NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, I know that the evolutionists think all us creationist are, well, one brick short of a full load to say the least. I found an interesting article on genetics/origins that I'm curious as to how you all will respond to. It will probably take someone with a semi-scientific background to get into and it is rather long, but I'm curious as to everyone's opinions. Have at it. I'll check back in later today.

http://www.creationists.org/patrickyoung/article05.html

Oh, I should note, this author is not suggesting that any of this proves creation. He only suggests that the mitochondrial and Y-chromisome evidence neither proves nor disproves the Biblical account of creation.

Okay, I know that the evolutionists think all us creationist are, well, one brick short of a full load to say the least. I found an interesting article on genetics/origins that I'm curious as to how you all will respond to. It will probably take someone with a semi-scientific background to get into and it is rather long, but I'm curious as to everyone's opinions. Have at it. I'll check back in later today.

http://www.creationists.org/patrickyoung/article05.html
Now when you mean creationists do you mean you profess a belief in creationism itself (now note some people have gotten confused … creationism means belief that it happened EXACTLY as the bible said it did … no saying a day is not a day sort of thing or god set everything in motion)

Now when you mean creationists do you mean you profess a belief in creationism itself (now note some people have gotten confused … creationism means belief that it happened EXACTLY as the bible said it did … no saying a day is not a day sort of thing or god set everything in motion)

It really isn't germane to the article, but my personal belief is in the Genisis acount. It is unclear as to this authors personal beliefs.

It really isn't germane to the article, but my personal belief is in the Genisis acount. It is unclear as to this authors personal beliefs.
Just curious :) ... I read through but no time to respond beyond intresting ... and that this is going to provide a lot of "fighting" material on both sides

I wonder if this means that creationists are going to start accepting genetic evidence and, if so, trace common ancestors for different species.

Yup, you can also read that in the genes.

Pseudo-scientific religious fundamentalist blah, just as could be expected.

Armed with the correct understanding of Genesis, the Christian can easily refute this misconception and know the Bible continues to be the foundational truth of God.
Well, if you already have the fundamental truth of everything, everything that proves that truth wrong must be wrong itself.

The primary criterion is based on the notion that humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor millions of years ago. This opinion is unproven and clearly unbiblical.

Yeah. It isn't in the bible, so it isn't true, and then, that guy complains about science's circular reasoning! This article is nothing more than a disguised fundamentalist pamphlete, hiding behind comprehensions of scientific methods the author only halfways understands, but whose big words make the average reader think he knows his science.

BS.

Isn't it funny how the author attempts to use mitochondrial DNA, which suggests a symbiotic relationship that had to have taken place before multicellular life evolved, to try to support creationism?

Now when you mean creationists do you mean you profess a belief in creationism itself (now note some people have gotten confused … creationism means belief that it happened EXACTLY as the bible said it did … no saying a day is not a day sort of thing or god set everything in motion)

there are two kinds of creationists, young earth creationists and old earth creationists.

Well, the "god in the gaps" theory is acceptable from a scientist's point of view, as it doesn't contradict scientific evidence, but all other bible-based ideas about how life and the earth came to be are, no offense to anyone present, utter rubbish.

Isn't it funny how the author attempts to use mitochondrial DNA, which suggests a symbiotic relationship that had to have taken place before multicellular life evolved, to try to support creationism?

It's more sad really. It's the standard method of using lots of big words and scientific sounding data to prove a point. When I see something on this topic in a professional peer-reviewed journal, then I'll bother w/ it.

if you beleive that this world evolved and is not from gods handywork, you have to explain how first life came about. science points to the big bang (which i beleive because about all the scientific data produced supports it). but why did the big bang happen? if everything was created from the big bang, then there is nothing before it. how can nothing create something? it cant. science has no answer to this, its something that must be taken on faith.

there are two kinds of creationists, young earth creationists and old earth creationists.
I was going on the dictionary deffinition of creationism ... not creationist thats why I asked

cre·a·tion·ism Audio pronunciation of "creationism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kr-sh-nzm)
n.

Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

if you beleive that this world evolved and is not from gods handywork, you have to explain how first life came about. science points to the big bang (which i beleive because about all the scientific data produced supports it). but why did the big bang happen? if everything was created from the big bang, then there is nothing before it. how can nothing create something? it cant. science has no answer to this, its something that must be taken on faith.
Evolution != abiogenisis
if there was a god he could have compleatly kept his hand out of evolution but still started the initial life

So evolutionists do not have to have a theory on life creation

if you beleive that this world evolved and is not from gods handywork, you have to explain how first life came about. science points to the big bang (which i beleive because about all the scientific data produced supports it). but why did the big bang happen? if everything was created from the big bang, then there is nothing before it. how can nothing create something? it cant. science has no answer to this, its something that must be taken on faith.
Perhaps before you comment you should read a few science books. The big bang has little to nothing to do with how life first came to be. Neither does evolution. The big bang is a theory on how matter, energy, time and space came to be. Evolution is a (extremely well supported) theory on how the first life form diversified into the current state of diversity.

Well, the "god in the gaps" theory is acceptable from a scientist's point of view, as it doesn't contradict scientific evidence, but all other bible-based ideas about how life and the earth came to be are, no offense to anyone present, utter rubbish.
Acceptable in what way?
To just believe that any holes in a current theory can just be smoothed over with "I guess God did it!" is the exact antithesis of all science. Thats like taking Greek mythology as the answers to the mysteries of the world.

if you beleive that this world evolved and is not from gods handywork, you have to explain how first life came about. science points to the big bang (which i beleive because about all the scientific data produced supports it). but why did the big bang happen? if everything was created from the big bang, then there is nothing before it. how can nothing create something? it cant. science has no answer to this, its something that must be taken on faith.
Thats true, but thats not what evolution attempts to do. It simply explains how life became what it is now, not how it started. They are completely seperate theories.

Evolution != abiogenisis
advancements in microbiology has cause many problems for abiogenisis. "darwins black box" - Behe writes about many problems for abiogenisis.

The big bang has little to nothing to do with how life first came to be.

without the big bang there would be no life. all life forms we have evolved from simple organisms that evolved from nonliving matter.

advancements in microbiology has cause many problems for abiogenisis. "darwins black box" - Behe writes about many problems for abiogenisis.



without the big bang there would be no life. all life forms we have evolved from simple organisms that evolved from nonliving matter.
Behe isn't a widely respected scientist because when he hits a tough problem he says "god did it" and goes on to easier things. There's been a long history of people claiming irreducible complexity and then being proven wrong. Behe continues in this vein.

Your second point is technically correct, but about as relevent as saying that if it weren't for the discovery of how to process aluminum from bauxite I wouldn't have eaten breakfast this morning because my frying pan is made of aluminum.

Perhaps before you comment you should read a few science books.

im a zoology major, ive read a few science books.....if you go with darwins evolution, you eventually trace your steps back to the smallest cell. where did it come from?

im a zoology major, ive read a few science books.....if you go with darwins evolution, you eventually trace your steps back to the smallest cell. where did it come from?
Um wasn’t Darwinian evolution debunked a considerable time ago?
And you have to trace it back but the theory of evolution does not have to cover why it existed … whole other theory there buddy

im a zoology major, ive read a few science books.....if you go with darwins evolution, you eventually trace your steps back to the smallest cell. where did it come from?
The point is that evolution doesn't deal with this problem. It just describes what happened afterwards. There are different theories floating around that attempt to answer this, none of which are evolution.

The point is that evolution doesn't deal with this problem. It just describes what happened afterwards. There are different theories floating around that attempt to answer this, none of which are evolution.
Absolutely correct (in fact last time I checked there were at least 6 different theories of evolution out there ...wonder which ones they are trying to disprove)

i wasnt attempting to disprove evolution, i was bringing up the issue that science cannot explain first life. sorry i should have made my point clearer

im a zoology major, ive read a few science books.....if you go with darwins evolution, you eventually trace your steps back to the smallest cell. where did it come from?
Science doesn't have a definite answer for that yet. Still, it's not evolution, it's abiogenesis.

BTW, "I don't know" isn't equal to "god did it". If we assumed a supernatural cause for everything we don't immediately understand science would come to a halt and we'd have no new medicines or tools.

i wasnt attempting to disprove evolution, i was bringing up the issue that science cannot explain first life.
No but you brought it up in a flawed argument about creation of life in a thread about EVOLUTION

Not only were you originally off topic (some of us argued with you because we assumed that your argument must have something to do with the topic and that made us look at it in a different light)

Science doesn't have a definite answer for that yet. Still, it's not evolution, it's abiogenesis.

BTW, "I don't know" isn't equal to "god did it". If we assumed a supernatural cause for everything we don't immediately understand science would come to a halt and we'd have no new medicines or tools.
To be fair “god did it” is a theory … you just have to let it go with it does not fit evidence, which is what makes science a powerful tool.

