If someone were to come along with OVERWHELMING scientific evidence that contradicted your beliefs? What if someone could offer the most overwhelming HARD scientific argument ever produced, that could...
1) show how life originated on this planet
2) show that all life as we know it (the DNA world) was "created" by a biochemical process that is ongoing today
3) provide a means by which speciation (macroevolution) occurs (something that no current theory can do)
4) explain why we have two sexes (something current science cannot explain)
5) provide a mechanism for the aging process (i.e. explain why we age and die)
6) explain what happens to us (in a biological sense) when we die
7) provide a Designer, which created all (DNA) life on this planet, to which we return (biochemically) when we die
8) show (under a microscope) how this process is happening all the time, right under our noses... life being created...
Would you still be too closed-minded to alter your views?
2007-09-04 20:40:31 · 9 answers · asked by chris n 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
ANY AND ALL responses to the effect of, "this will never happen", are equivalent to admitting that YOU ARE thoroughly brain-washed, unscientific, and closed-minded...
the fact is, the book has already been written, and is the most successful theory ever produced on the life sciences... it DEFINITIVELY answers more than 40 critical questions that current science cannot answer...
2007-09-04 20:47:13 · update #1
PEOPLE... just answer the question... IF THIS HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, PROVIDING THE MOST DEFINITIVE ARGUMENT EVER PRODUCED were presented to you... are you too brain-washed to even consider it?
added bonus: this theory supports aspects of BOTH creation AND evolution... but shows that neither theory is correct as it stands today...
Remember... people were once convinced the earth was flat... that the earth was at the center of the universe... etc... and held these beliefs in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence...
IS THIS YOU???
2007-09-04 20:53:53 · update #2
Regarding Blue's response... this is pseudo-science... you have not successfully answered ANY of those questions... not 1...
Natural selection DOES NOT explain speciation... EVEN DARWIN KNEW THIS! he pointed out that his theory would predict a fossil record that does not and never has existed, and admitted that if these fossils could not be found, it would be the death of his theory... Natural selection and variation ONLY explain microevolution... THEY CANNOT EXPLAIN SPECIATION...
NONE OF YOUR ANSWERS WERE ADEQUATE... i am talking science... NOT pseudo-science...
EVEN SCIENCE KNOWS IT CANNOT CURRENTLY ANSWER ANY OF THESE QUESTIONS! So what's wrong with you???
2007-09-04 21:19:55 · update #3
side note: this question has been posted also in the philosophy and the science sections... the responses there are at least somewhat respectable, so far... the responses here are a joke! Use your brains people... this is a very direct question... ANSWER IT!
2007-09-04 21:22:14 · update #4
Bring it on! Growth is an on going process.I want my little brain to burst with knowledge,I want to challenge everything I have ever known for fact,I want to change and bloom again.The only fundamental I hold dear,is my belief that people are basically good,all the rest can be turned upside down.
2007-09-04 21:29:07 · answer #1 · answered by Barbara D 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"1) show how life originated on this planet"
We can only demonstrate how life could have originated. And we have done that already.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
"2) show that all life as we know it (the DNA world) was "created" by a biochemical process that is ongoing today"
See my response to part (1)
"3) provide a means by which speciation (macroevolution) occurs (something that no current theory can do)"
Natural selection explains speciation.
"4) explain why we have two sexes (something current science cannot explain)"
Again, sexual reproduction can be explained by natural selection. Genetic diversity is a safeguard against bad (lethal) genes.
"5) provide a mechanism for the aging process (i.e. explain why we age and die)"
Natural selection can tackle this one, too. Simply put, we die so that others may live. If we were just a race of asexual immortals, we would not be a successful species. The whole impetus behind life as we understand it is competitive adaptation. Sexual reproduction and genetic mutation insure a generation of different organisms, some of which will be better able to survive in the slightly different environment. With scarce resources, extreme longevity would send birth rates through the floor, and we would be stuck with a species unable to adapt to the ever-changing surroundings ââ⺠extinction.
"6) explain what happens to us (in a biological sense) when we die"
Your brain stops functioning. If you mean us as in our "soul", then...your brain stops functioning. Someone pulled back from the brink of death with an amazing story does not constitute quantifiable data.
"7) provide a Designer, which created all (DNA) life on this planet, to which we return (biochemically) when we die"
Your "designer" was a chemical reaction that formed the amino acid bases of DNA.
EDIT:
Ok, I get it now. This is the latest tack in the creationist's war-making handbook. Sneaky. And here I just thought you didn't know anything about science...
Natural selection is not pseudo science. Merely asserting that a theory explains a phenomenon is not adequate, I agree, but I can't exactly give you a lecture on chemistry and biology here now, can I? The theory itself is disprovable by use of the scientific method, immediately removing it from the pseudo-science category. Yes, there are gaps in the fossil record, as there are gaps of evidence in EVERY scientific theory. Not every strange aspect of Relativity has been observed, and yet it is one of our most cherished theories. We have been witness to many profound instances of natural selection just since we've been looking, all of which ARE supporting evidence for natural selection. The peppered moth is a personal favorite of mine. If you are so blind as to not see that, then that is your problem.
There is NO biochemical distinction between "micro-" and "macro-" evolution. The driving force behind them is variation and selection. What causes a daughter species to break away from a parent species is sexual isolation of a population of organisms, most likely because of geographical separation. The 2 separated populations undergo variation and selection in their own locales and eventually become unable to interbreed. That's all. This IS the modern understanding of evolution, no matter how much you want to stomp your feet and say "no!".
EDIT 2:
Why are you answering your own question (2 answerers below mine)?
2007-09-05 04:08:19 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pay attention to Blue's answer above... this is an example of pseudo-science gone wrong...
The current theory of evolution is NOT Natural selection... this is not my opinion, this is fact... the current theory of evolution is the neo-Darwinian synthesis... and it does NOT explain speciation... scientists are WELL AWARE of this problem... that is why one of the most respected Biologists of our time (Stephen Gould) proposed the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium... to account for the REALITY that the neo-Darwinian synthesis can not account for the missing transitional fossils that would be present if this were all that was needed... EVEN DARWIN KNEW THIS!
the neo-Darwinian synthesis states that evolution occurs by a gradual process of variation and natural selection... the variation is accounted for by random errors in the replication of the genetic code during reproduction...
This does not, has not, and can not provide for speciation... the sudden change from a species (such as chimps) into a new species (such as man)...
LISTEN GOOD HERE: gradual genetic variation cannot make a 24 chromosome (chimps) creature suddenly turn into a 23 chromosome creature (humans)... SCIENCE KNOWS THIS!
This doesn't mean it didn't happen... it just means the theory is wrong!
You are a pseudo-scientist... don't poison the world with your lack of knowledge!
2007-09-05 04:55:18 · answer #3 · answered by chris n 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I know what I believe, and I don't really care what "scientific evidence" there is for it or against it. There's all kinds of scientists who disagree with each other. You can always find some scientist who supports whatever you believe whether it's the debate over evolution or really anything else. I mean I could go to college and get a degree in some scientific topic and then say "science" proves all my beliefs. It's all interpretation. Best to just trust your gut.
2007-09-05 03:49:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm not closed minded, and I am a Christian.
I believe in intelligent design, by a being we call God. And I am sufficiently open-minded to believe God works in harmony with nature, shaping it much as a sculptor shapes a piece of clay.
So I think I am not the person or persons you are directing your question to.
Evidence is what we make of it.
2007-09-05 03:47:43 · answer #5 · answered by Warren D 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What if, tomorrow, someone came down and showed you beyond all doubt, that what you believe was a lot of hoo-hah and vain posturing, based on strawman arguments, false dichotomies, and outright misrepresentation of people's faiths???
You're the one who's "close-minded". Chew on that for a while.
2007-09-05 03:48:24 · answer #6 · answered by the phantom 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are no minds that are truly open in an ideal sense. All minds are biased and all minds are brainwashed. It's a matter of degree. Some minds are more biased and brainwashed than others.
2007-09-05 03:47:20 · answer #7 · answered by neuroaster 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I thought we already know all that stuff. Anyways, how can we know the design that took place before the big bang? Maybe we can drop you through a black hole.
2007-09-05 05:01:21 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
is this a question or a rant in disguise? bah
2007-09-05 03:44:10 · answer #9 · answered by Jasmine B 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