I don’t know why God would create dinasours just to destroy them; I don’t know why God does a lot of things. And God doesn’t owe me any explanations.
By evidence, if you mean anything other than what’s written in the Bible, I haven’t looked for any, because I believe what’s written in the Bible, so why look for other evidence?
Zor,
I was writing my response to Hardcore while you were posting yours.
I think I’ve already said I don’t feel qualified to answer physics questions, so I’ll leave that one for a physicist.
Fossils exist because animals and plants died and left their remains. I don’t see how that proves or disproves anything.
Uh-huh…
Well, we might as well stop here then. If you’re content with whatever the bible says, you ain’t going to change. For your own godd, I hope don’t bring this kind of blind faith into your studies…
Oh, thought you were answering mine…
Well, visit this site if you’re ever brave enough to challenge yourself…
I suggest you start with the FAQ. This going to take some time…
I think that there are two important questions here:
Are you a professional scientist?
Do you claim that you have a scientific, creationist explanation of protein homology which takes all the observed data into account? Or do you just believe the Bible and not really try to explain protein homology? The reason I ask is because your earlier explanation doesn’t even begin to explain homology, but clearly it would be a waste of time to ask you for more details if you don’t really feel that you have a scientific explanation.
-Ben
batgirl:
Why do any science at all? Why not close your eyes to any evidence and remain in ignorance?
Well, I believe the earth exsisted a looong time before man was created!
See, like I told you, we killed 'em all, and ate them. You didn’t believe me, and now the blood flows everywhere. Oh, the Humanity!
<P ALIGN=“CENTER”> Tris </P>
<HR></P>
***<FONT FACE=“Webdings” SIZE=5 COLOR="#ff00ff">
-</FONT></P>***
Yes, I am a professional scientist. I am currently a post-doctoral research fellow at Washington University School of Medicine. My research is on asthma. My graduate work was on bone development and osteoporosis. At last count I was co-author on six publications.
As I stated earlier, I became a creationist in graduate school when I realized that the evolutionists had no more proof than the creationists AND in order to believe the evolutionists I would have to believe that a series of highly unlikely events all happened in a precise order for the world to come into being. I simply don’t believe this happened. No one can prove it did and no one can prove it didn’t, so it’s really just a matter of faith. (And if you don’t think there’s just as much dogma in science as there is in religion, try and disprove the department chairman’s hypothesis.)
Ben, I’m not sure what questions you have about protein homology, but if you could be more specific I’ll try to give you a more complete answer.
As to “why do science at all,” Rabbi Moses Maimonedes (the Rambam), one of the great Torah commentators of all time, said that there are two ways to come to know God: one is through the study of Torah, the other is through the study of his works. The more science I study, the more I appreciate what an amazing piece of work the world is.
http://www.bcbsr.com/survey/genint.html
This link says thre are several different ways to look at Genesis and how it relates to what we know about evolution from science.
Now, if you choose to have faith that in spite of the vast evidence to the contrary, that’s fine. I will never belittle faith, and thus far, you simply stated faith and not attempts at refuting any of the evidence for evolution. This is a new one for me - I never met a Creationist who simply didn’t care - and a scientist no less?
If you were motivated enough to get into a science field as your degree (and presumably, occupation), how could you not be curious about the origins of us all, and the scientific evidence that accompanies it? That puzzles me.
But if your reason for ignoring the issue is just because of what your Bible says, as you can see from the link I provided, there are many ways to interpret Genesis and be consistant with that and science. In fact, most Bible-based worshippers do. And most of them are not scientists.
Yer pal,
Satan
Satan,
Haven’t had a chance to look at the link yet. I’m at work and trying to do an experiment while posting. I will certainly look at it, give it due consideration and get back to you after I’ve had time to analyze what I read.
In the meantime, could you please explain what it is I’m (supposedly) ignoring?
**
There is NO evidence for a young earth outside of faith. There is ample - I mean TONS - of evidence that the earth is ancient, the system around it also is, and we have evolved. How can a scientists not understand the scientific method and how it differenciates itself from philosophy, I cannot guess.
**
You can choose to “believe” anything you wish. Doesn’t make it factual.
**
You used the word “prove” in a science discussion. Do I have to point out to you how much credibility you just lost from people who KNOW how science works?
Yer pal,
Satan
Um… EVERYTHING???
Yer pal,
Satan
Ok Satan,
Tell me what’s wrong with using “prove.” And while you’re at it, define “factual.” Last time I checked, evolution was a THEORY, that is something which by definition cannot be proven.
Well, far be it from Me to speak for Satan!, but I believe in non-evolution by faith alone.
I am not a scientist.
However, the theory of evolution does not mean(and Now I’m probably speaking for David B!)its just a wild guess someone thought up. I believe they have some facts for it!
And I’m a christian!
uh-oh… not another theory argument.
:::::shrugging in disbelief::::::
Taken from http://www2.uic.edu/~vuletic/cefec.html
You can’t possibly be a scientist using this argument. A scientist should KNOW the difference between a theory and a Scientific Theory.
Yer pal,
Satan
I never said that evolution “is just a wild guess that someone thought up.” A theory is an attempt to explain an observed phenomenon. By definition (go back to your high school science book) a theory cannot be proven. To call something a theory does not diminish it in any way. A prefer to use the term hypothesis because “theory” is often misunderstood to mean WAG becuase so many people use the term incorrectly.
So the question becomes, given what we can all observe (fossil record, protein homology, etc.) what is the most likely explanation for how things got to be that way. I believe it’s that because God created it, others differ. And I don’t know why people don’t include the Bible as part of the “what we can observe.” If an archeologist finds some scrolls about ancient civilizations, that’s considered evidence. So why not consider the Bible as well?
batgirl implied:
What series of highly unlikely events do you find implausible? Please try to be precise, as this appears to be your entire foundation for believing creationism.
For Tris:
It’s not considered scientific evidence.