I was recently involved in an argument with a very religious friend of mine, on the evolution v.s. creatiion theory. I have done some reasurch on the internet and have found evidece that the two theories do not have to be completly exculsive of one another. All I really want is to find some one who is open minded enough to guide me through both sides of the debate. The information published on the web is typically pro or con with very little overlap. I find it confusing that there is nothing that accuratly finds evidence of one side or the other. All that is published is on theorys. Personally I believe that evolution is real and not just a simple fiction created by athiest idiots, as some websites have stated.

I suggest the recent National Geographic article "was Darwin wrong?" (it was the cover story, so it is hard to miss).

There is a reason there is so little middle ground in this debate, elihal: natural selection requires no god, and creationism cannot occur without one ("intelligent design", as creationism lite, merely takes the characteristics of a god and does not attach the "god" label--but again, requires a force which natural selection does not.) In that sense, they cannot both be right, and since that is a fundamental underlying concept (especially of creationism), you will see polarization of the sides.

It is also not really a matter of "well, both sides have a point". This is not an issue where the truth is somewhere in the middle. There are literally tons of evidence in favor of natural selection, and virtually nothing supporting creationism. In addition, there is a history of fraud within the evidence for creationism (hand-chiseled "footprints", etc.) and none within natural selection (indeed, attempts at fraud, like the "piltdown man", are exposed as frauds through the self-correcting peer review and critical processes of science that is utilized to support natural selection).

Creationism and natural selection are not at all "two competing theories"; natural selection is a legitimate scientific theory, creationism is not. Let me explain. Any scientific theory must be potentially falsifiable; there must be some sort of evidence which, if found, would prove the theory wrong. There are any number of things which, if found, would prove natural selection wrong. Thus far, despite decades of trying and millions of dollars, the evidence supports rather than refutes the claims of natural selection. On the other hand, there is no evidence at all which could overturn creationism, even in principle. (As an extreme example, the earliest creationist explanations for fossils were "god put them there as a test of our faith.". So...the evidence did not undermine creationism, but supported it. If we had found no fossils at all, that would have supported creationism, too!) Creationism simply is not a scientific theory.

The best site I have seen for information on the contraversy is talkorigins.org. I don't know if you will think it is biased in favor of natural selection. I assure you that if it appears that way, it is because the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of natural selection, not because of any conspiracy to brainwash.

I'm not exactly an unbiased source, seeing as I have studied biology and geology extensively and I have seen entire libraries and museums full of data that supports evolution. However, I will say this: Nothing about evolution precludes a creator, because there is no firm definition of what a creator could be like. A creator which worked completely within the laws of nature is possible, but then, we would never be able to know this, because the creator would be indistinguishable from nature.

Now obviously, there are some assumptions made by evolution. The main one is that things in the past worked pretty much the same way they do now. This is not provable (without a time machine ) but for the few thousands of years that we have been keeping records, that has pretty much been the case. One could, of course, hypothesize that things behaved differently in the past, an interesting hypothesis to be sure. However, that hypothesis will always remain speculative unless good evidence can be produced to support such a change. It would have to be very good evidence to counter all the evidence that the laws of nature don't change. (I can give you examples, if you are interested)

The important thing about theories is that they should be able to explain things, and not just the big things, but the little ones as well. Here is where evolution vastly outperforms creationism.

There are many versions of creationism, at least one for each religion (and Genesis actually has two different versions of the creation) so you have to first say what exact brand of creationism you're talking about. But let's take a less primative version of creationism as an example: Intelligent Design. Intelligent design basically says that some amount evolution has occurred, but that the changes are guided by the creator's hand. Now, let's look at the two ideas and see how they stack up on a simple issue.
***
The question: How do species become other species?

Evolution's answer: Each species has many members with slightly different traits. Depending on the situation (and especially if the situation changes) the different traits that the individuals have provide them with certain advantages which allow them to survive and reproduce better than the other individuals. Over time their superior survival skill cause those with the better traits become the majority, and eventually almost all individuals have those traits.

The evidence (a small sample): The fossil record, which includes many transitional fossils. Animal husbandry (sort of a laboratory version of evolution). Pathogens which develop resistance to disease. Long lists of extinct organisms which could not compete as successfully.

Creation's answer: Pretty much the same, except the creator is guiding it.

