian, but it's not a religious book.
So where to start in on you
The bulk of the bible is history, in the old sense -- an uncritical examanation of the past. It is as realiable as the march of Alexander the Great and the reign of Nero.
No, it is not nearly as reliable since history is mutable and a political tool as powerful as a religion is always abused.
You conveniently ignore and misinterpret this point in your response to another poster:
After all, the bible has been changed, translated, and manipulated by how many kings and religious leaders by now? As we know the bible today, it has been a work-in-progress for hundreds of years.
Wrong. The Catholic Bible has been around in its current form since Emperor Constantine called the First Council of Nicea, around AD 400. The Protestant Bible removes several Old Testament books, but adds no new ones.
You don't address translation or manipulation which are central to the issue. As for changes, you say: well they've been the same since they were manipulated into their current state in 400 AD
Did the walls of Jericho miracously fall at the sound of a trumpet? Possibly.
Granted this is a possibility. But I'll bet you don't have a clue as to why. Jericho had been abandoned for at least 200 years by the time Joshua(?) blew his little horn. So regardless of whether the walls actually fell down, there was no battle since there were no defenders.
The question mark on Joshua's name is there for 2 reasons though. First, I'm not certain that he is the one referenced in the bible relative to this incident. Assuming I got that right, there is no reason to believe that he was actually the one there since all the battles fought by "Joshua" were actually stretched over several hundred years and many different generals. For convenience and to simplify the telling, these "facts" were changed. The idea, most likely, was that the important issue was that the Hebrews actually did
conquer Palestine. An alternative way of putting it is that they went around and butchered the rightful owners of the land so that they could steal it.
More historical inaccuracy though regardless of the reasons for it.
The only reason that they are the "good guys" in the book is that they wrote it.
---CONFLICT!!---
Why do religious people using this argument always stop before the argument is done?
The next obvious question is:
Then where did god come from
Religion: some jumbled crap about how we can't question, or we're not worthy or some similar crap that in the end boils down to:
Um, we don't know
Which curiously enough is the same answer that science gave in the predceding step.
The only difference is that the religious answer adds an extra step to try and cover up the fact that they are totally ignorant as to the origin of the universe. Science is more honest in this respect in that it admits its ignorance without being forced into it.
The same conclusions are reached either way.
The religious answer adds nothing. No new knowledge is gained, no questions are answered.
This doesn't say that there is no god, but it does show that there is absolutely no reason to waste time and effort supporting the belief.
Oh yeah, except for that whole, "Do it or I'll fucking spank you"* thing. Real loving guy there.
*Loki from Dogma
---CONFLICT!!---
You just don't get it do you?
Science does not require any faith at all ever.
I can believe that light travels at a certain speed, but science can't tell me WHY it travels at that speed. All science can say is "just because". Now, religion will say "because god made it so", and while this answer is boring and unexplanative it is still an answer. An answer to a question that science can't answer
Science does not say "just because" it says "I don't know" which is an answer. It is also an absolutely true answer. Religion will say "because god made it so" which is an answer. Barely. It is not true or honest though. It is a statement of what someone believes to be true while knowing full well that they could be wrong. They will never add that caveat though. This is even less helpful than Science's "I don't know" because it forces the extra step of asking where god comes from which will inevitably be answered with the same "I don't know" one iteration later.
---CONFLICT!!---
This story is a troll. And trolls evolved from ents.
We cannot place any level of merit on what the author of the original article says, as he is missing the key ingredient of proof within the article. It's amazingly easy to misinterpret scientific findings, and you can even use statistics to do it. There's lies, damn lies, and then statistics (Mark Twain, paraphrased).
But I'm guessing that the sense of hostility that I'm picking up from your post pervades more aspects of your life feelings toward "Bible thumping zealots" than just the scientific ramifications that they attempt to impose. As has been said perhaps a hundred times within just this discussion board, it is impossible to disprove Creationism. "Bible thumpers" would easily be able to argue that any support you found toward disproving Creationism could very well have been placed there by God, as there is nothing of which he is not capable. Bible believers believe that God tests their religion repeatedly throughout their lives, and you are to have faith with out sight. This is also known as blind faith, and is prized by them. Biblically, God wants us to believe, not because we have ultimate proof of his existance, but because we feel it in our hearts. If we have reconciled our faith, then our tests are over. God does not want that, and so he will always test you, always keep you thinking, always push you farther, because his desire is that you know and love him regardless of what the considerably more logical side of your mind would state otherwise.
To explain the logic of that, husbands and wives with real love for each other that go through hard times are brought so much closer than they could have ever been before. When each other is all that you have, you realize how prized that relationship is. Similarly with Creationism, and Biblical theology, if you never doubt your faith, then you are not growing in it, and since you are called to do so, you are actually shrinking in it, there is no stable faith. I am Christian, as you probably have guessed, but I am also a science believer. I know many others who are, even PhD's (when I went to school, I believed that all PhD's were athiests or at best agnostics, but I was very surprised to find that not true). They (and I) can reconcile faith and science. We can accept mankinds pursuit of the truth, regardless of how that pursuit manifests itself. If we did not do our part toward helping to find the truth, we would not be true to our faith, but to say that Darwin is vindicated by finding similarities in genetic sequences is foolish.
We know of many similarities that lie outside of DNA. Bacteria, jellyfish, apes, humans, we all require water, we all have hundreds of proteins in common, and I could easily list a thousand more items here (well, not perhaps I, but a biologist easily could). This is only one more set of similarities. In fact, since we already have so much in common with these other organisms, doesn't it make sense that we have genetic structures that are similar? Wouldn't the same genetic sequences that manufacture glucosin be common to us all, or that enable us to metabolize proteins and sugars? Why should they be different. If the allegorical programmer God were to have created us, why would he write a different function to process certain identical tasks for different organisms/programs when the input/output set would be identical? That's as misguided a statement as "All life uses DNA, so it's obvious that it's all decended from a common ancestor."
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
Just because a doctor says "Creationism is wrong, Evolution is right, and I have proof" is not a valid publication. Sure, I could just as easily have said "Evolution is wrong, Creationism is right" in the same exact story, and it would have held as much merit. The key point here is that the story offers absolutely none of the proof that he's touting. Perhaps when I read a publication on his specific findings, I can merit this as something other than a single MSNBC reporter with a specific agenda (what, reporters have personal agendas?).
As it stands now, I am unimpressed by someone having a degree as making them an ultimate authority. A PhD does not equal infallibility, as I repeatedly find out while I attend school and reach for my own PhD. Oh for the day when I have it, and suckers will believe whatever I tell them just because I'm a PhD. "I have a doctorate in finance, so you're required to forefeit all your finances to me, I have proof!" "Der, ok, that must be the case 'cause you're so smart."
Are you moderating me down because you disagree with what I say, or because I make an invalid point?
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
"right-wing bible-thumping zealots", "reasonable people, even those who believe in some sort of creation story", "bible-belt zealots", "most schools, at least those outside of Dixie", "zealots ... be they green or white-sheeted", "the thumpers introduce this counter-intuitive bullshit", "steaming load of non-scientific lies", "irrational, counter-intuitive, rabid drivelling by the religious right"
Dude(tte), you may have some good points in there somewhere, but I can't hear them through the hate. Calm down and stop attacking people. I was pleasantly surprised by the relatively genial discussion here about the topic until I read this gem.
I'm not sure why an editorial - which this article obviously is - rates posting on /., unless it's just to spark debate. For a serious scientist to say "you can't question this" is pretty flaky. And even his "arguments", such as they were, weren't presented particularly well. Yes, there's plenty of evidence for long-term human evolution hidden in the genes - see Matt Ridley's "Genome" for some really good examples. However, the author of this article doesn't provide any examples at all, or anything else to back up his views, other than saying "you can't argue with me". Gee, how convincing.
In fact, the one scientific claim the author does try to appeal to is that we must have "descended from bacteria", because we carry "clumps of genes" from them. However, my understanding of those clumps - assuming he's talking about transposons and the like - is that those DNA sequences simply "invaded" our own DNA en masse, and have been hitchhiking along ever since. Yes, that's a form of evolution, but it isn't the same as saying we "descended" from them, as he claims to do.
In short, there is plenty of exciting evidence in the genome that shows how humanity has evolved over the eons. Too bad this article doesn't contain any of that. I can save people the trouble of reading the article by summarizing it for them here: "Darwin was right. I say so. Other scientists all say so. See, I must be right. You can't argue with it. Therefore, Darwin was right."
Maybe I'm just getting too cynical in my old age, but I expect better from scientists, even in the mass media, than this.
> Of course, the creationists will not drop their
:-)
> case (no evidence imaginable would disprove
> it to them)
Oh come now, give them a little credit. After all, they've dropped their claim about the Sun revolving around the Earth, haven't they?
...well, most of them, anyway.
Just because you prove that evolution happens doesn't mean that creationism didn't happen. Come on folks.. go back to the basics of scientific theory here. Creationism doesn't say that you can't evolve. It is the theory of where it all originally started. The corresponding theory is the big bang theory. This has NOTHING to do with evolution. Completely different theories.
----
Just remove the spaces and do the intelligent thing to email me.
On the other hand, a Christian could argue that Darwinist are teaching evolution as if it were fact.
Neither one is truly provable, as both are proven in the terms of the people attempting to prove it.
Consider that if you use scientific method to prove or disprove creationism, of course you are going to be led to disprove it, as your already biased. Even without the bias, creationism is illogical in the eyes of science.
With that being said, if you try to prove evolution within the context of Christianity, you are going to be led to disprove it as well, as you are already biased. And of course evolution is illogical in the eyes of a Christian.
Its really a mute point to argue the issue, as people are going to believe what they like, and most people are not huge fans of trying to be "converted". Next time think about that you try to shove evolution down a creationist throat. Do you want a creationist shoving creationism down your throat?
Of course, in pure scientific terms nothing is ever proved, and this would have to be included in that. But what this does tell us is that if some form of creation were true, we were designed to appear as if we evolved. Just like the universe was designed to appear as if were millions of years old instead of 6,000 biblical years.
You will never prove the religious crackpots wrong -- because you can never prove the non-existance of something. Besides, they have a further weapon: faith. That can make any sort of evidence disappear into the deep recesses of denail.
-rt-
-rt-
** Evil Canadians are taking over the world. Learn about the conspiracy
apologies for missing the end bold tag... but it doesn't invalidate my point.
-rt-
-rt-
** Evil Canadians are taking over the world. Learn about the conspiracy
My meme is better than your meme! (or so my meme tells me...)
Arguing about the answers to undecidable questions is pointless. (But it's sure lots of fun. =)
And yes, it has been "proved" as much as any other modern scientific theory - gravity, heliocentricity, relativity, etc. It explains past events and makes predictions, with no evidence against it.
Sounds like you need to check out talkorigins.org.
]$`};L(;/proc);[I(;];<C{;};1S[;`\/while=1E1L[`\p roc{>=
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
They say that evolution is the *only* explanation for what we have. Explanation to what? Where can we find a better in-depth look at this?
I'm not trying to argue, i'm trying to better educate myself. And i hope that i can defend evolution if i get more details
Mike Roberto
- GAIM: MicroBerto
Berto
I think another thing to point is that the word "theory" is very poorly percieved by the nonscientific community. When most people think of "theory" they are actually thinking of "hypothesis", which is an idea that doesn't have much (or any) evidence to support it. The scientific definition of theory is that it's an idea that has a great deal of evidence to support it and has yet to be disproven. Many many things we take as "fact" are actually labeled as "theory" by science because they can't be totally proven.
The use of the term Scientifc Creationism is an obvious sham, and it also sticks it to science in one of its weak areas: the general public's ignorance. By saying that "It's just a theory" is just a choice to totally ignore how science works, which is a very sad thing.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
Darwin didn't fully understand his own theory because he didn't have any idea how any of his changes were made. The best he had to go with were major phenotypic changes such as a bird's color or a turtle's shell size. He didn't have any idea how these things were coded nor how they were expressed. As such, his statement of invalidity was wrong.
Complexity is one of the natural byproducts of evolution. Random mutations occur (this is a proven fact) and these changes often express something as a phenotype. As a result, anything you can possibly imagine tends to happen because it occurs randomly. Random changes produce complexity, that's why turbulence is such an impossible problem for fluid dynamicists: because it spontaneously occurs at the molecular level producing conmplex behaviors at the aggregate level. In other words: complexity happens naturally. This happens in living systems too, and as random changes aggregate they form more complex sytems. Bacteria spontaneously evolve from putting a bunch of the right chemicals in a naturally occuring sack. Bacteria evolve sacks within sacks and incorporate other bacteria to help them. Then they start sticking together and sharing their resources and suddenly we have protists. These cells start specializing their functions and influencing each other and suddenly we have complexity. All this happens spontaneously.
It's not a single simple change that occurs to cause a new species. It's a ton of unrelated simple changes that aggregate to form new structures. If the changes don't work (i.e. broken gene) the organism dies and nature moves on. If it does something, then it keeps on doing it. That's why we have so many different and complex levels of gene regulation.
So your claim that the smaller than estimated number of genes is bad news for evolutionists is a load of garbage because things like post-transcriptional gene regulation can lead to a whole host of different proteins by modification of RNA, the protein, or even the DNA itself (as in immunoglobins). Plus, there are plenty of proteins that serve multiple functions, such as hormones. All this spells out a great deal of complexity which, as I've already shown you, is a natural feature of evolution. Maybe you should take your "Geeks4Christ" argument re-read it, then compare it to some actual scientific literature. The paper on the human genome just published in Nature is particularly good, I recommend it highly.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
Well, it's a kludged and hacked solution not because there's preassure to keep the genome short, but because just about everything that can evolve does, and if it works then it stays there. This includes random kludges as well as some elegant stuff.
;-).
The human genome is big. Really big. And most of it is garbage... non-coding sequences and such. This is direct evidence that there's no evolutionary preassure to keep the genome short. This doesn't mean there's preassure to keep it long either, because viruses and bacteria are incredibly prolific and they have short genomes. It's been argued that the advantage (and I think this is only one advantage) for a longer genome like ours is that it provides a ton of raw material for stuff to happen. Most of it won't work, but occasionally something will. And it's kept. Now it might not be the prettiest functionality out there, but then again there's no brain that's working logically on it like with code (whether or not there's a brain at all working on it is a whole other bag of worms
Evolution is random. I think that the fact that genetic algorithms come up with this stuff is an incredibly good point (I've been meaning to check those things out forever) and that this is simply how things work.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
Thank you, thank you, thank you. You've said it better than I could. I feel your frustration and anger. I'd like to recommend a book, especially to those of you who don't agree with White Roses. It's written by Wendy Kaminer, and it's called "Sleeping With Extra-Terrestrials: The Rise of Irrationalism and the Perils of Peity". I loved it because it opened my eyes to the influence of religion on the state (and why there shouldn't be any).
Wasn't MSNBC one of the media outlets who joined CNN in proclaiming Gore as our new President a few months ago?
I think that should read:
ALL YOUR BASE PAIR ARE BELONG TO ME.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
Sure we Evolved. Yes we started out very smart and we evolved from there.. we built the pyramids and other wonders that modern science/construction remain baffled about. Then we devolved. we went into the dark ages and couldn't find our own asses in a pothole. then hell, we evolved again now we have computers and were so much more advanced. were nonviolent and refined. yes folks there's proof that evolution is a steady progression... whatever..
I think you need to be careful about what you are saying. The very notion of 'proof' implies that the contradiction of it is impossible. We can prove lots of things indiputably in the domain of Euclidean spaces, etc.
As for evolution, there is the fact that it occurs and the theory that evolution created life as we know it. The theory will ALWAYS remain a theory (unless we develop time travel)--because there is always the possibility that evolution was faked by God or another entity. However, like other theories (gravity for one) we can (potentially) show that it holds over broad domains without any sign of a contradiction.
Funny! If i had mod points...
"Dancing is the vertical expression of a horizontal desire" --Robert Frost
Where did your "higher being" come from?
-Legion
"Eric Lander of the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Mass., said that if you look at our genome it is clear that "evolution ... must make new genes from old parts.""
;-)
If this is so, combine the fact that race is not recorded in the genes: If evolution didn't create races, then what did? We certainly can't stem from the same primate Adam and Eve. Where's Missing Link these days?
It appears to me that evolution would automatically tend to simplify genes as much as possible. Basically so that a simple mutation of a gene could lead to a simple change in attribute of the individual. However, you can't switch race this way and it makes you wonder. Because emmigration and climate changes are nothing new under the sun..
I'd love to hear someone who knows about the subject explain this to me, in a calm and mellow voice
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
On matters of evolution, there can only be one truly reliable source:
DEVO
Much the same as "Dianetic$", the "$cience of Mental Health".
If you're afraid of something, and you can't defeat it, then steal its labels and pretend to be it.
Works well for politicians in a two-party system too.
Occam's Razor demands
Occam never "demands" anything. It might suggest, but it's never a definitive proof of any falsehood, no matter how complicated and superfluous it appears. Sometimes things really are just gratuitously complex.
If God exists, and God was a prime creator, then even this doesn't contradict Darwin (or even most modern views of evolutionary theory) -- simply because the existence question is a matter of faith, and there's just no rational debate with a belief-based system. God's mechanism of creation might well have been evolution, evolution might be an ongoing process in a post-Fall world -- the Bible is simply silent on this.
Most churches with any sense accept this, and have stopped trying to regard evolution as a threat -- there's space for both. Only the trailer-park end of religion, that particularly American institution of money-grubbing televangelists with the sexual temperance of an Arkansas President, still needs to argue against it on a regular basis. Still, it makes for good foam-flecked ranting, and no-one ever lost money underestimating the public (and Barnum had never even seen a cable TV audience).
--
All your base pairs belong to us
Or, as Devo said, "God made man, but the monkey supplied the glue." I know it's been said, but you can't disprove something based on faith.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Macroevolution requires that different descendants of one organism become different species (i.e., can't breed). No documented cases of speciation have yet been found.
Actually, using your definition, speciation has been observed. Check out the links in my previous post, or go to The Talk.Origins Archive and do a search on speciation.
Yet Another Web Site
Check out Answers In Genesis There is evidence for a Universe, World and life coming from a supreme being. Consider for one moment how far creation science does go to explain the creation of Life. Before anyone make there own decision as to how the universe was created, they need to study all viable evidence. If you are willing to believe that humans evolved from a rock! Then you should be willing to consider that we were created by an everlasting God, read more about how creation can explain the Universe at Answers In Genesis. I challenge you to consider the truth.
The major flaw I have with the author's reasoning in this article is that he does not give God any room to be God. This is a problem that many people, both non-Christian and Christian, stumble over.
It is natural for us to see God as being like us and being constrained by the same things that constrain us (time, space, complexity, etc.) When we see God as unfettered by any constraint then the fact that He used common design patterns (Yep, God invented OO)should not surprise or trouble us.
You may call this a cop-out or a rationalization of an irrational belief. But, I see it as much more rational than believing that something as complex as a fruit fly or a human being happened via chance.
Flame away.
Jack
But the LORD GOD looked upon his credit report and was wroth. HE looked down upon the sleeping earth and saw that man was corrupted by the might of his bandwith, and pron flowed freely among the systems. And the LORD GOD called upon his credit card company and cancelled the card number and woe unto he who used it after said date. Meanwhile, not less than a swallows flight away, Saint Atalark snuck a hand greande from the arsenal of the great black beast of AARGH. Then saint Atalark raised up the hand grenade on high and said "O LORD bless this thy hand grenade, that it may blow thine enemies into tiny bits, in thy mercy." And the lord did grinand blessed the hand grenade. And the people feasted upon the lambs, and the sloths, and the orangutangs, and the breakfast cereals, and the fruit bats....
A Troll!
Too bad we can't mod him out of existence.
Your complaints about being offended offend me.
Ok, sure there is evidence for adaptation within species. To take that to the next step is to say that creatures have evolved from one species to the next.. there has never been any evidence to support that theory. Sure, we are similiar in makeup to the rest of creation.. big deal. We are also 50% water.. that doesn't make us a lake (or does it *grin*). Why in the VERY VERY plentiful fossil record is there not a single intermediate link? IE: cat -> dog (there should be fossils of "cogs or dats"). "Punctuated Something" is the theory that these leaps between species happened so fast that there just isn't any evidence.. now THAT theory takes faith.. and lots of it!! (I was taught that Darwin said evolution occured over millions of years..) Show me the evidence of Evolution (no, not the "apemen" that have been found to be false..like the pigs tooth that was "scientifically" determined to have been from an ape-man and later the real source was discovered.). Darwin himself said that "the fossil record will add support to my theory", it appears that the fossil record has done the opposite. Where is the evidence of Evolution? I can see the evidence of Creation any time that I look in my childrens eyes, watch a sunset or examine the incredible design of DNA and the Genome (keyword is design).
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Duh, the Linux kernel has adapted rapidly from ancestors within it's same species. That's not evolution.. It's REVolution! :)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
So we have as many genes as a corn plant. So our genome matches 99% of the genome of an arangatang. Here's something to chew on:
Two tall buildings in downtown Minneapolis are probably made of 95% of the same material, mainly, steel, concrete, glass, and a little bit of plaster. Yet, they are designed differently, have different shapes, and different functions.
So nature found "instructions" that worked well to create different animals. The same digestive juice that works in a dog would probably work in a human, so why not leave the instructions there on how to make it for the both of them?
Granted, what they found supports their claim, but it doesn't completely eliminate all others.
"but unlike, say Euclidian Geometry, there's no way to prove that evolution theory is correct."
1. To draw a straight line from any point to any other.
2. To produce a finite straight line continuously in a straight line.
3. To describe a circle with any centre and distance.
4. That all right angles are equal to each other.
5. That, if a straight line falling on two straight lines make the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles.
Euclid decided to accept these postulates on faith, and proved all of plane geometery with them. However, he never proved his assumptions, and we now know of other kinds of geometery.
You can't prove everything, and to prove anything, you've got to start by assuming something. Don't tell me science can prove evolution - science can only disprove scientific theories. Creationism is not a scientific theory because it cannot be disproved.
Ahh, thanks. Then we completely agree.
There are a few valid arguments that the Fundamentalists/Literalists bring up, like "Is there really no argon existing in molten rock when it solidifies?" and "Do carbon and nitrogen leach out of organic matter in the presence of water?" and "How long has the Moon been in orbit, given the fact that tidal forces are pushing it away?"
However, they ask these questions, then they assume their 4004 BC Creation is the answer, and start preaching.
Ick. Those are scientific questions, and they should be asked and answered in a scientific way. It's a pity the creationists misuse anything they find to help them push their version of christianity.
Except all the kids they're teaching thier fundy nonsence too as if it were real science. You should read up on what creationists actually believe, it's nothing short of astonishing.
To your maker, you resemble an earthworm.
Nothing new here, nothing solved, get back to work.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I hate being called ignorant for believing in God, and other maters of faith which can neither be proved or disproved. Funny though, that you would advocate the devil.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
With people such as the ones who run the FOX television network (they broadcasted the special on the lunar missions being faked), I though humans were going backwards in evolution. Guess we need to do something to bring the morons of society up to the next higher level.
Hi my name is micheal, and I am flame bait! Comon, seirosly, look at the headline. However, headline aside this was actually a pretty cool article. What I think is silly is that people think they can be this RIGHT about something. As much as I would like to throw this in the face of a bible thumper and say "here look, proof !" I agree, you cannot "disprove it," because something of this nature is not inherently proveable. But you can use Occam's Razor where appropriate. And this is a great place to use it. For those of you who don't know, Occam's Razor says, "all things being equal, the simplest theory wins" Which theory requires the least amount of "adding things" to it to explain your solution. God created the earth, and made everything have "DNA" and appear very much LIKE they evolved and all came from a singular life form. Or that it happened naturally over a exremely long period of time. It's somewhat subjective, but a good way to think about things. I can't wait to see the flames for this topic, "and god said the flames shall be high and numerous and those who are flame-bait shall be struck down" - Dave
- "Never let a computer tell me shit." - DelTron Zero
Evan - needs to hit preview before submitting
Evan - needs to hit preview before submitting
When someone say's "So you're agnostic?" they may just mean to understand your point of view, not necessarily put you into a box with other people they have met in the past.
Feeling labeled because there's a word to describe a facet of your perspective on life may be misjudging the word.
Evan - needs to hit preview before submitting
If GENOME proves that we came from previous species because we both contain the same genetic makeup. It can also prove that there aren't multiple gods that created things the way they felt like it. All came from one source, GOD, who uses the same building blocks for all species.
I just read another poster who said "Creationist know less about religion than they do about science." I think there's a lot of truth to that. You would do well to consider the possibility that 1)not all "Creationists" are theologically sound and 2) not all Christians ascribe to these "creationist" viewpoints. By lumping an entire group of people into your neat little stereotype, you display not only you bias, but also you own lack of intelligence.
That's all assuming you weren't trolling for a response...
--------
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
you actually aren't too far off. as selective pressure slowly disappears in most places, allelic frequencies suddenly start to shift.. randomly...so over time, humans should start to see an increase in "undesirable" traits, which could range from thousands (millions) of diseases or many other things...oh also for this to happen, i think exponential population growth has to be occuring (which it is, btw).
yeah,
you have to admit, the guy you are replying to has a point. For an article written by a phd, it has an extremely repetitive structure with only one (as he pointed out above) "specific" example.
furthermore, the article reeks of zealotry (which i was hoping that the widespread study of science would help end >:-) and seems to be written in a manner meant specifically to inflame the passions of theists/creationists/whoever.
besides, to anyone who has learned pretty much any biology within the last few years already knew that evolution does in fact occur, and you can measure it just like anything else. Whether life originated in a primordial soup or on an asteroid or whatever is completely unknown, it could have happened through any or all of these multitudinously varied creation theories... but who cares??? You can't do anything with that information other than laugh at whoever ends up being wrong about their creation theory (which is probably all of us) be it supernatural or chemical. this said, go do something useful!
Now don't get me wrong, I tend to lean towards evolution myself, (for a really wild, mind blowing description of eveolution check out The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins), but to make blanket statements, such as "there is no other possible explanation, when referring to the validity of Darwins Theory. Bullshit, there are an infinite number of possibilities. If I were a religious man I could say that God made us that way, case closed. It's pure arrogance that make the author, and humans in general, believe they know what is truly going on. The truth is we don't know... science only serves to build a consistent framework through which we view the world.
Einstein characterizes science really well with his watch analogy. It goes something like this: Imagine a watch that we cannot open, we can observe it's behavior, and possibly make reasonably educated guesses about it's internal workings, we may postulate that there are gears, springs ect. inside which give this watch it's distinctive behavior, but if the watch is unopenable, we can never really know what is going on.
All this is not to say that science is worthless. Like I said before it provides a framework for us to operate in, but any explanation we have for our world is not necessarily the true one.
In order for this article to have been a little more accurate, the author should have said, "there is no other possible explanation... that we are aware of". Truth is a function of time, fifty years from now a biologist may discover something that completely revolutionizes biology in the same way that Quantum Mechanice altered physics. We also cannot rule out the possiblility that humans do not even have the capacity to understand certain things, and never will.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Really though, we can't rule out any possibility that we cannot disprove... I tend to believe in evolution as well, but it is not the only possibility.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
To say nothing of the wierd internal contadictions in thier own documentation.
I mean "Thou shalt not kill", "An eye for an eye", "turn the other cheek" and "smote thine enemies" are all valid biblical instructions.
And the begining of the propectus there is a lot of frankly racist harping on about "choosen people" no "miscegination" etc. etc. yet by the time we wade through to the later chapters "gods love is universal".
Maybe thats the great attraction, if you want to eat hot salami pizza everyday and marry a virgin every Sunday, then I am sure you can find some nifty bible quote to justify this a religious duty.
If it really was the word of God then hes not much of a technical writer.
Old COBOL programmers never die. They just code in C.
Actually, the "bug-ridden C libraries" analogy is quite a good one.
Another good one is sensitivity to initial conditions in, e.g., differential equations -- what's often called "chaos." (Which is a perfectly good term, but it's been so bastardized by the pop-sci press that it makes me cringe.) Most of the equations used to model complex natural phenomena have enormous numbers of terms, and one of the reasons we can come up with even reasonably good models of incredibly complex phenomena is that the errors in the terms tend to cancel each other out over short time intervals. (Over long intervals, the equations inevitably blow up -- which is why, f'rinstance, short-range weather forecasting is quite good but long-range is still more art than science.) OTOH, equations with few terms blow up _faster_, i.e. start displaying chaotic behavior over shorter periods of time, because there aren't as many checks and balances.
The analogies to evolution should be obvious to all but the most deliberately obtuse.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
No, he IS right. Sadly I don't have the origen of spp. sitting right here, but in it there is nothing that says that humans eveolved from chimps, per se. That implies that chimps evolved up to their current point and then just stopped. They've been eveolving as long as we have, we just share a common ancestor. The primate that gave rise to both of us no longer exists. I hate the use of the word "primitive" when talking about these things, tho - the correct way to think of it is ancestral vs. derived. And the taxanomic group that contains primates, insectivores, and rodents have more ancestral and less derived traits than the group that makes up ungulates, or carnivores, or sea mammals, for example. Ancestral primates and today's prosimians share more traits with the ancestral, arboreal, first placental mammal. But any current spp. is not "the ancestor" directly of any other current spp. (spp. = species)
ooky
I hate those pants. Please take them off.
This says exactly the opposite.
--
--
If code was hard to write, it should be hard to read
Err, that would be a polyhedron, Dave
Rich
Who is to say that God did not create man(/animals) in such a way that they could evolve? Everything came from somewhere, there has to be a beginning. People who talk about the big bang and that huge mass exploding, well where did it come from? Hmm... perhaps a higher being?
"His genome is filled with CANDY!!!
--
Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
The real argument on the side of religion would be "Of course they are similar, they were all created by [insert proper diety here]." Honestly there is nothing precluding either side of the argument in this discovery, just an additional bit of confidence for the people that believe in evolution.
Personally I believe that evolution was guided by a higher power and that creation was a long process that happened over billions of years rather than in a short and spectacular fashion.
I've never really studied religions other than christianity but I have found nothing in the bible that counters scientific discovery. The bible says earth was created in 7 days and I ask how long were gods days.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
His point was that the biblical account is out of sequence with the currently esteemed scientific theories.
I believe in evolution. I agree that the results presented here are independently corroborating evidence of evolution. However, the article does not present a single piece of evidence that invalidates the theory of Creationism. The author hypocritically takes the same tone as one of the bible-thumping zealots he derides.
Did this really need confirmation? No kidding Scientific Creationism is wrong; it is fundamentally flawed, based on erroneous reasoning, total lack of knowledge about science, and so on.
