Creation vs. Evolution

[Soggy]

It's still an IV, it's not becoming a botulism, or a bird, or a dinosaur, or ...

Yeah, sort of like both Chimpanzee's and Humans are Hominidae? I guess we agree, it's pretty solid evidence.

Some of us are more closely related to monkeys than others. So what the DNA is similar; that proves nothing about evolution.

"Just bcause you say it, doesn't make it true." Yes, DNA, among other things, does prove something about evolution. DNA is our blueprint, if it changes, we change. The difference between species is represented by a small change in DNA. Or do you believe DNA to also be a figment of the imagination of scientists?

Allowing yourself to listen to the Lord of this World and his deception is dangerous to your future.

Hey man, I tried listening for "the Lord" on more than one occasion. Even tried talking to "Him" a couple times. When I received no responses, it became obvious that I was talking to myself.

My belief system is based on experimental evidence.

But that's assuming you believe you have a future after this life.

I think I get eaten by worms. I do not expect others to believe that and I do not find it irrational for others to believe in an afterlife, under some conditions.

If you don't then why are you asking me, in the name of "science", to believe that I have no future?

I haven't. I've asked you to open your mind up for a couple milliseconds and realize that your belief regarding how we came to be is flawed.

Does your fiance believe she has a future or does she believe she is only the end result of "natural selection"?

I have no interest in discussing my relationship with my fiancee with you. Do not be so presumptuous that I have an interest in what you have to say on that matter.

You clearly have a problem with reading comprehension, but make sure that you comprehend this: I have told you privately, and now I am telling you publicly....my relationship with my fiancee is not a topic for discussion.

As I said, the only reason it's "unrelated" is because it presents a large obstacle. It's much more (cough, cough) "scientific" to say something profound like "Who cares where the blindwatchmaker acquired his parts? They must have been there but we don't know how."

It's unrelated because it is unrelated. There is a separate study, called abiogenesis. Evolutionary theory knows that the parts were there and how they changed over time. Evolutionary theory says nothing about the creation of life. You are welcome to continue believing that a creator put the first spark into the goo. That is not irrational. What is irrational is ignoring ridiculous amounts of proof because a literal view on a 2000 year old book of stories contradicts it.

Dawkins himself. But then he goes on to wax theoretical as well as insane with discussions of "what could/must have happened" and marble statues waving their hands.

What exactly does Dawkins say? Forgive me if I do not trust your paraphrasing....

 

[Thalassamania]

The seminal work on immunological distance was: Sarich, V M and A C Wilson (1967) Rates of Albumin Evolution in Primates. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.; 58(1): 142–148. Link. I had the pleasure of obtaining blood samples for Dr. Sarich from Kianu, the Orca I was working with at time, for his work on cetacean evolution.

 

[H2Andy]

When I tell puns, they are usually 2/3 of a pun...

Spoiler

P U

:insert icon of me shooting myself:

 

[Midnight Star]

:insert icon of me shooting myself:

I've got dibs on Andy's diving gear and AK-47!

-----

Mike.

 

[Midnight Star]

...unless he shoots me first.

-----

Mike.

 

[lamont]

I've come accross several such statistical analysis. The problem is that they are on the internet and formulated by those who clearly have an iron in the fire. The antis come up with numbers that show it isn't possible by a HUGE margin and the pros come up with one that shows it to be a piece of cake. IME, when two seperate groups tries to calculate the same thing and come up with such drastically different answers, you need a third analysis because somebody is screwing up. They're clearly not answering the same question.

they're on the internet, which is not exactly a peer reviewed journal article. that's the first problem. the internet is going to be worthless for this kind of analysis.

