Screw evolution, lets just go straight to genetic engineering. Model a better DNA repair mechanism, implement them. Then re-engineer a person with these features. Also engeer him to be an incredible intellect and athelete and then send him to mars.
The science in the fields supports the theory. Thus the branch support it. Not the individuals. I'm a christian. Others christians have different belifs. Same idea. Their scientists with different beleiefs. However they have yet to refute Evolution with substantial evidence. thus they may nto beleive but they cannot replace the theory. and thus the theory hold mroe credibility then the alternatives. of which you support one. One which has very very little proof. Please tell me some of it.
I think you are confusing micro & macro evolution. Speciation is true - but speciation is not proof of molecules to man evolution. My wife & I have 4 children. None of them are exact duplicates of either of us. There was no evolution because they carry our genes and they express different traits that were encoded in those genes (i.e. green eyes, blue eyes). Evolution requires the addition of new information to make a new kind of animal. Mutations cause a loss of information - becoming less complex in the process.
No I am not mistaken. From the above post it readily apparent you have no idea what the theory covers. It's a mechanism. Your 4 children are part of the mechanism. We do not differentiate Micro and Macro, thats yoru definitions. The theory hold because it is the best explination. The peppered moth was a widly used example which was more complex then first thought. Speciation is the mechanism behind evolution. Differntiating seeing it once and seeing it a billion time sover 2.4 billion years is not significant.
your 4 children for example. Without any selective pressure, they are four individuals in a populace of 4. If I select against the shortest one, and keep doign so for each generation of children for your 4 children that would be evolution. The short genes get excised, any random mutations to make you taller would be favored. If they keep as a seperate population with the same pressure eventually (if the population can sustain itself, 4 is a very small sample and since thier siblings it's also a lot of inbreding) The population will be phenotically very different.
We support evolution because it is the best theory we have. We will continue to refine it, thats science. There is no contriversy, that is all in yoru cutlture. Dimes to dollars your a fundementalist christian. You are a small minority that denies evolution. similiar to flat earth society. In the face of overwhelming evidence and support you cling to yoru beliefs. You haven't given any evidence only conjecture that evolution could be worgn. Yes it could be but for now it's the soundest mechanism/explination we have.
As a Christian I object to being grouped with you.
Evolution isn't the only possible way. just the most likly given the available evidence.
And better minds then mine have re-enforced my point. The proof does not have to be mathematically complete, only compelling. It is indeed compelling thus it's the defacto theorem and explination for our current biodiversity.
The assumption of an old earth does not support evolution. An old earth is required for the far-fetched theories to be even remotely plausible but just having an old earth does not mean molecules to man evolution is true. Not all branches of science support molecules to man evolution. Many scientists want to believe molecules to man evolution is true but there are so many problems with the various theories about how complexity evolved and they are constantly changing. More and more scientists are being intellectually honest and admitting problems with evolutionary theory. There is no proof the earth is old, there are no missing links, we do not currently observe one kind evolving into another kind. Many of the so-called proofs of evolution that were in my grade-school science books have now been proven to be intentional frauds (peppered-moths, piltdown man, etc.) It's a shame that the Christian religion is not allowed in the school systems anymore but the evolutionary religion is.
Peppered moth was an example nto a proof. it didn't disprove evolution only made the use of it's exampel mroe complex.
Christian religion is perfectly allowable, i went to a catholic school. My best friend went to public chool, they didn't throw him out because he prayed in the morning.
We do in fact see speciation which is one species evolving into another. I don't mean chimps becoming men. I mean chimps becomeing different chimps. This is evolution. Chimp evoling into men right now, is both statistically unlikly (thats 1% of the genome that has to under go a very specific change) bu possible.
Please provide the names of this "more and more scientists".
Proof earth is old: Geology. The whole field. Atronomy, the whole field. Genetics, the whole field.
As for proof of evolution. go to www.nature.com and type in evolution. you'll get a few hundred papers. read a few of them and digest why evolution has a lot of support. enough to become the defacto theory.
The definition of cult includes the word faddish, which means a passing interest. one that is wholey embrassed then discarded. Cults generally don't last long. Not religous ones. the last definition doens't describe priests but decribes "cult" followings like JRR tolkiens or Star wars fans.