Religion is well and good, but when you try to reconcile science with religion what you get is pseudoscientific nonsense.
max
> Ignoring the creationsists for a minute, data from the genome map will require
> rethinking of some of our earlier conclusions, not least of all those about
> the basic functioning of genes - with only 30,000, synergy and emergent
> properties are will become radically more important, and related branches
> of mathematics will probably see new interest.
>
> Where's Buckminster Fuller when you need him?
As another post mentioned, it seems that reuse of code is another trick built into the workings of life that human programmers are only now catching up with. The discovery that the instructions for building a human are so much more economical than was at first naively assumed raises the possibility that cellular automata are not too far off the mark as a model for life itself, and that multicellularity is an object-oriented three-dimensional implementation.
Conway and Darwin were both right!
LaoK
Check out Darwin's Black Box. Its a book on evolution written by a biochemist.
He puts forth the idea that there is a certain "irreducable complexity" to many complex systems. This means that the system doesn't function unless all parts are present. He argues that many of the leaps in evolution couldn't have happened without some type of creationary controller.
For instance, a bicycle factory(bad example) is producing bikes. Over time it mutates and starts producing bikes with engine blocks stuck to the side. A few million years later it starts making bikes with engine blocks and gas tanks. (It would have gone out of business long ago, nature is very conservative with energy). A few million later it gets a piston... etc.. etc..
The point is that basic logic can show us that some of the evolutionary leaps required cannot take place unless many, many components change at the exact instant. He argues that this points us towards intelligent design, yet science has already outlawed the idea of God. "It can't be intelligent design because God does not exist!". Its funny how alot of scientists sound like regular Jerry Fallwels on this issue.
As a Christian, I can say that the idea of God isn't supposed to make sense to us. God says "My ways aren't your ways", and that Christianity is "Foolishness" to our natural selves.
Check out this book by Francis Schaeffer on the consequences of an atheistic world view. Its very scary and I'd figure alot of slashdotters would enjoy it.
Its interesting that we, as slashdotters, value freedom so highly, yet we reject God. Well, I have yet to see an atheistic society that respects individual anything. They shouldn't! Given that worldview, only the success of the species matters.
http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
You are correct, sir.
You can never disprove the theory of a deity for two simple reasons:
A)God is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent "thing" - therefore, theists have the luxury of making shit up as they go along. "Hey." they say, "God works in mysterious ways." I've always loved that one. Evolution is a perfect case in point: How many "christians" do you know that actually believe the world is only 5,000-6,000 years old? They don't have to believe that because some dickhead ruined my life 2,000 years ago by saying that we don't have a clue as to what god is or does, so we should all just shut the hell up and give our tythe like nice little zealots.
B)In philosophical terms, you can never truly prove or dispove anything (e.g. "woah, man, what if we're all, like, just living, like, in like, someone's dream dude...and like, when they wake up, we all die and shit!")
Of course, we can say that, as for concept B: get a clue people! we have to just accept certain things to make progress. Hume proved that we can't assume that fundamentals like gravity will continue to exist, and that you could walk off a tall building and expect to float with just about as much certainty as you would expect to fall - but you don't see many people other that stock brokers for dot-com's testing that idea much.
as for concept A? Let's just put it this way: No, we can't prove that there isn't a god with 100% certainty. But, at some point, christians begin to look pretty fucking dumb when *fact* after *fact* rooted in their theology gets torn to pieces faster than a clan member trying to buy a used stereo in harlem.
As for myself, i believe that the universe was created by 10,000ft tall invisible lizard people who roam the earth like a benevolent fucking Godzilla. Hey, you can't prove they don't exist!
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
Beyond any doubt.
Je t'aime Stéphanie
As both a scientist and a Christian, I have never understood why most Christians hate the Big Bang theory and theory of evolution. They are just physical laws of the universe. Is gravity immoral?
You can neither prove nor disprove the existance of God based on those two theories, but I suspect it will take the 21st century of Galileo to smack some sense into Joe Christian's head.
*Good* science and *Good* religion will never contradict each other.
Is how I find the article. Whether or not you believe in evolution, it seems quite unacceptable to me for a scientist/journalist to make bold and provacative claims about how the now-completely-mapped human genetic code proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that his religion is the right one after all (I say this because the article seems to make clear to me that evolution is his religion), and then not explain it with one shred of evidence!
What - are we just supposed to take his word for it that this is in fact true? It would have been far more satisfying I should think if he would actually go and show why this is so.
At any rate, some of the reasoning he provides appears non-sequitur to me. If he is claiming that because we have genes which bear similarity to other beings on this planet, we must therefore have descended from them; it doesn't take a genius (or even a creationist) to point out that a common creator would also cause such common genes.
As to what he calls the "jerry-rigged" nature of our genes - this would seem an obvious result of "natural selection"; but I don't see it as being even circumstantial evidence for the theory of evolution.
To address a couple of points which have been brought up in a few threads:
"Scientific Creationism" is a misnomer, since you can't use scientific methods to prove a one-time event.
Quite right. But similar reasoning rules out the validity of calling evolution a (scientific) theory as well. In science, a hypothesis is what you call an idea which hasn't yet been proven to be observably true, whereas a theory is something which has been observed to be true. As evolution from one species to another has still to be observed, it too is not a scientific theory. At such a time that such an event can be consistently observed, perhaps then it can be a scientific theory.The first rule of creationism is: do not doubt your own theory...
While I don't deny that many folks will behave this way (and thus make it a religion), it is wrong to generalize in this way. I for one have no problem examining evidence to counter my conclusions. And I can certainly say that I have known many evolutionists who treat their theory in exactly the same manner as a religion - blind faith is useless both in spiritual and scientific matters. Facts only, please! Blind faith has nothing to do with my belief in God, and likewise has nothing to do with science. Should you present to me compelling evidence that evolution is valid, I shall investigate it and accept it as truth until such a time as evidence to counter it can be produced. I shall also, however, place it beside such other evidences as I have already come across, which led me to my original conclusion in the first place. When there is a huge store of evidence contrary to my current assumptions - at that time may I reconsider them. But at the moment, the reverse is true, so I continue on in my "beliefs".
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing about evolution/creation here, but I can't see how that just because much of the genes are the same means that we weren't created.
Does that mean Linux 2.4 wasn't created because it shares a fair bit of code with 2.2?
That idiot has got to come up with a better argument if not the creationists will just say that God was smart enough to do "object reuse".
Or should we say that Linux 2.4 evolved from 2.2 AND was created as well.
I personally think that even if we evolved it doesn't mean we weren't created. Look at how those genetic algorithms work.
Has anyone checked how many stories of creation there are in the bible? From Genesis 1:1 through 2:3, God creates the heavens and the earth, light, and in six days all of creation, topped off with man and woman, simultaneously. God says 'It is good' and recommends a vegetarian diet. In Genesis 2:4 through 2:25, God creates heavens and the earth, light, man and then, in an unspecified amount of time, the rest of creation. This is also the first time Eden gets mentionde in the bible. Then Eve gets made out of a rib and we know the sad ending to this story.
Until the bible can make up it's mind about which of the two contradicting stories is true, I go for evolution (also because I'm an atheist, BTW).
How about trying to keep society working and keep people from killing eachother? Species that do this all the time (OK, humans do, but we've gotten out of hand in many more ways) kind of loose out in evolution (e.g., go extinct).
Slightly OT: I believe laws should be based upon this concept instead of on what some people believe and some do not.
Of course we don't actually need a complete genome to tell that evolution has happened. People have been doing cross-species genetic comparisons for years as a way of looking at evolution. There are some genes that have been sequenced in hundreds or even thousands of different organisms, and they show exactly the same kinds of differences that you'd expect based on neo-Darwinism. Similarities are greatest between organisms that were generally believed to be similar already- human myoglobin is identical to that from chimpanzees but is slightly different from that of mice, for instance. Genes that have critical roles in sustaining life undergo evolution more slowly than ones that are less important, so basic structural proteins like actin are very highly conserved and less critical ones like hemoglobin are less conserved. Within a given gene family, changes that have no effect on function, like those that don't actually change which amino acid is coded for, are more common than ones that do change function. Conservative changes, which result in changing an amino acid to a similar one, are more common than radical one that change an amino acid into a totally different one. Changes in unimportant regions are more common than ones in critical regions. The behavior is so well understood that it's been used as the basis for "molecular clocks" that can tell how long ago species diverged by differences in critical genes.
This is so obvious to anyone who's looking at information like this that it's pretty much impossible to deny. It's staring you right in the face every time you look at the data. The genome is nice because it shows things working at an organism level, but crushingly clear molecular evidence of evolution has been available for quite some time.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
You can't convince the people that have a personal relationship with God.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
How vacuous. As one who believes in the theory of evolution, I eagerly clicked on the article that claimed to have found indisputable proof that human evolution is how we came to be. How disappointed I was to find the "proof" offered by Arthur Caplan can be summed up: "Rah, Rah His Boom Bah, Creationism is dead! It's dead because the proof is indisputable and beyond serious doubt. The mapping of the human genome offers indisputable proof that we evolved from bacteria. Did I mention the proof is indisputable? (BTW, Those who question the previous and current indisputable proof can be dismissed as religious nuts. Pay them no heed.)" I propose a new standard for online news sources: anytime a journalist (such as Arthur Caplan) makes such a grand claim, perhaps they should offer links to the expert opinions, works and proofs that support the claim. without the proof, journalists appear to be nothing more than ideological cheerleaders. -bk
One can dispute Darwin and still believe in evolution, but Science has been so successful brainwashing us all that anything critical of Darwinism MUST be Christian Creationism. What did Darwin know of viral and bacterial transposition of genetic material? For that matter what did Darwin know of genetics? Some day, we may as well all know that the function of natural selection, if it has any, is to maintain the status quo of a species, exactly the opposite of what Darwin thought, and that the rise of new species, comes about through other mechanisms not yet unknown and understood (for an alternative mechanism read Sheldrakes theory of Morphic Resonance, and while you may laugh a brainwashed laugh, some of Lamark's ideas are still showing signs of life), or perhaps not through any "mechanism" at all, but simply as an emergent property of an extremely complex system called life.
No one can look at how the book of life is written and not come away fully understanding that our genetic instructions have evolved from the same programs that guided the development of earlier animals. Our genetic instructions have been slowly assembled from the genetic instructions that made jellyfish, dinosaurs, wooly mammoths and our primate ancestors.
There is, as the scientists who cracked the genome all agreed, no other possible explanation.
From a scientist, the last statement is not put well. Certainly, evolution explains the observations well (and even predicted them), but to make the statement that there is "no other possible explanation" leaves these scientists looking no less dogmatic than the creationists. Of course, the creationists will not drop their case (no evidence imaginable would disprove it to them), but real scientists should always keep in mind that there may be alternatives which haven't been thought of yet which might explain things a bit better. And the real job of a scientist is to keep looking for that better idea.
"Bite me, it's fun!" - Crowe T. Robot
I thought that the current prevaling scientific view was the evoloutionary changes tend to cluster around major climatic events like ice ages, major volcanic eruptions, and metior impacts. Mass extinctions followed by rapid speciation of the survivors as they spread out and fill vacant ecological niches seem to be the rule rather than the exception. (There are exceptions, like sharks and alligators)
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Well, I think most people are right when they say that it won't change the minds of the hard-core creationers, but think about it this way... Would it be possible with this evidence to change it from the "Theory of Evolution" to the "Law of Evolution"? That one word would make for such a powerful rhetorical shift that I doubt that creationists could possibly hold on to the meager strip of credibility they have now with the less educated...
--
Feminism is the wild notion that women are human beings.
Wrong. There are 1.8 billion Christians in the world (the bulk of them Roman Catholics). That is 30% of the world' population -- a sizeable plurality. Add in a billion Muslims (another Abrahamic religion), and you get 47% -- very nearly an absolute majority, believing in Genesis.
Wrong. The bulk of the bible is history, in the old sense -- an uncritical examanation of the past. It is as realiable as the march of Alexander the Great and the reign of Nero.
Did Alexander conquer Persia? Yes. Did his corpose miraculously refuse to decompose? Maybe. Did a hebrewic invasion of Palestine destroy pre-existing civiliations and replace them with a theocracy, then a kingdom? Yes. Did the walls of Jericho miracously fall at the sound of a trumpet? Possibly. Was there an Emperor Nero of Rome, under whose watch Rome burned down? Yes. Did he play a musical instrument in glee at this? Possibly. Did the Roman Empire use religion as a tool in conquered territories, and make the church a part of the state? Yes. In Palestine, did a collaborationist Church work to supress insurrection? Yes. Was Iesu Nazoreaum, self-proclaimed "Rex Iudeaeum," killed for insurrection? Possibly.
Many parts of it shouldn't be. The parables are obviously parables. Job as well is meant for a "lesson." Judith, a book of the Apocrypha, is almost universally read symbollically. (Judith = Jewish Lady, the reference to Nebachaneezer of the Assyrians is like saying "Hitler, King of the Russians." Obviously meant to be read as "Super Evil Dude")
Wrong. The Catholic Bible has been around in its current form since Emperor Constantine called the First Council of Nicea, around AD 400. The Protestant Bible removes several Old Testament books, but adds no new ones.
Any major changes in the content of the Bible would have been during Slavery (in Egypt), Exile (in Babylon), Occupation (in Roman Palestine), and Persecution (across Rome before Constantine), which were all millenia ago.
For hundreds of years the debate has been about the meaning of the Bible, not the content of the Bible.
However, I wish to respond to the point that Caplan seems to make. If I am reading him properly, he says that because similar genes for similar functions occur in different species, there must be an evolutionary relationship. However, as anyone from /. should know, similar or identical code often pops in different projects that a programmer has written. Those programs have not morphed themselves into new software (unless they're running on a transmeta processor); rather, something that works well in one place is simply being implemented in another place. This is actually what could be expected of an intelligent designer, and seems (to me, at least) a more logical conclusion than saying that bacteria made themselves into humans (over the course of time, natural forces, yes, I'm quite familiar with the arguments...).
I'm not sure who wrote this, I didn't, but it has some interesting ideas... BIG BANG THEORY AND EVOLUTION I like science. Biology and botany have been my favorite. My wife likes science, too. Her favorites are physics, microbiology, and organic chemistry. Very smart girl and rather athletic, too. Anyway, some people think the theory of evolution and the big bang theory are science. They aren't. They are religions. Really. The theory of evolution and the big bang theory are simply mixed in with science to make it look scientific. Science is knowledge though observation. Religion is something believed in. Either you know something, or you believe something. These are two different things people. Evolutionists believe that the universe came from a big bang from a dot no bigger that a period in a textbook billions of years ago. Were they there when it happened to record what they observed? No, they have to believe in it. Here are some other questions. Where did that dot come from? That dot was spinning when it exploded. Energy is required to make something move. Where did the energy come from to make the dot spin? Where did the laws come from that govern the universe (law of gravity, law of thermodynamics, etc.) Don't say man. The laws have always been around. Man simply named what was already present in order to identify them. Believing in God may be religious, but so is evolution. Don't call God religion, and evolution science. They are both religions. Evolutionists have to believe in (not know) the big bang theory to support their theory. And don't tell me that there may have been an outside force that may have manipulated the dot or anything similar to that matter. There's no evidence for that either, and if you believe in it, it's still religion. It's risky to base a theory on a theory. It's like telling a lie to cover a lie. When atheist don't have all the answers, they have to make up something to justify what they are trying to make up without anything to back up what they just made up. Also, don't tell me we don't have the equipment and space to simulate the big bang theory in the lab. Some say, "The big bang theory occurred even though we don't have empirical evidence to support it." That's what they are saying in common terms after you take away all of the fancy words. It doesn't exists, and it will never exist because real science, when applied correctly, has disproven the big bang theory with laws of physics like the law of thermodynamics, the inverse square law, the law of angular momentum, the law of conservation of energy, and so forth. Someone out there is going to say, "According to the law of conservation of energy, matter cannot be created nor destroyed. So how can God created the universe?" Don't give me that garbage either. The law and the other laws govern the universe. God is outside of the universe, He is above the laws he created so it doesn't apply to Him, and He is an infinite being. "The big bang is presumed to have produced just hydrogen and helium, ONLY 2 of the 92 elements of the earth's crust." -Dr. Robert V. Gentry, Research Physicist Let's define what evolution really is. There are actually two types of evolution: macroevolution and microevolution. Microevolution is scientific, observable, and scriptural. Examples are dogs producing a variety of dogs, cows produce a variety of cows, and roses produce a variety of roses. We as humans have actually seen this happen. Macroevolution is religious, assumed, and unscriptural. Examples are apes producing humans, cucumbers producing sheep, and hamsters producing corn. NO ONE has ever seen this occur. The evolutionists believe in macroevolution and think that microevolution gives reason to believe in macroevolution when the two are unrelated. Evolutionists believe that all life come for a common ancestor...a ROCK. And don't tell me man came from "primates" or "ape-like" animals. Let's talk about some of these so-called "ape-like" animals. Caveman - Did you know that there are people still living in caves today? Their lifestyles may be "primitive" compared to ours, but they are still just as human. Neanderthal Man - The back of the Neanderthal man is halfway between the back of an ape and the back of a human. That proves the Neanderthal man is part of the evolutionary process turning into a man. NO, IT DOESN'T! When the bones of the " Neanderthal man" was under close examination, it was discovered that the spine was bent because of arthritis. It wasn't an ape coming up to be a human. It was a man going down because of arthritis. Those people exist today. Cro-Magnon Man - In a nutshell, this prehistoric man is characterized by big bones. And that proves it was a part of evolution? I don't think so. Well, knowing some of the football players we have today, it may be true. (major sarcasm) Piltdown Man - Two scientists took the top part of a human skull, the bottom jaw of an ape's skull, filed the ape's teeth down to fit the human skull, treated the whole thing with acid to make it look old, and said is was mankind's ancestor. Yes, people. it was proven a fake soon after. Over 500 people write their dissertation on the Piltdown man. I wonder how did they feel after it was discovered that it was a fake. Nebraska Man - A tooth was found in Nebraska. Out of this one tooth, an evolutionist was able to construct a prehistoric man. Then later, the same evolutionist was able to construct the man's wife. This guy has got to be good. It was later discovered that the tooth actually came from a pig. That's your real Nebraska man for ya. Read "Bone of Contention" by Sylvia Baker and "Bones of Contention" by Marvin L. Lubenow for more scientific information on this. How would you like to make $10,000? No money making scheme. This is serious. If anyone can provide empirical evidence of evolution, go to www.drdino.com. If you can present imperical evidence to Dr. Kent E. Hovind, he will personally pay you $10,000. It's even on his website. Go check it out. "I am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's applied, will be one of the great jokes of the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has." -Malcolm Muggeridge, journalist and philosopher, Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario Canada. "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact." -Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission, USA EVIDENCE FROM SPACE Because of the existence of short-lived comets, the universe cannot be billions of years old. Otherwise there will be no comets today. Someone named Oort said that maybe the comets come from a cloud in space. He named the cloud the "Oort Cloud." Oort theorized this without any evidence. No one has seen this cloud so we don't know it exists. That's what atheists do. When something from science disproves their theory and supports something else like the Bible, they have to make up another theory to try to "prove" their theory. It's a scientific fact that all mass has gravity. We have tides on the earth because of the moon's gravity on the earth. It's also a scientific fact that the moon is slowly drifting from the earth a couple of inches every year. According to the THEORY of evolution, the moon is billions of years old. There's a law called the "Inverse Square Law." It means that then you half the distance between two objects, you quadruple the attraction of the gravitational pull. IF the moon was billions of years old, the distance between the moon and the earth would have caused tides so strong it would have drowned all life on the earth everyday, TWICE. The moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230. Both are short-lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the moon were billions of years old. Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rapidly. They are losing heat twice as fast as they are gaining heat from the Sun. If they are billions of years old, they would have been cooled off a long time ago. EVIDENCE FROM EARTH The earth has a magnetic field around it to help filter harmful rays from the Sun. We are losing this magnetic field little by little. If the earth was billions of years old, the magnetic field would have been so strong it would have created so much heat life would not be possible on the earth. Some say that the field might have a reversal effect where it gets stronger and weaker, stronger and weaker. This is only a guess. We know that it is getting weaker, and that's all we know. When an atheist talks about the reversal effect, it's just another way to make up a theory based on another theory that cannot be supported. It's a fact that there is oil beneath the surface of the earth that is under pressure. That's why we have oil wells today. All scientist do agree that dead plants and animals turned into the oil after being squashed over a period of time. They also agree that the pressure of the oil can only last for about 10,000 years until it slowly seeps through the rock layer above it. If the earth is billions of years old, why hasn't all of the pressure been relieved yet? Isn't it possible that the plants, the animals, and the people who drowned in the flood got buried beneath a lot mud, got squashed, and turned into oil? Hmm... Interesting. Maybe that Flood did happened. More on that later. It's a scientific fact that the earth's rotation is almost 1,000 mph at the equator. It's also a scientific fact that the earth's rotation is slowing down 1/1,000 of a second everyday. If the earth were billions of years old according to the THEORY of evolution, the speed of the rotation of the earth would have cause winds to be as great as 5,000 mph due to the Corilolis effect. Of course the life on this planet wasn't effected. They were thrown off this earth because of the centrifugal forces. (sarcasm) And don't tell me a space debris or a comet hit the earth to screw up the speed of the rotation. It just another was for the atheists to make up another theory to try to "prove" their theory. Actually, a comet may have hit the earth about 4,400 years ago. More on that later. Stalactites do not prove that the earth is millions of years old. If you toured on of these caverns, the tour giver will say, "Don't touch the formations. It took millions of years to form." Oh, really? Evolutionists believe that it takes 1,000 years to form 1" of stalactite. The Lincoln Memorial was built in 1922. There are stalactites under it. There an old WWII fort in Florida. There are 10 inch stalactites growing there, too. Did you know that ice accumulates on the north and south poles? That accumulation is indicating that it is less that 5,000 years old. Didn't the Flood occurred like 4,400 years ago? More on that later. EVIDENCE FROM BIOLOGY According to the THEORY of evolution, man has been on this earth for 3 million years. The Earth's population is currently approaching 6,000,000,000. If we were to take the event of the Flood that occurred 4,400 years ago in which Noah and his family survived, we would be looking at eight people: Noah, his wife, their three sons, and their sons' wives (yes, I'm referring to the event of Noah's ark.) Using the genealogy in the Bible from the flood, the average rate of the growth of the population of this planet, and simple mathematics, you will end up with around about 5,000,000,000 to 6,000,000,000, about the current population of earth. IF man existed 3 millions years ago, you'd have a serious problem. We'd have 150,000 people per square inch on this earth. Some of you may say "Well, maybe some catastrophe happened that eliminated most of the population in the past." Your right. It's the Flood that occurred 4,400 years ago in which Noah and his family survived. And don't tell me that Noah and his family was simply a part of evolution who survived today. If that were the case, then how did Noah know when to build an ark to save his family from the Flood? The oldest tree on this planet is 4,300. Scientific fact. The largest and oldest coral reef is the Great Barrier Reef. It was damaged during WWII. The environmentalist later tried protecting it and watched it grow for the next twenty years. According to the data they gathered, the Great Barrier Reef is less than 4,100 years old. Scientific fact. According to the THEORY of evolution the earth is 4.5 billion years old. According to the Bible, the Flood destroyed the earth 4,400 years ago. Why is it that there isn't a tree or coral reef that's over 4,400 years old? The genetic load in man is increasing. Genetics have cataloged nearly 1,300 genetic disorders in the human race. If evolution is true, aren't we suppose to be getting better? It is certainly reasonable to believe that the human race was created perfect from the hands of the Creator, but has been going downhill due to our disobedience to the laws He established. Read "Scientific Creationism" by Henry Morris, "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown, and "It's a Young World After All" by Paul Ackerman for more scientific information on this. EVENTS FROM THE BIBLE If fire didn't rain on Sodom and Gomorrah, God does not exist. If the parting of the Red Sea didn't happen, God does not exist. If the Noah never built the ark to escape the flood waters with his family, God does not exist. Remember, God caused these events to occur. So if there is no evidence to these events, God doesn't exist. Sodom and Gomorrah - Sodom and Gomorrah has been found. From a distance, this city looks like a burnt city. On closer inspection, some of the bricks were complete ash. That's how hot the fire got. But did it really rain fire? Sulfur balls the size of golf ball were found all over the area. The sulfur balls were at least 99% percent pure sulfur. And the location of this burnt city fits the location of Sodom and Gomorrah. Parting of the Red Sea - For years, people have been looking for where the parting took place in the Gulf of Suez and couldn't find it. It's because they were looking in the wrong place. The parting took place in the Gulf of Akaba, and there's evidence. There are two pillars on both sides of the gulf where the parting took place inscribed by King Solomon commemorating the crossing of the Red Sea. Along that path underwater are skeletons of horses and humans. There are also remains of chariots and chariot wheels laced with gold detached from the chariots. The Bible did say that God pulled the wheels from the chariots to help prevent the Egyptians from following Moses and the Israelites. And the style of the wheels fit the style of the Egyptian empire of that time. Also, there are two rows of stone found at the bottom of the gulf as if waters divided themselves pushing the rock to both sides. Noah's Ark - It has been believed to be found. The site is located 17 miles from Mt. Ararat. The Bible did say that the ark rested in the mountains of Mt. Ararat. What was found was believed to be the decayed remains of the ark buried under the soil in the shape of the ark as if it had collapsed. Supporting this believe were huge deposits of iron rivets that once held the ark together along with 4 to 5 ft size anchor stones that helped kept the ark stabilized. There's a tourist center now where you can visit this site. Something else. The Turkish government claims to have found the grave of Noah. On the grave is a picture of a boat and eight people (Noah, his wife, their three sons, and their sons' wives.) Ron Wyatt,(ph. (615) 331-6263) researched and discovered some of this as an archeologist. Check out his website at www.anchorstone.com. THE FLOOD Yes, the flood did occur. How it occurred, we aren't for sure, but there are scientific evidence to support this theory that hasn't been disproven.. Facts to consider: Saturn's rings are made of ice. The Moon has craters mainly concentrated on one side. If the Moon were billions of years old, it would make more sense that by chance the craters would be evenly distributed. The earth is tilted at 23.5 degrees which gives us the seasons. It's scientifically calculated that if the earth was not at a tilt, it would be spring all year long all over the earth, and we would have 12 hour days and twelve hours night. Remember this. Very important. Earth has a magnetic field around it. A spinning top will wobble if you threw some mud on it and will eventually stabilize itself rotating at a different angle. Coal, dinosaur fossils, and well preserved palm tree leaves were found under the ice on the Antarctica continent. Let's keep all of these facts in mind. We don't know the full purpose to Stonehenge, but we do know that it was used to measure the angle of the earth on the Summer Solstice (June 20, sometimes 21) based on the Summer Solstice shadow cast on Stonehenge by the Sun. An Australian astronomer, George Godwell, gathered all of the past records and information he can find on what the angle of the earth was during past Summer Solstices. After graphing all of his findings, he discovered that the earth started to wobble at about 4,350 years ago until it finally stabilized. It was also calculated that the earth was not on a tilt right before it started to wobble. Did something hit the earth back then to cause it to be at an angle? The Bible did teach that the Flood occurred at about 4,400 years ago. Remember this. In the northern parts of Russia like the Siberian Islands contain well preserved animals like the woolly mammoths, wolves, camels, and other animals in ice. These animals were so well preserved, the food in their stomachs did not have a chance to digest. The skin of the woolly mammoths were studied, and it was discovered that they were absent of sebaceous glands. These glands produce an oily coating on the fur of cold climate animals to make the fur waterproof. On closer inspection, the blood of the woolly mammoths had ice crystals indicating that it had to be frozen in less than 5 hours. The only way you can freeze a woolly mammoth in less than 5 hours is for it to be exposed in -300 degree Fahrenheit temperatures. The only thing known to man that is -300 degree Fahrenheit that is not of this earth are ice comets. Remember this. With everything said so far, it's highly plausible to say that a comet hit the earth causing this. A comet flying through space would explain the ice rings around Saturn and why the moon has craters mostly on one side if the comet flew by at this time. The ice melted and drifted off or vaporized off the surface of the moon. That's probably why there isn't any trace of what was once there. A comet is like a snowball. The harder the snowball is propelled, the more it will break apart. Well, the same can be applied to the comet. There's a law I mentioned earlier called the Inverse Square Law which means that then you half the distance between two objects, you quadruple the attraction of the gravitational pull. As the comet approached the earth, the closer it got the faster it went causing the comet to break up and get caught in the earth's magnetic field. It's a fact ice can be highly magnetized. It probably happened from the friction when it entered the earth's atmosphere. It had to be a lot of ice to not completely vaporize, and it was a lot of ice. In fact as the ice was magnetized to the top and the bottom of the earth, the ice on the top of the earth reached as far south as what is now Illinois. Sound familiar? Yes, people. This was when the "Ice Age" occurred freezing the mammoths. And when the ice hit, cold air and warm air produce rain. Also most of the plants that were on the bottom of the earth got squishes which formed into coal. Some didn't and was preserved and later discovered like the palm leaves. Now, remember it was calculated that the earth was not at a tilt at about 4,350 giving the planet springtime weather all year long. If a comet were to hit the earth, causing it to wobble, tilting the earth, which gives us the seasons we have today it fits what the Bible says. The Flood happened about 4,400 years ago. I know the dates are off by 50 years, but these are approximations. The Bible teaches us the first winter did not occur until after the flood. Also, the Bible teaches that there is water beneath the surface of the earth's crust. People have water wells and there are hot springs underneath the crust of the earth. It also says that "the springs of the great deep burst forth." How did this happen? It only makes sense that when the ice applied pressure to both sides on the earth, it cracked the crust causing the hot water beneath to earth causing more water to be release to contribute to the Flood. Now, these cracks are known today as the faults and the ridges we find on the earth today. When the hot water spewed from the cracks, it killed every living thing nearby in the water. Now, a diatom is a beautiful crystal like creature found in the water that cannot be seen without a microscope. When diatoms die, they fall on top on each other to accumulate to create diatomaceous earth. Diatomaceous earth is use today in products like washing detergent and cat liter. It's a fact that it takes 1,000 years to make a 1" layer of diatomaceous earth. Maybe the Flood didn't happen. Maybe the earth is billions of years old. No, it isn't. When the springs of the great deep busted forth, the ht water killed countless of diatoms along with billions of other fish who's fossils were found in the diatomaceous earth. Lompoc, CA, is located exactly on the san Andreas Fault. In that town, there a company called Workers of the Dicalcite: Division of Grefco Corporation in which they specialize in diatomaceous earth. In 1976 as they were digging in the diatomaceous earth, they came across a fossilized skeleton of a baleen whale in the diatomaceous earth. It was 80 feet long standing on end to end. If diatomaceous earth form at 1" every 1,000 years, how did the baleen whale remained there for almost 10, 000? It didn't. It was destroyed with the diatoms and other fish from the hot water busting from the earth during the flood. Grand Canyon is proof for the flood, too. Evolutionists believe that the Grand Canyon was carved out by a river billions of years ago. Did you know that the top of the canyon (6000 ft) is higher than the bottom? (1800 ft) Did you also know that the river in Grand Canyon is at the bottom of the canyon? Did you realize that the entrance where the river starts (2800 ft) is lower than the highest point of the Grand Canyon? That means that river had to flow uphill for billions of years to form the groove that forms Grand Canyon. I don't think so. It's true that the earth has many layers. That doesn't mean it's billions of years old. Evolutionists believe that each layer was created in a year. If that is true, why is it that there are no erosions marks between each layer? All of the layers are stacked like pancakes. If you took a jar of water, filled it with different types of soil, shook the jar up, and set the jar on a flat surface, the soil in the jar will separate itself in layers. Moving water automatically separates dirt and soil by their density. The heavier ones go first and then the lighter ones. All that water from the flood stirred up the surface of the earth, and as the dirt settled, it settled in layer. We all have heard of Mount St. Helen. You know, the volcano in California. This volcano erupted in 1980 if I remember correctly. The ash and mud that flowed from this volcano formed a dam that blocked a river running by it. After the eruption stopped, there was so much pressure from the river that it finally broke the dam. All of the water rushed out carving out a canyon that was 150 deep and I forget how long in 15 min. It looked very similar Grand Canyon. This is evidence to say that Grand Canyon was carved out of the flood waters that rushed off the land when it was soft mud. Check out Part 6, of Dr. Kent Hovind's Creation seminar for more info which can be found at www.drdino.com. Extra info on the flood.top 3,000 feet of Mt. Everest (from 26,000-29,000 feet) is made up of sedimentary rock packed with seashells and other ocean-dwelling animals. Sedimentary rock is found ALL over the world. Sedimentary rock is formed UNDERWATER. There is enough water in the oceans right now to cover the earth 8,000 feet deep if the surface of the earth were smooth. Large mountains, as we have them today, DID NOT EXIST UNTIL AFTER the flood when "the mountains arose and the valleys sank down." Psalms 104:5-9, Genesis 8:3-8 Bent rock layers, fossil graveyards, and poly-strata fossils are best explained by a Flood 2 Peter 3:3-8 says that scoffer are "willingly ignorant" of the Flood. "Willingly ignorant" means, "dumb on purpose." ABOUT GOD AND AVOIDING WORLDLY DECEPTION The question, "Can God create a rock too big for him to lift" is not a valid a question. Here's why. A rock is a finite object. It has bounds and limits. God is an infinite being. He has no bounds and limits. How can you associate finite attributes to an infinite being? You can't. We can only associate certain descriptive words to an infinite being in describing ONLY what we can understand about Him. Examples are "He is awesome" or "He is just," but He is also INFINITELY awesome and just. Asking the question "Can God create a rock too big for him to lift" is implying that God has finite attributes when he doesn't. It's like trying to match two things that don't go together. Therefore, this question is not valid to disprove the existence of God. I have heard the question many times, and it's used to brainwash people into believing there isn't a God. When it is defined that God is infinite and a rock is finite, it becomes clear that the question is bogus. That question is like saying, "Did you beat your wife recently?" If I said "yes," that means I have. If I said "no," it implies I did in the past. The question should be, "Have you ever beaten your wife?" and then, "Did you beat her recently?" Since the answer is "no," it makes the second part moot. The same applies to the question, "Can God create a rock too big for him to lift?" It should ask, "Is God a finite or infinite being?" and then, "Can God create a rock too big for him to lift?" Since the answer is "INFINITE," it makes the second part moot. DON'T get trapped in this. And don't give me that stuff that "if God is knowing of all things to come, it limits His choices on what He can do because he has to follow the events to come." Whoever said He was limited to His choices? It was His choice for the events to transpire the way they are in the first place. He's not following time, time is following Him. Besides, He is outside of time so time doesn't apply to Him anyway. For God, everything that has happened, everything that's going on now, and everything that will happen has already happened to God and everything else in His Creation. Don't let people get you with this either. Someone here said that the Bible claims to be the "Ultimate Truth." But what is it the ultimate truth of? Building a PC? Fixing a Ford vehicle? Playing a video game? The Bible is not the ultimate truth, but it is the TRUTH. For someone to say that the Bible is the "ultimate truth" is DECEIVING which will lead to question giving doubt about the Bible. GOD is the ULTIMATE TRUTH. Some of you don't believe there is a God because you do not know Him. You may know of Him, but you don't know Him. God is a stranger to you. How can you understand a stranger walking down the sidewalk until you have met him? Even after becoming friends you still wouldn't understand everything about him. The more you know a person, the more you will understand him. The more you know God, the more you will understand Him. The only way to know God is through Christ. And until you know Him, your criticisms of God will NOT hold up. I may not have all of the answers about God, but not having all the answers DOES NOT disprove He exists. We don't have all the answers about the human brain, and we know it exists. The answers I do have are facts that have been proven. I may have a few theories, but they are backed up by evidence through science that HAS NOT BEEN DISPROVEN. If you want more answers than the ones I have given, go check out your local library or here on the internet. I've already named a few books and websites. This is the truth. It has nothing to do with science. There is nothing scientific that disproves the Bible since God created the sciences. There are theories created by man that contradicts the Bible, but they are just theories. They haven't been proven. It all has to do with lifestyles. The Bible teaches that there will be scoffers in the land. There will be people who scoff at the Bible because it cramps their lifestyles. That's why they deny the existence of God. I'm not mad at the scoffers. I'm mad at Satan. Satan have been deceive mankind starting with Eve. A lot of you people do not believe in God is because Satan has deceived you. When Christ was crucified on the cross, He said, "Father forgive these people for they do not know what they are doing." The same thing is happening to those who do not believe in Him. You do not know what you are doing because you have been deceived.