While I do have some background in statistics it's all been in an engineering context and I don't have the background in biology or genetics to critique the analysis in a meaningful way or to do it myself. Statistics is only useful if the right questions are asked, the right data is used and the right methods given the data and the question are used...which is why it so often yields the "wrong" answer. It's just easy to screw up the question.

which is why it needs to be done by someone with a graduate degree in zoology / mol biotech / genetics...

and the fundamental problem with the way that you phrase your question is that evolution can never really proove that it happened. all you can do with certainty is proove that evolution is wrong. you can never proove that it is correct.

i would also disagree that the burden of proof is on evolution. we know that you can get mutation and natural selection which produces different genetic sequences that explains the differences between a german shepherd and pitbull, it is entirely plausible that over longer timeframes that evolution would produce larger differences in genetic sequences that would give us dogs and foxes from a common ancestor. all you're dealing with is two sequences with a larger delta between them, which is less probable to evolve, but which has a much longer time and more instances of organisms over which the change occured. the underlying mechanism remains the same, and it remains completely plausible, and it seems that its up to the detractors to prove that it could not have occured. and to restate what i said before, evolutionists cannot prove the theory correct by the nature of what scientific theories are, while anti-evolutionists can prove the theory incorrect.

 

[Uncle Pug]

Hey man, I tried listening for "the Lord" on more than one occasion. Even tried talking to "Him" a couple times. When I received no responses, it became obvious that I was talking to myself.

My belief system is based on experimental evidence.

Mine is too.

 

[H2Andy]

Mine is too.

sorry, Pug... while annecdotal evidence of prayer's success may be fun to read, the only scientific study ever conducted on the subject has determined

(big surprise here)

that prayer doesn't work.

It examined 1,800 patients undergoing heart-bypass surgery. On the eve of the operations, church groups began two weeks of praying for one set of patients. Each recipient had a praying contingent of about 70, none of whom knew the patient personally. The study found no differences in survival or complication rates compared with those who did not receive prayers. The only statistically significant blip appeared in a subgroup of patients who were prayed for and knew it. They experienced a higher rate of postsurgical heart arrhythmias (59 versus 52 percent of unaware subjects).


on a more somber note, i am very sorry about your friend. either way, he's in a far better place right now.

 

[Uncle Pug]

say, Pug, do you believe in a literal hell? or do you think the unsaved just go to sleep after death and never wake up?

and what is the Biblical basis for your belief?

Yes, I do believe in a literal hell.

From what the Bible says, it is a place of destruction and desolation but not cessation of existence. It is called torment and outer-darkness. It is definitely not somewhere you want to go. It is also somewhere that God does not want you to go. Jesus said that it was a place of weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth and His death on the cross was meant to spare you from that fate.

Something I would like to say personally about the idea of hell because it has been mention before in this thread: that is the notion that folks become believers because they are afraid of going to hell.

I suppose for some that might be the case but for me it wasn't. I wasn't worried at all about going to hell because I didn't believe in it anymore than I believed there was a god. I was convinced of evolution and content in my atheism.

Like Soggy, I knew I was more righteous than most of the christians I had ever met.

Looking at all of the atrocities in the Bible, the atrocities committed throughout history (inquisition, ect.) and even the notion that god would cast people into hell for nothing more than not believing what he/she/it wanted them too... made me feel more righteous than god.

So there I was... more righteous than the christians and even more righteous than the god I didn't believe in.

But the truth was, I wasn't righteous at all. I was only self-righteous. In fact, I really was a sinner. I began to face the fact that I was a sinner even by my own standard of morality. I didn't even live up to my own standard!

At the same time it began to dawn on me that perhaps the god I refused to believe in might actually exist and I figured I needed to know.

So... shortening a long story... now I know.

I know that I am a sinner not only by God's standards... I'm still a sinner even by my own. I wish I wasn't but I am.

I know that not only does God exist, He is impeccably Holy and Righteous and that all of my self-righteousness is a filthy rag compared to Him.

I know that all of my sin and unrighteousness was judged already and I was found guilty and punished for it... only it wasn't me that took the punishment, it was Jesus. I know that the righteousness I have now isn't my own. He took my filthy rags and gave me His spotless robe of righteousness.

I wasn't afraid of hell because I didn't believe it existed... I'm still not afraid of hell because I don't have to go there. But one thing that does trouble me... I don't want anyone to go there.

 

[Soggy]

In fact, I really was a sinner. I began to face the fact that I was a sinner even by my own standard of morality. I didn't even live up to my own standard!

As am I. I make mistakes all the time. Sometimes they are mistakes that I am conscious of as they are occurring, other times mistakes that I realize later in retrospect when I realize that someone was hurt by my actions.

It would be arrogant for anyone to believe that they live a totally moral life. It is nearly impossible to do so without facing poverty and starvation.