No, back up that evolutionary theory is a cult.
Once again creationsim, inteligent design ect...is an outlook and a belief structure, a way to look at science. I take the same information that science has provided of which we all have access too and make my own conclusions.
And it does not matter what hundreds of P.H.D scientists think?
Religious preference or not I have high respect for many scientist wheather I know there deep personel belief structure or not. Why should I care what you think with these type of responses?
if Science is a God though, then my God is real while yours is most certainly not. My God has a corporal form that I can see and experience.
How is a template different from a code or a system used to organize information?
And are these genetic errors useful for promoting new adaptable forms of life?
Lastly is it observed that genetic errors benefit organisms today or the oppossite or have no effect whatsoever? BTW thx for the replies.
Molecules also self-organize. That is how the first imperfect organic replicators came into existence. From these, came the first true "life." Also, you are wrong when you claim that the DNA must form a "perfect" sequence for the system (organism) to function. Case in point: Your DNA sequence is different from mine, yet we both function fine. Case in Point #2: Protein sequences coded by DNA (genes) are different between different species, despite the fact that they all function similarly, and can even replace each other without affecting the function of the organism.There are self organizing systems that are obvious and then those in the case of biology that I have a hard time understanding. But even then systems work within a certain set of laws that govern the universe. Even grains of sand that organize themselves into clusters in the weightlessness of space from their own gravity is a system that abides by the 2nd law that makes sense to me. How did the first organisms along with their DNA organize themsleves. I liken DNA to computer code as to where the perfect sequence must be in place for the system to work as a whole.
There are a number of examples of "beneficial" mutations (I beleive that is what you are asking for). My favorite is glyphosate resistance in a population of goosegrass that was due to a single substitution mutation. Others are a frame-shift mutation that allowed a bacterium to digest nylonase, and the evolution of anti-freeze proteins in artic fish from a digestive enzyme.How is a template different from a code or a system used to organize information? And are these genetic errors useful for promoting new adaptable forms of life? Lastly is it observed that genetic errors benefit organisms today or the oppossite or have no effect whatsoever? BTW thx for the replies.
Evolution is a scientific theory that explains the diversity and distribution of life on earth. Period. It is not a "cult," just because you do not like its implications.And your signature quote, creationism is not a science but a framework for looking at science. And there are hundreds of scientist who believe in the biblical account of creation who have contributed to their specific area of expertise. I do like your fraggle rock picture though. Yes evolutionary theory has come along way it's more of a cult more now than ever.
Just like Judaism, Hinduism, and lets say...Bushido has nothing to contribute to science. Where is your reasoning and facts Pete? Once again creationsim, inteligent design ect...is an outlook and a belief structure, a way to look at science.
Wikipedia said:The Court's decision in this case (Lemon v. Kurtzman) established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:
The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.
If any of these 3 prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
I am also against the evolutionary doctrine that has been crammed into our school books for the past century when in fact it is still just a theory to me.
I think the former is more important than the latter, but OK.I think creationists should not advocate that Biblical creationism be taught in public schools, both because of judicial restrictions against religion in such schools and also (more importantly) because teachers who do not believe the Bible should not be asked to teach the Bible.
Why is it that creationists who claim to be "scientists" don't understand anything about science? In science a theory is a testable model based on confirmed hypotheses and observations that explains a set of natural phenomena, and is capable of making testable predictions and is verifiable through empirical observation.I am also against the evolutionary doctrine that has been crammed into our school books for the past century when in fact it is still just a theory to me.
Why should the origins of life be treated differently from gravity, chemical interactions, or the diffraction of light? The "scientific creation" model is not scientific, it is based on a religious belief. Why should religious models be taught along side scientific models in a science class?I came to lose faith in evolution at a young age even though at the time all I knew was evolution. I started to question how supposedly it was responsible for every living thing that exists and I just have not been given enough evidence of this in the classroom and out. I think science should be taught unbiased with the origins of life presented as a theory for which of course we have the evolutionary model and the scientific creation model along with the multitude of other models that exists.
I think creationists should not advocate that Biblical creationism be taught in public schools, both because of judicial restrictions against religion in such schools and also (more importantly) because teachers who do not believe the Bible should not be asked to teach the Bible.
I am also against the evolutionary doctrine that has been crammed into our school books for the past century when in fact it is still just a theory to me.
I came to lose faith in evolution at a young age even though at the time all I knew was evolution. I started to question how supposedly it was responsible for every living thing that exists and I just have not been given enough evidence of this in the classroom and out.
I think science should be taught unbiased with the origins of life presented as a theory for which of course we have the evolutionary model and the scientific creation model along with the multitude of other models that exists.
and the scientific creation model along with the multitude of other models that exists.
because teachers who do not believe the Bible should not be asked to teach the Bible.
I think creationists should not advocate that Biblical creationism be taught in public schools, both because of judicial restrictions against religion in such schools and also (more importantly) because teachers who do not believe the Bible should not be asked to teach the Bible.
I am also against the evolutionary doctrine that has been crammed into our school books for the past century when in fact it is still just a theory to me.
I came to lose faith in evolution at a young age even though at the time all I knew was evolution. I started to question how supposedly it was responsible for every living thing that exists and I just have not been given enough evidence of this in the classroom and out.
I think science should be taught unbiased with the origins of life presented as a theory for which of course we have the evolutionary model and the scientific creation model along with the multitude of other models that exists.
Have not Intelligent men been working on producing life in test tubes for years, and yet they continue to fail even with the code and materials of life available to them. From an evolutionary point of view, this makes mindless molecules more clever than man.
Have not Intelligent men been working on producing life in test tubes for years,
It takes more than just knowing the ingredients to bake a cake.and yet they continue to fail even with the code and materials of life available to them.
Without wanting to be insulting, and apologizing in advance, but this remark is just plain stupid.From an evolutionary point of view, this makes mindless molecules more clever than man.
Have not “Intelligent” men been working on producing life in test tubes for years, and yet they continue to fail even with the code and materials of life available to them. From an evolutionary point of view, this makes mindless molecules more clever than man.
Have not “Intelligent” men been working on producing life in test tubes for years, and yet they continue to fail even with the code and materials of life available to them.
From an evolutionary point of view, this makes mindless molecules more clever than man.
Have not “Intelligent” men been working on producing life in test tubes for years, and yet they continue to fail even with the code and materials of life available to them. From an evolutionary point of view, this makes mindless molecules more clever than man.