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.
Here's what I do not get. Evolution was created by Darwin, and he was not intending to do anything against religion. He was a Christian and he just made observations and developed a theory. Creationism was literally created to be an anti-evolution theory. Religion is always counter-active, it never comes up with anything on its own to support itself, it just spend s all its time trying to dismiss anything that makes you question religious dogma. But I will take it a step further.
Do people who believe in creationism believe in DNA? Because if they do then why do they find it unfathomable that we evolved from an ape-like ancestor millions of years ago when there is the Bonobo.
Bonobo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The scientific name for the Bonobo is Pan paniscus. Initial genetic studies have characterized their DNA as much as 98% (99.4 in one study) identical to that of Homo sapiens. More recent studies have shown that chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than to gorillas.[11]
If we were all created simultaneously by a deity then why would we have such a close DNA match with Chimps and Bonobos??? In fact why would any species DNA be similar to anything else's, should'nt they all have a distinct genetic code so the species keeps replicating, its not like they need to evolve ever...
1. No creationist hypothesis has ever withstood scientific scrutiny.
2. Which creation myth do you postulate we teach to let students decide? Ojibwa? Hindu? Cherokee? Mayan? ancient Greek? Why in the world would anyone assume the Christian myth should be the one to be taught?
I learned these myths in school - usually in history classes.
and in reference to BigThirsty....
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law." - Thomas Jefferson.
Not much clearer than that. Jefferson wrote that in a letter expressing his exasperation at having to fight so hard to keep the religious zealots of his day from commandeering the government for their own interests.
You do realize Jefferson was in conflict with himself on many issues including Christianity dont you? As I have tried to point out, for every quote against Christianity there are several for it concerning the Founding Fathers.
I agree that there are fundamentalist scientists who have created a dogma out of Darwin and completely closed the book on questioning it. I agree that all options should be on the table and any scientist / academic interested in pursuing questions of this nature should be free to do so without risking their careers (many have lost their careers for even hinting at it).
However, the problem remains that there is absolutely no evidence that has passed scientific scrutiny. There is ample evidence that life moves from simple to complex. While it is slightly different, just look at forest succession after a volcano or something of that nature. It begins with the most basic forms of life that can survive those conditions and expands.
Even on a consciousness level, our "spirituality" evolves. You can track a society moving from an adherence to the physical to an awareness of the metaphysical right before our eyes.
And to suggest that anything observable supports Genesis - meaning one man and one woman were simply placed on the planet - is beyond the pale of reason or anything we could deduce reasonably. Now, if you're open to considering we were "created" by an alien drop from another species, then maybe it might make sense. For some reason, I'm yet to find any fundamentalist Christian open to the possibility that we're not alone in the universe.
I think I know where we have gotten things mixed up here. The labels creation and evolution are not proper competing terms. Like Preterist pointed out Creation cannot be proven and neither can the theory of the beginning of life. Now what is being called evolution or evolutionary theory can be both explained by evolution and creation/ID. The theory that is being considered evolution is mere adaption and as Preterist also pointed out is amongst kind and therefore does not conflict with creation.
Now as for life starting with simple to complex, this is seen in pregnancy but not in bacteria becoming and animal, or a horse becoming a whale. The only thing repeatable is adaption and in some cases mutation but not new lifeforms from old.
Actually scientist have traced the DNA back to one woman in Africa as being all of mans common ancestor, this was on National Geographic. So even science gives creadence to one man and one woman even if the timeframe is different.
As for us not being alone in the Universe, that is entirely possible just as biological lifeforms had to be created at some time in history and still there is no evidence for life starting from nonlife and the only logical explination is a creator.
Here's a thought: Teach them reading, writing, mathematics, science as it has been proven through experimentation, and history (factual history that is).
The rest should be left up to the parents. It's not the school's duty to teach anything even remotely related to personal beliefs IMHO.
There are enough failed scientific theories in the history of biology to use as a comparison against the modern theory of evolution. No need to bring in failed religious beliefs about origins as well. The latter isn't even an attempt at real science, so there's not much to be gained from studying them when better examples of legitimate science that just turned out to be wrong.
AllAboutGOD.com has the typical fundamentalist boogie-men - homosexuality, homeschooling, pretending intelligent design is science, atheists are everywhere, end times and new world order hysteria, and so on. As usual, the objections to teaching science in a science class come from Christian dominionists pretending to be impartial observers.
Actually we have no problem with teaching science in a science class, the problem is giving limited theories for a broad subject or declaring facts where none exist.
Quote:
This shows a misunderstand of the process of science. It doesn't "prove" "facts". It observes facts and produces theories to explain those facts. Proof is for systems which use deductive logic (math, for example) while science uses induction to come to conclusions.
I am glad you brought this up. Do you realize the theories of evolution on many levels are mathamatically impossible given the timeframe we are presented with. Even with billions of years there still needs to be some sort of miracle or designer for everything to fall into place as it is.
