The Biblical Case for Pro-Choice & Stem Cell Research

[lisah25 3]

No one has ever said, except maybe some right wing phonies trying to distort the opposition's beliefs, that evolution turned one species into another already insisting species.

We, human beings, came from primitive primates and so did monkeys, chimps and gorillas.

Only the people who want to mock evolution, lie by claiming that Darwin said we came from monkeys.

Yep.

It's a little like looking at a family tree. Me and my 3rd cousin 12 times removed have an ansector in common, great-great-great Aunt Tillie maybe. That doesn't mean I came from my 3rd cousin, nor him from me.

[green 6]

And here are a couple of other links:

http://darwiniana.org/transitionals.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_noway.htm

There is a lot of interesting reading material here for those who are interested.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

By the way, the same thing would have happened again after the "Great Flood". There was neither enough humans, nor animals on the boat for a good variety of genes.

[gadgetlady 4]

The word theory means something entirely different when used in scientific and mathematical terms than when used in lay terms.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Evolution is a theory, meaning it is not proven. There are many, many scientists who don't believe it. Everyone believes in the 2nd law of thermodynamics, or entropy. It is a law. It's the same as the law of gravity. No one disputes it.

[gadgetlady 4]

LOL-it's Friday and I'm feeling silly. So I have this mental picture of this REALLLLYY LOOONNGG phone cord following behind your car.

I don't think it's saying the same thing at all.

He's saying that "A" is farther from "D" then "M" is from "N", from that quote at least. He's not saying that "D" is closer to "M" then it is to "A".

I read that to mean that the difference between what his culture defined as "civilized people" and "savages" was bigger then between a domestic animal and a wild one. Comparing civilized people to domestic animals, savage ones to wild animals.

LOL! I have a cellular card with a very slow connection.

From what I've read, Darwin really did mean that the savages were closer to beasts than civilized people. This is not the only time he addressed the issue.

[gadgetlady 4]

Gadget's gonna have a long, long phone line because anything more up to date is a theory.

(Sorry, Gadget! I know that that is a cheap shot and I am fond of you. I just can't resist being a goof!)

Green, I expect cheap shots from you. Don't fret.

[gadgetlady 4]

I'm surprised no one would ever answer that for you. His wife was his sister.

EWWWW! That is super gross.

(shrugs) You asked. It was not uncommon in "old" times for people to marry family members.

It's just a pigment issue

What?!?!?!?!? Race is a skin pigment issue only??? Nothing to do with genetics?

If it's an issue of skin pigment only, where did the varied features of different races come from? Where did propensity towards certain diseases come from?

From similar people marrying together over time. If a black person and a black person have a baby, that baby will most likely be black. If an asian person and an asian person have a baby, that baby will most likely have slanted eyes.

Wait... are you one of those people who thinks the earth is 6,000 years old?

Sure am. It's easy to ridicule the belief, but there are quite a few highly educated people that believe it, too. I myself graduated from college Cum Laude in 3.3 years (we were on a trimester system) with a B.S. in Political Science and a minor in Mathematics. I went on to attend the Ph.D. program in Political Science at a major university (I didn't finish; life changes). I have studied this issue for many years and find it to be a very compelling theory. Have you spent any time researching the claims involved or have you dismissed it entirely without any research?

[gadgetlady 4]

OK, I can spend a lot of time cutting and pasting like a lot of others have done, or I can just direct you to some sites that may answer some questions. So I've chosen the faster method (sorry; I'm getting lazy):

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

Specific to the archaeopteryx issue: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4254news3-24-2000.asp

http://www.icr.org/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

There are also a number of very well written books, including my personal favorite, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis". You might check out the list of technical books on the Answers in Genesis site, which includes detailed studies of radiometric dating, genomes, flood geology, and a number of other topics. If you have an open mind, the information is out there and quite interesting.

[anonemouse 1]

Evolution is a theory, meaning it is not proven.