I'm not sure who wrote this, I didn't, but it has some interesting ideas...
BIG BANGTHEORY AND EVOLUTION
I like science. Biology and botany have been my favorite. My wife likes science, too. Her favorites are physics, microbiology, and organic chemistry. Very smart girl and rather athletic, too. Anyway, some people think the theory of evolution and the big bang theory are science. They aren't. They are religions. Really. The theory of evolution and the big bang theory are simply mixed in with science to make it look scientific. Science is knowledge though observation. Religion is something believed in. Either you know something, or you believe something. These are two different things people. Evolutionists believe that the universe came from a big bang from a dot no bigger that a period in a textbook billions of years ago. Were they there when it happened to record what they observed? No, they have to believe in it. Here are some other questions. Where did that dot come from? That dot was spinning when it exploded. Energy is required to make something move. Where did the energy come from to make the dot spin? Where did the laws come from that govern the universe (law of gravity, law of thermodynamics, etc.) Don't say man. The laws have always been around. Man simply named what was already present in order to identify them. Believing in God may be religious, but so is evolution. Don't call God religion, and evolution science. They are both religions. Evolutionists have to believe in (not know) the big bang theory to support their theory. And don't tell me that there may have been an outside force that may have manipulated the dot or anything similar to that matter. There's no evidence for that either, and if you believe in it, it's still religion. It's risky to base a theory on a theory. It's like telling a lie to cover a lie. When atheist don't have all the answers, they have to make up something to justify what they are trying to make up without anything to back up what they just made up. Also, don't tell me we don't have the equipment and space to simulate the big bang theory in the lab. Some say, "The big bang theory occurred even though we don't have empirical evidence to support it." That's what they are saying in common terms after you take away all of the fancy words. It doesn't exists, and it will never exist because real science, when applied correctly, has disproven the big bang theory with laws of physics like the law of thermodynamics, the inverse square law, the law of angular momentum, the law of conservation of energy, and so forth. Someone out there is going to say, "According to the law of conservation of energy, matter cannot be created nor destroyed. So how can God created the universe?" Don't give me that garbage either. The law and the other laws govern the universe. God is outside of the universe, He is above the laws he created so it doesn't apply to Him, and He is an infinite being.
"The big bang is presumed to have produced just hydrogen and helium, ONLY 2 of the 92 elements of the earth's crust." -Dr. Robert V. Gentry, Research Physicist
Let's define what evolution really is. There are actually two types of evolution: macroevolution and microevolution. Microevolution is scientific, observable, and scriptural. Examples are dogs producing a variety of dogs, cows produce a variety of cows, and roses produce a variety of roses. We as humans have actually seen this happen. Macroevolution is religious, assumed, and unscriptural. Examples are apes producing humans, cucumbers producing sheep, and hamsters producing corn. NO ONE has ever seen this occur. The evolutionists believe in macroevolution and think that microevolution gives reason to believe in macroevolution when the two are unrelated. Evolutionists believe that all life come for a common ancestor...a ROCK. And don't tell me man came from "primates" or "ape-like" animals. Let's talk about some of these so-called "ape-like" animals.
Caveman - Did you know that there are people still living in caves today? Their lifestyles may be "primitive" compared to ours, but they are still just as human.
Neanderthal Man - The back of the Neanderthal man is halfway between the back of an ape and the back of a human. That proves the Neanderthal man is part of the evolutionary process turning into a man. NO, IT DOESN'T! When the bones of the " Neanderthal man" was under close examination, it was discovered that the spine was bent because of arthritis. It wasn't an ape coming up to be a human. It was a man going down because of arthritis. Those people exist today.
Cro-Magnon Man - In a nutshell, this prehistoric man is characterized by big bones. And that proves it was a part of evolution? I don't think so. Well, knowing some of the football players we have today, it may be true. (major sarcasm)
Piltdown Man - Two scientists took the top part of a human skull, the bottom jaw of an ape's skull, filed the ape's teeth down to fit the human skull, treated the whole thing with acid to make it look old, and said is was mankind's ancestor. Yes, people. it was proven a fake soon after. Over 500 people write their dissertation on the Piltdown man. I wonder how did they feel after it was discovered that it was a fake.
Nebraska Man - A tooth was found in Nebraska. Out of this one tooth, an evolutionist was able to construct a prehistoric man. Then later, the same evolutionist was able to construct the man's wife. This guy has got to be good. It was later discovered that the tooth actually came from a pig. That's your real Nebraska man for ya.
Read "Bone of Contention" by Sylvia Baker and "Bones of Contention" by Marvin L. Lubenow for more scientific information on this.
How would you like to make $10,000? No money making scheme. This is serious. If anyone can provide empirical evidence of evolution, go to www.drdino.com. If you can present imperical evidence to Dr. Kent E. Hovind, he will personally pay you $10,000. It's even on his website. Go check it out.
"I am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's applied, will be one of the great jokes of the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has." -Malcolm Muggeridge, journalist and philosopher, Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario Canada.
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact." -Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission, USA
EVIDENCE FROM SPACE
Because of the existence of short-lived comets, the universe cannot be billions of years old. Otherwise there will be no comets today. Someone named Oort said that maybe the comets come from a cloud in space. He named the cloud the "Oort Cloud." Oort theorized this without any evidence. No one has seen this cloud so we don't know it exists. That's what atheists do. When something from science disproves their theory and supports something else like the Bible, they have to make up another theory to try to "prove" their theory.
It's a scientific fact that all mass has gravity. We have tides on the earth because of the moon's gravity on the earth. It's also a scientific fact that the moon is slowly drifting from the earth a couple of inches every year. According to the THEORY of evolution, the moon is billions of years old. There's a law called the "Inverse Square Law." It means that then you half the distance between two objects, you quadruple the attraction of the gravitational pull. IF the moon was billions of years old, the distance between the moon and the earth would have caused tides so strong it would have drowned all life on the earth everyday, TWICE.
The moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230. Both are short-lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the moon were billions of years old.
Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rapidly. They are losing heat twice as fast as they are gaining heat from the Sun. If they are billions of years old, they would have been cooled off a long time ago.
EVIDENCE FROM EARTH
The earth has a magnetic field around it to help filter harmful rays from the Sun. We are losing this magnetic field little by little. If the earth was billions of years old, the magnetic field would have been so strong it would have created so much heat life would not be possible on the earth. Some say that the field might have a reversal effect where it gets stronger and weaker, stronger and weaker. This is only a guess. We know that it is getting weaker, and that's all we know. When an atheist talks about the reversal effect, it's just another way to make up a theory based on another theory that cannot be supported.
It's a fact that there is oil beneath the surface of the earth that is under pressure. That's why we have oil wells today. All scientist do agree that dead plants and animals turned into the oil after being squashed over a period of time. They also agree that the pressure of the oil can only last for about 10,000 years until it slowly seeps through the rock layer above it. If the earth is billions of years old, why hasn't all of the pressure been relieved yet? Isn't it possible that the plants, the animals, and the people who drowned in the flood got buried beneath a lot mud, got squashed, and turned into oil? Hmm... Interesting. Maybe that Flood did happened. More on that later.
It's a scientific fact that the earth's rotation is almost 1,000 mph at the equator. It's also a scientific fact that the earth's rotation is slowing down 1/1,000 of a second everyday. If the earth were billions of years old according to the THEORY of evolution, the speed of the rotation of the earth would have cause winds to be as great as 5,000 mph due to the Corilolis effect. Of course the life on this planet wasn't effected. They were thrown off this earth because of the centrifugal forces. (sarcasm) And don't tell me a space debris or a comet hit the earth to screw up the speed of the rotation. It just another was for the atheists to make up another theory to try to "prove" their theory. Actually, a comet may have hit the earth about 4,400 years ago. More on that later.
Stalactites do not prove that the earth is millions of years old. If you toured on of these caverns, the tour giver will say, "Don't touch the formations. It took millions of years to form." Oh, really? Evolutionists believe that it takes 1,000 years to form 1" of stalactite. The Lincoln Memorial was built in 1922. There are stalactites under it. There an old WWII fort in Florida. There are 10 inch stalactites growing there, too.
Did you know that ice accumulates on the north and south poles? That accumulation is indicating that it is less that 5,000 years old. Didn't the Flood occurred like 4,400 years ago? More on that later.
EVIDENCE FROM BIOLOGY
According to the THEORY of evolution, man has been on this earth for 3 million years. The Earth's population is currently approaching 6,000,000,000. If we were to take the event of the Flood that occurred 4,400 years ago in which Noah and his family survived, we would be looking at eight people: Noah, his wife, their three sons, and their sons' wives (yes, I'm referring to the event of Noah's ark.) Using the
genealogy in the Bible from the flood, the average rate of the growth of the population of this planet, and simple mathematics, you will end up with around about 5,000,000,000 to 6,000,000,000, about the current population of earth. IF man existed 3 millions years ago, you'd have a serious problem. We'd have 150,000 people per square inch on this earth. Some of you may say "Well, maybe some catastrophe happened that eliminated most of the population in the past." Your right. It's the Flood that occurred 4,400 years ago in which Noah and his family survived. And don't tell me that Noah and his family was simply a part of evolution who survived today. If that were the case, then how did Noah know when to build an ark to save his family from the Flood?
The oldest tree on this planet is 4,300. Scientific fact. The largest and oldest coral reef is the Great Barrier Reef. It was damaged during WWII. The environmentalist later tried protecting it and watched it grow for the next twenty years. According to the data they gathered, the Great Barrier Reef is less than 4,100 years old. Scientific fact. According to the THEORY of evolution the earth is 4.5 billion years old. According to the Bible, the Flood destroyed the earth 4,400 years ago. Why is it that there isn't a tree or coral reef that's over 4,400 years old?
The genetic load in man is increasing. Genetics have cataloged nearly 1,300 genetic disorders in the human race. If evolution is true, aren't we suppose to be getting better? It is certainly reasonable to believe that the human race was created perfect from the hands of the Creator, but has been going downhill due to our disobedience to the laws He established.
Read "Scientific Creationism" by Henry Morris, "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown, and "It's a Young World After All" by Paul Ackerman for more scientific information on this.
EVENTS FROM THE BIBLE
If fire didn't rain on Sodom and Gomorrah, God does not exist.
If the parting of the Red Sea didn't happen, God does not exist.
If the Noah never built the ark to escape the flood waters with his family, God does not exist.
Remember, God caused these events to occur. So if there is no evidence to these events, God doesn't exist.
Sodom and Gomorrah - Sodom and Gomorrah has been found. From a distance, this city looks like a burnt city. On closer inspection, some of the bricks were complete ash. That's how hot the fire got. But did it really rain fire? Sulfur balls the size of golf ball were found all over the area. The sulfur balls were at least 99% percent pure sulfur. And the location of this burnt city fits the location of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Parting of the Red Sea - For years, people have been looking for where the parting took place in the Gulf of Suez and couldn't find it. It's because they were looking in the wrong place. The parting took place in the Gulf of Akaba, and there's evidence. There are two pillars on both sides of the gulf where the parting took place inscribed by King Solomon commemorating the crossing of the Red Sea. Along that path underwater are skeletons of horses and humans. There are also remains of chariots and chariot wheels laced with gold detached from the chariots. The Bible did say that God pulled the wheels from the chariots to help prevent the Egyptians from following Moses and the Israelites. And the style of the wheels fit the style of the Egyptian empire of that time. Also, there are two rows of stone found at the bottom of the gulf as if waters divided themselves pushing the rock to
both sides.
Noah's Ark - It has been believed to be found. The site is located 17 miles from Mt. Ararat. The Bible did say that the ark rested in the mountains of Mt. Ararat. What was found was believed to be the decayed remains of the ark buried under the soil in the shape of the ark as if it had collapsed. Supporting this believe were huge deposits of iron rivets that once held the ark together along with 4 to 5 ft size anchor stones that helped kept the ark stabilized. There's a tourist center now where you can visit this site. Something else. The Turkish government claims to have found the grave of Noah. On the grave is a picture of a boat and eight people (Noah, his wife, their three sons, and their sons' wives.)
Ron Wyatt,(ph. (615) 331-6263) researched and discovered some of this as an archeologist. Check out his website at www.anchorstone.com.
THE FLOOD
Yes, the flood did occur. How it occurred, we aren't for sure, but there are scientific evidence to support this theory that hasn't been disproven..
Facts to consider:
Saturn's rings are made of ice.
The Moon has craters mainly concentrated on one side. If the Moon were billions of years old, it would make more sense that by chance the craters would be evenly distributed.
The earth is tilted at 23.5 degrees which gives us the seasons. It's scientifically calculated that if the earth was not at a tilt, it would be spring all year long all over the earth, and we would have 12 hour days and twelve hours night. Remember this. Very important.
Earth has a magnetic field around it.
A spinning top will wobble if you threw some mud on it and will eventually stabilize itself rotating at a different angle.
Coal, dinosaur fossils, and well preserved palm tree leaves were found under the ice on the Antarctica continent.
Let's keep all of these facts in mind.
We don't know the full purpose to Stonehenge, but we do know that it was used to measure the angle of the earth on the Summer Solstice (June 20, sometimes 21) based on the Summer Solstice shadow cast on Stonehenge by the Sun. An Australian astronomer, George Godwell, gathered all of the past records and information he can find on what the angle of the earth was during past Summer Solstices. After graphing all of his findings, he discovered that the earth started to wobble at about 4,350 years ago until it finally stabilized. It was also calculated that the earth was not on a tilt right before it started to wobble. Did something hit the earth back then to cause it to be at an angle? The Bible did teach that the Flood occurred at about 4,400 years ago. Remember this.
In the northern parts of Russia like the Siberian Islands contain well preserved animals like the woolly mammoths, wolves, camels, and other animals in ice. These animals were so well preserved, the food in their stomachs did not have a chance to digest. The skin of the woolly mammoths were studied, and it was discovered that they were absent of sebaceous glands. These glands produce an oily coating on the fur of cold climate animals to make the fur waterproof. On closer inspection, the blood of the woolly mammoths had ice crystals indicating that it had to be frozen in less than 5 hours. The only way you can freeze a woolly mammoth in less than 5 hours is for it to be exposed in -300 degree Fahrenheit temperatures. The only thing known to man that is -300 degree Fahrenheit that is not of this earth are ice comets. Remember this.
With everything said so far, it's highly plausible to say that a comet hit the earth causing this. A comet flying through space would explain the ice rings around Saturn and why the moon has craters mostly on one side if the comet flew by at this time. The ice melted and drifted off or vaporized off the surface of the moon. That's probably why there isn't any trace of what was once there. A comet is like a snowball. The harder the snowball is propelled, the more it will break apart. Well, the same can be applied to the comet. There's a law I mentioned earlier called the Inverse Square Law which means that then you half the distance between two objects, you quadruple the attraction of the gravitational pull. As the comet approached the earth, the closer it got the faster it went causing the comet to break up and get caught in the earth's magnetic field. It's a fact ice can be highly magnetized. It probably happened from the friction when it entered the earth's atmosphere. It had to be a lot of ice to not completely vaporize, and it was a lot of ice. In fact as the ice was magnetized to the top and the bottom of the earth, the ice on the top of the earth reached as far south as what is now Illinois. Sound familiar? Yes, people. This was when the "Ice Age" occurred freezing the mammoths. And when the ice hit, cold air and warm air produce rain. Also most of the plants that were on the bottom of the earth got squishes which formed into coal. Some didn't and was preserved and later discovered like the palm leaves. Now, remember it was calculated that the earth was not at a tilt at about 4,350 giving the planet springtime weather all year long. If a comet were to hit the earth, causing it to wobble, tilting the earth, which gives us the seasons we have today it fits what the Bible says. The Flood happened about 4,400 years ago. I know the dates are off by 50 years, but these are approximations. The Bible teaches us the first winter did not occur until after the flood.
Also, the Bible teaches that there is water beneath the surface of the earth's crust. People have water wells and there are hot springs underneath the crust of the earth. It also says that "the springs of the great deep burst forth." How did this happen? It only makes sense that when the ice applied pressure to both sides on the earth, it cracked the crust causing the hot water beneath to earth causing more water to be release to contribute to the Flood. Now, these cracks are known today as the faults and the ridges we find on the earth today. When the hot water spewed from the cracks, it killed every living thing nearby in the water. Now, a diatom is a beautiful crystal like creature found in the water that cannot be seen without a microscope. When diatoms die, they fall on top on each other to accumulate to create diatomaceous earth. Diatomaceous earth is use today in products like washing detergent and cat liter. It's a fact that it takes 1,000 years to make a 1" layer of diatomaceous earth. Maybe the Flood didn't happen. Maybe the earth is billions of years old. No, it isn't. When the springs of the great deep busted forth, the ht water killed countless of diatoms along with billions of other fish who's fossils were found in the diatomaceous earth. Lompoc, CA, is located exactly on the san Andreas Fault. In that town, there a company called Workers of the Dicalcite: Division of Grefco Corporation in which they specialize in diatomaceous earth. In 1976 as they were digging in the diatomaceous earth, they came across a fossilized skeleton of a baleen whale in the diatomaceous earth. It was 80 feet long standing on end to end. If diatomaceous earth form at 1" every 1,000 years, how did the baleen whale remained there for almost 10, 000? It didn't. It was destroyed with the diatoms and other fish from the hot water busting from the earth during the flood.
Grand Canyon is proof for the flood, too. Evolutionists believe that the Grand Canyon was carved out by a river billions of years ago. Did you know that the top of the canyon (6000 ft) is higher than the bottom? (1800 ft) Did you also know that the river in Grand Canyon is at the bottom of the canyon? Did you realize that the entrance where the river starts (2800 ft) is lower than the highest point of the Grand Canyon? That means that river had to flow uphill for billions of years to form the groove that forms Grand Canyon. I don't think so. It's true that the earth has many layers. That doesn't mean it's billions of years old. Evolutionists believe that each layer was created in a year. If that is true, why is it that there are no erosions marks between each layer? All of the layers are stacked like pancakes. If you took a jar of water, filled it with different types of soil, shook the jar up, and set the jar on a flat surface, the soil in the jar will separate itself in layers. Moving water automatically separates dirt and soil by their density. The heavier ones go first and then the lighter ones. All that water from the flood stirred up the surface of the earth, and as the dirt settled, it settled in layer.
We all have heard of Mount St. Helen. You know, the volcano in California. This volcano erupted in 1980 if I remember correctly. The ash and mud that flowed from this volcano formed a dam that blocked a river running by it. After the eruption stopped, there was so much pressure from the river that it finally broke the dam. All of the water rushed out carving out a canyon that was 150 deep and I forget how long in 15 min. It looked very similar Grand Canyon. This is evidence to say that Grand Canyon was carved out of the flood waters that rushed off the land when it was soft mud.
Check out Part 6, of Dr. Kent Hovind's Creation seminar for more info which can be found at www.drdino.com.
Extra info on the flood.top 3,000 feet of Mt. Everest (from 26,000-29,000 feet) is made up of sedimentary rock packed with seashells and other ocean-dwelling animals.
Sedimentary rock is found ALL over the world. Sedimentary rock is formed UNDERWATER.
There is enough water in the oceans right now to cover the earth 8,000 feet deep if the surface of the earth were smooth.
Large mountains, as we have them today, DID NOT EXIST UNTIL AFTER the flood when "the mountains arose and the valleys sank down." Psalms 104:5-9, Genesis 8:3-8
Bent rock layers, fossil graveyards, and poly-strata fossils are best explained by a Flood
2 Peter 3:3-8 says that scoffer are "willingly ignorant" of the Flood. "Willingly ignorant" means, "dumb on purpose."
ABOUT GOD AND AVOIDING WORLDLY DECEPTION
The question, "Can God create a rock too big for him to lift" is not a valid a question. Here's why. A rock is a finite object. It has bounds and limits. God is an infinite being. He has no bounds and limits. How can you associate finite attributes to an infinite being? You can't. We can only associate certain descriptive words to an infinite being in describing ONLY what we can understand about Him. Examples are "He is awesome" or "He is just," but He is also INFINITELY awesome and just. Asking the question "Can God create a rock too big for him to lift" is implying that God has finite attributes when he doesn't. It's like trying to match two things that don't go together. Therefore, this question is not valid to disprove the existence of God. I have heard the question many times, and it's used to brainwash people into believing there isn't a God. When it is defined that God is infinite and a rock is finite, it becomes clear that the question is bogus. That question is like saying, "Did you beat your wife recently?" If I said "yes," that means I have. If I said "no," it implies I did in the past. The question should be, "Have you ever beaten your wife?" and then, "Did you beat her recently?" Since the answer is "no," it makes the second part moot. The same applies to the question, "Can God create a rock too big for him to lift?" It should ask, "Is God a finite or infinite being?" and then, "Can God create a rock too big for him to lift?" Since the answer is "INFINITE," it makes the second part moot. DON'T get trapped in this. And don't give me that stuff that "if God is knowing of all things to come, it limits His choices on what He can do because he has to follow the events to come." Whoever said He was limited to His choices? It was His choice for the events to transpire the way they are in the first place. He's not following time, time is following Him. Besides, He is outside of time so time doesn't apply to Him anyway. For God, everything that has happened, everything that's going on now, and everything that will happen has already happened to God and everything else in His Creation. Don't let people get you with this either.
Someone here said that the Bible claims to be the "Ultimate Truth." But what is it the ultimate truth of? Building a PC? Fixing a Ford vehicle? Playing a video game? The Bible is not the ultimate truth, but it is the TRUTH. For someone to say that the Bible is the "ultimate truth" is DECEIVING which will lead to question giving doubt about the Bible. GOD is the ULTIMATE TRUTH.
Some of you don't believe there is a God because you do not know Him. You may know of Him, but you don't know Him. God is a stranger to you. How can you understand a stranger walking down the sidewalk until you have met him? Even after becoming friends you still wouldn't understand everything about him. The more you know a person, the more you will understand him. The more you know God, the more you will understand Him. The only way to know God is through Christ. And until you know Him, your criticisms of God will NOT hold up.
I may not have all of the answers about God, but not having all the answers DOES NOT disprove He exists. We don't have all the answers about the human brain, and we know it exists. The answers I do have are facts that have been proven. I may have a few theories, but they are backed up by evidence through science that HAS NOT BEEN DISPROVEN. If you want more answers than the ones I have given, go check out your local library or here on the internet. I've already named a few books and websites.
This is the truth. It has nothing to do with science. There is nothing scientific that disproves the Bible since God created the sciences. There are theories created by man that contradicts the Bible, but they are just theories. They haven't been proven. It all has to do with lifestyles. The Bible teaches that there will be scoffers in the land. There will be people who scoff at the Bible because it cramps their lifestyles. That's why
they deny the existence of God. I'm not mad at the scoffers. I'm mad at Satan. Satan have been deceive mankind starting with Eve. A lot of you people do not believe in God is because Satan has deceived you. When Christ was crucified on the cross, He said, "Father forgive these people for they do not know what they are doing." The same thing is happening to those who do not believe in Him. You do not know what you are doing because you have been deceived.
So... When you really think about it, No we were not Created.
Quite honestly, These are the types of people that refuse to listen to anyone who does not believe what they believe, what's the word for that? Ignorance?
So, you're saying that because the world is round and that we revolve around a sun in a solar system that is part of a much larger galaxy, that it follows that we were not created? I'm having difficulty following that logical sequence. Even if it were solely the religious folks that were once wrong (and it wasn't) in these two instances, does it also follow that if we can find two instances where the scientific community was wrong that if we think about it we will conclude that certain (perhaps unrelated) scientific theories are therefore wrong?
As far as the definition of ignorance, it is simply not knowing something. We are all ignorant to some extent. I am totally lost when it comes to automechanics. I understand the concepts, sometimes better than the guy working on my car, but he can fix it while I tend to make things worse. When discussing medical science, I may know more than a lot of folks, but I would appear ignorant to those who make their living in that field, and yet I may know of things that some professionals aren't aware of.
Perhaps you shouldn't toss words about in an attempt to ridicule others, especially if you're not fully aware of the implications. I do hope you listen to this attempt at correction, otherwise you risk being ignorant by your own definition....
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
I saw one of those shows that purports to expose the lunar landing fraud. It was slickly done. Don't know if the NASA spokesman didn't offer any refutation or if they just edited it out, but it left me with a feeling of dissatisfaction. I just doesn't sit well with me when someone takes the position that their word is good enough and I shouldn't need any data to know that the other guys are laughably wrong.
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
I'm sure that this argument has been beaten to death already, but Religion and science *must* remain separate for the sake of both religion *and* science.
Science is by definition creative thinking that withstands peer review, and for a conclusion to be made, the person making the conclusion must prove conclusively each logical step taken in drawing that conclusion. A classic example of this is drawing the conclusion that if it is raining, it must be cloudy. This conclusion is drawn by starting with the assumption (which we assume to be true) that rain comes from clouds. We can then make the backwards conclusion that if rain is present, clouds must be present for it to come from. However, if the base assumption were to be proven to be false, then the entire assumption is also false. This is essential to not only science, but mathematics and philosophy.
