"Scientific" creation.
- Thread starter chcr
- Start date
greenfreak
New Member
Are you for real? 
unclehobart
New Member
Darwin never said we evolved from apes.
chcr
Too cute for words
I wasn't ignoring you Gato, I haven't had time to look for any links. I learned this the old fashioined way (read it in Science Digest) years ago. It was during the human genome project, which I followed rather closely. They discovered that we were about 1% diverged from orangutans. This proves that we have a recent (>250,000 years if I remeber correctly) common ancestor. Which to me (and virtually everyone in the scientific community) proves that we evolved. There was something about how far diverged we were from all other primates, but I don't remember that figure. I'll look around tonight for some online info if I have time.
chcr said:
The mentally retarded have DNA that is almost a perfect match to ours also but who evolved from who in this regard? Most would say they are less developed than us? It is more than 1% though for apes. I think it was something like 97~95% while dogs and similar are around like 90% and yeast is around 85% similar. Just cause you have DNA that is quite close does not mean that they are your origin. Maybe you were their origin?
There are parts of our genome that we share with rattlesnakes and not certain mammals also? The only mammals that share this part of the genome are apes and then all of a sudden the rattlesnake shows up. We don't even share it with birds. Does that mean we are part rattlesnake or reptile?
chcr
Too cute for words
Typical argument that shows a limited understanding of biology. They are just as developed as us, they are damaged.
No, it simply means we evolved from the same building blocks.
There are parts of the genome we share with every living thing because we all evolved here. If we we're not evolved, why would there be any similarity at all?
Science involves looking at the evidence at hand, all the evidence at hand and drawing plausible conclusions. I'm afraid that creation "science" starts with the conclusion it wants to be true, ignores much of the evidence, reinterprets some according to the conclusion, and makes up anything else it needs to make the "science" sound plausible.
Just out of curiosity, you are aware that the vatican accepted evolution as early as 1950? Probably still embarassed about the whole "Galileo" thing.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
chcr said:
Sorry, chcr. That's not proof. It's still theory. By the same token, you could say that we're also related to the chimpanzee through a common ancestor. Science is going to have to come up with better proof than that, because, obviously, a chimp and an orang are two seperate species as well.
Back on the main topic, though...religion is a personal matter. If someone chooses to pray, or not, it is their decision. If someone chooses to believe in creation or evolution, it is also a personal decision. Bottom line is...it's your choice, and nobody elses, as long as it doesn't interfere with them.
Just remember this...even science cannot exist without some kind of faith...facts are only facts because the same experiment works out more than twice, even if they are later proved false.
chcr
Too cute for words
John Paul II said this in 1996:
He was referring to this document, written by Pius XII
Gato, I'm sorry, but it is in fact proof. I don't need anyone to accept it if they don't want to, I'm not trying to force people to accept my beliefs. But if similar DNA evidence can convict a man of murder, then in my opinion, consistency demands we accept the obvious. As I stated in an eorlier post, if we were not evolved, why would there be any simliarity at all.
RE. the "main" topic, I was under the impression that evolution was the main topic. Someones personal religious beliefs are their own business.
Oh, and science can exist with no faith at all. In fact, even Darwin expected parts of his original theory to be overturned as people researched it more, and they have. Science is about finding answers through research and experimentation, and if that disproves an accepted answer, tough. Physicists have this happen on an almost daily basis.
Here's a little more grist for the mill:
Sorry, this thing is turning into a novel. My point is that I'm not against teaching "scientific" creation in school, but it is not science, don't teach it in science class.
chcr
Too cute for words
Yes, I guess we are.Gato_Solo said:
1+1=10 in binary. You're comparing apples and oranges.
However, when the odds against something are infintesimally small, the conclusion you draw from this must be true. If we use you're argument, the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow is a theory, because there is a vanishingly small (but not 0) chance that it won't. The same applies to evolution. the odds that a two genomes could be that much alike, and the creatures involved not be related is about the same as the sun not rising tomorrow.
Please understand that I am not trying to convince you. You are free to believe what ever you want, and it seems that arguments that are obvious to me will never be enough to convince you. I am simply presenting arguments that would convince me, were I undecided. Do you know, on the human genome website, they don't really talk about evolution at all? They consider it so obvious that they don't need to mention it.