As I said before the wrong areas are in conflict. It should not be Creation vs Evolution for they are not really in conflict other than a few theories. Instead creation should be in conflict with the Big Bang or what was that other word? Asogenesis or something like that. Evolution is merely adaption that has been observed, but its theories concerning something beyond adaption or mutation that are in conflict with the Biblical account while also complimenting the Bible in that it requires a miracle or a designer.
Just so you know we're not making words up as we go along, here is a little explanation by the US National Academy of Sciences:
Quote:
Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preterist
What do you see around you, calmdude? The randomness of evolution or the order of design? Let's be honest!
As you should know, evolution is not random. Mutations are, and they are necessary for evolution to occur. But evolution is "directed" by natural selection, which is not random at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinD69
I appreciate what you offered here but I see no imperical proof for evolution. What I do see is theory based on theory and so on. I mean no disrespect and I appreciate the effort but what has been repeatedly tested and proven? I dont see anything.
Humans cannot procreate with apes no matter how close of an evolutionary connection we supposedly have with them!
I wonder if that has ever been attempted (not that ethics would allow scientists to test this in laboratory conditions...). Since we are so close with chimpanzees, genetically speaking, it's not unlikely that an union could produce offsprings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preterist
It was once a recognized "fact" among scientists that the earth is flat.
Did they have the scientific method back then? Calling them "scientists" is debatable.
(Of course, no one denies that scientists are wrong sometimes. I mean, maybe radio-activity doesn't exist. It is, after all, only a theory...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by HsvMike
Now I just came across this site in research and don't know who runs it, but actual quotes does not seem biased.
I'm affraid they are. Creationists frequently use the "eye" quote even though Darwin's next sentence directly contradicts their interpretation of it (and let's not go into the horrible instance in Expelled...). Today, the evolution of the eye is well understood.
The second quote, however, is genuine and true. However, as of today, no such organ has ever been discovered. In fact, I cannot imagine how such organ might be identified as "irreducibly complex". Because we would have to prove that it could not have come about by natural evolution, and proving a negative is hard if not impossible.
(The next sentence to that quote is "But I can find out no such case.")
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinD69
Actually scientist have traced the DNA back to one woman in Africa as being all of mans common ancestor, this was on National Geographic. So even science gives creadence to one man and one woman even if the timeframe is different.
You misunderstood their findings. The existence of a "common mother" for all humans alive today is not evidence of creation. It would still be true no matter how humans emerged on earth, and this can be mathematicaly proven, without even finding DNA evidence. For details, see What, if anything, is a Mitochondrial Eve? .
They're pretty common creationist quote mining - selective editing to make the quotes say the opposite of what the author intended. It takes about 2 seconds with Google to expose the truth behind them, but if you'd rather I do it...
The same goes both ways as we all know, look at the example of the founding fathers being selectively quoted to counter Christianity when in fact the majority of the founders were Christian and the nation was created with Christian values.
Quote:
The text following the quotes from Darwin isn't a logical conclusion from those quotes. "Small gradual changes" has nothing to do with "all parts are necessary". Small gradual changes could easily result in a system where there are unneeded parts. Or a small change eliminating one redundant part of a system could result in one which then has no unnecessary parts. There's just no relationship between the two.
Actually, if we are all honest, small gradual changes in some systems would be illogical without a designer. So science and the Bible are not in conflict here except for the fact science does not want to consider the designer theory.
Quote:
The author is mixing the traditional creationist approach of out-of-context quoting of Darwin with asserting previously falsified creationist ideas, and doing a rather clumsy job of it.
Can we please have an example?
Quote:
This is a nice contrast. Creationism uses out of context and selectively edited quotes to attempt to disprove evolution, hoping that they'll then win by default. Scientists, on the other hand, publish peer reviewed papers filled with positive evidence supporting their claims. I think it's obvious which one should be taught in schools.
Actually as I pointed out earlier both sides are very selective in their assesments.
I think I know where we have gotten things mixed up here. The labels creation and evolution are not proper competing terms. Like Preterist pointed out Creation cannot be proven and neither can the theory of the beginning of life. Now what is being called evolution or evolutionary theory can be both explained by evolution and creation/ID. The theory that is being considered evolution is mere adaption and as Preterist also pointed out is amongst kind and therefore does not conflict with creation.
Now as for life starting with simple to complex, this is seen in pregnancy but not in bacteria becoming and animal, or a horse becoming a whale. The only thing repeatable is adaption and in some cases mutation but not new lifeforms from old.
Actually scientist have traced the DNA back to one woman in Africa as being all of mans common ancestor, this was on National Geographic. So even science gives creadence to one man and one woman even if the timeframe is different.
As for us not being alone in the Universe, that is entirely possible just as biological lifeforms had to be created at some time in history and still there is no evidence for life starting from nonlife and the only logical explination is a creator.
The part I bolded is absolutely NOT true. It's a common misconception that 'Mitochondrial Eve' is the one common ancestor. If there was only one man and one woman, humans would have gone extinct due to a population bottleneck...
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.