What this has to do with religion is that these logical rules do not necessarily apply due to the very nature of faith. Faith is belief without proof. If you prove that God exists, then you cannot have faith. Therein lies the problem with scientific arguments that include God. You cannot have science without proof, and you cannot have religion with proof. If you make the base assumption that God created the universe and the Earth and every living being on it, you cannot use this assumption to build a logical conclusion, because you cannot prove the existence of God. And if you were to prove the existence of God, you would destroy faith in any case, which is the last thing religion needs or wants.
The root of the problem really lies in how religious zealots feel they need to take Genesis as gospel, rather than what it really is - God (an omniscient, omnipotent being who lives for an infinte amount of time, and probably has no real concept of what time is and likely doesn't percieve it either) telling a story to a peasant who believes the world to be flat and who probably doesn't know much about mathematics, let alone something as complicated as calculus. God cannot tell him that the universe really started out as a hot soup of pure energy, or that e=mc^2, and that's really not the point anyway. The point is "Rule number 1: thou shalt not kill..."
---
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
Every single theory assumes things that were proven before. Those theories the new thery is based on assume things that were proven before. And so on, way back down this big huge chain of theories down to four underlieing assumptions of physics. These unserlieing assumptions are not proven at all, but obvservational evidance shows that they are probably right. Also, the fact that theories higher up the chain seems to give them credibility. However, that does not change the fact that science basicly has faith in the fact that those assumptions are correct.
Science is, ultimatly, based on faith, but it is one that has held up well over time and other evidance.
------
Not a typewriter
The biggest problem here is the puddles. Specificly, where can they form? On land, the sun's rays (espcialy in the primordial thin atmosphere) easily destroy the chemicals nessary. In water, the solution is easily diluted and broken up.
------
Not a typewriter
The Bible is not a scientific text book. I've heard people say otherwise (usualy in overly broad terms like "the Bible is a guide to the universe"), usualy idiots who know even less about the Bible then they do science. Saying that billions and billions of galaxies with billions and billions of stars can be summerized in a book of any size is just stupid. "Testing our faith" stuff, as you mentioned it, is also just dumb.
The Bible is there for as a guide, but the universe itself is something we have to discover for ourselves. One of those things were dinosaur bones.
------
Not a typewriter
I thought the article was way too dogmatic. All the author had to say was "this proves evolution" and we basicly got the entire thing. Why is the author wasting our precious time on this crap?
I'd love to see the evidance. I don't believe evolution, though I distance myself as much as possible from creationists because I think they're a bunch of corupt church-goers who know even less about the Bible then they do science. I want to see some links. The web is supposed to be the giant hyperlinked space where you can instantly tune out dumbed-down crap like this and get the real meat of the story if you so desire. I wish people would use it more.
------
Not a typewriter
No, they just use similar rule sets in DNA to produce the fractal pattern.
------
Not a typewriter
See, if you cannot observe something, you can't really claim that you know anything about it. All the information in science comes from observation. What sort of experements have been done to show evolution occurred? Wait, here is a better question - What sort of experiments CAN be done to show evolution occurred? The answer is that there aren't any. Your belief in evolution is just as much about faith as my belief in Creation theory.
Now then, as for your rant against religions, note that it isn't really like there are two sets of people - "religious folk" and "non-religious folk". Everyone has his or her own religion. It is just a matter of what you value the most. That thing is the object of your worship. So don't pretend that you lack religion.
Don't try to lump all so-called "Christians" together. I own the domain godhatescalvinists.com, which intentionally pokes fun at Fred Phelps. He bases his beliefs in Calvinism, and I think his beliefs are heretical. I am a Christian. He claims to be. I don't think he is. If you want to understand something, the proper approach is not to insult it. The proper approach is to study it. Science should have taught you that.
One of the most laughable of your statements is that "...science, while not perfect, has greatly advanced the human condition, and is the root cause of far less of the world's wars than religion." Oh really? Well maybe that is because organized has been around for something like TWENTY-TIMES longer! Another possibility is that science causes fewer wars because it is simply a means unto an end, not an end unto itself. Religion is is own end in most cases. It tells the believer how to live, and what to live for.
Oh, and remember that on the side of science you have such fun-loving murderers as Lenin, Stalin, and every Red leader in China since the revolution. It was YOUR kind of intolerance that made those massacres possible. You are the one that tries to take away people's rights. Your post is a classic example. First, you tried to make religion seem like a threat, and then you started in with the inflammatory rhetoric. Rather than try an build a solid argument on any one issue, you simply laid out a bunch of premises, demanding that they be accepted. Doesn't sound to scientific to me.
Oh, and don't forget what science is - it is simply a method of inquiry. It is just a standard of judging things. Where did it come from? Oh yeah, philosophy. Philosophy (specifically Epistemology) is the discipline that helps us decide how to know what to accept. The scientific method is simply a by-product.
I can give you a dozen reasons why the scientific method cannot yield truth. If you want to hear them, email me. I don't think you will though. Why? Because you have made a choice to accept science because you find it useful. Okay, no problem. That is your decision, but you must understand that your choice is an arbitrary one. Just like a decision to believe in a particular religion.
Jaeger
www.JohnQHacker.com
GodHatesCalvinists.com
Btw, History books don't necessarily say what year an event took place. The book might just say that it happened two years prior to something else. Most people can do the math. And that is more or less how the young earth folks came to the 6000 year number. Through geneologies. Do a search for Ussher if you want a more precise answer.
Jaeger
www.JohnQHacker.com
GodHatesCalvinists.com
And tomorrow they're going to tell us the earth is round - shea right.
I've heard people use the first pictures taken of earth from space as the final proof that the earth is round. Like evolution, most people believed in it, it was just sort of the last nail in the coffin...
--
Genetics, complicated? Surly you jest! Honestly now, basic genetic theory is being taught in High School classrooms, and as soon as Semester 1 Genetics become firmly entrenched in our public education system, hopefully we can work on futher more advanced topics. It is not like genetics require a giganticly large amount of math to understand the basic theories. While alot of math is required for manipulation and TRUE understanding, a laymans understanding can be gotten with nothing more then 2nd year algebra (if that) in a simular fashion that the more basic parts of relativity can be understood by almost anyone. Once people understand the basics, they will be far more inclined to believe other stories they here about genetics, if just for the sake of Ego "Yah, sure, I heard 'bout that one, course it's true, why do ya' think I took it?"
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
Racism, pretty much dead? Yah, I used to think that, until I got a clue.
Cop's pulled over my brother in law a year or so back, ripped him out of the car, and beat him senseless.
He had a broken leg at the time.
They then drove off.
I live in the pacific northwest, arguably one of the most liberal places around, still doesn't mean that there isn't racism.
I live in what is quickly becoming a perdomitly Asianic area, and I can guarntee you that many of the other people here (Blacks and Whites) and quite racist about it, even though they wouldn't ever dare admit to it in polite company. Racism is the fear of what is different, and it will always exist.
Oh yah, and the NAACP doesn't just help African Americans, but rather they have become a general force to end bigotry.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
Heh, odd, happened to my Brother in Seattle too.
It's just not the FIRST time its happened to him.
(Seattle cops seem to be a bunch of dicks now don't they, odd really, they actualy do a pretty decent job of keeping things straight around here.)
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
Truly amazing the number of people here who can't understand complex concepts like "humor" and "sarcasm," isn't it?
--
There is no sin except stupidity -- Oscar Wilde
Ummm... Do you REALLY want to get into a discussion of whether atheism or religion has caused more evil? Or even atheism or christianity, for that matter?
--
There is no sin except stupidity -- Oscar Wilde
Isaiah 55:9 - For as the heavans are higher than the earth so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. II Peter 3:7 - But the heavans and the earth, which are now, bhy the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men Ecclesiastes 1:7 - All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. Jeremiah 33:22 - I'm not even gonna quote this, obviously their are a lot of stars. Psalm 102:25-27 - Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavans are the work of thy hands. They shall persih, but thous shalt endure: yeah, all of them shall wax ofld like a garment, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end. Leviticus - Again, obviously people need blood to live. Ecclesiastes 1:6 - The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits. Job 26:7 - He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. These seem pretty weak vague predictions to me. In many cases it is hard to even see that the bible is talking about what you purport it to be talking about.
Computers don't make mistakes. What they do, they do on purpose.
You must be one of the people ripe for conversion to religion, if you think everything is based on faith.
I have studied logic and mathematics for a long time, and the proofs are not based on faith. They're based on axioms. They basically say "Well, if we assume x, y, and z are true, What would we get?" It's an excercise. If axioms were faith, then scientists would never be able to assimilate new theories that challenge old ways of looking at things. We'd still be staring at Mercury, wondering why it doesn't orbit the sun properly, because we would never be able to bring ourselves to understand Einstein's different way of looking at the universe. Faith doesn't allow for change.
Sorry man. Good science requries changable assumptions. Bad science requires faith.
Bork!
Agreed, basic genetics is pretty easy. And it is pretty easy to get a laymans understanding of just about everything... I once was able to explain Einsteins theory of relativity to a dyslexic biker in 15 minutes. (It was a dare.)
But laymans knowlege is not true understanding, because they still have to take your word for it on the nitty gritty. Suppose the layman disagreed with your explanation of genetics. You would need to pull out the university level texts that requires higher math knowlege to further prove your points. This would be beyond the layman. Therefore, you could never satisfy a laymans request to "prove it", because the proof would be beyond his/her ability to understand it. They either take your word for it, or they don't.
Unfortunately, we have organizations that exist that offer unscientific explanations that are also equally beyond the laymans understanding. "Divine creation." Since the nitty gritty of either evolution or creation are equally beyond most people, they must go on the credibility of the person speaking... Who would Jed and his cousin Cletus listen to? Some scientist, or their pastor? To you its an easy answer, but you're not as dumb as Jed and Cletus.
You can educate people, but you can't make them smart, and there are always others trying to educate different things.
Methinks you're too sensitive about stereotypes. It was the biker who dared me to do it! He's the one who asked me to explain something like that to a "dumb dyslexic biker". He wasn't expecting to understand e=mc^2, but in 15 minutes he had enough of a grasp to be pleasantly surprised. He was also a personal friend of mine...
When I met him, he was into drugs, bikes, and not much else. Even though obviously a smart guy, he had no self esteem with his intelligence. I introduced him to my Amiga and the internet... (this was years ago.) Since I turned him on to computers and geekiness, he finished his high school, got himself a network degree, and has a great life. Instead of beating people up in bars (he was a bouncer), he now just gibs them online while checking his stocks. I wonder if he is reading this too...
Oh, and he still likes his bikes.
So don't be so sensitive about sterotypes my friend, when you over-react, it just shows people how much of an inferiority complex you have.
As Science progresses, the theories which scientists propose tend to become more and more complex, and in the process more and more difficult for your average layman to even remotely understand. Things like moon landings, or that the earth is round, are things that are relatively easy to prove to even someone who doesn't want to learn.
The only person a geneticist can convince about this proof of evolution is another geneticist, or some equally smart person. The only way a layman can ever understand evolutions in terms of the human genome is to "Take this respectable genetecist's word for it." Now suppose this layman is an obstinate Christian... At least with people in the flat earth society you can slap their faces with photographs taken from the space station! Few people are too dumb to understand pictures... But what would a geneticist do?
There are limits to how much the scientific community can communicate with the general public, and I think the theory of evolution is the greatest example of this. The masses are generally too dumb to understand it, and if they don't want to, they will use their own inability to understand as proof that "nobody could ever prove evolution to me".
Damn straight.
On the bright side, smart peoples understanding of the universe continues to progress, more or less unhindered by idiots. I'm very happy that we've got one more big piece of the puzzle of understanding how the universe works!
By your logic, once that is explained, It won't mean anything because people will say that we don't know what happened before the big bang, and before that, etc. Hell, right now we don't know what actually makes gravity, does that mean our theory of flight is incomplete?
Reading the post again, is darwin saying that there is no branching in evolution?
Ah, but if only I could find the passage where the number pi is stated to be exactly 3. I believe it's either in Deuteronomy or Numbers.
For what it's worth. Darwin's ideas were not particularly new -- about 9000 years ealier ancient farmers already figured out that they can control phenotypes of subsequent generations of crops by careful selection of seed (the notion of artificial pollenation evaded them, however). Prior to Darwin, various monks had made "evolution-like" musings regarding man and the great apes (generally asserting deevolution towards the ape).
What really earned Darwin the spotlight was three-fold: his book was widely circulated, the subject matter was really hot for the time, and he was a Christian minister. The combination pushed his book into the "classics" category -- I think irregardless of his very keen observations and clear accounting of them.
For what it's worth... The process of natural selection isn't very disputable since it's a fundamental tool in various aspects of industrial and convservation biology as well as medicine. It's only recently though that we've begun to see the depth of the molecular basis for this selection and the biochemical interplay between organism and the environment. It's clear from modern genomics that evolution (at the molecular level) is not always as slow and deliberate as Darwin might have thought -- nor is fitness as simple as he first described.
I think it's a stretch to say man and apes (or all other mammals, for that matter) are not somehow related -- but whether that's by design or blind luck (and certain physical rules) doesn't really seem to present itself with any testable hypotheses. Personally, I like to think there's a creator, that Genesis is an allegorical synopsis of the descent of man, and that bickering over whether or not man descended from a lesser life form totally misses the point of both the scientific enquiry and the theological significance of the biblical account of creation. The bible means to tell you're beholden to the forces that made the universe for your very existence -- it's not a HOWTO on creating the universe. Imagine how inaccessible the bible would be if it started from probabilistic quantum mattery-energy discussion up through diagramming complex biological systems and beyond. Even if it did, nothing of philosophical significance would come of it -- and that's what the Bible quite specifically exists to provide.
> And racism is pretty much dead except maybe way
.
> out in the sticks. But racism is a war the NAACP
> doesn't want to win. For ending racism would mean
> disbanding the NAACP. As this would cut off a
> large flow of $$$ and put a lot of people out of
> work, and mean giving up a LOT of lobbying power,
> the NAACP has an interest in keeping racism alive
> and on TV everyday. Who are the true big anme
> racists today? Look no further than Jesse
> Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan.
> Everytime they talk, their speeches are
> overflowing with tension and anger as they fight
> hard to keep hate and jealousy and vengerance
> alive. They see their own extinction over the
> horizon and will do anything to prevent it. > Even
> promoting racism and finding it where it does not
> exist.
Good point! Very eloquently put. Yeah, rascism is pretty much dead. I have a few friends though (Guamanian, Hispanic) who CLAIM that rascism still exists and they are harmed every week in some way or another. I just feel it is their low self esteem causing them to feel this way. Like many girls will blame their problems on the fact that they are "too fat" or many people think they are being made fun of that they are "too stupid" when in fact nothign can be further from the truth. My particular friends chose "because I'm brown" as the "reason" why things don't go their way. But whatever.
Interesting point though: now that we will be able ot alter our own genes within a few years, we can create a new "race" of superhumans that will be smarter, faster, stronger, and better looking than most people who visit this site. If that's the case, there will be a JUSTIFIED form of racism. It can be proven with genes! I feel so obsolete. .
What i find completely ironic about this, is that "Survival of the Fittest" or if you would rather Darwin's theory of "Natural Selection" was refuted later by Darwin himself. He said:
"To believe that something as complex as the eyball was produced by natrual selection makes me ill."
Just a thought.
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Very simply put, we will never know. We were not there. No science can prove what happend 1,000,000,000,000 years ago no more that it could prove what happened 5,000 years ago (pick your side). What we need to do as individuals is see where the evidence leads us.
This article is no worse than a creationist shoving their beliefs of creationism down you throat. There is no real evidence/proof given in the article. All we see is what these doctors came to an agreement with.
As for my personal opinion, well this time I will keep it to myself.
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Why won't qualified evolutionists enter into a written, scientific debate ?
It's been tried. Why won't qualified creationists participate in such a debate without eventually resorting to "God works in mysterious ways" when cornered?
Left out the bit about all of Earth's geologic features being explainable by the Flood, because their 77 pages of well-written refutations can be sent running home with one silly heretical question: Where did all the water GO?
If you know of a qualified evolutionist that would debate, let them debate with the man from that web page. I know him personally, and I know that he would debate on scientific evidence only. You brought up some good points and should address them to someone. It would be a great debate.
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
I found some questions here. Click on the word ?Evolution on the left. There are some questions in there I can't answer. Maybe some of you can.
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Everytime slashdot wants to push the "1000 comments" record, it posts an Evolution story. And a good measure of editorial comment to boot. (1 measure = 1 sentance).
Daniel
*Yawn*
Okay, this is probably a troll anyway, but worth replying to just for the hell of it. Zeroth of all, you can't disprove creationism. Proof of the antithesis tends to do this for most people, but the article was crap anyway.
First of all, read a fucking book (and yes, I've read a considerable number of creationist screeds. I have not yet read Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box", but I will try to soon- at least he's a biochemist, not a fruitcake who thinks Sunday school is a substitute for real physics, geology, chemistry, and biology courses). I suggest "The Diversity of Life", by Edward O. Wilson, one of the foremost evolutionary biologists of our time. "Evolutionary biologist" in this case means "someone who studies organisms from an evolutionary perspective", not "dogmatic anti-religious Richard Dawkins wannabe". Wilson presents the best model of evolution and speciation I've ever seen. Or, if that's a bit too biased and scientific for you, try a description of evolution by reasoning alone (well, that's all the proof you have for the existence of a God)- Lucretius' "De Rerum Natura", published 2000 years ago.
Second of all, take some classes. Doesn't your local public 4-year/community college offer extension courses? As I mentioned above, basic and organic chemistry, fundamental geology (okay. . . I haven't taken that yet either), calculus-based physics, basic biology, genetics, and biochemistry are really a must. Then you can shut the fuck up about "Second Law of Thermodynamics contradicts evolution".
Third of all, why don't you give *any* proof of the bullshit statements you just made- like dating techniques being inherently unreliable, or the strong evidence of "young earth theory". I've heard arguments for the first (whose only valid point is that yes, dating techniques are fallible), but the second is pretty loopy.
I welcome your flames. Bring it on.
Nat
>...
>Complex reactions beget some self-sustaining reactions (a difficult jump that is still being explained.)
Wherever you have these difficult jumps, just remember to insert some parallel processing (say, a few trillion puddles) and give it a few years (say, a billion). The probability of getting some interesting results starts to approach 1 pretty quickly. So perhaps the jump is not so surprising after all.
I don't know what the hell Dr Caplan was thinking when he wrote this, but he did a huge disservice to science. The article makes it sound like there was still room for doubt, that "scientific creationism" was a legitimate, competing theory. This is far, far from the truth. So his attempt really serves to legitimize creationism in the eyes of the scientifically uneducated. To adherents of creationism, it must seem like another attempt to scrape together evidence.
Everyone knows that damage is done to the soul by bad motion pictures. -Pope Pius XI
Why is it such a huge percentage of American christians believe in creationism? I've yet to met a 'christian' in Australia, or the UK, or anywhere else in Europe for that matter that doesn't believe in evolution. Although (from what I've heard) there are a couple of those creation science nutters in Queensland , but that's to be expected. Here in Oz we even had the Cardinal in Melbourne sending an American preist back home to the US, because he started going on about that 'creation science nonsense' & the Cardinal wanted none of that in his diosies. What is it about American 'Christians' that such a high percentage beleive in creationism compared with people who consider themselves cristian in other Western countries? Mind you the average Aussie who considers himself/herself christian is pretty nominal - they just happen to have been born Catholic or Anglican & don't really think about it much. Anyway why do creationists have to invent some new 'science' out of it. Can't that just accept it as part of their faith & leave it at that. If Americans school start having to teach Judaic/Christian creationism, that would of course mean they ought to teach Hindu creationism, Jainist creationism, Nordic teutonic pagan creationism, Gallo-Roman creationism, & Celtic creationism too, etc, etc, etc. Afterall we can't descriminate in favour of one or 2 religions in particullar. Mind you it would leave little time to teach anything of real vocational value.
Why is it such a huge percentage of American christians believe in creationism?
I've yet to met a 'christian' in Australia, or the UK, or anywhere else in Europe for that matter that doesn't believe in evolution. Although (from what I've heard) there are a couple of those creation science nutters in Queensland , but that's to be expected.
Here in Oz we even had the Cardinal in Melbourne sending an American preist back home to the US, because he started going on about that 'creation science nonsense' & the Cardinal wanted none of that in his diosies.
What is it about American 'Christians' that such a high percentage beleive in creationism compared with people who consider themselves cristian in other Western countries?
Mind you the average Aussie who considers himself/herself christian is pretty nominal - they just happen to have been born Catholic or Anglican & don't really think about it much.
Anyway why do creationists have to invent some new 'science' out of it. Can't that just accept it as part of their faith & leave it at that. If Americans school start having to teach Judaic/Christian creationism, that would of course mean they ought to teach Hindu creationism, Jainist creationism, Nordic teutonic pagan creationism, Gallo-Roman creationism, & Celtic creationism too, etc, etc, etc. Afterall we can't descriminate in favour of one or 2 religions in particullar.
Mind you it would leave little time to teach anything of real vocational value.
These bloody evolutionary throwbacks, posting on Slashdot...I don't know.......
I was going to call it by it's buzzword-- "Design Re-Use"
Talk about religion.
- Tom
- Tom
"O, to grace how great a debtor daily I'm constrained to be."
Here are a few falsifiable predictions, off the top of my head ... forgive me for not giving more, but IANAB:
The above are just three examples of predictions from modern biology; if any one of them were not observed, the evolutionary basis of modern biology would be disproven.....all of them have been observed in both the lab and in the wild. I am unaware of any physical evidence that contradicts the current basic theory.
This doesnt totaly disprove religion, even though common sense does. I know lots of bible thumpers that believe in evolution. Religion tends to evolve itself. It evolves its story to fit the scientific facts of the day.
Hmm...
... more here :) :) (really thought it was on the first post, but it's obvious I don't speak english that well) :) so i'm not criticizing any of you about it :) :)
I really wonder what is your point.
Your conclusion seem to refute a point of mine "it will never prove your theory" saying "no theory is provable" when that's precisely my point.
Also, you're wrong, I didn't define hypothesis.
Here is a definition of theory:
- the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
- a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle - most logical explanation of events that occur in nature or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
Theories: - propose a central idea that connects observations.
- allow one to make predictions.
- encourage experimentation.
- suggest testable hypotheses.
- may be refuted then modified or abandoned.
- are never proven.
- must account for all observations.
- cannot be easily tested. (once easily and widely tested, theories become laws)
Anyway, I don't particulary agree with that very last point as I meant something slightly different, but nevertheless, I mainly think we were all wrong in the first place trying to be touchy about a so fuzzy definition
Anyway, your post (and the previous one) puzzle me and get me to the conclusion that in either case, i wasn't clear enough, as you do your best effort to prove me wrong when it seems you agree with me. (I mean, what you're saying sounds about what I was *trying* to say)
Ok, of course Einstein theory was tested in the way you mean it, ie, the model was tested, and yes, I know the experiment with the planes.
What I mean is, "the testable hypotheses" were tested, confirming the theory (not proving it).
Oh well.. I wonder how to make my point
Let's see: to cure a disease, one theory is about killing the germs with some plants extracts, while the other theory is about chasing demons with those very same extracts, and yet, another theory is that you must attract back the good spirits who love thoses extracts too.
So, with a very primitive knowledge, no way to actually prove germs even exists (you're just so sure), any of those theories is acceptable.
In the end, your predicion "I'll heal you with this" worked and confirmed your theory that demons don't like it.
In our more serious example, in the end, at the very end of universe exploration, we will be faced to the same kinds of limit as we are always limit to observe and interpret things. Finally, we will adopt the simplest, most useful model, but that won't make it "the truth" and certainly not for everybody.
I personally prefer an evolutionist theory, and at a larger scale a "godless" theory to explain the universe because it is simpler... cheaper...Although not necesarily "true"
So the whole point was that someone said "sadly it will still be a theory" and I understood he meant "in the end, that won't be any proof that this is how things are", and I happen to agree
But again, I think we started to be picky about a "theory definition" that wasn't the real point in the first place, and I did this very same mistake
Would just want to know if 'the point' is shared or not and why or why not
The only thing that really upset me is this: >Ensteinian theory, as elegant as it might be is not tested
Nonsense. Not only is it tested, it's been confirmed.
I don't know anyone who doesn't know about what you're talking about, so after I (did my poor best to) separated the theory from its hypotheses, you should have understood that what I meant by "theory" is a bit different than yours, but that's it
Oh well... wonder if it was clear this time
:) ...
Well, seems we agree then
This part that still bugs you I realize might just be my mistake as we don't have *that* good definition of a theory, I imagine I must have made it-up
A theory, is (would be) a set of hypotheses, and a model of something.
I don't interchange theory or model (but that must be just me) because I feel they are different, and if they aren't, then I need another word for 'theory'
In your theory you give a complete explantation of "how things are". It is "your truth".
The model you give, is a way to represent (in mathematical language) or to aproximate your truth
Let's say you believe particles are little shiny balls (that's how we picture them generally)
You came to this idea because of some observations, thgat make it a plausible fact.
You have the theory of bouncy balls particles.
So you model your bouncy balls particles, you believe they have these and these properties, they have color, smell, spin, mass, etc.. and you model their statistic behavior into a bunch of equations
Now some solutions to those equatios of course have to explain what we were seeing at first, bt they also lead to some other interesting observations that haven't been done before, those become testable hypotheses that, if verified will reinforce your theory of the bouncy balls particles. If the observations differ, you might 'polish' your model, add some properties, postulate there are some bigger bouncy balls, et...
Your truth is still "particles are bouncy balls"
Another theory will say "nope they are waves" and it will go through the same process
In the end one theory will be better than the other, and it will be adopted.
To unify forces, I think a proposed model of the universe is a 11 dimensions monster.
Maybe it will be easier to work with 4 forces and 5 dimensions only or,
You chose your best model for your universe, but your "theory" is that "things are like that"
Dunno if I'm not confusing things even more, but basicaly, I would give a stronger meaning to theory than to model, where the theory wants to be the truth, giving a model that represents it the best it can, but, to the point, the theory is not necesarily "the truth", just a "truth wanabe"
oh well...
Good post! The news about 'only 30,000' was brought here (in the Netherlands) as a victory, as in 'now it will be much easier to read & understand the genome). I believe it's a bit of a setback. There's now more to be sought in emergent & material properties and mathematical functions. And that's up till now not a widely researched field.
How to make a sig
without having an idea
Well, to start with there isn't going to be exactly one gene per 'property', something which scientist always thought. In general, there's now the same amount of complexity with a lesser amount of variables. To reach that complexity, there must also be other processes at work; it's these processes (material properties, mathematical functions) that will take some time to figure out! (sorry, no links)
How to make a sig
without having an idea
First, let's start with what a theory is. A theory is a group of hypotheses that attempt to explain an observed phenomenon. A hypothesis is a falsifiable statement describing some mechanism involved in the phenomenon. The key word, for this discussion, is falsifiable. All aspects of a theory must be able to be proven incorrect for it to be a theory. This allows us to construct experiments seeking to support or disprove the hypotheses, and thus the theory.
Theorys explaining a phenomenon can come and go. Gravity is one. We're currently working on our third Theory of Gravity, having tried Newton's and Einstein's. Please note that Einstein's Theory of Gravity did not disprove Newton's. It merely restricted the domain of problems for which it is applicable. NASA still uses Newton's Theory of Gravity to land space probes on asteroids and play billards with the planets. Its a fine theory as long as you aren't going too fast or talking about something too massive. For that, you need Einstein's Theory. His works fine, as long as you aren't talking about things that are too small and moving very fast. We don't know what to use there, but we're working hard on it (M-Theory, Quantum Gravity, etc.). Please note that to replace a theory, the new theory must explain everything the old theory did as well explain where the old theory will fail and how it will fail. That's a tall order.
Evolution is a phenomenon. This is not in dispute. Evolution is defined as the change in allele frequency in a given population over time. More loosely, it is that the physical characterists of a group of creatures change through the years. This is an observed fact. Fossil evidence provides morphological change from the past to the present. Laboratory experiments confirm the shift in the distribution of traits in populations of fast breeding creatures (like fruit flys). Bacteria, to our horror, acquire new resistances.
A Theory of Evolution is a series of hypotheses describing how Evolution may occur. The classical Theory of Evolution states that Evolution occurs through mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection. This theory has largely been born out by evidence. It is currently challenged by the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory of Evolution, which is a modification of the classical theory that takes population density into account.
Does the information in the article confirm one or the other Theories of Evolution? Not sure, will take some thought. It is, however, another property of the phenominom of Evolution. That is indisputable. Allele frequencies have shifted over time. Here's the raw alleles, shifted around for all to see.
ps - I'm not a biologist, nor do I play one on TV. I did, however, marry one.
Our genes show that scientific creationism cannot be true. The response to all those who thump their bible and say there is no proof, no test and no evidence in support of evolution is, "The proof is right here, in our genes."
I see no proof in this article. All I see is a report about some scientist claiming to have found the truth.
In fact, based on the tone of the headline("Darwin vindicated!") and the low-class crack("...all those who thump their bible...") I'd say this "impartial" scientist has a serious chip on his shoulder.
Now, someone please show me the actual proof that we have evolved from bacteria and were not created in God's image. I am far from convinced - however I have had several profound religious experiences. I am not ignorant or close-minded. I don't go around saying the world is 6,000 years old. However, a basic tenent of my belief(a belief based on experiencing God) is that we are unique in this universe and are created in His image. If someone could prove to me beyond a doubt my belief is false I would change it, as I value the truth above all.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
I've always been a little perturbed as to why the battle over evolution is quite so intense for those who believe in God or not. There seems to be this pervasive view on both sides that if evolution is true then God must somehow not exist. A leap of faith which cannot be reconciled from the facts.
Just because evolution is true does not indicate the non-existense of a creator who may have set the entire thing in motion. In fact, to my mind, it speaks of an incredibly sophisticated and intelligent God rather than the more "magic" God of the creationists. One may recall that Einstein himself came to believe in God after reflecting on the simplicity of the equations that define the universe.
Evolution can describe the mechanism, but there is still plenty of room for discussion as to why the mechanism is there and what its purpose is.
You know, plenty of evil has been done in the name of Atheism too (just ask Mao and Stalin and Pot). The problem isn't religion, its us. Religion just becomes the excuse- the same as atheism is the excuse for communist kill-fests.
God made the universe yesterday. He just made our memories such that we believe we are older than just a day. Tomorrow he starts Armaggedon. See how much time he saved!
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
I fail to see the "scientific" evidence here... The editor is flapping his lips about some "scientists" (no references) who are saying the genes MUST have evolved (not even a theory here, folks) and jumping to a rather rash conclusion (we MUST have evolved since, uh--well, we have genes! yeah, that's it!). I'm not a creationist, and I quite frankly don't give a damn where we came from. But truth is truth... and this is, well, crackpot speculation.
