Doubting Darwin

[Guest BlackJesus]

[img]http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/050217/billday.gif[/img]

[jza10304]

[url="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/oldest_humans"]Link to Article[/url]

I know this may not "prove" anything...but here is an article about some recent fossil findings. Food for thought.

[Guest Bengal_Smoov]

[quote name='jza10304' date='Feb 18 2005, 10:07 AM'][url="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/oldest_humans"]Link to Article[/url]

I know this may not "prove" anything...but here is an article about some recent fossil findings.  Food for thought.
[right][post="48740"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


It's information like this that shows that people who practice racism and bigotry are complete wrong and ignorant. History shows that all races come from a single place and can be traced back to an ancient fossil. This proves that all of mankind has more in common then we do different, that fact alone should unite the people of the world and cause all people to view each others as brothers and sisters instead of what we have today.

To believe that one race is superior to another or that one is inferior to another is wrong and ignorant, we all come from the same place(Africa) and we all are related to the ancient fossils that are being discovered.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Bengal_Smoov' date='Feb 18 2005, 09:58 AM']It's information like this that shows that people who practice racism and bigotry are complete wrong and ignorant.  History shows that all races come from a single place and can be traced back to an ancient fossil.  This proves that all of mankind has more in common then we do different, that fact alone should unite the people of the world and cause all people to view each others as brothers and sisters instead of what we have today.

To believe that one race is superior to another or that one is inferior to another is wrong and ignorant, we all come from the same place(Africa) and we all are related to the ancient fossils that are being discovered.
[right][post="48751"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

I don't know if we descended from a common ancestor or not, but for those who didn't get the memo on rascism in the 20th century, kill yourselves.

[BigFresh]

[quote name='Jason' date='Feb 17 2005, 09:18 AM']Jesus Christ definitely lived.  And there are several non-biblical sources confirming that.  Just a couple are quoted below:

Flavius Josephus Jewish Antiquities (c.93 C.E.)    (Josephus was a Jewish Historian)   
(later interpolations in brackets)[/quote]

You are choosing what you believe to be interpolations and bracketing them - either this or you boosted this from an apologetics site - but the [u]whole passage[/u] this comes from is an interpolation. If you read the context in which it appears you'll see that the whole passage doesn't fit. It begins talking about Roman taxation under Cyrenius. The shady origins of this passage are further compounded when you consider the works of early Christian apologists who mention it not once until centuries after [i]The Antiquities[/i] was written. Josephus's works were widely available and published - a popular history. I could go on, but I'd be flogging a dead horse. The Josephus argument has been refuted [i]ad nauseum.[/i] [url="http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp10.htm"]Here[/url] is one of many fully-fleshed examinations.

[quote]Pliny the Younger Letter to Trajan (c.111-117 C.E.)    (Pliny was a Roman Governor)

"...they maintained that their fault or error amounted to nothing more than this: they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before sunrise and reciting an antiphonal hymn to Christ as God, and binding themselves with an oath not to commit any crime, but to abstain from all acts of theft, robbery and adultery, from breaches of faith, from repudiating a trust when called upon to honor it."[/quote]

In what way does this evidence Jesus as a real person? Pliny the Younger is describing the situation of Christians on his watch to Trajan seeking advice on how to deal with them. Evidence of Christians is NOT evidence of Jesus.

[quote]Tacitus Roman Annals (c.115-117 C.E.)  (Tacitus was a Roman Historian)

"They got their name from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. That checked the pernicious superstition for a short time, but it broke out afresh--not only in Judea, where the plague first arose, but in Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things in the world collect and find a home."[/quote]

Christians in the first and second century were not called "Christians." They were considered Jews by the Roman governance. Reference to this passage does not appear in any writing until apologist Sulpicius Severus created it word for word in his writings in the sisth century. This passage is clearly a fraud and created by a man known as a skilled forger - called an expert in the "antique hand."



[quote]Sanhedrin 43a (200-500 C.E.)

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu4 was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of Passover!"[/quote]

Why would you include this as evidence for an existing Jesus? By the time this was written, Christianity was an established religion and the Gospels written and considered history by their believers. Also, there is no reference to the Jesus story of crucifixion considered fact by modern Christians. This passage does nothing to present a case for a man described in the Gospels as being an actual person.