Also: Christians were in the minority, a cult, until they killed off a lot of the people believing in other religions and thus no longer were a minority
This did not occur until much much later. a thousand years later. The first crusade occured in 1099. So christianity was a religion or a majority until 1099? check your facts before you speak. Also the crusades weren't random violence perpetrated on the muslims. they were politcal wars, based off of many reasons and some are as contriversial as the Iraq war. A few of the crusades (including the first one) started as a defensive campiagn. The first one started when the Seljuk turks started a war with the Byzentine empire. It snowballed into a campaign of conquest later.
And the rest of your post explains also what I was saying.
Christians were in the minority, a cult, until they killed off a lot of the people believing in other religions and thus no longer were a minority.
So... they moved from cult status to religion status.
Same thing... different stages of the game.
My post meant nothing about the origins of the religions... simply that the difference between cult and religion isn't as clear cut as religious people would have others believe.
I'm pointing out that your assertion that killing to become the majority is wrong. and also Cult and religion differ by a matter of degrees as you say but so do a lot of things. Having minor heat stroke and being cooked in a ceramics curing oven only differ by a matter of degrees(lierally) but they are different things. I didi not deny that christianity started as a cult. All religions do.
Think Cthulu, the universe before this required "BLOOD" sacrafices to atain atonement or reconsilliation. We screwed up so bad, he needed the blood of a diety to reconcile. Also see Odin. Sacraficed himself to himsel to get sme knowledge from himself.
So what you are saying is He sacrificed Himself to Himself to appease Himself for having created sinful people Himself. And anyone who doesn't believe this will burn in hell for all eternity. Thanks so much for explaining. It makes perfect sense now.
You have to hold the trinity in your head to do this. God has Multiple personality disorder. He is, and so is his son, they are the same and different and also the holy ghost which is also the same but different. So God is the fire and brimstone guy who requires pain and suffering to attone for stuff. Jesus is the guy who see this as wrong so decides to apease God by doing for them.. There a whole theological disertation you could give on it. What we percieve to be odd may be part of some strang universal order (5 dimentials planes intersecting to make a 4 dimentional universe all residing in a 11 dimension universe, that straneg too but thats string theory).
Carbon has a half life that would make dating for the recent (lastt 500 years) items dificult sinc ethe margin of error is +- 100 years. So dating something 200 years ago means the margin of error is 50% of the actual value. and thus useless. However when your margin of error is +- 100 years and the expected value is 4000 years from now, thats an acceptable error range. If you want to be more accurate in the short term, use another abundant radio isotopes but with a shorter half life. which is done to date more recent things.
It's Lavos. He burried into the earth and made it impossible for such big things to evolve because he is umm.. suckign energy out of the earth.. Less energy = less biomass = smaller cretaures. yes thats it.
Carl Sagan was a smart guy, but way too prone to straying outside his areas of expertise and shooting his mouth off.
A problem wiht many scientists and intellectuals, A neuro science phd speaking about the enviroment (David Susuki), a astronomer speakign about the enviroment (Carl Sagan), a 2 bit hack con man speaking about anything (Elron Hubbard), a con man startign a religion (the guy who started the mormons, and the guy who started the Jehova's witnesses were similiar).
maybe they went exstinct becase all the big slow meaty dinosaurs died off when the vegatation wasn't so abundant, and then the carnivores could catch the speedy little mammals.
life is complex (A) evolution makes life diversify more (e => A) at some point life was not so complex (B) (starting point) if I apply e to B, I get more complex B1. I apply e again, I get b2.
b1238 = A (B^E)*1238 = A since A and B Thus E.
Now, if we have our theory, and the theory requires that life must be old, if the world is shown to be very young. This would disprove evolution. Not enough time for the mechanism to work. How ever all branche of science support the fact that the earth is old. Thus we must assume the earth is old, which support evolution.We have evidence of intermediate steps, we have currently exsisting evidence of evolution. We have Genetic re-enforcement of evolution. Thus we have a pretty good case for evolution. Barring A act of God (ie. suddenly god comes down and says "Jokes on you, Evolution wasn't the way. I made you in my spare time while the other kids were playing soccer") Evolution is the mechanism for our current biodiversity.
