What are your qualifications in micro biology and genetics cobra? Just because another man's science doesn't agree with yours doesn't mean it is wrong or he was high whilst studying.Do you not see what you are doing? Do you not see how closed minded you appear?
What are your qualifications in micro biology and genetics cobra? Just because another man's science doesn't agree with yours doesn't mean it is wrong or he was high whilst studying.
Do you not see what you are doing? Do you not see how closed minded you appear?
science isn't like religion. You don't just have your own personal version where everything is right because you believe it to be.
IMO its because evolution has completely stopped in humans because the weakest link doesn't die out.Without Medicine those people with serious genetic conditions at birth normally die before having children.Now because we save everyone we can, people with defective genes survive to pass on bad genes to thier children who inturn pass it on.I would argue that we are devolving, and lifestyle doesn't effect our genes.Evolution is the process of an animal improving to suit its environment by passing on favourable genes while losing non-favourable traits through death.We are encourging non-favourable genes to continue to spread throughout the gene pool through the use of medicine, thus becoming a "weaker" species.
Actually - it's more accurate to describe that particular process as 'natural selection', and the term evolution describes the development of something over time, as a whole; Ie. the development of the Earth over time, the development of species over time, the development of the solar system over time, and so forth. Just to be somewhat pedantic...
Oh well, that's life. If it's any constellation, there is still a whole raft of geneticists working on the Human Genome Project.. From what I understand they completed the mapping of the entire genome a few years ago and are now busily working on decoding and deconstructing it, identifying and attempting to eliminate certain mutations that result in genetically inherited deficiencies, or obtain data that can be utilized by medical professionals to better treat, or even cure a range of currently incurable diseases. (I wonder if they can find a cure to the common cold as well? )That's just based on my limited knowledge on the subject, but it's pretty fascinating anyway. They are doing some amazing stuff.It sounds great in theory, but one must also always keep in mind, that if there is one thing we should have learnt by now it is that messing around with nature can and indeed has had dire consequences.Incidentally, have you seen a film called Gattaca?
Genetically we all come from one original woman
A father with a degree in micro biology and genetics.
I didn't say it was. But you can't say that science all backs itself. Science has been contradicting itself for years. We skew stuff through our lenses of perception. This means that whilst reality is reality. Truth is truth etc, we still may never find it - science and religion both share the fact that they are interpreted via our senses which make them subjective. Sure science has tools of measurement, but the data still needs interpreting. So, Cobra...what is 'The Science' that you speak of? The all knowing always right science? I didn't know it existed. Is it your invisible friend?My understanding of science is that it acknowledges different theories and only calls fact what it has in fact proven.
You're making the mistake most people make, of mixing up data (facts) with interpretation (theories).
What is written is fact.
So, Cobra...what is 'The Science' that you speak of? The all knowing always right science? I didn't know it existed. Is it your invisible friend?
My understanding of science is that it acknowledges different theories and only calls fact what it has in fact proven.
I didn't say it was. But you can't say that science all backs itself. Science has been contradicting itself for years.
1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations. 2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory. 3. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is. 4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice. 5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks. 6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence.") 7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem.")One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.
The former US President Jimmy Carter stumbled across a crying woman who appeared to be cradling a baby to her right breast. He stepped forward to talk to her -- but he reeled back when he realised a three-foot-long worm was inching its way out of her nipple, at the centre of an engorged purpling breast. It was one of eleven guinea worms taking a month or more to crawl out of the young woman's body that summer. One was burrowing out from her vagina. The woman couldn't speak; she could only howl.
No, I didn't. I thought my post was clear about the difference. The difference was my point. This misunderstanding proves my point.What is written is fact. What is says is only a matter of opinion.
The concept that the earth is 4000 years old is absurd, unless of course we are all in a virtual reality in which case we could well have only been here for 5 minutes, however long that is in the reality this simulation is based in, unless of course it's also embedded in its own simulation ad infinitum.
You might be interested in this then!Our world may be a giant hologram
hmm. Things that go bump in the night. Wouldn't that be more paranormal than religious?
AS A book reviews editor at New Scientist, I often come across so-called science books which after a few pages reveal themselves to be harbouring ulterior motives. I have learned to recognise clues that the author is pushing a religious agenda. As creationists in the US continue to lose court battles over attempts to have intelligent design taught as science in federally funded schools, their strategy has been forced to... well, evolve. That means ensuring that references to pseudoscientific concepts like ID are more heavily veiled. So I thought I'd share a few tips for spotting what may be religion in science's clothing........It is crucial to the public's intellectual health to know when science really is science. Those with a religious agenda will continue to disguise their true views in their effort to win supporters, so please read between the lines.
Upon surrendering with his rocket team to the Americans in 1945: "We knew that we had created a new means of warfare, and the question as to what nation, to what victorious nation we were willing to entrust this brainchild of ours was a moral decision more than anything else. We wanted to see the world spared another conflict such as Germany had just been through, and we felt that only by surrendering such a weapon to people who are guided by the Bible could such an assurance to the world be best secured."
Is anyone here even a so-called "Creatonist"?I think Werner Von Braun, the foremost prominent rocket engineer of the 20th engineer, made a rather poignant remark when he said:"It is in scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance."Don't get me wrong, I don't think children should be taught a literal biblical interpretation as a theory for anything because that would be ludicrous, however on the other hand I don't think they should be given the false impression that the theory of evolution is the be all and end all to all explanations for everything, because it is not - yet that is the agenda that some atheist spokespeople are no doubt trying to push.