[quote]And the simple fact that we have a church that worships Christ, that is world wide, should be evidence that he existed.  There are plenty of other historical evidences of the church dating back to the time of Christ.  Stories of Roman persecution, and martyrs.  Why would anyone who lived at that time die for someone who never lived?[/quote]

Once again, evidence of a religion is NOT evidence for an historical Jesus. The Church is not evidence for a real Jesus. As far as the martyrs are concerned, so what? They had no more proof of a real Jesus than you do. They [i]believed[/i] a myth and it led to their unfortunate demise. If I was tortured and killed because I believed that Santa Claus died for my sins, does that mean Santa Claus is real?

[quote]You can doubt the deity of Christ if you choose, but to doubt that he lived would be similar to doubting that George Washington lived.[/quote]

Baloney. George Washington is easily vindicated as real because we have actual eyewitness accounts of his existence. We have letters he'd written and and legislation he signed. We've got corporeal, empirical evidence of his existence. You are blowing smoke and resorting to apologetic sophistry.

[quote]There is more literary support for the existence of Jesus Christ thatn there is for the existance of Plato or Socrates, but nobody doubts that they lived![/quote]

Once again you are being dishonest and disingenuous. We have books written by these men and eyewitness accounts of there existence. Does it not strike you that - even if most of it WASN'T a fraud - all the "evidence" you gave was written by people who not only were *not* eyewitnesses to a living, breathing Jesus of Nazareth, they also wrote and lived decades - if not [i]centuries[/i] - after his alleged death.

[BigFresh]

[quote name='Bunghole' date='Feb 17 2005, 11:32 AM']There's a saying that goes something like:
"I'd rather go through life believing in God, only to die and find out He doesn't exist, rather than go through life not believing in God only to die and find out He does."
I like that.[/quote]

You know who else liked it? A guy named Blaise Pascal. In fact, a very similar "conundrum" is named after him. Brilliant man, but a little afraid of the afterlife.
[b][u]Pascal's Wager:[/u][/b]

[i]"If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having, neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is ... you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then without hesitation that he is."[/i] - Blaise Pascal

The largest problem is that it assume the existence of one type of God. You could just as easily say "I'd rather live my life believing in the Magical Anthropomorphic School Bus that Created the Universe only to die and find out it doesn't exist than go through my life not believing and die to find out the the MASBtCtU DOES exist." And it would contain the same logical weight.

Have you ever considered the [b][u]Riddle of Epicurus[/b][/u]?

[i]Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?[/i]

[quote]I don't think that faith in God and science are mutually exclusive, they often choose to ignore or argue with one another--in fact, with all our technology and advancements during the 20th century, science's glaring weakness has been revealed.[/quote]

I basically disagree. Blind faith is as anti-science as it gets. With God or any religion, you say "This is the truth." and you stick with it without objectively considering its merits.

[quote]And that weakness is that serious interstellar space travel is impossible for us.[/quote]
Why is it you're willing to suspend your rational disbelief concerning God, but ready to claim interstellar travel is impossible and doesn't exist when you can't be entirely sure that it IS impossible.

[quote]The ramifications of the time lapses involved [i]even if[/i] we could build such a craft are mind-bending.
Fuck, the distances involved are mind-bending.[/quote]

Yup. Truly intimidating. Maybe we're thinking about the problem in the wrong way.

[quote]Furthermore, can science please explain to me our perfect existence here?
How is it that we have a perfect planet for the sustainment of life...a perfect atmosphere, a perfect amount of water, we're the perfect distance away from a mediocre star for the perfect level of electromagnetic radiation to warm and feed us through photosynthesis, we have a perfect diversity of life...
It is far too perfect a setup to have just "happened" on it's own.[/quote]

And isn't it just AMAZING that our legs are *just* long enough to reach the ground? You're working backward here, Bunghole. Life on Earth evolved on Earth. Earth didn't evolved on life. We evolved in such a way as to best exploit the environmental conditions available to us. Your thinking is reversed to fit an anthropocentric worldview.

[quote]And how many other worlds are out there like ours?  Or how many other worlds are out there that have alternate life forms that live in enviornments that couldn't possibly sustain human existence?[/quote]

And now you're being reasonable again and you answered your own questions from the previous paragraph!