Because evolution is a theory in crisis. It is obvious that the cell is an irreducibly complex machine, which Darwin himself said could not be explained by evolution. Yes, we do have micro-evolution, but I am talking about evolution as an explanation for our existence. Also, the images of the missing link and other findings have been doctored in order to support evolution. The research done in support of revolution is a disgrace to science. It takes more faith to believe in this dead theory than it does to believe in creation
Complete non-sense. All of genetics, the entire field supports evolution and is in fact a product of evolutionary research. There is no more a crisis in Evolutionary theory as there is mass conversians in the Palpacy. It take and incredibly narrow minded individual to ignore an entire field of science, 400 years of evidence, and the over whelming evidence presented.
You presented 2 book. I can name thousands of research papers, the entire biology branch of science, Richard Dawkins, Douglas adams ( these two authors are on par with your two books. Smart men who write entertainign books).
You say evolutionary research is a disgrace, have you written a paper and submitted to a peer reviewed journal. At leats a hundred people will eventually read that paper and the scientific community is somewhat similiar to slashdot, you get as many karma points for ripping apart a bad arguement and paper as you do making a good point.
Take your head out your ass and try reading the arguements we have submitted instead of recounting old trite southern US fundementalist garbage.
PS: WTF is your credentials. I have a BSC. I have a specialization in Computers and the equivilent of a minor in Genetics (I couldn't do it, they wouldn't let me but I took all the courses, genetics and computers are specializations so you cannot minor in them in my alma meter). I'm also a Baptist (dutch baptist) and a former catholic. I have taken courses on christianity and divinity.
I'd say my credentials qualify me to speak on this subject.
Basically, you can't say that energy gets more disorganized over time and still say that evolution is why we are able to "fly a kite" whereas a dinosaur could not.
a general trend of a large system does not bar the opposite of the general trend to occur in localized areas. Also, evolution is the selection of traits that arise randomly. Entropy only contributes to this by (in a wy) contributing to the mechanism that new traits arise out of. Evolution is not the ordering of anything, it's simply a trait of a complex system. It tends towards diversity which means that if you view it right, it is the embodyment of entropy.
You're absolutely right. Evolution is completely irrelevant to religion. With or without evolutionary theory, there is still no evidence for gods.
And I do mean *evidence,* not hearsay.
If a given religion can't accept evolutionary theory, then its adherents are the ones who have to come up with a rationalization. Evolutionists and naturalists will just shrug and continue their work.
Perhaps AC. I belive. You do not. Your beliefs are yours, mine are mine. Like Douglas Adams, you have a certain militancy about your "non-belief". Reasoning, that no right thinking man can think thus. But many right thinking men have many strange notions, for instance : you happen to think your non-belief make syou better some-how. Strange notion.
I'm not saying evolution is wrong, it simply isn't disprovable
It's also highly likly, as the under lying mechanisms have been thourghly studied. It may in fact be disproved if you can find two significantly different gene lines that are documented to be previous close and that they become divergent spontaniously in a large manner. That would throw much of the support for evolution out the window, it has yet to ever occur. I mean doign a phylogenic test one day and two species are close, and many studies say their close, then all of a sudden one of them turns into a completly different organism. that'd prove creationism. or at least support it.
Also Newtons laws apply on meso scale. That is not too small not too big. So his laws are good approximations, from a human frame of reference, of the under lying quantum physics. On larger scales they are off, on smaller scales too.
They are not proofs that things do not fall towards the earth at 9.81 m/s just that it is inaccurate at micro and macro scales.
The universe is ordered, predictable, and governed by a set of unaltering rules. The scientific process is the process to discover the exact rules that determine the order
Actually it's not predictable. it's statistically determinable but it will never be 100% predictable so long as the uncertainty principle exsists.
And no, I am a christian. Just as I am chinese. These are classifications I hold and other hold of me. Your dispute of this fact does not change this.
Religion is a bunch of people that share the same superstitions... I mean, beliefs.
I don't see how it is different from a cult. They are the same... simply different stages.
Christianity was a cult until they killed all the people from the other religions that they could. Ironically, many of those people were Muslims... Just about a thousand years ago.
