Quote:
Originally Posted by That Darn Republican
I respect your opinion, but there are so many gaping holes in the evolutionary argument it is hard to hold on to as anything more than a fairytale for the godless. Something you can grab a hold of has answers -- those answers resonate within you uttermost being, Creation Science has not only those answers, but the key-holder opens your eyes to the beauty and splendor of His creation -- now there are points within evolution that are not evolutionary points such what you mentioned like selective breeding you'll find support of that in Creation. But arguments regarding mutations, are hard to prove because the origin of the mutation. That is one of the single hardest points for evolutionary scientists to prove. Lastly, evolution isn't science... it is the hope of those who mock. There is more science in Creation because evidence is half of science period. Christians who who may submit to creation through evolution may not be Christians at all, but I am not here to argue that -- again, it is not what you claim... it is what you can prove, and evolution hasn't proved much, it really hasn't. It has just had the favored position of being rather fascistically supported by an educational system that wants to indoctrinate children for very obvious social reasons -- if you believe in nothing, then you have to believe what I tell you. That is not learning I submit to you, nor is it objective.
|
There are for sure many holes in explaining the entire evolution on molecular level from the very beginning to the presence. Thats pretty obvious. But thats science, all scientific disciplines face their fate of being incomplete. We just started to understand the way the "building plan" of living organisms is codified, read and multiplied in the middle of the 20th century. We got just recently (a matter of perhaps two decades) the means of powerful information technology to handle the sheer amount of data we need to handle to start understanding the DNA and the entire system of it.
Give science the time it needs to progress in these fields and I promise you you will witness many many more holes where the shadow of mystery ceases and theories appear that are capable of explaining it basing on what we know already. We live currently in a very exciting time regarding the life-sciences. Its making huge steps forward. And I think that those huge steps make also the life-ethic experts increasingly important. In my opinion also religion may play a certain role here. Scientific theories dont know ethics, they just know scientific problems and their solution. Its the job of the humans behind science to not misuse science for unethical stuff.
And we will be sooner than later confronted with questions like, should it be allowed for humans to
create life? But even more importantly to define where "life" starts in first place. Its the simple questions that are the hardest to solve you know. Of course everyone who looks at another human knows that its life... but according to the current definitions, also bacteria are life. They meet all the currently chosen criteria for being life. On the other side Viruses are already considered of being no life.
Anyway, be prepared to see eventually a bacterium being created that has never existed in nature, and been designed on the computer. And suddenly it "lives". It will be possible at least, but should it be done? I think you get the drift of this problematic.
Our scientific progress can be used for the good and for the bad, probably it will be used for both, but its in our hands to make the difference.
Regarding "Creation science". What do you exactly mean by that? Are meaning the concept of Intelligent Design or something else? Maybe you could just roughly explain it in a paragraph what exactly you mean by it.
Regarding mutations. I am not an export on this field, but I know that lots of experiments are done with mutation. I am pretty certain it has already been proven that mutation can lead to new functions an organism didn't have before. But I am not enough into those researches to be able to quote you some study, sorry.
What I know though is that their are already an increasing number of evolutionary models on molecular level. I just recently read of one that serves a possible explanation of how a new enzyme came into existence that is nowadays part of a very important metabolism mechanism called glycolisation.
Quote:
|
Lastly, evolution simply doesn't gell with people. They somehow know better so why we give it more credence then we need is beyond me? I enjyoed reading your repsonse... I look forward to more civil debates on the matter in the future
|
Let me take this as chance to tell you first that I enjoy it as well to see someone from your argumentative side who remains civil even though there seems to be a gigantic gap between our both positions. In fact not just the position as far as I can see it, but also the way of viewing them as a whole I guess.
Regarding the other point in this paragraph. This might be correct in the US, I can't judge that objectively. But it most certainly is not correct in Europe. In fact I would dare to claim that the majority of Christians here seem to see no conflict between the theory of evolution and their belief.
PS:
I am an atheist or an agnostic myself. Never made myself too much out of these definitions, but I may tend more towards the agnostic side. I hope this does not hinder you to discuss with me nonetheless.
Linear Mode