[quote]Science has a long way to go.  I love science. I also love God, but not because I'm ignorant or blind.  I just wonder if we'll ever get a peek behind the curtain (without having to die first!).
I just don't know.[/quote]

I don't see how someone can love something they don't know exists. I have no evidence for Invisible Pantless Elves, so I don't love them. You don't have any knowledge of God - whether it exists or not - so why the emotional attachment?

[Guest BengalBacker]

Big Fresh is my new favorite poster. I agree 100% with everything he's said in this thread.

[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img]

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='BigFresh' date='Feb 19 2005, 03:10 PM']You know who else liked it?  A guy named Blaise Pascal.  In fact, a very similar "conundrum"  is named after him.  Brilliant man, but a little afraid of the afterlife.
[b][u]Pascal's Wager:[/u][/b]

[i]"If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having, neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is ... you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then without hesitation that he is."[/i] - Blaise Pascal

The largest problem is that it assume the existence of one type of God.  You could just as easily say "I'd rather live my life believing in the Magical Anthropomorphic School Bus that Created the Universe only to die and find out it doesn't exist than go through my life not believing and die to find out the the MASBtCtU  DOES exist."  And it would contain the same logical weight. 

Have you ever considered the [b][u]Riddle of Epicurus[/b][/u]?

[i]Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?[/i]
I basically disagree.  Blind faith is as anti-science as it gets.  With God or any religion, you say "This is the truth."  and you stick with it without objectively considering its merits.
Why is it you're willing to suspend your rational disbelief concerning God, but ready to claim interstellar travel is impossible and doesn't exist when you can't be entirely sure that it IS impossible.
Yup. Truly intimidating.  Maybe we're thinking about the problem in the wrong way.
And isn't it just AMAZING that our legs are *just* long enough to reach the ground?  You're working backward here, Bunghole.  Life on Earth evolved on Earth.  Earth didn't evolved on life.  We evolved in such a way as to best exploit the environmental conditions available to us.  Your thinking is reversed to fit an anthropocentric worldview.
And now you're being reasonable again and you answered your own questions from the previous paragraph!
I don't see how someone can love something they don't know exists.  I have no evidence for Invisible Pantless Elves, so I don't love them.  [b]You don't have any knowledge of God - whether it exists or not - so why the emotional attachment?[/b]
[right][post="49132"][/post][/right][/quote]

[b]FAITH[/b]
Mine eyes are too wide to the wonderment of this world and those worlds which elude us.
The little we know of the Universe is what makes me believe in a God.
And I still assert that despite the tacit truth of evolution, the conditions for said evolvement were too perfect to have not been "helped along" in some mysterious way...that is my own personal belief, and science cannot disprove it...yet...
BTW, you're getting pretty damn good at this!! Where were you in high school when I needed a debate partner??

[Guest BlackJesus]

[img]http://www.landoverbaptist.org/linklogo.gif[/img]

[Guest BlackJesus]

[color="red"]Unwavering faith can be a dangerous thing .....[/color]



[i]"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." [/i]

[b]–Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 [/b]

[Jason]

[quote name='BigFresh']Baloney. George Washington is easily vindicated as real because we have actual eyewitness accounts of his existence. We have letters he'd written and and legislation he signed. We've got corporeal, empirical evidence of his existence. You are blowing smoke and resorting to apologetic sophistry.[/quote]

There are also eye witness accounts of the life of Christ. But you discount them because they are in the bible. We don't have writings of Christ, but we have writings of his followers. The existence of the church is easily traced to the "purported" time of Christ. Nothing written in the bible has ever been disproved by archeology.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Feb 20 2005, 03:35 AM'][color="red"]Unwavering faith can be a dangerous thing .....[/color]
[i]"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.  It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth!  was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.  In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders.  How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison.  To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross.  As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice…  And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."  [/i]

[b]–Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 [/b]
[right][post="49213"][/post][/right][/quote]

Unwavering faith can also be a wonderful thing...witness Mother Teresa, MLK, Ghandi...
Smart people don't hate Jews, or anyone else, regardless of faith, lack thereof, sexual orientation, race, creed, sex...
I choose to believe in something I cannot directly perceive for reasons I can't clearly articulate.
Faith cannot be measured by graduated cylinders or machines. It is somewhat irrational and illogical, but it exists in spite of itself.
It just is, or isn't. Simply a matter of personal choice.
Zieg Heil indeed...