Don't be ignorant. Cult and Religion are terms for groups. A certain criteria: cult (dictionary.com): A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. The followers of such a religion or sect. A system or community of religious worship and ritual. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing. The object of such devotion. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.
Religion (dictionary.com): Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Similiar but has different social context.
And no, Christianity became a religion when One of the Constantine converted in 312, it became official and recognised. Not because they killed muslims. The Islamic peoples didn't even exsist, they arose around 620AD (CE if you must). Although the pre-islamic arabs weren't treated well by the christians, Christianity did not cause Islam, Islam had nothing to do with the origin of Christianity. At the start of Christianity, the Christians were the persecuted minority.
The irony isn't the origins but in what you think of religion and what religion has done. Science was originally a branch of natural philisophy and the clery encouraged this. Many great scientists are not only christians but priests and monks as well, For insteand Mendel. Also many of the basic fundementals of math and astronomy were discovered by the Arab nations under the influence of Islam. When Islam was more progressive, it was one of the most free and open societies in the world, ascribing women with more rights then any other culture in the area andit's doctrine fostered litracy and knowlege. It has since fallen in to the hands of zealots and petty men as has christianity numerous times in our history.
Zealots (religous or non) are dangerous. Non-religous zealots (Communists) have killed just as many people in the last 300 years as Religious people.
Most wars may use religion, and may even be about religion but aren't because of religion. when ever you have two groups of people who are different you will eventually have conflict. and sometimes open war. Idealogy has been used for the basis for as many wars as religion, so has greed, and numerous other things. Religion isn't some great evil only the ignorant believes, it's simply a belief system. So don't act ignorant and self-rightous to those who have religion.
Heres the theory: Organism A has some fixed amoutn of variation within it's species. Say a group of people with different color hair. The mix of creature will stay the same until a selective pressure comes. Lets say the pressure is a wild animal east everyone with blonde hair. Now this animal isn't that good at it so some of the blondes survive. However their ratio is diminished. Now lets say we have the animal and the group of people hanging around the same area for some generations. Since the ratio of blondes diminishes over time slowly the population loses the genes for blondes and soon the population has no blondes. This is part of evolution. The next part is speciation. Suppose this group of people split up. Pop. A and pop B. we'll call them. Now pop. A has this wild animal in it and never accumulates blondes and eventually the blonde genes no longer exsist in the population. Pop B. however have the same ratio of genes but because the place they live in have Sharks with lazers on their friggin heads that eat and fry anyone who isn't blonde, that population becomes all blonde. Now as it happens Pop B also had a gene that had the girls favor blonde guys to have kids with. After a while, this genes become useful because blonde people survive better and the gene becomes another selective factor, now Pop B had a high percentage of this gene. Highe enough that when Pop A and Pop B see each other again they don't have kids with each other and are now a different species. Pop B doesn't like to mate wiht non-blondes. So Pop B is a seperate species (seperate gene pool).
Now take those singled cell organism in your example and apply a mutation rate. Eventually some force will favor one mutation over another and the population diverges. If the mutations make it immposible for one population to mate with the other it is a different species. The Mutagens are the root of evolution. Random changes to the DNA of organism and selection for or against them is the mechanism and cause for evolution.
I'm simply amazed at the simplicity and complexity in that system and firmly beleive nothign but GOD could have thought of it.
"Religion == Re-linking (to GOD, to humanity, to humans...)" = random new age drivel.
Religion is organised. Random spirituality isn't religion. A cult is not a religion. A religion is a organised faith of soem size. Christianity wasn't a religion until it met this criteria. So "I love nature" isn't one either until it does. Well that is in the eyes of the law and of the english language.
I think what the difference is is that, the grandparent stated what makes Christianity, Christianity, while the great grand parent stated what made a generic form of Mono-thiesm, mono-theism. Because the great grand parent describe about a dozen religions including Christianity.
As others have pointed out, Christianity != Creationism. Evolution doesn't remove god. IT explains a mechanism. It no more removes god then the big bang removes god. You can interpret it either way.
