Expelled

[DigitalShadow]

Actually, being a former programer and system engineer, you conclusion is incorrect in regards to your last statement. It is not AI programming for self-learning is the issue, anything that remotely uses digital type application, will not work. Try analog type programming, along with organic computing, with the ability for self-learning, as experiemented in NM lab, still limited and does require high source for additional input. No offense, think again. As to following the world for the world sake because someone claiming something that is not even remotely proven currently, just not happening. Perhaps for you. However, if I am wrong, I will be corrected. Like you, I was wrong...as I pointed out, was corrected. Food for thought.

Now I am curious, what church do you belong too?

Perhaps, if you have that strong desire to know the truth of 'what was', ask Deity for the given truth or lead you in the right direction.

No offense taken, interestingly enough I am a current programmer and system engineer and I disagree with your decision on my conclusion. Assuming something is impossible because we do not have the technology for it right now doesn't get us very far. With a learning software model and fine enough robitics, I think it is reasonable to think that someday we could have machines capable of recreating aproximations of themselves with changes and that system leading to something that looks nothing like the original model and is more adapted to its environment over millions of years.

In any case I was merely pointing out that believing you are being rational while disagreeing with many experts in their respective fields is a "red flag." Not to say you should blindly follow experts, but it couldn't hurt to re-evaluate the evidence once in a while. I accept the theory of evolution, not because I was told to or because many scientists do, but because of the overwhelming evidence I have seen for it, some of which I have attempted to share here.

To answer your question, I do not belong to a church, but I go to the LDS church with my wife from time to time. Also, I have already asked a deity and they haven't seen fit to respond yet, so I go with the evidence :)

[Misshalfway]

There is definitely evidence for evolution. I too see the evidence of it in our natural world. I just don't see proof that it is the only explanation for the existence of man. And in the absence of any scientific evidence for these ultimate questions, I find it interesting that scientists and others make a final decision on that question.

[Hemidakota]

AI effort you explained with progression, I simply cannot see it happening. Though, our last effort with the study into AI in providing a driverless logistic train, we finally concluded that digital programming was not adaptable for self-progressive learning. We switch to analog, noting previous model studies from DARPA's [New Mexico L_A_ lab] analog robotic field work. Seeing them in action, just amazing little insect bots. However, the conclusion on progression adaptable learning was not possible without aid. This is what I was referring too. We learn and live.

So you would follow them even they would jump off the cliff? Sorry, that had me laughing. There are experts in the cause of religion claiming to know Christ. Do I believe them or what Deity revealing their characteristics? Do I believe the claimed Astro-physis when one receives further light and reveals something different? Do I believe those in the evolution field of studies when receiving further light on 'what was'? No. Again, you missed the mark. Our dependencies may of been with those claimed scientist, noting that academic gives one authority, but revelation comes later when Deity corrects those false notions to each individual who desires to know. If you think they have the correct answer more power to you friend.

Good to hear you are attending.

Thanks for your candor remarks and I do enjoy your postings.

[Hemidakota]

There is definitely evidence for evolution. I too see the evidence of it in our natural world. I just don't see proof that it is the only explanation for the existence of man. And in the absence of any scientific evidence, I find it interesting that scientists and others make a final decision on that question.

Abraham pretty summed it up with lower forms of life being created first, which in turns supports the next higher form, next in line. There is some truth but leads one away from who really is the author.

[DigitalShadow]

In any case I was merely pointing out that believing you are being rational while disagreeing with many experts in their respective fields is a "red flag." Not to say you should blindly follow experts, but it couldn't hurt to re-evaluate the evidence once in a while. I accept the theory of evolution, not because I was told to or because many scientists do, but because of the overwhelming evidence I have seen for it, some of which I have attempted to share here.

So you would follow them even they would jump off the cliff? Sorry, that had me laughing. There are experts in the cause of religion claiming to know Christ. Do I believe them or what Deity revealing their characteristics? Do I believe the claimed Astro-physis when one receives further light and reveals something different? Do I believe those in the evolution field of studies when receiving further light on 'what was'? No. Again, you missed the mark. Our dependencies may of been with those claimed scientist, noting that academic gives one authority, but revelation comes later when Deity corrects those false notions to each individual who desires to know. If you think they have the correct answer more power to you friend.

I can't help but think you completely missed my point somehow. I am well aware that there are many people who are religious which is not a reason to become religious in itself, but does lead me to believe there is a possibility I am missing something which is why I'm here investigating right now. I don't blindly follow anyone, scientists, academics and priests included. I examine evidence and decide for myself what the most likely truth is and even then it is only provisional. If I see more evidence for another theory I will accept that as the likely truth.

[Misshalfway]

I don't think that there is a question in my mind that evolution is definitely used by God as part of the created systems here upon the earth. I don't know exactly how and if he used it when he created man. I am not well read on the subject at all, but sometimes I watch the NGC or other shows about anthropological evidence of neanderthals and other "pre-man" human-like species, and my mind starts to ask a bunch of questions. At the end of the day, I don't know what the answers are. Science doesn't have the answers. It just thinks it does sometimes. And God has given us parts of the story. The truth is somewhere in between. The cloudiness of that in between doesn't shake my testimony of God or my respect for science.

[sgallan]

So you would follow them even they would jump off the cliff? Sorry, that had me laughing. There are experts in the cause of religion claiming to know Christ. Do I believe them or what Deity revealing their characteristics? Do I believe the claimed Astro-physis when one receives further light and reveals something different? Do I believe those in the evolution field of studies when receiving further light on 'what was'?

Oddly, I used to lurk on a discussion board in the late 90's called eyring-e which was chalk full of LDS scientists, science Professors, and so forth. They very much believed in what is considered the legitimate science, which included evolution. Are you somehow suggesting that in order to be LDS in good standing one has deny the generally accepted science?

[Traveler]

I don't know how many of you have heard of Ben Stein's upcoming "documentary" called Expelled, but I have heard quite a bit about it in the forums that I frequent. The basic premise is that "Big Science" (I kid you not, that is the phrase he uses) is unfairly discriminating against creationist scientists who do not fall in line with the "Darwinist" (I have never heard a scientist use that word) agenda. The movie highlights a few tales of such "injustice" and then goes on to claim that the theory of evolution directly caused The Holocaust and then shows clips of famous atheist scientists talking spliced with images of Nazi concentration camps.

For those who are interested, here are a few links: Expelled, Expelled Exposed

I'm not sure how this movie can be classified as anything other than anti-evolution propaganda promoting the growing anti-intellectualism in America. It acts as if Creationism is a superior competing scientific theory that is not looked at because scientists are "dogmaticly" following Darwin. The problem with their claim is that Creationism is not a theory, it is a belief. There is nothing wrong with believing in it, but it offers no predictions, testable conditions or insight into anything. It simply has nothing to do with science and has no place in a science class or anywhere but a church really. What would Creationism research and experiments even look like anyway?

Evolution is the generally accepted theory because there is ample evidence for it and many experiments have supported the conclusion. If there is evidence for another theory that explains life on earth so well, then it will be looked into but so far, no such theory has even been proposed. It is true that in science sometimes good theories are stifled by the status quo, but in those cases experiments are done and evidence is presented and finally the paradigm shifts; science in general is a self-correcting system. Crying foul to the public and presenting no evidence to back up your claims does nothing to further the cause of science and can only be seen as a blatant politcal move serving to only further divide America.

Why am I ranting about all this? Because I've already seen people blindly eating up this propaganda who are outraged at science in general. The success of this movie deeply depresses me and almost makes me wish I lived in a more secular country.

The Book of Mormon teaches that there is opposition in all things. Yes, my friend, there are those that will stand in the sun at noon day and declare it night. Someone will counter any concept regardless of its merit. I have never met a Creationist scientist that was not of the caliber of the so called “Hollow Earth” or “Flat Earth” scientist.

Science does not have a pre-determined agenda. But then I do not believe that even in religion that we should take anything for granted. I believe it was Paul that said, “Prove all things and hold fast to that which is true.”

The Traveler

[lostnfound]

Have you ever even talked to a biologist? Let's start with the simplest example I can think of.

Have you ever been to a doctor, found out you had a bacterial infection (like strep throat) and been given antibiotics? They tell you to make sure that finish all of them and keep taking the antibiotics even if you start feeling better. Do you know why? Because if you don't kill the entire bacteria population there is a chance that since bacteria breed so quickly the mutations in their DNA combined with the strong selective pressure of the antibiotic could create a new strain resistant to the antibiotic you're taking.

Is that not enough for you? Are you one of those people who pretends there is "microevolution" but a magical barrier preventing it from becoming "macroevolution" over millions of years of change and that there is no such thing as speciation? Here, I'll give you more conclusive evidence.

You can use the DNA evidence and find ancestry between different species in existance today through common endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) embedded in our DNA through the eons. Basically a class of virus called a retrovirus embeds its own DNA into an arbitrary place of the cell it infects. Sometimes, very rarely, it manages to infect a sperm or egg cell which manages to get carried to term and then that organism and its children will now have this virus DNA as a part of every cell in their body and pass it on to their children as well. It turns out that roughly 8% of our DNA is from these viruses and essentially 'junk DNA' we carry around. It is however useful in tracking when the divergence of species occurred and which species are more closely related. This is direct evidence that seperate species can share a common ancestor and it has been confirmed that we (humans) do indeed share several ERVs with chimpanzees.

This is the strongest piece of evidence for evolution I've seen so far and I have yet to hear any theory that offers an alternate explaination for these shared ERVs. We've seen how they get into the gene pool, we've seen how they are transferred from parent to child and we've seen that we share them with other species. I don't see how any intellectually honest scientist can casually disregard this evidence and believe that speciation through evolution is impossible.

If you have an open mind and truly want to learn more about the subject I suggest starting here: Evolution

I eagerly await the re-evaluation of your position.

in rare cases where we might have common erv in our dna does not support transitional forms that are desperiately needed to support evolution and not to mention probiblity, 2 law of thermodynamics and tons of flaws in the science of evolution. There are just as many creation scientist out their that can make scientific claims to support the opposite. Did you know that a young earth idea is growing not just in creation scientists circles but in non as well?

p.s. you will see however evolution among species in that species but you will not see one species evolving into another and the very few examples they give to try to make up for their lack of fossil records are very very disputable examples.