do you believe in science?

Danielle - posted on 07/22/2010

I love religion and I love science. I am Roman Catholic but I am also a believer in scientific fact. Many of my religious beliefs require a lot of Catholic faith because they can't be supported by scientific facts.

Christa - posted on 07/21/2010

Ok Sara . . .

The problem with Macro evolution is the mutation rate. Based on our current knowledge of genetic mutations in DNA you would need trillions more years on the age of the earth to make the theory plausible. So basically the amount of time needed to have the mutations that would be required to turn a single cell into a human or even just to get from our ape ancestor to humans is much longer then the current evolutionists estimates of the age of the earth.


Here are some articles to back this up.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/sh...

http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files...

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articl...

This is why we can not assume that just because we've witnessed adaptation that we can apply those to a larger scale. Our current scientific knowledge doesn't back that up.

Here is a generic link to how DNA mutations work, in case it's not something people are familiar with.

http://www.genetichealth.com/g101_change...


Also there is the Y chromosome, it’s been proven to be shrinking. Here’s a piece from Wikipedia.

“The human Y chromosome has lost 1,393 of its 1,438 original genes over the course of its existence. With a rate of genetic loss of 4.6 genes per million years, the Y chromosome may potentially lose complete function within the next 10 million years.[11] Comparative genomic analysis, however, reveals that many mammalian species are experiencing a similar loss of function in their heterozygous sex chromosome. Degeneration may simply be the fate of all nonrecombining sex chromosomes due to three common evolutionary forces: high mutation rate, inefficient selection and genetic drift.[12] On the other hand, recent comparisons of the human and chimpanzee Y chromosomes show that the human Y chromosome has not lost any genes since the divergence of humans and chimpanzees between 6-7 million years ago,[13] providing direct evidence that the linear extrapolation model may be flawed.”

This last sentence makes me laugh. Here they assume that since our current findings on the rate the chromosome is shrinking doesn’t support the current theory of us splitting from the chimps that the data must be wrong, not the fact that maybe we didn’t come from chimps. I guess you can come to whatever conclusion you want, but I choose to follow the data and think perhaps this shows we never came from the same ancestor as chimps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_chromosom...


There’s so much more out there that I’ve read in the past. I will have to start keeping such articles for future discussions. :-)

Kimberly - posted on 07/21/2010

i can't help but wonder if those people who don't believe the science also don't use modern medicine. or cars, or televisions, or the numerous materials we've created to make our lives easier. science has given us just about everything that didn't grow or form naturally in the earth. without science we couldn't find diamond mines or make cell phones or prevent communicable diseases in our kids. i just don't get it. unless the people who say that dinosaurs existed with people are living like the amish i think they're freaking hypocrites.

Christa - posted on 07/21/2010

Sara, I'm going to get back to you. I have thoughts but I want to back them up so it may take me a bit to find what I'm looking for. :-)

Toni - posted on 07/21/2010

@Christa,

1) That makes sense.

2)Ok so if a population splits one group may go to a location where it is neccesary for them to have hair (i.e. sandy location) and the other group may go to a location where it is neccesary for them to have big feet (i.e. snowy location) so both need to evolve in different ways to survive. If the group evolves in the wrong way natural selection will come into play and they will more than likely die, however, if they evolve correctly they will survive. What works for one group will not work for another for various reasons and one adaption is not better than another.

3) As I said more research is neccesary.

4) Not everything was wiped out withthe dinos. Many plants that relyed on photosynthesis reduced or became extinct as such herbivores died out as their food became very scarce and then carnivores such as T-Rex became extinct due to the lack of their food. Omnivores, insectivores and carrion-eaters (animals that eat dead animal carcasses) survived the meteor. Mammals and birds survived by eating worms and snails and insects who survived by eating dead animal and plant matter. Crocodiles were the largest air breathing animal to survive, scientists theorize that they survived due to being semi-aquatic and eating dead plants and animal matter - modern crocs can live as scavengers and can go months without eating food! approx 80% sharks, rays and skates survived the meteor and more than 90% of Teleost fish survived. Amphibians were minorly affected by the meteor (maybe due to them being able to go into the water and survive on land). Several animals survived the extinction of the dinos.

