Creation vs. Evolution

[Marvel]

Er, once again:

ce4jesus.....

For goodness' sake, please learn how to quote correctly, otherwise one just skips over your posts as they're too hard to follow.

Here's how you do it. Press the quote button below the post you're wanting to quote. You'll get the quote (eg "text text text") surrounded by coding information: square bracket, quote, equal sign, person's name, post number on one side, square brackets, and square brackets, forward slash, quote, square brackets.

It looks like this without the spaces.

[ QUOTE=ce4jesus;3666995 ] text text text [ QUOTE ]



Don't cut out the code information if you want to make the quotes appear in a blue box with the name of the person quoted like this:

Ummm... shordivr? You kind of omitted an important element for those who are "quote challenged...."

you showed: [ QUOTE=ce4jesus;3666995 ] text text text [ QUOTE ]

That won't work. It'll just look like this (a common mistake):

text text text

To end a quote, you need to add a forward slash as below:

[ QUOTE=ce4jesus;3666995 ] text text text [ / QUOTE ]

Of course, all spaces have to be eliminated for this to work. BTW, it is not necessary to include the member number when creating a quote- the software does that when you quote an entire post. If you want to quote pieces & want to credit (or discredit) you can simply add an = followed by the member name. No space. Example would be =shoredivr

Very useful if you are copying a line or two from your display to quote instead of quoting & then editing. Copy the text you want into the reply box > Highlight it > Hit the Quote button above the box > Now you see the opening html tag that says Quote > Add =<membername> immediately after the word & before the closing bracket ]

Voila!

If you don't include the name of the person quoted inside the blue box, it just becomes a giant run-on sentence that's too confusing to follow. But, as you prefer.

See? We can all stand to learn a bit more...

 

[Marvel]

That's not in agreement with the rules of the game. The rules state (for the umpteenth time) that you need two (2, 10 in binary) CONTEMPORANEOUS crossreferences to document the existance of an historical figure. With respect to Christ, there are zero (0, 00). Joespheus was still in diapers when Jesus (allegedly) met his fate.

Thal, not even the radical Jesus Seminar disputes the historical Jesus. Here are links to a couple of articles that discuss the extra-Biblical references to Jesus:

Mark Eastman Article.

Glenn Miller Article

J P Holding Article

Heck, we have as many, if not more, contemporary references to Jesus as we do to Alexander the Great. But, I am betting that you don't dispute Alexander's existance do you?

 

[deco_martini]

Heck, we have as many, if not more, contemporary references to Jesus as we do to Alexander the Great. But, I am betting that you don't dispute Alexander's existance do you?

Oh no you didn't..... I imagine that if you thought long and hard on this one you could come up with at least 7 reasons why the comparison isn't apples to apples.

Edited to Add: And the historical Jesus topic doesn't even interest me. Although, scholarly opinion is that the Jesus of the NT is not historical. I find the matter tiresome since a believer needs no evidence of the existence of the NT Jesus since it is a matter of faith. You are not supposed to believe because Josephus mentions him briefly 30 years after his supposed passing. Faith is the belief in things without tangible evidence.

Once you start debating the historical accounts you are lending yourself to evidence based belief which is called skepticism. However, if you just pick and choose the few things that you think support your belief, then you have neither Faith nor Skepticism.

 

[gary-ramey]

Originally Posted by 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.

First off, Kudos for the fair and balanced approach and we need more teachers who should approach things this way. As for having prejudices, yes we do have them ...all of us you included. How many times has science been so eager to exhalt a missing link when it turned out they rushed to judgement? Then afterwards are really slow to fix the obvious fraud. Piltdown Man? Brontosaurus? Why is it important? I'll use Brontosaurus because it was the most popular dinosaur of its day. It attacted children by the 1000s. From the Flintstones to Sinclair Gas stations old Bronto was everywhere. Movies were made. For 70 years science let this myth stand because of its attaction to the young minds in the US. Brontosaurus is the equivalent of today's Raptors. Before Jurassic park there were a couple of published rapters. After, came a flood of raptors in all sizes. Raptors fascinated kids and the paleantology community jumped on the raptor bandwagon. I'm not doubting that raptors exist, only that the number exploded after the movie which didn't really pass the smell test. So while I believe they existed, I also believe the number we have today is filled with brontosaurus like frauds.
Some with prejudices that science is flawless, will except them all as fact. Afterall, there's no reason to question it.