There is always more than one way of looking at things, think about it: A city slicker decides he's going to see the country, and heads out on a long dirt road. His car breaks down by a large barn. A farmer comes running out of the barn and asks him to come help. After several hours of labor and some urging by the two, a cow is born. The slicker turns to the farmer and says "How fast was that little cow goin', anyway?"
"The fact no one understands you doesn't make you an artist. But we love your new '99 models." -7Ball
Huh? No, it says in one place that it is a polygon (ie, 4 corners of the earth), and in another it says that the earth is disc shaped. No polyhedrons here.
--
Dyolf Knip
Of course, it might not, and the original may have simply said "round", which a later translator took to mean "circle-shaped". It's also entirely possible that someone who translated it took a few creative liberties in doing so.
In either case, I'd be hesitant to take anything written down in the bible at face value. On the other hand, a lot of papers on evolution are written in english, or if not, at least have the originals still available.
--
Dyolf Knip
I am not so much of a sheep that I will simply swallow that. The evidence may very well be quite convincing, but without seeing any of it, I am not going to blindly accept his conclusion.
Evidence is never obvious to those who never see the evidence. Looks like he doesn't know that:
"The genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt..."
"The proof is right here..."
"There is no other way to explain..."
"There is...no other possible explanation."
"The theory of evolution is the only way to explain..."
Nice, neat conclusions, with absolutely no evidence. No matter how 'obvious' the thing is that you are trying to prove, this method is simply unacceptable.
I have a strong belief in the Second Amendment.
The only thing this article says to me is "Many mainstream scientists don't know crap about philosophy!"
Go read some Karl Popper if you don't believe me, and no I'm not going to supply a link, look it up yourself!!
If Evolution has been "proved" that means it can't be disproved. Therefore, it's bad science because it's not falsifiable.
Heck, I'll even admit it, I'm a creationist. I think there's just as much reason to believe in an intelligent creator as there is to believe that adaptation is an explanatation for life.
Of course, I don't believe in a God that knows EVERYTHING, I believe in a God that knows everything that is knowable. ie: some things cannot be known, like for instance the outcome of the next decision I will make. I won't bore you with the details.
As a Creationist I'm not here to debunk Evolution. Show me a room with an Evolutionist and a Creationist rationally discussing their ideas and I'll show you a big grin.
Sheesh.... how many people grow up with the same misconceptions...
Scientific Naturalism, that which you subscribe to, the idea that everything "meaningful" in the universe can be explained by naturalistic (ie predictable) processes is NOT the same thing as Science.
Empiricism doesn't need it's hands bound by Naturalism.
The so called theory of evolution attempts to mis-educate with the notion that tautology is explanation and that Scientific Naturalism is Science!!
As far as I'm concerned any dissertation on evolution that doesn't recognize it's roots in Scientific Naturalism (ie what gets those pesky creationists off their backs) is just as much rabid drivelling as the worst offenses by "Bible thumpers".
Nice thoughts. Miller or Bud?
Well of course we didn't evolve from monkeys! Any scientifically minded person who knows 1/2 a thing about evolution knows this. That's the sort of misconception some clueless creationist has, and uses to back up their theory. sorry, but i've met ALOT of creationists who say this to me and think of it as a 'silver bullet' in any sort of evolutionist argument. But, if you follow the human and monkey(or better the chimp, it has a closer genetic similarity to us) back through the evolutionary family tree, you will find a common ancestor that both humans and chimps/monkeys are related to. so instead of thinking monkeys/chimps to be a direct evolutionary step, we are more cousins in the scheme of things. Now that i've finished this, i dont even know why i wrote this post... d'oh!
Why is there a demand to get rid of the rebel flag from the Georgia state flag but not for the NAACP to change it's name? Hypocrites everywhere!
Because Georgia enstated the rebel "stars and bars" flag in 1956, immediatelly after school integration was forced in that state. There is no long standing history behind that flag as the GA state flag, it was backlash against the civil rights movement of the time. Also, the "stars and bars" isn't technically the flag of the confederacy which I believe most people could take as a symbol of history of the state, it's the rebel *battle* flag.
Also, it's a general rule that when addressing a people or culture, you use the respect and address them as they want to be addressed. That's a long standing view that seems perfectly logical to me, not at all hypocritical. For example, when you aren't a member of a religion, in the presence of those that are you insert "Praise his (or her) name" in from of the name of the diety. It's just common ettiquette.
"I don't believe it, but hey, you can't disprove it."
Well, if you feel so strongly about science, and you acknowledge that this theory can't be disproven, then why do you feel so confident that it's not true?
It is a reality that we can't know whether the world "actually" evolved over millions of years, or whether it was created in the space of seven days to look as if it had evolved. This throws people for a loop if they put blind faith in logic, or seek logical, scientific explanations for everything.
I don't go to church, but I don't worship pure logic, either. Truth lies, as Hayek observed, "between instinct and reason." Deal with it.
When people use bad arguments in the service of evolution, they legitimise the use of bad arguments, and that can only help one side ....
-- the most controversial site on the Web
Well, I'm certainly not what you would call a "believer", but that's a pretty arrogant attitude. EVERYTHING is based on faith. Study logic and mathematics for any amount of time and you realize that all proofs are based on assumptions (just another word for faith). To others what you choose to believe in is just as "ludicrous" as their beliefs are to you.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
- Ed the Sock
While I may "not have a very good grasp of the English language" you seem to be flailing around trying to pin some sort of philosophy on my. First it was nihilism, and now fundamentalist creationism (well, more the "You cannot prove me wrong, so I must be right." philosophy). Interesting, since I have never said such thing. Funny, you start off the post quoting (essentially) what I've been arguing, and then do absolutely nothing to disprove it.
This is the essense [sic]of faith - lack of evidence, lack of logic
Well, DUH! I've been saying that in every message I've posted. Logic is a tool (or a set of directions). Its what gets you from point A to point Z. But at its most fundamental root point A is an assumption. If you look at any proof and work it backward ("Why is Z true?" "Well, because Y is true" "Why is Y true" "Because X is true" ....) eventually you get back to a point where the answer to "why is A true" is simply "because I accept it to be true." In math it is all very cut and dry. In "the real world", admittedly its a little messier, but fundamentally its the same. Any conclusions you come to has its basis on one or more assumptions. Assumption (postulate, axiom, "faith", whatever you want to call it) is the starting point; logic is what drives you out to "logical conclusions".
Interestingly enough you sort of point this out in the following:
This all boils down to the subjective vs objective argument. For example, let's have 100 people look at an alledged [sic] tree in a forest. 99 subjectively percieve [sic] the tree, but one person does not. Is the tree there? It is 99% likely that the tree is there. It depends on the levels of skepticism and pedantry, but it would generally be agreed that the objective viewpoint is that the tree is there, even though all evidence was collected subjectively. That's enough to convince scientists, but anything less than 100% is not going to convince a fundamentalist theologian, who would rather believe the 0% accurate claims of his religion.
So lets see... a scientist may come to one conclusion because he, at his root, believes what he (and others he trusts) observes and a theologian may come to another because he, at his root, believes everything was created. Well, holy shit... I believe you've summed up what I have saying all along, which is:
All truth (facts, whatever) are derived from assumptions (beliefs, faith, whatever)
That is not the same as saying "well, if you can't prove me wrong then I must be right." (and nor for that matter does that make someone a nihilist.) Right and wrong are defined by the system upon which you are arguing. A euclidean and non euclidean geomitrist can argue with each other until they're blue in the face about who's right and who's wrong, but all for naught. Both are right and both are wrong depending on which postulates you hold true. If you don't agree on the basic assumptions then you're just pissing in the wind. A logical debate can only ensue after the ground rules are agreed upon. And those ground rules are, at their most basic level, assumed. And nothing you have said so far has shown me otherwise.
Scientists only base their arguments on material evidence.
Actually, scientist use material evidence to bolter theories. A scientist does not on material evidence alone prove anything. It is important, but not the only thing.
And just for the record (since you've been trying to pin every philosophy in the book on me), I am an atheist who believes in evolution. I would put myself firmly in the "scientific" camp.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
- Ed the Sock
Indeed, that was my whole point. I am not trying to advocate nihilism at all. Simply saying "It's all subjective. That's it? Well screw it. Nothing matters." is, in my opinion, pretty weenie. Life ain't much fun if you don't have something to believe in (again, IMHO).
Now, since this has actually been a pretty fun topic of discussion (thanks, btw, for indulging) I'm going to clear a couple of things up (slow day at work).
You're sharing the same argument [as fundi x-ians], but clearly not the same beliefs.
I would disagree here. Most fundamentalists don't say "hey, it's just what you believe in." They tend to be more of the "hey, its just what I believe in" type of folks. More on that in a second.
But anyway, as a scientific atheist who believes in evolution, I wouldn't going around saying "science is basically just faith" [snip] Remember "faith" implies no evidence and no logic. It would be unfair to call the whole lot "faith", just because there are things we can't test directly and perfectly. Even 1% accuracy is preferable to 0% accuracy.
I wouldn't say that all I've been arguing is that "science is basically just faith." Here's, hopefully, an example that better illustrates what I've been getting at:
Lets assume that there are two people, Mr. Science and Mr. Fundi. Both are given "huge amounts of material evidence through the previously discussed collective subjectivism" one the subject of evolution (you could actually pick any topic here). Both agree that they accept that the material evidence at hand was collected fair and square (not bodging of data, etc). Both Mr. Science and Mr. Fundi "form a hypothesis based around that evidence that makes a conjecture about the objective existence, and uses this logically to make predictions about the subjective reality. Therefore, we can prove with the rules of logic that both the objective statements lead from the subjective evidence, and that the subjective predictions are an accurate conclusion of the objective statements. Then, we test the hypothesis with collective subjectivism..."
Let's say Mr. Science's conclusion is that life evolved over time, adapting to fit its environment. He'll probably admit that they don't have it 100% perfect, but as time goes by and more evidence comes in things will probably be refined.
Lets say Mr. Fundi's conclusion is that evolution is bunk, God still created the earth roughly 6000 years ago and everything we find, from dinosaur fossils to common DNA, is just something God put there to test our faith.
Mr. Science (and I and I assume you) will probably sit there and say "this guy is full of it. Can't think guy see the evidence so clearly in front of him?" and could go over the evidence, the theories, and all of that over and over and over until we're blue in the face.
Mr. Fundi on the other hand is thinking the exact same thing: "These guys are nuts. How can they be so blind. " and then quote you bible verse that backs up his point.
Now, here's where "faith" comes in. Mr. Scientist (and I and, again I assume you) believe that the universe is something that is free of outside influence, is something that can be observed, studied, and explained rationally.
Mr. Fundi believes that a Supreme Being created the earth and the heavens and that a book that he divinely created is the end all and be all of explanation.
Just for laughs lets just say Mr. Bonkers just walked into the room, looked over the same material evidence and then proclaimed "the universe works in a rational way just like Mr. Science says with one small exception: A supreme being called "Fred" created it all last night, just before the stroke of midnight. Anything that happened before midnight are just memories planted in our head. All of the physical evidence pertaining to anything prior to 'the creation' was planted there.
Now, can we "prove" any of the three wrong? Mr. Fundi's supreme being could very be testing our faith. Mr. Science's universe very well may be free of outside influence. And how do you show Mr. Bonkers isn't, well, bonkers?
I've never claimed that "science is just faith." I do claim though that Mr. Science and I have faith that science does indeed give us the correct answer (or at least the best answer knowing what we know). Subtle, but very large difference.
I hope that helps.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
- Ed the Sock
You "assume" that your senses are giving you accurate information; you "assume" that you actually exist in some physical form are are not a simulation (a'la the Matrix) or the dream of a sleeping butterfly somewhere. Absurd, maybe, but it doesn't change the fact that all of this "evidence" is only as good as the assumptions they're built upon.
As someone best put it, "Everyting you prove with these axioms are true within the logical structure defined by the axsioms."
All truths (proofs, facts, etc) are built on faith (assumptions, axsioms, etc).
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
- Ed the Sock
Actually, I claimed no such thing. I simply stated all truth is based on assumption (faith, whatever you want to call it).
If you insist that something like physics are based on an assumption, then where is it? Reliance on your senses is not an assumption.
Sure it is. To use the bad stoner joke: how do you know the colour green looks to you as the colour green looks to me? How do you know that the way you process (and therefor interpret) those senses does not differ from the way others do? This may seem like a small, stupid argument, but you assume that your senses accurately portray the world to you.
Now, get a bunch of people together to agree on some basic assumptions ("hey, there seems to be big bad universe out there and we appear to sense it in roughly the same way") and let the fun begin. "Science" is simply using what you observe and some logic to make sense of the world. Newton did it with gravity. Made some observations, took some measurements and came up with some theories and equations that appeared to explain the phenomena he was observing. And he was wrong. Is that bad? Not at all. Newton's work ended up being pretty damn useful (and still is) because the theories and equations turned out to be pretty good approximations. But Einstein came alone and showed that they were flat out wrong.
Now, has Einstein gotten it right? I doubt it. Like Newton he's probably done the best that he could with all of the information that he has along with some new assumptions about how the universe works. No doubt at some point someone else is going to come along and say "Damn, close but no banana" and come up with something better. And that is the nature of science.
The point of this thread was not to somehow claim that science was a bunch o' crap. It was merely a follow-up to one of the many "creationist have it wrong because they base it on faith while we have it right because we base it on facts." My point was that "facts" (theories, whatever) are defined by the basic assumptions we make. And while you can take those assumptions to (IMO) different (sometimes ludicrous) extremes: i.e. there is a supreme being who created the earth and the heavens, I am nothing more than a simulation running in a very large computer, etc., science is in no way any different. For every common genetic thread you show in every species someone who believes that there is a Supreme Being who created the world in seven days will just say "God put it there to test us." You can debate, argue, cajole, and/or scream at each other, go through various "reasonings" to show the other what your getting at, it will all be for naught, because at a very basic level you "believe" different things.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
- Ed the Sock
Name me one thing that is fact that does not require any amount of assumption. Just one.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
- Ed the Sock
This is the second time you've brought up the definition of faith. At what point have I claimed the definition was anything different? My argument is at the most basic root of anything is an assumption (Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof. Close enough to Faith I believe to use interchangeably). What material proof do you have that your senses are accurate? What material proof do you have that the world around you does indeed work in the way that you perceive it? What material proof do you have the world even exists? I assume you perceive to be able to touch it, smell it, interact with it, etc. But what material proof do you have that you're simply not dreaming the whole thing, or delusional? My contention: none. You merely assume so.
Does that make me a nihilist? I think not. I never claimed that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. That's the equivalent of a Euclidean geometrist pouting and saying "that's it, I'm taking my ball home" when Gauss and Bolyai buggered with Euclid's fifth postulate. Values are not baseless, but are defined within the system in which they exist. Which is, at its root, based on assumption.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
- Ed the Sock
There is a distinction. A mathematician in India will develop the same principles of logic as a mathematician in England. But the religious faiths and practices of their respective cultures vary widely.
Furthermore, the premises of mathematics lead to theorems with predictive power. Ie, I can use maths to predict the position of planets well into the future. This is different from faith, which generally is used as a basis for a system of living one's ethical and moral life.
Both are useful, but very different.
This is called Microevolution, as opposed to Macroevolution. The cow's didn't grow wings to evade a hostile environment.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
It's been a while since I studied all of the evolutionary paths, when the genetic code forked and whatnot, but I have a decent amount of certainty that hyenas are more closely related to felines than canines (I'll give you that much). However, they are one of those species genetically between those two families of predators; cats and dogs split on the evolutionary path several million years ago, but they do share common ancestors.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
No matter how much scientific evidence is presented, those who prefer religion over science will continue not to listen to it. They will always find some objection, reasonable or not.
Still, for those of us for whom religion and science co-exist, it's nice to put yet another brick in the edifice.
I don't believe in creationism but you have to admit that it's absolutely impossible to disprove it.
"Well, we have all these fossils of dinosaurs."
Rebuttal: "God created the fake fossils to test your faith."
"Okay, what about these genes? Take a look at this?"
Rebuttal: "God is not kidding about testing your faith. He'll go to great lengths... just look at these genes. It really makes it look like we evolved, doesn't it?"
Most of the time your typical religious nut is too dumb to make these arguments, but they conceivably could. That's why it's such a powerful idea. Otherwise it wouldn't have lasted so many thousands of years. Frankly, I'm surprised when scientists try to say that you can "disprove" creationism, almost like they are getting upset about it. It's actually illogical to say that you can disprove it, and scientists are supposed to be logical (not emotional). But I guess it's just because they are not philosophers. They are in the business of collecting data and making conclusions based on it, not figuring out what can be absolutely true and false and what can't based on logic.
Similarly, you also can't disprove sollipsism (don't know if I'm spelling that right). I recently met someone who had never heard that word before, so I'll define it: it's the belief that the entire universe is just a dream inside your head, including everything you feel and see and know and every person you come in contact with. In fact, you are the one and only sentient being that exists. Sort of like everyone's favorite movie, The Matrix, except there is no "reality" that you can break out into by taking some pill.
Don't post on slashdot. Get back to work.
I agree.
"Thoughts are more powerful than any weapon, and I don't even let my people own guns." --Joseph Stalin
We know for a fact that evolution within a species goes on all the time. We have observed that a group of orange butterflies can produce a sub-group of yellow butterflies, or that natural selection can eventually make bugs develop resistance to certain pesticides... but we have not seen butterflies producing someting like a dragonfly. They might evolve into different-looking butterflies, but that's as far as anything has gone in the short time we've been watching.
Until the phenomenon of speciation is observed, either in the lab or in the wild, the case for the Descent of Man is a difficult one to make with the kind of certainty that this scientist is insisting he has established.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Try to absorb what you re reading before making knee-jerk reactions.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
My point was that this might not be true. If severe environmental factors can cause rapid evolution of new species, it might be something that biologists can someday replicate in the lab, using creatures with fast breeding cycles. (Or, for that matter, we might have a global thermonuclear conflict and get to observe it happening in nature. India vs. Pakistan is the best bet to start something like that within this Century... at least that's where my money would be if somebody was running a pool on it.)
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
That was me, Golias, posting that. For some reason, my browser lost track of the log-in cookie and my post went through as anonymous. Weird.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
You are absolutely right that this is really only "evidence" of man's evolution to those who were already convinced of the theory's soundness. Critics of Darwinism have already dismissed much more compelling evidence than this, so I seriously doubt that this discovery will persuade them.
On the other hand, genetic similarities which do not correlate with traits like appearance do lend much more credibility to the theory that man shares common ancestors with other primates.
(It does not neccessarilly follow, from this evidence alone, that it happened slowly over a prolonged time. There is growing popularity around the theory that many of evolution's most radical mutations happened in quick bursts, with long periods of little or no change in between, rather than the steady march of slow and subtle changes.)
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
The biggest problem here is the puddles. Specificly, where can they form? On land, the sun's rays (espcialy in the primordial thin atmosphere) easily destroy the chemicals nessary. In water, the solution is easily diluted and broken up
See step 4
Self-sustaining reactions beget simple blobs capable of segregating chemicals (always useful in reactions).
Basic cell walls, which are easy to make synthetically, can isolate chemicals from the environment. Puddles in caves are shielded from direct sunlignt. The bottom of the sea on a hydrothermal vent is another good spot for brewing life. I'm sure there are plenty of other ways for life to form.
I believe life is no accident. It is as inevitable as sunshine. That is to say, given the right conditions, it will happen. I also believe that the conditions that create life are also nothing out of the ordinary. Just because we have not seen it does not mean it is not there. It also does not mean that it IS there either. So I keep my mind open to the possibility that we are unique in the universe. But discovery after discovery reduces the probability that we are alone.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
Creationism can't be proved wrong just as it can't be proved that there are no yellow and green spotted crows; the supporters will always claim the proof is just around the corner and that you'll just have to keep looking. Eventually any rational person gives up and says "this is a load of bollocks" and then gets flamed by the ones who still believe that the proof is still out there somewhere.
Just leave them to keep looking for their non-existant crow/god; making stupid statements like this from a scientist just makes religious people feel vindicated in rejecting rational thought.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
"Darwin was right - mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive animal ancestors" Too bad that's not Darwin's theory of evolution. If one were to actually read The Origin of Species, he or she would learn that Darwin believed that all creatures evolved together from more primitive versions of themselves, not that humans evolved from monkeys who evolved from lesser creatures. That is the common misconception about the theory of evolution.
But this does not mean that a Creationist's beliefs are fundamentally the same as a scientist's beliefs. In particular, it doesn't mean that Creationism needs to be taught as an alternative to evolution, or that there even is a reasonable "God vs Darwin" debate.
See it isn't a problem for a scientist that This particle appeared out of NOWHERE as long as the resulting theory has predictive power (e.g. the Cosmic Background Radiation).
But lets not lump cosmology and evolution together. Evolution is a theory because it has predictive power. We expect to see the emergence of new species under certain laboratory conditions, and we do. We expect that species diversity varies proportionally to the stability of the climate, and sure enough, the bottom of the ocean is hostile yet diverse.
Scientific Creationism has no predictive power, and hence it is not scientific.
There's no need for a scientist to be offended by the idea of God or Creationism (I agree some do), but she is entitled to be upset if they are considered scientific.
My handle breaks slashcode, what does your handle do?
This does not logically follow. I could make an arguement about this, but I submit for you consideration this essay found at this site, which says it all much better than I could come up with at a moments notice. It is a poetry site BTW, and not particularly political in nature, although opinions are expressed.
Television Science: the Year of the Circuit
I keep hearing authorities on public radio applying logic to who and what we are that, if applied to a TV set, might run as follows: Though tradition claims that there is life beyond this TV set, a life that continues after its demise --actual living beings who create these moving pictures, the TV set being only a means of presenting them to others --we know, scientifically, that this cannot be the case. Here is the evidence:
1. Obviously, nothing of the life you see on a TV set can survive the demise of the TV set. Proof: destroy a TV set. It contains no more life, nor ever will again.
2. Evidence is mounting that the TV set is the SOURCE of the pictures you see on its screen. They are all created within the "brain" of the TV set. For example, if you sever this wire, the pictures vanish. If you sever THIS one, the picture lose their vertical hold. If you cut THAT one, they lose horizontal hold. If you destroy that part, they fade. If you destroy THAT part, the sound vanishes. And so forth. By disabling one or another component to see what it controls, scientists, daily, are clarifying the ways in which the various parts of the TV set contribute to the creation of its pictures. (Tube or not tube?)
3. Where sets are faulty (electrical brain imbalances), we can't cure them, but we CAN keep them operating. For example, when we jolt this set by attaching a power line to this part here, we don't get the correct picture back, but notice how the screen flares up, all brilliant white? See? We can keep it happy.
Our scientists -- never has more intelligence been exerted to propound greater stupidity. When a body dies, a body dies; therefore there is no soul. Huh? When you mess up part of a brain, the person becomes incapable of telling one face from another. Therefore the person IS his brain. So let's see: If I'm using brains and nerves to communicate via a body, and you can mess up my communication lines by messing up the body, I don't exist? If you can cut the brake linings on a car so that the brakes don't work, this proves that there's no driver?
The only point being , we need to be careful in our logic when it cones to these things.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Well, discovery of the remains of homo sapiens in the same strata as, say, homo erectus would sure throw a monkey wrench into the works. So to speak. :)
Here are some examples.
Or, you check the DNA of humans versus chimpanzees. If they were vastly different (actually, they are something like 97% the same), then again, evolutionary theory would be in trouble.
Squareness of the earth (Isaiah 11:12)
And 40:22 says 'circle' not 'sphere'. :)
The creationists (some of them) still demand proof that speciation has happened in "higher" animals.
To them viruses don't really count, and also finches growing shorter or longer beaks is still irrelevant - it's still a finch.
I believe that they will never be satisfied. They have a defence mechanism that will make them move the goalposts whenever a 'proof' challenges their current wording. It'll eventually get to "Put a banana in an environment that favours a wombat - and show me it evolve into one" and then you know the argument is no longer worth having.
(was it ever)
FatPhil
--
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
humanity continued to live lifespans of up to 965 years old
Im sorry but I need a little more proof than "its written in the Bible" for me to believe that someone was 965 years old. One thing to remember is that before the Bible was written, these stories were passed on by word-of-mouth and things get exaggerated. Another thing to consider is that footnotes do not get passed along. Anthropoligists have proven that most primitive cultures worked on cycles of the moon - not the sun. If you were to take 965 and devide it by 13 (roughly the number of moon cycles that occur in a solar year), you would get 74. That in itself is quite an impressive age in that day and probably would have made it into the oral history of the time. When they stories were passed from generation to genearation, facts such as "oh yeah, we used a lunar calendar and a year was actually 28 days" are not passed along.
A little common sense can go a long way in interpreting anything...
The ivory tower has never had to reach so h
The difference is that creationism isn't disprovable. New evidence in the future could blow a big hole in evolution theory, but creationists can always say that God put the evidence there, and His reasons are ineffable.
___
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
Did we? Once we reached our current form, we certainly spread quickly, but that's just evidence of a good evolutionary change, not a quick one. I haven't heard before that we had an especially quick evolution.
___
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
Your first assumption is that descending from apes is a devaluation. YOU are the one taking a bad view of it. Rather than have that negative stance, I feel we are the culmination of a microbe that began evolving billions of years ago, and never died. Instead, that immortal cell has survived comet strikes and climate changes by dividing and evolving into different forms, the latest and greatest of which is...us. In some form or another, while other cells in our body have died, those of us who have reproduced have contributed to the survival of that microbe across the ages.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
This is the sum total of the evidence: the genes look jury-rigged to us, and come from bacteria; therefore they must be the result of evolution. So there!
Obviously the author has never heard of "code reuse." All the good programmers are doing it!
Yep, no text here.
Actually, we really aren't. We're a secular nation. The constitution has no mention of god or christianity. Most of the "pilgrims" were here for trade and not for "religious freedom". And "under god" in the pledge of allegiance and "in god we trust" on paper money did not appear until the 50's during McCarthyism (remember the *other* witch-hunt).
Read: http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.html
Portable versions of Firefox, GIMP, LibreOffice, etc
Of course, this guy would arrive at this conclusion. He has to in order to maintain his position on killing handicapped, terminally ill, etc. These "bioethicists" as they are called would have a lot in common with the nazis. They praise people who seem to devalue human life. Devaluing human life is the next logical step when you realize that we are nothing, but slightly improved apes.
You know, plenty of evil has been done in the name of Atheism too (just ask Mao and Stalin and Pot). The problem isn't religion, its us. Religion just becomes the excuse- the same as atheism is the excuse for communist kill-fests.
For sure. Though the examples you cite are athiesm used to elevate the communist party to the level of god, to attempt to quell any uprising that could be incited by a church.
There is nothing so profoundly wrong as a baptist's emphatic position when questioned: "I just know". Riiiiiiight. That's a cop-out demonstration of one who is incapable of free thought, justification of a position, and logical thinking divorced of opinion.
But at least athiesm is based in science, and is therefore correct.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution: Jehovah's Witnesses won't take blood transfusions based on outdated (by 2000 years or 20 years, take your pick!) notions of safety. Smart Jehovah's Witnesses bail, hardcore ones eventually die from bloodloss after knocking on the wrong doors. Darwin is proved, rational people everywhere celebrate that they're no longer being harassed by idiots trying to "save" them at ungodly hours on Sunday mornings.
My favorite thing to do to them when they ring my doorbell, is to ask them to pray with me. I lead:
Dear Jesus Christ,
Dear Jesus Christ,
Our Lord and Saviour,
Our Lord and Saviour,
Whom we love so much
Whom we love so much
Thank you for this beautiful day
Thank you for this beautiful day
And please help to see that
And please help to see that
All those nasty heathen Baptists get struck down
[Wry grin of guilty pleasure] All those nasty heathen Baptists get struck down
With inoperable colon cancer.
With inoperable... Huh?
Amen.
About 50% of the time, they actually complete the prayer with me. The fact that even 10% of them complete the prayer is disturbing; clearly proving that Christian right is neither.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
If Americans school start having to teach Judaic/Christian creationism, that would of course mean they ought to teach Hindu creationism, Jainist creationism, Nordic teutonic pagan creationism, Gallo-Roman creationism, & Celtic creationism too, etc, etc, etc. Afterall we can't descriminate in favour of one or 2 religions in particullar.
No, because the USA is, conceptually, a melting pot. The best that every culture of immigrants has to offer is seamlessly assimilated into the American culture. Where else can you buy pizza, tacos and beef on weck in the same restaurant?
This applies to religion, too. If schools were to teach religion, it would probably be the one with the greatest quantity of highly vocal, organized and ardent supporters. Bible-thumping creationist southern Baptists. Ugh.
However, at least it alleviates the equivalent confusion which exists in Canada:
Canada embraces "multiculturalism", which means that you maintain your culture and traditions when you immigrate. This experiment has so far resulted in a place where petty squabbles abound: can a Seikh RCMP officer wear a turban? Should a Ugandan immigrant drive around in a car that he's been able to afford *only* because of opportunities granted to him by his new country, with a bumper sticker that says "I Love Uganda" in the trademark rainbow-foil?
Finally, is it right that Tamil warfare occurs in two parts of the world, Sri Lanka, and 5 minutes down the street from my house?
This is all divisive. To use the Sri Lankan example, if a couple of immigrants bump into each other about as far from their native land as you can possibly get without leaving the atmosphere, wouldn't you expect that they could get along, and put the bee-ess behind them? If they can't do that, what are the hopes that Canada's large populations of Iranian and Iraqi refugees could ever get along?
If Canada ever went to war with China, whose side would Markham be on?
Frankly, I really don't care what color someone's skin is. I think man has advanced beyond that point now; the only people who care about that are skinheads and other extremists. And Canada needs immigrants to sustain its economy. My concern, and frustration, is when literally hundreds of cultures, with mutually exclusive traditions, are thrust together in an experiment with very dangerous potential. And one where loyalty and patriotism aren't demanded or required of Canada's new Canadians.
One where, in fact, lawsuits have been won on the basis that since Canada is a multicultural society, you can't encourage patriotism, since it's exclusive of the non-Canadian cultures that make up the country.
In other words, Canadians are having their own laws used against them to erode the traditional images of the RCMP officer, the beer-swilling bilingual hockey player, the lumberjack in the snow. And it's not being replaced with anything solid or concrete that promotes a national identity.
My family has traced back its family tree to Nova Scotia in 1753. My family was part of Canada long before it was Canada. And yet, this is yet another one of the many reasons that I yearn to move to the United States, at least partially for the solidarity and strength of a patriotism that the Canadian government seems more interested in eroding than encouraging.
