I'll contest this point. Evolution cannot be observed or reduplicated. What we study today is the effect of a process that has already and long ago occurred.

But, I fully agree with you that science and Christianity are compatible.

GP, I couldn't agree more BUT consider the quality of students that we, as a country, are putting out. I can see one serious benefit to allowing other theories of origin to be taught: students and teachers will have to stop and think.

Regardless of my position on all this (as you know, I'm a creationist), I am not sure I completely understand why origin theories are taught at all to any significant degree. If we could put together textbooks that have a single chapter outlining some of the more accepted origin theories, that would be very interesting and informative.

It doesn't seem to matter one way or the other what origin theory scientists believe. Do they not work together already? Do they not make progress despite their differences?

I went to a Christian school where I didn't learn about evolution - to my disadvantage. When I got to college, I struggled through the first part of Biology 101 because I had NO foundation.

I would much rather have learned of various origin theories because 1) it would have helped explain a lot of things I learned later in life, 2) it would expose me to different cultures' worldviews and 3) it would have really made me think!!

Thank you! It's amazing what will come out of the mouth of a supposedly enlightened person, when prefaced by the phrase, "Now, it doesn't bother me, but my mother...." Idiots.

Quote:

If you read "Serpent in the Rainbow" you start to get a "picture" of old world pharmacology...

I've never read that book, but I would LOVE to do so. Thank you for the recommendation. I've often said that the class that has done me the most good in real life was Pharmacology. :)

Quote:

The only part that intrigues many scientists, including myself, is the pool at Bethesda... But even Jesus Christ told the man "do you WANT to be healed" before he healed him... And Luke who wrote his Gospel was called a physician--as well as Joseph of Arimethia [sp?]... Long time ago, High Priests and Priestesses were mostly the scientists at the time... The Egyptians, The Aztecs, The Chinese--maybe the Greeks and the Romans... But somehow it all got segregated with the "snake oil" mentality showed up... So it ain't about do you have a belief in a measurement system versus a spiritual system... It's more about how come the two cannot peacefully co-exist?

I think we can agree that the most radical of scientists realize that the desire to be healed plays a large part in the healing arts. I see it every day with terminal patients - those who have a very strong desire to live, even if it's goal-oriented ("until my son gets married", "until my grandbaby is born").

I also agree - there CAN be peaceful co-existence between a measurement and spiritual systems. That's why I find it so important to put all the infomation on the table.

And one of these days, I may be picking your brain about genetics & DNA. I'm reading a book about "genetealogy" - how DNA substanciates genealogy, and that most (if not all) Americans come from one of seven different women. I'm not going to pretend that I understand 90% of it, but it's fascinating stuff! :)

Bingo!

Too many schools are teaching kids to regurgitate information, and not think it out. Maybe my school went overboard with the whole "Make It Your Own" concept, but we were encouraged to question, and to think for ourselves.

I have having problems with the "evolutionary theory as fact" question... What is a "fact"? What you see is what you get? It is not "truth"--because "truth" as defined denotatively is "fact in accordance with reality..."

Here are the "facts" about evolutionary theory:

1) It uses science to measure and test it

2) There are 5 parts to it:

Evolution

3) And hypotheses can be developed and re-tested...

That is what the ID community wants to publically admit, but given where they started and how they started, I seriously doubt they would accept those with a different religious belief from puritanical evangelical Christianity...

Even if it has been 100% shown that all "modern human being life" started in Africa, they would MOVE that fact to the middle east in the middle of Iraq because that is the archeological location of what has been shown to thought of as the "Garden of Eden"...

Like I said before, can God be measured? Does He even want to be? You read what He did at the Tower of Babel... I know I am not trying to measure God with a certain degree of "error"--because "there is no error in God"... Y'all can do it if you want, but I am not...

I dunno? Some folks here are taking Genesis literally and that there is NO myth to it or myticism to it... I am still stuck on the "We cannot allow them to do that..." part in Genesis after when man built the Tower of Babel...

But that is why you actually have serious religious studies classes in seminary for advance degrees. Yes, you can apply the scientific process, i.e. hypothesis, experimental design, results, discussion and conclusions for studies from the Bible--in seminary for sure...

My problem is don't kids have a hard enough time for discernment these days without us adults bickering about what's being taught to them?

Hey, we need "TRAINED" theologians with us medical scientific researchers and physicians when a patient has lost all hope and is going down hill, but should we as scientists and doctors stop treating patient with different approved drugs upon review of their chart to enable miracles to happen for the betterment of humankind?

