Nonfiction Books You Are Reading
Pages
| Author | Topic: Nonfiction Books You Are Reading |
|---|---|
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4214
|
written Wednesday, March 23 2005 09:45
Profile
quote:That is not my view. You misinterpreted. I believe that it isn't entirely impossible that an extraterrestrial being or race helped coincidence and time to create us. This is an entirely irreligious view. Posts: 356 | Registered: Tuesday, April 6 2004 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Wednesday, March 23 2005 10:31
Profile
Okay that justifies my first statement. -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Wednesday, March 23 2005 20:35
Profile
Homepage
quote:Pleased to help. While web-surfing I found a very interesting discourse between Dr. Lee Spetner (a creationist) and Dr. Edward Max (an evolutionist). It's quite technical, very long, and deals with subject matter I'm not familiar with. While I'm capable of following the arguments made, I'd be out of my depth if I tried to debate these points myself. Regardless, I hope it goes some way to satisfying your request for scientific references. Oh yeah, the link. -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Wednesday, March 23 2005 22:34
Profile
Thank you very much for taking the time to provide this information. These are the common arguments between those who follow evolution and those who don't, in a never-ending argument between the two. Spetner makes a comment in most of Max's turns using fairly bright blue type. As nice a color as it is it distracts for Max's comments. This makes this slightly difficult to read as Spetner speaks out of turn almost every time, clearly attempting to dominate the debate. Also Spetner chose not to elaborate on ware he feels the species originated. I have done little research in this field and would be unable to debate this extensively. From what I have read from varying sources including this one is that there is no sold evidence for either side. Creationists being unable to produce scientific evidence focus on disproving evolution. Though this is effective in showing science has yet to discover the origin of life it also leaves no evidence of their claims. -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, March 23 2005 22:43
Profile
Homepage
The thrust of most creationist arguments that rely on genetics is that every step of a mutational process leading to a new gene must be beneficial (which would indeed seem unlikely). However, this isn't strictly true -- in order to have a reasonable chance of being passed on, a mutation need not be beneficial, it need only not be harmful. Geneticists generally believe that most mutations are selectively neutral: neither harmful nor beneficial, so just as likely as not to be passed on. Most mutations occur in non-genic regions of DNA, so it's relatively unlikely that they'll ever have any effect, positive or negative. However, a few do occur in genes. Selectively neutral mutations in genes tend to be in genes which are unnecessary to survival, often because these genes are near-exact duplicates of other genes (there are several mechanisms by which gene-duplication events may occur; they're relatively common). Now, in general, when several copies of a gene exist, an organism won't be harmed if most of them accumulate mutations (usually, only one copy will be conserved in its original state; which copy is conserved is fixed as being whichever one doesn't accumulate a loss-of-function mutation). Sometimes the non-conserved copies will turn into a functionless "pseudogene", but other times one or more of them may become different genes with new and useful functions. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
FAQSELF
Member # 3
|
written Thursday, March 24 2005 13:23
Profile
Talk.Origins also has some info on the Spetner/Max debate, from Max's perspective. I'm inherently distrustful of Information-theory based arguments relating to the evolution of life. Information theory sounds cool and is hard to comprehend, so it's easy to confuse people. It's akin to the application of entropy to social situations: dq/T > 0 somehow means my girlfriend is going to break up with me? DNA codes for RNA which codes for proteins. The "information" content of a DNA strand is merely the order in which nucleobases are arranged- this codes for specific amino acids which form proteins. Variation in base pairs merely results in variation in protein shape and occasionally, function. Tacking on "information theory" to this is like using quantum mechanics to describe a falling ball- it's too easy to make a math error. -------------------- A few cats short of a kitten pot pie... Radioactive cats have 18 half-lives. Check out a great source for information on Avernum 2, Nethergate, and Subterra: Zeviz's page. Finally, there's my Geneforge FAQ, Geneforge 2 FAQ, and Geneforge 3 FAQ. Posts: 2831 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Master
Member # 4614
|
written Thursday, March 24 2005 14:07
Profile
Homepage
First, the books I'm reading: The Universe and Beyond by Terence Dickinson Speed Mathematics by Bill Handley Out of the Blue by John Naylor Now, I think the principle of "God-guided evolution" is correct, but not totally. The Bible says that God created the universe in six days, but it doesn't define exactly a "day", and there is no linear time with God, so the periods of time referred to as "days" doesn't necessarily have to coincide with one rotation of the Earth. However, I don't believe in the "evolution" on life forms into different life forms ie. all of us humans once came from the sea. There's no real evidence that humans have evolved that much anatomically in the recorded time span of history. Though there is evidence of other human-like life forms e.g. the Neanderthals, there's no direct evidence that the Homo sapiens of today evolved for the whatever it was back then. We're separate species, and they went extinct. Therefore, the universe didn't necessarily start 6000 years ago; the Big Bang and the universe being 13.7 billion years old could and probably is all true, but God created it and supervised its workings---and put life on the earth. Considering the one in trillions chance of life coming together by pure chance, it's not very difficult to believe that instead of us evolving form primitive microorganisms, Adam was created by God's divine power. -------------------- -ben4808 For those who love to spam: CSM Forums RIFQ Posts: 3360 | Registered: Friday, June 25 2004 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Thursday, March 24 2005 14:22
Profile
Homepage
