- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIn support of this idea, we have created an RNA molecule that catalyzes the type of polymerization reaction needed for RNA replication.
Everything is based on assumptions. For example, you assume every second that you're not looking at a Bible that Bibles do exist and that the have in the past. However there does exist strong evidence in favor of the hypothesis. Here's one example:
[b]The RNA world hypothesis states that early life forms lacked protein enzymes and depended ins ...[text shortened]... replication.
http://web.mit.edu/biology/www/facultyareas/facresearch/bartel.shtml[/b]
Didn't they use "intelligence" to "create" this RNA molecule?
13 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerDefine "evolution"; define "prove". What you are doing above is taking two exactly opposite results: 1) Man is never able to create life from non-life and B) Man is able to create life from non-life and arguing that BOTH of these detrimentally opposed results "prove" ID. This is completely unscientific and quite ridiculous.
And you still believe in evolution even if there is no way to prove it?
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't think he is actually. Darfius is arguing one position and dj is arguing the other. Unless I missed something?
Define "evolution"; define "prove". What you are doing above is taking two exactly opposite results: 1) Man is never able to create life from non-life and B) Man is able to create life from non-life and arguing that BOTH of these detrimentally opposed results "prove" ID. This is completely unscientific and quite ridiculous.
Dj, humans creating life does not prove life always is created by intelligence - it just shows that it is possible.
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerWe're responding to Darfius, who has a different claim than you, dj2.
[b]In support of this idea, we have created an RNA molecule that catalyzes the type of polymerization reaction needed for RNA replication.
Didn't they use "intelligence" to "create" this RNA molecule?
[/b]
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSo you agree that Christianity and Evolution both require faith? If so both thus qualify as a religion. So basically I believe in the beginnig was God and you belive that in the beginnig was a very dense dot of matter. Frankly I believe your faith is a blind-faith as opposed to a faith in a Creator.
You still believe in Christianity even though there's no way to prove it?
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerWe're talking chalk and cheese here.
So you agree that Christianity and Evolution both require faith? If so both thus qualify as a religion. So basically I believe in the beginnig was God and you belive that in the beginnig was a very dense dot of matter. Frankly I believe your faith is a blind-faith as opposed to a faith in a Creator.
Christianity is a faith. It requires belief and offers no proof. It is used by believers to provide a moral compass and to justify genocide, sectarianism, war, slavery, drive by shootings, bigotry and all the other cool stuff that people do in the name of the lard cheeses.
Evolution is a theory. It does not require belief. It is offerred as a theory in order to explain observations that people have made in the real world; some people cite these as proof but we don't really need to proove the theory in any absolute terms. It is used by scientists to make predictions about the world; observations are made to confirm the accuracy of the observations; some people cite the accuracy of prediction as proof but we don't really need to proove the theory in any absolute terms. The value of any scientific theory is in its power to explain what is observed, to predict, to model the real world, to provide a context for further investigation. It is not an item of faith, it doesn't matter if you don't believe a word of it, the utility is in the predictive power.
The scientific community has a good record in abandoning or modifying theories that loose their power; theories are tools, not dogma.
Newtonian physics stood the test of time for three centuries. The revolution in physics in the early 1900's showed that Newtonian physics breaks down at a sub atomic level, that it is not universally true. Oh dear one might think: aircraft designers routinely use Newtonian phyics in the design of their aircraft, if the theory has broken down and is not a universal truth any more planes will fall from the sky. Not a bit of it, despite the fact that particle physicists have shown that Newton's model is not the universal truth it was once thought to be it is still a useful predictive tool.
So get real, I work in genetics. I don't care whether you believe in evolution; I do care that you are endlessly trying to discredit a useful tool that is bringing benefit to millions in terms of medical genetics, crop imrovement, disease control etc. You don't have to believe in a hammer, you just use it to knock in nails.
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by aardvarkhomemy god man... you said it.... chalk and chese... end game... i feel i can stop waisting time in this forum section now.. ty.. ty soooo much... a weight has ben lifted...
