Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If anything since the sequestration of the DNA, modern genetics has placed the last nails in the coffin of creationist theory. Evolution if such settled science as to no longer require any debate, so I won't.
How so?
Modern genetics has become more confused about the role of genes than it was many decades ago. It was once believe there was a 1 gene for every 1 protein. Then it was discovered this is not so. With going to any any books and trying to remember from the top of my head, there are about 100,000 proteins in the human body and about 20,000 genes. And I think--if I recall correctly--only 1% or 2% of those 20,000 genes are known to code for anything at all.
Protienom is the new developing specialty in the sciences now but is unknown to those outside of science academic courses. Some "New Atheists" (a term referring to militant types of atheists) like Richard Dawkins want to redefine what a gene is because they claim the current definition is inadequate.
"Genes" were a term like "lazer gun" or "Star Trek" or "God" before they were ever discovered, or what we thought were discovered, and we simply applied the term to various chemically structured units of heredity we believed we found. And genes play their role its just that traits are far more environmentally influenced than what was once believed.
To put it in simple terms: confidence in the "gene" as declined, not risen.
But even if genes caused all traits in organism independent of environmental information, I'm still not sure how that puts a nail in in the coffin of belief in God? Or more specifically in creationsim.
When I was a little child I heard nothing of genes yet I noticed dogs had eyes, ears, hair, and ran just as I had those traits. Replace "eyes" with "genes" and I'm not sure how that changes the similarity I noticed between dogs and myself.
You need to check your sources. None of these are credible in the field of biological evolution. Behe's work has been widely discredited. James Watkins is a chemical engineer so he isn't even an expert in the biological science nor is T.N. Tahmisian. Atomic Energy has nothing to do with evolution. The United Church of God isn't a good source because it is a biased religious source that has nothing to do with evolution.
You're also taking Bounoure's quote out of context. Here is what Bounoure was really talking about:
Creationists never provide sources that are actually experts in the field of evolution. It's always the opinions of people who have no expertise in the field. If you want to know about DNA and evolution then you should talk to an actual evolutionary biologist.
Since everyone else who is a rational thinker is quoting you, I thought I'd chime in as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Heck...even when people knew the earth was not flat, they still believed it to be so. The problem is, you guys just don't know WHAT to believe, but you will suspend all rational thought if that thought points to any kind of creator, or God.
Greek mathematician and astronomer Eratosthenes calculated the size of the Earth 300 years before the time of Jesus. Yet, even today, the people who believe the Earth is flat (and yes, there are some) are Biblical literalists.
Samuel Rowbotham founded the Flat Earth Society with his article "The inconsistency of Modern Astronomy and its Opposition to the Scriptures!!" which argued that the "Bible, alongside our senses, supported the idea that the earth was flat and immovable and this essential truth should not be set aside for a system based solely on human conjecture".
The Vatican has accepted evolution. Evolution does not disprove the creation. If anything evolution makes the creation more interesting.
The Vatican is not necessarily the Holy See. And John Paul II made his own claim and was not teaching ex cathedra.
The official teaching of the Catholic Church is that it is not weighing in on whether evolutionary theory is true or false.
John Paul II stated that creationism is not science. Maybe he was right. He was an intelligent man and an amateur scientist himself. I really don't know much of anything about what creationism proposes. My understanding is they propose God made each animal its own kind, and no new species evolve from older ones. The evidence from science does not seem to support this. However, I stop short of claiming proof or speaking of absolutes.
Atheists that speak of absolutes are no different than creationists. And I still remember a biology professor of mine asking our class if the theory of evolution is correct? She stated afterwards that it may not be. Science is wrong a whole lot.
What the Vatican need not do is weigh in like it did on the Galileo affair. And contrary to what you thing the Vatican/Holy See were agreeing with the consensus of scientists in opposing Galileo.