I agree hopefully people can see that although something is common knowledge it is not unquestionable, after all how many years did we think the Earth was flat?

Sara - posted on 07/21/2010

I think the question begs to be asked: Wouldn't microevolution led to macroevolution? Or is there really as big a difference in these terms as some intelligent design/creationist/etc want us to believe?



It is my understanding that for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons.



When creationists use the terms, however, it is for ontological reasons — this means that they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes. The essence of what constitutes microevolution is, for creationists, different from the essence of what constitutes macroevolution. Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.



So basically, creationists are appropriating scientific terminology which has specific and limited meaning, but they are using it in a broader and incorrect manner.



A second problem with the creationist use of the terms microevolution and macroevolution is the fact that the definition of what constitutes a species is not consistently defined. This can complicate the boundaries which creationists claim exist between microevolution and macroevolution. After all, if one is going to claim that microevolution can never become macroevolution, it would be necessary to specify where the boundary is which supposedly cannot be crossed.



So in summary, I do believe in science, yes. And I'd be willing to go with what scientists have theorized over the writing of a bunch of men in a tent during the bronze age.

Isobel - posted on 07/21/2010

Thank you Toni....that was exactly what I was trying to say. Christa and I clearly speak different languages.

Jenny - posted on 07/21/2010

Well with that said, do you beleive dinosaurs and humans lived together and we somehow escaped whatever killed them off or did they never exist in the first place and the event that killed them off never actually happened?

Christa - posted on 07/21/2010

@Carol, the bible has not been proven false, but it has been proven the 6 days are not 24 hours periods. But again I'm not looking to prove God's existence with this, just that it's not the only theory around and SOME evolutionists do try to use evolution to disprove his existence and they can't do that, not until they can account for the first cell.

@Toni,
1) I guess I shouldn't have said the rest is moot. IF you are willing to say God created that first cell, then the rest could have been the method he chose. I more meant that towards those who refuse to admit he could be the creator. They MUST account for the first cell to prove their theory holds water without his existence.

2) That doesn't make much sense to me. Why would one part evolve and another not? It could happen, but it doesn't make logical sense given our knowledge of adaptation. Usually the ones that adapt move on and the others die out.

3) Viruses do adapt and mutate, we know that, but why haven't they figured out how to self sustain? It doesn't make sense again using our knowledge of survival of the fittest.

4) To my knowledge (but I'm not 100% with the fossil records) there wasn't much life left after the dinosaurs and anything that was left was very small and simple. So again the timing just doesn't make sense.

I just point out the reasons I feel this theory is incomplete at best and to me doesn't make the most sense. My faith obviously plays a part in my perceptions. I won't say that they will never fill in the blanks and this is definitely not the way things happened, it could be. But as it stands now I do not believe we all came from one single celled organism, I believe God created each species individually with a purpose and there is no concrete evidence to the contrary. Macro evolution is NOT fact and I just wish people would stop treating it as so. There is room for differing ideas on it, so long as they aren't absurd (devil planting bones). I hope I have shown some of you that I do look at the science and I still believe in another way. It is possible to be educated and informed and not believe in the entire theory of evolution. I know there are those that will insist it's fact, but maybe I've opened one person's eyes, maybe not. ;-P

Toni - posted on 07/21/2010

Christa - I've got a couple of questions/ issues from your post and the flaws.



1) I'm with you that the first cell was put there by a higher being (God) but to say that without this knowledge the rest is moot - really? How does not knowing how the first cell appeared make the rest of the findings any less significant? Surely that is an area for further research with people simply trying to find out the truth - rather than religious people trying to prove God exists and athiests trying to prove he doesn't, because preconceptions give biased results as we can manipulate findings to give the results we require (usually).



2) Evolution does not necessarily affect the whole population of a species. It may occur when a population splits and one of the new groups finds that to survive they need to adapt and over millions of years adaptions take place however, the other group may find that they do not need to change to survive and so no adations occur. The group that adapted may eventually change into a new species due to the amount they have changed.



3) More reseach needs to be conducted into the benefit/ reason for viruses. A lack of understanding for the reason they exist does not mean they are not important. Also just because they do not evolve in the way which animals do does not mean they have not evolved - once we have been exposed to a virus we build an immunity to it so for the virus to survive they need to evolve - we all get the common cold or flu it is just never the same strain.



4) To my knowledge some animals survived the ice age (I was a bit of a dino freak in school and I still love them I am really looking forward to my little boy doing the dino thing sorry back to what I was saying). The dinosaurs were killed off more than likely because of their size and the amount of food needed to support them (I know not all dino's were huge but this is one of the main reasons). So in reality the evolution of animals did not have to begin from the start again.



I agree that this theory may change as our knowledge increases and we may have a completely different theory in 100 years :-)

Sarah - posted on 07/21/2010

*******Mod Warning********
Can we try to debate this without getting personal to others.
Thankyou.

Sarah ~admin~

Johnny - posted on 07/20/2010

Whether or not our current understanding of evolution and the developments of nature are completely accurate, I know for a FACT that the story of creation that is in the bible has been PROVEN false. Can we know how the universe was created & why? Not yet, it is certainly up for debate. But we do KNOW that God did not create the earth in 6 days 6000 years ago. Pretty much every creation myth of every people on this earth has been disproved through scientific evidence and research. So when looking at the original thread being discussed in this one, I am gobsmacked by the idea that there are still people out there who think that science will "prove" the bible true. It has already done the opposite.

Christa - posted on 07/20/2010

LaCi, that is the assumption, yes. But it is not an observed fact. That's my whole point.

LaCi - posted on 07/20/2010

lol. I have some scientific knowledge and am also a big fan of google.

Macro evolution won't be observed for another million years.

Macro is composed of micro, it's simple. if something alters itself a billion times it will, at the end of those billion changes be very different than thing is was before the billion prior changes. MAN I wish I had more time right now! back eventually ;/

Christa - posted on 07/20/2010

This is how I started my post since you missed it:

"The problems with the whole theory of creation based on the big bang and evolution are:"

Christa - posted on 07/20/2010

Laura go back and read my whole post. I said I don't care about proving God's existence so get over that.



And it does have to do with the creation of the earth and that in it's entirety is what I'm concerned about and evolution is a piece to that so it is all relevant.

Isobel - posted on 07/20/2010

The creation of the first cell only proves that there is a higher power...not that there is no evolution. It does not prove that the Christian god is the correct one, it proves ONLY that there is something else...like I said earlier...What if a higher power created the first cell THEN guided evolution.

The rest is NOT moot...the creation of the first cell has NOTHING to do with evolution. period.

Christa - posted on 07/20/2010

There are many flaws or unanswered questions surrounding this theory and so to me it makes more sense that each species was created by an intelligent designer and then since creation have each adapted to become smarter and stronger, but all the while remaining the same general species.

The problems with the whole theory of creation based on the big bang and evolution are:

Where did that first cell come from? I've already given you lots of solid scientific fact as to why Abiogenesis or spontaneous generation do not make sense given our current understandings of cell biology. Here is a reminder.

"Abiogenesis, the idea that the first life started with no intelligent designer, is contrary to real science. It contradicts:

•The Laws of Probability that calculate the chance of a thing happening,

•The Principle of Biogenesis (life only comes from life),

•The tendency of things to become disordered, described by the entropy of the Second Law of Thermodynamics,

•The observation of what happens in nature,

•The experimental evidence. ".

It goes against all other "truths" we currently know. Some dismiss this as irrelevant or a red herring, but unless you can account for the first cell, the rest is moot. You can’t evolve from nothing. We have NEVER witnessed anything evolve or adapt starting from nothing. If you want to say God created that first cell and then everything evolved then, that is a form of creationism. Pure evolutionists are usually atheist and out to prove we are here with no supernatural help. So there is flaw 1.

Here's another problem I have with it. Why if everything evolves into something stronger and smarter, why do we still have single celled organisms? Wouldn't they, since they have been here the longest, have evolved by now into something better? Wouldn't they have all continued to evolve into multi celled organism and beyond? Why do fish, insects and amphibians still exist? They are the oldest so shouldn't they have all continued on? What is the benefit of them staying so simple while the others continued to develop further? Why would our common ancestor with apes split into two paths where one is significantly smarter then the other? Don't you think either our intelligence would have killed the other chain or their strength have killed our chain? That makes more sense given our knowledge of the animal kingdom. Survival of the fittest right? Flaw 2.

Where did viruses come from? Viruses are basically just free DNA, sometimes they are enveloped. But they require 100% on their host in order to survive. They borrow their hosts cellular processes to reproduce and live. Wouldn't evolutionary knowledge suggest that by now they would have evolved and developed their own cell with their own mechanics so they can survive by themselves? That would ensure their survival much better then hanging on a door handle until the next person comes along with working cells. Flaw 3.

Also since everyone loves the dinosaurs, what suddenly killed them? It's obvious something happened that wiped just about anything living on the ground out. There are many theories, but all seem to agree that it was some major event that wiped them out. If whatever it was, was powerful enough to wipe out the giant T-rex, it's safe to assume most other things were gone to. That was only 65 million years ago. So it took billions and billions of years to get from that single cell to the almighty T-rex, but then only 65 million to recreate all the species we have today? Flaw 4

Since DNA was brought up I'll touch on that too. DNA is so complex and we are only beginning to touch the surface of completely understanding it. But our current DNA knowledge can't even say for sure if a drop of blood belongs to person A or B. It can definitively say it does NOT belong to person A or B, and it can say it's most likely person A or B's but we can not say for sure. So why do people think we can take human DNA and Chimp DNA and say yep they are definitely from the DNA of X common ancestor of which we have no sample to compare, when we can't even say with 100% certainty that it came from Human A or B? Flaw 5.

Come on use your own brains and logic skills. You can not tell me that all of this makes perfect sense? I don't care if you think God did it, but open your eyes to the fact that there is a lot that surrounds the theory of MACRO evolution that just doesn't make sense. I know it's the best they can come up with and as time progresses we may get some better evidence, but this is not even close to a fact and the sooner they stop brainwashing kids in school that this in the ONLY possibility, maybe the sooner scientists can start looking for possibly a better theory.

Christa - posted on 07/20/2010

@Toni, interesting . . . .I have thoughts but it's really not the thread for it, perhaps another time :-)

@LaCi, Your post sounds good, so you either have some scientific knowledge or you are good with google :-) However you have lost one important part. Micro evolution or adaptation is fact. It has been observed. Macro evolution is not fact and has never been observed. No one has ever witnessed or been able to recreate one species turning into another. No one has been able to recreate a single celled organism turning into a different multi celled organism (Jenny pregnancy is a totally different thing, please look more into that they are not comparable or even similar situations). Therefore the theory that we all formed from one cell that over billion and billions of years turned into every species we see today is nothing more then a story. There are stepping stones of facts along the way but most of it is pure speculation. We find a bone here and a fossil there and piece together how it all was, based on our scientific knowledge of today. So NOT fact, theory.

Toni - posted on 07/20/2010

@Laci - it may be called the Gravitational Theory but it is fact (which is what I was getting at), and I never said that I thought evolution is not true - I actually believe the evolutionary theory as you can see it occuring.

@Christa - I actually do not belive that Jesus was the son of God any more than you or I am the daughter of God - IMO Jesus was just a man who did good deeds and the BIble has exagerated him (as IMO the Bible is a group of stories designed to teach us lessons). I was merely using Jesus as an example because many Christians believe in him - and yes IMO if Jesus was the son of God I think it was a mistake to send him to us for us to kill him (would you send your child somewhere knowing he would be murdered - I doubt it).

LaCi - posted on 07/20/2010

A law is a mathematical description of an observed phenomenon, the law of gravity is the mathematical interpretation of the THEORY.



"Recent alternative theories

Brans–Dicke theory of gravity (1961)

Induced gravity (1967), a proposal by Andrei Sakharov according to which general relativity might arise from quantum field theories of matter

In the modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) (1981), Mordehai Milgrom proposes a modification of Newton's Second Law of motion for small accelerations

The self-creation cosmology theory of gravity (1982) by G.A. Barber in which the Brans-Dicke theory is modified to allow mass creation

Nonsymmetric gravitational theory (NGT) (1994) by John Moffat

Tensor-vector-scalar gravity (TeVeS) (2004), a relativistic modification of MOND by Jacob Bekenstein

Gravity as an entropic force, gravity arising as an emergent phenomenon from the thermodynamic concept of entropy."



We KNOW it's there and we still do NOT understand everything about it. SAME goes for evolution. It is FACTUAL that it is there, we are still searching for the precise WHY and HOW of the theory. Laws are not perfect proof. Newtons laws of gravity aren't precise and we still use them and they are still laws, although only approximations and only mathematical descriptions of phenomena. Einstein has completely different idea, the THEORY of relativity, which is also a fact.





"In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.



Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.



Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution."





"A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15"





As for gravity, its is a theory, AND it is a fact. Same with evolution. Newtons laws regarding gravity are not precise, only approximations, but they are still laws and we still use them. Einstein had a different idea of gravity, and his THEORY Of relativity is a fact, regardless of whether "theory" is in its title. So the imprecise calculation is a fact, but the more precise understanding is a theory. Quit getting lost in terminology.



The FACT that evolution took and is taking place isn't up for debate. The methods by which evolution takes place are, which is why we study it, and why we will ALWAYS call it a theory.

Christa - posted on 07/20/2010

Laura, I can admit a mistake when I make one, I've done it before. This is not that case. Moving on. . . .

@Toni, You think sending Jesus to die for us was a mistake? That's the weirdest thing I've ever heard from a Christian, but that's not really relevant to this thread. I think we can agree we don't know for sure and I think that's as good as it gets on this one. :-)

Gravity is fact as defined by the Law of Gravity. When something is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt it becomes a law. We know gravity exists we’ve observed it we have a formula to prove it’s existence, the theory is our best explanation as to why. That is the difference between the two.

Here are some definitions to those who are unclear.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry1...

"A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true. "

"One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis. "

"A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law."

So as you can see a Theory is an accepted hypothesis or educated guess. It remains a theory if it can't be disproven. Since neither Evolution nor Creationism can definitely be disproven they both still exist as valid theories. At the same time neither can be proven with no exceptions and so can not become laws. If something has NO exceptions it becomes a law.

LaCi - posted on 07/20/2010

Actually gravity is a theory. "Gravitational Theory" Theory. Just because theory is in the name doesn't make it any less factual or accepted or proven. Same goes with evolution.

Toni - posted on 07/20/2010

Gravity is not a theory it is a fact! We can prove that gravity exists it is a force with a name.

Isobel - posted on 07/20/2010

I think they should stop teaching the theory of gravity in school.

Toni - posted on 07/20/2010

Christa, there is no such thing as perfect even God makes mistakes - he sent his son to us and we crucified him THAT was a mistake IMO.

However this is about science so - I agree with us not knowing - I stated that we will never truely know what happened at the beginning of the world - currently I choose to believe that yes God created the universe BUT that he set things in motion and allowed what happened to happen not that he individually created everything over billions of years and as such the big bang, abiogenisis and evolution occured. IMO we cannot have a God that made us individually and gives us freewill because with designing us it removes our freewill (he put our thoughts and our thought processes into our heads), machines do not have freewill they can only do what their designer programmed them for! As I believe God has given us freewill to choose the path we wish to lead this makes the idea of an intelligent designer void IMO, also evil exists because we have freewill to choose it - we could not do this if we was designed (again machines can only do what they are designed for).

I understand that theories are called theories because they cannot be proved and so are just educated ideas - again I have also stated that in another 100 years they may change as our knowledge increases/ changes.

Isobel - posted on 07/20/2010

wow...classy, god forbid you admit a mistake.

Jenny - posted on 07/19/2010

Christa, I firmly believe I have made truthful, informed statements. I have brought up many good points. I'm not going to get in a pissing match with you. I'm trying my best to keep it on topic. So do you want to talk about science or do you want to keep picking at me?

Johnny - posted on 07/19/2010

"Jenny you and I have done this before and I've already concluded that you are not intelligent enough to understand" ~Christa . (yesterday, 3:28 pm)


Hmm.. that seems like a personal attack to me... And I would agree with Laura, it definitely merits an apology.

Christa - posted on 07/19/2010

I never called her stupid, just that she showed ignorance on this subject, I just call them like I see them. . . .

Isobel - posted on 07/19/2010

I know I'm not a mod here, but I do believe that an apology is in order for calling Jenny stupid...but that's just MHO

Jenny - posted on 07/19/2010

"How did it get it? It just randomly figured it out?"



Now you're finally coming around. Yes, random genetic mutations and selective breeding over the course of billions and billions of years. That's why humans haven't been on the planet since it was formed, it wasn't scientifically possible. We had to evolve.



I also wonder, if Adam and Eve weren't born, did they have bellybuttons? They wouldn't need one since they were just made and all so we shouldn't have them either really.

Jenny - posted on 07/19/2010

Pregnancy is a great piece of evidence for evolution, it demonstrates how easy it is to go from a single cell to a complex human being which you have adamantly claimed is not possible.

Christa - posted on 07/19/2010

The reproductive process shows nothing about evolution but it does show your true ignorance on the whole subject. A sperm and an egg hold all the genetic code required for the baby from the start. A single celled organism did not have the genetic code for a human billion of years ago. How did it get it? It just randomly figured it out? Go back and read the entire article about cellular biology, you clearly need a bit more education on that. I won't comment to you about this again because I just see it getting ugly. See you around. :)

Jenny - posted on 07/19/2010

So you believe in random genetic mutation that can then be selectively bred in the short term but not the long. We can turn a wolf into a chihuahua in just over 100 years but humans and apes never shared a common ancestor. Humans turn a sperm and an egg into a fully formed baby in 40 weeks but you can't believe simple organisms turned into more complex ones over the course of hundreds of billions of years. Gotcha =)

Lyndsay - posted on 07/19/2010

That's just silly.

Christa - posted on 07/19/2010

Jenny, I wasn't going to comment to you again, but I just can't let this go. The Lenski E. Coli experiments show a species evolving(ADAPTING) to their environment. This is an example of MICRO evolution, NOT MACRO. Until those bacterium turn into a multi celled organism and then a complex animal it proves NOTHING towards MACRO evolution. Until you demonstrate you understand the difference between the two we can not continue discussing this topic.

Christa - posted on 07/19/2010

@Toni, we will never be able to prove any theory about the beginning of the universe because no one was there and we didn't have youtube then. ;-P My evidence (and there’s many more) shows that there are giant holes in the current theories and prove that they are not 100% accurate. That's been my only point. I can not prove that God existed and he definitely created the earth and all on it. All I can show is that you can take the facts of what we know and apply a different theory to them that is equally plausible as the current theory of evolution. I also disagree about your intelligent designer making mistakes, as a Christian you should know that God is perfect and doesn't make mistakes. But you are entitled your opinion.

I'm not out to prove the theory of evolution wrong, just that it does not have all the answers and is not a perfect theory and it would be nice if people were allowed to think other theories make more sense to them without being called delusional or stupid or anything else. NONE of us know for sure and it would be lovely if the arrogance from some would go away, but I won’t hold my breath. :-P

Toni - posted on 07/19/2010

Christa while I do not dismiss the creationist theory as I am a Christian and believe that God created the universe and to a degree everything in it, I am struggling to see HOW your evidence proves creationism over abiogenisis and evolutional theories - I understand that your evidence demonstrates that life cannot just pop up from nothing BUT we will never have the same atmospheric conditions as at the start of the Earth and we will never know 100% what happened at the start because none of us were there. The best we can do is take an educated guess which in another 100 years may be disproved and another theory may take its place. This is the beauty of science it is constantly evolving and as such theories have to change as we gain knowledge!

IMO the intelligent designer theory cannot be right because if we had an intelligent designer surely they would have made mistakes, and so we would have discovered these mistakes at some point in our history, the Right Brothers did not just make an aeroplane that flew straight away they had failures to.

LaCi - posted on 07/18/2010

Most importantly, evolution is a "theory" in the same way gravity is a "theory"

I also do not think there is any room to dismiss evolution, and will not concede that we "do not know for sure" because we DO know. The issues in evolution have nothing to do with whether it is fact or fiction, the issues are discovering all those small details-of which we will never have every single piece of information and there will always be more to discover, as there will always be more species to discover, always be something to discover in space explorations, a new mathematical law, so on and so forth, but the statement that evolution is reality isn't debatable.

ME - posted on 07/18/2010

Like I said earlier..."intelligent design" proves nothing that Christians want it to prove, so there's no reason for them to keep using that theory in the first place...

just for the count: I've also heard from christians that dinosaur bones were placed in the earth by the devil to confuse and/or test humans...I've heard it a lot...

Jenny - posted on 07/18/2010

Christa, that is a personal attack. I have demonstrated that I have a thourough understanding of the theory. I have provided countless evidence in support of evolution and you can only resort to links from unreputable sources of things that are not a part of the theory itself. It's a red herring. The Lenski E.Coli experiments are a solid lock on observed evolution. You are backing down because you can not prove me wrong and are restoring to acting like a child about it.

Christa - posted on 07/18/2010

Not until you tell me how that first cell got here to start evolving.



Jenny you and I have done this before and I've already concluded that you don't understand or are too stubborn to admit the facts of this. Most everyone else has conceded that we will never know for sure and neither theory negates the other and both are just theories. So I'm going to move on . . . .

Jenny - posted on 07/18/2010

Christa I will never concede evolution is not a fact because it is. I have looked at the "other side". I've watched Expelled. I have done a ton of research on the subject and there is irrefutable evidence that evolution happened and is happening now. It is NOT up for interpretation (unless one wants to be wrong). How the first cell started is not a part of the theory so you can use it as your sticking point all you want but it's not relevant so there's really no point. How did gravity first start? Who cares, it keeps my feet on the planet, I know it's there.

Would you please answer these questions? Why haven't we found modern animal fossils alongside dinosaurs? Do you believe mammals and dinosaurs lived at the same time? Do you believe there ever was just single celled creatures? Do you believe humans were alive in the Triassic? How many examples of fossils have we found for species that still exist today (aside from sharks or crocodiles which have not evolved much)?

Isobel - posted on 07/18/2010

I don't think anybody said that those nutbars represented all christians...let's just get that straight. So there's no need for defense, when there was no offense.

Christa - posted on 07/18/2010

Jenny, I don't want to get into a big evolution debate because we could go back and forth. Just concede it's not fact and up for interpretation, just as intelligent design is. We do not and likely will never know how the earth was created for sure.

I do want to address this, you said:

"First of all, abiogenisis is a seperate thing than evolution. Evolution does not explain how the universe or life started so let's drop that and stay on track. It does not encompass the Big Bang thoery either. At it's base, evolution explains the variety of species which came to be through genetic mutation and selective reproduction."

