Posted on 01/14/2002 3:01:36 PM PST by Karl_Lembke
Let me use the antibody molecule as an example. God engineered the molecule to have six binding sites that are made up of the regions where the domains of different proteins intersect (in this case the heavy and light chains. These binding sites (hypervariable regions) arise because the mechanism of splicing the domains together is not 100% accurate, and there is another enzyme that contributes to this variability by adding extra aa's at this junction. You could say that this was built into the genome, but it is a built in machine that creates new variability. So the variability was not originally there, but God created a "machine" to add variability.
God designed the system to function this way. He designed our bodies so that they can adapt. I don't know how, but it seems so illogical to think that it happened by accident. You're gonna believe what you will, so I've given up on trying to change your mind. I think I've had enough of these crevo threads because, as you said, we've gone over this before. I'm willing to agree to disagree.
My belief in our origins stem from the things I've seen God do in my life and the lives of my friends and family. He exists; I KNOW it.
Like I said, the scientific evidence doesn't convince me either way. My purpose in debating these issues is to get other folks to acknowledge that nothing is known for sure (as to our origins), and that there in fact IS another alternative explanation. I just want people to stop accepting evolution as fact and realize that it is just a theory, like creation. Neither will ever be proven beyond all doubt.
You might want to learn more. Ig immunology, with its immense variability, and both positive and negative selection, presents a small Darwinian world, principles which apply on larger scales as well. As an intellectual persuit, the study of evolution is immensely interesting.
I agree that it seems plausible, but you must also agree that just because something is plausible does not make it true. I want people to realize that there are other plausible explanations out there, not just evolution. Many will say that creation is not plausible, but that is because they are unwilling to broaden their minds and realize that they have been told the same things over and over until they believe them as fact.
Adolf Hitler once said "Let me control the textbooks and I will control the state." Some debate has arisen as to whether those are really his words or not, so don't take that as fact. Hitler's words or not, they are true. If a person or organization is able to have control over what is taught to our children in school, they have TREMENDOUS power over the people because they can get them to believe whatever they want.
Sounds like a conspiracy theory? Maybe, but think about it. Think about the other possibilities, including the possibility that the majority may be wrong on this issue. It wouldn't be the first time that has happened. Realize that we as a people don't know as much as we think we do. The more we learn, the more we realize that we don't know all that much about the universe at all. There are far too many things that science cannot explain.
It's understood that what is taught in science classes is taught as current theory. Students need to be grounded in the understanding that scientific laws are transient. The non-transient data which are the facts are available to all.
I agree that it seems plausible, but you must also agree that just because something is plausible does not make it true.
If something is plausible and consistent with known laws, that's as true as science gets.
Not in any of the schools I've been attending. Some teachers make one vague reference at the beginning of the semester that it is a theory, but then proceed to teach the course with the assumption that evolution is fact.
If science classes are taught based on current theory, then why aren't all possible theories looked at scientifically?
If something is plausible and consistent with known laws, that's as true as science gets.
I will agree that that is as true as science gets, however, there is an ultimate, absolute truth. We exist. We came into being somehow, somewhere, and sometime. My point is that science cannot always determine what the absolute truth is. Just because science says something is true does not necessarily make it absolutely true. There is too much that we do not know about this universe to make any assertions about absolute truth.
That is the way it should work, yes. The problem is that children who don't know any better are not taught this. They are taught that science is truth (or the pursuit thereof) and that whatever we can prove by science must be the truth.
There is no distinction made between theory and absolute truth in today's science classes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.