garnet13aj
Active Member
Reefreak29, you should listen to it to (it sounds like you're already going to) and we can exchange our thoughts afterwards.
Do you believe in evolution?
- Thread starter darknes
- Start date
reefreak29
Active Member
Originally Posted by garnet13aj
Reefreak29, you should listen to it to (it sounds like you're already going to) and we can exchange our thoughts afterwards.
i cant wait , im def. going to listen to it .iwould like to see both points of view
Reefreak29, you should listen to it to (it sounds like you're already going to) and we can exchange our thoughts afterwards.
i cant wait , im def. going to listen to it .iwould like to see both points of view
geridoc
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by reefreak29
i cant wait , im def. going to listen to it .iwould like to see both points of view
Actually, there will be 3 points of view. Dawkins not only is one of the foremost thinkers in evolutionary biology, he is also philosophically convinced that there can be no God, so he represents two views, and the other speaker the third. There is a reason, as I am sure you will hear, why Dawkins is called Darwin's rottweiler.
i cant wait , im def. going to listen to it .iwould like to see both points of view
Actually, there will be 3 points of view. Dawkins not only is one of the foremost thinkers in evolutionary biology, he is also philosophically convinced that there can be no God, so he represents two views, and the other speaker the third. There is a reason, as I am sure you will hear, why Dawkins is called Darwin's rottweiler.
jerthunter
Active Member
It is too bad it is going to be Dawkins, I can't say I really like that guy. So who is the other guy going to be? I wonder how fairly the discussion will be setup due to who is putting it on the air.
reefreak29
Active Member
Originally Posted by Jerthunter
It is too bad it is going to be Dawkins, I can't say I really like that guy. So who is the other guy going to be? I wonder how fairly the discussion will be setup due to who is putting it on the air.
i dont remember the name of the christian but i have heard discussions like these and most of the time both have great arguments and nothing is solved . still interesting thuogh
It is too bad it is going to be Dawkins, I can't say I really like that guy. So who is the other guy going to be? I wonder how fairly the discussion will be setup due to who is putting it on the air.
i dont remember the name of the christian but i have heard discussions like these and most of the time both have great arguments and nothing is solved . still interesting thuogh
jerthunter
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefreak29
i dont remember the name of the christian but i have heard discussions like these and most of the time both have great arguments and nothing is solved . still interesting thuogh
Hopefully it is a good discussion, but I doubt I will spend my time listening since I don't really care to hear Dawkins. What are they supposed to be discussing? Evolution or God?
*edit*
Oh, I just checked and the other guy is John Lennox. It is strange how the site lists the two, Richard Dawkins | Dr. John Lennox... does anyone else see what I think is strange?
i dont remember the name of the christian but i have heard discussions like these and most of the time both have great arguments and nothing is solved . still interesting thuogh
Hopefully it is a good discussion, but I doubt I will spend my time listening since I don't really care to hear Dawkins. What are they supposed to be discussing? Evolution or God?
*edit*
Oh, I just checked and the other guy is John Lennox. It is strange how the site lists the two, Richard Dawkins | Dr. John Lennox... does anyone else see what I think is strange?
geridoc
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by reefreak29
i dont remember the name of the christian but i have heard discussions like these and most of the time both have great arguments and nothing is solved . still interesting thuogh
Dr. John Lennox (MA, MA, Ph.D., D.Phil., D.Sc.), Reader in Mathematics and Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science, Green College, University of Oxford.Lennox, a popular Christian apologist and scientist, travels widely speaking on the interface between science and religion. Like Dawkins, he has dedicated his career to science, but he has arrived at very different conclusions. "It is the very nature of science that leads me to belief in God," he says. Lennox possesses doctorates from Oxford, Cambridge, and the University of Wales. He has written a response to the notion that Science has exposed the Bible as obscurantist in a book titled God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? The book will be published this fall.
The debate will center on Dawkins' views as expressed in his best-seller, The God Delusion and their validity over and against the Christian faith. This debate will focus much public attention on this important issue.
Audio will be available after the debate here.
So it sounds like it is about the existence of God, and not about evolution.
i dont remember the name of the christian but i have heard discussions like these and most of the time both have great arguments and nothing is solved . still interesting thuogh
Dr. John Lennox (MA, MA, Ph.D., D.Phil., D.Sc.), Reader in Mathematics and Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science, Green College, University of Oxford.Lennox, a popular Christian apologist and scientist, travels widely speaking on the interface between science and religion. Like Dawkins, he has dedicated his career to science, but he has arrived at very different conclusions. "It is the very nature of science that leads me to belief in God," he says. Lennox possesses doctorates from Oxford, Cambridge, and the University of Wales. He has written a response to the notion that Science has exposed the Bible as obscurantist in a book titled God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? The book will be published this fall.
The debate will center on Dawkins' views as expressed in his best-seller, The God Delusion and their validity over and against the Christian faith. This debate will focus much public attention on this important issue.
Audio will be available after the debate here.
So it sounds like it is about the existence of God, and not about evolution.
geridoc
Well-Known Member
Oh, I just checked and the other guy is John Lennox. It is strange how the site lists the two, Richard Dawkins | Dr. John Lennox... does anyone else see what I think is strange?
Dawkins is referred to as "Professor", so the degree listing isn't really necessary since that rank is considerably above Lennox's "Reader" rank. However, to someone not immersed in the picayune issues of rank that keep academics awake at night, it certainly looks like Dawkins is, by implication, not Lennox's equal in degrees and rank.
Dawkins is referred to as "Professor", so the degree listing isn't really necessary since that rank is considerably above Lennox's "Reader" rank. However, to someone not immersed in the picayune issues of rank that keep academics awake at night, it certainly looks like Dawkins is, by implication, not Lennox's equal in degrees and rank.
jerthunter
Active Member
That makes sense. I wasn't sure if it was meant as a snub or that was how it was supposed to be.
jerthunter
Active Member
Wow, this thread has begun drift down the list, it almost made it off the first page. I cannot let that happen!
So, did anyone see last night's new Simpsons episode? In the intro they had Homer evolving from a single cell to Homer for the couch bit. Just thought I would mention it so I could bump this thread up.
So, did anyone see last night's new Simpsons episode? In the intro they had Homer evolving from a single cell to Homer for the couch bit. Just thought I would mention it so I could bump this thread up.
jerthunter
Active Member
Well since no much conversation is occuring here I thought I would ask a question. For those of you who have an opinion on human evolution, what do you see as the origin of anatomically modern humans? and why?
I personally have to go with the "Out of Africa" model based on the limited information I have read. My reasons would be the mtDNA evidence collected from Neandertal specimens, the mtDNA diversity in Africa versus the rest of the world, and the time periods and locations of AMH sites.
So what do you guys think?
I personally have to go with the "Out of Africa" model based on the limited information I have read. My reasons would be the mtDNA evidence collected from Neandertal specimens, the mtDNA diversity in Africa versus the rest of the world, and the time periods and locations of AMH sites.
So what do you guys think?
geridoc
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by Jerthunter
Well since no much conversation is occuring here I thought I would ask a question. For those of you who have an opinion on human evolution, what do you see as the origin of anatomically modern humans? and why?
I personally have to go with the "Out of Africa" model based on the limited information I have read. My reasons would be the mtDNA evidence collected from Neandertal specimens, the mtDNA diversity in Africa versus the rest of the world, and the time periods and locations of AMH sites.
So what do you guys think?
Wow! Now we're into some serious evolutionary theory. The short answer is that the "Out of Africa" model certainly holds up to modern genetic testing and analysis. This means that anatomically modern human beings probably arose in Africa, and spread from there, as opposed to more primitive types migrating, then diverging into modern humans. However, there are not strong data either way as to the exact sequence of events that lead to this appearance of modern humans elsewhere. It could be replacement through a bottleneck (such as a volcano eruption, as has been hypothesized), single migration, or some combination of several events. I suspect that the debate on this one will persist until humans evolve into something else, and the point becomes more or less moot.
Well since no much conversation is occuring here I thought I would ask a question. For those of you who have an opinion on human evolution, what do you see as the origin of anatomically modern humans? and why?
I personally have to go with the "Out of Africa" model based on the limited information I have read. My reasons would be the mtDNA evidence collected from Neandertal specimens, the mtDNA diversity in Africa versus the rest of the world, and the time periods and locations of AMH sites.
So what do you guys think?
