by searching4? 81 Replies latest jw experiences
Did the creator god spoken of in Romans also create malaria?
Yep! My explanation of why this parasite causes so much human suffering would be that it wasn't intended to do so. All of our illnesses, crime, and so forth are the result of human "imperfection". Had there been no original sin all mankind today would be parasite free. Maybe the original sin altered the DNA? Simple explanation but just maybe it is true.
There are thousands of scientists that believe in an intelligent designer...it is a valid premise, even if you don't agree.
sheepish, do you have any data to back up this assertion? until you can procure some, you are in error.
in the life sciences, like biology, there are less than 1% of scientists that hold to ID over evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html
- Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.
Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect (NCSE n.d.). The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a Web site to the topic (NAS 1999). A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986). This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science. Note that there are no creationist Nobel Laureates.- One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Most of those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on.
- Often, claims that scientists reject evolution or support creationism are exaggerated or fraudulent. Many scientists doubt some aspects of evolution, especially recent hypotheses about it. All good scientists are skeptical about evolution (and everything else) and open to the possibility, however remote, that serious challenges to it may appear. Creationists frequently seize such expressions of healthy skepticism to imply that evolution is highly questionable. They fail to understand that the fact that evolution has withstood many years of such questioning really means it is about as certain as facts can get.
and from SNG via NATURE journal:
It is difficult to find statistics on how many scientists accept evolution because it would be asking how many scientists accept gravity. It is simply not in question any longer. But I did find this interesting set of stats from an article in Nature (http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313b0_fs.html&content_filetype=pdf):TS
Table 1 Comparison of survey answers among "greater" scientists
[SNG: "greater" scientists in this study are those in the National Academy of Sciences]
Belief in personal God 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 27.7 15 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7 68 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17 20.8
Belief in human immortality 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 35.2 18 7.9
Personal disbelief 25.4 53 76.7
Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 29 23.3
So 93% (72.2% + 20.8%) of scientists disbelieve in God or are agnostic on the issue. I think it is safe to say that these accept evolution. Additionally, the few times I have read of scientists who do believe in God, these usually accept evolution as well but simply think that God got things rolling somehow. I would actually be quite surprised if any of the scientists in this survey rejected evolution.
hooberus,
your entire argument and defense is based upon YOUR assertion that the theory of evolution is not factual.
that i have my assertion that it is factual, and that this assertion of mine is erroneous, as my assertions are the same as biologist's and evolutionists.
well, lets talk about assertions for a moment.
in these debates, we all make assertions.
in this case, my assertion is that evolution is a fact, and that there are peer-reviewed science papers showing that old world primates and new world primates split 30 million years ago, and that humans and chimps split 5 million years ago.
your assertion is that my assertions are wrong, but apart from that, i don't know much about you, or where you are coming from.
whose assertions are eroneous then? my assertion that is backed up by a 130 years of evidence, or your assertion that my assertions are not factual? not to mention your assertions about god oing it.
i am not going to answer that question, as i think the lurkers can make up their own minds.
you do, however, misrepresent the issue by saying that it is circular in nature for evolutionists to base their arguments on an estimate.
let's put it this way: the modern estimate is better than haldane's 1957 estimate.
a couple of replies to your points:
You seem to be saying that ReMine's book with all of its responses to various evolutionary claims (such as claims similar to those made by Theobald) found in it, should be dismissed as a resource if it is found to be in error on one of its subjects. I think that this is dismissive for a book of its length, debth, number of citations, etc.
um, it's all wrong. i have simply focused on one error.
I haven't seen any statements from ReMine that he will "only" debate evolutionists "when the moderators are creationists", and "willing to modify and delete posts at will."
it's not what he says he does that matters, it what he actually does. not only is he intellectually dishonest, but he is incapable of debating on the spot.
ReMine never made the "assumption" that the "majority" of changes would be due to selection.
then, my dear man, why don't you show what it was he assumed it was due to.
