[quote=jrk;173717]You appear to have confused the theory of evolution with the theory of abiogenesis.[/quote]
Actually, I haven't--evolution requires that everything evolved from nonliving raw materials scattered by the Big Bang, which innately requires abiogenesis.
[quote=jrk;173719]How do you suppose evolution must stop before reaching the point of producing a new species? Where is the mechanism to control evolution in that way?

Regarding micro vs macro evolution, the distinction isn't valid in this context. One is simply an iterated version of the other.


It only had to happen once, and it may be that it did only happen once (nobody knows how many times it has happened).[/quote]
What I mean is that I do not believe there is sufficient evidence to support that it's possible for a lifeform to, without intelligent interference, mutate into different species. Animals can be bred into different types of the same animal, or even close cousins of that animal (which are still essentially the same animal--dog vs. wolf, for example)--but even the most advanced and intelligent scientists have not been able to produce a pig from a salamander, or even anything remotely in between. The salamanders always retain the common features of a salamander, and the pigs always retain the common features of a pig. They never gain the distinctive features of a separate species.

[QUOTE=mdettweiler;173722]Well, the way I see it, you either believe in God or you don't. Quite frankly, if you don't believe that He was telling the truth in saying that He created the universe in 6 days, how can you believe that He can save you from your sins (which is the central concept of Christianity)? God is either a liar or He isn't--take your pick. If you belive that He is a liar in regard to the creation of the world, then who's to say that the rest of His word's don't have the same dubiosity?[/QUOTE]

Man wrote the bible, not god. Man makes mistakes and there plenty of translations of the bible with mistakes in them. Which one is correct? Every word attributed to god was passed from generation to generation orally before it was finally written. We no longer have the original text, so how can we know that what we have is even close to the original text? How can you prove that something didn't get dropped or added along the way? Thinks of rumors and how a simple rumor spread orally becomes bigger than life after a few tellings. How can one prove that the Christian god is the real deal as opposed to any other deity from any other faith? Nobody can. All believers must take it on faith.

[QUOTE=mdettweiler;173722]At the risk of repeating an argument that some of you may have heard before, here is an example that I am sure anyone living nowadays can relate to quite easily. Say you have a junkyard, containing all the parts necessary to build a Boeing 747 (let's assume all the parts are working). A tornado blows through the junkyard and mixes everything up. What are the odds that that tornado would assemble a perfectly functioning 747, without any intelligence intervening? Even if you had a trillion tornadoes buzz through that junkyard in succesion, the likelihood that a functioning 747 would emerge is still so remote that nobody, even most (if not all) evolutionary scientists would immediately dismiss the possibility out of hand.[/QUOTE]

The flaw in the reasoning is that you want a 747. Mankind could have taken many forms. Our present form is only one of many possible (and probably infinite) forms for a sentient being. You also miss a key piece of evolution, specifically natural selection. The concept of a billion tornados describes chaos, not natural selection.

Anyways, we have digressed a bit from the topic. I stated that the Republican marriage to Christian conservatives is a major stumbling block for me and keeps me away from the party. I suspect that the Democrats distancing themselves from the Christian conservatives is a major stumbling block for IDers and creationists.

[quote=rogue;173727]Man wrote the bible, not god. Man makes mistakes and there plenty of translations of the bible with mistakes in them. Which one is correct? Every word attributed to god was passed from generation to generation orally before it was finally written. We no longer have the original text, so how can we know that what we have is even close to the original text? How can you prove that something didn't get dropped or added along the way? Thinks of rumors and how a simple rumor spread orally becomes bigger than life after a few tellings. How can one prove that the Christian god is the real deal as opposed to any other deity from any other faith? Nobody can. All believers must take it on faith.[/quote]
That, then, is the crux of the issue. I believe that, based on the accuracy of all the predictions and descriptions made in the Bible--many of them years before the events they describe actually occurred--the human writers of the Bible had to have been divinely inspired to write exactly what they did. They could have not made such accurate predictions of the future unless they were given that knowledge by a being with the ability to know that future.
[quote]The flaw in the reasoning is that you want a 747. Mankind could have taken many forms. Our present form is only one of many possible (and probably infinite) forms for a sentient being. You also miss a key piece of evolution, specifically natural selection. The concept of a billion tornados describes chaos, not natural selection.[/quote]
But, I was referring to the development of the first lifeform, from non-living components, from which all life is supposedly derived. Without preexisting life, natural selection could not occur. The only factors would have been chaotic, random ones--such as the tornado in my example.
[quote]Anyways, we have digressed a bit from the topic. I stated that the Republican marriage to Christian conservatives is a major stumbling block for me and keeps me away from the party. I suspect that the Democrats distancing themselves from the Christian conservatives is a major stumbling block for IDers and creationists.[/quote]
Agreed--we have digressed quite a bit from the topic of this thread. The reason why I originally brought up about ID was to point out an example of anti-science behavior on the part of Democrats. The large amount of debate sparked by that one post of mine is proof that this topic is far from having reached a consensus. Thus, to deny students the opportunity to examine both sides of the issue equally, and decide for themselves based on the evidence which interpretation they believe is correct, goes against the scientific quest for the accurate truth.