Science doesn't have a definite answer for that yet.

thats all i was pointing out. science takes faith too.

Still, it's not evolution

also im sorry if i wasnt clear, i didnt say it was evolution. i said using evolution and going back we start with the smallest cell. which you just said, science has no definite answer for how it got there.

thats all i was pointing out. science takes faith too.



also im sorry if i wasnt clear, i didnt say it was evolution. i said using evolution and going back we start with the smallest cell. which you just said, science has no definite answer for how it got there.
Science doesn't take faith because in situations like abiogenesis it doens't make any claims. It says "we don't know, we'll keep working on it." That's very different from saying "I don't know, therefore god did it". The second statement takes faith. The first one doesn't.

thats all i was pointing out. science takes faith too.



also im sorry if i wasnt clear, i didnt say it was evolution. i said using evolution and going back we start with the smallest cell. which you just said, science has no definite answer for how it got there.
The only faith I have in science is that it will eventualy shake free the truth (and that is based on statistics ... science has a pretty good track record of exlplaining things eventualy)

Acceptable in what way?
To just believe that any holes in a current theory can just be smoothed over with "I guess God did it!" is the exact antithesis of all science. Thats like taking Greek mythology as the answers to the mysteries of the world.
Acceptable as in "cannot be proven wrong (yet)".

Evolution != abiogenisis
if there was a god he could have compleatly kept his hand out of evolution but still started the initial life

So evolutionists do not have to have a theory on life creation
Wrong. There're three, actually.

And as for the big bang ... to ask what was before time is just utter nonsense.

Because events that didn't happen on this universe's time scale just cannnot be understood if you apply the time scale to them. There was no time before time, it's that sinmple, yet mind-boggling.

im a zoology major, ive read a few science books.....if you go with darwins evolution, you eventually trace your steps back to the smallest cell. where did it come from?

That's a concern of abiogenesis, not evolutionary theory. Try reading up on it.

Here's a good place to start, since it's a good bet you've been exposed to all kinds of claims that forming single celled organisms naturally is statistically impossible or some nonsense. It sketches out a general, kind of "introduction to abiogenesis" view of the field and also deals with the statistical question.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Oh, and one more thing about the theory of creation that always puzzled me ... why doesn't the bible even mention the creration of roughly 80% of Earth's biomass? Like, Insects, squids and other invertebrates, mushrooms and fungi, not to even mention one-celled organisms (eucariotic one celled organisms, bacteria and archaea) ... and what about virii, which are not alive, yet not a simple chemical substance either?

Oh, and one more thing about the theory of creation that always puzzled me ... why doesn't the bible even mention the creration of roughly 80% of Earth's biomass? Like, Insects, squids and other invertebrates, mushrooms and fungi, not to even mention one-celled organisms (eucariotic one celled organisms, bacteria and archaea) ... and what about virii, which are not alive, yet not a simple chemical substance either?

The 'theory' is that at the time the Bible was written, humans (in Biblical areas of the world) didn't know about those animals, and God knew that, so God dumbed down the Bible for the sake of making sure people were ignorant. Or something.

The real answer is that the people who wrote the Bible didn't and so they didn't write what they didn't know. "Write what you know" as they say in English class!

Well, "Write what you know, unless you're God, in which case only write what the people already know."

Acceptable as in "cannot be proven wrong (yet)".


Wrong. There're three, actually.

And as for the big bang ... to ask what was before time is just utter nonsense.

Because events that didn't happen on this universe's time scale just cannnot be understood if you apply the time scale to them. There was no time before time, it's that sinmple, yet mind-boggling.
3 what ... you misquoted me I guess?

What the ...

Anyway, There indeed are three different theories (well, three that are actually taken seriously) concerning how life first came to be. All assume that life, in it's earliest stages, was compromised of RNA, for both information keeping (what today's DNA does) and information expression (forming the organism, what today is mainly done by proteins, though some RNA structures, like the Ribosome's active center, remain).

1. The theory of anorganic evolution and genetic takeover (A. G. Cairns-Smith): basically, it says that in teh beginning, life formed from components that made up complex crystals and were able to pass their shape on to offspring crystals. In time, by agglomerating organic mlecules from the surrounding primordeal soup, life as we know it came to be. A bit esotheric, but nonetheless interesting.

2. The theory of surface metabolism (G. Wächtershäuser): It says that life first formed from organic molecules on the surfaces of underwater wells (black smokers), and drew it's supportive energy from reducing iron using sulfuric hydroxide. A lot of archaebacteria still use similar mechanisms to sustain themselves.

