Take the Atheist Challenge!!!

http://EvC Forum: The best scientific method (Bayesian form of H-D)The whole thread is interesting but this is approximately the beginning of the infamous "fart" quotes.Enjoy

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

I knew that, I was clarifying it for purpose of this discussion.
Or rather I was asking if this was shown in the experiment.I only know what school taught me about it, and what I've read casually for last umteen years.

That has always been my quest.
I have stated that I absolutly love science, but I put my faith in God.
It was rhain and a few others who immediatly labeled me.
I don't feel like I am living in the dark ages, if I am not willing to accept TOE(But I keep an open mind). After all its only a theory, and we finally figured out what that means. It means it is subject to change.All that is still irrelevant to the challenge.
It's a cool challenge IMO.

I guess I fit that bill then, but the Bible I read has a big gap in genisis.Anyway, I find it hard to believe that the world could be only 6,000 years old.Would you happen to know how they (the creationalists) came to that number? Is that method subject to error?Do you think the idea of us being created to evolove has any merit?

I was under the impression that science thinks that we all came from one person or DNA.
The Bible agrees with this.So it would have started with an individual?
This is a problem I have with TOE, why only one person would have evolved instead of many.

Hey, a pointless point.
Thats a bit different don't you think?
I am talking about physically feeling God, not some voice in my head.

Actually you seem to comlicate things beyond them being uncomplicated.Science can at some point explain everything, that would be the goal.
If it can't then it stopped by the limits of our universe. To me that is evidence that something else is going on other than chance life.
Or that Life after death exists.

If you are refering to the recent discovery of the single female called Eve through the study of the human mitochondrial DNA, you misunderstood what the implication of the discovery is.Although there are still debates about this, let us assume that the study was accurate and that we all descended from this "Eve." What this means is that at some point in time a female was born with a mutation that somehow made her closer to modern man. Note again that she was born with it. She did not evolve. Rather, the new genetic trait that she had gave rise to a new trait within that specific population of homonids and this trait eventually gave rise to the ancestors of modern man. In other words, you could call her a spark that started the evolution of her population.I'm sorry, but I just don't see the connection between that theory and the biblical Eve.This message has been edited by Lam, 05-13-2004 04:15 PM

---

The Laminator

​

You know mike, you are really a sweetheart, do you know that?

Lam, it's not so complicated. If there is a mitrochrondial Eve then all it means is that at different points in time the descendants of all the other women didn't have female offspring at some point.It is very analogous to inheriting the father's name and changing the woman's last name on marraige. If a particular lineage has only daughter's at some point the name goes "extinct".If human populations have gone through a bottleneck it is rather easy for this to happen. I think (IIRC) that the bottleneck size is a few 10,000's of individuals. That is evidenced partially by our genetic similarities. The similarities do not say only 2 individuals though and not only 6,000 years ago.It is amusing that creationists want to latch onto selected scientific discoveries and try to warp them to fit the ideas they have but don't believe anything else that the scientists have to say.

Damn, I forgot about the possibility of the bottleneck happening. Thanx, Ned.I remember the first time the discovery went public. The scientists were very careful when presented the evidence that they got from the study of mitochondrial DNA. I think the scientists knew that their discovery would be misused by creationists. I think their fear was justified.

---

The Laminator

​

Lam, have you read "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" by Daniel Dennett? It's a marvelous book. With regard to Mitochondrial Eve, Dennett explains this idea under the title "Retrospective Coronations: Mitochondrial Eve and Invisible Beginnings". It's a must-read. (The whole book is, for that matter. If you could only afford to buy one book about evolution, this is the one you should get.)

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

That you didn't get the point does not mean that it isn't there. The point is that from my perspective, no, it's not different. If God was indeed physically "feel-able," I wouldn't need you to tell me about Him, but I could in fact "feel" him with an independant measuring device the way photoelectric plates physically "feel" photons and record the interaction. Absent such an independant method of corroboration for your assertion, it remains equally as dubious as our hypothetical man's claim to be Napoleon Bonaparte.

Forgive me that I regard this statement as utterly laughable given the statements that followed it. Wrong. For example, science will never be able to explain my subjective experiences because science, by it's method, can only return objective facts. What in the world is "chance life" supposed to mean, and how in the world does it pertain to the limits of science? Again, where in the world did you pull this from, and what on earth do you think it has to do with this discussion?This message has been edited by ::, 05-13-2004 05:33 PM

First of all, I have no intention to stop calling you 7 of 9 as long as you have that avatar.That book just made it to my summer reading list.Can you tell me a little more what it says about the mitochondrial Eve?I haven't looked much into the matter.

---

The Laminator

​