But theories are supported by evidence. Here is the heirarchy of scientific thought, based on amount of evidence supporting it (little to much):

hypothesis (Possible explanation for an observation, but not yet supported by evidence.)

theory (Another possible explanation for an observation, but is supported by a substantial amount of evidence and is generally accepted by the scientific community as the "correct" explanation.)

law (An explanation for an observation, supported by a very large amount of evidence and accepted by the entire scientific community as the "correct explanation")

What you don't seem to understand about science is that we are always trying to disprove our hypotheses, theories, and laws. They only get to the point of being called "laws" after many, many years and many, many experiments. While evolution hasn't quite had time to get to the point of "law" yet, it definitely isn't considered a hypothesis. If scientist came across definitive proof that disproved evolution, you can bet you would hear about it, since that is our aim, after all. The whole basis of "science" is that scientists are constantly trying to disprove concepts. If it wasn't, it would be, well, religion or faith.

[gadgetlady 4]

What you don't seem to understand about science is that we are always trying to disprove our hypotheses, theories, and laws. They only get to the point of being called "laws" after many, many years and many, many experiments. While evolution hasn't quite had time to get to the point of "law" yet, it definitely isn't considered a hypothesis. If scientist came across definitive proof that disproved evolution, you can bet you would hear about it, since that is our aim, after all. The whole basis of "science" is that scientists are constantly trying to disprove concepts. If it wasn't, it would be, well, religion or faith.

Thanks, laurend. I do understand scientific methodology.

But your post absolutely cracks me up. Evolution-believing scientists don't try to disprove evolution. Rather, they jump through hoops to keep it alive, and amend the theory time and time again to match any evidence that is discovered that disputes it. History is full of pieced-together "proof" of evolution (Nebraska Man, anybody?).

[Wheetsin 714]

Nebrasks Man is very familiar, it's the "old glory" - or one of them anyway, that creationists use to try and discredit evolutionary theory. An instance of not knowing the facts of what was said, the full extent of the possibilites that were admitted, or what it was indeed "called".

I'm lazy too.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html

[gadgetlady 4]

Regardless of whether it was the tooth of a pig or a primate, the models drawn from a single tooth were a complete form. How do you draw a complete BEING from a single TOOTH? It's ridiculous whether it was a pig's tooth OR a primate's tooth.

[Wheetsin 714]

How do you draw a complete BEING from a single TOOTH?

It's actually not that far from what forensice pathologists do today, with amazing accuracy. Entire bodies are recreated from a fraction of a cheekbone, or a piece of jaw. A piece of jaw that's less total mass than a single tooth. I don't know if it's done with teeth, but I can ask next time I see our neighbor. She does this, only with clay instead of a pencil and paper. Can't remember what it's called. It's really fascinating to hear her talk about it, and see the progressions. Her success rate, of recovered persons or bodies, is something like 89%.

*Edited to fix my bad. She is the FP, He is the crime scene photographer.

[Wheetsin 714]

An honest question about YEC. I'm fairly familiar with the idea, but not with the minutia.

The speed of light is exactly 299,792,478 meters/second. The farthest visible galaxy (unaided) is the Andromeda galaxy, 2.2 million light years away from us.

If the universe did not exist until 6k years ago, how can we see light that had to originate 2.2 million years ago?

Does YEC stipulate that the speed of light is wrong?

* Edited - Oy, I'm tired, Correction to my own stupid mistake above in blue.

[Wheetsin 714]

Better yet, take SN1997FF, a type 1 supernova that's more than 11 billion lightyears away. (Meant to post this sooner but had to delete more Britney Spears links!)

If the sun burnt out, it would take us 8 minutes to know. It's 8 light minutes away. It's hard to even conceive of something as old and far as 11 billion lightyears.

(This is the useless knowledge that Wheetsin gets for being married to a hobbyist astrophysician and quantum theorist)