How can a person test in reality that the ideas of evoltuion are valid?
| Norm | |
|
This is a general reply to many of the points made, not just the previous entry.
I'm appalled at some of the comments here, but it has always amazed me how people of faith can be blinded and not see what is in front of their faces. Continual change is all around us. Forget about Darwinism. Just look. It is in everything. Darwinism is just a small part of these continual changes. It isn't restricted to biological models. The weather changes, changing the earth. The earth's plates change, also, changing the earth. Nothing is stagnant. Everything changes. As biological entities on this planet, we have to change with the environment or become extinct. Our knowledge of genetics, viruology, pathology, just to name a few, show continual change. The world is evolving. It is different than what it was a second ago and it will be different in the seconds that follow. With this overwhelming evidence, how can anyone not see it? It is typical for people of faith to select a isolated area of scientific knowledge and say, "Hey! See! This doesn't work the way the scientists say it does." Well, guess what? Scientific knowledge is evolving also. The nature of critical thinking is such that hypotheses are often incorrect. It is time for people to realize that spiritual perception is fallible and the natural physical laws are the ONLY absolute truths which are infallible. The sad part of this whole stupid business is that you don't understand that society has always been rooted in faith. This means that the concepts and words that we use today frequently are based on belief not reality. Someone is always saying, "Well, the dictionary defines this.....". So what! The words in the dictionary are based on usage, not reality. The point is that people of faith have a real advantage when communicating because until we change our language, we are all trapped in this fantasy world of beliefs. But talk is cheap. People of faith can continues to support this worldwide social fantasy, but reality is indifferent. Global warming, disease, unwanted pregnancies will continue despite what you believe. Knowledge and understanding are the only defenses against the problems that we are facing today and the problems of tomorrow. I am ashame to call myself an American. Like what started the three major religions, fear ("The Exodus Decoded"), the US allowed the religious fundamentalists to enter into politics due the the Communist Scare in the 1950s. It is truly ironic that Religious Fundamentalism behaves just like Communist Ideolgy. The truth of the matter is when you take away the freedoms of the few, you take away the freedoms from all of us. Get your religion out of our government and in this context, out of our schools. I have absolutely nothing else to hear or say to you people. |
| Ian Chua | |
|
It is very easy to point to another book like "The Age of the Earth".
What evidence did Dalrymple tested and proved true? Which is the most compelling evidence? |
| Ian Chua | |
|
|
Earlier, Ian wrote:I am not interested in Creationism. Edited by Ian Chua on Oct 31, 2007 9:54 PM |
| Ian Chua | |
|
|
For anyone that has been unable (or perhaps unwilling) to find material on evidence for evolution, here are some online high school biology lessons (coincidentally put together by some nice folks at an Indiana education website) that are quite helpful. (http://www.indiana.ed...-------------------  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The information you provided are still unable to establish evolution as fact. Many of these information are mere regurgitations of what the authors have heard or believe. Which journal paper or research provides the most compelling evidence? Let's discuss it in detail if such research has indeed been done. ~ Ian -------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------Edited by Ian Chua on Oct 31, 2007 10:24 PM |
| Ian Chua | |
|
|
Quoting from Norm:
This is a general reply to many of the points made, not just the previous entry.-------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Please don't waste time here. This discussion thread is a serious one looking for credible and scholarly information that might support evolution as fact. ~ Ian -------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edited by Ian Chua on Oct 31, 2007 10:29 PM |
| Ian Chua | |
|
|
Quote from Bret:
How do we test the validity of evolution? Here are a few ways, with some examples to clarify: This is not evidence - this is just what Darwin thought how things might have been - simply a figment of his imagination. |
| Ian Chua | |
|
|
Quote from Bret:
I missed your point. How does an atlas of protein sequencing provide evidence that life came from non-life? Exactly what kind of information do we get from "analysis of cytochrome c"? |
| Bret | |
|
Over a year ago, Ian claimed:
Papers or literature showing the scientific basis of interpreting radiometric dating results are also impossible to find. I responded: "For now, I'll just do the "impossible" (per Ian) and point readers to G. Brent Dalrymple's excellent book The Age of the Earth. If Amazon runs out of copies, go to your local library. If they don't have it, you can ask them to obtain it through interlibrary loan. See, that wasn't so impossible!" Now Ian maintains: It is very easy to point to another book like "The Age of the Earth". Glad to see that Ian admits his mistake, and that what was once "impossible" is now "very easy" since I pointed the way. He still seems to think evolution is impossible, and keeps asking for evidence despite the posts summarizing the evidence and even providing links. Ian, you do know how to follow links online, right? If you need help, let me know. Demonstrate that you've made the effort to learn something instead of automatically dismissing the evidence, because of your religious misconceptions. If you want to see the peer-reviewed papers detailing the evidence, go to your nearest Technical Library and ask for help in accessing journals like Science, Nature, etc. If you want to learn about Dalrymple's work, ask the librarian to find you a copy, then read it for comprehension. If the library doesn't have a copy, ask to get it through interlibrary loan. Get a biochemistry textbook while you're at it. Try Lubert Stryer's work. If you are unable (or, more likely, unwilling) to follow the information you've been given, don't expect anyone to do all your work for you and read it to you. As with Larry Wall's Perl, there's more than one way to do it - but don't expect the rest of us to spoonfeed you information that any computer-saavy person should be able to find for himself or herself. You can lead a creationist to data, but you can't make him think. Edited by Bret on Nov 9, 2007 11:25 PM |
| Bret | |
|
|
Ian writes:
I missed your point. How does an atlas of protein sequencing provide evidence that life came from non-life? Exactly what kind of information do we get from "analysis of cytochrome c"? Indeed, you missed my point. Several, in fact. The point is that Darwin made a prediction (nicely summarized with his tree of life diagram), and the prediction was substantiated by the protein and genetic sequence data. If you want to learn the details of the analysis discussed in Dayhoff's Atlas of Protein Sequence and Structure, then read Dayhoff's Atlas of Protein Sequence and Structure! Simple, huh? |
| Bret | |
|
|
For those unable or unwilling to do the work to learn the scientific details of evolution, and presuming you can follow a link online - or even for those who genuinely appreciate an excellent biology lecture - here's an excerpt of a video with Biology professor Dr. Kenneth Miller, discussing the human chromosome 2 evidence for evolution I discussed in a previous post:
http://www.youtube.co... Enjoy! Edited by Bret on Nov 9, 2007 11:27 PM |
Powered by mvnForum