3. The primordeal soup hypothesis (Oparin, S. L. Miller): According to this theory (usually considered the standard theory), life formed spontaneously by a combination of lightining strikes in an atmosphere that was compatrable to a heated version of today's Titan moon, the primordeal soup (a watery solution containing a variety of organic molecules) and the crashing of carbonaceous meteorites, whcih formed first, very primitive life forms by spontaneous self organisation.

What the ...

Anyway, There indeed are three different theories (well, three that are actually taken seriously) concerning how life first came to be. All assume that life, in it's earliest stages
Hmmm I know at least 6 serious ones

Lets see if I can remember them
(these are types but under a separate category)
Macro
Micro

Divergent
Convergent
Parallel

That’s all I can remember off the top of my head

Sorry for the confused posting ... the above are, for all I know, the more plausible ones. There're others, of course, but I don't know these off the top of my head; I'd have to look them up, too.

I hate keyboard shortcuts. :P

Sorry for the confused posting ... the above are, for all I know, the more plausible ones. There're others, of course, but I don't know these off the top of my head; I'd have to look them up, too.

I hate keyboard shortcuts. :P
That’s ok … and there are hundreds … but you are right the ones posted are some of the main theories

BTW a link to the big three (with a cool picture)
http://www.sparknotes.com/biology/evolution/patternsofevolution/section1.html

Bookmarked, thanks!

Bookmarked, thanks!
Np looking through the article it is pretty good … but even if it wasn’t the picture is good (a lot of people get more help understanding when they see pictures)

All science is subject to error percentages within models, as equations are a representation that require validation. At least science is trying to get to the truth through validating "mathematical derivtions" of changing biological systems.

I can't state anything factual about evolution since it not my subject and quite frankly, bores the cr@p out of me, but evolution is an evolving theory in itself and when such on-going derivations don't quite fit in with current thinking on evolution, it does not suggest that 'some book' written 1300 years ago is then the next available hypothesis that can explain it.

One data source is not considered fact. The Bible can be taken out of context when trying to apply its stories - stories which are a good moral conerstone of todays society I believe - as a modern view on creationism. The stories were written as a guide for how people should behave towards each other. Whether the God part of is true is down to the believer. But to state that a story - rewritten through multiple languages over the past 2 millennia by many people - is still correct is a little flawed.

Religion is an emotive subject, and science is not - except when you get two prefessor start arguing... whilst trying to retain its objectivity.

I'm disappointed, I figured by now that someone would have read the article thoroughly and attempted to "debunk" it from an evolutionist perspective. Instead all I see is the usual pissing match about how stupid creationists are and its converse. Oh well. :rolleyes:

Oh, and one more thing about the theory of creation that always puzzled me ... why doesn't the bible even mention the creration of roughly 80% of Earth's biomass? Like, Insects, squids and other invertebrates, mushrooms and fungi, not to even mention one-celled organisms (eucariotic one celled organisms, bacteria and archaea) ... and what about virii, which are not alive, yet not a simple chemical substance either?

Perhaps they used a different classification system at the time that included those things in the groups mentioned in Genisis??

I personally believe God played an indirect part in human creation. I don't think I was made out of clay...

I also think Man is an imperfect medium to transfer his true intentions.

Religion is an emotive subject, and science is not - except when you get two prefessor start arguing... whilst trying to retain its objectivity.

If science isn't an emotive subject why do people professing to believe its findings defend them with such religous fervor?

If science isn't an emotive subject why do people professing to believe its findings defend them with such religous fervor?
Because giving in to superstition's advocates adn those who think they know the whole truth, and the resulting ban of all independent thinking, aren't just the death of science, but also of what is known as "freedom" - at least outside the Republican Party.

Perhaps they used a different classification system at the time that included those things in the groups mentioned in Genisis??
Yeah ... you know, bacteria are an awful lot like ... birds and fish ... *shakes head*

I actually did discard this article using scientific arguments, btw. Not really nicely, but then again, this is pseudoscience at best, so I don't really see any reason to take it serious, myself.

Having actually read the article and having sufficient background knowledge to know what the author was trying to talk about, I'd say that article was complete BS.

Among other forms of trickery, confusion, and propoganda, I noticed that the author's point was that certain mathematical calculations related to gene mutation rate may not be exactly correct, therefore everything about evolution is wrong, therefore the Bible is the unquestionable authority on how humans came to be.

