Originally posted by RJHindsI know something about science as well, but for the most ,i am content to stay back and take in what the wiser of us has said (on the science forum ), and learn from it. sometimes I feel I can comment. But only if I feel if it is my
This is the Spirituality Forum not the Science Forum. The emphasis should be on spirituality and religion in my opinion. I don't post on the Science Forum anymore. I know something about science, but it is not my strong point.
"field of expertise" . Do you understand?
Originally posted by karoly aczelWould you comment on this?
I know something about science as well, but for the most ,i am content to stay back and take in what the wiser of us has said (on the science forum ), and learn from it. sometimes I feel I can comment. But only if I feel if it is my
"field of expertise" . Do you understand?
&NR=1&feature=endscreen
Originally posted by RJHindsInteresting that he is happy with an old Earth so presumably he thinks that every 'kind' of animal has always existed - there have always been cats for example. Presumably he is happy that the fossil record does actually go back millions of years. His main issue in this video is presented at the end and it is that we have no mechanism for development of new body plans, new organs etc.
Would you comment on this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-GPOwccx5U&NR=1&feature=endscreen
This is simply not true. We have Gene Duplication (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication) and subsequent evolution. What we don't have is any mechanism that would stop evolution from developing new body plans and organs from those duplications. We also have pretty good fossil records showing body-plan evolution, eg in whales (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html)
He also says that much of the evidence for evolution of homo-sapiens from ancestral ape forms is hoaxed (Piltdown Man) or over-hyped. There may be some truth to this but I don't think it is that surprising. I would expect us to have found more solid evidence of our ancestry than most other species since we will be concentrating more on our own history than any other single species. However, our ancesters may also have been living in areas that were less likely to preserve organic remains. So a lack of fossil evidence may not be such a killer. I really don't know the stats to give a well founded opinion. However, the preponderance of hoaxes and mis-identification is certainly not a surprise given the interest in this particular line.
There is lots of other evidence however that ties in with whatever fossil evidence we do have, not least of which is the DNA and morphological similarities.
I promised myself I would not get sucked into this pointless thread. Damn!
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by PenguinAs far as I know, almost all fossils that are found are kept and studied.
I would expect us to have found more solid evidence of our ancestry than most other species since we will be concentrating more on our own history than any other single species.
But a few comments on what you say:
1. Human ancestry is not a single species, but quite a number of species some of which may or may not have been our ancestors.
2. The same applies to most other fossil lines that we find. For example the ancestry of whales, would cover many species, some of which have no descendants today.
3. We have more fossils of human ancestors and related species than most people realise.
Originally posted by RJHindsThe scientific method is used correctly with evolution as well as any other science. the results are clear, the methods prove it. It is you who simply can't accept that science. Like I said, you can't have it both ways, believe the scientific method is a good one and then pick a particular science to cut down based on the scientific method.
I have no problem with the scientific method when it is used correctly. It seems that most scientist use the scientific method correctly in most cases. However, when it comes to biology they do it fine as far as adaptation goes. But that is as far as it goes. Then they start imagining things, and assuming erroneous things in order to make their experimen ...[text shortened]... efore can not have evolve from some other kind of creature. It's in the Book! HalleluYah !!!
You already said science is not your best suite so you do not have the experience or education to attempt to invalidate a whole science based on what you read in the bible. They do not mix.
That would be like trying to make a car based on a cookbook.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by jaywillI don't give a damn.
If anyone can make it through the first 9 minutes of this video, you might as well suffer through the rest of it.
A Former Atheist / Evolutioninst MD talks about his change of mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBG9VwdDotg&feature=relmfu
(Great for computer programmers)
He's wrong.
The evidence and arguments for evolution are undeniable and ID/creationism isn't science.
I don't care how many people you post clips of who think otherwise because I don't give
a damn about how many or who believes an idea (at least with regards to deciding if it's
true or not) I care about whether the idea has merit and is supported by evidence.
So make actual arguments and point to actual evidence stop posting video's about blithering
idiots who cant wrap their heads around evolution.
Originally posted by jaywillI am a computer programmer. Before I watch the video, tell me what the main theme is and why I might be interested as a programmer and whether you support the argument given, whether you understand it yourself, and whether you will admit your error should I prove the argument is flawed.
(Great for computer programmers)
Originally posted by twhiteheadditto. go ahead and convince us computer programmers why we should watch.
I am a computer programmer. Before I watch the video, tell me what the main theme is and why I might be interested as a programmer and whether you support the argument given, whether you understand it yourself, and whether you will admit your error should I prove the argument is flawed.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't think you should watch it.
I am a computer programmer. Before I watch the video, tell me what the main theme is and why I might be interested as a programmer and whether you support the argument given, whether you understand it yourself, and whether you will admit your error should I prove the argument is flawed.
I did mean programmers. But you don't want to hear this.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseI accept the science of DNA/RNA which proves intelligent design. Intelligent design points to the God of the Holy Bible as the Designer. There is no other credible candidate for intelligent information that acts like a computer program. Computer program information does not happen by accident. Ask Bill gates if you don't believe it.
The scientific method is used correctly with evolution as well as any other science. the results are clear, the methods prove it. It is you who simply can't accept that science. Like I said, you can't have it both ways, believe the scientific method is a good one and then pick a particular science to cut down based on the scientific method.
You already ...[text shortened]... n the bible. They do not mix.
That would be like trying to make a car based on a cookbook.
P.S. He has already been asked. HalleluYah !!!