Slashdot Mirror
Screw evolution, lets just go straight to genetic engineering. Model a better DNA repair mechanism, implement them. Then re-engineer a person with these features. Also engeer him to be an incredible intellect and athelete and then send him to mars.
Again, I apologize for the doubel repsonse:
The science in the fields supports the theory. Thus the branch support it. Not the individuals. I'm a christian. Others christians have different belifs. Same idea. Their scientists with different beleiefs. However they have yet to refute Evolution with substantial evidence. thus they may nto beleive but they cannot replace the theory. and thus the theory hold mroe credibility then the alternatives. of which you support one. One which has very very little proof. Please tell me some of it.
I think you are confusing micro & macro evolution. Speciation is true - but speciation is not proof of molecules to man evolution. My wife & I have 4 children. None of them are exact duplicates of either of us. There was no evolution because they carry our genes and they express different traits that were encoded in those genes (i.e. green eyes, blue eyes). Evolution requires the addition of new information to make a new kind of animal. Mutations cause a loss of information - becoming less complex in the process.
No I am not mistaken. From the above post it readily apparent you have no idea what the theory covers. It's a mechanism. Your 4 children are part of the mechanism. We do not differentiate Micro and Macro, thats yoru definitions. The theory hold because it is the best explination. The peppered moth was a widly used example which was more complex then first thought. Speciation is the mechanism behind evolution. Differntiating seeing it once and seeing it a billion time sover 2.4 billion years is not significant.
your 4 children for example. Without any selective pressure, they are four individuals in a populace of 4. If I select against the shortest one, and keep doign so for each generation of children for your 4 children that would be evolution. The short genes get excised, any random mutations to make you taller would be favored. If they keep as a seperate population with the same pressure eventually (if the population can sustain itself, 4 is a very small sample and since thier siblings it's also a lot of inbreding) The population will be phenotically very different.
We support evolution because it is the best theory we have. We will continue to refine it, thats science. There is no contriversy, that is all in yoru cutlture. Dimes to dollars your a fundementalist christian. You are a small minority that denies evolution. similiar to flat earth society. In the face of overwhelming evidence and support you cling to yoru beliefs. You haven't given any evidence only conjecture that evolution could be worgn. Yes it could be but for now it's the soundest mechanism/explination we have.
As a Christian I object to being grouped with you.
Evolution isn't the only possible way. just the most likly given the available evidence.
And better minds then mine have re-enforced my point. The proof does not have to be mathematically complete, only compelling. It is indeed compelling thus it's the defacto theorem and explination for our current biodiversity.
The assumption of an old earth does not support evolution. An old earth is required for the far-fetched theories to be even remotely plausible but just having an old earth does not mean molecules to man evolution is true. Not all branches of science support molecules to man evolution. Many scientists want to believe molecules to man evolution is true but there are so many problems with the various theories about how complexity evolved and they are constantly changing. More and more scientists are being intellectually honest and admitting problems with evolutionary theory. There is no proof the earth is old, there are no missing links, we do not currently observe one kind evolving into another kind. Many of the so-called proofs of evolution that were in my grade-school science books have now been proven to be intentional frauds (peppered-moths, piltdown man, etc.) It's a shame that the Christian religion is not allowed in the school systems anymore but the evolutionary religion is.
Peppered moth was an example nto a proof. it didn't disprove evolution only made the use of it's exampel mroe complex.
Christian religion is perfectly allowable, i went to a catholic school. My best friend went to public chool, they didn't throw him out because he prayed in the morning.
We do in fact see speciation which is one species evolving into another. I don't mean chimps becoming men. I mean chimps becomeing different chimps. This is evolution. Chimp evoling into men right now, is both statistically unlikly (thats 1% of the genome that has to under go a very specific change) bu possible.
Please provide the names of this "more and more scientists".
Proof earth is old: Geology. The whole field. Atronomy, the whole field. Genetics, the whole field.
As for proof of evolution. go to www.nature.com and type in evolution. you'll get a few hundred papers. read a few of them and digest why evolution has a lot of support. enough to become the defacto theory.
sorry about the doubel response. But:
The definition of cult includes the word faddish, which means a passing interest. one that is wholey embrassed then discarded. Cults generally don't last long. Not religous ones. the last definition doens't describe priests but decribes "cult" followings like JRR tolkiens or Star wars fans.
