please state your view, your discipline and give some details of your academic credentials.
2006-10-23 19:20:32 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
IF YOU DON'T PROVIDE CREDENTIALS, YOU'RE ANSWER IS NULL AND VOID. THANKS.
2006-10-23 19:25:42 · update #1
Kura: are you a scientist though? Studying? what does that mean? I have been studying science for the past 35 years, but I am NOT a scientist by trade.
2006-10-23 19:27:10 · update #2
esoreinna: why am i worked up about the fact that my child may be taught religion in his public school science class? well, a) science belongs in science class, b) a piece of paper called the 1st amendment to the U.S. constitution. try reading it!
2006-10-23 19:35:58 · update #3
p.p.: from which university? where were the papers published?
2006-10-23 19:43:06 · update #4
1st - Physics (Electricity), Archeology
2nd - Biology, Chemistry,
Currently a student at the University of Calgary
As for some of the details you popsted.
true maybe religion shouldn't be taught in public schools but also
only Pure science should be taught in schools
Theories are not pure science.
I have been studying Science for the last 10 years
and as for the Theory of Evolution, it is Just that a Theory.
it is basiically like trying to guess what a picture is by only looking at less than one percent of the whole picture.
There are millions of species alive today, and many more species have gone extinct over the history of this planet. also out of the billions of single life forms that have lived on this planet very few Fossils have actually been discovered.(this is the <1%)
these fossils that have been discovered have been used to map out a Theory of Evolution composed of Plateus (rungs of a ladder or steps on a staircase, but with nothing connecting the steps or rungs together) of species. but there are no fossils that have been found that are between these Plateus. for the Theory to ever become a Fact what is reqired is to find fossils that clearly show the change of one species into another (rope, rope-ladder(rungs), or chain of fossil evidence, when graphed will show a slope with horizontal flat sections) or for some currently living animal to give birth to something that is unable to reproduce with the Mother species but is able to reproduce with one that is identical to it.
An Evolutionary-Mutation would be fertile,but would have a completely different Genome from the Parent Species, unlike a normal mutation which damages the genetic code leaving the child infertile or with severe birth defects that ussually end in death, example is a mule which is the cross between a donkey and a horse. though it is similar to the parent species it is unable to reproduce with either species or with other crosses. it is there fore infertile and there for it is a mutation and is not considered a new species.
Many people have tried to claim that the Finches of Galapagos Island and other areas of the world are able to evolve. this is not the case all it is is a case of special specialization. it is simply a case of rececive genes taking dominance through variences in food availability. (the differences noticed in the Finches have been beak sizes and shapes).
As food availability changes the finches that have the genes which will enable them to make the best use of the available foods will gain dominance over those finches whose beak genes are specialized toward the food that is out of season or no longer available. there fore the average shape of the beaks will change over time in acordance to what food is readily available.
The finches have not changed species thay have just become specialized within their species. this can also cause some Genes to become extinct within a Species or Race. this is why "Race" could even be concidered to exist. Can make the Species Stronger or weaker based on what genes are lost over time.
On the other hand if the finches were no longer able to reproduce with the parent species but were only able to reproduce with other finches with the same beak size and shape then that Would mean that they had undergone Evolutionary-Mutation.
But this could only be tested in a Labratory under Precice Conditions.
2006-10-23 19:24:57 · answer #1 · answered by Kuraimizu 3 · 4⤊ 6⤋
Chemical Engineer State University of Ny At Buffalo. (Back when computers were rare)
Chemist - occupation 10 years.
young earth theory - (6000 years). God has proven himself to me beyond doubt many times.
There is a saying that if the odds of something is greater than the number of atoms in the universe, then it is false (or the negative is true).
My opinion is that that God has shown himself real through conicidences enough to be real beyond doubt.
God will never be proven 100% (or 0%) he will approach the limits while leaving room for faith.
As for evolution - the theory needs a lot of rework to have micro evolution fit into macroevolution in a 6000 year period.
