How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

What do you mean? How would it imply a designer? Whats the point exactly of makeing chimpanzee dna look almost identical to human dna if everything was just created? And whats the point of having so much junk dna by the way? i mean if mutations are not important and creation is the way things happen then why have all that uneccessary mess?

well now we get into a theological subject about how we live in a fallen and imperfect world because of sin. but i have a feeling if we want to talk about that we should go to a different thread.

and why wouldn't God make his creations similar if we are created in God's image we use his methods in our creation. One example would be cars now i have a geo prizm it is made by chevy but the toyota corolla is exactly the same parts wise for the corresponding year model, it has, to borrow the colloquialism the same dna of my car. asking Why?? they are the same seems pointless obviously some of the same people designed it

but i guess if i were an evolutionist i would say that they evolved from a common ancestor by chance

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

but i guess if i were an evolutionist i would say that they evolved from a common ancestor by chance

it did... but not by chance... it evolved from humans

we, and what we create, are part of evolution... not outside it

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

well now we get into a theological subject about how we live in a fallen and imperfect world because of sin. but i have a feeling if we want to talk about that we should go to a different thread.

and why wouldn't God make his creations similar if we are created in God's image we use his methods in our creation. One example would be cars now i have a geo prizm it is made by chevy but the toyota corolla is exactly the same parts wise for the corresponding year model, it has, to borrow the colloquialism the same dna of my car. asking Why?? they are the same seems pointless obviously some of the same people designed it

but i guess if i were an evolutionist i would say that they evolved from a common ancestor by chance

so... are you saying god took a bunch of random dna and tweaked things here and there and made man? and then tweaked a few more things and made chimpanzees? or did he make the chimps first and tweaked them slightly to make man? doesnt the bible say that man came first? or did got set up the world before man came along?

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

so... are you saying god took a bunch of random dna and tweaked things here and there and made man? and then tweaked a few more things and made chimpanzees? or did he make the chimps first and tweaked them slightly to make man? doesnt the bible say that man came first? or did got set up the world before man came along?

if you really want to know why don't you read the bible? actually God created the world and the animals and then created man in his own image. but were kind of off thread here

i'm surprised at your attitude about dna it is one of the most complex aspect of science there is and honestly i don't know very much about it myself but none of it is unneccessary or random and it is very improbable that something that complex could come about by chance,

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

it did... but not by chance... it evolved from humans

we, and what we create, are part of evolution... not outside it

i disagree with you there, we are part of creation erego, we keep creating

the main reason i find evolution so impossibe is the natural course of the world, things get worse and wear out (my car for example), things don't improve or get better, they get old and die (my old horse for example there) if things like say a dell pc were left on the top of a mountain it would not evolve into a mac powerbook it would just get ruined, the same goes for animals

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

i'm surprised at your attitude about dna it is one of the most complex aspect of science there is and honestly i don't know very much about it myself but none of it is unneccessary or random and it is very improbable that something that complex could come about by chance,

actually, that is not true... if you look back at the history and the decoding of the DNA structure... many scientists at the time (linus pauling, for example) had beautiful and efficient theories for how DNA would work... the theory being that nature (or god depending on pov) would come up with "the best possible solution

in reality DNA is very inefficient and nowhere near as structured as they believed... it acts much more like something that was developed and patched along the way, as opposed to a nice clear design from scratch

a clear pointer that either evolution is true, or our designer isn't as good as we think he is

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

i disagree with you there, we are part of creation erego, we keep creating

the main reason i find evolution so impossibe is the natural course of the world, things get worse and wear out (my car for example), things don't improve or get better, they get old and die (my old horse for example there) if things like say a dell pc were left on the top of a mountain it would not evolve into a mac powerbook it would just get ruined, the same goes for animals

stars form all the time... as do solar systems... maybe life does too?

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

actually, that is not true... if you look back at the history and the decoding of the DNA structure... many scientists at the time (linus pauling, for example) had beautiful and efficient theories for how DNA would work... the theory being that nature (or god depending on pov) would come up with "the best possible solution

in reality DNA is very inefficient and nowhere near as structured as they believed... it acts much more like something that was developed and patched along the way, as opposed to a nice clear design from scratch

a clear pointer that either evolution is true, or our designer isn't as good as we think he is

you must remember that the study of dna is fairly new and there may be many discoveries to be made yet , as for myself when i have time i will do some research

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

stars form all the time... as do solar systems... maybe life does too?

perhaps... oh wait, ours is the only planet on which life can survive

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

i'm surprised at your attitude about dna it is one of the most complex aspect of science there is and honestly i don't know very much about it myself but none of it is unneccessary or random and it is very improbable that something that complex could come about by chance,

As BJ says DNA resembles an old rug that has been patched countless times over and over using the same material and making minor adjustments here and there. It certainly isnt perfectly formed most of it is junk. And when you look at the DNA of other animals you see the same junk with a few different twists in protein sequence. So If a creator were designing each creature individually you wouldnt see all this junk and you shouldnt see so much relatedness and so much similarity. Now if a natural phenomenon like evolution was occuring you WOULD see all this. and sure enough...

