Well looky look at what's back in the news! http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Robertson_Evolution.html
A perfect example of the problem with self-appointed holy men, high priests, and shamans like Pat Robinson. If you teach science properly, you will invoke the wrath of God. Of course, if you send him your tithe, you will get his personal blessing and he will save you from the approaching storm.
'Cuz I keep hitting the wrong button, apparently! :yelwink2: For some reason, of late, I keep hitting the php button. Thanks for catching it...that scrolling format sucks!:thumb:
Ok, so I've been suckered in. Evoloution clearly occurs. It is evident in the fossil record. It is observable in bacteria and viruses. It happens. End of story. What we will probably never now is how life started. That is the root of this debate. Scientists cannot make rocks live. Until science can create life out of nothing the theory that a bunch of random chemical reactions magically turned into life is about as scientific as my belief that God created life. Evoloution does not disproove intelligent design. Nor does the big bang or any other scientific law, treatsie, or theory. Life happened. I don't know how or why, but it did. We may one day nail down the details of how a single celled organism became all the animals we know and love today, but that brings us nowhere near the question of where the organism came from.
life isnt so special. you could make a living creature if you were super good at arranging small things. it wouldnt be magic, although it would be so awesome as to appear to be. in fact scientists have already made viruses from scratch in the lab. you might claim viruses arent alive and that is debatable, but i am sure they will be able to make life one of these days. you dont need to be infused with a soul or anything to be alive. its just little chemical reactions and a little electricity. no big deal. anyways, the point is that if we concede your point that we dont know how life started, it doesnt make ID any more valid as an explanation. like red and i keep repeating, it isnt science. side note: i am a lunatic, so i believe that my nintendogs are alive and it makes me sad when i dont feed them. i am not convinced there is any reason i should be any less sad if they died than a human.
Great thread, I always get a kick out of how fired up people get over this topic. I wonder, however, if anyone here has ever actually read Darwin's treatise On The Origin Of The Species. I have read it, and it was the dullest, most painfully boring thing I have ever read. On the other hand, it was very educational. Darwin never set out to prove or disprove the existance of God, or to challenge any relgious doctrine. It was simply the record of his scientific observations on unique species found on the Gallapogos Islands. His observation and the conclusions he drew from these observations were, in a word, brilliant. The logic was flawless. Simply put, all evolution is is the change in the genetic makeup of a population (species) over time as a result of adaptation to its environment. Those individuals with the characteristics best suited to the environment will survive to reproduce, wereas those that do not will eventually die off and with them characteristics that are not suited to the environment. Thus over long periods of time, the population will change and perhaps a new species will form. We see this today on a mcro level with drig resistant bacteria, and even in cancers that become resitant to chemotheraoy and radiation. We can also see this in ourselves, if you look at the size and physical characteristics of early man. These observations have been supported in the fossil record and by countless examples of scientific data. Again, Darwin and most scientists are not trying to make a pollitical statment on religion, they are simply trying to use the facts to find an explanation for how life got o where it is today. I personally think that it should be taught, and that if more of these religious zealots took time to undertand what evolution really is, perhaps they would not be so afraid. That's my 2 cents, and if anyone actually read all this I hope you're not dummer for it.
I'm not sure if its true anymore, but when I took biology virus's were not considered to be life because they don't sustain themselves. They require a host. I would argue that life is a little more than some chemical reactions and some electricty. I don't think science is anywhere near the point of creating artifical life. One of the basic tenants of science is that something cannot come from nothing.