Two questions though:
1. Do you believe that the earth is only on the order of 6000 years old?
2. You're not worried about the whole "descended from apes" argument, are you? As someone else mentioned earlier, Darwin did not say we were descended from apes (nor any other evolutionist). I believe it was the wife of an Anglican bishop who actually coined the phrase.
chcr
Too cute for words
The links we discussed earlier
Rubin has likened comparisons between the human and mouse genomes to comparisons between an automobile and a go-cart: "Only the very basic parts and design features are similar." Whereas, he argues, comparing the human genome to that of a chimp or a baboon, is like comparing a sedan to a station wagon: "Nearly all the parts and design features are almost interchangeable."
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-02/dbnl-anw022703.php
We humans like to think of ourselves as special, set apart from the rest of the animal kingdom by our ability to talk, write, build complex structures, and make moral distinctions. But when it comes to genes, humans are so similar to the two species of chimpanzee that physiologist Jared Diamond has called us "the third chimpanzee." A quarter-century of genetic studies has consistently found that for any given region of the genome, humans and chimpanzees share at least 98.5% of their DNA. This means that a very small portion of human DNA is responsible for the traits that make us human, and that a handful of genes somehow confer everything from an upright gait to the ability to recite poetry and compose music.
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/RootWeb/which_of_our_genes_make_us_human.htm
BERKELEY, CA — Scientists with the U.S. Department of Energy's Joint Genome Institute (JGI) and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) have developed a powerful new technique for deciphering biological information encoded in the human genome. Called "phylogenetic shadowing," this technique enables scientists to make meaningful comparisons between DNA sequences in the human genome and sequences in the genomes of apes, monkeys, and other non-human primates. With phylogenetic shadowing, scientists can now study biological traits that are unique to members of the primate family.
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/JGI-primate-genome.html
So what is a creationist? In essence, just what I’ve said… a creationist is someone who takes the biblical version of Genesis literally, and not as an allegory. Most often, a creationist also believes that Genesis is incompatible with the big-bang theory, but not always. The people who fall into this category are by and large fundamental Christians, like Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, and Ronald Regan (time will tell if G.W. Bush is or not). Genesis, of course, describes the creation of the Earth and man (indeed, the universe) as a linear set of miracles done in order by God. All of the plants and animals which currently inhabit the Earth were “created” as they can be seen today… giant pandas with six digits, giraffes with long necks, and blind cave lizards with no pigmentation in their skin… in Eden, along with Adam and Eve. Fantastically, most creationists also adhere to the theory that the Earth is no older than about 6000 years, as can be extrapolated from the bible. These people are referred to as “Young-Earth Creationists”, or YEC’s. Creationism is a metaphysical theory, and certainly not a scientific one. It is, in other words, the stuff of legend and mysticism… there is no evidence to support it. It comes from the bible, and assumes biblical truths.
http://www.the-archon.com/guide/evolution.htm
Today there is a broad agreement about the general validity of Evolution Theory (but could it be falsified - what would be an experimentally proof?),which creates empirical and logical coherence in an extremely large body of knowledge, from the molecular to behavioural level. Independent sources (morphology, embryology, molecular similarity, gene sequences) converge in phylogenetic trees that are generally agreed, though continuously revised in details.
http://www.pc.rhbnc.ac.uk/zanker/teach/PS308/308E2.htm
"The relief prayed for is granted." With those words, on January 5, 1982, Federal Judge William K. Overton struck down a state law that would have mandated the teaching of creation-science in the public schools of Arkansas. Overton's decision followed an extraordinary public trial in which a series of scientific heavyweights, including Harvard's Steven J. Gould, persuasively argued in court that "creation-science" was a religious idea that did not meet the generally-accepted tests for scientific theory. As such, the Arkansas creation-science law had the primary effect of advancing a religion in the public schools, and was invalidated under the First Amendment's clause prohibiting establishment of religion. A similar law in Louisiana was invalidated shortly thereafter.
http://biomed.brown.edu/Faculty/M/Miller/TR/Lifes-Design.html
Think we're not still evolving?
