Incidentally, I'm a fundamentalist, and I lean toward a literal understanding of Genesis and a 6000-year earth
I'm now convinced that the creation vs. evolution controversy (with intelligent design) is really, well, a bunch of hype that serves to draw people away from religion and science. Let me first make it clear that evolution is fact; no "if"s, "and"s, or "but"s about it. This controversy pulls people away from religion and Christianity because they see christians arguing a naive, scientifically untenable, point, and they come to associate that with Christianity. In essence, creationism becomes a stumbling block. Also, it pulls people, mainly christians, away from science because it forces a stark choice between believing in the Bible and believing what scientists say. Since the stakes involved in not believing in the Bible (i.e. going to Hell for eternity) are much greater than those in not believing scientists (i.e. sounding like a fool in front of others), they tend to draw towards creationism and away from common science. Unfortunately, that also discourages any sort of deep study into who authored Genesis, when, why, etc.. (i.e. the only answer I've heard from fundamentalists is that Moses wrote it, as if he or anyone else was there witness it). The only way out, that I see, is an earnest effort to understand the rationale behind sciences like evolution and astronomy. The motivation is the fact that you can't learn science through creationism.
That statement was meant to be funny. I'm not implying that you owe me anything, and you certainly don't. I don't buy what you said about people being worse off in Africa at face value, though.
Hey, this "Birthday celebration" is obviously not about bringing out the cake and ice cream and singing a song. Its an attempt to deal with the controversy by making a statement supporting evolution.
I find that a so-called choice between religion and science to be moot. If something in particular is known to be true through science, then a religious statement contradicting it is pretty definitely invalid, or wrongly interpreted; choose one of the two. On the other hand, theological things that science really has no legitimate interest in is fair ground for religion. Religious claims of specific, non-repeatable acts, i.e. miracles, are fair too, but there's always to prospect that a deeper inspection may invalidate,or possibly support, a miraculous claim.
Light-speed travel is impossible, but near-light-speed travel is wildly impractical, because of the mass you gain.
The gain of weight mass would not be apparent to the traveler; the stationary observers would see the traveler gain mass, but everythig would seem fine to the traveler.
yet the intellectually "elite" have no problem ridiculing those who don't believe in evolution wholesale How else do you explain the venom that they spew at those who question what they consider sacred?
Those who try to mislead children to reject science deserve it.
Based on what you wrote, you feel like you don't have enough time for any self-training or anything else you'd want to do. I suggest that you not worry so much about the cleaning and dogs and such, and self-train only if you please.
Well, his method of choosing one vendor's product line over another certainly is efficient. Just go with your "gut feeling" and buy whatever your feelings tell you.
Whether you end up with the best tool for the job is another story.
I think that all depends on how good his gut is. I've had chitterlings several times now, and I can say that some guts are better than others.
I don't try to place the six days that God created the heavens and the earth into any sort of historical or scientific context. I know that it's true, and I also know that we came about through evolution. I understand evolution enough that its settled in my mind. I consider the six days to be a great biblical mystery; I don't dare mash it into a historical context. God's word stands on its feet; it doesn't need any help from me.
There are other isotopes used for radiometric dating besides Carbon-14. Look up "radiometric dating" in Wikipedia.
I noticed that you quoted Christian creationist sources in both of your replies. Let me just say that if you ever do decide to look for evidence that supports evolution, you won't find it in those places. You might find the Gospel there, but you won't get the big picture of evolution.
Conclusively prove that dinosaur DNA code can and has changed into bird DNA. From what I know, not all scientists agree that birds descended from dinosaurs, but as you said, that's the best explanation out.
Some experts in phylogenetics will admit that there is little supporting evidence, but claim it's the best explanation that we currently have. Unfortunately, creationists don't listen to those experts; strong religious dogma gets in the way.
Although man and monkey are 95 to 98 percent genetically similar, the difference at the chemical base level is still in the millions. (Note that the DNA of the zebra fish is 92 percent similar to humans. Why don't zebra fish and monkeys hang out together?) I don't quite get it... if the zebrafish DNA was more similar to a human's DNA than a monkey's DNA, then you would have a point, but since you claim its less similar, then I don't see the significance of it.
Firstly, how do we conclusively prove said fossil is actually 3million years old? Radiometric dating. Sedimentation. Comparing results obtained through different methods. Nature leaves its clues. Science is used to figure them out.
You can tell if a fossil is an early ancestor by how it looks. Its a matter of the eye. If a 3 million year old fossil more closely resembles humans than anything else out there, we have to conclude that its an ancestor. Its that easy.