Also: Christians were in the minority, a cult, until they killed off a lot of the people believing in other religions and thus no longer were a minority
This did not occur until much much later. a thousand years later. The first crusade occured in 1099. So christianity was a religion or a majority until 1099? check your facts before you speak. Also the crusades weren't random violence perpetrated on the muslims. they were politcal wars, based off of many reasons and some are as contriversial as the Iraq war. A few of the crusades (including the first one) started as a defensive campiagn. The first one started when the Seljuk turks started a war with the Byzentine empire. It snowballed into a campaign of conquest later.
And the rest of your post explains also what I was saying.
Christians were in the minority, a cult, until they killed off a lot of the people believing in other religions and thus no longer were a minority.
So... they moved from cult status to religion status.
Same thing... different stages of the game.
My post meant nothing about the origins of the religions... simply that the difference between cult and religion isn't as clear cut as religious people would have others believe.
I'm pointing out that your assertion that killing to become the majority is wrong. and also Cult and religion differ by a matter of degrees as you say but so do a lot of things. Having minor heat stroke and being cooked in a ceramics curing oven only differ by a matter of degrees(lierally) but they are different things. I didi not deny that christianity started as a cult. All religions do.
Think Cthulu, the universe before this required "BLOOD" sacrafices to atain atonement or reconsilliation. We screwed up so bad, he needed the blood of a diety to reconcile. Also see Odin. Sacraficed himself to himsel to get sme knowledge from himself.
So what you are saying is He sacrificed Himself to Himself to appease Himself for having created sinful people Himself. And anyone who doesn't believe this will burn in hell for all eternity. Thanks so much for explaining. It makes perfect sense now.
You have to hold the trinity in your head to do this. God has Multiple personality disorder. He is, and so is his son, they are the same and different and also the holy ghost which is also the same but different. So God is the fire and brimstone guy who requires pain and suffering to attone for stuff. Jesus is the guy who see this as wrong so decides to apease God by doing for them.. There a whole theological disertation you could give on it. What we percieve to be odd may be part of some strang universal order (5 dimentials planes intersecting to make a 4 dimentional universe all residing in a 11 dimension universe, that straneg too but thats string theory).
Carbon has a half life that would make dating for the recent (lastt 500 years) items dificult sinc ethe margin of error is +- 100 years. So dating something 200 years ago means the margin of error is 50% of the actual value. and thus useless. However when your margin of error is +- 100 years and the expected value is 4000 years from now, thats an acceptable error range. If you want to be more accurate in the short term, use another abundant radio isotopes but with a shorter half life. which is done to date more recent things.
It's Lavos. He burried into the earth and made it impossible for such big things to evolve because he is umm.. suckign energy out of the earth.. Less energy = less biomass = smaller cretaures. yes thats it.
Carl Sagan was a smart guy, but way too prone to straying outside his areas of expertise and shooting his mouth off.
A problem wiht many scientists and intellectuals, A neuro science phd speaking about the enviroment (David Susuki), a astronomer speakign about the enviroment (Carl Sagan), a 2 bit hack con man speaking about anything (Elron Hubbard), a con man startign a religion (the guy who started the mormons, and the guy who started the Jehova's witnesses were similiar).
maybe they went exstinct becase all the big slow meaty dinosaurs died off when the vegatation wasn't so abundant, and then the carnivores could catch the speedy little mammals.
proof by induction:
life is complex (A)
evolution makes life diversify more (e => A)
at some point life was not so complex (B) (starting point)
if I apply e to B, I get more complex B1.
I apply e again, I get b2.
b1238 = A
(B^E)*1238 = A
since A and B
Thus E.
Now, if we have our theory, and the theory requires that life must be old, if the world is shown to be very young. This would disprove evolution. Not enough time for the mechanism to work. How ever all branche of science support the fact that the earth is old. Thus we must assume the earth is old, which support evolution.We have evidence of intermediate steps, we have currently exsisting evidence of evolution. We have Genetic re-enforcement of evolution. Thus we have a pretty good case for evolution. Barring A act of God (ie. suddenly god comes down and says "Jokes on you, Evolution wasn't the way. I made you in my spare time while the other kids were playing soccer") Evolution is the mechanism for our current biodiversity.