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

a clear pointer that either evolution is true, or our designer isn't as good as we think he is

Im tempted to break out my long list of known imperfections and anomolies in nature on this bunch. Im curious to see how one would explain arm bones on snakes or hips on whales.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

As BJ says DNA resembles an old rug that has been patched countless times over and over using the same material and making minor adjustments here and there. It certainly isnt perfectly formed most of it is junk. And when you look at the DNA of other animals you see the same junk with a few different twists in protein sequence. So If a creator were designing each creature individually you wouldnt see all this junk and you shouldnt see so much relatedness and so much similarity. Now if a natural phenomenon like evolution was occuring you WOULD see all this. and sure enough...

the reason the protein resembles ours is so we can eat almost any kind of animal, if they were all unique the only thing that we could eat would be other humans, and I know God didn't want that;

[Insidious Rex]

err...

[Count Comfect]

We can eat things that don't have particularly similar DNA - plants, for example, are a whole different kingdom, as are fungi, and we can eat them.

As to experiments bringing something from nothing, I don't have links (because I read this in a printed book that is somewhere within what is the mess that is my bookshelves) but they did some experiments in the 60s that got as far as amino acids by jolting electricity through sealed environments built to model ancient Earth (ie much carbon, less oxygen in the air, etc).

And brownjenkins is right about DNA being a jumble. A high percentage of it is so-called "junk DNA", which appears not to have any real use. In fact, there are enzymes that exist just to cut junk DNA out of DNA before it can be expressed.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

We can eat things that don't have particularly similar DNA - plants, for example, are a whole different kingdom, as are fungi, and we can eat them.

As to experiments bringing something from nothing, I don't have links (because I read this in a printed book that is somewhere within what is the mess that is my bookshelves) but they did some experiments in the 60s that got as far as amino acids by jolting electricity through sealed environments built to model ancient Earth (ie much carbon, less oxygen in the air, etc).

And brownjenkins is right about DNA being a jumble. A high percentage of it is so-called "junk DNA", which appears not to have any real use. In fact, there are enzymes that exist just to cut junk DNA out of DNA before it can be expressed.

like i said ya'll when i have more time i will do some research, i never claimed to be an authority on it

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

like i said ya'll when i have more time i will do some research, i never claimed to be an authority on it

I know And I'm not an authority either. I was just pointing out research I remember as being out there, since it hadn't been brought up.

[HOBBIT]

This week is Evolution Schevolution week on the Daily Show. Great stuff.

[Spock]

[Count Comfect]

That is a hilarious cartoon, Spock.

[Rían]

yes, it is!

Here's the latest on how to teach about origins:

85 Scientists Join Together in Urging Court to Protect Academic Freedom and Not Limit Research into Intelligent Design Theory

By: Staff
Discovery Institute
October 4, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Harrisburg, PA – Eighty-five scientists have filed an Amicus Brief in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial asking the Judge to “affirm the freedom of scientists to pursue scientific evidence wherever it may lead” and not limit research into the scientific theory of intelligent design. Not all the signers are proponents of intelligent design, but they do agree “that protecting the freedom to pursue scientific evidence for intelligent design stimulates the advance of scientific knowledge.”

The signers of the brief, identified as “Amici curiae” include such notable scientists as Dr. Philip Skell of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Lyle H. Jensen a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and Dr. Russell W. Carlson Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Executive Technical Director, Complex Carbohydrate Research Center at the University of Georgia.

“The advance of scientific knowledge depends on uninhibited, robust investigation seeking the best explanation,” said Gonzaga University law professor David DeWolf, a senior fellow at Discovery Institute. “Doubts as to whether a theory adequately explains the evidence should be resolved in the laboratory not in the court room. Scientists are concerned that a Court ruling limiting the nature of science would have far-reaching detrimental effects beyond the schoolhouse doors and into the laboratories and careers of many legitimate scientists.”

The brief reads in part:

Amici curiae are scientists who oppose any attempt to define the nature of science in a way that would limit their ability to follow the evidence wherever it may lead. Since the identification of intelligent causes is a well established scientific practice in fields such as forensic science, archaeology, and exobiology, Amici urge this Court to reject plaintiffs’ claim that the application of intelligent design to biology is unscientific. Any ruling that depends upon an outdated or inaccurate definition of science, or which attempts to define the boundaries of science, could hinder scientific progress.

Amici are professional scientists who support academic freedom for scientific research into the scientific theory of intelligent design. Some Amici are scientists whose research directly addresses design in biology, physics, or astronomy. Other Amici are scientists whose research does not bear directly upon the intelligent design hypothesis, but feel it is a viable conclusion from the empirical data. Finally, some Amici are skeptics of intelligent design who believe that protecting the freedom to pursue scientific evidence for intelligent design stimulates the advance of scientific knowledge. All Amici agree that courts should decline to rule on the scientific validity of theories which are the subject of vigorous scientific debate.