Subject:
|
Re: Why not Both?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 10 Feb 2001 15:23:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
566 times
|
| |
|
|
This reply is brought about by Dave's direct request:
> Here's an example. Every living thing on Earth has DNA which works in pretty
> much the same way. From the way the DNA is structured we can infer
> relationships between all living things. To my mind, the evidence supports
> the theory that there was a single common ancestor to all life on earth,
> including the bacteria, protozoa, fungi, plants and animals, the last
> including humans. If a living thing was discovered that had different system
> (call it XNA), or it was shown that humans were qualitatively different from
> chimpanzees, that discovery would cause me to radically rethink my theory.
>
> Two questions:
> 1. How do you explain the similarity of the DNA of all living things?
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c018.html (sorry to keep
using and defending this source because you all hate it so much - but it
is the best online one that I know...if you're immediately plannng on
saying "that source isn't reliable - as you have said multiple other
times, then I can't help you. I could have retyped the entire thing and
not given credit to the original author - A SCIENTIST BY MOST STANDARDS
I WOULD THINK: Dr. Don Batten, Ph.D)
> 2. What evidence would cause you to look for another explanation?
This question is rather meaningless. Why look for evidence in the first
place? I'm not the one who has been throwing around statements like:
"You've hit on a key strength of science, though; the ability to reject
and
learn from past errors creates an ever stronger method of explanation,
which
is the fundamental goal of scientific pursuit."
(btw I don't have any problems with this particular statement - I think
it's a good point - but it kind of answers your own above question)
--
-TiM
NB, CA
http://echofx.itgo.com
t_c_c@yahoo.com
3ch0fx
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) I don't have a lot of time right now, so I'm not going to waste it refuting every point on this site (and there are MANY that are ludicrous), but the following is just too rich to pass up... "Aquatic air-breathing mammals such as whales and (...) (23 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) is incidental to the question, the answer seems to boil down to "The unity of the creation is testimony to the One True God who made it all." For my money this is a good explanation, IF you accept that (a) there is a One True God who made it (...) (23 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) I can't. That's the whole point. Because the Genesis creation story can be twisted to explain everything in the world, and because it is irrefutable as God's word, it can't be subjected to the same analysis as a scientific theory. (...) Here's (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