You need to check your sources. None of these are credible in the field of biological evolution. Behe's work has been widely discredited. James Watkins is a chemical engineer so he isn't even an expert in the biological science nor is T.N. Tahmisian. Atomic Energy has nothing to do with evolution. The United Church of God isn't a good source because it is a biased religious source that has nothing to do with evolution.
You're also taking Bounoure's quote out of context. Here is what Bounoure was really talking about:
Creationists never provide sources that are actually experts in the field of evolution. It's always the opinions of people who have no expertise in the field. If you want to know about DNA and evolution then you should talk to an actual evolutionary biologist.
James Watkins as a chemical engineer is as capable if not more so to judge claims made about evolution as any roofer or farmer or policeman.
His education is not what bothers you. It's his opinion. If he agreed with atheists scientists you'd have no problem with him. In fact you would quote him if he made a witty statement against creationists.
Agnostics and atheists like to feign they have no biases. They have as much bias as militant religious.
If evolutionary theory did not threaten the claims of the religious, there would never have been any sort of assault on the science involved.
The techniques and methods employed in identifying and developing evolutionary principles are the same scientific m.o employed to determine the distance to stars, the existence of black holes, the laws of particle physics..why isn't anyone challenging these assertions?
Evolutionary theory did not come into being because people were determined to overthrow Genesis, it came into being as a consequence of observation, testing and the employment of known natural laws. Genesis just happened to be the fable which fell victim when we learned how things actually worked.
There is no reason at all to view evolutionary theory as any different from any other scientific theory. It is advanced because it squares with the available evidence, not because someone wanted to discredit religion. But because it does happen to render false one particular prevailing religious explanation, and that apparently cannot be tolerated by some religious people, we have this absurd attack on it taking place.
If evolutionary theory did not threaten the claims of the religious, there would never have been any sort of assault on the science involved.
The techniques and methods employed in identifying and developing evolutionary principles are the same scientific m.o employed to determine the distance to stars, the existence of black holes, the laws of particle physics..why isn't anyone challenging these assertions?
Evolutionary theory did not come into being because people were determined to overthrow Genesis, it came into being as a consequence of observation, testing and the employment of known natural laws. Genesis just happened to be the fable which fell victim when we learned how things actually worked.
There is no reason at all to view evolutionary theory as any different from any other scientific theory. It is advanced because it squares with the available evidence, not because someone wanted to discredit religion. But because it does happen to render false one particular prevailing religious explanation, and that apparently cannot be tolerated by some religious people, we have this absurd attack on it taking place.
Eh... incorrect. The laws of physics offer reliable, accurate predictions. Nothing can be predicted in the theory of evolution per descent with modification. Nothing.
The punnet square is math probability and has zero to do with descent with modification. It has to do with gene/trait frequency.
Human biologists or evolutionary biologists are intelligent designers. They need to wait for billions of years for chance to create--through descent with modification--all this abundant and diverse life on earth. Yet putting their brains together they can do a smidgen of what chance could do super-intelligently.
F all that talk about DNA. Life requires DNA. The better question predicated on chance with no intelligent designer is cellular differentiation. The whole stem cell talk. The atheist essentially proposes a man can jerk off, shoot his sex cells (sperm) on to empty earth he poured water on to, and bam! the Garden of Eden will begin to emerge and eventually frogs, cats, birds, and baby girls.
I would and will accept the theory of evolution if in fact it is true. And I have accepted it. The problem I have is the more I learn the more absolute nonsense some of this stuff proposed in evolution begins to sound. But then if everyone just knows evolution is 100% correct then you'll ad hoc hypothesize new explanations that fit and "save" the theory.
How many people are asking the objective and rational question: What if the theory of evolution is in part or in whole wrong?
James Watkins as a chemical engineer is as capable if not more so to judge claims made about evolution as any roofer or farmer or policeman.
His education is not what bothers you. It's his opinion. If he agreed with atheists scientists you'd have no problem with him. In fact you would quote him if he made a witty statement against creationists.
Agnostics and atheists like to feign they have no biases. They have as much bias as militant religious.