Mmmh. Actually, I expected this thread to change direction much sooner. Non-fiction necessarily involves serious thought, and serious thought involves Opinions. So while we managed to avoid discussing the environment after the mention of Adams' "Last Chance to See", or US politics after "Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them", or the Iraq war after "Baghdad Burning", we finally got stuck on evolution vs. creationism. Not that bad, actually. E&C, on Spiderweb, has this curious lack of flamage, very unlike abortion or politics. Perhaps the lesser of many evils. :) -------------------- The Encyclopaedia Ermariana <-- Now a Wiki! "Polaris leers down from the black vault, winking hideously like an insane watching eye which strives to convey some strange message, yet recalls nothing save that it once had a message to convey." --- HP Lovecraft. "I single Aran out due to his nasty temperament, and his superior intellect." --- SupaNik Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Thursday, March 24 2005 14:27
Profile
Homepage
quote:I wouldn't say he was trying to dominate the debate. Each man had a lot to say. In addition to that, I think Spetner did say where he felt the species originated (though I suppose it would be technically accurate, but also misleading to say he did not elaborate). Regardless, as long as the correspondence is, I think Spetner did the right thing in keeping the debate within the bounds of Max's original essay. Thuryl, again I'm not comfortable with this level of science, so I won't debate the point. However, I do think that point was adressed somewhat in the Spetner/Max debate. Schro - If I'm not mistaken, the link you provided was essentially the same piece, but without Spetner's blue-type comments. While it's true that the guy who gets the last say will generally be portrayed in the more positive light, I don't believe the link you provided offers any different perspective or information - it merely does not include the most recent additions to the debate. -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Thursday, March 24 2005 14:33
Profile
Homepage
quote:It does specify that there was evening and morning. While I suppose you could argue that the evening and morning could have each lasted for many millions of years, it would be something of a stretch. -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Thursday, March 24 2005 14:46
Profile
Homepage
It's worthy of note that the Hebrew word used for 'day' was defined as more or less 'workday' - i.e. from the time someone starts working to the time someone stops. In the native culture this usually, but not always, conformed to sunrise and sunset, but it would not be seen as particularly strange for a man to describe a 'day' of 36 hours. It's not inconcievable that the 'days' of God would be millenia long, which is far more compatible with everything we know about the Earth than the idea that Genesis happened in one real week. It saddens me to see otherwise reasonable people bend over backwards, ignore the sum of human progress, and treat plain and obvious fact as a deceptive, cruel thing for no greater purpose than to prove their parents weren't lying to them like they were about the other jolly old man who would reward them for being good. There are plenty of parts of the Bible which are vital to a good life, and plenty which are factually and morally bankrupt. Taking both as equally infallible reeks of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. [ Thursday, March 24, 2005 14:52: Message edited by: Bad-Ass Mother Custer ] -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Thursday, March 24 2005 15:20
Profile
Homepage
quote:Well, even if I agreed with you there, it would be more accurate to say keeping the bathwater with the baby. :P Regarding plain and obvious facts, if it's possible to argue about the meaning of the word 'day' in a context where evening and morning are specifically referred to, I don't think there are all that many facts that are indeed plain and obvious. -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Thursday, March 24 2005 15:26
Profile
Homepage
Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. Genesis 1:3 - 2:3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. ... And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. ... And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. So either 'day' means 'work period' on at least some level or the Bible is internally inconsistent. Your call. -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Thursday, March 24 2005 20:04
Profile
Homepage
Interesting. It doesn't appear that way in the NIV, which is what I generally use. quote:That's what I get. I suppose the easy cop-out answer is to say that the KJV is internally inconsistent. :P I don't know the original language or text, so I can't say for sure whether or not there actually is an inconsistency there. I'm inclined to think not, and that the KJV was imperfectly translated. But isn't this more or less beside the point? Even if it said "God made the heavens and the earth in six days, and these were literal days, of the same length that everyone since then has used, and they included both the night and the day, and were not subject to Daylight Savings, thus saith the LORD," it's not like that would make you say "Well, that's it. Evolution is bunk." Edit: BTW, am I right in assuming that it is the KJV you were quoting? [ Thursday, March 24, 2005 20:05: Message edited by: Ash Lael ] -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Thursday, March 24 2005 20:55
Profile
Homepage
The KJV is translated imperfectly, but it's translated directly. It's a direct, almost faintly Babelfishish translation from the source. The NIV adds a lot of interpretation and 'correction' to the text. The editors of the KJV and other such versions did not particularly care if one verse said the Earth was made in one yom and in another said the Earth was made in seven, all they know is that 'yom' means 'day' and their job is to translate it, not interpret it. As opposed to the NIV, whose editors had plenty staked on the idea of the Bible being the inerrant Word, and considered inconsistencies removable. A study of the original Greek or Hebrew Genesis will turn up the same inconsistency as the KJV English Genesis; this inconsistency does not exist in the NIV precisely because the NIV people took it upon themselves to 'correct' it. EDIT: If I believed that Christianity conflicted directly with science, I would not be a Christian. The bible tells us to test everything, doesn't it? [ Thursday, March 24, 2005 20:59: Message edited by: Bad-Ass Mother Custer ] -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Thursday, March 24 2005 22:04
Profile
Homepage
Interpretation is part of translation, isn't it? Anyway, I'd prefer to leave that issue aside for now, and simply discuss the science. [ Thursday, March 24, 2005 22:05: Message edited by: Ash Lael ] -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