In the spirit of this thread's intent, I will propose another example relevant to the discussion of what constitutes an anti-science position and what does not. At least a few separate contributors to this thread have stated that they believe pro-life legislation and policies were anti-science. This breaks down to a fundamental question of life and death: does a human fetus qualify as a sentient lifeform? Obviously no one (at least that I know of) actually remembers being in their mother's womb, so firsthand evidence is moot. Thus, we are left with what is essentially an unknown. The general principle in science is to err on the side of caution: if in doubt about the status of a lifeform's sentience, one should protect it, rather than kill it, even if that stands in the way of scientific research that could potentially (or could not) save the lives of lifeforms that are known to be sentient. I submit that to destroy a lifeform whose sentience is in question goes against the scientific quest for truth, by devaluing it and thus assuming that it is nonsentient, without actual evidence. This, my friends, is truly anti-science behavior. By extension, to forbid scientists to continue killing lifeforms whose sentience is validly debated, is indeed quite pro-science. It forces them, instead, to carefully and completely find the truth of the situation, rather than to circumvent that crucial part of the scientific process and put innocent sentients at risk.

I don't suppose vBulletin® has an option to ignore an entire thread, does it?

Mini-geek,

God told Adam that he would die in the day that he ate the fruit. It took nearly 1000 years. I think one can be a Christian and not necessarily believe that the Bible is talking about 6 consecutive 24-hour periods. (Nor even interpret the Bible to support creation ex nihilo; which seems to have been a latter addition from the creeds arising are Nicea.)

-----

mdettweiler,

With regards to the science of life/sentience for a fetus, it's stronger than that. There is no question that a fetus, after say 3 months, has the capability to think, at some level. There is no question that after say 5 months, with the proper technology the fetus can survive to adulthood outside the womb. The thinking/feeling part of a child develops much more quickly than many of the other organs.

There is also no question that abortions have a negative psychological impact on the abortee. Almost invariably, the woman later feels guilt. Almost invariably, she wishes she hadn't done it, had more education, etc...

There is also no question that the procedure is used too often, and for convenience rather than need.

That said, I actually agree with many that the Republican party is too strict on abortions. The platform should allow it, when restricted to the first trimester, for cases of rape/incest. Or when the baby has major physical/genetic problems. They could stipulate that there be required counseling, so the mother understands the grief she will likely feel. This position, which some will continue to disagree with, is at least reasonable (according to the standard of current America sentiment).

That also said, it does seem to be the case that abortion advocates seem to ignore the science of how human an unborn child is. Some going to the extreme of not trying to save the life of a child who survives partial-birth abortion. [I think any abortion advocate should have to witness any sort of abortion method they advocate for. The day after-pill would likely lose very few supporters, but some of the other methods would [appropriately] die a quick death.]

[quote=Zeta-Flux;173731]Mini-geek,

God told Adam that he would die in the day that he ate the fruit. It took nearly 1000 years. I think one can be a Christian and not necessarily believe that the Bible is talking about 6 consecutive 24-hour periods. (Nor even interpret the Bible to support creation ex nihilo; which seems to have been a latter addition from the creeds arising are Nicea.)[/quote]
Actually, I can see quite easily how "dying the day he ate the fruit" fits in with Adam's 900+-year lifespan. Simple: on the day he ate the forbidden fruit, Adam became doomed to die, and died a spiritual death in which he was no longer a sinless creature. Thus, his actions on that day are what killed him.

[quote]mdettweiler,

With regards to the science of life/sentience for a fetus, it's stronger than that. There is no question that a fetus, after say 3 months, has the capability to think, at some level. There is no question that after say 5 months, with the proper technology the fetus can survive to adulthood outside the womb. The thinking/feeling part of a child develops much more quickly than many of the other organs.

There is also no question that abortions have a negative psychological impact on the abortee. Almost invariably, the woman later feels guilt. Almost invariably, she wishes she hadn't done it, had more education, etc...

There is also no question that the procedure is used too often, and for convenience rather than need.[/quote]
I agree that all those much stronger reasons are also quite valid. However, for the purpose of the point which I was arguing, my argument needed to be one which applied to all stages of human growth, including that of a just-fertilized embryo (like those killed for stem cell research), which not all of the points you stated cover.

[quote]That said, I actually agree with many that the Republican party is too strict on abortions. The platform should allow it, when restricted to the first trimester, for cases of rape/incest. Or when the baby has major physical/genetic problems. They could stipulate that there be required counseling, so the mother understands the grief she will likely feel. This position, which some will continue to disagree with, is at least reasonable (according to the standard of current America sentiment).[/quote]
But, for that matter, isn't a human still just as much a human, regardless of his parentage or the situation surrounding his birth? Regardless of whether the mother willingly allowed the baby to be conceived, or whether the parents were genetically distinct enough to produce a 100% healthy child, doesn't he still have the right to live? Even if he has major physical/genetic problems, the baby should still be allowed to live because, quite frankly, it's better to have a life hampered by problems than no life at all. :smile:

[QUOTE=mdettweiler;173728]Obviously no one (at least that I know of) actually remembers being in their mother's womb, so firsthand evidence is moot. Thus, we are left with what is essentially an unknown.[/QUOTE]

Even if you determine an embryo to be a human with all rights as a human, there is necessarily a conflict of rights vs the pregnant female (assuming, of course, that everyone owns their own bodies, the alternative being slavery). I would tend to side with the pregnant female, which I have better chance of observing to be sentient.

[QUOTE]This, my friends, is truly anti-science behavior. By extension, to forbid scientists to continue killing lifeforms whose sentience is validly debated, is indeed quite pro-science. It forces them, instead, to carefully and completely find the truth of the situation, rather than to circumvent that crucial part of the scientific process and put innocent sentients at risk.[/QUOTE]
Talking about "forbidding" and "forcing" others to submit to your values is not discussing science, but politics. Well, I guess you could call it "political science..."

[QUOTE=mdettweiler;173722]-Finding the remains of a lifeform that is unequivocably a "missing link" between two other distinct lifeforms. Note that I say "unequicovably"--there have been numerous so-called "apeman" fossils discovered throughout the ages that have turned out to be either frauds, or misconceptions.[/QUOTE]
If you do not believe that the history of life is a long continuum, then you can point to any two fossils and ask "show me one in between." And when someone does, you can ask the same again.

Pointing to cases of fraud as a means of discrediting the entire field is not valid. If you are already prepared to call anything which might show a convincing evidence to you a fraud, then you've already decided to never be convinced on the subject and everything will be fraud.

[quote=jrk;173734]Even if you determine an embryo to be a human with all rights as a human, there is necessarily a conflict of rights vs the pregnant female (assuming, of course, that everyone owns their own bodies, the alternative being slavery). I would tend to side with the pregnant female, which I have better chance of observing to be sentient.[/quote]
But, there is a flaw in your logic: the baby would be giving up his entire life, whereas the mother would only be suffering relatively minor disadvantages for no more than 9 months at minimum. To say that there is an equivalent conflict of rights is to compare apples with oranges.
[quote]Talking about "forbidding" and "forcing" others to submit to your values is not discussing science, but politics. Well, I guess you could call it "political science..."[/quote]
This is not simply a case of someone's personal values. It is a case of life and death. To knowingly rob a potentially sentient lifeform of its life is a grievous breach of scientific ethics, not merely politics.

[quote=jrk;173736]If you do not believe that the history of life is a long continuum, then you can point to any two fossils and ask "show me one in between." And when someone does, you can ask the same again.

Pointing to cases of fraud as a means of discrediting the entire field is not valid. If you are already prepared to call anything which might show a convincing evidence to you a fraud, then you've already decided to never be convinced on the subject and everything will be fraud.[/quote]
I did not attempt to discredit the entire field due to individual cases of fraud. All I stated is that the evidence would need to be unequivocable in order to be accepted as proof, rather than the admittedly doubtful selections that have been produced so far, which are open to a wide range of interpretation.

[QUOTE=mdettweiler;173737]This is not simply a case of someone's personal values. It is a case of life and death. To knowingly rob a potentially sentient lifeform of its life is a grievous breach of scientific ethics, not merely politics.[/QUOTE]
We were not talking about the quality of personal values and ethics, but whether forbidding and forcing others to one set of values is pro-science or not (you claimed it was, and that's all I was objecting to).