The bolded part is the problem with his claims. Science is based on verifiable facts, not someone's personal opinions. Also, the fact he is an engineer does affect his credibility. Engineers are not experts in the field of evolution while biologists are. It is similar to saying an astrologer is just as credible as an astronomer. Credentials do matter when making an argument. Watkins doesn't have them. This is why credible journalists check their sources and why scientists list their sources in peer reviewed articles.
The Vatican is not necessarily the Holy See. And John Paul II made his own claim and was not teaching ex cathedra.
The official teaching of the Catholic Church is that it is not weighing in on whether evolutionary theory is true or false.
John Paul II stated that creationism is not science. Maybe he was right. He was an intelligent man and an amateur scientist himself. I really don't know much of anything about what creationism proposes. My understanding is they propose God made each animal its own kind, and no new species evolve from older ones. The evidence from science does not seem to support this. However, I stop short of claiming proof or speaking of absolutes.
Atheists that speak of absolutes are no different than creationists. And I still remember a biology professor of mine asking our class if the theory of evolution is correct? She stated afterwards that it may not be. Science is wrong a whole lot.
What the Vatican need not do is weigh in like it did on the Galileo affair. And contrary to what you thing the Vatican/Holy See were agreeing with the consensus of scientists in opposing Galileo.
It really does not matter what the RCC have to say, they no longer hold the reigns of scientific exploration, thankfully.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supine
James Watkins as a chemical engineer is as capable if not more so to judge claims made about evolution as any roofer or farmer or policeman.
His education is not what bothers you. It's his opinion. If he agreed with atheists scientists you'd have no problem with him. In fact you would quote him if he made a witty statement against creationists.
Agnostics and atheists like to feign they have no biases. They have as much bias as militant religious.
Who is Watkins? A lot of these so called gurus do not even feature this side of the pond and evolution here is taught as fact. The only place creationism finds a foothold is in the USA and perhaps the ME. Really something to be proud of I guess?
Many of these so called religious scientists I never heard of until I started participating here. I still hold my own relatively well using the HS science Brit education and a tad what I have added to via the internet. That is pretty sad if you come to think of it. One would expect the country that put the first man on the moon to be way ahead of the curve than I am yet it is not so. My last science class was in October 1975, then I went into what may be termed applied sciences in the electrical field applying mostly physics and a bit of chemistry.
The creation vs evolution debate was settled ~40 years ago in the US and yet we still see that garbage being resurrected here time and again. That merely shows that people are falling behind the curve more and more in the US and that is sad. The brightest and the "bestest" of the US 30somethings should be teaching me, not the other way round. No?
Evolution is not a replacement theology and in my mind it is the natural progression from the archaic religious POV which by now should have been dismissed entirely. The demise of religion is inevitable and all the trends show that to be happening.
From what I understand, the RCC stance is one of Theistic Evolution but that is a deflection of the real science of evolution, the god bits add nothing to the science and there is no one micromanaging anything nor is it some form of complex code put into motion by a deist type of god, If you remove either of the god bits, the science stands on its own merits I liken it to putting godunnit post-it labels on all the real discoveries.
If the RCC folk were honest, they should be redacting parts of the bible that have been usurped by science. Not even footnotes have been added and all this does is force people into cognitive dissonance (not an insult BTW)
Eh... incorrect. The laws of physics offer reliable, accurate predictions. Nothing can be predicted in the theory of evolution per descent with modification. Nothing.
.
My point was that the same scientific m.o, observation, testing, employment of known principles and laws, was used to develop evolutionary concepts, as were employed in making all our other scientific determinations.
Yet only evolution is under assault.
If the theory of gravity contradicted Genesis, I suppose that the same creationist crowd would be condemning the Newton "apostles" and searching desperately for some convoluted argument to overturn that.
You have some explanation as to why there aren't any challenges to the current identification of the speed of light, or the behavioral properties of electrons? Why is it that the only thing being claimed a scientific error is evolution?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