How do you explain how the first single celled organism came about to start your theory of evolution? It kills the whole theory if matter can not just appear. So you can say it's irrelevant to the theory but that's just shows your unwillingness to consider all the facts.

Kati, brought up a good point. You can't say you don't believe in science and then use science to disprove other science. So I don't remember exactly how I said things before but wanted to clarify. I do "believe" in science but do not agree with certain theories as they are incomplete. And I don’t take the popular theory of the day (evolution, climate change etc) as fact. I like to look at the actual scientific facts a theory is based around and use my own brain to decide if the prevailing theory makes sense.

One last thing Jenny, you said:

"It's selective reasoning. They pick what backs up what they already believe and discredit anything against it. You'll notice most references creationists use are websites with "Christian" or other religious terms in the name. There is just no unbiased information to back them up."

You are selective reasoning by excluding the abiogenisis information I've included. Without a plausible theory of creation of matter/life the rest of your theory is useless. And some of my links had Christian bias in them but the science stands on it's own, regardless of the source.

Please refer back to this first link you in particular could really benefit from looking through a different looking glass at science.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...

You can not see past your own pre conceived notions. I have been forced to look through the evolutionist looking glass my whole life. Can you say you've even tried to look through the creationist looking glass?

Again if you are interested in getting some more facts please check out Lee Strobel’s books. “The case for Creationism” is one that pertains to this discussion, but he has others on different parts of the bible.

Nothing is ever likely to be concrete on this subject just as we will likely never be able to prove if God does or does not exist. You are free to interpret things as you like, but open your minds for like a minute and realize that just because someone thinks something different then you does not mean that they are uneducated or ignorant or crazy. There are plenty of well educated people much smarter then I or any of you that believe in the theory of creationism and evolution, so obviously either theory has enough facts to remain viable theories.

I also want to defend Christians and say that never in my entire life have I ever heard anyone say anything about the bones being planted by the devil or anyone else, so just because there are some people out there who do believe this craziness doesn’t mean it’s a part of most Christians beliefs. Most Christians are just as smart as any of you and have used their own brains to decide what make the most sense to them.

Jess - posted on 07/18/2010

I agree with Aura, When I was young and went to sunday school I asked how the dinosaurs fitted into the grand scheme of things. And the answer I was given was that first week as described in the bible wasn't running on 24 hour time ! It was over thousands of years. I think people start running into trouble when they get mixed in with the far out extremist's who take everything so literally and if they can't find a passage in the bible that strictly explains something than they dismiss the issue.

I've been watching 19 kids and counting and while the Duggars are lovely people.... they are complete NUT JOBS! Where in the bible does it say that you can't use contraceptives, or dance, or wear Jeans if your a women !!!

I think with everything you need some middle ground and moderation !

Aura - posted on 07/17/2010

As a Christian, I would have to say that I do believe in science. I feel that, when scientists are trying to disprove God's existence, they are actually firmly proving it. For example, the big bang theory where matter forms out of nothing, why can't that be God? Or the theory of evolution, isn't that just God creating humans to adapt to their ever changing surroundings?

As for dinosaurs, I believe they existed in God's creation of the world. God's "six day of work" were probably a few thousand years to us.

Anyway, that's my understanding of our world and the science that exists in it, lol. It pains me that there are so many Christians out there spouting idiocies and making the rest of us look bad.

Isobel - posted on 07/17/2010

If you Cherry pick in one venue (re the Bible) it seems logical that you would do the same with science...choose the parts you like and abandon the parts that you don't.

Johnny - posted on 07/17/2010

I've often seen this phrase used to describe how they believe science should work, "the bible should not be fit into science, science should follow the bible, it is the truth." Like both Kati & Jenny have said, people are picking and choosing what they like from science. It is like how church scientists from the past argued for the earth being the center of the universe.