Because evolution is a theory in crisis. It is obvious that the cell is an irreducibly complex machine, which Darwin himself said could not be explained by evolution. Yes, we do have micro-evolution, but I am talking about evolution as an explanation for our existence. Also, the images of the missing link and other findings have been doctored in order to support evolution. The research done in support of revolution is a disgrace to science. It takes more faith to believe in this dead theory than it does to believe in creation
Complete non-sense. All of genetics, the entire field supports evolution and is in fact a product of evolutionary research. There is no more a crisis in Evolutionary theory as there is mass conversians in the Palpacy. It take and incredibly narrow minded individual to ignore an entire field of science, 400 years of evidence, and the over whelming evidence presented.
You presented 2 book. I can name thousands of research papers, the entire biology branch of science, Richard Dawkins, Douglas adams ( these two authors are on par with your two books. Smart men who write entertainign books).
You say evolutionary research is a disgrace, have you written a paper and submitted to a peer reviewed journal. At leats a hundred people will eventually read that paper and the scientific community is somewhat similiar to slashdot, you get as many karma points for ripping apart a bad arguement and paper as you do making a good point.
Take your head out your ass and try reading the arguements we have submitted instead of recounting old trite southern US fundementalist garbage.
PS: WTF is your credentials. I have a BSC. I have a specialization in Computers and the equivilent of a minor in Genetics (I couldn't do it, they wouldn't let me but I took all the courses, genetics and computers are specializations so you cannot minor in them in my alma meter). I'm also a Baptist (dutch baptist) and a former catholic. I have taken courses on christianity and divinity.
I'd say my credentials qualify me to speak on this subject.
Basically, you can't say that energy gets more disorganized over time and still say that evolution is why we are able to "fly a kite" whereas a dinosaur could not.
a general trend of a large system does not bar the opposite of the general trend to occur in localized areas. Also, evolution is the selection of traits that arise randomly. Entropy only contributes to this by (in a wy) contributing to the mechanism that new traits arise out of. Evolution is not the ordering of anything, it's simply a trait of a complex system. It tends towards diversity which means that if you view it right, it is the embodyment of entropy.
You're absolutely right. Evolution is completely irrelevant to religion. With or without evolutionary theory, there is still no evidence for gods.
And I do mean *evidence,* not hearsay.
If a given religion can't accept evolutionary theory, then its adherents are the ones who have to come up with a rationalization. Evolutionists and naturalists will just shrug and continue their work.
Perhaps AC. I belive. You do not. Your beliefs are yours, mine are mine. Like Douglas Adams, you have a certain militancy about your "non-belief". Reasoning, that no right thinking man can think thus. But many right thinking men have many strange notions, for instance : you happen to think your non-belief make syou better some-how. Strange notion.
I'm not saying evolution is wrong, it simply isn't disprovable
It's also highly likly, as the under lying mechanisms have been thourghly studied. It may in fact be disproved if you can find two significantly different gene lines that are documented to be previous close and that they become divergent spontaniously in a large manner. That would throw much of the support for evolution out the window, it has yet to ever occur. I mean doign a phylogenic test one day and two species are close, and many studies say their close, then all of a sudden one of them turns into a completly different organism. that'd prove creationism. or at least support it.
Also Newtons laws apply on meso scale. That is not too small not too big. So his laws are good approximations, from a human frame of reference, of the under lying quantum physics. On larger scales they are off, on smaller scales too.
They are not proofs that things do not fall towards the earth at 9.81 m/s just that it is inaccurate at micro and macro scales.
The universe is ordered, predictable, and governed by a set of unaltering rules. The scientific process is the process to discover the exact rules that determine the order
Actually it's not predictable. it's statistically determinable but it will never be 100% predictable so long as the uncertainty principle exsists.
And no, I am a christian. Just as I am chinese. These are classifications I hold and other hold of me. Your dispute of this fact does not change this.
Religion is a bunch of people that share the same superstitions... I mean, beliefs.
:
I don't see how it is different from a cult. They are the same... simply different stages.