[BigFresh]

[quote name='Jason' date='Feb 20 2005, 10:31 AM'][quote name='BigFresh']Baloney. George Washington is easily vindicated as real because we have actual eyewitness accounts of his existence. We have letters he'd written and and legislation he signed. We've got corporeal, empirical evidence of his existence. You are blowing smoke and resorting to apologetic sophistry.[/quote]

There are also eye witness accounts of the life of Christ. But you discount them because they are in the bible. We don't have writings of Christ, but we have writings of his followers. The existence of the church is easily traced to the "purported" time of Christ. Nothing written in the bible has ever been disproved by archeology.
[right][post="49231"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right]
[/quote]


You're wrong Jason. There are ZERO eyewitness account of the life of Christ. Why? Because [i]he never f*ing existed![/i] The Gospels were not written until well-after the alleged "life of Jesus" and have shown themselves time and time again to be so. You claim there are "writings of his followers" but nonesuch exist. Please give us all an example of writings of the "followers of Christ." Also, you're wrong again when you make the exorbitant claim that "Nothing written the bible has ever been disproved by archaeology.(sic)" I'll simply explain to you that the entire concept of the Exodus HAS been disproven, and by archaeology. The Exodus DID NOT happen. The lack of any archaeology, and lack of any evidence of an Egyptian slavery of the Hebrews adds testimony to this. I could further explain how archaeology has disagreed with the bible if you'd like to hear. Keep 'em comin' Jason. Christianity is BS.

[Beaker]

I would like to chime in on this. First let me begin by saying I believe there is a supernatural "source" to the universe...what would be considered a God. As a science teacher, I also am convinced of evolution. What alot of people think is that the debate is centered on whether or not God created everything...it isnt. Evolutionists have no stance on God, if there is a God then he works through evolution. Further, evolution does NOT try to explain the original spark of life...only how we got from there to today. The origin of life is a separate issue from evolution. That spark is where I believe there is something greater than us at work.

In science a theory is a synthesis that ties lots of facts together under one umbrella. In common language we've come to think of a theory as a guess. Its not a guess, a hypothesis is an educated guess that you prove or disprove with facts and experimentation.

Evolution is both a fact, and a theory. The fact part is this...evolution means change over time. Things do change over time, that is undeniable. The theory part is explaining how those changes occur. In this case natural selection is the theory that explains how evolution occurs.

People cite gaps in the fossil record, or the complexity of structures such as the eye as reasons why evolution could not have occurred. I have facts to show why those things are not a reason to deny evolution. The dearth of evidence for evolution is becoming overwhelming. When you take evidence from the fossil record, geology, genetics, molecular biology, paleontology, etc and look at it in the context of all of science, the facts become clearer. Evolution is not explained simply by the fossil record. I will not do it here, to try to keep this read as short as possible. But would address issues in replies.

My main problem with Creationsism is the attempt to get it taught in science class. It is not science. Science is simply one way of looking at the world and trying to interpret it. Some people interpret the world through science, some through religion, some through art, some through music, etc. Evolution is the accepted way of looking at this issue from a SCIENCE standpoint. If you want to teach creationism, teach it at home, teach it in religion class (in pvt schools), teach it in philosophy class, teach it in sociology class...but not in science class. Creationism is NOT science. Evolution does not claim to be religion, and does not want to be taught in church. It is fine to introduce another point of view, and to let people decide which they think explains things best for them, but they should know that when making that decision, science explains things one way, and religion explains things another. They should not be presented as the same thing.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Beaker' date='Feb 21 2005, 11:31 AM']I would like to chime in on this. First let me begin by saying I believe there is a supernatural "source" to the universe...what would be considered a God. As a science teacher, I also am convinced of evolution. What alot of people think is that the debate is centered on whether or not God created everything...it isnt. Evolutionists have no stance on God, if there is a God then he works through evolution. Further, evolution does NOT try to explain the original spark of life...only how we got from there to today. The origin of life is a separate issue from evolution. [b]That spark is where I believe there is something greater than us at work.[/b]
In science a theory is a synthesis that ties lots of facts together under one umbrella. In common language we've come to think of a theory as a guess. Its not a guess, a hypothesis is an educated guess that you prove or disprove with facts and experimentation.

Evolution is both a fact, and a theory. The fact part is this...evolution means change over time. Things do change over time, that is undeniable. The theory part is explaining how those changes occur. In this case natural selection is the theory that explains how evolution occurs.