We cannot do that when our minds are asked to be tied down to ONLY what ONE religion says what is right, accurate and correct--that's tying our hands behind our backs...

That I find is very, very wrong...

I'm always wondering how one can really take Genesis literally when there are two Creation stories, one where God creates Man and Woman together and then the Adam and Eve story. Which one is right? Were there two creations? Or was the first story Adam and Lilith?

Now, I am sorry, evolution CAN be observed in some species--maybe not humans because of our lifespans--but DEFINITELY microbes, including viruses...

They are currently sequencing the DNA of the SARS virus... SARS is a Coxsackie virus that somehow was able to mutate and become transmissible into humans from chickens (mainly). And then there are strains of SARS--strains are marked by variation of it's genetic material--RNA or DNA...

Then you have Avian Flu. Now that Influenza virus is NOT a joke and WHEN it hits the United States, you had better hope to God that we have a way to fight it...

HIV has switched around genetically at least 4 times since its knowledge... How does it do it? The Reverse Transcriptase--the stuff that AZT inhibits as well as other NNRTI's, is not "faithful"--called infidelity (:D) in maintaining an EXACT copy of it's parent genetic material--so you get variation from virion particles to virion particles within the same cells that eventually HIV infection destroys... Besides the reverse transcriptase takes a couple of the "host cell's RNA" and incorporates that "information" when it become proliferative...

Then you have all the antibiotic resistant bacteria cropping up 'cuz folks take too many antibiotics rather than riding out the illness...

Where I live, Metrazin [sp?] resistant Staphylacoccus Aureas (MRSA) infection rates are up and it ain't coming from infections in the hospital...

Then E. coli is not a joke...

Then West Nile Virus ain't joking this year...

We are about to be hit with pestilence... And God forbid it will be from bioterrorism... Because even I can think up some crazy stuh...

All your points are well taken, but I wanted to clarify my stance on this one. I'm not saying that Genesis is myth. I'm saying that it is in mythic history meaning, from a literary point of view, the time frame cannot be determined and we have absolutely no literature from any person from the period. We have the result of oral tradition.

Scriptural origin (beginning) and eschatology (end) writings must be considered in the context in which they're written. We can neither prove nor disprove whether or not they are literal. So, believing that they are literal is just as accurate as believing that they are not (though many, I'm sure, will disagree). In fact, some of the writings could be both literal and metaphoric.

I think we're talking about two different areas of science? I know that microevolution/adaptation occurs. I don't dispute that. It's the macroevolution and life out of nothing that I can't agree with.

But, I can understand why someone would find truth in macroevolution (Darwinian style) where a creator provided the material and then nature took charge. I don't agree with it, but I do understand how such an idea could come about.

Thanks for the clarification. :)

I'd rather discuss this topic with you than with SOME folks around heerah because you and I would have some interesting discourse...

The "fact is" :rolleyes: that the way science is practiced today that we take EVERYTHING literally and not with belief... Maybe science practiced during Darwin's time was not practiced that way, for sure, but the way it is practiced to day, you cannot DO science with a grant or fellowship without PROOF... That's the way the game is played in our "corner of the Universe". ;)

See that's where you have gotten it wrong about science--there IS NO SUCH THING AS SPONTANEOUS PRODUCTION!!! That's why everyone HATED Pasteur because he said it was because microorganisms were causing these illnesses from the food and they did not come from out of nowwhere, they were already in the food--hence Pasteurization of milk is important...

The first thing you learn mainly in physics, then in chemistry is the LAWS of Thermodynamics... Now, you'd be a STOOPID biologist if you did not know those LAWS to it's exactitude... NO ONE would respect you if you didn't know these...

When you have a LAW in science, it is ABSOLUTE TRUTH, it has been held true for many years, there is no deviation from it, you cannot argue with it, these are proven mathematically...

(Not saying God can't bend the laws... But we are not talking about the 9th dimension here, we are talking about 4 dimensions: length, width, heigth and time).

First Law of Thermodynamics:

Matter is neither created or destroyed, it just changes from one form into another...

Second Law of Thermodynamics:

Matter is moving from a state of organization to disorganization or entropy (S)

We us the calculation is of the Gibbs' Free Energy to symbolize these processes:

DG = DH - TDS

Why is that important in biology--well that is how enzymatic processes work--basic biochemical reactions...