ReMines example dealt with the maximum number of selective changes within a single line of inheritance (extint ape 10 mya to human), therefore no "doubling the difference" should have been done.
so, in one breath you say he never assumed selection, and in the next you say that it's about selective changes. i am confused. then again it could be that you made a mistake.
first assume man/ape shared ancestry is true,
this fred williams guy doesn't seem very bright.
it's not an unfounded, unsupported assumtion, like you creationists like to imply. this is a dishonest misrepresentation not only of evolutionary science, but also of scientific method in general. saying that assumptions like this are not based upon one of the mos solid bodies of evidence in the history of science, is called lying to the general public. scientists make educated estimates all the time based on hypotheses that have turned out to be factual.
you of course, ignore all this and go in for the tiny little gaps in the theory that are still left.
Furthermore, I don't think that you have shown it to be "erroneous" on Haldane's Dilemma .
well, lets go over it for the sake of the lurkers. as far as you are concerned, well, i imagine you will always be here trotting out the tired old misrepresentations of dishonest creationists. that is your choice, i suppose. it's too bad that there are people like you, in america and britain, throwing gratuitous obstacles in the way of education and scientific advancement. it's sadistic, but common.
the conclusion that evolution from an ape-like ancestor is not possible, made by ReMine via Haldane's Dilemma, is founded on mostly personal opinions. the fact of the matter is that there is no evidence at all regarding fixed and beneficial mutation, and the number of them required to explain the features and traits in existing fauna (animals like us).
anyroad, the argument basically goes like this:
it's an interpolation, or extrapolation, based on Haldane's 1957 paper. basically that there could not be more than 1667 fixed and beneficial mutations from the common ancestor that we share with pan troglodytes, aka chimps. however, the argument continues, that 1667 is too few to account for modern humans. this is a completely unsupported assertion. one that neither Haldane or ReMine has offered any evidence for.
but according to the Genetics 158, 1227-1234. 2001 paper mentioned in my previous post, that number is really not accurate at ALL. and don't point the finger at Haldane. he was working a decade before any sequence data was available to him. that's right people. this whole Biotic Message malarkey regarding humans and chimps is entirely based on assumptions made ten years before we even started sequencing genomes. the paper shows that there has actually been 150,000 *beneficial* allele substitutions (mutations) over the last 30 million years since the split between Old World (us) and New World primates.
chimps and humans split 5-6 million years ago. so lets do the math. even at 5 million years ago, there would be 25 000 *beneficial* mutations. about 14 times the amount allowed for in Haldane's so-called dilemma.
the human genome project analysis puts the number of of genes in our homo sapien genome between about 30 000 and 60 000. 25 000 mutations is more than enough to account for the differences between between humans and chimps, considering that we share 97% of our genomes, as per the recent sequencing of the chimp genome. even 25 000 mutations on the upper 60 000 genes is much larger than 3%.
so, if your a creationist, like the electrical engineer ReMine , you would simply ignore the current up to date data on the subject, and go with the results from pre -sequence era 1957. sound like the watchtower to anyone?
from Science 294:555-559:
Our results experimentally verify a counteracting advantage of recombining compared to clonal lineages: reduced accumulation of harmful mutations and increased accumulation of beneficial mutations. The magnitude of this benefit will accrue over geological time and promote the superior persistence of recombining lineages at both the level of species within communities (clonal versus sexual species) and genes within chromosomes (non recombining Y-linked versus recombining X-linked genes).so hooberus , The biotic Message is flawed on one of it's key points. Please do not use a book that has been written by someone who has been hiding from the facts, and from the debates, to say that creationism or intelligent design has done any real work towards workable hypotheses.
hooberus,
i would also like you to answer the following for me, so i know who i am debating:
thx,
tetragod
tetrapod.sapien, your verbosity is weariness to the brain. Please explain to me in simple terms how the "first something" came into existance from absolutely nothing. Whether you will admit it or not, belief in evolution is incredulous and requires misguided faith. You don't believe in God? So what, maybe he doesn't believe in you.
fairmind,
your square head is a weariness to mine. why do you want to know about the first something? oh, i get it, you think evolution has something to do with origins. why don't you go read some books that don't come from the xian store, and come back and ask me some real questions. i hardly even give a flying fuck any more anyways.
Yep! My explanation of why this parasite causes so much human suffering would be that it wasn't intended to do so. All of our illnesses, crime, and so forth are the result of human "imperfection". Had there been no original sin all mankind today would be parasite free. Maybe the original sin altered the DNA? Simple explanation but just maybe it is true.