The average height for an early 17th-century English man was approximately 5’ 6". For 17th-century English women, it was about 5’ ½". While average heights in England remained virtually unchanged in the 17th and 18th centuries, American colonists grew taller. Averages for modern Americans are just over 5’ 9" for men, and about 5’ 3 ¾" for women. The main reasons for this difference are improved nutrition, notably increased consumption of meat and milk, and antibiotics.
http://www.plimoth.org/Library/l-short.htm
Rubin has likened comparisons between the human and mouse genomes to comparisons between an automobile and a go-cart: "Only the very basic parts and design features are similar." Whereas, he argues, comparing the human genome to that of a chimp or a baboon, is like comparing a sedan to a station wagon: "Nearly all the parts and design features are almost interchangeable."
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-02/dbnl-anw022703.php
We humans like to think of ourselves as special, set apart from the rest of the animal kingdom by our ability to talk, write, build complex structures, and make moral distinctions. But when it comes to genes, humans are so similar to the two species of chimpanzee that physiologist Jared Diamond has called us "the third chimpanzee." A quarter-century of genetic studies has consistently found that for any given region of the genome, humans and chimpanzees share at least 98.5% of their DNA. This means that a very small portion of human DNA is responsible for the traits that make us human, and that a handful of genes somehow confer everything from an upright gait to the ability to recite poetry and compose music.
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/RootWeb/which_of_our_genes_make_us_human.htm
BERKELEY, CA — Scientists with the U.S. Department of Energy's Joint Genome Institute (JGI) and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) have developed a powerful new technique for deciphering biological information encoded in the human genome. Called "phylogenetic shadowing," this technique enables scientists to make meaningful comparisons between DNA sequences in the human genome and sequences in the genomes of apes, monkeys, and other non-human primates. With phylogenetic shadowing, scientists can now study biological traits that are unique to members of the primate family.
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/JGI-primate-genome.html
So what is a creationist? In essence, just what I’ve said… a creationist is someone who takes the biblical version of Genesis literally, and not as an allegory. Most often, a creationist also believes that Genesis is incompatible with the big-bang theory, but not always. The people who fall into this category are by and large fundamental Christians, like Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, and Ronald Regan (time will tell if G.W. Bush is or not). Genesis, of course, describes the creation of the Earth and man (indeed, the universe) as a linear set of miracles done in order by God. All of the plants and animals which currently inhabit the Earth were “created” as they can be seen today… giant pandas with six digits, giraffes with long necks, and blind cave lizards with no pigmentation in their skin… in Eden, along with Adam and Eve. Fantastically, most creationists also adhere to the theory that the Earth is no older than about 6000 years, as can be extrapolated from the bible. These people are referred to as “Young-Earth Creationists”, or YEC’s. Creationism is a metaphysical theory, and certainly not a scientific one. It is, in other words, the stuff of legend and mysticism… there is no evidence to support it. It comes from the bible, and assumes biblical truths.
http://www.the-archon.com/guide/evolution.htm
Today there is a broad agreement about the general validity of Evolution Theory (but could it be falsified - what would be an experimentally proof?),which creates empirical and logical coherence in an extremely large body of knowledge, from the molecular to behavioural level. Independent sources (morphology, embryology, molecular similarity, gene sequences) converge in phylogenetic trees that are generally agreed, though continuously revised in details.
http://www.pc.rhbnc.ac.uk/zanker/teach/PS308/308E2.htm
"The relief prayed for is granted." With those words, on January 5, 1982, Federal Judge William K. Overton struck down a state law that would have mandated the teaching of creation-science in the public schools of Arkansas. Overton's decision followed an extraordinary public trial in which a series of scientific heavyweights, including Harvard's Steven J. Gould, persuasively argued in court that "creation-science" was a religious idea that did not meet the generally-accepted tests for scientific theory. As such, the Arkansas creation-science law had the primary effect of advancing a religion in the public schools, and was invalidated under the First Amendment's clause prohibiting establishment of religion. A similar law in Louisiana was invalidated shortly thereafter.
http://biomed.brown.edu/Faculty/M/Miller/TR/Lifes-Design.html
Think we're not still evolving?
The average height for an early 17th-century English man was approximately 5’ 6". For 17th-century English women, it was about 5’ ½". While average heights in England remained virtually unchanged in the 17th and 18th centuries, American colonists grew taller. Averages for modern Americans are just over 5’ 9" for men, and about 5’ 3 ¾" for women. The main reasons for this difference are improved nutrition, notably increased consumption of meat and milk, and antibiotics.
http://www.plimoth.org/Library/l-short.htm