The evidence: None. It is based solely that the creationist cannot fathom such a thing without a creator. Note, though, that it seems logical that if this were guided, then there would be no mistakes, therefore no extinctions should occur. This is explained away by saying "we don't know the mind of the creator." True enough, but how can we humans tell the difference between a plan that we can not understand, versus no plan at all?
***
The question: What is the mechanism for creating individuals with different traits?

Evolution's answer: Many traits are carried in the coded language of the DNA strand. This strand is a highly complex molecule and is prone to have copying mistakes and even damage to the strand, leading to slight or great differences in the characteristics of the individual it is "coding". These are called "mutations".

The evidence: Mutations can be shown to exist by showing that a strand of DNA that divides produces two very similar but not necessarily identical strands of DNA. They can even be encouraged by a number of means, including chemical and energetic input. X-rays can cause mutations (which is why the doctors get behind that lead wall). Cosmic rays can cause them. Environmental toxins can cause them. All these things have a great deal of evidence for them.

Creation's answer: The same, except guided by the hand of a creator.

The evidence: none.
***
Note that this version of creationism is by far the least dogmatic of the versions. Fundamentalist creationists must deny that extinct species ever existed, that diseases can evolve to develop immunity to cures, even that mutation occurs. I think it is safe to say that such hypotheses which ignore and deny evidence are scarcely worth including in the discussion.

I'll tell you more if you're interested, but I do tend to ramble on about this. It is one of my favorite subjects.

Greetings elihal, and welcome to the forums!

I participated in a thread at the Internet Infidels called, Iacchus Challenges Evolution, which you might find helpful. It was kind of a spinoff from the thread that I started here called, A Flaw in the Theory of Evolution which, didn't quite get off the ground. Eveyone wanted to argue what evolution was as opposed to the points I was trying to make about it -- regarding the fall of man. You still might find it helpful in that regard though. Thanks!

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Everybody makes a big deal about finding flaws in the theory of evolution. Heck, there are flaws all over the place. New knowledge about the structure of genes is being discovered almost daily, and many times this new knowledge challenges or changes what we used to believe.

Darwin got many things wrong too, but given the state of science in his day, it is much more amazing that he got so much stuff right. The problem with so many creationists who find "flaws" in evolution is that they propose nothing to replace evolution that fits the evidence. It seems that every time some puzzle about evolution is uncovered, some anti-evolutionist leaps up and says "Aha! That proves it must be God!". Nonsense. It only proves that there is still much to find out, not that we should give up trying to find out by applying the all-purpose "God did it" bandage. Quite often, a particular puzzle is unraveled, but this sort of news is generally treated with stony silence by creationists. Here's an example:

About thirty years ago radiometric dating was fairly new. It was an amazing tool that helped us find that (assuming that radioactivity worked the same way in the past as it does today) that the world was at least many millions of years old and that some fossils were several million years old. It was pretty accurate most of the time which was verified by sending identical samples to different labs, which returned near identical results. But then, a "flaw" was discovered. A few samples of living pelecypods (oysters) showed ages of many thousands of years. "Aha!" shouted the creationists, "You see that radiometric dating doesn't work!" (which of course disregarded all the many more times it did work.) But this was indeed a problem, so scientists set about finding why these oysters yielded anomalous results. They found out God did it. LOL. No, of course I'm kidding. The discovered that the oysters were filtering calcium carbonate (with which they build their shells) from the water (Oysters feed by straining a whole lot of water and filtering out the things they need). In this case, the oysters were incorporating calcium carbonate from the very-old carbonate rocks that were surrounding them. The test samples were not reading the age of the oyster itself, but the age of it's componant CaCO3, which was much older. CaCO3 is an inorganic carbon compound, so it is not necessarily created in the same way that organic carbon compounds are, therefore radiocarbon dating give the age the molecules of CaCO3 formed, not the age when the organic carbon molecules (created by metabolism in the digestive process) were formed. When the tests were rerun, making sure to test only organic componants of the oysters, the results yielded exactly what would have been expected. Creationists still use this disproven "flaw" to try to make their points in complete disregard for the evidence.

Would this discovery have been made had researchers given up on radiometric dating just as soon as a source of error was discovered? That is exactly what creationists would have us do, just as the creationists of the day imprisoned Galileo for disputing their model of the universe.
***
And oh yes, Iacchy, your "flaw" is totally incorrect. You said in that link:There are more extinct species (many times more) than there are extant species. Your statement about man being the only one incapable of living in accord with nature is obviously "deeply flawed". Lots of things have been incapable of living in accord with nature, so they died out. Extinction is part of the process.

Cool post, Gooze--I had not heard of that example before!

I love it when I learn something new!

Thanks!

Oh, and elihal, read Iacchus's other thread...if only for the humour value! No, seriously, you can see there the quality of arguments on one side versus the other...and see that it truly is not a matter of finding a compromise in the middle.

Eh, you're just excited because it was about bacon. Er, I mean, mollusks.

I see the flaw in the man v.s mother nature quote. But only if you are saying that man is the only species on the planet NOW that can not seem to live with mother natue. I also happen to agree with that idea. There was once a time when man did live in perfect harmony with mother nature. We only killed those animanls that we needed for our survival, we never polluted the air, land, or, the water table. However that was a long time ago. Today we seem to be more bent on destroying what is provided to us, but even this is changing. We as humans are just more capable to making the world adapt to our specific needs. When it is cold, instead of curling up like wild animals or grouping together, we simply throw another log on the fire, or turn up the heater. Today however people are starting to really try to protect mother nature. There have been incentatives put in place to make our home more enviornmentally friendly, the legislation againg the CFC's and, even the energide system is helping us all to become more aware of the world in which we live. Unless things (attitudes towards the enviornment), change drastically in a small amount of time we as humans will end up like all the other poor species that could no longer live in harmony with mother nature and we will become extinct too. Sad but true.

I did read the first page of your thread, A Flaw in the Theory of Evolution, or well, read parts of it. If I had been in on it from the start it might not be so confusing. There are too many people trying to make different points, and yet you all seem to in the end be saying the same thing. I may have misunderstood some of what was posted. When I was reading it I had the horrible feeling that it was written by a bunch of University teachers, who really never had any intention of having a mear highschool student like me reading them. Oh well, I did manage to pull out some information, that was helpfull. I have a feeling that my religion 35 class this year is going to be interesting, if I keep coming here. Good thing I have an open minded teacher, even if he is Catholic. Thanks for the great example and the intresting points to ponder.
elihal

That is a popular myth. I recently came back from a trip to Canada and one of the sites there was a place that was oddly called "Head-smashed-in buffalo jump". The native Americans in that area (and as I find out, many others) used to kill buffalo (or bison, if you wish to be precise) by stampeding them off a cliff. The number of bones and evidence of rotted carcasses indicated that they took only a small part of what they killed. It is quite likely that buffalo populations were on the decline long before the white man came to America.
(In case you're interested in the place's name, they found a human body underneath the buffalo skeletons with his head smashed in. Apparently he was under the cliff when the buffalo were driven over it. Oops.)

It has also been pretty much proven that one of the reasons that the Sahara desert is so large is because of overgrazing by the domestic goats of prehistoric nomad tribes.

Sadly, humans have never cared a much about their environment until recent years. Nature always seemed endless. Modern humans are more environmentally knowledgable than any others in history. Unfortunatly, they are also more powerful. Our incredible technology means that our thoughtless nature which always existed, is even more far-reaching in its effects. Some of us have begun to realize this and are taking steps to reverse the trend. A hundred and fifty years ago, there was no such thing as a conservationist. We beginning to learn. We can only hope it will be soon enough.

And of course, animals are no better. Predators have been known to drive themselves to extinction by killing all of the game in the area in a particularly bad winter, leaving none to reproduce and feed them. Nature is full of pitfalls. The more we learn, the less likely we are to fall into the pits.
Yes, I agree with you completely, but I do not ascribe it to a change in the nature of humans, but only a change in technology. Does that mean we should all become Luddites and destroy the machines of technology? (Just enter your response on your home computer, a technological device that didn't exist twenty years ago. )

I agree that we need to be careful with technology, but you can't put the genie back in the bottle. We should endeavor to use to use technology to solve the problems that technology has caused. Or we could simply go savage again. I prefer the former.
Elihal, you are not a "mere high school student". You have shown a desire and an inclination to learn which is all too rare among people today. It is completely wrong for educated people to look down upon uneducated people for their lack of education. One of the smartest men I have ever known was an ex-moonshiner turned race-car builder. He never graduated high school, (he had to go run moonshine for his father) but he spent his whole life trying to learn new things. These days, he is one of the most respected beekeepers in his area. Colleges ask him to come and talk to them.

And that is my whole point. I have ultimate respect for anybody who wants to learn. By asking these questions, you have shown that you are such a person. There are some others that imply and infer that all knowledge is "internal" and that studying is unnecessary for "truth". It is harder to respect those who, though they may be somewhat more educated than you, are unwilling to learn anything new.
Thank you for listening. I hope you come here often to talk to us, even if it does get a bit "argumentative" at times.

The most ridiculous assumption made by scientists is that there is no God. For all they know, science could be part of God's plan. I will give a perfect example why I believe that science was made by God to test the unbelievers:

In biology, DNA is untangled into its anticodons of which the pieces are copied and then a codon sequence protein reads pieces of it and sends it via tRNA which sends it to mRNA which is then read by rRNA which makes whatever it makes, let it be a dog, a human or a cat. Now according to science when the codon reads these pieces of information it knows exactly where to go, what to do and how to do it.

This does not make sense because at the molecular level there is no conscious process. This is not an incompleteness of science that needs to be tested further so the answer can be found. The answer has already been found and the explanation doesn't make sense.

And the most ridiculous assumption made by you (I will not include "religious people" because they are all different) is that scientists assume there is no God. Some scientists are quite religious (I work with a number of them). THIS scientist says God is possible, but there is simply no evidence for one. Yes, there could be a God that is indistinguishable from nature, but then, how can you tell the difference in a God that is indistinguishable from nature and nature without a God? What would be the objective difference?
Technically, it doesn't "know" anything since it is not, of itself, a thinking entity. It follows patterns and mechanisms determined by, among other things, the chemistry. Many of these mechanisms are well described, and none of them require the intervention of a God.
Perhaps it does not make sense to you. If you learned more about it, then it might make more sense. Of course, science is incomplete and always will be as long as there are things to learn. I disagree that research should be discontinued because you or anyone else have decided that science cannot answer certain questions. That is never a reason to stop asking.

On the issue of God, science has no position. Science is concerned with examining testable hypotheses. God is not a testable hypothesis. It is strictly a matter of faith.

It's me again. If you go to this thread, Science is the Bridegroom? which doesn't go very far outside of the original post, it speaks of the synchronicty that exists between Science and the "New Church," as coincides with the Age of Enlightenment. Also, there's a couple of links to the Swedenborg Church and the first three chapters in my book if you're interested. Thanks.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

HI Goozleberry
You do have a point about humans distroying the natural world, long before now. The Head Smashed in Bufflalo Jump is a good example. As I not only live in Canada, but in Alberta, I have been there a few times. Looking down from the top can be quite scarry if you imagine what that would have been like with out the guard rails. Is it any wonder they found a human at the bottom of the pile? I hope that you found your trip to Canada intresting. We have many neat things to see here in Alberta.
I am slightly confused though. I can see how changing the way we use technology would help, but are actions are based in our human nature. So don't we need an attitude adjustment too. Thomas Hobbs (1588 - 1679)? stated that man is selfish. In all honesty he is completly correct. We can't turn back the clock, we will probably never be able to undo all of out misteaks, but technology is helping us to correct some of them. Canada recently deployed our DART team, they have gone to help establish clean drinking water, and they use technology to do so. This is not a bad thing. Granted there are may 'bad' technologies floating around in our air, and water. Here where I live in a small town (you would have to have a really good map in order to find it!!) all of our power comes from burning coal, this is not enviornmentally friendly, but because we are a selfish people we don't want to pay the high price to power our homes by wind or solar. Technology has progressed to where we have these alternatives though, would this not be a good thing?
The County Council in our area has proposed to build a new administrative building, they are planning to heat it all with geothermal energy, again this is an example to how technology is helping to correct, or at least not harm our envoirnment. I can see where our technologies are harming us, but some of the natural cures we have implemented have back fired too.
In a very intresting biology discussion we talked about introduced species. In the great lakes there is a type of clam, (it may be the zebra but I can't remember), this clam is getting up in pipes and because it reprouduces at and incredable rate, it is blocking them off. There are no animals that live in the great lakes that feed on it so they have to use a big machine and literally drill them out. Dandylions are a nother good example, they are every where, and no matter how hard you try you simply can not pull all of the root stystem out of the ground. The rabbits in Austraila are another good example, they were intorduced species, that took over and killed other native animals. We have proven time and time again that trying to deal with our enviornmental problems in a natual way is not always the best idea., so we have invented technologies that deal with these 'pests' with the least loss of life possible. This is another example of technology helping us. Until I can think of something else to write, to destroy my own point, (that is what I think that I have done in this post).
elihal

All excellent points, elihal, and I'll respond at greater length later, because I have a birthday party to go to.

It is true that we all operate out of self-interest, however, the more we learn, the more we know that it is our own self-interest to take care of our environment, because we will not be able to survive if we destroy it. This is what is called "enlightened self-interest."

Short-sighted and ignorant individuals (like primative tribes) will not be able to see this vital need because they simply don't have the knowledge. It is up to the more learned nations, like ours, to enlighten them. Ethics get very iffy in this realm, because you can actually harm individuals in the narrow picture in order to preserve humanity in the big picture. Would you tell Inuits not to hunt whales, even knowing it is one of their major sources of food and energy, because you know that whales are endangered? In my opinion, yes you should, meanwhile using your technology to help them find other ways to survive. This may destroy their culture and traditions, which makes me sad, but we have to think of the world as a whole.

Yes, alien species are a terrible menace. Rabbits have done irreperable harm to Australia. I live in the southern part of the US (Houston, TX.) and an invader species, the fire ant, has made our lives hell. Zebra clams, lampreys, kudzu... it is a very long list.

But as I say, I can't talk at length right now. I'll try to get back with you.

And I LOVE Alberta, in the summertime, anyway. I can't stand the cold weather for very long.

Well I never said all scientist assumed that. [Scientists] which can be denotatively translated as [some scientists] in the connotative meaning of my sentence are an element in the set of {All scientists}.

I very well realize what chemistry determines. What I'm saying is that DNA doesn't make sense because it does know otherwise it shouldn't be going where it does. Let's take a look at the "scientific" approach. Van der Waal forces are weak and pull compounds in the direction as they please, so if a mother leaned to one side her baby might come out with 5 feet. Hydrogen bonds are bonds between molecules and compounds so that does nothing.

What DNA does is make the protein specified and that protein wanders around until it meets the designated place. Since the zygote is a single fertilized cell, this place is defined and that's ok. But what's puzzling is that the next proteins line themselves up right where they should be, so if the eye cells of the left eye are making themselves on the left when the zygote becomes a fetus, the proteins that code for making the right eye cells go to the right of the left eye cells. That ladies and gentlemen, makes 0 sense.

What I meant was that research wasn't discontinued and that there is not insufficient evidence, but biology comes short to explain what it explains.

Could you cite a peer-reviewed source within Biology (say, a journal or textbook) which backs up your claim that biochemists are unable to explain how this happens? It is not my area of expertise, of course, but I have never heard a biologist, nor even a medical doctor, make such a claim.

I know that I, personally, don't understand the mechanism, but I also know that my ignorance is a far cry from "science does not know".

My apologies. When you said the assumption was made by scientists, it sounds very much as a statement by scientists as a group. It also makes it sound, though it doesn't exactly say so, that only scientists make this assumption. Not all scientists are atheists and not all atheists are scientists.

In truth, we all use the principles of science sometimes, and not at other times.
I see you have some experience in science, else you would not know what Van der Waals forces are. However, I don't believe you have studied it enough to make such statements as the above, which is obviously incorrect to anyone with a passing knowledge of biochemistry. The bonds that hold DNA together are too strong to be affected by Van der Waals forces in any significant way. And even if they were, displacing a single gene would scarcely cause a "baby to come out with five legs" or similarly major changes.

Strong energy, though, like ionizing radiation can indeed cause severe damage to genes, as can some chemicals. Often, though, the damage is not to the genes, but to the "decoding" mechanism. For example, a person with a thalidomide birth defect is in no danger of passing that defect on to their children because their DNA is perfectly intact. This is an excellent example of the chemical nature of decoding and construction by the body's mechanisms. Did God cause thalidomide babies to have birth defects? No, it was clearly the chemicals.

Your statement about hydrogen bonds makes no sense at all. How much chemistry have you had?

But suffice it to say that none of the points you have raised in any way suggest that the mechanisms of the body could not operate without divine guidance. They merely suggest that you don't understand how they could operate without divine guidance.
Yes, that does make zero sense. Mostly because it is completely wrong. Embryology is just a tad more complex than you seem to suggest.

Obviously, when teachers try to explain complex science to inexperienced students, it would be impossible to go through the very detailed explanations required by experts in the subject. A clever person will realize that those "dumbed down" explanations are full of holes. It is a mistake, though, to assume that because the teacher (whose specialty may lie elsewhere) was unable to "plug the holes" that those holes are unpluggable. If you really wondered how genes are decoded and messages are transported and protiens are assembled, you would need a great deal of study. Some people prefer to skip the study and instead proclaim that the things they don't know about are "impossible without a God".

What is it Alexander Pope said about "A little knowledge..."?
And as I explained, biology and all other sciences do indeed come short, although not necessarily with regard to the situations you have cited. We will never know everything. Neither should we give up looking when it "comes up short". We should find out where it comes up short and do our best to solve the knowledge gap.

Another thing about DNA is that science is not able to explain excactly what it is because there is so much information. A DNA code is like a gigantic database wich no beings understand, except for God.

According to the movie "The 6th Day", humans is today impossible to clone because of the advanced brain. I think cloning never will be possible. There is no people who can pretend to be The Nature, because they can't control it.

__________________
The Heavenly Afterlife exist.

We know an enormous amount about DNA even now. Many many volumes full. Obviously, we do not know, and cannot know everything, but we keep trying to learn.

You'll have to give me some evidence that God understands it though. We have no volumes of informantion on His knowledge.
Um... that is a movie, Human. It is fiction. Cloning is not only possible, but it is likely, given the recent successes with higher mammals. But of course, the brain is more than just DNA, so you need not worry that your thoughts will be cloned. Identical twins have nearly the same DNA at birth, but their experience are different, so they are still different people.

First things first, for all the complaining that Canadians do, (myslef included), Alberta is really not all that cold. Or atleast not all the time. Recently we have had a wonderful warm weather spell, I have raynauds syndrom (when I get cold my blood vessles close off and I freeze all extremeties),and even I could go out side in a sweater. However mother nature has dumped nearly two feet of snow on us in the last few days, so yea I guess we will all have to go back to complaining about the cold as we stand outside trying to dig out our vehicles. Give thanks to the heated garage!
I must say that I am confused by what Klondike or was it Human was trying too say. I have just written my Bio 30 diplomia and although I will not come out with a steller mark, even I know something about bonds. As for the DNA stuff, maybe reading by Biology Directions text book will help to answer some of the questions as to how the DNA knows what should go where. I mean there are only four possible base pairs and Adenine will only bond with Thymine; while Cytosine and Guanine are compatable pairs. Then once the sequence has been completed it is checked by another molecule, here misteaks should be fixed. With out getting in to frame shift and point mutations, in the end it should all work. There is even less chance of error because several triple codons code for the same amino acid. Is God involved in all of this? I would like to think that he has a hand, but this can not be proven. Don't our cells communicate using hormones and and electrochemical messages? Even our smallest parts are all connected by a network of chemicals released in to our blood or to special nurons in the body. I could be totally off base, there are problems with the highschool sciece program, my teacher could tell you many, but she has been teaching for almost as long as my father has been alive, so she is really good about supplimenting the book knowlage with, more then we probably need to know.

As for cloning humans, why not?? It would be a wonderful idea, and all at the same time it would be a really bad idea. We could possiby treat non genetic diseases. People could live longer, humm that might be a really bad idea. But with cloning there are many other problems. We could possibly open the door to genetic munipliation, now if it was used to treat something like Tay Sachs I'm all for it. However more likely then not it would be uesd by the rich to create only the perfect beings that they want. Imagine parents being able to control what their children not only controling what their children look like, but to some extent how they act. The military could 'breed' whole armys of people that are specialized for certain combat situtations. I just don't think that we are in any way mature enough to handle all the moral implications fo cloning at this time. Maybe in the future we will be able to make mature dicisions, with out the impact of hidden agendas and mandates that are ethically wrong. I'm not trying to quote a science fiction book or anything, but while I was in Quebec I did find a wonderful book that looked in depth at the moral and ethincal implications of cloning the human mind. It was science fiction but I strongly suggest that anyone who has not read it should. It is called The Footpints of God, and was written by Greg Iles. There is a little bit of sexual content, and there is some violence, but nothing that made me squrim. Maybe I watch way to many sicience fiction movies.

I must admit that I am not knowlageable enough to try to place my own opinions in this post. Although I have done so, probably to my determent. You are all talking about things of which I have only the barest grasp. However I am open to learn. If some one could expain it all to me, it would be much appreciated. Thanks, Until next time:
elihal