I appreciate your response. That scenario leaves me with other questions though. Just what beneficial functions would parasites carry out for other living things? And how could that moral choice of original sin, physically affect one's DNA? I can only see some physical actions bringing about any changes to the genetic information (like radiation exposure, mutagens, certain viruses, errors that can occur during DNA replication or during meiosis) Does that mean that God was the one then to somehow physically alter human's perfect DNA as a punishment?
Sheepish:
Interesting embellishment of my experience with the lady, turning her into a "little old" lady. Nice imagery-but incorrect.
My apologies. Arguing the same old points can get a little dull sometimes. Please forgive me for the artistic license.
You then ask ME why GOD picks and chooses...it might help if you think a little bit about the concept of GOD.
I've thought a lot about it. He's supposed to be all good, and all loving but he never seems to interfere in anything big; he may have provided for you when you were broke and peckish but a lot of people who are really poor and really hungry live miserable lives, and even starve to death. Does God not like them as much as he likes you?
There are thousands of scientists that believe in an intelligent designer...it is a valid premise, even if you don't agree.
You would have trouble finding thousands of scientists who believe in "Intelligent Design" even if they believe in a god or gods. As others have pointed out, the number of real scientists who deny the fact of evolution is almost negligible.
Your kind suggestion as to why I "don't kill myself and shed my earthly shell" shows me you know little of the Bible. Sorry, not fair to discuss this with an unarmed man.
You're mistaken again. I know the Bible quite well. The comment was a direct response to your statement: "Why would you bother to even be on this site. You are simply evolving and there is no 'seeking' baby, you're bound for the compost pile!" (You can tell it was a direct response to that statement because I quoted that statement, and responded directly below it.) The idea was that it might make you think about your own assumptions. I see I gave you too much credit though.
I understand you don't have a fairy Godfather to grant you "wishes", I don't either. But I do have a compassionate Father, who does what he does for me according to what will bring out the best end.
I really can't see much of a difference. A supernatural father-like entity who (at least sometimes) responds to your requests for goods or services. Call him what you will.
That may not be what you understand as best, but then you are not God.
Nor are you. Are you claiming to speak for Him?
I do hope you get to meet him though-you'll be very surprised to find out who he really is.
I'm sure he knows where I am. Tell him he can call on me anytime he wishes. I've a lot of questions to ask him.
The end of the matter is, "The natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned"
Similar to a quote from Benjamin Franklin (although I suspect your intention was the opposite: "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."
So have the last word
Not necessary. I'm quite happy to keep arguing. You may need to learn a little more about the subject first though.
and then I hope you have a great day!
Likewise!
Does that mean that God was the one then to somehow physically alter human's perfect DNA as a punishment?
IMO it could mean that. However, there is a lot the Bible doesn’t tell us. We see the situation as it now exists but have no clue as to what would or would not have happened had the original human pair remained faithful to God and thus perfect. Another thought provoking question is how would the eating of the fruit of the tree of life changed things for Adam and Eve? What we do have is the promise of God that he can and will fix all of our problems at his appointed time. If one believes in God and that he is indeed all-powerful then the Bible promise of the removal of inherited sin and death from mankind and the return to perfection is seen as very possible. Maybe there certain questions that only God can answer.
"Does that mean that God was the one then to somehow physically alterp human's perfect DNA as a punishment? IMO it could mean that..." In the end, the Creationists always seem to have to resort to what I call the "shazamm factor" - science doesn't back up their conjecture or assertions, so it had to be God that stepped in and performed a miracle or a change of some sort - and always without leaving any evidence that we can find. Why would an all-powerful God, knowing that in the future humans would come up with the idea of evolutiion, not make his acts of creation absolutely clear? Why do we never find God's fingerprints at the scene of the crime, as it were? Evolutionleft "his" fingerprints everywhere! God just seems like this incredible screw-up in your creationist arguments. I'm sorry Hooberis, Fairmind and Sheepish, but you guys have totally failed to make a reasonable point here. I can't believe the patience and time that Tetra and Funky Derek have shown and put into this discussion - and once again it has shown me that what I realized when I left the Witnesses is true - evolution is a fact. S4
