Mr Alexander ... please keep in mind while looking at the "whole" context, that from a Christian perspective, and that of trinitarian theology, one must also consider the words and actions of the Old Testament since it is the same God doing the acting and speaking...the one who ordered Abraham to sacrifice his son, the one who ordered the wholesale slaughter of men, women, children and animals (I Samuel 15:1-3 etc.)
Here's why I'll trust and respect a scientist any day of the week over you. When they are shown to be wrong (virtually always be other scientists I might add) they drop the issue and move on. They have intellectual integrity, they make mistakes, learn and improve their knowledge.
You simply ignore what you don't like, and worse you keep repeating things that with the intent to mislead and in spite of what you have been shown. In my mind, that's reprehensible. One can only hope you are not responsible for the education of any children and that you have no say in public policy.
Dear Conservative ...
and here..not surprisingly .. is a portion of a letter FROM Dr Colin Patterson, explaining how your quote was taken out of context and misapplied.
".. The famous "keynote address" at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on "Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder. So much the worse for me. But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else."
But don't let the truth kill a good story .. you keep on going, we enjoy the entertainment.
Conservative, you say the same thing each and every time ... and I didn't think it was possible to sound more ignorant than you did the first time you said it...guess I was wrong.
Yes it has been and is being observed a simple Google search will give you many references of observed speciation.
It seems that you have no valid idea of what evolutionary theory even says, but instead you spout the same "straw man" definitions that AIG and CARM have been using (incorrectly I might add) for years.
Evolution: The occurrence of heritable changes in the frequency of alleles in the gene pool of a population over time.
Some Major Mechanisms by which it occurs:
Natural Selection, Gene Flow, Mutations and Genetic Drift
Every animal is a transitional species between what preceded it and what will follow it .. humans included. We can confirm it both morphologically as well as through genetics (something unavailable to Darwin, but which confirms evolution's predictions)
Students should demand evidence, but unlike you, they should recognize it and acknowledge it when it is presented and not simply cling to religious dogma.
Prairie_dog ... hey, you're right..fair is fair .. I say lampoon all the religions of the world....it's time to end superstition once and for all.
Christians want a say in social policy based in part on their beliefs...fine. But when you try to convince others to vote for what you'd like to see...do try to remember that we live in a plural society and that most people are not going to be convinced by the dictates of your religion. If you can't make a reasonable case for a particular position based on secular arguments and logic...then just maybe what you are trying to do is turn us into a theocracy .... no thanks.
Conservative .... I kinda like it. I say he should run it for 6 days, then take a break and rest on the seventh! :)
It was the observable universe I was speaking of at 46 billion light years. However my point was to answer someone else's comment about the probability of life based on the paltry amount of coverage from 40 odd years of sending signals into space.
In regards to waiting for an answer, i completely agree with you.
The 17.8 or sometimes ~15 is based on an incorrect calculation of only using the age of the universe .. it fails to account for the expansion of space-time as well...hence the 46 billion is correct.
Yes, you can safely say that so far, it appears we are alone in the universe. That neither implies a miracle, nor does it preclude us from discovering life in the future.
My point was, since we have "explored" such an infinitely small portion of the known universe, you really can't use that as indicating a likeliness that we are in fact alone.
This is why I reduced it to more understandable proportions...i.e. the United States...no one in their right mind would, after exploring a fraction of a square millimeter of space, proceed to say that this should somehow be seen as indicating a likelihood of not finding anyone anywhere in the US.