I am not familiar with fruitflies proving evolution. Are you saying that fruitflies have evolved to become something other then fruitflies?
Look at our subject matter. Most of it could be passed off as nonsense. I am gonna pull the faith card here. If God created time and space I would assume that he could very well exist outside of it.
A short saying oft contains much wisdom.
Fruitflies show adaptation over generations, one of the postulates of evolution.
Your last statement is like saying the letter Y created the alphabet.
Faith is believing what you know ain't so - Mark Twain
The preachers deal with men of straw, as they are men of straw themselves - Henry David Thoreau
The way to see faith is to shut the eye of reason - Benjamin Franklin
The teaching of the church, theoretically astute, is a lie in practice and a compound of vulgar superstitions and sorcery - Leo Tolstoy
Existence makes no sense without reference to time or space. If you think it does, maybe you could explain what it means.
Faith is believing what you know ain't so - Mark Twain
The preachers deal with men of straw, as they are men of straw themselves - Henry David Thoreau
The way to see faith is to shut the eye of reason - Benjamin Franklin
The teaching of the church, theoretically astute, is a lie in practice and a compound of vulgar superstitions and sorcery - Leo Tolstoy
To feel that God has always been and not the universe is to be an adherent to faith, because one needs faith in God to pull off that kind of belief about the universe, since there's no possible way to reason how God exists from within our universe outside of believing that something else (God) created it.
Whereas the acceptance that the universe has always been here isn't so much to do with faith, as it is a reasonable deduction based on how space and time work insofar as we know it does (as I explained back on Page 4), and remains a reasonable concept so long as we believe that the universe is all there is because there cannot be anything outside of it that we'd ever know about from within our own.
It isn't a faith thing when it comes to any biological sciences, such as evolution, but I suppose if you care to drop the label on the Big Bang (seeing as it's impossible to ever get a picture of it happening), all the theory with evidence in the universe won't ever make it right or wrong. I personally choose to reside in the concept of knowing something as possible or impossible or not knowing things, rather than believing in them when it comes to things like this, so faith has never been something I could accept for many things and certainly never for a god.
To think is to blog is to distract is to stop is to destroy is to die is to think therefore I am not good enough
Jesus Wants Me For A Rainbow!
---------------
Stanislaw Lem
1921 - 2006, Rest In Peace.
"Faith is, at one and the same time, absolutely necessary and altogether impossible"
Yes my friends, Jesus does not want me for a rainbow....
HOOOOeeeeyyyyy!!!!! Yowzer!!!
Dumpweed!!! A great big welcome to the site. Nice to see a newcomer jump in with both feet, create a little splash and ripple!!! Stick around my friend, I think your gonna fit right in! You might be in for a real tussle in this thread though......
You know, Dumpweed, fruit flies can prove a lot more than you might think. Not just evolution. They're often used in scientific testing because their DNA is very similar to ours. In fact, we have a lot in common with the fruit fly. To quote Sharmila Bhattacharya from NASA, "About 61% of known human disease genes have a recognizable match in the genetic code of fruit flies, and 50% of fly protein sequences have mammalian analogues."Originally Posted by Dumpweed
But fruit flies or not (almost typed "flute fries"), there is ample evidence for evolution. Not only fossils (has it ever seemed strange to you that there are no dinosaurs in the Bible?), but genetic evidence. Firstly, humans share 99.4 % of their DNA with chimpanzees. According to http://home.att.net/~meditation/chimpsDNA.html, "Tracking mutation rates in the genes, the scientists estimate that the common ancestor of chimps and humans diverged from gorillas about 7 million years ago, and then separated into two species between 5 million and 6 million years ago." I don't see how creationists can ignore such plain facts. Any reliable site will tell you the same. If you search Google for "chimpanzees DNA human 99.4 %" you'll get a few interesting ones. One is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract .
Secondly, it is impossible to dismiss the evidence in fossils. Somewhere on this forum I saw someone's idea that fossils are fakes, which is outrageous - plus untrue. Fossils are *not* fakes - or at least real fossils aren't fakes. Fake fossils are your models you find in shops that are some $60 cheaper than the real thing. But *fossils* aren't fake. Otherwise they're not fossils.
Look at me go! *Shakes head sadly* A whole paragraph and I hardly got a single idea through. But I'll make up for it in the next one.
Some fossils contain DNA. I find it amazing that anybody, even creationists, who indeed should never surprise anyone (no offence there), can ignore such evidence. Both arid and polar environments can preserve DNA, which is usually rapidly broken down after the animal or plant dies. Extracting preserved DNA can be difficult, and though initially scientists hoped to access DNA millions of years old, the more successful attempts have been within the 100, 000 year range. But even this is quite sufficient to prove evolution. Perhaps you have even heard of Jurrasic Park? Though such happenings would be (thankfully) impossible due to the fact that no DNA that old is likely to be intact, it does show a good idea. Cloning any preserved DNA would be very difficult and very unlikely to succeed, at least with modern technologies; however DNA can be extracted from certain fossils which clearly show they were once alive. Long before the Bible was written or God was created.
And then there is adaptation. Adaptation is evolution right before your eyes. That is, evolution leads to adaptation. Species that don't adapt quick enough simply die out. They are forced to change to survive. This is called natural selection, which I'm sure you've heard of. Nowadays many species are becoming extinct because their environments change too quickly for them to adapt to them. For example, the logging of rainforests. It happens too quickly and therefore animals die out.
A good example of natural selection is the story of the peppered moth. It occurred around the time of the Industrial Revolution. The peppered moth was light in colour, a sort of off-white, speckled brown. In the area of Manchester, England, peppered moths began to be very obvious to their predators. The barks of the trees on which they rested were becoming darker and darker due to the smog of the nearby factories. If the peppered moth had not adapted, it would have died out as birds could now easily spot them. However - it did. In 1848 the first dark peppered moth was sighted. It was a product of natural selection. You can find out more about this here or in any book about evolution.
There's so much evidence around that I've never mentioned it till now - I thought it was too obvious. But you never know...
Miss Darcy
P.S. And by the way, congratulations to Adelheid for starting such a successful thread! Why did it outlive other, similar threads? - Natural selection, my friends, natural selection.
After silence, that which comes closest to expressing the inexpressible is music.
-Aldous Huxley
Love, love, love, that is the soul of genius.
-W. A. Mozart
Non scholae, sed vitae discimus.
Not school, but life teaches us.
A little interuption here. Here's some excerpts of articles, which some or all of you might already know, but I just read this yesterday:
"What I think the DNA materials has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinary diverse elements together", said Professor Antony Flew, 81, of the University Reading, United Kingdom. "It could be a person in the sense of being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose".
Article by Richard Ostling, "Leading Atheist Now Believes in God", Associated Press report, Dec, 2004.
"Prof. Flew is one of the most renowned atheist of the 20th century...", says the atheist writer Richard Carrier. "So, if he has changed his mind to any degree, whatever you may think of his reasons, the event itself is certainly newsworthy"
"Antony Flew Considers God...Sort of, " www.infidels.org, Dec, 2004.
Further, Prof Flew stated his apology
" As people have certainly been influence by me, I want to try and correct the enormous damage I may have done"
Stuart Wavell and Will Iredale, "Sorry, Says Atheist-in-Chief, I do Believe in God After All", Dec 12, 2004.
Comments please....
Last edited by subterranean; 04-05-2005 at 08:27 PM.
Comments: To me, religiously speaking, there's nothing sadder than conversion. Whether the person is an atheist or simply of a different religion, it's just sad. Usually converting an atheist would not be easy and would take a lot. A good example is Sue from Hardy's Jude the Obscure. She was always a strong atheist, but when her children died she was so grief-stricken that nothing was left to her except to turn to faith. She left Jude and went back to her husband. She felt it was a sign from the heavens and became a fervent Christian. The lesson is, she would have never become a Christian if she had not been so wholly overcome by agony.
The conversion of atheists does not mean there is a God any more than the deconversion of Christians means there isn't one. It simply means that the person in question has either undergone emotional turmoil of some kind or that some sort of coincidence/persuasion has been used, though I think there are very few cases from either side where persuasion does any good.
And as to,
My personal opinion is that this professor was so stunned by the diversity of the microcosmic world, so amazed by the intricate workings of DNA, that he decided that something must have created them - which is certainly untrue. With a bit of logic you'll realise that it would take forever and ever for any god, infinite or not, to put together this very intricateness. No human or godly design could ever make this. This is natural phenomenon."What I think the DNA materials has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinary diverse elements together. It could be a person in the sense of being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose".
After silence, that which comes closest to expressing the inexpressible is music.
-Aldous Huxley
Love, love, love, that is the soul of genius.
-W. A. Mozart
Non scholae, sed vitae discimus.
Not school, but life teaches us.
"If the historical pathway should forever remain hidden, we can still develop bodies of theory and experiment to show how life might realistically have crystallized, rooted, then covered our globe. Yet the caveat: nobody knows." Stuart Kaufman
I poured spot remover on my dog. Now he's gone.
An old saying: There are no atheists in foxholes. Fear makes many a believer. Professor Flew is 81 years old, nearing the end of his earthly existence as a human. I'm not surprised that he is covering all the bases......just in case. And of course, octogenerians are not exactly well known for retaining complete control of their mental faculties. And one more thing.....who asked the question of him? What bias was injected into this report by the source searching for this answer so as to be newsworthy. And where was it reported? What medium? Was it reported in a religious forum type media? Huh? HUh? *whew*
81 years old? Now that begins to make sense. I second Baddad if he doesn't mind me doing so. Though I think it's not a very good atheist that decides to convert at the last minute - just in case. You're right...it must be age.
After silence, that which comes closest to expressing the inexpressible is music.
-Aldous Huxley
Love, love, love, that is the soul of genius.
-W. A. Mozart
Non scholae, sed vitae discimus.
Not school, but life teaches us.
Just as I expected..the comments I mean..thank you baddad
And by the way Missus Darcy, hope that it won't happen to you when you grow old..the age thingy....
Just so the 'no atheist in foxholes' thing is out in the open as well, www.maaf.info proves a point in the right direction there.
I'd agree with the age breeds fear idea as well, since well, what harm is there in it at that point in believing just in case, since by then you're pretty much able to make up your own mind without much interference by others. Death is the one unknown that scares more people than any other, so the need for an afterlife more and more as one approaches the time of death isn't too absurd, albeit hypocritical of one's beliefs.
To think is to blog is to distract is to stop is to destroy is to die is to think therefore I am not good enough
Just to clear things up: not all religious based newspapers twist the facts to support themselves, and going by that thought I wouldn't trust too many secular newspapers either.
---------------
Stanislaw Lem
1921 - 2006, Rest In Peace.
"Faith is, at one and the same time, absolutely necessary and altogether impossible"
Posting Permissions
