Earth has been one big experiment for Him since inception.
Posted on 02/12/2006 10:32:27 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Ooops. I was thinking backwards! This would make the females on the ark more genetically diverse, and indeed make their "genealogy" appear older. If they were tested at the time anyway. Still there were only 4 women, and I'm given to understand that the mathematics of population genetics suggest that a population even as large as some 10,000 individuals is apt to produce only one mitochondrial DNA lineage in the long run. Add to that the fact that the techniques you're appealing to can only resolve differences on the scale of tens of thousands of years, and even on the literalist ark scenario men and women (and all species preserved on the ark) should appear to be EQUALLY "old" on this evidence. This, however, is not the case.
I disagree. One of Sciences' boundary conditions is that God does not exist - everything can be explained by orderly, defined processes. The TOE exists, only to be discovered by man. And to this end, Science will postulate and teach any imaginable "mechanism" or invisible force or particle, to accommodate observational data - including the Multiverse, dark matter, dark energy, 11 dimensional universe - without proof, and deny any metaphysical idea.
A sensible approach if the goal is to understand physical processes. Science assumes the existence of regular, orderly, ultimately describable process as a foundation of all that we experience. Were Science to stop at any point in the examination and say "That's God's work", Science would fail to bring the complete understanding of the world to us.
Yep agreed, not in a science course. But ignorance is no excuse to avoid discussing the origin of the universe elsewhere. The universe came to be and the blind man should examine the whole. Minds to be enlighted should not be constrained by proofs offered by limited techniques. The whole universe can't be examined/explained by looking through scientific instruments, that's self-limiting.
Ah, I see. So evolution and creation represent entirely different modes, or at least levels, of understanding. Therefore they are not comparable alternatives, and it would be misleading to present them as such (say in science curricula). Likewise since evolution restricts itself to science it should be taught as science, but creationism is more inclusive and therefore extra scientific. Finally, being on different levels of understanding, evolution and creation are not (necessarily) contradictory, and it would be false then to claim that evolution is inherently atheistic.
I believed all this anyway, but thanks for the support!
Recent evidence is strongly suggesting that mitochondrial DNA is not a very good way to gauge molecular clocks.
(Evelyn Strauss, "Can Mitochondrial Clocks Keep Time?" Science 283 (1999) 1435 - 1438.
And the time scale has reduced considerably from 10's of thousands of years.
I have always maintained that if we last long enough as a species, eventually science is going to bring us face to face with God. The more we learn, the more sure I am of that.
That's actually not the argument of "Evolution," but rather the argument of "Natural Selection." Evolution does not make any assumptions about the mechanism of change. As you point out, the author admits that the evidence for Natural Selection is far from settled.
An alarming number of scientists also believe in the superiority of Marxism, despite historical facts to the contrary.
You don't have to assume God doesn't exist, you just have to assume God hasn't interfered in the phenomenon you are studying. That is just a practical assumption for the purpose of looking for a natural explaination. Afterall if God has interfered in what you are studying then there may be no such natural explaination. Entertaining the idea that there may be no natural explaination does not help find a natural explaination if one is there. That is all - there is no atheistic tendancy involved in science at all.
Physicists, chemists and biologists are scientists. Sociologists are not.
High noon. Showdown.
I picture God saying "Boo".
Earth has been one big experiment for Him since inception.
I'm not sure, but I wouldn't say that's impossible. However science is never going to get you a universal flood and Noah's ark. The great (real) creation scientists of the past -- e.g. Sedgewick, Buckland, Dana, Agassiz, et al -- recognized this two hundred years ago, and the evidence has only grown more solid since.
Assuming this is true, and you've provided no evidence to support your assertion, a personal belief in Marxism would not invalidate scientific theories.
Theology is not science. Science is not theology. They each describe unique attributes of existence. If one is thrologically grounded science is less valuable. If one is scientifically grounded theology is of less relevence.
For either side to dismiss the other as wrong is silly and childish.
I would expect God's interference to look like whatever God wanted it to look like. It is not reasonable to assume that God would only act in supernatural ways. God's interference might actually look just like the natural process.
At which time there were humans all over the globe. You can't cherry pick one little itty bit of the archaeological evidence and ignore everything else.
This statement is more-or-less correct, although I'm not sure exactly what "they limit themselves to only life" means. Science recognizes its limitations and acknowledges them. This is generally considered to be a good thing.
Creationists view the whole aminal, vegetable and mineral universe and regard the evolutionist's views as incomplete.
Creationists can claim this, but can they demonstrate it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.