An example is dinosaur tracks in Texas, and a Maryland science museum.
There is a museum that shows 2 species of dinosaur tracks from Texas imbedded inside on another, they go off on how they chase each other, and scenes and renditions that they are fighting each other.
100 miles away in Texas are dinosaur tracks with human tracks imbedding the same way. - this is just disregarded as not possible. All other things are the same. No science has found to disprove, other then common sense. Is that real science
All the above is just my opinon
2006-10-24 03:12:23 · answer #2 · answered by Slave to JC 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋
I'm an astrophysicist - but I DO believe in evolution. And so does every scientist I have ever met. And I've met quite a few.
Edit: OK, credentials. BA in physics and astronomy from a top-ranked libral arts college. MS in physics from MSU. Ph.D. to be finished within the next year or two from a top-ranked university. History of research and publications with NSO and Harvard Center for Astrophysics. Worked as an assistant physics prof for several years.
2006-10-24 02:23:47 · answer #3 · answered by eri 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Tell me honestly why you are so worked up that any one would see it different then you?
And for the most part I've just kept looking for truth (some thing that makes sense) on my own and I am in Child Care and Development.
Yes I agree read it! For years an unproved theory has been shoved down kids throats not as a theory but truth with no other options shown (I for one would have enjoyed more ideas)
tell me how it made them better? Money? Success? OK so how would it harm them to see other ideas. My kids have Atheism shoved at them at school what should I do? Teach that's why I have kids to teach and give them more then I knew. Wouldn't it be better for your kids to see the truth and keep studying "Sir Arthur Eddington, once said, 'Don't worry if your theory doesn't agree with the observations, because they are probably wrong"
being passionate doesn't make it right not ever.
Seek truth.
2006-10-24 02:33:47 · answer #4 · answered by esoreinna 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
how could the eye have evolved? unless all of the sub-parts of the eye are persent, the visual system doesn't work. so step by step evolution of an eye wouldn't help an animal survive...like...what good's an eyeball unless there's an optic nerve and a visual cortex to interpret the converted electronic signal back into visual data?
so..for an eye to evolve, it had to come with all that stuff all at once, right? couldn't be step by step, so something with no eyes had to have offspring with eyes. this is called a ''hopeful monster.''
''so yeah...horseshoe crabs have eyes, mike. primitive eyes, but eyes nonetheless.'' okay, can you show me a transitional fossil record, how this animal evolved into something else?
and that's another thing...where are all the transitional fossils? if there are no ''hopefull creatures'' (such as lizards laying eggs that hatch into birds), then logically, evolution happened step by step, where are all these transitional fossils?
and how could a lizard that grows progressively longer and longer scales through generations of offspring (with hopes of forming them into feathers), have survived anyway? it'd be great to have really long scales that are almost feathers, but there is a point where the feather/scales are long enough and yet it still cannot fly...or run very successfully from predators, either. natural selection doesn't favour anything but ''hopeful monsters.''
2006-10-24 03:43:33 · answer #5 · answered by phtokhos 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Well I don't and I have 2 Masters in Chemistry and have 2 published papers too.
Any sane scientist without a hidden agenda to disprove creation will agree that the "Theory of Evolution" does not stand basic scientific scrutiny.
2006-10-24 02:40:45 · answer #6 · answered by P P 5 · 5⤊ 4⤋
I predict that the majority of scientist who don't support ToE come from the non-biological sciences like chemistry, chemical engineering or technical specialties such as engineering. (ToE supporter, physician, MSc in zoology)
2006-10-24 02:24:43 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Most scientists aren't in the religions section. and religious people who refuse to believe evolution is possible, and probably what happened, aren't scientists.
2006-10-24 02:24:05 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
I was a biologist...and I believe in evolution....BSC biology.
2006-10-24 02:24:45 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
I suggest you check out the Institute For Creation Research.
www.icr.org
Blessed Be
2006-10-24 02:23:28 · answer #10 · answered by Celestian Vega 6 · 0⤊ 7⤋