Yeah ... you know, bacteria are an awful lot like ... birds and fish ... *shakes head*

I actually did discard this article using scientific arguments, btw. Not really nicely, but then again, this is pseudoscience at best, so I don't really see any reason to take it serious, myself.

Fair enough, but as a result of not dealing directly with the logic and explanation of data he uses you credibility is diminished IMO.

If science isn't an emotive subject why do people professing to believe its findings defend them with such religous fervor?
How would you act if someone you were speaking with tried to convince you that up was in fact down, and that water was deadly poison? Defending what has been shown to be true is a normal reaction.

Hooray for junk christian pseudo-science!!!!
/snark

Fair enough, but as a result of not dealing directly with the logic and explanation of data he uses you credibility is diminished IMO.
Yeah, I surely must be discredited, if you say so ...

Anyway, where did I not confront him on the basis of scientifc methods and his "explanation and data"?

Emobuddy summed up nicely: Just because some mathematical models don't produce 100% accurate data, but time frames, does not make the bible right and science wrong. And taking one extreme (mitochondiral eve may be just 6000 years old) and ignoring that this would make eve much, much younger than Adam isn't precisely science.

Someone above said it quite nicely: until I see this in a proper peer-reviewed journal, I will not even assume it has the least of credibility.

Oh, and one more thing to ponder: If there really was a global deluge, where oh where did all that water suddenly come from? Where did it go to? And where are fossil evidences of this - like, a globelly present layer of mud and concentration of all kinds of fossils?

Anyway, where did I not confront him on the basis of scientifc methods and his "explanation and data"?

Emobuddy summed up nicely: Just because some mathematical models don't produce 100% accurate data, but time frames, does not make the bible right and science wrong. And taking one extreme (mitochondiral eve may be just 6000 years old) and ignoring that this would make eve much, much younger than Adam isn't precisely science.

He never said it did. He just said that the data could be interpreted in several ways as assumptions were made within the constructs of potentially shaky models.

Okay, I know that the evolutionists think all us creationist are, well, one brick short of a full load to say the least. I found an interesting article on genetics/origins that I'm curious as to how you all will respond to. It will probably take someone with a semi-scientific background to get into and it is rather long, but I'm curious as to everyone's opinions. Have at it. I'll check back in later today.

http://www.creationists.org/patrickyoung/article05.html

Oh, I should note, this author is not suggesting that any of this proves creation. He only suggests that the mitochondrial and Y-chromisome evidence neither proves nor disproves the Biblical account of creation.

oh lordy lordy lordy. hopefully later tonight i will have time to explain all the flaws in the reasoning displayed in that review...my quick count has 4 critical errors (errors that will directly disrupt the conclusion) and 3 more moderate errors (errors which remove non-essential support for the conclusion). hopefully Demi or somebody will come on and beat me to it, though, since i would rather not have to type up a primer on mitochondrial lineage assessment :P.

Okay, I know that the evolutionists think all us creationist are, well, one brick short of a full load to say the least. I found an interesting article on genetics/origins that I'm curious as to how you all will respond to. It will probably take someone with a semi-scientific background to get into and it is rather long, but I'm curious as to everyone's opinions. Have at it. I'll check back in later today.

http://www.creationists.org/patrickyoung/article05.html

Oh, I should note, this author is not suggesting that any of this proves creation. He only suggests that the mitochondrial and Y-chromisome evidence neither proves nor disproves the Biblical account of creation.

I've read it and I still think you're still a blanket, hamper and a whole colony of ants short of a picnic. ;)

Hmpf....

I keep getting 403 errors on the link....

i wasnt attempting to disprove evolution, i was bringing up the issue that science cannot explain first life. sorry i should have made my point clearer

1) Depends what you define as life...it's one of those 'where do you draw the line' issues.

2) Depends how you define 'FIRST' life... several theories explain how life appeared ON EARTH, but may not explain where the 'first life' ever, came from.

3) And? Nothing to do with the subject anyway.

I'll show you why....

"My car runs on gas. That is my scientific viewpoint. I base this assumption on the fact that my car burns gas, and that burning action makes my car move".

Okay - there is some fast and loose science, which I am using as my model for a principle, here - the Theory of Evoltuion.

Your response is the equivalent of:

"Your car doesn't run on gas. When you start your car, the ignition produces a spark".

The 'spark' and the process are NOT the same thing... or even, necessarily, connected.

Abiogenesis has NOTHING to do with Evolution... except that they COULD both appear in a book of scientific theories.

Perhaps they used a different classification system at the time that included those things in the groups mentioned in Genisis??

Aren't there more species of beetle, than all other types of 'animal' species collected?

Shouldn't they, then, have their won mention?

Or, are all beetles filed away under 'Locust' or 'behemoth'.

Or, are we to assume god didn't KNOW about beetles? Maybe they are new...

My little two cents on creationism, I have a hard time beleiving that Adam made Eve by molding one of his rib bones, because he was lonely. That is what I remember from my elementary school cartoon bible so I don't have the exact reference. For that reason there is a lot more evidence for evolutionism though it has yet to be totally agreed upon.

My little two cents on creationism, I have a hard time beleiving that Adam made Eve by molding one of his rib bones, because he was lonely. That is what I remember from my elementary school cartoon bible so I don't have the exact reference.
It's supposed to be God making Eve from Adam's rib, not Adam.

It's supposed to be God making Eve from Adam's rib, not Adam.


Thanks I actually just remembered that :p

It's supposed to be God making Eve from Adam's rib, not Adam.

Not that it makes a WHOLE lot more sense that way....

I'm disappointed, I figured by now that someone would have read the article thoroughly and attempted to "debunk" it from an evolutionist perspective. Instead all I see is the usual pissing match about how stupid creationists are and its converse. Oh well. :rolleyes:

There's not a great deal to talk about in the article. A semi-casual reading gives the following synopsis:

- points out variation and potential inaccuracies in scientific techniques
- takes a giant leap to the left to show "support" for the biblical version
- concludes article

What am I supposed to say? It's poorly researched, shows a basic lack of knowledge of the scientific process, and clearly has an agenda. If I received work this poor while reviewing articles for a journal I would pass it around the office for its humour value (and yes, I've done that - people write some very poor articles).

There's nothing in it that's worth debunking.

We all know that anything that can't yet be explained by science must have a supernatural explaination. If science can't completely explain everything, then *poof* it must be magic. :headbang:

Not that it makes a WHOLE lot more sense that way....
Yeah, but I figure if somebody's gonna argue against it, they should be equipped with the basic knowledge of how it works.

This artical is just silly, honestly the writer either doesnt have a clue about basic relevent facts, or is working very hard at misrepresenting those facts.
Take this gem for instance...
"Mitochondrial Eve" was identified from a particular gene sequence and suggested as the first female to carry the code which later spread to all living humans. "Genetic Adam" was identified from the sequencing of a small noncoding region of the Y-chromosome that all males carry. Both of these conclusions originate from mathematical derivations and are probably not actual people. Futhermore, this observed intersect could result from one of many possible genetic "bottlenecks" resulting from a catastrophic event and not the original common ancestor at all.
Really, might that be why mitochondrial Eve is called the 'most recent common female ancestor', as opposed to 'the original common ancestor'. Does the author imagine that scientists dont think mitochondrial Eve had a mother, or do they imagine scientists think she had two biological mothers?

im a zoology major, ive read a few science books.....if you go with darwins evolution, you eventually trace your steps back to the smallest cell. where did it come from?
The answer to this question is the same answer to the question 'if you go with the bibles creation account eventually you trace your steps to God, where did it come from?
Arguing that a 'non-cause' inclusive model is superior to another 'non cause' inclusive model because the second model is 'non-cause' inclusive, is just plain silly and likely to be self defeating if you are not arguing your point to the 'logic-challenged'.

thats all i was pointing out. science takes faith too.
No it doesnt, in fact faith is contrary to 'best practise' when if comes to science. There is a difference between 'assuming in the meantime for the sake of testing the assumption, and/or because this is the best inference that fits with all information available at the time', and 'assuming, no matter what, regardless, and that's just how it is, was and always will be'.

Yeah, but I figure if somebody's gonna argue against it, they should be equipped with the basic knowledge of how it works.

Agreed, it is futile to debate scripture, without reading it.

Creationists and intelligent design advocates with their pseudoscience prove the adage 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.'

If science isn't an emotive subject why do people professing to believe its findings defend them with such religous fervor?

with regards to my last line:

"Religion is an emotive subject, and science is not - except when you get two prefessor start arguing... whilst trying to retain its objectivity."


I was making a joke.
Of course science is emotively defendable

We all know that anything that can't yet be explained by science must have a supernatural explaination. If science can't completely explain everything, then *poof* it must be magic. :headbang:
You know...this is what I keep saying. Even if it's not the current explination, it's going to be something else observable-it doesn't default to voodoo.