Login

Join for Free!
118789 members


http://xkxy.org:Bible exact description of DNA and ATP

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby mith » Sun Dec 24, 2006 3:35 am

It's not necessary to repost again and again.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Re: Re Religion and Re Bible

Postby burninbriar » Mon Jan 15, 2007 6:05 pm

Dov Henis wrote:
- Religion, being a component of culture, which in turn is an extension of biology, is one of the evolutionary factors ( not revolutionary, yet, I know, subversive too...) that humans artifacted when/where it served them well for survival. It has been functioning socially and personally for human phenotypes survival (comprising also a feeling of geno- and pheno-type self-esteem) for few thousands of years. However, being a human artifact based on faith and also in many cases (not all) favoring inherently and intolerantly one cultural phenotype to the exclusion of others, it has been becoming socially increasingly more disruptive and destructive. For the human genotype to survive it is sensible to hope and to plan to replace its faith-based ethical-moral foundation of civilization on a rational science-informed comprehension of the evolution of the universe and of life and of humanity. I think.



Dov


A scientist should be able to keep an open mind. You seem to suggest that the religious scriptures can only be fiction novels and can not have any documentation value. Imagine if for some reason the human race had to start over again and the new inhabitants find documentation of men walking on the moon. This might well be considered as a fiction novel written by some guy named Nasa.
There is a lot of unexplained portions of the evolution theory that rely on shear faith that it must be, even though it can't be explained. Just the idea that some thing as complex as a living cell could emerge out of chemical soup requires a great amount of faith. (in Darwin's defense, he had no idea how complex a living cell is) You would have a better chance of dumping a truckload of ground up books over a cliff and have them land at the bottom all assembled and in alphabetical order with no misspelled words or out of place punctuation. It could happen ? You would think if a cell could so easily form itself, we could produce them in a lab.
All I'm saying is whether you believe creation or evolution, you should keep an open mind. Other wise, what would be conversation becomes argument.
burninbriar
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 3:02 pm

Postby burninbriar » Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:16 pm

ughaibu wrote:On the viability of creation/design as an explanation for life, etc.
1) design has no supporting evidence, where is the designer?
2) design fails to simple and obvious objections, who designed the designer?
3) design doesn't explain anything, how does design work?
4) design can not be researched or investigated
5) design has no implications, it is irrelevant and unexploitable
6) design relies on unknown imaginary entities
On points 1-5 design has nothing going for it, it's impossible for an alternative hypothesis to be less satisfactory than design on these points.
On point 6, design contravenes the principle of parsimony by unnecessarily appealing to imaginary entities, this has two consequences, 1) to be more logically satisfactory than design an alternative hypothesis only has to avoid introducing unnecessary unknown entities, 2) there is a finite number of known entities but an infinite number of unknown entities, by avoiding the appeal to unknown entities an alternative hypothesis has an infinitely greater probability, than design, of being correct.
It follows from this that "bananas cannibalising manatees" is both more logically satisfactory and infinitely more likely to be the correct explanation, than is "design". I'm sure that nobody has any difficulty realising that "bananas cannibalising manatees" is quite useless as an explanation for anything, when it's understood that "design" is infinitely less satisfactory as an explanation, one gets an inkling of the dumbfounding depth of absurdity represented by "design".


Lets not forget that evolution is a theory and is full of unexplained circumstances, otherwise it would be fact. Much of the theory relies on faith in the theory to explain the unexplainable. Modern science and discovery's blow holes in some of the evolution theory, this does not mean its wrong, but does suggest that the original theory was flawed. There are many examples but just a few off the top of my head would be red blood cells found in dinosaur bones and the shear complexity of cells. Amino acids in all living things are left handed, no known natural process can can isolate the left or right handed acids. The chance of a molecule havening only left handed amino acids is virtually zero. Think of how complex an eye is, it would take a long time to evolve and an eye 3/4 of the way there would be no more useful than an eye 1/4 of the way on the evolution rout. What would be the evolutionary drive ? Out of place artifacts need to be completely ignored, like man made objects found in bedded in coal seems. There could be good evolution explanations for every thing, but until they are found, other explanations should not be called absurd.

Also on #3 you say design does not explain how things work. It does not hinder the science of how things work either. None of the facts we know about how the body works conflicts with the ideas of design.
burninbriar
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 3:02 pm


Postby mith » Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:05 pm

burninbriar wrote:Think of how complex an eye is, it would take a long time to evolve and an eye 3/4 of the way there would be no more useful than an eye 1/4 of the way on the evolution rout.

If you look, you'll find more than enough rebuttals on irreducible complexity.

What would be the evolutionary drive ? Out of place artifacts need to be completely ignored, like man made objects found in bedded in coal seems. There could be good evolution explanations for every thing, but until they are found, other explanations should not be called absurd.

If I can't explain a magic trick, would it really be that absurd to call it a trick or illusion?

Also on #3 you say design does not explain how things work. It does not hinder the science of how things work either. None of the facts we know about how the body works conflicts with the ideas of design.


Of course it hinders. When people who don't know about science try to pretend to teach science, our education system suffers.
http://www.textbookleague.org/id-hx-1.htm

quote from page linked above:

Living things certainly exhibit countless adaptations that are marvelous, even stupendous, to behold -- but living things also exhibit countless structural, physiological, developmental and behavioral features that are clumsy, maladaptive, wasteful, or plainly useless. Think of the cave-dwelling fishes that bear puny, useless eyes, incapable of responding to light. Think of the island-dwelling insects that sport wretched little wings, incapable of lifting the insects into the air. Think of the ground-nesting marine birds that pack themselves so tightly into their rookeries that they trample their own eggs and young. Consider how a halibut acquires its lopsided anatomy, with both of its eyes on the same side of its head: First the halibut develops a head that is quite symmetrical, with an eye on each side, but then it resorbs and rebuilds some of its bones in a way that allows one eye to migrate through its skull. Recall that a baleen whale builds and then resorbs a useless set of teeth. Recall that a woman produces and stores hundreds of thousands of oocytes, though only a few hundred will ever become eggs and enter her fallopian tubes. Recall that a man develops nipples! Recall that the channel which carries air to your lungs intersects the channel which carries food to your stomach -- an arrangement so awkward that it literally can make you choke.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby lupine_nickt » Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:11 pm

This... really is a classic case of seeing what one wants to see, isn't it?

Let's take it a point at a time, eh?

1A: A sentence in Bible Ezekiel Book: “… … a whirlwind came out of the north, … … Also out of the midst thereof came the likeness of four living creatures. … … they had the likeness of a man” (KJV, Ezekiel 1:4-5).

1B: The biological scientist definite that human DNA molecule is a “right-handed” double “helical chain” that is composed by “four kinds of nucleotides” that they encoding the “human biological body”.

1C: Obviously, Ezekiel saw a DNA “helical chain” as a “ whirlwind”; saw “came out of the north” as DNA “right-handed” helical; saw the “four kinds of nucleotides” as “four living creatures”; saw “encoding human biological body” as “form of a man”.


Right. So. Something coming from the north is automatically right-handed, right? Read again. It's a whirlwind from the north - that's it. It says nothing about what arc it traces as it comes.

And of course, DNA encodes the gross structure (the "form of man", if you like) of the body in only the vaguest of ways.

But "form of man" means what it means - that what s/he/it saw looked like a man. And I'm sorry, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNTP just doesn't like like any sort of man I ever saw. Well, maybe. The dNTPs could be a on-legged man with two grossly deformed arms, but I think we're pushing things a bit there.

Isn't is far more likely that we're talking about angels coming from the north, here?

2A: Ezekiel described the four living creatures: “Their wings were spread out upward; … one touching the wing of another creature on either side.” “and each had two wings covering its body”.

2B: The biological scientist described the four nucleotides in a DNA molecule: One kind of the chemical bonds is between the phosphates and the sugars to form sugar-phosphate backbone for linking one nucleotide to another. Another kind of chemical bonds is hydrogen bonds between complementary nucleotides (A-T, C-G), responsible for establishing and preserving DNA’s special structure and functions, such as, the bases are largely buried in the interior of the DNA and are kept away from water.

2C: Obviously, Ezekiel saw “bond between the phosphate and the sugar” as “wing touching the wing of another”; saw “the bases are largely buried in the interior of the DNA and are kept away from water” as “wings covering its body”.


But there aren't four "wings" anywhere to be seen in the structure of dNTPs. . And in fact, for these four figures/angels/individuals to be in the formation described, then they must be in a circular arrangement... whereas if we were describing human DNA, we'd be looking at something linear instead. Oops.

Wings makes it more likely we're talking about angels.

3A: Ezekiel described the structure of the four living creatures: “ had four faces”, “ the face of a man”, “face of a lion”, “the face of an ox” and “the face of an eagle”

3B: The biological scientist described the four nucleotides: the nucleotides have four different nitrogenous bases identified as A, T, C and G (faces) respectively.

3C: Obviously, Ezekiel saw the nitrogenous bases A, T, C and G as the face of a man, lion, ox and eagle.


Because they really look like that? Or because your wishful thinking makes it so? More likely, we're looking at an analogy of four aspects of human character being alluded to by said angels.

4A: Ezekiel described the structure of the four living creatures: “their feet were like those of a calf and gleamed like burnished bronze”.

4B: The biological scientist described: each nucleotide having one phosphate group. Indeed, the color of crystal phosphate is bright yellow just like the “burnished bronze”.

4C: Obviously, Ezekiel saw the phosphate as “burnished bronze” in the “feet”.


That doesn't work. A moment ago, the phosphates were involved in the wings.

Maybe you should try to draw exactly what you think Ezekiel was seeing at this point?

5A: Ezekiel described the structure of the four living creatures: “they had the hands of a man”.

5B: The biological scientist described: each nucleotide having a deoxyribose (five-carbon structure).

5C: Obviously, Ezekiel saw a deoxyribose (five-carbon sugar) as a hand of man, opening up a five-fingered hand indicates the number “five”.


That doesn't work. A 5-carbon /ring/ looks nothing like a five-digit /hand/. Again. Draw it. Just because s/he/it lived 2,500 years ago doesn't mean s/he/it was stupid.

6A: Ezekiel described the structure of the four living creatures: “The appearance of the living creatures was like burning coals of fire or like torches”.

6B: The biological scientist described the four nucleotides: In a living cell, four deoxynucleoside triphosphate (dNTP, dATP, dCTP, dGTP and dTTP) containing three phosphate-groups with two “high-energy bonds” for driving the polymerization of nucleotides to form new DNA strands.

6C: Obviously, Ezekiel saw the “high-energy bonds” in the dNTP as “burning coals of fire or like torches” in living creatures.


"It's over nine thouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuusand", anybody? If the only high-powered areas are the bonds, why don't we have a description of bands/rings of power on these hybrid hand/feet things?

As an aside, this is the only point where you might have the possibility to make more sense than me. Enjoy it ;)

7A: Ezekiel described: “Fire moved back and forth among the creatures”.

7B: The biological scientist found the “high-energy” of dNTP are transferred from ATP.

7C: Obviously, Ezekiel saw “high-energy” transferring among the nucleotides as “fire” moving among the creatures.


Only... the creatures are supposed to be dNTPs, right? They certainly don't transfer energy between each other. Where's the helper ATP sat around that they should be sucking power out of? This point is so weak as to be grasping at claws.

8A: Ezekiel described the structure of the four living creatures: “The creatures sped back and forth like flashes of lightning”.

8B: The biological scientist found: A lot of dNTP are moved to the “work stations” hydrolysis and releasing energy when they are assembled to form a new DNA strand with a rate of 50 per second in human. A total of 6 billions nucleotides is needed for the formation of daughter strands in a human cell.

8C: Obviously, Ezekiel saw a lot of dNTP are soon moving to the “work stations” as “The creatures sped back and forth like flashes of lightning”.


Erm. No. Not even close. First, we've established that these four creatures are bound together. Secondly, there are four - not 6 billion - of them. Finally, dNTPs in the cell don't speed back and forth like flashes of lightning - there's an ambient concentration of them which is there due to the wonders of diffusion. So their movement would, on average, be quite leisurely. So the parallel here is completely false.

9A: Ezekiel described: “a wheel on the ground beside each creature”.

9B: Biological scientists discovered that ring-shaped enzymes involved in DNA metabolism vary greatly in sequence.

9C: Obviously, Ezekiel saw “ring-shaped proteins (enzymes)” beside each nucleotide as “wheels” beside each creature.


Or, hey, maybe this is that ATP we were looking for earlier?

More likely it's something symbolic - wheels were big in terms of symbolism back then. Exactly what, I don't know, since I'm not up on Judaic symbolism (though I could give you a decent interpretation of it in Germanic terms - and, hey, the Raidho rune has a great deal of similarity to the structure of dNTPs, now you mention it....)

But anyway. Why aren't the creatures attached to these "enzymes"? What makes them enzymes, except for your desire for them to be so? And what's with the scale? Since no mention is made of the wheels being huge, we must assume they're normal-sized, in which case the scale is completely wrong.

We also have this:-
Ez. 1:20 Whithersoever the spirit was to go, they went, thither was their spirit to go; and the wheels were lifted up over against them: for the spirit of the living creature was in the wheels.

Hardly sounds like a DNA helicase to me.

10A: Ezekiel described: “When the living creatures moved, the wheels beside them moved”.

10B: Biological scientists emphases that helicases (a hexmer-ring protein) cannot be formed and not move on DNA (either 5’ to 3’ or 3’ to 5’direction) without binding NTP because the helicases are NTP-driven motor proteins.

10C: Obviously, Ezekiel saw the helicases, ring-shaped proteins, are NTP-driven motor proteins, as “when the living creatures moved, the wheels beside them moved”.


The lack of any form of physcial connection between the wheels and the individuals completely invalidates your "it's a helicase" theory, as does the scale (again). One could spend ages here looking at the implications of why the individuals moving would /cause/ the wheels to move (it wouldn't), why on earth we have 4 helicases so closely bound (except they aren't bound), etc... but why bother?

11A: Ezekiel described the structure of the wheels: “be made like a wheel intersecting a wheel. Their rims were high and awesome, and all four rims were full of eyes all around.”

11B: Biological scientists emphases that the structures of proteins are more complex and larger than nucleotides. Helicases and ATPase have the characteristic multisubunit ring-shaped structures. For example, F-ATPase, found by Paul Boyer and John Walker, the Nobel laureates of 1997 (Yoshida and Muneyuki et al 2001), were described: ATP synthase is a large protein complex (-500kDa) with a complicated structure. It is composed of two linked multi-subunit (22-27 subunits) complexes, called F0 and F1. In binding-change model, F0 and F1 function as a pair of rotary motors liked by a central rotor and a peripheral stator. Rotation of the ring of c-subunit in F0 is proposed to allow protons to be carried … … A prominent part of the F0 motor consists of an oligomeric c-subunit assembly in the shape of a ring, which consists of 10 to 15 monomers (Cross 2004). The structure of the main part of the ATP synthase show the tiny motor made from 3,500 amino acids is remarkably reminiscent of man-made motor (Yoshida and Muneyuki et al 2001).

11C: Obviously, Ezekiel saw the “composed of two linked multi-subunit (22-27 subunits) complexes”, as “a wheel intersecting a wheel. Their rims were high and awesome, and all four rims were full of eyes all around”.


Ah, some idea of scale. I was right.... not nearly large enough.

But a "wheel intersecting a wheel" is ambiguous; in my head, that would be more like a globular protein. More drawings are required.

12A: Ezekiel described: “Spread out above the heads of the living creatures was what looked like an expanse, sparkling like ice, and awesome”.

12B: According to the biological books, the membrane separates the cell from the outside world. The membrane architecture is a lipid bilayer and proteins embedded in the bilayer.

12C: Obviously, Ezekiel saw structure of membrane looked like “ice” or “crystal” from cytoplasm toward outside.


But it doesn't look like that, because it's not crystalline (unless you're very, very ill). The key word that's been missed is that it's a "fluid" bilayer. And s/he/it would be looking at it from outside in. Speaking of which - where's the scale gone again? With a dNTP being man-sized, the lipid bilayer would be so far away as to unseeable. Not to mention that cytoplasm would reduce visibility by quite a large amount, I guess (buit then, he's outside-in, so s/he/it would be able to see the bilayer... but then, not the dNTPs). What a pain, eh?

13A: Ezekiel described: “when the creatures moved, I heard the sound of their wings, like the roar of rushing waters”.

13B: According to the biological books, the “space” inside of cell under the membrane called cytoplasm. The entire cell including nucleus is full of water and also the enzyme-catalyzed reactions take place in aqueous solutions.

13C: Obviously, Ezekiel saw structure of cytoplasm looked like “rushing waters”.


But it wouldn't look like that at all. It'd be very, very murky. You'd except some mention of liquid fog, at the very least. Hence it must be something else. Like some clever use of language to demonstrate how powerfullly those wings could beat?

14A: Ezekiel described: “In it was a scroll, which he unrolled before me. On both sides of it were written words”.

14B: According to the characteristics of genome and genes, the length of a human DNA molecule twines into a “roll” of chromosome. Both strands of DNA are sequenced with A, T, C, and G (words), one is up side another is down side.

14C: Obviously, Ezekiel saw structure of chromosome, genome and genes looked like a “scroll”.


... by "it", I'm sure, we mean "in his hand". Hence, it can't be a chromosome due to scale issues. Again. And you're taking things out of context to suit your agenda. Bad fundamentalist christian - very bad.

15A: Ezekiel recorded: “eat this scroll I am giving you and fill your stomach with it.’ So I ate it, and it tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth”.

15B: According to the biological books, the DNA, a unique biological material, certainly can be eaten and contains sugar (pentose sugar), “sweet” indeed.

15C: Obviously, Ezekiel demonstrated that “scroll” was DNA, a biological material "scroll", but a common book made from wood, silk, cloth, paper or stone.


This is all getting a bit HHGTTG for me... and again, we're out of context. So I popped off to the online bible to take a peek at what old Ez. does with that scroll.

Ez. 2:9 And when I looked, behold, an hand was sent unto me; and, lo, a roll of a book was therein;

Ez. 2:10 And he spread it before me; and it was written within and without: and there was written therein lamentations, and mourning, and woe.

Ez. 3:1 Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, eat that thou findest; eat this roll, and go speak unto the house of Israel.

Ez. 3:2 So I opened my mouth, and he caused me to eat that roll.

Ez. 3:3 And he said unto me, Son of man, cause thy belly to eat, and fill thy bowels with this roll that I give thee. Then did I eat it; and it was in my mouth as honey for sweetness.

Ez. 3:4 And he said unto me, Son of man, go, get thee unto the house of Israel, and speak with my words unto them.


... So let's reinterpret this in the light of the details that you've left out. These four creatures together form that LORD you're so fond of (gods know why). It forces Ez. to eat a roll of a book (or scroll; I don't much care), on which are written said LORD's laments against Israel. "Sweet like honey" is a metaphor for "I agree with the LORD". Ez. then goes to spread the LORD's discontent to the israelites.

Face the facts of Ezekiel Code and biological scientific discoveries, we first conformed the concordance of the Ezekiel Code to DNA. The major figure, characters and details in the 2500-year old image exactly matched the structures and functions of DNA and nucleotides. It is impertinency if adjudicate it as a coincidence by accident. If produce a carton movie according to the consecutive 1000-word paragraphs that might be a nice teaching-film for introducing DNA to public.


...no. Draw it. Draw this bloody stupid DNA molecule you've got in your head and look at it. If you're going to use science to support your argument, do so /scientifically/. There is no way that the paragraph, taken in context, could be considered as even close to what you're trying to make it out to be (although it it did mean that, it would add some interesting angles to address the exoteric/esoteric "debate").

I wrote almost all the above, then went to read the whole passage when the blatant context butchering became apparent in the last chaper (source http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%201;&version=9;). The full thing makes all of my (and all of the OP's) text mostly irrelevent, but it also serves as an instructional lesson as to why you shouldn't let Olde Bookes dictate how you live your life. It also gives an interesting insight into how far some people will twist said Bookes to make their point stick.

It's disheartening, really :/

If you want to be scientific about it, look at /all/ the "evidence". Not just the bits you like the look of.

xF,

...Nick
lupine_nickt
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:11 pm
Location: York, UK

Postby Dongsheng Zhang » Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:08 pm

[quote="lupine_nickt"]

Right. So. Something coming from the north is automatically right-handed, right? Read again. It's a whirlwind from the north - that's it. It says nothing about what arc it traces as it comes.

And of course, DNA encodes the gross structure (the "form of man", if you like) of the body in only the vaguest of ways.

But "form of man" means what it means - that what s/he/it saw looked like a man. And I'm sorry, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNTP just doesn't like like any sort of man I ever saw. Well, maybe. The dNTPs could be a on-legged man with two grossly deformed arms, but I think we're pushing things a bit there.

Isn't is far more likely that we're talking about angels coming from the north, here?



Re lupine_nickt:

I thank you for you read my post from 1 to 15, and thank you for your misunderstanding and your angry. It indeed is very difficult to put the two facts (Bible’s words and science words) together. I just try it.

1A-1: Your misunderstanding since you do not know: Tornadoes normally rotate in a cyclonic direction (counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere). Approximately 1 tornado in 100 rotates in an anticyclonic direction. It indeed is scientific data.

1A-2: Your misunderstanding since you do not know: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNTP do not show any photos of physical nucleotides, that just is the chemical symbol, so it is normal that “just doesn't like like any sort of man I ever saw” . Just from the words of someone’s name, could you see “a on-legged man with two grossly deformed arms”?

1A-3: Your misunderstanding since you do not know: Only there are two things exactly have the four characters: “ a whirlwind (helix), came out of the north (right-handed helix), … four living things. … had the likeness of a man”, Ezekiel’s words and the DNA molecule. Before you deny the fact, you should find the third. Please try.
Dongsheng Zhang
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 6:12 pm

Postby Linn » Tue Jan 23, 2007 4:25 am

The first example of the four living creatures is simply
showing God's attributes, one of which is like that of man.
That attribute thus being love. The other three living creatures also represent different aspects that is God.
Last edited by Linn on Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

~ George washington Carver
User avatar
Linn
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:53 am
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Postby Dongsheng Zhang » Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:59 pm

Linn wrote:The first example of the four living creatures is simply
showing God's attributes, one of which is like that of man.
That attribute thus being love. The other three living cratures also represent different aspects that is God.



Re Linn:

I consider the “mystery thing” with the four and fifteen characters is a creature on the earth that made by God. That is one of the ways to show God's attributes.
“If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” (John 3:12-13)
Dongsheng Zhang
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 6:12 pm

Postby MrMistery » Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:16 pm

haven't you guys realised yet that you will never convince each other?
"As a biologist, I firmly believe that when you're dead, you're dead. Except for what you live behind in history. That's the only afterlife" - J. Craig Venter
User avatar
MrMistery
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 6832
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Romania(small and unimportant country)

Postby ughaibu » Thu Jan 25, 2007 3:28 pm

Burninbriar:
1) Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is a theory, or rather a collection of theories that attempt to account for various aspects of the fact of evolution.
2) The theory of evolution doesn't require faith and neither does it attempt to explain the unexplainable.
Evolution denial is quite the most functionless position I can imagine, could you explain to me it's appeal, please?

Here's an article touching on this question, perhaps you could comment: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/angier0 ... index.html
ughaibu
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:44 am

Postby mith » Thu Jan 25, 2007 4:20 pm

Requires faith in the scientific method....
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby ughaibu » Thu Jan 25, 2007 6:42 pm

How does it require faith? It only has to produce useful and consistent results.
ughaibu
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:44 am

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests