Jump to content


Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About iCambrian

  • Rank
    The Scientist

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Christian Humanist

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,822 profile views
  1. I suppose it all depends on the person. But yes, if someone took a literalist approach and did believe that the many strories of scripture were all true in a black and white way, and they simultaneously were consistent in believing all things they viewed as miracles, then yes they would believe both in the literal story of Adam and Eve, and the literal story of the virgin birth.
  2. My thought to this is that, you have Saudi Arabia, with plenty of wealth built up from oil exports, and yet, here they are banning teaching of biological evolution in their schools. Im glad someone brought this up.
  3. Evolution and Islam

    @hoskot Many propose that God has had his hand in the process the whole time. It is not a scientific claim, but is also not the same as calling it "unconscious". And that God has created the process and used it in our development. As oppose to literally having a mans rib bone turn into a woman, or a man being made of soil.
  4. My parents actually went against their parents wishes. My grandparents were racist on both sides (and still are to some degree). My mom was exiled from her family and didn't speak with them for years and years. but in the end it was worth it, because it actually broke down a lot of racial barriers and united, previously divided people (40 years later they now all get along) And their choice actually is continuing to break down those barriers as i build my own interracial family/marriage.
  5. at the end of the day, religion is thrown out the window by people seeking to maintain cultural significance and "honor". i think the question comes down to independence. If both the man and woman are financially independent and if they plan well and seek consultation with a religious leader, then they can make it happen. but if the two are not independent, and say, the daughter is dependent on her family, then the daughter may face exile from her family, and be entirely dependent on the man. Which is a huge burden (unless you are relatively well off, financially). Then you have social drama and marital issues as a result of the conflict. it isn't impossible to do, but you just have to look at the interests of both people, and try to figure out what is truly best in the long run, for both. If I were not independent then I would become independent and move out, then you would have freedom to marry who you want. Or if it is the other person who is not independent, they would need to do the same.
  6. Personally, i wouldnt be too concerned about getting vaccines, if that is what you are asking @hoskot. I would be more concerned with things like second hand smoke, our diet, pesticides and herbicides, PFOA and PFOSs, contact with petroleum products, air quality, drinking water quality, coliforms, things like this....
  7. It appears as though there are two different...mercury compounds that are being discussed. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/index.html https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23401210 https://archive.epa.gov/region5/teach/web/pdf/mercury_org_summary.pdf Looks like it is a contested topic, but ethylmercury appears to be less harmful, if at all, versus the more commonly known methylmercury. "Thimerosal, which contains mercury, has been used previously as a preservative in some vaccines. Currently nearly all childhood vaccines are free of thimerosal or contain trace amounts (1 μg or less of mercury) with the exception being inactivated influenza (flu) vaccine; limited amounts of preservative-free flu vaccine (containing trace amounts of thimerosal) are available" Methyl- and ethylmercury have been used previously as fungicides on seeds used for growing crops, but such use is currently cancelled in the U.S. and subject to severe regulatory restriction worldwide. Ethylmercury is a metabolite of thimerosal (ethyl (2-mercaptobenzoato-(2)-O,S), which is a mercury-containing chemical used as a preservative in some vaccines (1, 4, 5, 9-16). For ethylmercury, the exposure pathway of concern to child ren has been via vaccines; however, its use in pediatric vaccines is nearly completely phased out (10) Ethylmercury It has been suggested that there may be neurological effects of ethylmercury exposure from use of thimerosal in vaccines, though studies have reported conflicting results (21-26). Ethylmercury exposure from thimerosal in some vaccines has been associated, in some studies (27-33) and not others (34-40), with autism and other neurological disorders in children. Several scientific and public policy review committees carefully evaluated the data and concluded that there was not sufficient evidence of a link between autism and thimerosal in vaccines (10, 23, 24, 41). In fact, the Institute of Medicine’s 2004 evaluation included an even stronger statement that rejected the idea that thimerosal-containing vaccines cause autism, concluding that “...epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism” (16, 24). Weighing available information with public health concerns, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the U.S. Public Health Service recommended that thimerosal be phased out of vaccines beginning in 1999 (23) (see Considerations for Decision-Makers in this Chemical Summary). Currently all routinely recommended vaccines for infants in the U.S. (except for inactivated influenza flu vaccines) are available as thimerosal-free preparations, or contain trace (very small) amounts of thimerosal (less than 1μg mercury/dose) (http://www.fda.gov/cber/vaccine/thimerosal.htm) (10).
  8. Evolution and Islam

    This is exactly it. And...Christians face a similar dilemma. To be fair, and to be logically consistent...its either an all in deal (all life, including humans, evolved in some way shape or form), or it is an all nothing deal (common descent as a whole is completely false). And, it is a tough spot to be in. And people do not want to be in this spot, so sometimes a blind eye is turned when discussing the evolution of people. In my opinion, all I can really do is, stand with what is apparent (what is confidently understood through science). And where there are discrepancies between that science and faith (or perhaps falsely perceived discrepancies), we have to be willing to say...ya know, there are some things that only God understands". We have reason to support a position of recognizing human evolution. And what comes beyond that, will be debated for a long time, and that's just the way it will be. We could only hope that, others are aware of why we stand with what is apparent, and we could only hope that they are willing to say "ya know, i see what you mean, I'm willing to look past this dispute and we can be brothers anyway". Because ultimately, what we believe in, likely isn't going to affect our ability to pay the bills or to be a good parent or friend etc. It's just a question of how "open minded" someone is, how well people will respond to the topic. Some people might agree, some people might disagree but might not care either way, and other people might both disagree and care a lot. So, we just have to be careful how we interact with people, when talking about controversial topics. We dont want to offend or hurt people, but simultaneously we should be clear in our position. Same with discussing other things like politics and other topics of religion.
  9. cool stuff, thanks. Its always interesting getting a glimpse, almost back in time. Now if only we could find a T rex, or something similar. Sometimes i feel like, horseshoe crabs are really cool, just because they resemble some of the earliest fossils that are known. Its cool just seeing its compound eyes in particular. Just like early trilobites.
  10. Ive heard a few studies now, coming out with the same line of thought. People are just sort of chasing the fossils i suppose, chasing them around back in time. I guess we will see, what comes of it. Finding fossils though in southern europe, may cause people to redirect the locations of their searches, which could result in more of the same sort of findings. thanks for sharing.
  11. @hoskot Missing links is desceptive in it's name. They are no more missing than baby pictures in a family album (can't have an infinite number of pictures for every second of life, and even if we did, there would be half-second "missing links" in the album). No matter how many fossils are found, opponents will continue to say "there are missing links". im not sure what the second part of your post is referring to but I'll take a look.
  12. Human evolution and common descent is just as much as an exact science, as the evolution and common descent of any other life form. And if we did find bones of that ancestor, we could very well not even know it, as there were likely many similar species like it, living in similar times. Right now, sahelanthropus seems to be championed as one of the oldest transitionals holding close relation to our shared ancestor. But 10 years from now, who knows what other fossils will be found that may give a more clear picture.
  13. Ha, just kidding... But, there is evidence for local, large floods. While the majority of change might occur through gradual deposition, erosion and orogenesis (among other processes), there is still room for floods, and evidence for floods. Even very large ones.
  14. The fact that you cannot challenge biological evolution on scientific grounds is because you are not able to (the war is already won). Next is the question of how you will react. Some bury their heads in the sands of denial, and try challenging science using their unscientific opinions. Others recognize reality and are able to progress by asking, ok, now that we are aware of it's reality, what is next? I have nothing to gain here, fortunately. Truth, has already won.
  15. This is pretty good right here^. Discussions of science, with regards to whether or not a theory is scientifically valid, needs to be held on scientific grounds. Otherwise the theory will be misunderstood.