COMMENTS:
Isn't it funny how these atheists or evolutionists add 'choices' with evident ignorance as to not be capable of presenting facts/studies on the question being asked?
.
by LCD on Tue Jun 08, 04 4:58pm
[+]
I expect to see something here tomorrow as I will be away. Goodluck, my good rivals!
I'm with LCD on this topic
by mojo on Tue Jun 08, 04 5:11pm
[+]
Life didn't start out as complex as it is now. Complex cells evolved from simple groups of chemicals called protobionts. They were made up of little more than a few nucleic acids, a phospholipid bilayer, water, and a few other simple organic compounds all of which have been shown to spontaneously form in a lab. And over many eons they grew in complexity, nothing mystical about it.
You use the assumption that humans created complicated machines,or did humans just steal the ideas from the evolved cells
7800: 1000 years ago, people couldn't explain lightening nor did they have a concept of electricity. That doesn't mean it was not naturally created.
There is one major scientific truth which vast numbers of people refuse to accept, the fact of evolution. Yet it is as plain as plain can be that the scientific truth of evolution is so overwhelmingly established, that it is virtually impossible to refute within the bounds of reason. No major scientific truth, in fact, is easier to present, explain, and defend.
Genetics has played an increasingly important role in evolution, especially in regard to mutations that alter the genetic code within each organism. That code is expressed biochemically in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Mutations are errors in DNA replication . It is those errors that cause the genetic change necessary for evolution to occur.
Some mutations, therefore, can have profound effects. They can alter the structure of a critical protein so much that the organism becomes severely distorted and may not survive. Other mutations may cause changes in the protein that do not affect its function at all. Such mutations are adaptively neutralthey are neither better nor worse than the original form of the gene. Still other mutations are decidedly advantageous, obviously the species with the good mutations survive "natural selection".
Over the past several years, the medical community has become increasingly concerned over the ability of certain bacteria to develop resistance to antibiotics. Undoubtedly this concern is justified. Antibiotics, which usually are substances naturally produced by certain micro organisms, inhibit the growth of other micro organisms, most people recognize the tremendous impact antibiotics have had in the battle with pathogenic disease-causing organisms.
The phenomenon of bacterial drug resistance was first documented around 1952. interest in the phenomenon has increased as fewer antibiotics are effective against pathogens, and as deaths from bacterial infections increase, this issue is of importance to evolutionists because they believe the mutations in bacteria responsible for drug resistance are, from the standpoint of the bacterial population, good, and thus offer significant proof of evolution. Their point is that the bacteria have adapted so as to live to fight another dayan example of decidedly advantageous mutation.
Another case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones, invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates. Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase. In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle wich it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle.
And what proof have Christians of their creation theory? From a book they were shown to them by their parents, freinds or surrounding media in which they have no way of verifying how many times it has been altered, if it is truthful, and who really wrote it, if you give a young child or a highly influential person a book that says a Magical giant invisible pickle sandwhich zapped the universe into existance with it's purple laser rays, they would probably have "faith" in that, faith after all being an excuse for having no proof.
cheez: On one hand, I favor the basics of Evolution. On the other and, I still see soem areas that haven't been satisfactorily addressed.
For example: If mutations are the key to evolutionary changes, how can the majority of these changes be beneficial to the organism, if they are, indeed, random? If random, most mutations would be neutral and an equal number would be detrimental. True, the detrimental ones would have less probability of passing the bad genes to a next generation, but ... it still doesn't strike me as occurring as a random pattern.
As with any theory: Maintain a healthy dose of skepticism. It will help you avoid locking into something and ignoring new data that may appear.
Cath, yes, the vast majority of mutations are neutral or do nothing significant. The average person has had 50-100 mutations, but nearly all of them have no real effect. The ones that do are helpful/harmful only in the context of the situation in which they occur.
You seem to presume 2 things about atheism: 1) That it is predicated on fact, and 2) It is a conscious choice
I HAVE no religious belief system. I suppose I prefer science over Jesus because science is moving forward in a tangible way - uncovering new facts, forming theories... Jesus is a person in a book.
As soon as I have a religious experience, I'll start to think about things differently, but until then I'm pretty comfortable not knowing why I am here.
And evolution seems more plausible than creationism - but who knows? Maybe everything is just an illusion.
Cathexis: Mutations themselves are random, that's true. But the process by which mutations are either passed on to or excluded from future generations is NOT random at all; It's naturally selected. Here's how it works: if a given mutation is advantageous to survival, then the individuals with that mutation are vastly more likely to survive long enough to breed offspring, who will inherit that beneficial mutated trait. But if a mutation is detrimental to survival, the individuals having IT are far more likely to die before reproducing and thus "take it with them", ending the harmful mutation's influence. Not always, to be sure, but usually - enough to make evolution work as advertised. It's quite an elegant system, really. I'd urge you to check out www.talkorigins.org, the premier evolutionist website if, as I hope, your appetite for knowledge has been whetted.
Stranger 7800, I hope you will do the same, if only to convince yourself that there really is no conflict between evolution and religion. I ought to know; I was taught evolution by a Jesuit priest.
|