We're talking chalk and cheese here.
Christianity is a faith. It requires belief and offers no proof. It is used by believers to provide a moral compass and to justify genocide, sectarianism, war, slavery, drive by shootings, bigotry and all the other cool stuff that people do in the name of the lard cheeses.
Evolution is a theory. It does not r ...[text shortened]... disease control etc. You don't have to believe in a hammer, you just use it to knock in nails.
Bless it be.😏
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeChristianity is a faith. It requires belief and offers no proof. It is used by believers to provide a moral compass and to justify genocide, sectarianism, war, slavery, drive by shootings, bigotry and all the other cool stuff that people do in the name of the lard cheeses.
We're talking chalk and cheese here.
Christianity is a faith. It requires belief and offers no proof. It is used by believers to provide a moral compass and to justify genocide, sectarianism, war, slavery, drive by shootings, bigotry and all the other cool stuff that people do in the name of the lard cheeses.
The scientific community has a good ...[text shortened]... disease control etc. You don't have to believe in a hammer, you just use it to knock in nails.
Evolution is also a faith. If it is not a faith then why do you believe it? Anything that you believe in requires faith. It also requires belief and offers no proof. Evolution is used to justify genocide, sectarianism, war, slavery, drive by shootings, bigotry and a lot of other things. I'm afraid I cannot say the same about Christianity. The only problem I have with evolution is when it is taught as a fact.
So get real, I work in genetics. I don't care whether you believe in evolution; I do care that you are endlessly trying to discredit a useful tool that is bringing benefit to millions in terms of medical genetics, crop imrovement, disease control etc. You don't have to believe in a hammer, you just use it to knock in nails.
In what way is evolution benefitting millions in terms of medical genetics, crop imrovement, disease control ?
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerThe combination of understanding evolutionary theory, the discrete nature of hereditable elements and the structure of genetic material underpins all advances in medical genetics, crop imrovement, disease control. If you're too stupid to understand that, visit the PNAS website and start reading.
[b]Christianity is a faith. It requires belief and offers no proof. It is used by believers to provide a moral compass and to justify genocide, sectarianism, war, slavery, drive by shootings, bigotry and all the other cool stuff that people do in the name of the lard cheeses.
Evolution is also a faith. If it is not a faith then why do you believe it ...[text shortened]... ust use it to knock in nails. [/b]
In what way is evolution benefitting millions in terms of?[/b]
You're quite right, the 'survival of the fittest' arguement was used to justify eugenics and some of the racist politics of the 1890-1930 period that culminated in the Halocaust. However, if you deny the involvement of christianinty in 2000 years of hatred and bloodshed then you are either a fool or a knave.
You still don't understand the arguement on belief. Evolutionary theory is a tool, its utility is a fact: no more, no less. It does not threaten the value of christian morals, it merely underlimines the literal truth of a folk tale that emerged from the Neolithic
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
13 Apr 05
2 edits
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeThe combination of understanding evolutionary theory, the discrete nature of hereditable elements and the structure of genetic material underpins all advances in medical genetics, crop imrovement, disease control.
The combination of understanding evolutionary theory, the discrete nature of hereditable elements and the structure of genetic material underpins all advances in medical genetics, crop imrovement, disease control. If you're too stupi ...[text shortened]... s the literal truth of a folk tale that emerged from the Neolithic
Would you mind to define "evolutionary theory".
If you're too stupid to understand that, visit the PNAS website and start reading.
This is a typical way of saying "I can't explain to you what I'm saying."
You're quite right, the 'survival of the fittest' arguement was used to justify eugenics and some of the racist politics of the 1890-1930 period that culminated in the Halocaust. However, if you deny the involvement of christianinty in 2000 years of hatred and bloodshed then you are either a fool or a knave.
Take a look at a few of the positive contributions Christianity has made through the centuries:
-Hospitals
-Universities
-Literacy and Education
-Capitalism and free enterprise
-Representative government
-Separation of political powers
-Civil liberties
-Abolition of slavery
-Modern Science
-Higher standards of Justice
-The elevation of the common man
-High regard for human life
Kennedy D.J. What if Jesus had never been born?
You still don't understand the arguement on belief. Evolutionary theory is a tool, its utility is a fact: no more, no less. It does not threaten the value of christian morals, it merely underlimines the literal truth of a folk tale that emerged from the Neolithic
Something happened on the way to the twentieth century. In the middle of the nineteenth century when modern science began to develop, the enitre scientific enterprise was hijacked.
I am refering to Darwins's theory of evolution. Canada's leading scientist, who was chosen to write the Introduction to the centennial edition of The Origin of the Species, said that the greatest evil Darwin has brought upon the world is to somehow divide science from God and, in fact, set the two at each other's throats.
The theory of evolution has had enormous and devastating impact upon the world in which we live. Michael Denton, author of the fascinating book titled Evolution: A Theory of Crisis, wrote:
"The voyage on the Beagle was a journey of awesome significance. Its object was to survey Patagonia; its results was to shake the foundation of Western thought. The Origin of Species has been refered to as "one of the most important books ever written" (it is because it seeks to shake the foundations of the most important book ever written). As far as Christianity was concerned, the advent of of the theory of evolution and the elimination of traditional teloelogical thinking was catastrophic."
Teleological thinking is the thinking you and I engage in every day. To think teleologically is to believe life has purpose and an end. The evolutionist believes nothing has purpose or an end. Consequently, life has no significance or meaning or importance. The whole scientific enterprise, however, has been hijacked into a naturalistic or materialistic view of the world. Naturalism believes that there is nothing in the universe but nature, nothing supernatural' materialism believes there is nothing in the world but matter.
What does this mean? It means that we live in a time when there are only two religions competing for the minds, hearts, and loyalties of Western man.
Anyone who does not realise that evolution is a religion does not know much about evolution. It is a religion that is passinately held by its devotees. Listen to what some well-known evolutionists, all highly placed scientists in the world, have to say. Professor Louis T. More one of the most vocal evolutionists: "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that that evolution is based on faith alone." Professor D.M.S Watson, a famous evolutionist, made the remarkable observation that that evolution itself is universally accepted, "not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logical coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative-special creation-is clearly incredible." To the reprobate mind, the ungenerate mind, creation is incredible because it requires a belief in a creator, and that is totally unacceptable to men such as these. A famous British evolutionist, Sir Arthur Keith, is just as frank in his admission. He says, "Evolution is is unproved and unprovable. We believe in it only because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable."
Yet over and over in our colleges' textbooks, evolution is being taught as a proved fact. A modern textbook titled General Zoology states, "All scientists agree that evolution is a fact."
Professor David Allbrook, professor of anatomy at the University of Western Australia, says that evolution is "a time-honoured scientific tenet of faith." It is faith - faith in the substance of things unseen. It is a religion.
Kennedy D.J. Why I Believe
13 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerSo you agree that Christianity and Evolution both require faith?
So you agree that Christianity and Evolution both require faith? If so both thus qualify as a religion. So basically I believe in the beginnig was God and you belive that in the beginnig was a very dense dot of matter. Frankly I believe your faith is a blind-faith as opposed to a faith in a Creator.
Your question is worded awkwardly. Evolution does not require faith; it exists independent of humanity. To confidently believe that the TOE is an accurate model is faith by this definition:
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
I think you're referring to this definition however:
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Belief that the TOE is an accurate model does not need to be this sort of faith. My belief that the TOE is an accurate model rests on material evidence. Therefore, this kind of faith is not required to believe the TOE's explanations.
So basically I believe in the beginnig was God and you belive that in the beginnig was a very dense dot of matter.
Basically you believe in the beginning was God and I myself don't have a clue personally. I tend to trust the scientific community when it comes to questions about how the universe works, but I haven't looked into the issue of the origin of the universe myself. You assume too much about me.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith