Anyone else a Christian??

[turnandburn]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I never said that I don't believe that a form of evolution has happened since the beginning of the earth.

I would like you to show me proof of the big bang, or proof that algae combined to form the first eukaryote or whatever you believe started life on earth. Oh, you can't do it? If we evolved from apes where is the half-man half-ape today?

I can throw out immature unanswerable questions also. It's hard to have a debate or discuss different opinions when you quite obviously have tunnel vision.

Big bang =! evolution. Two totally different things.

You obviously have a lot to learn about basic evolutionary theory. Try googling it.

 

[sumstorm]

Did I say I had *all* the answers? 🙂

I hope you do realize there is a plethora of evidence for evolution. If you want I'll even provide multiple sources for you to review at your leisure. You are however, ignoring my repeated requests for any objective evidence at all for a creator.

objective evidence = existance of atoms at all. said it several times. tell me how those materials existed otherwise? how is a creator theory about it any better/worse than any other theory?

Again, I don't believe in a creator, so I won't be the one to have the evidence. Just because I don't understand string theory doesn't mean I don't believe others do.

Oh, and the thing is that YOU CLAIMED TO KNOW the sun was in a fixed positon. yet you can't accept that your CLAIM TO KNOW there can't be a creator could also be erronous. That is what I don't understand....then again, as pointed out earlier, you are far smarter than I am because I know less as you get older but you have given it all a whole lot of thought.

Anwyas, back to my plan. abandon the thread. its like argueing animal behavior with cesar milan.... it won't ever make sense to him any way except how he believes it to be.

 

[HopefulAg]

So how did the big bang come about? or hte materials/energy/etc that went into the big bang?

there somehow had to be an origination point..... how do you know that the origination point was created?

One of the more current (and cooler) theories is the collision of membranes, which are made up of strings of molecules (from string theory). The membranes are alternate worlds (when worlds collide...). That still leaves open where those worlds came from though. It'd be ironic if those worlds (alternate dimensions) were created, and we're just the bastard child of those worlds with no creator at all, and the creator of the other worlds doesn't give a **** about us. [/philosophy]

Anyhow I don't claim to know all of it (I still have a hard time wrapping my head around 11 dimensions and what each one represents) but that's one of the more entertaining current explanations. Could simply be that the Big Bang is the origination point and simply nothing existed before it.

 

[turnandburn]

I can throw out immature unanswerable questions also. It's hard to have a debate or discuss different opinions when you quite obviously have tunnel vision.

Wait, so I have tunnel vision because I strongly argue for atheism and you're ... open minded... because you argue the opposite...? 😕

 

[turnandburn]

objective evidence = existance of atoms at all. said it several times. tell me how those materials existed otherwise? how is a creator theory about it any better/worse than any other theory?

Again, I don't believe in a creator, so I won't be the one to have the evidence. Just because I don't understand string theory doesn't mean I don't believe others do.

Oh, and the thing is that YOU CLAIMED TO KNOW the sun was in a fixed positon. yet you can't accept that your CLAIM TO KNOW there can't be a creator could also be erronous. That is what I don't understand....then again, as pointed out earlier, you are far smarter than I am because I know less as you get older but you have given it all a whole lot of thought.

Whoa back up the truck here. Did I say I factually believed there was no creator??? Noooo.... I said there is zero EVIDENCE for a creator, so why believe?

 

[Truby]

No, we're not arguing over semantics. I'm sorry, you don't make any sense. If you want to expand on what you mean by "evolution vs. adaptation" (adaptation is a component of the theory of evolution, not a separate thing) then perhaps you will make sense. But as of right now, you don't.

Sorry if I've not been clear. To me adaptation/microevolution is the ability of an organism or population to change over generations to suit it's habitat. These changes can, over time, lead to new species or subspecies (i.e. Darwin's finches). These new species/subspecies will always be of the same "kind" as there ancestors- finches will always be finches and will never turn into eagles.
Evolution/macroevolution, on the other hand, is the ability of an organism to make larger changes over time which leads to change between kinds (i.e. apes to humans, lizards to birds, etc.).


Also, I think everybody needs to calm down a bit. Please don't turn this into a name calling battle of "my belief is better than your belief" we're all adults here and we should be able to discuss these things rationally without regressing to third grade tactics.

 

[Willowhand]

You are however, ignoring my repeated requests for any objective evidence at all for a creator.

I don't think anyone will be able to give you "objective evidence"... as others keep pointing out, there's a lot we don't know. For example, I would guess that many of the people reading this forum hold the belief that they and the rest of the universe exist and are not just constructs of their own imagination -and who can give objective evidence for reality as we know it? I'll stop going down that philosophical road before I give myself and everyone else a headache, but the point I'm trying to illustrate is that simply acknowledging your own consciousness is an act of unfounded belief.

So going back to your original wondering of how someone can be faithful to both religion and science, turnandburn, I don't see that there's any conflict. I happen to believe that God exists just as surely -and as short on evidence- as I believe that I exist, and that God's intentions flow through the universe in ways that I cannot begin to perceive (let alone describe in a post on SDN). I think of science as a method and language for exploring/trying to understand and describe how the natural world functions. I could be wrong on all counts, but this is what I live by.

Not even knowing how little I know, I think it's expected and kind of awesome how many different views people follow.

And come to think of it, I think it's hilarious how critters who might once have fought over who gets to eat the banana have evolved into a species that instead argues about whether the banana exists. Humans are so weird, I'm going to go hang out with my dog now

 

[KGemma]

There's a vet who advertises being Christian in my area. I'm not sure what that entails, but I've always been curious to ask.

 

[HopefulAg]

There's a vet who advertises being Christian in my area. I'm not sure what that entails, but I've always been curious to ask.

We had a client once that you could tell was very devout from the way she spoke. As she was about to leave, she asked the vet "You'll pray for my cat won't you?" and the vet (an atheist) just said "Of course" and then she responded "Good, I don't think I could go to a vet who didn't." so I'd imagine it's advertisement aimed at those people. And if the market is saturated with vets, whatever puts you a leg up (be it prices, religion, or ability to juggle) gets you the business over the next guy.


Course I've always wondered about the ethics of the vets response (given that she's atheist) as well as the business ethics: charging for a service that wasn't given 😛. That's some what tongue-in-cheek but, well that's essentially what was done. But I suppose there's also no price on a prayer, nor was 'Prayer' on the treatment list.

 

[twelvetigers]

This is a bit of a side note, but we have a client that prays for her pet to cooperate as we trim its nails. Out loud. Talk about distracting...

 

[bruinvetman]

I would like you to show me proof of the big bang, or proof that algae combined to form the first eukaryote or whatever you believe started life on earth. Oh, you can't do it? If we evolved from apes where is the half-man half-ape today?

Have you taken any courses covering evolution? First of all, every science course I've taken from molecular biology to ecology to anatomy is so closely tied to theories of evolution that I don't understand how any science major could claim the theories of evolution are not supported with evidence. And secondly, no, there is not a half man, half ape alive. But have you heard of Lucy, aka Australopithecus or any other transitional species in the fossil record??? These species have gone extinct, but we can trace their bone structure to understand the course evolution took from ape to man and understand other cool things like when bipedalism emerged. But Lucy could be what you consider half man, half ape. She's a member of the species which evolved from the ape and would further evolve to homo sapiens. And what people need to understand is that while scientists don't set out to prove evolution, simply because scientists are rational and understand that things can't necessarily be proved, only disproved, hypotheses become theories only by a substantial amount of evidence in support of it and many, many failed attempts to find proof against the hypothesis.

 

[quantized]

This is a bit of a side note, but we have a client that prays for her pet to cooperate as we trim its nails. Out loud. Talk about distracting...

We have a feral cat lady (they're all crazy...nothing to do with religion, everything to do with being crazy feral cat people), who sprinkles holy water on the already pissed off feral cats and prays for them when she drops them off.

 

[quantized]

buggy pile o' poo forums

 

[Armymutt25A]

I too find it hard to understand how people can be both Christian and a "scientist." It should be obvious to any scientific mind that there is *zero* evidence for creation.

I was raised Catholic and still consider myself to be one. Haven't been to church since my wedding, mostly because the closest one involves a 24 mile drive, a security gate, and possibly seeing someone I work with. Most of the time Mass is boring. My wedding wasn't, but I was in charge. Church should always include bagpipes and no singing, from my perspective. Anyway, back to the reason I selected this quote. I don't recall any description of Jesus saying that all the flora and fauna present on the Earth was created all at once. Since the definition of a Christian is one who follows Jesus Christ, then I fail to see the requirement to exclude a belief in evolution in order to be a Christian. Maybe to be Jewish, but not Christian. Read the Beatitudes - no where in there does it say, "Blessed are they who believe the Book of Genesis is how things really happened. They will be my best followers" or something to that effect.

Sorry if this comes across as confrontational. My heritage is German, Swedish, Scottish, and Irish. I'm full of internal turmoil - my ancestors used to rape, pillage, and burn the villages of my other ancestors. I am actually restraining myself.

 

[Armymutt25A]

If we evolved from apes where is the half-man half-ape today?

Ok, so I lied in my last post. I can't restrain myself in the face of such ignorance. I can only hope that you posted this as a joke. If not, I recommend you work on your critical thinking skills. You answer your own question. It's evolution - ape on one end of the number line and modern man on the other. It's not a three step process, nor is it a straight line. Do you deny the existence of the Neanderthal? Do you deny the existence of natural selection, adaptation, and mutation? Each one is a mechanism of evolution. I don't know how anyone can seriously believe that each and every organism represented on the Earth at this time was created all at the same time. Even the Vatican has abandoned the idea (just to keep this on topic, sort of).

 

[Pointer1330]

Big bang =! evolution. Two totally different things.

You obviously have a lot to learn about basic evolutionary theory. Try googling it.

I never said said that the big bang and evolution were the same thing. In fact my post would suggest otherwise.

Please google understanding basic sentence structure and making false assumptions. That would be a good start.

 

[Pointer1330]

Ok, so I lied in my last post. I can't restrain myself in the face of such ignorance. I can only hope that you posted this as a joke. If not, I recommend you work on your critical thinking skills. You answer your own question. It's evolution - ape on one end of the number line and modern man on the other. It's not a three step process, nor is it a straight line. Do you deny the existence of the Neanderthal? Do you deny the existence of natural selection, adaptation, and mutation? Each one is a mechanism of evolution. I don't know how anyone can seriously believe that each and every organism represented on the Earth at this time was created all at the same time. Even the Vatican has abandoned the idea (just to keep this on topic, sort of).

Yes, it was a joke. I was trying to find questions equally immature to turnandburns.

 

[GellaBella]

You had to go and do it - and by 'it' I mean ruin the thread. Even though I have strong feelings about my Christianity I was enjoying this thread and the different thoughts - but no one was really doing the whole "you're wrong and I'm right" thing. A couple of things - you don't have any more evidence that your theories are right than creationists do, and also - I think that Sumstorm's comments sound patronizing because your comments make you sound very naive.

Actually I think this right here is the beginning of ruining this thread. I did not find TurnandBurns previous statement offensive or saying "you're wrong and I'm right" at all. Discussions about religion can become personal quickly and you obviously took things too personally

I never said that I don't believe that a form of evolution has happened since the beginning of the earth.

I would like you to show me proof of the big bang, or proof that algae combined to form the first eukaryote or whatever you believe started life on earth. Oh, you can't do it? If we evolved from apes where is the half-man half-ape today?

I can throw out immature unanswerable questions also. It's hard to have a debate or discuss different opinions when you quite obviously have tunnel vision.

Ugh. This really is terrible reasoning. as many other people have pointed out there is significant evidence for these things. The mitochondria that are in your cells look similar to bacteria...even having some of the exact same genes.. everything from the most primative life form you can think of to the most complex has the same genetic code. Don't say its because God was too lazy to make up different codes so everything uses the same thing. Its the same because it all came from the same exact place.

If anyone is being immature here I'd say its you.
I am SO SO SO sick of hearing that because people are atheist they are close minded. That science doesn't answer anything. and that there are plenty of unanswerable questions out there. In my experience it is always those who are religious who become offended first. Now personally I feel that is because their arguements don't hold up and so they get defensive quickly. I'm sure those of you who are debating against atheism will have another interpretation of that though.

I am a scientist. Give me some sort of evidence, of hard, factual evidence that there is something watching over us. Until then, I'm sorry but the hard, factual evidence we do have points to evolution and suggestive evidence points to no God.

I would love some day to have an intelligent discussion on this with people that doesn't end with them 'having something for me to read' or 'praying for my soul' afterwards. Unfortunately I'm only able to find that with fellow atheists and those that are "in between" (agnostics? I know there was some debate about the definition there...)

 

[Pointer1330]

Ok, so I lied in my last post. I can't restrain myself in the face of such ignorance. I can only hope that you posted this as a joke. If not, I recommend you work on your critical thinking skills. You answer your own question. It's evolution - ape on one end of the number line and modern man on the other. It's not a three step process, nor is it a straight line. Do you deny the existence of the Neanderthal? Do you deny the existence of natural selection, adaptation, and mutation? Each one is a mechanism of evolution. I don't know how anyone can seriously believe that each and every organism represented on the Earth at this time was created all at the same time. Even the Vatican has abandoned the idea (just to keep this on topic, sort of).

Also - if you read my previous posts I also said that I believe in a form of evolution. Did I ever say that I thought things today are as they were in the beginning? Just because I don't believe we evolved from apes doesn't mean that I don't believe in evolution at all. These last couple posts are why I have to give up on this one - there are so many false assumptions (maybe on my part also) and it's just too difficult to talk about these topics on a forum, especially when you get an immature poster unable to carry on a conversation.

 

[Pointer1330]

Actually I think this right here is the beginning of ruining this thread. I did not find TurnandBurns previous statement offensive or saying "you're wrong and I'm right" at all. Discussions about religion can become personal quickly and you obviously took things too personally




Ugh. This really is terrible reasoning. as many other people have pointed out there is significant evidence for these things. The mitochondria that are in your cells look similar to bacteria...even having some of the exact same genes.. everything from the most primative life form you can think of to the most complex has the same genetic code. Don't say its because God was too lazy to make up different codes so everything uses the same thing. Its the same because it all came from the same exact place.

If anyone is being immature here I'd say its you.
I am SO SO SO sick of hearing that because people are atheist they are close minded. That science doesn't answer anything. and that there are plenty of unanswerable questions out there. In my experience it is always those who are religious who become offended first. Now personally I feel that is because their arguements don't hold up and so they get defensive quickly. I'm sure those of you who are debating against atheism will have another interpretation of that though.

I am a scientist. Give me some sort of evidence, of hard, factual evidence that there is something watching over us. Until then, I'm sorry but the hard, factual evidence we do have points to evolution and suggestive evidence points to no God.

I would love some day to have an intelligent discussion on this with people that doesn't end with them 'having something for me to read' or 'praying for my soul' afterwards. Unfortunately I'm only able to find that with fellow atheists and those that are "in between" (agnostics? I know there was some debate about the definition there...)

I never called atheists closed minded - so you must be talking to someone else.

You say that all genetic code comes from the same place. Please provide me evidence that PROVES this to be correct, and that it's not just a coincidence. I would be happy to read it. Also, since you are trying to prove that is the beginning of the world, please also provide supporting evidence of where the world containing the DNA came from, or where the elements that make up that DNA originated from. See, this is why I called out Turnandburn. Anyone can make up hundreds of unanswerable questions. My point is someone who believes in the big bang or evolution from algae takes just as many leaps of faith as does someone believing in Christianity. It's a free country - anyone can believe in whatever they want and I'm not trying to tell eveyone I'm right or they're wrong. I simply get offended by rediculous assumptions and stupid questions.

Thanks for the banter guys - I'm out.

 

[BlacKAT33]

I am SO SO SO sick of hearing that because people are atheist they are close minded. That science doesn't answer anything. and that there are plenty of unanswerable questions out there. In my experience it is always those who are religious who become offended first. Now personally I feel that is because their arguements don't hold up and so they get defensive quickly.

👍

Religion doesnt offend me until someone says they don't believe in evolution at all. denial.
Oya, i also blew up when a friend said they didnt believe in global warming. i was like wut?!?!!?!? i couldnt believe MY friend just said that lol does he have no love for the polar bears? lol 😀

 

[KGemma]

We had a client once that you could tell was very devout from the way she spoke. As she was about to leave, she asked the vet "You'll pray for my cat won't you?" and the vet (an atheist) just said "Of course" and then she responded "Good, I don't think I could go to a vet who didn't." so I'd imagine it's advertisement aimed at those people. And if the market is saturated with vets, whatever puts you a leg up (be it prices, religion, or ability to juggle) gets you the business over the next guy.


Course I've always wondered about the ethics of the vets response (given that she's atheist) as well as the business ethics: charging for a service that wasn't given 😛. That's some what tongue-in-cheek but, well that's essentially what was done. But I suppose there's also no price on a prayer, nor was 'Prayer' on the treatment list.

You know, I think you're right. My husband goes to a Christian medical school, and they're taught to offer prayer to patients. Some say 'no, thank you," but some say "yes". Their teaching hospital is also a trauma 1 children's hospital, so as you can imagine, in desprate times, parents will do anything to help save their children, including praying. Now as a Christian, I don't know if I would advertise myself as a Christian vet.

 

[Shanomong]

.

 

[jpeterman13]

Actually I think this right here is the beginning of ruining this thread. I did not find TurnandBurns previous statement offensive or saying "you're wrong and I'm right" at all.

agreed

 

[turnandburn]

I never called atheists closed minded - so you must be talking to someone else.

You say that all genetic code comes from the same place. Please provide me evidence that PROVES this to be correct, and that it's not just a coincidence. I would be happy to read it. Also, since you are trying to prove that is the beginning of the world, please also provide supporting evidence of where the world containing the DNA came from, or where the elements that make up that DNA originated from. See, this is why I called out Turnandburn. Anyone can make up hundreds of unanswerable questions. My point is someone who believes in the big bang or evolution from algae takes just as many leaps of faith as does someone believing in Christianity. It's a free country - anyone can believe in whatever they want and I'm not trying to tell eveyone I'm right or they're wrong. I simply get offended by rediculous assumptions and stupid questions.

Thanks for the banter guys - I'm out.

It's pretty obvious from your posts that you don't understand the basics of evolution. I think you should educate yourself on evolutionary basics before trying to understand some of the more complex topics, it's kinda like skipping basic arithmetic and jumping straight into trig.

 

[turnandburn]

Have you taken any courses covering evolution? First of all, every science course I've taken from molecular biology to ecology to anatomy is so closely tied to theories of evolution that I don't understand how any science major could claim the theories of evolution are not supported with evidence. And secondly, no, there is not a half man, half ape alive. But have you heard of Lucy, aka Australopithecus or any other transitional species in the fossil record??? These species have gone extinct, but we can trace their bone structure to understand the course evolution took from ape to man and understand other cool things like when bipedalism emerged. But Lucy could be what you consider half man, half ape. She's a member of the species which evolved from the ape and would further evolve to homo sapiens. And what people need to understand is that while scientists don't set out to prove evolution, simply because scientists are rational and understand that things can't necessarily be proved, only disproved, hypotheses become theories only by a substantial amount of evidence in support of it and many, many failed attempts to find proof against the hypothesis.

👍 Well stated.

 

[nyanko]

You say that all genetic code comes from the same place. Please provide me evidence that PROVES this to be correct, and that it's not just a coincidence.

hahahaha what? A coincidence? Since when do we assume that every living thing on Earth sharing a genetic code and similar sequence is "a coincidence?" That would have to be one hell of a coincidence...

Oh and guys, didn't quite "evolve from" apes. Rather, we share a common ancestor with them, and this ancestor is the point of contention.

GellaBella is right, though. There is no point in arguing with people who are relying on nothing but blind faith. You can't win an argument with someone who can just answer any unknown question with "an invisible deity did it" and have it be perfectly within their belief structure.

Oh and Truby, thanks for answering. Your micro vs macroevolution description is exactly what I thought of when you first said it, so no, it's not a matter of semantics at all. Here's a tip for you: generally when we talk about, say, a finch and a hawk, we say that these two have a common ancestor that is neither a finch nor a hawk, not that a hawk evolved from a finch or vice versa.

 

[scb44f]

Oh and guys, didn't quite "evolve from" apes. Rather, we share a common ancestor with them, and this ancestor is the point of contention.

👍 My evolution professor would love you for this. Apparently there are people who just don't get this...

 

[jpeterman13]

I find this article to be informative and relevant to the discussion.

http://news.discovery.com/archaeology/ardi-human-ancestor.html

This entire thread is pointless (but soo entertaining) IMO. Religion is based on faith and science is based on doubt...apple and oranges.

 

[twelvetigers]

Oh and guys, didn't quite "evolve from" apes. Rather, we share a common ancestor with them, and this ancestor is the point of contention.

I was about to point that out too - we didn't evolve from apes... we AND apes both evolved from some common ancestor waybackwhen. I think the most recent discovery was Ardipithecus, who lived on open grassland and was bipedal...

ETA: Aaand I just linked to the same sort of thing as Mr. Peterman, lol. Well, at least we're on the same page.

 

[bruinvetman]

Oh and guys, didn't quite "evolve from" apes. Rather, we share a common ancestor with them, and this ancestor is the point ofcontention.

haha, thanks nyanko, my biology teachers would be very disappointed in me but in my defense, it was very late at night and I kind of rushed my post

 

[bruinvetman]

but technically we did evolve from apes because the classification of ape includes hominidae which includes chimps, humans, gorillas, etc. We share common ancestor with other great apes such as chimps

 

[twelvetigers]

Shared a common ancestor, yes. The use of the phrase "evolved from" in this case is misleading - just as misleading as that stupid shirt. The common ancestor didn't look a whole lot like humans, but it also didn't look a whole lot like chimps! They evolved to look as they do, 'regressing' to their primarialy quadripedal locomotion... we just kinda have this complex where we see humans as the end-all-be-all ov evolution, but we're really just at the end of one branch... chimps are at the end of another.

Did that make any sense whatsoever? 😕 I tried lol

ETA: About the shirt, this is what I meant:

 

[bruinvetman]

well put, i was just covering my ass with semantics because the common ancestor, the chimp, and us are all apes. So we did evolve from apes 🙂

 

[MonieBalonie]

The evolving from apes misconception reminds me of how some people teach heart chambers, as if evolution has an end point or "goal". Fish are 2 chambered and mammals are 4 chambered and then they say amphibians are 3 chambered because they are "in between". But frogs aren't actively trying to become mammals or develop another chamber or anything, there is no foresight in evolution.

 

[causticus]

Have any of you religious folk ever heard of Dr. Denis Lamoureux? He is a triple doctor: DDS, PhD in Theology, and PhD in Evolutionary Biology. Absolutely brilliant man. He is a self-proclaimed "evolutionary creationist" and has written several books on the false dichotomy between religion and science/evolution. I heard him speak at Ohio State last month, it was excellent, one of the best lectures I have heard. In the same week they also co-hosted a discussion panel with COSI: Denis Lamoureux (evangelical Christian), Eugenie Scott (atheist), and Francisco Ayala (Catholic). They all came to the same conclusion, that religion and science answer completely different questions, that they can (and should) coexist without any conflict. It was like a breath of fresh air to finally hear this from members of both sides of the historical debate.

As a person who is both religious and a scientist, I have often felt the effects of this false dichotomy. In religious circles, there is a tendency to associate science with godlessness - historically, religion has felt threatened by science, and scientists have been seen as trying to disprove the existence of god by proving everything happens by natural processes. And in scientific circles, there is a tendency to think of religious people as unenlightened simpletons - like "you're a scientist, you should know better." I have been in both of these situations, and while I am personally comfortable with my beliefs, being looked down upon by various groups because of false stereotypes perpetually bothers me. Believing in god does not make me a fundamentalist simpleton, and being a scientist does not make me a godless proto-Hitler! I want to shout it from the top of my lungs whenever I hear Richard Dawkins speak, or watch a movie like "Expelled." Both sides are equally guilty of prolonging a conflict where there should be none.

I am with Dr. Lamoureux on this one 100%: science can do a lot of things, but it cannot tell us why we are here. Religion can attempt to answer that question and others, but it has no business making scientific claims - the Bible is not a science textbook. There doesn't have to be an either/or.

 

[DVMDream]

Don't forget...science itself evolves. At one point people thought cancer in general was contagious...then we thought it wasn't....and now we are realizing that at least some forms are.

Agreed. Science is always evolving. Question: Am I reading this right? Did you mention that we are realizing that some forms of cancer are contagious? If I did read that right, which ones. Because I did not know of this and I am quite interested to know which forms are being realized as contagious. Thanks. Good Luck with your finals!!

 

[causticus]

I can bombard you with evidence for evolution. Can you give me a single piece of objective evidence for a creator?

There are some people (and I am one of them) who would argue these are one and the same.

Statistically, what were the chances of life occuring? Miniscule. And yet here we are. Some people see that as coincidence, some see it as evidence of something more.

 

[causticus]

Did you mention that we are realizing that some forms of cancer are contagious?

HPV, etc?

 

[turnandburn]

There are some people (and I am one of them) who would argue these are one and the same.

Statistically, what were the chances of life occuring? Miniscule. And yet here we are. Some people see that as coincidence, some see it as evidence of something more.

Of course, argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy...

 

[nyanko]

I was a TA for an intro to biology course for my first 2 quarters of grad school, and what MonieBalonie is saying is absolutely painfully true. So many people are either incorrectly taught the basic tenets of evolutionary theory or don't bother paying attention and it just ends up fueling the debate even further. Both quarters, I had to grade students' essays about the origins of life on Earth and let's just say to correct the variety of misconceptions in those essays alone would probably take an entire course in evolution.

Perhaps science (particularly biology) education would be better served to try to give students a reasonable grounding in those concepts before trying to layer things like the parts of the cell and electron transport and such on them.

DVMDream:

Tasmanian Devil Facial Tumor Disease is one example of a transmissible type of cancer.

 

[turnandburn]

H
I am with Dr. Lamoureux on this one 100%: science can do a lot of things, but it cannot tell us why we are here. Religion can attempt to answer that question and others, but it has no business making scientific claims - the Bible is not a science textbook. There doesn't have to be an either/or.

I agree, they do answer different questions, like I stated earlier. Religion can give people meaning to their lives, give people comfort, hope, etc. As an atheist, I believe the meaning to my life is whatever meaning I give it. To some religious people that is both frightening and threatening. As long as people are not pushing their religion on me or others, or trying to teach such bull **** in the classroom like "creationism" or "intelligent design" I'm fine with people believing whatever they want to believe, but don't pretend it's on the same level as science/theory of evolution.

 

[turnandburn]

I was a TA for an intro to biology course for my first 2 quarters of grad school, and what MonieBalonie is saying is absolutely painfully true. So many people are either incorrectly taught the basic tenets of evolutionary theory or don't bother paying attention and it just ends up fueling the debate even further. Both quarters, I had to grade students' essays about the origins of life on Earth and let's just say to correct the variety of misconceptions in those essays alone would probably take an entire course in evolution.

Perhaps science (particularly biology) education would be better served to try to give students a reasonable grounding in those concepts before trying to layer things like the parts of the cell and electron transport and such on them.

I completely agree; it seems the people most opposed to evolution are the ones who understand it the least.

 

[DVMDream]

HPV, etc?

HPV is a virus. It may or may not lead to a change in DNA which may or may not turn into cancer. Just because you get HPV does not mean you will get cancer. The Epstein Barr Virus causes mono; sometimes. It has also been linked to some types of lymphoma, but a great majority of the population has been infected with EBV and not all of them get lymphoma. Also, not all lymphoma and not all cervical cancers are caused by these viruses. So, virus is not equal to cancer.

 

[DVMDream]

DVMDream:

Tasmanian Devil Facial Tumor Disease is one example of a transmissible type of cancer.

Thanks nyanko. I was hoping someone could provide something like this. I only was able to read the discussion (what I find to be one of the most important parts.) but I will have to read the rest later as I have somewhere to go. But very interesing paper so far. 👍

 

[that70sfan11]

ugh this kills me to see...
I am a strong Christian Methodist
but also a strong evolutionist. 😱 I'm even a TA for an evolution class!

I don't use my Bible to learn science just like I don't use my textbook to understand my faith.

and although I could go on forever about how true evolution is, I just want to say that I think a God who uses something as beautifully complex AND simple as evolution is much much more brilliant than a God who says "poof! there are the animals!" (but then Poof! 99% are extinct!)

anyway its possible to believe in both.

 

[nyanko]

Statistically, what were the chances of life occuring? Miniscule. And yet here we are. Some people see that as coincidence, some see it as evidence of something more.

The a priori probability of the exact conditions occurring to cause the beginnings of life were indeed quite small. However, if you consider it a Bayesian problem, each individual event occurring would update the posterior probability that all of the events could occur. Of course it is erroneous to make a numerical attempt at calculating it using such a model since life already exists and we're trying to use one sample from a distribution, but the simple concept still seems to apply.

The precursor to life didn't have to be very complex, after all, and there would have been on the order of magnitude of hundreds of millions or possibly even a billion years, and a vast expanse of our universe in addition to any distant universes (but please, let's not go down the string theory road! ) for one reaction to take place.

 

[causticus]

Of course, argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy...

Actually, it would have been an argument from incredulity if I had said, "the evolution of life is so improbable that I find it unbelievable." Which is not at all what I said or implied. My statement assumes that evolution is true.

On the other hand, you have cited lack of proof for god as proof of his non-existence. That would be an argument from ignorance.

 

[turnandburn]

Actually, it would have been an argument from incredulity if I had said, "the evolution of life is so improbable that I find it unbelievable." Which is not at all what I said or implied. My statement assumes that evolution is true.

Sorry, I must have misunderstood. I thought you were implying that because it seems improbable, it must not be be true.

On the other hand, you have cited lack of proof for god as proof of his non-existence. That would be an argument from ignorance.

I've never said it's PROOF of his/her/it's non-existence. I've just stated that *because* there is a lack of evidence, there is no reason to believe in it. There is just as much evidence for a FSM god, more actually, because they have cool charts comparing pirates and global warming 😎

 

[dyachei]

DVMDream:

Tasmanian Devil Facial Tumor Disease is one example of a transmissible type of cancer.

In small animal medicine, the most common form is transmissible venereal tumor (TVT). Farm animals also have them - sheep have a nasal carcinoma for example. Sometimes it is driven by retroviruses, in response to Sumstorm, but if there is a really high chance of you getting a cancer from a virus, I would still call it a transmissible cancer.