People cite gaps in the fossil record, or the complexity of structures such as the eye as reasons why evolution could not have occurred. I have facts to show why those things are not a reason to deny evolution. The dearth of evidence for evolution is becoming overwhelming. When you take evidence from the fossil record, geology, genetics, molecular biology, paleontology, etc and look at it in the context of all of science, the facts become clearer. Evolution is not explained simply by the fossil record. I will not do it here, to try to keep this read as short as possible. But would address issues in replies.

My main problem with Creationsism is the attempt to get it taught in science class. It is not science. Science is simply one way of looking at the world and trying to interpret it. Some people interpret the world through science, some through religion, some through art, some through music, etc. Evolution is the accepted way of looking at this issue from a SCIENCE standpoint. If you want to teach creationism, teach it at home, teach it in religion class (in pvt schools), teach it in philosophy class, teach it in sociology class...but not in science class. Creationism is NOT science. Evolution does not claim to be religion, and does not want to be taught in church. It is fine to introduce another point of view, and to let people decide which they think explains things best for them, but they should know that when making that decision, science explains things one way, and religion explains things another. They should not be presented as the same thing.
[right][post="49526"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

Great post. While you postulate that science and religion are separate, somehow they get inexorably intertwined with one another. I guess it's just for argument's sake.
I have always felt that science was a method of discovery of truths regarding ourselves, our environment and outer space, and that God (or a supernatural force, or whatever) was guiding the process in some inimitable, indefatigable way.
That "spark" you mention is a spot-on comment. That "spark" not only applies to living things, it also applies to things like star formation.
We live in an amazing place! Those who look for miracles need look no further than a simple blade of grass, an ant or a water molecule. Each and every being, animal, thing and substance has a place in our quasi-orderly chaos we call home.

[Beaker]

I could see this thread was getting away from evolution and into a religion debate. I am interested in hearing the evolution vs intelligent design debate...not whether or not jesus existed. I would love to address replies to my original post.

[|Bunghole|]

Beaker...
it is difficult to constrain the debate of evolution vs intelligent design to not include references to Jesus or God...
After all, intelligent debate theory implies that a supernatural force guides or had a hand in the formation of life on Earth, or it's development.
I have used the term "God" quite a bit, but never invoked Jesus in this thread.
I am interested in seeing you and Big Fresh have it out in the Ultimate Fighting Science Arena...

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Beaker' date='Feb 21 2005, 01:49 PM']I could see this thread was getting away from evolution and into a religion debate. I am interested in hearing the evolution vs intelligent design debate...not whether or not jesus existed. I would love to address replies to my original post.
[right][post="49537"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


I agree that it has moved from science to dogma, however to say they are seperate, I have to disagree... the [i]theroy[/i] part of evolution is no more provable or disprovable as the [i]theroy[/i] of a God, yet we teach that in science class dont we? All I ask is that if we teach one theroy we teach others. Whats so wrong with that? Does it not do a disjustice to science if we not allow ALL theorys to be explored?? I thought I did a fairly good job as to explaining why the [i]theroy[/i] of a God doesnt get away from the scientific method. Are you telling me that science has never assumed anything only to prove or disprove it later? .... Thats EXACTLY what theroy is, and I propose that the [i]theroy[/i] of a God is as valid as any other and deserves to be explored as much as any other does.

To get the the science ... (this is the science question, not the dogma question, I was talking about that I want to steer this conversation back to.)

[quote]In EVERY PROTEIN, IN EVERY LIVING ORGANISM, ALL OF THE AMINO ACIDS ARE THE L-ISOMER. The SIMPLEST protein is composed of 40 amino acids.

Now, if we assume that the conditions in nature were the same as in the experiment (which was the goal of the experiment, so that is a somewhat valid assumption) the odds of a protein being created from a pool of amino acids that is composed ENTIRELY of L-isomers is 2 to the 40th power. That is a HUGE number. over 1 trillion.