At least in the United States, everyone pulls together on the 4th of July. That happens less and less here every Canada Day.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
If someone calls themselves a Christian but attempts to destroy someone, do you really think they are a Christian?
Fred Phelps seems to think so:
www.godhatesfags.com
I'm so glad that religion is there to provide mankind with such a perfectly correct, rational and loving moral compass.
(Actually, I'm happier with the idea of scientific proof of evolution, since, by extension, it proves the bible wrong, and therefore sets the stage for defamation lawsuits against all the world's bible-thumping invisible-man-watching-me rubes.)
I'm so glad that the Catholic Church is running around telling people not to use condoms in places like Uganda.
This is a modern equivalent to the smallpox-infested blankets. You really should read your history books someday.
Religion is the single most dangerous invention of mankind, and it serves only to comfort those simple enough to believe in it.
Finally, you work in the technology field. I visited your website.
Technology, lest you be confused, is merely the application of science.
Science, in case you didn't know, has always been scorned and beaten down by religion.
Yet, science, while not perfect, has greatly advanced the human condition, and is the root cause of far less of the world's wars than religion.
So, how is it that you can reconcile your position as a religious individual with your career which is made possible by science, the greatest enemy of your faith?
It seems to me that the two are mutually exclusive, and yet it apparently poses no problem to you.
Thrall me with your acumen, for you are apparently wiser than I.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
so don't assume that everyone who attends services SOMEWHERE can instantly be branded a clueless lemming.
Believing that there's an invisible being staring down at you all the time is rationale enough to be branded clueless. Even certifiable.
And since it's a social thing, and lemmings tend to be social, I think it *is* rather apropos.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
So I am an extremist because I am concerned because all of the IT managers above me are White even though Houston Texas is ~25% Hispanic and ~20% Black?
Probably, yes.
What does that tell you? So Hispanics and Blacks aren't very interested in careers in the IT field. What do you want to do, start discriminating against white people because they're the only ones who apparently get into the field?
Fine. As a white person, I'm concerned that there aren't many white people in the NBA. Let's put affirmative action in place there!
Don't give me some baloney about lack of fiscal opportunity, either. I'm sure that it wouldn't be very tough for a little kid in the projects to get his hands on an old 486 if he tried. My parents didn't get a computer until I bought them a Pentium 166 several years ago, and yet, despite being a high school dropout, I managed to work my way up to an engineering and IT administration position at one of the biggest airports in North America.
Oh yeah, and I did it all myself, without government or social support. I worked my ass off.
Actually the refreshing lack of "patriotism" is why I would like to move to a more progressive country like Canada...Great! If we look even remotely similar, we could pull a passport swap, and not have to worry about those nasty immigration procedures. I'm sure we'd both be happier and therefore more useful to our adopted lands.
I'm 6'4", 175lbs, dark brown hair and eyes. I can suntan pretty dark, too. I'm not really swarthy, but I can pull it off if I need to.
As for "progressive", yeah, if you define socialism as progressive even though it promotes laziness, I suppose Canada is progressive.
I bet you've never been here, have you?
Yet, as a Slashdot contributor and reader, you're probably in the IT field, and probably quite affluent. Betcha just can't wait to see what taxes here are like. Or the lesser opportunity because fewer companies will locate here because of the high taxes.
And ya know, $100,000,000 of Canadian taxpayers' money went to Nortel last year. And does every year. Since Canada has about 1/10th the tax base of the United States, you figure that one out.
Isn't Nortel a private company and supposed to survive on its own?
Apparently, our definitions of "progressive" are divergent at best.
Ha ha ha! That is a good one. Actually the Whites in the U.S. are the ones that "celebrate" the 4th of July. To minorities it is just another day off from work.Hmmmm... Probably has something to do with George Double-Ya's Texas. I've done The Fourth in Manhattan, DC, Chicago, Detroit, Buffalo. The party seems to involve most every race.
African Americans are pissed off at being kidnapped and sold into slavery by White people.How about sold to Europeans by their African ancestors?
Yes, slavery was wrong. No, the Europeans shouldn't have done it. And no, it shouldn't have been allowed to continue for as long as it did.
So, speaking as a white person, I'm sorry.
But it's not my fault. It's not my father's fault. Or my grandfather's fault. Or my great grandfather's fault. In fact, like most caucasions in North America (and my family has been in North America since 1753), my family has never owned slaves.
So, like most white people, I think I have a right to be pissed off for people throwing slavery back in my face.
Native American are pissed off that they almost got exterminated by White people in a genocidal war.The Micmacs, Algonquins and Iroquois can definitely be mad at my ancestors for that.
Chicanos are pissed off at the fact that our land got stolen from us by White people.Like California? Texas? Hell, the whole southwest?
Didn't they lose a war there?
Fine, then. As a Canadian, and therefore a subject of the British throne, the nasty colonists who won the Revolutionary War stole land that should belong to Her Majesty.
I guess Hitler should be mad that after claiming half of Europe for Germany, that he had it "stolen" from him by war.
Or, coming from my Anglo-Saxon roots, I'm really pissed off that the Romans stole France from the Celtics.
Similarily, did that land belong to the Chicanos, or didn't it belong to the Mayans, Incans and Aztecs? You know, Hispanics are not native to Mexico. So, you're complaining that land that your people stole from the aboriginals only 300 years earlier has been stolen?
Heheh. I'd be grateful. I'm sure that you have far more opportunity in Texas than you would in Mexico. Based on US Border Patrol activities in that area, it seems that lots of other Chicanos feel differently from you.
Gimme a break. You spout sheer idiocy.
Please read some U.S. history before moving here. We have enough ignorant people here as it stands...Rest assured, I have.
And you'd do well to get a realistic viewpoint and an understanding of world history.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Just because humans and apes are morphologically similar does not mean they are geneetically similar. Compare hyenas to dogs. Hyenas look like really ugly dogs, but they have no genetic commonality (I'm pretty sure). They are closer to bears from what I know.
--
Speciation. Define that. There are at least 40 different definitions I can get my hands on in seconds.
only infrmatn esentil to understandn mst b tranmitd
I'm with you, like 1,000 %. :)
Faith is not only invalid during scientific inquiry, but involves (typically) circular reasoning so that any assertion is self-proving.
I do not have a signature
Thank you for using bold face type. Your assertions are much more believable now that you've indicated that you're emphatic about them. :)
I do not have a signature
Not only does he share the same number of genes, but Art Caplan was found to have about as much integrity as an ear of corn, as well. Most in the philosphical/ethical-minded community agree: Talking heads don't come any more hollow. But we can thank Art for one thing - he'll certainly get the Jeezers riled up. It's one thing for that Scopes fella' to compare us to apes, but ears of corn? Some southern-fried fundamentalizers are gonna git you, sucka!
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
I'm not a religious person and try my best to have an open mind, and I have to agree. Scientists who use these new facts about our genome to discount scientific creationism are defending their own religion. Evolutionary science is in fact a religious belief of sorts held by athiests (IMHO athieism is a religion--the belief only in one's self--despite the literal definition "without religion"). Just as many devoutly religious people will NEVER believe in evolution, many scientists would never accept creationism as fact, even in the face of convincing evidence. Scientists are human just like everyone else, and as objective as they try to be they are influenced by their personal biases, politics and so on.
Without the ability to travel back in time and witness natural history, BOTH evolution and creationism are theories in the scientific sense. DNA evidence, fossil records and all other scientific evidence has simply made evolution the most credible scientific theory in the opinion of most scientists. "Scientific Creationism" simply uses scientific observations (sometimes the same ones evolutionists use) to advance a different theory.
For example, here is another way of interpreting the FACT that we share most of our DNA with even the lowly bacteria: a supreme being or force would design the universe to be orderly and efficient. DNA molecules--even in bacteria--are miraculously complex and ingeniously designed. If it worked on single-cell life forms, why not build on that for all other life? For the geeks out there think of it like this: what if you were the "supreme coder" and you wrote a killer object with a real cool interface on your first major project? Wouldn't you re-use that object as often as possible in other projects? Wouldn't you inherit its properties and methods in newer, more complex objects? If the design process works in writing programs, why not in creating life?
I am not a "religious, bible-thumping zealot". I am not close minded. There are people on BOTH sides of the debate to which those words apply, just as there are open-minded, critical thinkers on both sides. I accept scientific FACTS without reservation and make up my OWN mind as to the best THEORY they support. I've always had a hard time swallowing the literal biblical account. In fact, even since childhood I've been fascinated with evolutionary biology. Years of casual observation and life experience (including reading about the latest developments in the Genome Project) has made it equally hard to swallow the pure "random-mutation" evolution theory. There is a definite design process, guided by a higher power, going on in nature--from the molecular level up. It is mind-bogglingly complex, but human beings continue to find order in it. My belief is not adhered to blindly or ignorantly and is not related to fundamentalist beliefs (Christian or otherwise).
Maybe people who share those beliefs should avoid the tainted word "creationism" and use a term like "ordered evolution"... Well, maybe not... that would perpetuate the ongoing process of politically sanitizing our language, and I've had enough of terms like "differently abled", "ethnic cleansing", "chair people"...
But science never proved anything. However, theories are useful in that they can predict the future, with allarming accuracy. It is as likely that I will fall down after jumping up as it is that humans hold some relation to other primates.
I agree completely.
I also feel that way about gravity, but it simply is not provably, a priori true. Sure, planets seem to rotate around the sun because all particles with mass are mutually attracted, but the reality is that this is the simple order of things, as Azathoth and the Outer Gods created. There is no evidence against this claim.
If anyone can give me concrete proof of gravity, I will eat my hat.
Now, I have to check the mitocloria count in my processor, my computer is behaving slowly. It is probably either that of a disturbance in the force.
I didn't say they were concrete - the Bible isn't a science book and it's not intented to be one. What it does show is that not only does the Bible not contradict with science, there are points where it can be taken as very much agreeing as well.
The number of stars one *is* interesting because people used to think that the number of stars numbered in the thousands, whereas now we do know that they are (for us at least) pretty much 'unable to be counted' - every time we make a more powerful telescope we discover more and more stars and galaxies!
IMHO the hydrological cycle (Ecc 1:7) and the atmospheric circulation (Ecc 1:6) are the most interesting - don't forget that in the particular case of the winds the classical civilisations believed that winds could be held in bags or imprisoned in a dungeon! For their time, these statements were unusual and show remarkable foresight for what we were later to discover as the truth. Where did that foresight come from?
--
' Ore stabit fortis a fine placet ore stat '
- found on a park bench
' Ore stabit fortis a fine placet ore stat '
- found on a park bench
Good point, and I thought that when I posted it. I don't know Hebrew, just like you, but I've heard that argument a lot from people who know about this sort of stuff. As I said before in another post, I think that the hydrological cycle and the winds one are much more interesting and concrete.
--
' Ore stabit fortis a fine placet ore stat '
- found on a park bench
' Ore stabit fortis a fine placet ore stat '
- found on a park bench
Oh yes, and before someone says that evolution is part of science and the Bible contradicts that, evolution is a theory and will always remain a theory by definition.
Nobody (Christian or otherwise) can ever *prove* or create a law about how the world began for the simple reason that we weren't there to observe it and we can't duplicate it. Science requires observation and repetition to prove something.
And even then science gets things wrong - see the flat earth and the earth at the centre of the universe. Both of these things were 'proved' by scientists.
And let's face it, theologians get things wrong as well - as has been mentioned before, Christians have been adamant about 'facts' that have later turned out to be wrong. But I think you'll find that when people make incorrect assumptions based on the Bible, it's generally based on an interpretation instead of a direct reading. You can argue a lot about the interpretation of parts of the Bible, especially when the Bible uses metaphors and illustrations, but the basic message being taught behind these illustrations remains constant, and it is *this* message that we should follow.
And the message? Summed up in John 3:16.
--
' Ore stabit fortis a fine placet ore stat '
- found on a park bench
' Ore stabit fortis a fine placet ore stat '
- found on a park bench
Roundness of the earth (Isaiah 40:22)
Almost infinite extent of the sidereal universe (Isaiah 55:9)
Law of conservation of mass and energy (II Peter 3:7)
Hydrologic cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7)
Vast number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22)
Law of increasing entropy (Psalm 102:25-27)
Paramount importance of blood in life processes (Leviticus 17:11)
Atmospheric circulation (Ecclesiastes 1:6)
Gravitational field (Job 26:7)
--
' Ore stabit fortis a fine placet ore stat '
- found on a park bench
' Ore stabit fortis a fine placet ore stat '
- found on a park bench
I firmly believe that the story told in the Bible is 100% fact. God revealed his creation of the universe to a shepherd in the wilderness of the Sinai several thousand years ago...how exactly would you go about telling how a computer works much less how the world was created? How would you go about describing such a thing to a people who were slaves?
In the Bible it says a thousand years is as if it were a day to God. Some also believe it's possible that the seven days represents the length of time in which God revealed how he created the universe to Moses. Could this be a valid explanation for what is written in the Bible in Genesis 1?
That article basically says See they have alot of genes that are same! as if it was something we didn't already know. Guess what?!? Apes and humans are alot alike! Whoop-de-do. I can see that at http://www.monkeys.com
If Christians (which I am one of) are so stupid and gullible to believe in evolution then why do you all give them so much lip service? Why do some of you have such an intense hatred for Christianity?
If you want to hear some really really awesome preaching/lecturing that addresses this issue and many more http://www.rzim.org
That's just one of the "no one"s, "no other"s, and "no doubt"s that permeate this article. Without taking positions for or against, it's hard to take the above quote as a compelling argument that the human genome proves evolution as the sole cause for humanity's origin. Methinks the writer is just a teensy bit biased.
Of course, so is Slashdot. "Kansas agrees" because their original reason for removing Darwin from the curriculum was flawed, according to the linked article, not because they read this guy and came to the abrupt conclusion that There Is No God.
The genome conference was held on Charles Darwin's birthday, February 12th. It was probably intentional.
----------------------
- Hypothesis: All crows are white.
- Evidence: A black crow.
- All crows are white is disproven by counter example.
- New hypothesis: Some crows are white
- Evidence: 1000 sampled crows, 1000 black crows.
- Conclusion: though not disproven, some crows are white is not elevated to the status of theory.
So yes, evolution continues to be a proven theory. There are reams of evidence to support it.----------------------
He's what Catholic's would call a Protestant, but he would never call himself that. It's a term invented by one group to describe another, and not the one they choose themselves. It's kind of like maid vs. house cleaner, or housewife vs. home maker, or mailman vs. letter-carrier, if we were talking about sex roles instead of religion.
One philosopher who studied religion made the assertion that terms only have meaning within their context (any philo. or religious study majors help me out with names/facts). In other words, you can't define these terms, only determine what the speaker means by them.
For instance, many religions that stem from Jesus Christ have a ceremony with bread and wine, that becomes (in their words) the Body and Blood of Christ. For the Catholic Church, officially, this means the bread and wine maintain the form of bread and wine (still provides nourishment, you could get slightly drunk, etc.), but it's essence is now the Body and Blood of Christ. To make a (possibly heretical) comparision, remember those Disney films where a man is transformed into a shaggy dog? The dog has all the form of a dog, but is the human in essence. Now, take away even the intellect of the man, and you are left with a dog in all things, except that it has a human soul. Try Occam's razor on that!!! (Who ever said Occam was right?)
Anyway, that's a fairly complex explaination. If you ask the average Catholic, they may believe that it is just symobolic, or that it now has a new form (my mom once told me you couldn't catch germs drinking from the common cup, which I seriously doubt). Others may not even have thought about it much. Go outside of Roman Catholicism, into other Catholic or "Christian" religions, and you'll get even more answers for what "Body and Blood" means.
Those that call themselves "Christians" usually mean "True Christians", as opposed to other groups, like Roman Catholics, that (in their opinion) don't worship Christ, but instead a corrupt, earthly organization (the Roman Catholic Church). While American Catholics identify themselves as Catholic (often dropping the "Roman" part), they will also identify themselves as Christian. Protestant is a term that only makes sense in Catholic/Protestant relationships, and is mainly used by Catholics to describe the Christians.
Fully confused? Good. Not much of it makes sense, and only a few have studied the actual theological differences. The rest are mostly fighting based on "our group is better than yours", or on "common sense" (the sum of the things you learned up to age 18).
If you want to really probe the differences, start asking about terms like being "saved", "Baptised", and start the old "Faith vs. Good Works" debate,. or the "literal vs. figurative" interpretations of the bible, or what it means to say the bible was "inspired by God/ Holy Spirit". Check out sites like Jack Chick's, for some Christian Propaganda/Ministering Aids, and search for criticism of his claims. If you are interested in what Catholics belive, go to the source: there is a copy of the Catechism on the Vatican's web site, which includes what all Catholic's should believe (not that all do). Have fun, there's a lot of info out there. Even if you are an atheist, you have to deal with religious people every day, and it's better to take the higher ground, to understand them, rather than to hate them because they are different (as the religous right does to various groups, or liberals do to the religous right).
Occasionally, I do call them fundamentialist Christians, but more often, I just call 'em "fundies". Makes them sound like more fun, doesn't it?
both of the articles linked to are total fluff. nothing we didn't already know in them. the caplan article is a monotonous restatement of the same premise over and over for paragraph after paragraph. yawn!
and it's not the genome research that convinced kansas to reverse it's anti-evolutionary ruling. READ THE ARTICLES FOLKS.
there's nothing that will convince creationists and there's no point in trying. we've known for decades that we share certain genes with frogs and tulips, the genome project is just another confirmation of evolution.
--
in this age of communication i'm just not getting through
Phil
Here is a very interesting article at MSNBC by Arthur Caplan, Ph.D.,
How is it very interesting? I don't see any scientific evidence in the article. I am not saying that this scientist's views are based on opinion, just this article doesn't elaborate on any evidence. I am not disupting the science behind the claim, just the article sucks. BAH!
However, it is on MSNBC. Any one have a better link.
hopefully.
i could live a little longer in this prison
Geeky.org
I think the deepest flaw in Christianity is their belif that A-they know everything and B-god in omnipotent. someone could create life, earth whatever and not be perfect or even all powerful. maybe it was some geeky alien with a petri dish who created us...
"Cornflakes are not the innocent critters they seem"- Sterling Morrison
Here's a little something to chew on. See if you can guess how many seconds it took to make the "essay" argue for God.
... must make new genes from old parts."
Feb. 21 -- The media flubbed the headline for the biggest news event in the past 50 years of science. The reporters and TV talking heads who crammed the Washington, D.C., press conference on Feb. 12 did understand that the details they were hearing about the human genome offered the story of a lifetime. But, they missed the real headline. Their stories should have simply said, "God vindicated!"
MOST REPORTERS ballyhooed the fierce competition between scientists working for the publicly funded Human Genome Project and those employed by the privately funded Celera Genomics Corporation of Rockville, Md., to gain credit for the discovery. Others wondered about the financial implications of allowing human genes to be patented.
Still other headlines were meant to give us pause about whether it would be good or bad to know more about the role genes play in determining our health. Knowing more about our genes, after all, might not be so great in an era in which there is not much guarantee of medical privacy but a pretty good chance of discrimination by insurers and employers against those with "bad" genes.
There were even a couple of headlines that suggested that humanity should not be quite so arrogant since we do not have as many genes as we thought relative to other plants and animals. In fact, as it turns out, we have only twice as many genes as a fruit fly, or roughly the same number as an ear of corn, about 30,000. Reductionism may not be all that it has been cracked up to be by molecular biologists.
But none of these headlines capture the most basic, the most important consequence of mapping out all of our genes. The genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt, that God was right -- mankind was created over a short period of time independent from primitive animals.
Our genes show that evolution cannot be true. The response to all those who thump their calculators and say there is no proof, no test and no evidence in support of creationism is, "The proof is right here, in our genes." Eric Lander of the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Mass., said that if you look at our genome it is clear that "God
The core recipe of humanity carries clumps of genes that show we are created by the same God that created bacteria. There is no other way to explain the common nature of the genes that control key aspects of our development.
No one can look at how the book of life is written and not come away fully understanding that our genetic instructions have been created from the same programs that guide the behavior of animals. Our genetic instructions have been carefully assembled from the same sort of genetic instructions that make jellyfish, dinosaurs, wooly mammoths and our primate friends.
There is, as the scientists who cracked the genome all agreed, no other possible explanation.
Sure the business side of cracking our genetic code is fascinating. And we all need to be sure that our government does not leave us in the genetic lurch without laws to ensure our privacy and protect us against genetic discrimination. All that, however, is concern for the future. Right now the big news from mapping our genome is that mankind was created. The theory of creation is the only way to explain the arrangement of the 30,000 genes and three billion letters that constitute our genetic code.
The history of humanity is written in our DNA. Those who dismiss creation as myth, who insist that creation has no place in biology textbooks and our children's classrooms, are wrong.
The message our genes send is that God was right.
SunCrusher DarkStar, Ph.D., is director of the Center for B.S. at the University of Life, The Universe, And Everything
The point is that this article presented no evidence, and, as any debater will tell you, that leaves nothing to argue.
BTW: I loved that. "All your base pairs are belong to God"
I can't see any point to this article other than to stir up conflict. Usually, I would expect a news outlet to post stories with information in them but this doesn't offer anything more than an opinion. What's to discuss about an opinion? I'd rather see some links to or quotes from studies and some of the evidence the author refers to.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a Creationist (let alone a Christian).
The human genome proves nothing. The basics of Creationism state that some omnipotent being (God) created the universe. If this Being did this, then there is no reason he couldn't have setup our genetics in such a way as to supposedly lend credit to such an argument. Proof schmoof.
What nobody refuses to explore is how humans evolved so rapidly in comparison with all other species. It would be interested for someone to take the genome project, map out the genome of our closest 'ancestor' in the animal kingdom, and see what is different and why. I would be fascinated to find out the answers behind this, and I would be interested to hear an account of what caused the rapid evolution of humans. Trying to use science to disprove the unprovable is absolutely ridiculous, however, and people need to stop wasting their time.
-wd
--
chip norkus(rl); white_dragon('net'); wd@routing.org
mercenary albino programmer for hire
"question = (to) ? be : !be;" --Shakespeare
Where did the whole universe come from? - the big bang? Well what created the big bang? Don't forget the ask the next question... I found that it led me to God
And what created God?
If you're going to say something had to create the Big Bang, then you must logically say something had to create your "God."
Why don't you just relent and agree that humans do not have the cognitive power to understand the creation of the universe beyond the big bang?
It's like asking a termite what built the house it lives on... do you think they believe in God or in Humans?
-thomas
"And like that
Scientific Creationism is merely a name given to right-wing bible-thumping zealots who wish schools in our country to not educate our children. See, most reasonable people, even those who believe in some sort of creation story, feel that evolution does actually happen. In fact, there is a popular, middle-of-the-road school of thought that would claim that the whole ball of wax, as it were, came into being via the hand of God, creating blue-green algae all those millenia ago, and then He (or She or It) took a hands off approach and let things get on with things. Frankly, I find this to be the scientific equivalent of being an agnostic. I find it easy to reconcile the two accounts: one is a religious story, meant to provide a direction to moral development, and the other is a scientific investigation, which has no moral to it's story, and is not meant to be believed blindly (emphasis on blind). In practice, the two should have no effect on one another. They don't for me.
Now back to the bible-belt zealots: unsatisfied with miseducating their own children to the nature of science, they want our schools to not teach evolution. But that's stupid. And dangerous. That way, you end up with presidents like Ronald Reagan who go on national television and say, "Well, it's just a theory," when asked about teaching evolution in the schools. So, most schools, at least those outside of Dixie (the South, to those of you in other countries that don't have to deal with this crap), say, "Sorry, no, we're teaching evolution and that's that." So, to muddy the waters (which is what zealots do, be they green or white-sheeted), the thumpers introduce this counter-intuitive bullshit called Scientific Creationism. The word scientific is used in this case to confuse and cajole the unwashed masses who can't tell the difference, kind of like calling Buzz Lightyear the ultimate in playtime fun. But really, it's just religion in a lab coat, so that the government won't notice they're violating the separation of church and state by forcing this steaming load of non-scientific lies down the throat of children, be they christian, muslim, jew or whatever. So, yes, it's just another abuse of the word scientific. A dangerous one at that. If I wanted my children (not that I have any yet, and this kind of thing is not making me want to have any) to learn about creationism, I'd send them to Sunday School to be indoctrinated.
Anyway, even the Pope says that evolution is more than a hypothesis (the link here is the only one I could find where the pontiff's statement was not followed by still more irrational, counter-intuitive, rabid drivelling by the religious right).
In short, my friend, be glad you live in Denmark.
Do not touch -Willie
That's an interesting point, since I've heard the same said about naturalistic evolution: There are not falsifiable predictions made regarding evolutionary theory, and thus evolution cannot be considered a usable theory. In effect your posted your key question to the creationism side, so allow me to ask my question:
"Regarding the study of life and its genesis and development, are what are the falsifiable predictions?"
-----
D. Fischer
ShoutingMan.com
So you are saying: Something as incredible as the universe around us requires a creator.
Such a creator would be truly incredible, even more incredible than the universe we know. Thus, by your original argument, He/She/It couldn't have come around by random chance. The creator must have been created by a super-creator!
And furthermore, that super-creator must have been created by a super-super-creator.
Houston, we have a problem...
Perhaps the solution is to postulate that the creator needs no super-creator; He/She/It just IS.
That may be the case. But if a creator can just BE, without requiring a creator, then I see no reason to believe that the universe cannot also just BE, without requiring a creator. (Or the Big Bang could just happen, or whatever. IANACosmologist.)
Of course, this doesn't prove anything either way. But it does show that your argument -- the work around us MUST have been designed by a creator -- is itself untenable.
By the way, I think it's great that you are both a Christian and a scientist (though apparently not a Christian Scientist! ) and trying to find ways of reconciling science and religion for yourself.
"Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
All your gene are belong to Darwin!
Get it right!
All Your Base Pair Are Belong To Us!
I despair!
If you're going to complain about post numbers, make sure you're not going to be post #1046. Nobody listening? Well obviously YOU are... Hiding behind AC too, tut tut.
"The Allmighty made men and women genetically similar to other animals to throw us off the scent. He knew about the concept of biology millions of years before the field of study began and planted little clues here and there to make believing in Him all the more difficult."
Praise the Lord and pass the blindfolds
Bullshit. As a dittohead once said on Jim Hightower's "Chat 'n Chew Cafe" radio show, "You know, Rush is right. Racism in this country is dead. I don't know what them niggers will find to complain about now." If you believe the NAACP doesn't have its hands full just trying to keep the US 'Justice' system from strangling *all* urban black males, then friend, you've been spending too much time on the Bush campaign trail. Check the quotes Haldeman attributed to Nixon in his diary for some damn fine examples of why there needs to be an NAACP even now, thirty-plus years later. Blusher
Judge: Ma'am, are you showing contempt for this court? Mae West: Ah was doin' mah best to hide it, your honor.
Gee, I wonder if 'white flight', and the consequent funnelling of local, state and federal dollars away from urban centers might have something to do with it as well. Tell ya what: I'll take my kid and put her in a Plano or Frisco public school, and you take *your* kid (I will simplify by assuming out hypothetical kids are equal in mental capacity) and put her in a school in Oak Cliff or Lancaster. You'd be surprised at the difference between learning chemistry with a gleaming, accessorized lab and learning it in a lab that hadn't been upgraded in 30+ years (including the gas nozzles), assuming the inner-city school can afford the labs at all.
Or a school district that can afford the latest in teaching tools (computer labs, new books, vcrs, etc) and one that is still recycling 20-30 year old, yellowed, manhandled MacMillans that crow about that funky 'new math'.
No, no, of course. If the MINOR doesn't learn, it's the MINOR's fault. Forget all that b.s. about adequate funding and qualified, well-paid teachers. It's the kid's fault he can't see his future. It's so clear to me now.
Blusher
Judge: Ma'am, are you showing contempt for this court? Mae West: Ah was doin' mah best to hide it, your honor.
Okay, don't get me wrong; I believe in evolution. But did anyone else notice that this MSNBC story contains no actual scientific facts to back up his argument? This article is bereft of content, and contains nothing but the same chest-thumping the author despises from the creation crowd. (or something)
"Extremism in defense of liberty is more fun."
For example, plants and animals are created on separate days, instead of evolving together. All the stars in the heavens were created on Day 4, separate from our own Sun.
If you find deep spiritual meaning in the Genesis account, more power to you. But don't assume that you can turn it into a historical/scientific account of the Earth's beginnings just by lengthening the days. It doesn't work that easily.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
My question is: Why does one theory preclude the other? I am a creationist, and an evolutionist. I have seen no argument that proves to me that both ideas cannot be true at the same time.
Creationism states that God created the universe/world.
Evolution states that things changed slowly to their present state from a lesser one. I see no reason why both can't coexist.
The problem I see is with Literal Creationism, that sees the Bible only at face value, with no metaphor or deeper meaning. The other problem I see, is with people who seem to be offended at the suggestion that there may be a "God" at all.
The current theory as to the creation of the universe ascribed to be most notable physisists is that the universe was created by the explosion of a miniscule particle of infinite (or near infinite) mass. This particle appeared out of NOWHERE. (this is true, look it up.) This fact alone has sent scientists to religion.
I'm not trying to change minds, simply give a reasonable veiwpoint that is not often expressed. Even Einstien said, "Religion without science is blind, Science without religion is lame."
Just my thoughts.
"...At the end of the day"..."when everyone goes home, you're stuck with yourself." RIP Layne Staley
Instead you should just state, "Evolution is a fact". Human beings, in thier short time of recorded history have seen cows in Australia evolve to the enviroment, virii and bacteria evolve to resist drugs, new breeds of dogs and cats appear, et al. There is NO disputing the fact of evolution. Now if you want to suggest human evolved from other primates, you'll have some resistence, but once its explained that Evolution is a fact, it's not that hard to see it happening.
Burn Hollywood Burn
Any follower of the good Father can tell you that the insight we have gained from mapping the human genome do not disprove creationism, they merely validate Father Sarducci's theory on the evolution of God(as described during Weekend Update in the early to mid 80s).
My other sig is extremely clever...
Given both the evolution theory and the creation allegory are so undeniably true, some people have researched how these two interact to give the overall result of humanity. This link has the details.
Does my bum look big in this?
EVERYTHING is based on faith. Study logic and mathematics for any amount of time and you realize that all proofs are based on assumptions (just another word for faith).
Er, no. Faith is a belief that doesn't rest on logical proof or material evidence. Duh.
Does my bum look big in this?
Perhaps you ought to read this talk.origins FAQ. Evolution is a fact, and the observable processes which we label 'evolution' right now will continue to occur, be true and obserable, even if we ditch Darwin's theory of why it happens.
It's like, dismissing the heliocentric solar system idea doesn't stop the sun coming up every morning.
Does my bum look big in this?
