A thought on Evolution

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Goodo!



;)

---

Crap. That's terribly embarassing. What a bad word choice. You got me there haha. :blush: :blush:

we all know nothing and thats the way it has always been and thats the way it will always be

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HannibalBarca

we all know nothing and thats the way it has always been and thats the way it will always be

---

I know I disagree with your statement.

Evolution is something that does occur and that humans have evolved from a common anscestor. I am not saying that genisis is getting it figuritively right. However I am not naive enough to believe genisis as a literal text. There is no supporting scientific evidence for it being literal, and if fact there is a lot of scientific evidence that proves literal translations wrong.

Just a foot note. Evolution is a hypothosis based on spontaneous generation,which is might say was proven impossible by Francesco Redi and
Louis Pasteur. Anyway..spontaneous generation is impossible, it is apposed to
scientific laws and principles....being the law of biogenesis stating that living
things can only come from living things.Also the cell principle which I might say totally blows evolution out of the water...it states that all living things are divided into cells and that cells come only from preexisting cells.This is
considered the most fundamental law of biology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruhbr_ducky

However I am not naive enough to believe genisis as a literal text. There is no supporting scientific evidence for it being literal, and if fact there is a lot of scientific evidence that proves literal translations wrong.

---

This statement is only correct if God isn't real; if He is (and is as the Bible describes Him), then the description in Genesis is quite possible. Science has its limits; understanding God is one of them. I contend that the blind following of science involves a similar brand of naivete.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

I contend that the blind following of science involves a similar brand of naivete.

---

The difference, of course, being that you can repeat the experiments of the scientists and obtain similar results every time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

The difference, of course, being that you can repeat the experiments of the scientists and obtain similar results every time.

---

Depends upon the nature of the experiment. Some things can be tested and observed again and again. Other things can only be inferred by observation and hypothetical speculation. Both do not carry the same authority. There are "scientific" beliefs accepted by mainstream culture that have no more evidential veracity to them than the Bible - but they are accepted as "fact" nonetheless (e.g. evolution as "fact" - homosexuality's "genetic" origin as "fact").

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by star blue

if you're dumb enough not to believe in evolution, I can see why talking snakes and trees might scare you.

---

However, Evolution is still a Theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

There are "scientific" beliefs accepted by mainstream culture that have no more evidential veracity to them than the Bible - but they are accepted as "fact" nonetheless (e.g. evolution as "fact" - homosexuality's "genetic" origin as "fact").

---

Well, there are several experiments that can be used to confirm common descent. In fact, thanks to the Genome Bank, you can do them yourself from the comfort of your own home (if you're a big fan of reading hundreds upon hundreds of pages of GATTCGGTATTCGTGTA).

As for homosexuality as genetic, that can be experimentally shown also, provided that your subject is a fruit fly. Human sexuality is a bit more complicated, however, and can almost certainly be influenced by a wide variety of environmental and genetic factors. I submit, however, that continuing this conversation is likely to make at least one of us angry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charles

However, Evolution is still a Theory.

---

Gravity is still a theory. The atomic model of matter is still a theory. The heliocentric view of the solar system is still a theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Well, there are several experiments that can be used to confirm common descent. In fact, thanks to the Genome Bank, you can do them yourself from the comfort of your own home (if you're a big fan of reading hundreds upon hundreds of pages of GATTCGGTATTCGTGTA).

---

The presence of similar genes/DNA or individual parts/capabilities may indicate "common descent"; however, they may also indicate a designer who decided that "x" was an efficient way to get things done, and, as such, equipped a number of creatures with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

As for homosexuality as genetic, that can be experimentally shown also, provided that your subject is a fruit fly. Human sexuality is a bit more complicated, however, and can almost certainly be influenced by a wide variety of environmental and genetic factors. I submit, however, that continuing this conversation is likely to make at least one of us angry.

---

Well, it won't be me getting miffed. I've already spent the last few weeks debating homosexuality and the Bible elsewhere on another site - at least 3 of my opponents left in a huff because I'm "deluded" and "won't think for myself" etc etc etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Gravity is still a theory. The atomic model of matter is still a theory. The heliocentric view of the solar system is still a theory.

---

Not in the same way that Evolution is still a theory. Gravity is still here for us to check/experiment with; ditto for atoms and the solar system. What isn't here is the primordial ocean in its "virgin" state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

The presence of similar genes/DNA or individual parts/capabilities may indicate "common descent"; however, they may also indicate a designer who decided that "x" was an efficient way to get things done, and, as such, equipped a number of creatures with it.

---

Well no, not quite. There are about three different ways to code for any given protein, making an extremely large variety of different configurations for any given gene. There is no particular reason to suppose that any two organisms will have the same gene, or even remotely similar genes, for the same function, unless the two are related. Then there are things like transpons and endogenous retroviruses that have, at best, no function.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

Well, it won't be me getting miffed.

---

No, it will probably be me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

Not in the same way that Evolution is still a theory. Gravity is still here for us to check/experiment with; ditto for atoms and the solar system. What isn't here is the primordial ocean in its "virgin" state.

---

And again with abiogenesis straw-man. Abiogenesis is not a theory, but evolution is.

How can homosexuality be genetic? Homosexual sex can't result in reproduction, so homosexual genes would have been weeded out long, long ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dante

How can homosexuality be genetic? Homosexual sex can't result in reproduction, so homosexual genes would have been weeded out long, long ago.

---

Parlez-vous recessive trait?

there is no evidence proving that homosexuality is genetic.

here's some good links: http://www.narth.com/docs/nothardwired.html
index: http://www.narth.com/menus/born.html

http://www.dunamai.com/articles/Chri...ty_genetic.htm

Please let's stay on topic.