Let me be very clear: I don't believe that any evolution can cause a dinosaur species to evolve into a bird species. Can you conclusively prove this to be the case? Yes... the dinosoar DNA code has to change to that of a birds. Period. Its that DNA copying mechanism that's responsible. Its a long process from point A to point B, but that's what happens.
I was a creationist before... defended it to the bone. I eventually started judging evolution independent of the Bible, and found out that its rock solid science.
My point is that the origin of life as explained by the theory of evolution has no testable evidence and must be received by faith
I don't understand this either. How can fossils not be evidence? They're quite easily observed, and are tested by a variety of dating methods. How can you refute something that you can see?
Although the evidence is amazingly consistent and rich, Occam's Razor (the principle of parsimony) is a pretty weak philosophical tool compared to realism or positivism One thing that creationists tend to ignore is that, when the aggregate of a large number measurements, made with different methods, and done by many different people, exhibits consistency, then even if large, obvious variations exists between the individual measurements, the overall consistency renders the results as being essentially real and suitable evidence. Creationists like to focus on inconsistencies in small samples and ignore the big picture.
Any reasonable person has to admit, it's hard to swallow evolution as the source of molecular machines such as ATP Synthase (can be both a rotary motor and generator), Helicase, and protein chaperones.
Yes, it's possible to contrive ways these molecules randomly came to be, but do it without using words such as 'probably' or 'could have'; anything else is wishful thinking and doesn't prove a thing.
You have it backwards! Those molecular machines are not brought about by evolution. Instead, they enable evolution to occur!
Show me, with 99.9% certainty, the exact path/steps that a light detecting eye evolved into a camera eye. You make it easy. The "camera" eye is made of many "light detecting" eye. The genetic mutation that doubles the number of eyes without killing the whole body occured 20+ times, resulting in the "camera" eye. Hey, that's much like how electronic cameras came to exist!
Think of a computer programmer. We create an object, and derive other objects from it, thus "inheriting" a certain behavior. Who's to say that God didn't create a common DNA for certain species, and derive more specific species from that base DNA, because it works so well? Why reinvent the wheel...? That's a great metaphor, DNA as a software program of sorts; it makes it somewhat easier to understand how species can change over time.
Who's to say that God didn't create a common DNA for certain species, and derive more specific species from that base DNA, because it works so well? The DNA in all species, from plants to bacteria to humans, is pretty much the same; it is composed of many pairs of the same 4 base molecules, and the chemical machinery to use and copy DNA is the same; all that is different between us an a rose is the actual code involved.
Interesting, but the species are still mosquitos, they didn't become frogs or blu-jays, or grow gills or learn to spin webs, or change phylum. In the end, they're still mosquitos. If the DNA code in mosquitos change, no matter through what mechanism (radiation, chemicals, time, etc.) if the change is big enough, it can result in ANY kind of creature that's out there.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm now convinced that the creation vs. evolution controversy (with intelligent design) is really, well, a bunch of hype that serves to draw people away from religion and science. Let me first make it clear that evolution is fact; no "if"s, "and"s, or "but"s about it.
This controversy pulls people away from religion and Christianity because they see christians arguing a naive, scientifically untenable, point, and they come to associate that with Christianity. In essence, creationism becomes a stumbling block. Also, it pulls people, mainly christians, away from science because it forces a stark choice between believing in the Bible and believing what scientists say. Since the stakes involved in not believing in the Bible (i.e. going to Hell for eternity) are much greater than those in not believing scientists (i.e. sounding like a fool in front of others), they tend to draw towards creationism and away from common science. Unfortunately, that also discourages any sort of deep study into who authored Genesis, when, why, etc.. (i.e. the only answer I've heard from fundamentalists is that Moses wrote it, as if he or anyone else was there witness it). The only way out, that I see, is an earnest effort to understand the rationale behind sciences like evolution and astronomy. The motivation is the fact that you can't learn science through creationism.
Actually, the concept that Adam & Eve simply existed is so alien to most here that it appears funny.
That statement was meant to be funny. I'm not implying that you owe me anything, and you certainly don't. I don't buy what you said about people being worse off in Africa at face value, though.
I guess I'd be stuck in Africa, which may not be too bad for me, but a whole lot better for my great great great great great grandparents.
Hey, this "Birthday celebration" is obviously not about bringing out the cake and ice cream and singing a song. Its an attempt to deal with the controversy by making a statement supporting evolution.
I find that a so-called choice between religion and science to be moot. If something in particular is known to be true through science, then a religious statement contradicting it is pretty definitely invalid, or wrongly interpreted; choose one of the two. On the other hand, theological things that science really has no legitimate interest in is fair ground for religion. Religious claims of specific, non-repeatable acts, i.e. miracles, are fair too, but there's always to prospect that a deeper inspection may invalidate,or possibly support, a miraculous claim.