I simply stated all truth is based on assumption (faith, whatever you want to call it).
Call it what you want, but you can't call anything based on physical evidence 'faith'. Faith is *defined* as the lack of logic and the lack of physical evidence. My point was that "facts" (theories, whatever) are defined by the basic assumptions we make.
You may hold that claim about "facts", but not theories. You really need a dictionary. You need one badly. A theory is some supposition about the world that can accurately predict physical evidence. Facts don't have to predict anything.
Now to my point again. FAITH is BELIEF which is NOT BASED ON LOGIC and NOT BASED ON PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. Using faith as the basis for a "fact" or even a theory is to state that your fact or theory is not based on physical evidence and not based on logic. Thanks for playing.
Does my bum look big in this?
Name me one thing that is fact that does not require any amount of assumption. Just one.
One fact is that, at this moment in time, the entry for "faith" at dictionary.com (2nd meaning) is "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence". It does not require any assumption to state this fact.
If you want to try and validate that fact, you'll need certain pre-requisites like an internet connection, understanding of the english language (which you seem to lack), and you might even need the assumption that the page hasn't changed by the time you read it. I can't help you on that; my brain is being taken out of the jar it's in for cleaning, so I'll cease to exist for a short period of time. In the meantime, you could help yourself by reading up on nihilism and other stuff on epistemology.
Does my bum look big in this?
My argument is at the most basic root of anything is an assumption (Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof. Close enough to Faith I believe to use interchangeably).
*sigh*. You batter the same old argument that's been raging for centuries. Theologists do not base their arguments on material evidence. Scientists only base their arguments on material evidence. When the two clash, the theologists hypocritically accuse the scientists of lacking evidence. The argument goes that because nothing evidence can be known to be 100%, it is therefore wrong to base any judgements on evidence, and instead work in cloud-cuckoo land with 0% accurate evidence. This is the essense of faith - lack of evidence, lack of logic. However, science does not claim that evidence is 100% accurate, in fact they generally work out their margin of error as a matter of course.
This all boils down to the subjective vs objective argument. For example, let's have 100 people look at an alledged tree in a forest. 99 subjectively percieve the tree, but one person does not. Is the tree there? It is 99% likely that the tree is there. It depends on the levels of skepticism and pedantry, but it would generally be agreed that the objective viewpoint is that the tree is there, even though all evidence was collected subjectively. That's enough to convince scientists, but anything less than 100% is not going to convince a fundamentalist theologian, who would rather believe the 0% accurate claims of his religion.
But what material proof do you have that you're simply not dreaming the whole thing, or delusional? My contention: none. You merely assume so.
Why stop there? Are you just a brain in a jar?.
Does my bum look big in this?
All truth (facts, whatever) are derived from assumptions (beliefs, faith, whatever)
OK, OK! Enough! All human knowledge of truth are [sic] derived from human assumptions. Fine. This is pretty much the definition of "subjective". We can't step outside ourselves and objectively perceive reality. It's such a barrier, philosophers have even argued the case for there being no objective reality. After all, we can't prove it exists, can we? Everything we humans do is subjective in some way or another, and we can't even speculate on there being an objective reality outside our subjective perception of it, because to do that would be subjective!
As you can see, this debate rages into a black hole, because saying there is no objective reality is also subjective. People who go around claiming this continually are nihilists, but I'm quite happy to believe you just want the point shown, you're not like some reincarnation of Nietzsche.
So, by stating this, have you cleverly pulled the rug from under science? No! Actually, hang on, I'll just address this part of your post at the same time:
> Scientists only base their arguments on material evidence.
Actually, scientist use material evidence to bolter theories. A scientist does not on material evidence alone prove anything. It is important, but not the only thing.
I said they base their arguments on material evidence. If you can call assumption 'faith', I can call theories and debates 'arguments'. So, how does science beat the objectivity barrier? Well, through smoke and mirrors. First, we gather huge amounts of material evidence through the previously discussed collective subjectivism. Next, we form a hypothesis based around that evidence that makes a conjecture about the objective existence, and uses this logically to make predictions about the subjective reality. Therefore, we can prove with the rules of logic that both the objective statements lead from the subjective evidence, and that the subjective predictions are an accurate conclusion of the objective statements. Then, we test the hypothesis with collective subjectivism. Should the prediction correlate with the evidence, then bingo! We've made a valid claim about objective reality!
I apologise if you thought I was calling you a creationist fundamentalist. You're sharing the same argument, but clearly not the same beliefs (you would have mentioned the satanism of evolution by now if you were a fundie). I would call you a nihilist if you persisted in your argument and tried to argue that science is futile, but you're not at that stage yet.
But anyway, as a scientific atheist who believes in evolution, I wouldn't going around saying "science is basically just faith". It's more a diplomatic gesture, to respect the huge amount of effort science goes to in gathering evidence, analysing it, hypothesising and testing, just to provide a more stable bedrock for understanding the world. Remember "faith" implies no evidence and no logic. It would be unfair to call the whole lot "faith", just because there are things we can't test directly and perfectly. Even 1% accuracy is preferable to 0% accuracy.
Does my bum look big in this?
Scientific Creationism has no method laid out for HOW humans were assembled. Darwin essentially laid out the HOW. Creationism doesn't so much point to the HOW, as to the WHY. Good for Darwin, but it still doesn't mean that life on this planet happened by blind chance.
Go Lakers!
What is scientific creationism? I believe in creationism, but not because of scientific evidence. The things I believe are based on this thing called faith... a concept that is central to Christianity. If God provided us with hard evidence of these facts, where would faith be? Meaningful belief must come from believing that which cannot be proved. And regardless of this person's opinion, this human genome "evidence" does not prove anything about evolution. Don't throw away your Bibles yet kids.
You've hit upon something very important. Natural Selection must be a tautology and that is why it is so difficult for people to grasp it. When a child asks why a Giraffe is a Giraffe, well, there's no there there. There's nothing deep, there's no additional meaning.
Play Command HQ online
Generalizing from personal behaviour is un scientific.
The term colored is used to promote the separation of humans, the term is not used like black hair or blond hair. ("person of blond" sounds stupid "person of color" also sounds stupid when you put it in context). Whites and Colored are not descriptions of skin color, they are attemps to justifie blanket descriptions that try to support the notion that not all humans are basically the same, with the same abilities and motivations.
The perceived differences are social feedback. A multi level social analysis over the past 10,000 years and covering the entire planet would make this obvious.While these discoveries may rule out _creationism_ as most people know it (that is, God just plopping Adam 'n Eve in the garden, which in theological terms, is considered to be part of the literal interpretation camp of creationism) it does not rule out creationism completely. Who is to say God didn't brew the primodial stew to set the whole evolutionary process in motion. Even Christian scientists who don't subscribe to the literal interpretation of the Genesis story believe that there is hard scientific fact that backs evolutionary theory (check out Michael Behe's _Darwin's Black Box_). While there are still holes in evolutionary theory (such as the development of our eyes...read Behe's book to find out why), the concepts still hold scientific weight.
Truth is, any Christian who says that evolution isn't possible with God needs to rethink her theology...last time I checked, the God of the Bible is omnipotent, meaning he can do as he pleases.
Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent. --Ludwig Wittgenstein
I don't quite see how the human genome is supposed to provide a better case for evolution than the fossil record.
No data, no cry
IMO you could debate this infinitely and never arrive at a conclusion. I, however, must side with the evolutionists. One of my reasons is as follows: If there was some supreme being that created us, why does he not prove once and for all that he exists? And to quote George Carlin, "And this [God] has a special list, of ten things he does not want you to do and if you do any, *ANY*, of these ten things, he's going to send you to a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture, to live and suffer forever and ever, until the end of time!! But he loves you."
"// this is the most hacked, evil, bastardized thing I've ever seen. kjb"
Just to prove my point, what if this had been an opinion piece asserting that the human genome findings supported creationism? Would all those who support evolution suddenly decide that creationism is correct? Of course not, for it would only be an opinion piece and we would say his opinion is wrong, let's see the scientific data instead.
Next week I'm going to post to MSNBC an opinion piece that asserts that the universe is actually a few thousand light years in diameter, but looks much bigger because of the use of strategically-placed mirrors. Trust me, my opinion piece will absolutely, positively prove the point, even without the use of messy scientific facts...
________________
________________
Private Essayist
What I don't get, right, is why biologists seems to feel the need to constantly throw evidence in the face of creationists.
I mean, what is the point. If you beleive in creationism, then scientific proof is ont going to change anything. I mean, you would already be thinking that all biologists are just tools of satan propogating false evidence to test the true believers, so what difference is some genetic argument going to make?
Creationsists will not believe this no matter what proof you give them, and everyone else already thinks that evolution happended.
sheesh!
"Me and my girl named bimbo . . . limbo . . . spam" - Captain Beefheart.
You da man. In fact, I hate it when a real scientist even signifies silliness like "Creationism" with a comment. It gives it an air of legitimacy. There can be no "disproval" or "proving" of religious belief. The area beyond confirmation is precisely where these fantasies thrive. Sciences great contribution is to shrink the domain of religious "faith" to an area that doesn't interfere with the real world understanding, at least among people who can actually separate the evidence before them from their hopes and fantasies.
for it is man who created God in the first place.
As much fun as any imaginary being can have, I suppose.
This is, however, one of the many topics that researchers have simply been too eager to come to a conclusion on. (Especially on the principle that science is much like a religion, and many religions innately work to disprove other religions.) They may be absolutely right, and I think they are. But, one thing we've learned in the history of science is that there is always another way of looking at problems or even solutions. I'm not discounting that evidence of evolution lies in our genes. But this sentence: "There is, as the scientists who cracked the genome all agreed, no other possible explanation." is vaguely disturbing. There *must* be conflict and debate amongst scientists for the correct ideas to be hammered out.
Discovery is not a group of people sitting around, patting eachother on the backs, congratulating one another on being right. Of course then again, I'm not a molecular biologist. I have not read the hard facts on this conclusion. Maybe it's so blatantly obvious that this post is just plain stupid. :-)
God --> DNA --> bacteria --> fish --> mammals --> Human
But is this statement made in defense of religion and opposition to science? You'll notice that this recent discovery says nothing about religion. It tells us that evolution is fact, not theory. I don't know why you're getting upset. :-)
What about facts like the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Entropy ring a bell?
Creationists, by definition, ignore scientific facts. They believe in fairy tales because they want to. Intelligent people already understand evolution. This discovery won't change the minds of ignorant Christians.
As far as I can remember I always found it strange that people use words without knowing what they mean, in this case it's the word specie.
The problem then boils down to a choice: Which definition do you choose? What is it that you want to believe?
Micro-evolution, the evolution of a specie as it adapts to its enviorment, is proven beyond any doubt. We also know that this process is directionless: when the enviorment changes back, so the specie will adopt the old distrubution of features.
But macro-evolution is not the same, it assumes a direction from simple to the complex. There is not much proof that this is the case, and micro-evolution even seems to tell us that when a specie is forced over a breakpoint in it development it just dies out because it misses diversity.
Any group displays only a subset of the full feature set posible for a specie. When the enviorment changes, this subset moves trough the feature space. isolated groups can move in different directions until they can no longer interbreed, but if put in the same enviorment these group will move closer together, until they become one group again.
The BIG question is: can they move outside their feature set? or do they go extinct when they are pushed to the extremes of there posibilities?
What I cannot create, I do not understand
What people call the "Bible" is actually a compilation of 77 old scripts (39 from Jewish and Aramean litterature, 27 from the Greeks written in the first century, ...) written by men and objectivity at that time was genuinely not of this world. Why on earth would we believe in the Bible more than say ancient Mesopotamian scripts which said that witchcraft exists ? Also, the 4 canonical Evangils have been chosen by the Church among around 20 long time after they have been written. The remaining evangils have been said to be apocryph. If this is not politics, then I'm the pope!! There is absolutely not a single proof that Jesus as a person existed at all, just like Pythagore or Orpheus. Noone has ever found Moise's tables of Law (whatever you call that in English). The simple fact that most religions (especially Christians) has a long history of disregard and hatred regarding other religions is an enormous clue that Christian god is questionable. That is for me too many facts that show that the scientific way may be more reliable than Christians' way.
...), the more they are likely to be religious and very faithful. On the contrary, the more the science advances, the more our old conception of God disappears.
If God's way is truth, why has it been so much altered over the years ? Don't forget that Christians almost killed Copernic because he dared saying that earth is round. Christians also said that black people and women had no souls (by the way, could any Christian here draw me a soul ?). They are saying now that man was created 6000 years ago but when they have a scientific conclusion thrown to their face in 100 years from now, they will turn around and say that it is a metaphor or something and they will smile at the ignorance of today's Christians.
In most countries, you can see that the more the people are ignorant (can't read, can't access information, live in extreme poverty,
I actually believe in some sort of metaphysics, which I update on the basis of scientific discoveries. Science has not yet found any answer to death (nor if there is actually any meaning to that anyway). As long as this gap is not filled, people will shelter in reassuring books, even if they are all but reliable sources. After all, we all like fairy tales stories...
É que os desafinados também têm um coração
Before you make any comment like this, I suggest that you read the post first. Just a friendly remark so that YOU can be taken seriously next time. My point was not to criticize christians, it was to show that the Bible is not a reliable historical source. It's so fuzzy that it allows people to interpret it the way they like. When I say Christians almost burnt Copernic, it was to show that the "science versus religion" war has been there for quite a while, and so far, science has always proved true (the flat earth is just an example, another example could be the creation theory which is in the Bible).
É que os desafinados também têm um coração
"God and Darwin can be both correct."
1 346238&mode=thread
So let's say we have two theories. One is some form of Darwinism, the other is identical but ALSO says "God started the process", "wound the clock", "put in the magic soul bits" or whatever. Unless the second theory is explaining some observation that the first isn't explaining, Occam's Razor demands we take the first theory as true. Otherwise, God is just cluttering up a perfectly workable theory.
--
http://www.geekizoid.com/article.pl?sid=01/03/03/
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
I haven't read Darwin directly, but I have read neo-darwinists like Dawkins. This is not at all how it's explained, even in the "What Darwin Said versus What We Think Now" sections. Please provide some quotes (with page numbers) supporting your view. If you cannot, I will have to ask Rob to donate your ill-gotten karma points to charity.1 346238&mode=thread
--
http://www.geekizoid.com/article.pl?sid=01/03/03/
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
I read the book flap at the library and it sounded great. I brought it home to read and gave up after 100-200 pages. The science side of the story had taken maybe two steps, the "modern angst" side had filled up the rest. Maybe it would make a good short story....1 346238&mode=thread
--
http://www.geekizoid.com/article.pl?sid=01/03/03/
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
....I can't help myself.
1 346238&mode=thread
You say you are a Xian. You say that the reason you are a creationist is that you are a Xian. It's not clear what "this" refers to in "This, however, is a personal belief and cannot be scientifically proven or disproven...", but it sounds like it refers to creationism, at least indirectly, so you admit that creationism is non-scientific.
Then you say that you are willing to be persuaded that evolution is true if it can be demonstrated, presumably displacing your creationst beliefs at the same time. But since you say your current beliefs can't be disproven, just what kind of proof would be sufficient?
And back to my original question: What "supporting evidence" persuaded you that creationism was true? Except for the first few verses of the Bible Xianity is mute on the topic. Are you saying you are a biblical literalist? If so, how were you able to break away on the Big Bang topic?
--
http://www.geekizoid.com/article.pl?sid=01/03/03/
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
Damn! You rock! These links are pure gold. I was going to say "that oughta shut 'im up"...then I realized that if he was rational, we wouldn't be having this conversation.1 346238&mode=thread
--
http://www.geekizoid.com/article.pl?sid=01/03/03/
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
I was going to post the very same thing.
1 346238&mode=thread
I might also add, to be fair, that this doesn't prove evolution "indisputably" either. For one thing, nothing can be proved "indisputably". For another, evolution is a theory about history--using facts about the present alone isn't necessarily conclusive.
All that said, I fully support evolution (and, more specifically, natural selection)--but I also doubt any True Disbelievers will be swayed by this evidence.
--
http://www.geekizoid.com/article.pl?sid=01/03/03/
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
This is how god has come to be. We have given him a 'shield' that is too powerful for any 'weapon' we might be able to use against him. This makes him impervious to logic or science or evolution, or genomes. 'God' will evolve more powerful defenses in the eyes of the 'believers' as the arguments against said deity become stronger against it/him/she/them.
As far as the PhD, let him have his day in the sun. How many times has some religious wack-o grabbed the spotlight to voice his views? Too many.
They stuck me in an institution, said it was the only solution, to...protect me from the enemy, myself
Okay, this is where you start to look like a troll. Paul was self-righteous about being mean to people before he began evangelizing Christianity
Okay, a troll? Where do you get that? Paul clearly didn't know christ the man existed, as he never mentions him in his writings. Also, look closer at how Paul beats himself up in Romans ch7. I quote: "but I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity under the law of sin which is in my members" He continues on, degrading himself and how he must yield to god. The last time I ever witnessed a self denial like this was in witnessing men who refused to accept the fact that they were gay.
So, let me see..., Paul never mentions christ, all gospels come during or after Paul's life, and Paul is a Jew with a terrible self image caused by his anger over being something he doesn't want to be/can't accept being. Who is your 'christ' again? Sounds like the imagination of a man seeking redemption from himself.
There you go. You wanted a 'troll'. I have given you an interpretation of your bible that fits your description of a 'troll'.
Think about it.
They stuck me in an institution, said it was the only solution, to...protect me from the enemy, myself
I totally agree (sorta) I've always believed that God created the world- but i'll be the first to admit i don't know how. ;)
Who's to say God didn't use evolution to do it? He can do whatever He want's -He's God
Don't forget that Christians almost killed Copernic because he dared saying that earth is round.
The Christians weren't pissed at Copernicus because he said the earth was round. The Christian church never taught that the earth was flat. That is a common misconception. The Church had accepted Ptolomy's (1st century astronomer) model of the universe, which had placed a spherical earth at the center of the universe with all of the stars, planets, the sun and the moon all orbiting it. Copernicus had dared to suggest that the sun was the center of the universe instead of the earth (still not quite correct, but a step in the right direction).
----------
Technoli
...what is the current scientific beliefs about the "original cosmic egg"? (pre-Bang matter)
Of course this is not original, but I've never even heard it addressed. Usually this is touted as the "final blow" by anti-evolutionists and often is mentioned in passing, but are there any thoughts about this (somewhat crucial) element of the Big Bang? It's not mentioned in the [admittiedly limited] literature that I've read but I'm sure there has to be some guesses in the scientific community about where it came from and how it got to be infinitely dense, etc.
Does anyone have any ideas?
----- I hate sigs.
How does the process of evolution create new information? All known examples of observed "evolution" has involved a net decrease in genetic information.
Also, the few billion years that the earth has been around is nowhere near long enough for evolutionary processes to 1) create life and 2) develop creatures as complex as people, statistically speaking.
And what about irreducible complexity? Certain complex cellular structures are only useful if all of the parts are present, but none of the parts by themselves provide a survival advantage. How could such structures evolve.
Oh, but that's right. I forgot. Fundamentalist Evolutionists don't have to answer questions from heretics who challenge the conventional dogma.
-jimbo
"Hold me Bob!" "I would if I could man!" -Bob and Larry from VeggieTales
-- Chris
$email=~s/[^a-zA-Z0-9@.]//g;
I'm afraid this article does not give ANY evidence toward evolution. All it says is:
The core recipe of humanity carries clumps of genes that show we are descended from bacteria. There is no other way to explain the jerry-rigged nature of the genes that control key aspects of our development.
Now, I don't know about the rest of you, but when I was taught to think logically, I was required to give proof of my assertions. What they have given is their opinions on the matter. The scientists said that they can think of no other explaination. Is this surprising? We just learned that everything we thought we knew about DNA is false! So instead of trying to understand WHY our theories are wrong, these "scientists" made giant leaps of logic to claim that the genome is jury-rigged! Thank GOD that I don't program the way these people are researching! My program would never work! If it did, it would be by pure chance...
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Sooo... where did the first gene get its old parts from? And from where did the creatures that appeared in the Pre-Cambrian Explosion get their old genes? Regardless of what you think happened in the interim, there are gaps that cannot be accounted for in the continuum of macro evolution. To these, one can logically insert intelligent design.
This, being outside the realm of science, can neither be proved nor disproved. However, when using an inference to the best explanation, there must be a cause to the genes, and there is not an infinite regress of genes. Materialist scientists can give no explanation to the sudden appearance of DNA, nor can they give any reason to the "Pre-Cambrian Explosion" of life. Theists can, and that explanation is God. Occam's razor actually supports the theist's claim!
---------------------
---------------------
"Every man, without exception, is full of it." -- Athanasius
It's an oxymoron. With emphasis on the moron. The first rule of scientific creationism is: you do not question your own theory. The second rule of scientific creationism is that you DO NOT QUESTION YOUR OWN THEORY.
A theory that is not to be questioned is not a theory. The pursuit of such a theory cannot be scientific, since the process of science involves testing your assumptions against reality. Therefore it is entirely bogus, and the term is an oxymoron, a self-contradicting word or phrase.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
I believe that was this field trip several creationists made to the Grand Canyon to dig a newly formed chunk of lava out of a pit that was contaminated with ancient rock samples. Any competent geologist would have rejected the sample due to its obvious contamination, and indeed that's what most of them did. However, your creationist friends weren't competent geologists, or weren't interested in reality, but rather rigging the result to prove their thesis. And that, I believe, is the only instance I've ever heard of a creationist actually going outside the chapel and putting their hands on dirt to test their hypothesis. And it's quite obvious from his methodology alone that he intended to get the results he did. IANAG (I Am Not A Geologist) but in this case I don't need to be one. When someone goes out with a theoretical axe to grind, and zeroes in on data that they already know is there, and in fact borrowsed from someone else, you don't have to be an expert in the field to suspect fraud.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
Scientists: No amount of physical evidence, mathematical formulae, or deductive reasoning will ever be able to PROVE that we were or were not created by God, Allah, YWEH, etc. There were no eye witnesses, and just because you have a theory that fits current evidence does not mean that theory is correct. I'm hearing more and more legitimate scientists discuss the idea of panspermia, which was scoffed at as little as 10 years ago. Do not worship your data. Do not worship your theories.
Christians: If you truly beleive in God, then the most importaint thing for you to worry about is "Love one another". No amount of arguing about the geneology of the species will bring new followers to the church, nor will it improve the condition of your fellow man. Worship your God, not your dogma.
"Sudy the moon, not the finger pointing at it"
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.
hi manic miner (george here)
okay let's take this PIECE by PIECE
FIRST of all lets take your suggestion that a god poofed everything into place and made it LOOK like life evolved. does it PLEASE you to worship a TRICKSTER!! if there is some all powerful god it is a bit silly to suggest that it is some lying prankster if you ask my opinion. this is JUST LIKE some of these people who say the whole universe is 6000 years old and say that we can see really distant starlight because GOD created the light IN TRANSIT!! how tricky!! god!! of course this means we are seeing the deaths of stars that NEVER EVEN EXISTED in the first place, what kind of cosmic lie is that!! i cant and do not understand why people would WANT to worship a being that would do that
see here is the thing, biological evolution does not say that there are gods and jesuses and other such things behind it. HOWEVER it also does not say that gods, jesuses, etc. are NOT behind it!! it is completely neutral on the subject!! EVOLUTION is just the PROCESS!! whatever greater significance it has is BEYOND the realm of SCIENCE!! this is why it BAFFLES me that people could ever be AGAINST evolution when there is so much evidence for it, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof!! do fundies think their god is too stupid or powerless to have created life with evolution!! if YOU were a deity wouldn't you do something similar. you would probably have better things to do than go back to the drawing board for millions of different life forms, wouldn't you as a engineer WANT to use evolution!! well wouldn't you!!
finally you can't prove evolution any more than you can "prove" gravity, natural sciences are NOT in the business of PROOF, if you want PROOF go to mathematics. what theories do is make PREDICTIONS, and evolution works GREAT for that!! finally your whole thing about "i can't believe that this happened therefore it can't be true" is a CLASSIC logical fallacy called "ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY." it has NO bearing on reality. a thousand years ago NOBODY would have believed that we are on a tiny ball of rock in one of BILLIONS of galaxies in the universe but we know it to be the truth today. the INCREDULITY of the people did NOT make it false!!
i hope i have given you some things to think about
your bud
-gbd
Seriously, one more piece of unquestionable evidence is going to do nothing to dissuade the revisionist religious right that the first few pages of the bible are untarnished fact. These people have been fighting in the face of darwin, hundreds of archeological discoveries, hundred of biological studies, daily evidence of natural selection, and sight of their own inbred hillbilly children for so long that genetic proof of the evolution of man has no chance in making a dent in these luddites' brains.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
First of all....if there is a god, it would be sexless, so in all theory, you know nothing of what would constitute a supreme being...
...4 billions to them is a "blink" in a way...
and as far as "scientific" perhaps, you would have to think outside the box to put "science" and "god" in the same sentence.
why would a supreme being be the pinnacle of creation? Of Life?...is it not a common theme in stories that the created eventually become as powerful or evolve to the same level as their creator?
Furthermore, a supreme being would have no reason to create different living things at once...no, instead they would create the environment that would be conducive to the creation of living things...
because lets face it, 4 billions years is a long time from our perspective because our lifespans are short...but a supreme being has not concept of time as they would "probably" never actually age in the physical sense and being immortal, would not be concerned with the passage of time.
which brings us, are humans going to eventually "play god"? in a way we already do, but we will, and rightfully so, be able to create life from nothing...because being able to do so is in a way the created having the same powers as the creator...the pinnacle of evolution..
Don't get your hopes up that the "scientific" creationists will have the sense to close up shop - theirs is not a desire to find the truth, but to believe that they have it already. These data will not be some kind of silver bullet to cure willful ignorance.
Ignoring the creationsists for a minute, data from the genome map will require rethinking of some of our earlier conclusions, not least of all those about the basic functioning of genes - with only 30,000, synergy and emergent properties are will become radically more important, and related branches of mathematics will probably see new interest.
Where's Buckminster Fuller when you need him?
OK,
- B
--
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
As if. In less than seven days their will be hundreds of press releases refuting that so-called fact.
This man offers no concrete basis for this assumption. And that is all it is-- an assumption based on a preconceived opinion. This is common over all scientific fields-- "I think this is true and so I will prove it." But what quite a lot of arrogant scientists don't do is evaluate the data fairly in a unenfranchised point of view.
And before anyone can jump on my back-- I'll admit to the same faults about believing Creationism. I say "I believe there is God who created this incredible universe and will prove it." But I can't prove it to you, and they certainly haven't proved anything to me.
So we share a lot common genomes with every living creature on the planet. Of course we are similar, we live on the same planet, and have to live in harmony. That's the way we were created.
I'm eager to see what the Institute for Creation Research will say about the genome project....
"You may all go to hell and I will go to Texas"
Sen. Davy Crocket to US Congress, Nov. 1, 1835
Go Federal Defiance! Somebody needs to cut the Federal gov't down a few sizes and give back to the states.
"You may all go to hell and I will go to Texas"
Sen. Davy Crocket to US Congress, Nov. 1, 1835
whole scoop here
WAS DARWIN REALLY "VINDICATED"? Frank Sherwin, MA Zoology (Parisitology) Ever since Darwin, secular scientists have been at a loss to find compelling empirical evidence for macroevolution. The latest cause for celebration (premature as it turns out) has been the results of the Human Genome Project. By some twisted logic, evolutionist Arthur Caplan and others, sees this research as a major point in favor of evolutionism, saying that Darwin has been vindicated and that "we are descended from bacteria."
But no, as usual, upon closer inspection, the facts of science have thrown a wet towel on evolutionary naturalism.
The human genome is made up of the chemical compound, DNA. The building blocks of DNA are units called nucleotides, composed of a sugar, phosphate and a nitrogenous base. All the origin of life scenarios fail to explain how such nucleotides can form naturalistically in the manner that would then cause them to form a string of nucleotides.
Then there's the issue of the origin of DNA molecule itself. Sir John Maddox, former editor of the prestigious Nature magazine, in 1994 lamented, "So it is disappointing that the origin of the genetic code [DNA] is still as obscure as the origin of life itself."
One scientific reason why we didn't evolve from lower life forms over the alleged "millions of years" is the genetic repair system found in the nucleus all living cells (and in prokaryotes that don't have a nucleus). This complex system continuously monitors the DNA molecule for mispaired bases and damage and is a major roadblock in allowing genetic mistakes (mutations) to establish themselves in DNA. Unfortunately for the materialist, it is these random mistakes upon which the cryptic macroevolutionary process depends. If neo-Darwinian theory were true, then natural selection would clearly select against these efficient repair mechanisms.
Our alleged bacterial ancestry is without scientific support. If such a bizarre progression occurred, it left no fossil evidence, "Both the origin of life and the origin of the major groups of animals remain unknown" said evolutionist A.G. Fisher in 1998. Editor of the American Scientist book, 'Exploring Evolutionary Biology', stated, "The fossil record has always been a problem." A problem for macroevolutionists perhaps, but certainly not for the creation science model which predicts the abrupt appearance of life in the sedimentary rock units. Humans are a good example. According to evolutionists Villee, Solomon & Davis, "We appear suddenly in the fossil record, or so it seems to many paleontologists." In 2000 two evolutionists, Collard and Wood admitted, "existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution are unlikely to be reliable. Accordingly, new approaches are required to address the problem of hominin [evolution]." The same can be said for animals, "Despite a century of work on metazoan phylum-level phylogeny using anatomical and embryological data, it has not been possible to infer a well-supported [evolution of the animal kingdom]" Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics, 1994.
Speaking of Darwin, we are all familiar with his infamous 1859 book The Origin of the Species. Ironically, one thing he never addressed was the origin of the species! Indeed, over a century later evolutionists are still mulling over the species issue, "The formation of species has long represented one of the most central, yet also one of the most elusive, subjects in evolutionary biology" S.R. Palumbi, Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics, 1994. Natural selection, usually attributed to Darwin and Wallace, cannot explain why we have bears and beetles, bacteria and buffalo, "Natural selection can act only on those biologic properties that already exist [creation]; it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptational needs [evolution]" Parasitology, 6th ed. Noble & Noble, Lea & Febiger publishers. British science writer Richard Milton said the primary problem of neo-Darwinism is the improbability of spontaneous genetic mutations leading to beneficial novelties in form. In 1992 anti-creationists Orr & Coyne stated in American Naturalist, "We conclude - unexpectedly - that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak." More recently, evolutionist D.L. Stern asked in the pages of Evolution 54(4), "One of the oldest problems in evolutionary biology remains largely unsolved. Which mutations generate evolutionarily relevant phenotypic variations? What kinds of molecular changes do they entail?" What do secular biologists really know about vertical evolution (macroevolution) that is true?