Wow! Now we're into some serious evolutionary theory. The short answer is that the "Out of Africa" model certainly holds up to modern genetic testing and analysis. This means that anatomically modern human beings probably arose in Africa, and spread from there, as opposed to more primitive types migrating, then diverging into modern humans. However, there are not strong data either way as to the exact sequence of events that lead to this appearance of modern humans elsewhere. It could be replacement through a bottleneck (such as a volcano eruption, as has been hypothesized), single migration, or some combination of several events. I suspect that the debate on this one will persist until humans evolve into something else, and the point becomes more or less moot.
jerthunter
Active Member
It will be interesting to see what data is discovered over time. I would really like to see some Y chromosome DNA analysis and see if it compliments the mtDNA analysis concerning Neandertals.
elfdoctors
Active Member
I haven't been on these boards for a while. I am encouraged to see an actual discussion here rather than simple religious preaching (which tends to make me feel sad for people who use narrow-minded religious beliefs for very non-religious purposes). IMO, evolution is the most important concept essential to the teaching of biology.
reefreak29
Active Member
Originally Posted by Jerthunter
Wow, this thread has begun drift down the list, it almost made it off the first page. I cannot let that happen!
So, did anyone see last night's new Simpsons episode? In the intro they had Homer evolving from a single cell to Homer for the couch bit. Just thought I would mention it so I could bump this thread up.
i did see that and i am now a firm believer in evolution because of that
anthow im interested to know if anyone heard the debate
i am going to bed but was just wondering what you thuoght
Wow, this thread has begun drift down the list, it almost made it off the first page. I cannot let that happen!
So, did anyone see last night's new Simpsons episode? In the intro they had Homer evolving from a single cell to Homer for the couch bit. Just thought I would mention it so I could bump this thread up.
i did see that and i am now a firm believer in evolution because of that
anthow im interested to know if anyone heard the debate
i am going to bed but was just wondering what you thuoght
jerthunter
Active Member
I did not bother to listen to the debate since it appeared to be about the existence of God and not a debate over young earth creationism and evolution. Also I was busy all day and wouldn't have had the time anyway. Did you see it? What was it about?
jerthunter
Active Member
Nothing new in TWO DAYS? Wow, that is amazing, I guess people just got bored.
I really don't want this thread to fade away because I am still waiting on the promised proof that certain fossil species are not what they are.
So, I thought of a few things that could be discussed.
1. Some people have insisted that radiometric dating is completely unreliable. Would anyone care to explain how a radioactive half-life change arbitrarily.
2. Some people have insisted that a global flood can account for all the fossils found. My question is if that is how it happened, why did the follows get buried in such a manner that the animals were buried sequentially based on morphology.
3. Or we could talk about the mutations in mtDNA and how based on knowing the rate of mutations the estimates of the age the divergence of the human race goes back to about 180,000 years.
Or anything else. Those are just some ideas to kick start a discussion..
I really don't want this thread to fade away because I am still waiting on the promised proof that certain fossil species are not what they are.
So, I thought of a few things that could be discussed.
1. Some people have insisted that radiometric dating is completely unreliable. Would anyone care to explain how a radioactive half-life change arbitrarily.
2. Some people have insisted that a global flood can account for all the fossils found. My question is if that is how it happened, why did the follows get buried in such a manner that the animals were buried sequentially based on morphology.
3. Or we could talk about the mutations in mtDNA and how based on knowing the rate of mutations the estimates of the age the divergence of the human race goes back to about 180,000 years.
Or anything else. Those are just some ideas to kick start a discussion..
jerthunter
Active Member
Originally Posted by Ernie
There are no two-celled creatures on our planet. Doesn't that little fact bother you evolutionists??
First that is a rather bold statement since we are constantly finding new organisms. Second, I believe there are, consider the male gametophyte generations of plants. Two cells.... Third. even if there wasn't, why would that be a problem? Is there an advantage to being two celled over single celled or more than two celled?
There are no two-celled creatures on our planet. Doesn't that little fact bother you evolutionists??
First that is a rather bold statement since we are constantly finding new organisms. Second, I believe there are, consider the male gametophyte generations of plants. Two cells.... Third. even if there wasn't, why would that be a problem? Is there an advantage to being two celled over single celled or more than two celled?