 

[gary-ramey]

The term would be "Jews". Ceteris paribus the historical Jesus was Jewish. His followers were Jews. After his death there was a split between two camps, one camp went about proselytizing the new faith, the other stayed closer to its Jewish origins. The Romans wiped out the stay at homes circa 45 CE, the proselytizing band led by Saul of Tarsus were the only group left in the Jesus movement. This group became the first Catholics. Saul, who became Paul said something to the effect that he would make of this all things for all people, this is the origin of the name "Catholic", it means universal.Paul's group aggressively sought converts, incorporating ideas from the old religions into the new in order to make the religion more palatable.

This is what creates the problems between people of faith and academics; using the language without accuracy.

If someone of religious bent cannot express themselves accurately within the confines of their faith their observations relating to scientific endeavor becomes suspect.

Yes they were Jews by birth but they called themselves collectively The Way. You're point is really minor and isn't worth arguing. The fact is all of the original disciples were eventually put to death. Some in horrible fashion for not recanting their faith in Christ. Peter was crucified upside down. Only 1, John, was banned to the island of Patmus where he died of natural causes.
BTW, I might be mistaken but I believe that Peter is widely considered the founder of the Catholic Church...by the church itself...maybe there's a Catholic on here who can attest or deny that. Also, why don't you read the writings of Paul to understand or define Paul. Paul testifies to the miracle on the road to damascus. He tutored under the 11 remaining disciples for many years before he began his ministry. Paul preached Christ Crucified...a message which attracts 1000s every year.

This is what creates the problems between people of faith and academics; using the language without accuracy.

I think you're being disingenuous and splitting hairs.

 

[Marvel]

Oh no you didn't..... I imagine that if you thought long and hard on this one you could come up with at least 7 reasons why the comparison isn't apples to apples.

Edited to Add: And the historical Jesus topic doesn't even interest me. Although, scholarly opinion is that the Jesus of the NT is not historical. I find the matter tiresome since a believer needs no evidence of the existence of the NT Jesus since it is a matter of faith. You are not supposed to believe because Josephus mentions him briefly 30 years after his supposed passing. Faith is the belief in things without tangible evidence.

Once you start debating the historical accounts you are lending yourself to evidence based belief which is called skepticism. However, if you just pick and choose the few things that you think support your belief, then you have neither Faith nor Skepticism.

Ah, Deco... you paint yourself with the very brush that has been used on Christians who have posted in this thread. I seriously doubt that you even bother to click on the links I provided, much less read them. The links provided historical references to Jesus that exist outside of the Bible- sources that include, but are not limited to Josephus.The link to Alexander the Great cited a list historical sources that we base our belief in the existance of him on & when they lived. So, let's try again.

This link provides an interesting break down of the references in the Testamonium Flavianum to Jesus & His brother James, as well as discussing the passage on John the Baptist. Lots of citations from historians of various camps there. &, no, I am not one of those who buy into the "if indeed He could be called a man" & "He was the Christ" camps. Obvious additions by middle ages scribes, IMHO.

 

[Sas]

First off, Kudos for the fair and balanced approach and we need more teachers who should approach things this way. As for having prejudices, yes we do have them ...all of us you included. How many times has science been so eager to exhalt a missing link when it turned out they rushed to judgement? Then afterwards are really slow to fix the obvious fraud. Piltdown Man? Brontosaurus? Why is it important? I'll use Brontosaurus because it was the most popular dinosaur of its day. It attacted children by the 1000s. From the Flintstones to Sinclair Gas stations old Bronto was everywhere. Movies were made. For 70 years science let this myth stand because of its attaction to the young minds in the US. Brontosaurus is the equivalent of today's Raptors. Before Jurassic park there were a couple of published rapters. After, came a flood of raptors in all sizes. Raptors fascinated kids and the paleantology community jumped on the raptor bandwagon. I'm not doubting that raptors exist, only that the number exploded after the movie which didn't really pass the smell test. So while I believe they existed, I also believe the number we have today is filled with brontosaurus like frauds.
Some with prejudices that science is flawless, will except them all as fact. Afterall, there's no reason to question it.

The Brontosaurus is a mistake, and no one here is disputing that so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. Especially as it is a pretty minor one in the scheme of things... The fact that the error has been corrected shows the adaptability of science to new discoveries. The same cannot be said for religion. Fair enough, they are supposedly 'eternal truths' but some of the 'truths' that some Christians espouse have been shown to be very very false by science. Science has made many mistakes, but the point is, it allows people to criticise and bring forward alternative theories to correct past mistakes.

Btw, I don't think science 'let' the misclassification stand for years to not upset the little kids. I think the majority might not have thought about it much (But I could be wrong on that point). I really doubt you would have a world-wide conspiracy of scientists getting together to protect the dreams of children. In fact, scientists can make big names for themselves by disproving a currently accepted theory and I doubt many of them would have given up that opportunity Either way, the Brontosaurus is hardly a crushing blow for the validity of the scientific method So I really don't know why you constantly bring it up and ignore all the other evidence people have presented to you. I agree that the theory of evolution is incomplete in some areas, for example, but that does not take away from the fact of evolution...

 

[Theunis]

I mean no offense; but to which God do you refer? There are many belief systems on this planet, all of which refer to their supreme being(s) as God(s)...

No offense taken.

I'm a Christian believing in God the Father (Creator of heaven and earth), Jesus Christ His Son (Our Saviour) and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Theunis]

I guess it depends on how you are defining 'insult' or 'defame'. Sorry but I am not really getting what you mean now, when you say that. I am wondering now what in particular you are referring to?

All I'm asking is not to insult or defame God. It is a rather simple request with no hidden motives.

Again, I'm not asking anybody to believe in God. By insults and defamation I mean atheist saying things like "tell your God to get of His lazy ar..." That is not acceptable to me at all!

 

[Warthaug]

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.

But, by the scientifically accepted definition of "novel", this was a novel mutation. For three simple reasons:

1) It did not exist previously,
2) It confered a new biochemical property to the protein, and
3) This mutation has not been reported previously

Likewise, by the way we define genes and alleles, this mutation will most likely be classified as a new gene; not as an allele. The reason for this is that we usually consider a gene to be a genetic element encoding a protein with a unique biochemical function. Alleles are simply varients of a gene that have the same (or impaired) functionality.

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.

We actually cannot say if that is the case yet. Firstly, there is no evidence that any biochemical functionality was lost - keep in mind the bacteria produced by this experiment had increased fitness. And also, you seem to have the mistaken belief that evolution must lead to more complex organisms in order to "be true". This is simply not the case - in fact, the vast majority of evolution produces organisms with similar, or even reduced complexity. After all, life started off as unicellular organisms, and even today the vast majority of species (on the order of 99.999%), the vast majority of biomass (on the order of 99.5%) remains unicellular.

We multi-cellular organisms are really exceptions to the rule, and if anything represent more of an unexpected fluke than a predicted outcome of evolution. It took over 3 billion years for life to evolve to the point where us flukes were possible; clearly, evolution is not a one-track highway to us - especially when you take into consideration how little we vary from unicellular organisms at a biochemical level.

Gene duplication followed by mutation is better, but we've already been through that.

And your evidence there was no gene duplication in the Cit+ bacteria is...

Bryan