So, the odds of that occurring are less than 1 in a trillion. And that is for one SIMPLE protein. To make DNA? Please! That is a HUGE molecule. The odds of making that from a pool of chemicals, with ALL L-ISOMERS as occurs in nature is OFF THE CHARTS![/quote]

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='Feb 21 2005, 12:25 PM']I agree that it has moved from science to dogma, however to say they are seperate, I have to disagree... the [i]theroy[/i] part of evolution is no more provable or disprovable as the [i]theroy[/i] of a God, yet we teach that in science class dont we? All I ask is that if we teach one theroy we teach others. Whats so wrong with that? Does it not do a disjustice to science if we not allow ALL theorys to be explored?? I thought I did a fairly good job as to explaining why the [i]theroy[/i] of a God doesnt get away from the scientific method. Are you telling me that science has never assumed anything only to prove or disprove it later? .... Thats EXACTLY what theroy is, and I propose that the [i]theroy[/i] of a God is as valid as any other and deserves to be explored as much as any other does.

To get the the science ... (this is the science question, not the dogma question,  I was talking about that I want to steer this conversation back to.)
[right][post="49565"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]
I only have a basic grasp of that type of science, so if Big Fresh, Beaker and Jason care to enlighten me as to the nature, structure and importance of these proteins/isomers/amino acids...please chime in.
Also I would like someone to address Jason's skepticism regarding the odds of these things resulting in complex life forms, such as humans.

[Beaker]

Jamie's question about amino acids harkens back to what caused life in the first place. As I said before, evolution does not attempt to explain that. The current hypothesis in that area however is that prebiological molecules became organized into cycles of chemical reactions that could sustain themselves independently. A group of molecules would make more copies of itself by grabbing other molecules surrounding it according to chemical bonding laws. The most efficient of these chemical cycles would have hogged the available free molecules and outstripped other less efficient cycles. In other words, before there was biological evolution, there was chemical evolution. But this only goes towards the beginning of living organic matter. As I said, I personally think that is where "God" may come in. But that area is not debated by evolutionists. Evolution tries to explain how life, once established, proceeded.

And Jamie, in direct response to your post, I never said creationism shouldn't be presented. I just believe it should not be presented in science class giving the false impression that science gives credibility to creationism as an alternative. Science comes down solely on the side of evolution. Creationism can be presented as another way of explaining things...in another class.

Bunghole, to your question regarding complexity. Creationists love to use the human eye as an example of a complex structure that couldnt have arisen in steps. Not true. In mullosks alone you can see the different steps that gave rise to a more complex eyes. Different species of mullosks have almost every intermediary form of eye. Some have simple areas of light sensing cells. Some have cup shaped groups of cells that can detect forms. Some have pinhole camera type eyes with no lens. Some have eyes with primative lenses. And some have fully functional camera type eyes.

Evolution has historical constraints, in other words, evolution finds a design that works and tweaks it rather than continually developing new ways to do the same job. The imperfections of the human eye harken back to our nearest invertebrate relatives. The lancelet is a small filter feeder that lives in sediment. It has a dorsal nerve cord. It is believed to be a close invertebrate relative. In the human emryo, the fetus' eye has the same beginning structure as a lancelet eyespot. From there it goes through stages of further development that eventually result in our more complex eye. But the imperfections in the human eye are a result of evolution being constrained by building upon a lancelet type anatomy.

For example, the nuerons in the retina of our eye face backwards. Light has to pass thru the cells laying above it to reach the photoreceptors. Also, there is a blind spot in the center of our field of vision. This is due to the optic nerve passing through the receptors and exiting out the back of the eye to the brain. And finally, our retinas are weakly attached to the underlying layer of cells. We are susceptable to detached retinas with only minor punishment in the area of the eye.

If the eye was created by God in a perfect state as is, we wouldnt see these considerable imperfections that can be traced to our invertebrate ancestors. The current design of the human eye is not all that "intelligent".

I know those examples are hard to understand and visualize, but I use the eye because Creationists fall back on that one alot. True Creationism claims that God placed all living things on this earth, and created and placed them perfectly in their current state. Common sense alone refutes that when looking at life's imperfections and vestigal structures.

The hard part alot of people have with evolution is it doesnt make humans "special". We were not placed here to have dominion over every living thing. Humans are no more the pinnacle of evolution than any other contemporary living thing. We are no more advanced (evolution-wise) than an oak tree, an octopus, or a mouse. Nature does not aspire for all living things to become human-like. Nature just tries to find what works to exploit an available niche. Besides, I think our egocentric view that we are above everything else is what causes most of the trouble on this planet. If more people held the view that we were PART of everyting, it would be harder to consider your group better than any other.