Mmmhmmm...:p

I really did want to find if you agree that we're talking about two different areas of science. I can see how - I don't know what to call it - active and testable science would require proof, but - again, don't know what to call it - origin science cannot be proved in the same sense.

Like I said, I can understand how people would believe in macroevolution. What I can't see is how people believe that existence came out of absolutely nothing. The process of macroevolution would demand matter, yes?

Where did the matter come from? It couldn't have always existed because where did "always" come from itself?

I'm much more inclined to back the ideas behind Darwinian macroevolution.


ETA: You must have been answering my question before I posted this one!!! My bad!

With that in mind, I don't dispute the Laws...my question is about where everything began in the first place. Things beget things. Nothing, it appears, would beget nothing.

Matter can't be created or destroyed - by us, though. Where did matter come from?

Isn't it Cartesian philosophy from Decartes, that "What was God doing before He made the Earth"???

I think he came up with that "God sees everything at once"... Forget the exact Bible verses: but from my summation you have John that brings forth: In the beginning, Word was with God, the Word was God; then you have the "God is Love" aspect--He surrounds with love... That is about the "only" definitive definition of God...

Most scientist do not think about what is happening with a start, middle, and end... We have this perpetual mentality... Who started it kind of thing is not a question we want to know about... We really do not care about that kind of question. We are more concerned about what it is now, how it is now, and can we change it?

Now human origins at least genetically have been unequivocally shown by comparing and contrasting DNA sequences from one human to another and doing time line of traceablility... We can go back in time with that--kinna like Madat begat Dadat, etc.

We, scientist in fact call it the mitochondial Eve hypothesis and the Y chromosome Adam hypothesis... Irony at your best...

As far as other Homo sapiens... We molecular geneticists have Neanderthal DNA--not in modern human beings genes... We have Cro Magnon DNA--not in our genes... Chimpanzee DNA is only 98% similar to our DNA--but some genes are in different chromosomal locations making them different from humans...

Was there a split--which folks have a problem with? I dunno...

Do I care about that? NO... Because, either way, there ain't gonna be too many Homo sapiens sapiens around if we keep doing evilness to each other, anyways...

Maybe God will wash His hands of us...

I tend to agree with you which makes this entire topic very interesting. Scientists who don't agree with each other still work together successfully, as I mentioned. You seem to be agreeing here!

Can anyone really dispute microevolution when the evidence is visible RIGHT NOW? No. But, we can dispute macroevolution - though, as you've said - that's not really an area where scientists waste much time.

I don't want to take this discussion in circles any more than I already have so I'll leave that alone for now.

Quote:

We, scientist in fact call it the mitochondial Eve hypothesis and the Y chromosome Adam hypothesis... Irony at your best...

Yes I know about mitochondrial DNA. I think the Adam and Eve might have been foolish choices for names!! I realize that they have absolutely nothing to do with the Bible. :) I probably need to go back and read more about the subject because it is fascinating. From what I know, (and I know much less about the Y side of it!), mitochondrial DNA - coming from the maternal side - indicates the most recent common female ancestor and points to a similar female ancestor for everyone on earth at any given time. The research lost me when the crazy folks started trying to explain how M.E. changes with different circumstances.

P.S. You went out of my range of education when you dipped into the world of Descartes! I'd have to do some more reading before I would venture a response.

You did get me thinking about this though:

Max Weber (from a 1958 translation of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism - He's talking about human freedom and progress and the actual outcome of the two working together:

"No one knows who will live in this cage in the future, or whether at the end of this tremendous development entirely new prophets will arise, or there will be a great rebirth of old ideas and ideals, or if neither, mechanized petrification embellished with a sort of convulsive self-importance. For at the last stage of this cultural development, it might truly be said: 'Specialists without spirit, sensualists without heart; this nullity imagines that it has attained a level of civilization never before achieved.'"

*Have we reached this point in the U.S.? I know it has nothing to do with the topic, but it popped into my head and I had to post it!! I just think it's really interesting.

DA
 

Once again, My adopted State of Kansas is the focal point of ----!

God Created The Earth and Heavens, He made Adam, Adam was lonely for a little Hoopty Do! Ergo Eve.

He made the world in 6 days and on the 7 th He Rested. Now, just how friggen long were days back then? Are The Jews correct about Sat. or the Gentiles, Sun.?

So, Darwin said We came from ombebias who learned to crawl on the dirt, grow legs and eventually walk upright.

So, who in the Hell really gives a shit?:rolleyes: I aint dragging my knuckles on the rug, well most of the time!:D