Creation vs. Evolution

[sheck33]

You and cd4jesus have constantly defamed biology, chemistry, physics, geology, paleontology, anthropology, genetics, evolution, empiricism, logic, rational thought, for that matter all of science and even common sense (and by extension my very core concepts of truth, justice, honesty, etc.), and you think we should just bend over, take it, an at the same time show respect to your infatuation with intolerant bronze age mythology? Talk about a double standard. I say have at it and let the best ideas win.You consistently show disrespect for views that you disagree with, even as you deny doing so.

Well said.

 

[Twistedarts]

Has anyone bothered to think that god is just a fairy tale made up by man?
If there was any fact involved how could there be all this debate?
food for thought.

 

[sheck33]

Has anyone bothered to think that god is just a fairy tale made up by man?
If there was any fact involved how could there be all this debate?
food for thought.

You bad bad bad blasphemer you tsk tsk tsk, the believers will burn you at the stake for this, you know that right!?

Of course it is a fairy tale made up by man, a fairy tail used to control other people, to delude oneself into believing we have control over stuff we really do not have control over and to escape reality.

 

[coachpill]

We won't know the actual answer to that until the genetic screen and biochemical characterization is complete. Regardless, by definition something novel was produced - the bacteria's mutations resulted in the formation of a new phenotype. Regardless of how that occurred, it is a novel (as in not previously observed) mutation(s) which was beneficial to the organism.

Agreed, we must wait for further testing.

It looks like we are going to have to define terms and context here. You are stating something novel was produced because it did not exist before (a transporter that no longer transports one item, but now two items, or some other mechanism...), and I'm stating that nothing novel was produced because already present genes were somehow changed...nothing new. This does not seem to be the additive kind of evolution that must occur for prokaryotes to eventually evolve into all the diversity we see today. Gene duplication followed by mutation is better, but we've already been through that.

Thanks.

 

[boulderjohn]

Back when I used to teach research skills, I told students I did not want them choosing research project topics that were hot button issues like abortion or evolution beause of the inevitable emotional issues that would arise. One of my brightest students talked to me about this, and he insisted he wanted to write about evolution. I finally consented.

The first checkpoint in the research process was the working bibliography. Students had to submit the list of resources they had collected as the first step in their project. When I saw his, I told him it was not acceptable because 100% of his sources were from religious sources. I said that proper research is objective and unbiased, and he had to be sure to include information from scientific sources. If 100% of his sources were from the scientific community, I would have told him he needed to balance that as well. He agreed.

After working on the project for about a week, he asked if he could meet with me privately after school. When we met, he just stared a while, looking as if he were about to cry. Finally he said, "Why did they lie?" His voice was trembling.

I asked him to explain.

He then told me that when he had read the scientific sources, he saw that everything he had been told about evolution in his religious sources was untrue. Evolution did not mean what they said it meant. The processes were different from what he was told they were. The evidence was different from what he was told it was. Why, he asked, would people with religious convictions misrepresent the facts of evolution so blatantly? Why did they lie? The realization that the religious leaders he had always trusted had distorted the truth was shocking to him.

I told him that as a teacher I was in no position to talk about this. I suggested that he talk to his clergy about it.

We also decided that he would be better off with a different research topic.

If, like my former student, you learned everything you know about evolution from a religious tract or two, perhaps you, too, should consider learning about it with an objective point of view rather than looking to fight everything you hear. The hardest thing to do in research is set your prejudices aside and look at evidence objectively. When you fail to do that, you cannot help but overlook key points that contradict your preset point of view, misinterpet what you do see, and overstate the importance of little issues in your favor.

 

[nereas]

I do not believe that abortion among scientists needs to be a hot-button emotional issue. It should be possible to determine at what point a fetus can be sustained on life support outside of the womb based on the current technologies available. That is then the end of the scientific discussion. The rest is a matter of ethics, religion, and politics, where science ends.

Like individual gun rights under the 2nd Amendment, abortion is merely an unfinished issue in the Federal and various state constitutions. The People (see, Marvel, I capitalize The People out of respect for All The People) must simply decide once and for all what they want the law to be in their various jurisdictions, regarding abortion. Write your Congress-person and send in your donations. Ultimately, it will probably come down to the power of money anyway, like everything else.

 

[sheck33]

Agreed, we must wait for further testing.

It looks like we are going to have to define terms and context here. You are stating something novel was produced because it did not exist before (a transporter that no longer transports one item, but now two items, or some other mechanism...), and I'm stating that nothing novel was produced because already present genes were somehow changed...nothing new. This does not seem to be the additive kind of evolution that must occur for prokaryotes to eventually evolve into all the diversity we see today. Gene duplication followed by mutation is better, but we've already been through that.

Thanks.

So if I change a transporter the result is not a device that does something that was not possible before, i.e. there is nothing new there eh?

It is fun to watch how creationists, when faced with overwhelming evidence, have to resort to 'redefining' terms and context to save their contrived 'theories'.
A la Clinton, 'depends on how you define sex'. It sure is amusing.

 

[Thalassamania]

So if I change a transporter the result is not a device that does something that was not possible before, i.e. there is nothing new there eh?

It is fun to watch how creationists, when faced with overwhelming evidence, have to resort to 'redefining' terms and context to save their contrived 'theories'.
A la Clinton, 'depends on how you define sex'. It sure is amusing.

Sorta' like my favorite, PADI and "mastery" of skills.

 

[Twistedarts]

In all actuality the proof of god exists all around us. it is called the force that drives creation. I just can't understand how some like to belittle and pigeonhole hole (iconify) something so grand and beyond the grasp our complete understanding and vision just so they do not feel so empty and alone.

With respect to the controlling factor, it is just another tool to heard the sheep. No different than an iPod or Mountain dew. Just a bit more archaic.

There is an old saying,
Give a monkey a brain and he will swear he is the center of the universe.

Jeez ET must be laughing at us

In the words of Johnny Blaze... FLAME ON!!!!!

 

[nereas]

Sorta' like my favorite, PADI and "mastery" of skills.

Also: PADI and "peak performance buoyancy." I have to wonder, at which phase of a fin pivot is buoyancy peaked???

PADI has great contradictions. But we should not start PADI-bashing here, it might offend someone who is making a lot of money off "teaching" diving.

Or else beautiful Marvell will swoop in and start spanking everyone.

On a more serious note, it is easy to have a civil discussion of where the line is drawn between science and religion. It is just hard to stay one one side of that line.

A really good scientist would have no problem with that, as would a truly devout person of faith. It is the amateurs that have problems, in both camps, however.