[|Bunghole|]

I think Adam and Eve is a symbolic story, as are other Bible stories (Noah's Ark comes to mind).
I never have believed in Creationism.
I think we evolved from primates and somewhere along the way, God "breathed life" (awareness) into us.
I think we are special and unique as a species. I cannot think of any other animal life on this planet that possesses our brain-related power, let alone an opposable thumb!
I just don't think we were put here by God, or given dominion over the animal kingdom by God, like it says in the bible.
I think our egocentric problems arise from our interactions with each other, not with animals (although we're hardly enviornmentally friendly).
But great post though...

[Jason]

[quote]There are also eye witness accounts of the life of Christ.  But you discount them because they are in the bible.  We don't have writings of Christ, but we have writings of his followers.  The existence of the church is easily traced to the "purported" time of Christ.  Nothing written in the bible has ever been disproved by archeology.
[right][post="49231"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


[quote]You're wrong Jason.  There are ZERO eyewitness account of the life of Christ.  Why?  Because [i]he never f*ing existed![/i]  The Gospels were not written until well-after the alleged "life of Jesus" and have shown themselves time and time again to be so.  You claim there are "writings of his followers" but nonesuch exist.  Please give us all an example of writings of the "followers of Christ."  Also, you're wrong again when you make the exorbitant claim that "Nothing written the bible has ever been disproved by archaeology.(sic)"  I'll simply explain to you that the entire concept of the Exodus HAS been disproven, and by archaeology.  The Exodus DID NOT happen.  The lack of any archaeology, and lack of any evidence of an Egyptian slavery of the Hebrews adds testimony to this.  I could further explain how archaeology has disagreed with the bible if you'd like to hear.  Keep 'em comin' Jason.  Christianity is BS.
[right][post="49441"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

You write with the single minded passion of someone who feels they have been betrayed by God or the Church. There, I can't help you.

But, as I said, the church can be traced to the time of Christ. In days closely following the time of Christ, people were dying horrendous deaths. There is a world wide church. If it were in ANY way POSSIBLE to disprove the existence of Christ, how has the church survived and grown for 2000 years?

Provide a link, or documentation that the exodus has been disproved. I have heard nothing of it.

[Nati Ice]

Beaker: Well Said...

[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img]



I have one question; two parts.
You state that the spark of life is what should be debated rather than the Theory of Evolution, but (please correct me if I am mistaken) you then go on to say that we hold no "Special" place over any of the other organisms in this world. With that said, what is your personal belief on the cause of this spark? You say that some believe this is where "God" comes into play. Are you merely making this statement, or is this part of your view as well? Also, if this is where "God" comes into play (my personal belief, merely because I can not give a better explanation for "The Breath of Life," and my knowledge on the theories of creation that are offered by the understanding of Amino Acids is limited to say the least), and we are not the final step, then what are your views on the afterlife and what do you see as a possible explanation for the final step?


Bung: You might want to check out some information on "Mitochondrial Eve," its relatively similar to your symbolic belief


BIG FRESH: YOU REALLY NEED TO CHILL OUT, JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOUR REASONING AND THEY FIND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO BE *MUCH* MORE LIMITED THAN YOU SEE IT, DOES [u]NOT[/u] MEAN THAT THEY ARE WRONG AND YOU ARE RIGHT, NONE OF US KNOW THE ANSWERS TO LIFE, BECAUSE NONE OF US WERE AROUND TO WITNESS THE EVENTS THAT ARE BEING DISCUSSED, WE CAN ONLY USE THE EVIDENCE AT HAND TO MAKE OUR BEST ASSUMPTIONS, AND DESPITE DISPUTING MANY OF YOUR CLAIMS I HAVE AGREED WITH MUCH OF YOUR LOGIC, BUT THE FACT IS A MAN NAMED JESUS WAS ONCE ALIVE ON THIS PLANET, THAT IS NOT DISPUTABLE, THE ONLY THING THAT SHOULD BE ARGUED ARE HIS SUPPOSED MIRACLES AND THE WRITINGS OF WHICH THESE STORIES ARE TOLD, YOU ARE BECOMING OVERLY HEATED ON THE ARGUMENT AT HAND AND NEED TO CHILL OUT, JASON HIT IT RIGHT ON THE HEAD WHEN HE MADE THIS STATEMENT;

[quote]You write with the single minded passion of someone who feels they have been betrayed by God or the Church. There, I can't help you.[/quote]

EVERYONE HAS OPENED UP THEIR MINDS TO YOUR IDEAS AND SUGGESTIONS, YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO HAS BEEN CONTINUOUSLY CLOSE-MINDED, THIS DEBATE WILL NOT DECIDE [u]ANYTHING[/u] IN THE LONG RUN, SO RELAX AND TAKE IT AS IT IS, A SIMPLE DISCUSSION ON A CINCINNATI BENGALS MESSAGE BOARD

continue...