Christianity was a cult until they killed all the people from the other religions that they could. Ironically, many of those people were Muslims... Just about a thousand years ago.
Don't be ignorant. Cult and Religion are terms for groups. A certain criteria
cult (dictionary.com):
A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
The followers of such a religion or sect.
A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
The object of such devotion.
An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.
Religion (dictionary.com):
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Similiar but has different social context.
And no, Christianity became a religion when One of the Constantine converted in 312, it became official and recognised. Not because they killed muslims. The Islamic peoples didn't even exsist, they arose around 620AD (CE if you must). Although the pre-islamic arabs weren't treated well by the christians, Christianity did not cause Islam, Islam had nothing to do with the origin of Christianity. At the start of Christianity, the Christians were the persecuted minority.
The irony isn't the origins but in what you think of religion and what religion has done. Science was originally a branch of natural philisophy and the clery encouraged this. Many great scientists are not only christians but priests and monks as well, For insteand Mendel. Also many of the basic fundementals of math and astronomy were discovered by the Arab nations under the influence of Islam. When Islam was more progressive, it was one of the most free and open societies in the world, ascribing women with more rights then any other culture in the area andit's doctrine fostered litracy and knowlege. It has since fallen in to the hands of zealots and petty men as has christianity numerous times in our history.
Zealots (religous or non) are dangerous. Non-religous zealots (Communists) have killed just as many people in the last 300 years as Religious people.
Most wars may use religion, and may even be about religion but aren't because of religion. when ever you have two groups of people who are different you will eventually have conflict. and sometimes open war. Idealogy has been used for the basis for as many wars as religion, so has greed, and numerous other things. Religion isn't some great evil only the ignorant believes, it's simply a belief system. So don't act ignorant and self-rightous to those who have religion.
yes :) it's set theory. Christianity is a subset of monotheism.
Heres the theory: Organism A has some fixed amoutn of variation within it's species. Say a group of people with different color hair. The mix of creature will stay the same until a selective pressure comes. Lets say the pressure is a wild animal east everyone with blonde hair. Now this animal isn't that good at it so some of the blondes survive. However their ratio is diminished. Now lets say we have the animal and the group of people hanging around the same area for some generations. Since the ratio of blondes diminishes over time slowly the population loses the genes for blondes and soon the population has no blondes. This is part of evolution. The next part is speciation. Suppose this group of people split up. Pop. A and pop B. we'll call them. Now pop. A has this wild animal in it and never accumulates blondes and eventually the blonde genes no longer exsist in the population. Pop B. however have the same ratio of genes but because the place they live in have Sharks with lazers on their friggin heads that eat and fry anyone who isn't blonde, that population becomes all blonde. Now as it happens Pop B also had a gene that had the girls favor blonde guys to have kids with. After a while, this genes become useful because blonde people survive better and the gene becomes another selective factor, now Pop B had a high percentage of this gene. Highe enough that when Pop A and Pop B see each other again they don't have kids with each other and are now a different species. Pop B doesn't like to mate wiht non-blondes. So Pop B is a seperate species (seperate gene pool).
Now take those singled cell organism in your example and apply a mutation rate. Eventually some force will favor one mutation over another and the population diverges. If the mutations make it immposible for one population to mate with the other it is a different species. The Mutagens are the root of evolution. Random changes to the DNA of organism and selection for or against them is the mechanism and cause for evolution.
I'm simply amazed at the simplicity and complexity in that system and firmly beleive nothign but GOD could have thought of it.
"Religion == Re-linking (to GOD, to humanity, to humans...)" = random new age drivel.
Religion is organised. Random spirituality isn't religion. A cult is not a religion. A religion is a organised faith of soem size. Christianity wasn't a religion until it met this criteria. So "I love nature" isn't one either until it does. Well that is in the eyes of the law and of the english language.
I think what the difference is is that, the grandparent stated what makes Christianity, Christianity, while the great grand parent stated what made a generic form of Mono-thiesm, mono-theism. Because the great grand parent describe about a dozen religions including Christianity.
As others have pointed out, Christianity != Creationism. Evolution doesn't remove god. IT explains a mechanism. It no more removes god then the big bang removes god. You can interpret it either way.