Throughout his article, Caplan assures the reader that evolutionism has been validated via genome mapping with phrases like, ".. . Darwin was right - mankind evolved . . . . we are descended from bacteria . . . our genetic instructions have evolved . . . " etc. But there's a distressing lack of hard, empirical evidence. Only through constant repetition does Caplan tell us what could be said in a single sentence, 'Our genes document our bacterial ancestry - Darwin was right.' Meanwhile, as we have seen, science says something quite different.
What did the Human Genome Project actually show? It would be best to go to the source, to someone who actually did the work such as Gene Myers of Celera Genomics in Maryland. Myers put together Celera's genome map and said, "What really astounds me is the architecture of life . . . the system is extremely complex. It's like it was designed . . . there's a huge intelligence there" - from an article by Tom Abate, San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 19, 2001.
Creation scientists concur, if one were to go where the evidence leads in this massive mapping project, he would indeed come away saying there's a huge Intelligence involved.
This is the point of creation scientists everywhere. Design means a designer; creation means a Creator. The Apostle Paul stated in Romans 1:20 that God's creation is "clearly seen." One would be hard pressed to explain the exquisite design features of DNA, and the multitude of plants, animals and people that it codes for, to mere chance, time and natural selection. There's but one alternative to such naturalism, and that's supernaturalism, which is anathema to the Darwinist . . . .
thanks to Frank Sherwin
"You may all go to hell and I will go to Texas"
Sen. Davy Crocket to US Congress, Nov. 1, 1835
The supposed similarity of human genome to genomes of other animals still fails to explain how the genes emerged from nothing, without creative intervention of an intelligent mind. And much less the genome prove that human genes are in fact derived from other animals.
;0)
Resemblance does not equal dependence. Linux did not evolve from Unix, to say an analogy, nor any portion of Unix kernel source code is in Tux's kernel code. Yet, the two are strikingly similar, at least when we see it at work, since it is somewhat difficult to get Unix's source code... (Perhaps Caldera may help?)
The only thing that these debates can prove is that human beings are willing to believe in anything with a full religious fervor. Read Julian Huxley, Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell, and Stephen Jay Gould, and you'll get the new priesthood of the new faith.
New faith? Yes, because for believing in a thing such as "natural" evolution you need lots of blind, uncommitted, fundamentalist-type faith.
Beware of Darwin-bashing fundamentalists!!!
-- Look to the Rose that blows about us--"Lo, Laughing," she says, "into the World I blow..."
btw, evolution is not falsifiable, either. Show me an experiment into which you can provide falsification for the process of evolution.
Evolution is just another religious belief.
-- Look to the Rose that blows about us--"Lo, Laughing," she says, "into the World I blow..."
Please read "Tornado in a Junkyard", "Darwin's Black Box, and "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", or even just one of these books, before you make up your mind. I don't have time here to write a long post that will ultimately get rated "1", but rest assured that the original article is complete and utter bullshit. You can stay in the dark of open your eyes.
I watch Brit Hume on Fox News
... how long it will be before they say the Genome project was made up like they say the moon landings were staged...
If not everything is based on faith, then why should I have faith in your word. To make a broad reaching statement like that, one really should offer proof.
I'm a loser baby, so why don't you kill me.
1. Is there an objective right and wrong? 2. If there is an objective right and wrong how does evolution provide for it? The answer to question one is yes. Only God who is outside human imperfection can provide objective right and wrong. The answer to question two is that evolution cannot provide an objective standard of right and wrong. Because if we are basicaly just an bunch of evolved creatures then who is to say what is right and wrong? One of the many problems with evolution is that it never deals with the human soul and issues of right and wrong.
Could someone tell me where morals come from in evolutionism?
The problem with this is that you end up making God look like a con man. They tried this argument back in the Middle Ages, and for a time, artists who painted Adam and Eve painted them without navels. The argument went that since Adam & Eve were created not born, they would have had no navel. The same case you just made was brought up, but was rejected on theological grounds, since having God put in a "fake" navel makes him either a liar or cheat, and it was better to assume that they simple had none.
Where does it say this?
Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
BTW I do agree that Huck Finn should be read in its original form. I just don't agree that it was ever as innocent or a term as you want us to think.
Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
Actually, NAACP stands for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Also, the act that sparked the defiance was the mandating of integration. Thinking like this is why the NAACP was formed and is still around.
Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
But maybe it could be because they can't spin it...
nahhhh...
Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
Philosophy and reason, I believe, are the true tools neccessary to "unearth" the deeper issues of the creation/evolution debate.
I am a student, and thus am always open to the truth. Currently, truth seems to dictate that things that exist have either:
A. Been created by something else>
B. Always existed.
For either argument to hold water, there must be something that is eternal. I am unaware of science's position on this, and would be interested to know what they hold to be eternal (matter & energy?). Obviously, creationists believe in the eternal existance of God.
I have struggled in the past over the question "Well then who created God?"
Let me preface what follows; I am not an expert on temporal matters by any means, unless firsthand experience counts (ie, I exist temporally). Having said that, it makes sense to me that God did not require a creator. Living in a temporal realm, everything that I see has a beginning and an end. Entropy takes its nasty toll on everything. The very way things are able to be dated is by their radioactive decay. So what does this have to do with God needing no other cause? What I am trying to get at is that outside of time, which seemingly everything in the universe is bound by, there is no beginning or end. Personally, it is more than my mind can wrestle with sometimes (a fact which is likely evident in this post). I guess the only reason a question like "Who created God?" is asked is because the asker is bound by time. We need to step out of the bubble of time and see existence in a larger sense, namely, eternity.
I have never head such a lot of unscientific nonsense in my life.
You cannot prove that something like this is not true. This is about the most basic logical axiom that there is.
Furthermore, 'evidence' of evolution from supposed changes in genes is nothing more than evidence.
We have:
1. one set of genes - we are required to accept very many things here; the validity of the analysis of those genes, the validity of the research, the validity of the samples, etc.
2. another set of genes - again, the same ASSUMPTIONS, which CAN NEVER BE PROVED for certain persist
3. a deduction from this that there is evolution.
To take 3, there is absolutely nothing that compels us to draw the deduction suggested. All it is a hypothesis, and one that assumes a large number of things - certainly not sufficient evidence to make people change their beliefs.
To consider the wider issue, there are just as many problems (and more) with evolutionism as there are with creationism. For example, the evolutionists assert the earth is billions of years old, and yet they have not a shred of evidence for this. Their dating techniques, for example - the primary argument used by evolutionists for evolution is the fossil record.
Dating techniques are used to show that these fossils are supposedly millions of years old - and yet these same dating techniques have been shown to be unreliable to useless - thereby making their argument untenable. An example of this was where a rock, known only to be a few hundred years old, was dated at several million years.
In fact, there is no reliable evidence provided by the evolutionists to rebutt the very strong evidence (among others, the clear evidence of design in the world) that the earth was created a few thousand years ago.
I suggest that to get a balanced view on this, you read one of the many good creationist websites. For answers to each of the incorrect beliefs of evolutionists (don't forget, of course, that Dawin himself decided evolution was wrong shortly before his death), try here:
the myth of natural selection
the error of the fossil record
and some of the other creationist sites.
When you've done that, and only then, come back to me, and if you can provide *any* proof of evolution I will eat my hat.
--
Hi!
Speaking of ignorance, that fallacy was ignorance in itself. For centuries sea farers have known that the earth was at least curved-- how else do you explain seeing a ship's mast and sail first, THEN the rest of the ship as it gets closer?
And the sun used to be a (roughly) meter across, as it was scientifically proven by a well known Greek. Was that ignorance on the part of that Greek scientist, or the Catholic Church whom insisted the universe rotated around the earth, or maybe... both?
I've thought about it, quite a bit. And forgive the flamethrower... but what you're doing is preaching religion with such a blind statement.
(Disclaimer: I'm not Christian, and I'm not atheistic. I just don't like hypocrasy, that's all...) (or the lack of a spell checker... grr)
Let's not forget about chemosynthese and undersea black smokers.
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
A comparison to physics for example might be if someone discovered something about a star exploding far away, and someone covered the story as "Physicists finally have proof of the Laws of thermodynamics!" well, the physicists might argue that in fact they had never questioned thermodynamics, and that proving the laws in no way was the goal of the research.
The difference is that physicists don't have people that are interested yet opposed to their viewpoints from a non-scientific view, while biologists do. Creationsts really don't understand much of anything on a genetic level, they can pretend that their theories make sense; but they do so little to explain anything to any detail. For example the arrangement and usage of the hemaglobin genes screams evolution, but creationists don't talk about it. One could say they are trying to cover up things that don't quite jive with their story, my theory though is that they generally don't know much about gene arrangement etc.
There's no room for science in "Creation Science"
I agree. But not only could it be God's creative signature but also an "easter egg" left in our programming to baffle scientists for millenia.
'Same speed C but faster'
The creationists aren't going to buy evolution just because humans have fewer genes than scientists theorize. While the information does strengthen the arguments and proposed mechanisms behind evolution, it doesn't put a dent in creationism. But then again, I don't think any of the concrete evidence ever did. Scientific creationism generates a religious problem anyways. How can you have real faith if there is physical proof of God's existance?
It does help knock down the self-centered image our species has, that we're somehow special or the acme of evolution. We're an animal like any other. That we can learn and create is important, but we need to use it wisely.
-- "Sucks to your ass-mar"
Scientific creationism is a dogma (counter to the prevailing evolution/big-bang driven dogma) that there is verifiable evidence of the Bible's version of "how it all began".
To an evolutionist like myself, it sounds like flaccid attempt to make creationism "all scientific". They reinterpret data to their liking and ignore much geological, biological, and physical evidence. Now indeed, there may be some conspiracy afoot to hide the "real" evidence, but I don't think highly of elaborate conspiracies either.
Some of your more conservative Christian learning institutions have faculty devoted to this. And there's ample material to read about:
Religiously, it's misguided. Proving that God exists would topple faith. But that's never stopped anybody before. It reminds me of a quote that most disciplines with the word "science" in them, aren't.
-- "Sucks to your ass-mar"
There's a line of reasoning here. Let's start with a young Earth, since I'm not really qualified about the Big Bang.
You've got warm puddles where various compounds are mixing together. Puddles beget some simple chemical reactions.
Simple reactions beget some more complex reactions (perhaps helped along by a clay matrix or some catalyst).
Complex reactions beget some self-sustaining reactions (a difficult jump that is still being explained.
Self-sustaining reactions beget simple blobs capable of segregating chemicals (always useful in reactions).
Simple blobs improve their chemical processes and beget simple proto-cells.
Proto-cells beget protocells with more complex reaction pathways.
Complex protocells beget simple bacteria. And so on.
Naturally, nobody was around there to see this. So it's all theory. We can show some of these things happening (basic organic compounds from carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur and phosphorus, or the formation of basic blobs), but we can't really give it the billion years or so to have the whole thing happen. Thus areas of active research.
-- "Sucks to your ass-mar"
where do they get off saying that it HAS to prove evolution.... All the article says is that the genetic code was reused from creature to creature. The newest computer and the oldest both have silicon on them and both are CREATED... (okay, that one's kinda flimsy but still) A scientist says that it is proved and doesn't proceed to give the proof (in the mathematical/experimental sense that is) is not a SCIENTIST (as in using the scientific method) at all. The fact that both silverware and cars are made of steel and use the refining process does not give them any relation. So I'm a "fanatic"....the arguments for the other side are just as "fanatical".
--------------------------------- Born Again Bourne Again Believer: New Life, GNU/Linux Be Free!
The important thing to remember and what a lot of creationists/people of faith don't realize is: IT'S FAITH ALL THE WAY DOWN! There will be no time when you don't have to have faith. Even if you go to heaven and God decides to let you in on all of his secrets and explains things to you through some sort of mind meld, YOU STILL HAVE TO HAVE FAITH that he/she is telling the truth! Furthermore, why is that everyone believes we will even die someday or that we were ever born... i mean does anyone actually remember there own birth... all the evidence of that birth _*could*_ (i'm not saying that it was or even that we should believe that and still be mentally healthy) have been planted. The point is, it's faith all the way down. Just like the turtles.
I am amazed at the ignorance, and more importantly the arrogance, of people on both sides of this.
When it comes down to it, people are scared, beyond measure, about what happens to them when they die. Sure, anyone in our church (yes, I attend on an occassional basis -- schedule defined by me) will tell you "I'm not scared... I know where I'm going" but nearly every one of those people are scared, too. The few that are truly happy and comfortable don't feel the need to vehemently prove their *faith* to other people.
I consider myself to be a fairly scientific person. I try to evaluate things with an open mind. I accept that evolution probably does occur and we have some pretty convincing slumped-over caveman skeletons that show some amazing evolution in a short time. I also don't remember dinosaurs getting mentioned in any good book (no brontasaurus or wooly mammoth on any ark that size, either). However, I would probably have heard some pretty convincing aruements that the worls was flat and that maggots spontaniously appear in rotten food, too, had I lived earlier and listened to the amazing scientists then.
Nobody can absolutely prove the existence of a god nor can they provide absolute proof that one does not exist. There's nothing wrong with that, but to assume that you absolutely know God's will or the secret of life, based on either a gene or a book, is ridiculous.
My recommendation to both sides is to keep an open mind and realize that if you could prove faith it would cease to be faith.
And he keeps reusing modules, which is why the human gene seems to have a lot in common with other animals.
And that might be why I don't understand C++, for the ways and programming of God is inscrutable to man.
Go away, troll. HTML is by definition open-source. And anyone has permission to quote anything of mine with credit--in this context, it would be considered "fair use."
All that this proves is that Carolus Linnaeus was right when he classified humans as primates along with monkeys and gorillas. This apparently completely uninformed commentary ignores the "Bible-thumper" response that of course the gene sequences would be similar--the body of a human is quite similar to that of a chimp. The assembly instructions for a Suburban would look a lot like those of a Durango. (Note that I am arguing neither for nor against Darwinistic evolution, simply saying that this article is mostly irrelevant.)
I fail to understand the notion that having genes in common with flies somehow implies that living creatures evolved by chance on their own.
The current version of Linux has many things in common with the first version. Does that mean that Linux evolved on its own? I don't think so.
And yes I do favor evolution theory but this sort of nonsense only gives added fuel to those who maintain cross-species evolution is hogwash.
I would definitely leave it to a MS owned news source to come up with one of the lamest stories I've ever read. All the author of the story does is rant his own personal views without going into any of the concrete evidence. He even gets the fact that Darwin didn't come up with, and according to some didn't endorse, the idea of evolution. Darwin's Origin of Species deals mainly with the idea of Natural Selection. From his work, other scientists came up with the idea of evolution. Obviously, since the author of the article can't even get this fact straight, it leads me to believe that he wants to believe whatever he wants, without checking the facts first.
I personally think it's clear that DNA isn't going to prove or disprove the creationist points. God made animals from the Earth just like He made man from the Earth. Boy, that DNA "proof" the author talked about was real hard to overcome. Thanks MS, for another wonderfully intelligent addition to our lives. -- So, I don't believe what you believe, and you don't believe what I believe. Oh well, lets go get a beer.
Everyting you prove with these axioms are true within the logical structure defined by the axsioms.
Some of these logical struktures have proven very handy when describing natural phenomenom.
-----
-----
so i says to mable, i says
Christians can consider this article fairly and still believe in God.
A lot of Christians (Christians being primarily religious conservatives, and "bible believing" people) I know are fairly certain that an OEC, or Old Earth Creation happened/is happening. Some of the points of this position are that the begining of the universe likely occured with some "big bang", and evolution proceeded out of that. This is backed up scientifically and does not put a strain on who God is, as God is defined by the Bible and philosophy. The only part of the begining of the universe and people as recorded in Genesis that must be interpreted literally in order to maintain harmony with the rest of the Bible is an actual, individual creation of Adam and Eve. (This has to occur because original sin was/is a personal occurance involving an individuals choice, etc)
I think many Christians get hung up and don't want to explore the possibilities of evolution/big bang because they think that if they do hold evolution to be true, or likely to be true, that they have to drop the whole idea of God; there goes their foundation for existence and meaning. This doesn't have to be the case though.
Quick argument showing the above isn't necessarily true:
Everyone has to at entertain and establish some premise or set of premises from the following exhuastive dilemas:
1. Either the universe has a begining or it does not.
If the universe had a begining then:
2. Either the begining was caused or uncaused
If the the universe was caused then:
3. The cause was either personal or impersonal.
This line of reasoning (Kalam cosmological argument) does not necessarily exclude God or evolution from the whole thing. Just a word to those Christians who want to know.
While it is true that science uses a method of examining empirical data and evidence, for science to be practiced it's practioners must hold certain philosophical premises to be true. These premises cannot be repeated in experiments. they can be shown to be true if one accepts logic and a priori knowledge to be valid forms of truth. Such premises include the idea that everything is itself. Or the number 7 is 7. etc.
and religion relies on articles of faith as its' basis.
Yes, because God cannot be empirically proved or philosophically reasoned into existence, you have to exert faith. But, at least for Christianity, this faith is not, or should not be, a Kierkegaardean "leap of faith," but it is a faith that is well reasoned, shown beyond reasonable doubt to be true.
It's not that they're incompatible, it's that they're asking totally different questions. Science asks: How ??? Religion asks: Why ???
True. True.
They will pull out their unarguable trump: It appears that way because God created it that way. God also created the fossils and everything else that makes it appear that evolution happened.
:-)
Me, I'm wondering if maybe David Brin was writing SF, or maybe he's on to the real story, Uplift!
Little girls, like butterflies, need no excuse. -- L. Long
All you need is *one* little self-replicating molecule to start the whole thing rolling...
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Genetic testing can be used to determine that one person is related to another. If you are my brother, we share a very high percentage of the same genetic material. If you are a distant cousin, you can say with a reasonable certainty how many generations back we have a common ancestor. Now compare a person with a monkey and apply the same test. You discover that several hundred thousand generations back, they have a parent in common. Simple, eh?
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Sure, of course you're right. And you're preaching to the choir. My point was that many people are presenting the tenets of Creationism as a scientific theory. They're not saying "hey, the bible says it's so, therefore it's science." They're writing books and proposing theories attempting to show that the world might be only a few thousand years old, and we might have sprung into being at the whim of forces we don't understand. It's not a very likely theory, but couched correctly, it can be viewed as science. Unfortunately, disproving a scientific theory is not as easy as all that no matter how ridiculous the claims may be. When that's done, the courts end up having to make a judgement not based on church vs. state, but on whether one scientific theory is "good" enough to be considered, and that's tough. There have been plenty of scientific theories throughout history that were banned, or shunned because they weren't considered good enough, or pointed to forces that we didn't understand-- some of them are widely accepted today. And it's for just this reason that the courts are not eager to throw a Scientific Creationism argument out of court.
Unfortunately, in this case it's the unwashed judges who are supposed to be confused. The 'scientific' bit came about mainly because creationists found that they couldn't force the government to teach Creationism in its raw biblical form (that pesky church and state thing.) So the argument was codified into a 'scientific' argument. The science is dubious, and ignores mountains of evidence to the contrary; but unlike, say Euclidian Geometry, there's no way to prove that evolution theory is correct. The creation-science chimera stands a much better chance of going under the church/state radar, and at least claiming equal time in American schools.
"If the world is 12000 years old, and the Bible covers it, why didn't someone bring up fuckin' dinosaurs?"
...
"I asked this guy, I said 'dinosaur fossils, what's the deal?'. He goes: 'God put those here to test our faith'"
...
"Does that bother anyone that God might be fucking with us?"
--
So... When you really think about it, No we were not Created.
Quite honestly, These are the types of people that refuse to listen to anyone who does not believe what they believe, what's the word for that? Ignorance?
Anyway. I'm done with my rant, now.
---
The (Hopefully) Great Slashdot Blackout
That would be pretty lazy on his part. Descartes was right -- God is an evil trickster deliberately trying to decieve us about the nature of reality.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
> As for myself, i believe that the universe was
> created by 10,000ft tall invisible lizard people
THEY ARE ONLY 9980 feet tall! Death to you!
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
This a great example of how anti-Christianity is the anti-semitism of the self-proclaimed intellectual elite. A bigot is a bigot is a bigot.
There is actually a famous court case, although I can't remeber the name of it, that was about a similar thing. Schools were only teaching creationism and a teacher taught evolution and creationism. Well, the school didn't like this and so they went to court. And he logically showed that the two don't necessarily contradict each other, but both could coexist.
The press really should do their research before printing stuff like this.
Anybody living on the south half disk?
Just because I can imagine doing a hippopotamus, doesn't mean I'd like to do it.
Do not believe Satan's words. Follow in the path of light that the Lord our God has provided for us. This article is the work of Satan. Just like that Lunis Trovalds guy.
...do you believe in sarcasm?
My boss said he wanted to see more of me. So I gained 12 pounds. This post may or may not be sarcastic.
There is simply no way to prove evolution. Period. In order to have proof we need to have historical documentation or evidence of species changing over millenia. Since evolution is on a grander time scale than the existence of mankind, there is no way for us to know exactly what happened. However, there is no way to prove creationism. The Creationists say that the Bible is proof, yet the Bible was written by man millenia after any of it happened. No proof for either side.
All that we have is an unsurmountable amount of evidence on the side of evolution, and no evidence (just dogma) on the side of creationism. Why can't creationists simply adopt evolution into their belief system? Evolution does not say that God does not exist. Darwin was an avid Christian. For all we know, God may have planned evolution as a way off creating man. We weren't made until the 5th or 6th day, ya know.(according to the dogma that is the Bible).
It's very easy to work evolution into christianity, it is not easy to work creationism into science- and that should tell us something right off the bat.
The problem with zealots is that they will never, ever, no matter what the scientific evidence, back down. They will always say that it's part of Gawd's plan. Praise Jeebus.
The hooligans are loose! The hooligans are loose! What if they become ruffians? -- Bill Hicks
And tomorrow they're going to tell us the earth is round - shea right.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
Ryan T. Sammartino
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
My understanding of Scientific Creationism is that it's the same thing as intelligent design theory... the idea that the probability of random organization of life is vanishingly small, so at some point in the process there must have been some external force. Not all ID people are religious... there are people who think that aliens could fit the bill. I don't personally agree with their interpretation, but it is scientific... there are several biologists, biochemists, and statisticians working on chasing down some of these theories.
You only have to be right once to make paranoia worth it
When will people realize that science and religion work together to the same ends? There's little difference between them (I'll get flamed for that statement I'm sure). Anyway, no matter how much science "proves", it can never under-mine creationism. So we evolved, but where did the first protiens come from that started the process?
Religion's answer: God
Science's answer: From the Big Bang.
Science says the Big Bang (or some other theory of the creation of the universe) is where the particles came from. Ok, in the case of the Big Bang, where did the one big mass that exploded come from?
Religion's answer: God
Science's answer: Um, we don't know
No matter what, all beliefs, whether it be science or religion, breaks down to some point where there's a leap of faith. Science can't explain the existence of some things that they "know" as law. Why do light and sound travel at the speeds they do and not some other speed? How many times as "science" said one thing, only to be found wrong a century later? When looked at this way, it almost seems like religion's answer is more credible because at least it is consistent. There's no guarantee that anything science has said up to this point will remain true later.
I am not a religious person mind you, but I can't say science is more factual than any religion.
Khyron
A kid is in a courtroom and the prosecutor says."farmer Hiram and 3 of his friends saw you steal that goat" kid in trial says. "so I have 3 friends that didn't see me steal it" How many creationist out there will view the study the opposite way? Scientist have an INCREDIBLE ability to take whatever information out there and to shape it to fit their belief.
Razzious Domini
Razzious Domini
I could be a GREAT KARMA WHORE if I could just shed the few morals I have left.
Bottom line a true creationist doesn't need any genetic proof of their belief. The belive that God created it and that is sufficient for them. To the ones that seek proof, they view such similarities as "a mark of ownership". They would say well since God created the animals, and everything else, the same building blocks were used here, so sure there are simularities. Most creationist feel evolutionist use evolution as a way to dispell the idea of a diety(with the acknowledgement of a diety you then have to make a decision as to what you will do with it.) SIDE NOTE: After reading the kansas article, nothing there inplied that the State education board used the Genome study in their decision.
Razzious Domini
Razzious Domini
I could be a GREAT KARMA WHORE if I could just shed the few morals I have left.
i don't know where we came from or why. but if we were created by gods, then who are we to say how the gods did it? maybe they didn't just snap their fingers and humans appeared. perhaps evolution is just their process. evolution is obviously in effect in many species. i believe that it is an ongoing process...one that we as humans have not yet seen the end. never cheer before you know who's winning...don't make a sound.
I think it is called "selective hearing"? They accept anything as long as it does not come in conflict with a god that they believe in.
There seems to be a lot of things pointing towards evolution being correct and once again, religion proves wrong.
Why? Simply because science is about investigating, exploring, experimenting with a sceptical mind. Science is about finding the answers no matter what the answers may be!
Religion, on the other hand,. does not work that way. Religion is, as I see it, originally nothing but a substitute for the answers we once did not have. So, we made some nice answers up.
Will work for bandwidth
It wont, however, make much change when it comes to religions. When science finds an answer, the religious ones sometimes deny it, for some reason. They did the same with Galileo Galilei, when he had the nerve of telling the world that Earth orbits around the Sun. Over 300 years later, the pope admitted that what the church did back then was wrong. You don't say...!
If something comes in conflict with a religion, its scripts, gods and so on, it will be considered humbug by those who are religious. Because, you know... they think that an unproven god is more likely to exist than scientific theories that are proven or have strong evidence behind.
I can promise you all, that if scientists can prove the existance of an omnipotent god (impossible, but IF), I am the first one to read up on what they discovered. Have they proof, then that god indeed exist.
I don't care what scientists will discover, what answers they may find. All I ask for, is that those who present new results, have evidence and proof behind to back it all up. I don't believe in god simply because we have yet no evidence for the existance of a god. I do however believe that earth is round, and that the big bang theory and that evolution is close to the truth, simply because they are backed up by proof.
(Probably some spelling errors... english isn't my first language)
Will work for bandwidth
And I say 'mu'. The bible, for those who believe in it,
supercedes science. It is inherently illogical (or as
some uber religious types have informed me, it is 'above'
science).
I discovered, in arguing with a rather fundamentalist, that
we have separate underlying 'givens'. His first givens
(from which all of their other hypotheses are derived)
are God exists, the bible is literal, and jesus is a
manifestation of Gods presence on earth. Since I could
not get him to relinquish these givens, I could not get
him to concede a Godless universe.
(on a side note, he said that any proof of God would
invalidate Faith, which is a cornerstone (conveniently
IMO) of most creationist religions)
"Blake is an idealist, Jenna. He cannot afford to think." - Kerr Avon, Star One, Blakes 7
Can we please keep the fiction out of the science section. The frog-prince story(uh, sorry. I mean ape-prince story) does nothing for science. The probabilities do not add up...of over 20 THEORIES of evolution this dude foudn stuff to agree with the one with Darwin's name on it? Oh yeah....I am sooo sure. Talk about rigged.
Anytime that science comes out without the peer review and editing process of a scientific journal it makes me question it. I don't know if anyone remembers the national geographic filled with the story about dinosaurs with feathers. A "find" in china was dubbed the missing link between T-rex and today's birds. Since the guys who "found" the fossil and wrote the story couldn't get published right off in a scientific journal, they published it in National Geographic - here is ABC's shorter version of the storye ws/dinobird980623.html
/ all_mixed_up_over_birds_and_dino.htm
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyN
of course, some time later, it was realized that they rushed to their conclusions and their missing link was likely a hoax.
(this story:)
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Evolution/Dinos
Anyway, I don't think that the human genome story is a hoax, but I'm not willing to buy into anything that comes out quickly claiming to be conclusive proof of anything.
"His name was Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged. He was a man with a purpose."
While I do belive in Evolution. That article didn't prove to me that Creation was false. All it said was Creation is false, Evolution is true, end of story. Thats not proof.
R Justyn Black San Jose, CA
Christians seems to forget that of all the religions on this planet, they're a small minority. I believe it can reasonably be gathered that the bible is mostly a book of fables by which lessons are taught, and the stories should not be taken so literally. After all, the bible has been changed, translated, and manipulated by how many kings and religious leaders by now? As we know the bible today, it has been a work-in-progress for hundreds of years. I too think it's a little early for a scientist to come to such a profound conclusion. Let's wait for more of the Big Picture to unravel.
What's so funny about this is your inability to see their point of view. I'm pretty much agnostic, no real faith, but smart enough to know I can't disprove it. Anyways, evolution requires a parent, and bacteria is noted as a parent of the human, at least in the article. So, where did the bacteria come from? Spontaneous generation? Rather complicated thing to just spontaneously appear. So, until your ilk can explain the evolution of the bacteria from the big bang, you don't get your cookie.
By your logic, once that is explained, It won't mean anything because people will say that we don't know what happened before the big bang, and before that, etc.
:)
True, hence it is impossible to prove humans were not created by some god via what we "enlightened" humans call evolution. Like I said, agnostic. I don't disbelieve evolution at all, but for one to say that they can know without doubt that a god didn't create what we evolved from, etc, is just as ignorant as those that have faith that a god created man in the last ~6000 years. My only point. And, you are right, people will that we don't know what happened before the big bang. But who should care but the most hardcore of both arenas? Christianity, etc, aren't going to disappear no matter what someone says, unless of course god came to them and told them he does not exist.
Hell, right now we don't know what actually makes gravity, does that mean our theory of flight is incomplete?
First off, if it wasn't incomplete, it wouldn't be a theory.
But, none the less, without a doubt. Just as we can agree that evolution happens without having to know from what it all began. The theory of evolution is incomplete, just as flight is.
Point is, the quality of all we know is basically regulated by the quality of our maxims.
It's unbelievable that any credible person would still support Darwinism, which has been discarded years ago. One simple fact: Over time, things evolve into greater randomness and chaos; they don't synthesize and become more advanced. (Sure, adaptation is one thing, but that's extremely limited.) Why believe such an unprovable theory, when it's more likely to just believe in an all-powerful creator?
If anything, this guy's conclusion from the genome project's findings may prove that HE alone has some lower life form who mated with his ancestry.
Taking a quick look around my office I think if God is a programmer he should quickly read one of the many /. articles on creating software that doesn't suck.
"Technology.....the knack of so arranging the world that we don't have to experience it." Max Firsch
There is such a thing as a Testable Creation Model (Dr Hugh Ross). In this framework creation is testable, therefore falsifiable, and therefore entirely scientific. Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
What is there to say that evolution is a God's method for creating. Today we write code that uses some form if AI to create new code that after time will re-represent itself to create an end product. Why could a God not write code that would re-write itself to achive a end goal. Just a thought.