The gain of weight mass would not be apparent to the traveler; the stationary observers would see the traveler gain mass, but everythig would seem fine to the traveler.
How else do you explain the venom that they spew at those who question what they consider sacred?
Those who try to mislead children to reject science deserve it.
We can hardly shield against neutrinos, right?
Based on what you wrote, you feel like you don't have enough time for any self-training or anything else you'd want to do. I suggest that you not worry so much about the cleaning and dogs and such, and self-train only if you please.
Whether you end up with the best tool for the job is another story.
I think that all depends on how good his gut is. I've had chitterlings several times now, and I can say that some guts are better than others.
Well then you've got yourself a major theological dilema then.
Yes there's a theological dilemma. So how do you approach it? Do you
A)Reject the science that raised the dilemma and embrace the theological text.
B)Reject the text that raised the dilemma and embrace modern science.
C)Embrace both modern science and the text as much as you can, and watch the dilemma crumble under the weight of truth.
For me, the answer is C.
I don't try to place the six days that God created the heavens and the earth into any sort of historical or scientific context. I know that it's true, and I also know that we came about through evolution. I understand evolution enough that its settled in my mind. I consider the six days to be a great biblical mystery; I don't dare mash it into a historical context. God's word stands on its feet; it doesn't need any help from me.
There are other isotopes used for radiometric dating besides Carbon-14. Look up "radiometric dating" in Wikipedia.
I noticed that you quoted Christian creationist sources in both of your replies. Let me just say that if you ever do decide to look for evidence that supports evolution, you won't find it in those places. You might find the Gospel there, but you won't get the big picture of evolution.
As a Bible believing Christian, I strongly disagree that evolution is a religion. Its science, just like Relativity, Gravity, Electromagnetism, etc.
From what I know, not all scientists agree that birds descended from dinosaurs, but as you said, that's the best explanation out.
Some experts in phylogenetics will admit that there is little supporting evidence, but claim it's the best explanation that we currently have.
Unfortunately, creationists don't listen to those experts; strong religious dogma gets in the way.
I don't quite get it
Firstly, how do we conclusively prove said fossil is actually 3million years old?
Radiometric dating. Sedimentation. Comparing results obtained through different methods. Nature leaves its clues. Science is used to figure them out.
You can tell if a fossil is an early ancestor by how it looks. Its a matter of the eye. If a 3 million year old fossil more closely resembles humans than anything else out there, we have to conclude that its an ancestor. Its that easy.
Yes
I was a creationist before ... defended it to the bone. I eventually started judging evolution independent of the Bible, and found out that its rock solid science.
I don't understand this either. How can fossils not be evidence? They're quite easily observed, and are tested by a variety of dating methods. How can you refute something that you can see?
So you absolutely don't belive that micro-evolution can (and has) cause a single species to split into two similar species that can't interbreed?
Although the evidence is amazingly consistent and rich, Occam's Razor (the principle of parsimony) is a pretty weak philosophical tool compared to realism or positivism
One thing that creationists tend to ignore is that, when the aggregate of a large number measurements, made with different methods, and done by many different people, exhibits consistency, then even if large, obvious variations exists between the individual measurements, the overall consistency renders the results as being essentially real and suitable evidence. Creationists like to focus on inconsistencies in small samples and ignore the big picture.
Yes, it's possible to contrive ways these molecules randomly came to be, but do it without using words such as 'probably' or 'could have'; anything else is wishful thinking and doesn't prove a thing.
You have it backwards! Those molecular machines are not brought about by evolution. Instead, they enable evolution to occur!
Show me, with 99.9% certainty, the exact path/steps that a light detecting eye evolved into a camera eye.
You make it easy. The "camera" eye is made of many "light detecting" eye. The genetic mutation that doubles the number of eyes without killing the whole body occured 20+ times, resulting in the "camera" eye. Hey, that's much like how electronic cameras came to exist!
That's a great metaphor, DNA as a software program of sorts; it makes it somewhat easier to understand how species can change over time.
Who's to say that God didn't create a common DNA for certain species, and derive more specific species from that base DNA, because it works so well?
The DNA in all species, from plants to bacteria to humans, is pretty much the same; it is composed of many pairs of the same 4 base molecules, and the chemical machinery to use and copy DNA is the same; all that is different between us an a rose is the actual code involved.
Interesting, but the species are still mosquitos, they didn't become frogs or blu-jays, or grow gills or learn to spin webs, or change phylum. In the end, they're still mosquitos.
If the DNA code in mosquitos change, no matter through what mechanism (radiation, chemicals, time, etc.) if the change is big enough, it can result in ANY kind of creature that's out there.
I noticed that you didn't mention "species" there. Sounds like a tacit admission of evolution to me.