[Beaker]

[quote name='Nati Ice' date='Feb 21 2005, 10:57 PM']I have one question; two parts.
You state that the spark of life is what should be debated rather than the Theory of Evolution, but (please correct me if I am mistaken) you then go on to say that we hold no "Special" place over any of the other organisms in this world.  With that said, what is your personal belief on the cause of this spark?  You say that some believe this is where "God" comes into play.  Are you merely making this statement, or is this part of your view as well?  Also, if this is where "God" comes into play (my personal belief, merely because I can not give a better explanation for "The Breath of Life," and my knowledge on the theories of creation that are offered by the understanding of Amino Acids is limited to say the least), and we are not the final step, then what are your views on the afterlife and what do you see as a possible explanation for the final step?[/quote]

Nati...I simply believe that we are no more special than any other contemporary organism...from an evolutionary point of view. I believe that all life is unique and special, but not that one is any more special than the next. It was a reference to the biblical account of man being given dominion over all living things. Nature and life could proceed just fine on its own without humans.

My beliefs about the origin of life go back further than life on earth. I question the formation of the universe. The big bang seems fairly arbitrary to me. What "caused" the big bang? My own personal view is that there is a spiritual connection all the way back there. Not that God created life on earth, but that he created the universe and allowed events to unfold from there according to natural laws. A possible explaination that is intriguing me now is string theory. It is amazing to me how higher level sciences such as quantum physics begin to blur the line between science and spirituality.

String theory hypothesizes that the tiniest forms of matter are not solid at all, rather they are bands of energy. The frequency at which the energy vibrates determines what type of matter is ultimately produced. To me, if God is the source of everything, then he could ultimately be the source of those strands of energy. He could BE those strands of energy...I dont know.

As far as an afterlife, I find it hard to believe that the energy that comprises our conciousness and our soul doesnt continue on. I believe that upon the release of our soul from our body that the energy that was our conciousness rejoins that which is the source...which you could call God.

I only profess these beliefs in direct answer to your question. I dont expect anyone else to believe the way I do, and this got far off the topic of evolution vs creationism. But I felt compelled to answer the question. Just remember, believing in evolution as a mechanism that gave rise to different life forms DOES NOT mean that a God could not still be behind the source of life. I said before, I believe there is a higher power, but I also believe he set the natural laws in motion and works through evolution.

[Beaker]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='Feb 21 2005, 06:25 PM']To get the the science ... (this is the science question, not the dogma question,  I was talking about that I want to steer this conversation back to.)
[right][post="49565"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

Jamie both L and R isomers of alot of molecules exist in out bodies. Isomerism determines which ones we can metabolize. Protiens are very shape specific. Where we might use the L isomer of one molecule, in another type of molecule the R isomer may be more important metabolically. There are only 20 amino acids, all of which are the L isomer. A mixture of both isomers in the beginning would have been fine. You wouldnt have to have ONLY L isomers. Its just that for amino acids, the L isomers are the ones more metabolically important.

Amino acids are the building blocks for protiens, not DNA. DNA is composed of a sugar-phosphate backbone with nitrogenous bases. There are only 4 bases, adenine, thynine, cytosine and guanine (uracil replaces thynine in RNA). The short version of protien synthesis is this: DNA is transcribed into messenger RNA. The "code" for each amino acid is a three base codon. 4 bases to the third power (3 codons per amino acid) means 64 possible combinations to code for 20 amino acids. The 20 amino acids can be combined in an almost infinite variety of combinations of different lengths. The messenger RNA is "read" on the ribosomes to produce the string of amino acids (polypeptide) that becomes the protien. In other words, you dont have to have astronomical probabilities to make an infinite combination of protiens. We only have 26 letters in our alphabet, from those 26 letters we can make an a huge number of possible words, from which can arise an even larger number of possible sentences...paragraphs....books....and so on.