First Human Cloned - What do you think?

[Preacher]

Originally posted by Lynx
What about complex organs?

Dude, trust me when I say ALL organs are complex. Some more so than others, but there ain't a one of 'em that's "simple". Structurally some are simple, but functionally even the "simple" ones are amazingly complex in their function. In 15 years of operating on and taking care of patients, I have yet to see it--it'd make my job hella easier if this were so...

 

[cff]

Originally posted by Lynx

Another reason against cloning humans: Every animal cloned had had some 'flaws' (have no better word at the moment). Accelerated aging, organ damage and the like. There is no reason why this shouldn't hold true for humans clones. It's simply rresponsible to perform this on humans because we don't know too much about it.

The thing is as far as my knowledge of the actual understanding of that defect goes is that this problem will be unsolvable.
Well actually it will be. But if you solve it you'll have to invent immortality. Or at the very least you have to undertsand how to become immortal.
(possible? Yes. Some organisms don't age and can life forever. Unfortunately we are talking about bacterial life here...)

Originally posted by Lynx

BTW, methinks the whole story is a hoax. The sect wants to make just propaganda for their dubios cloning company.

I think at the moment it is a hoax. They most likely indeed try, but didn't make it so far. However by doing the claim they try to take the "I am first" position before someone else really gets a healthy clone.

Originally posted by Aries
actually, cloning would be most benificial in the organ replacement area. if you cloned a persons heart, for example, the risk of regection would be nil. nowadays, even if the doner is very close in genetic structure, there is still a risk of regection.

Well either it can be done in a petri dish or at least by creating a transgenetic animal or it won't happen. You cannot bread a human being, then kill him off for replacement parts...
Not for the public at least.

Originally posted by steampunk

Now consider a hetro couple, both infertile. Now you need donor sperm and donor eggs. Which birth parent does the kid share genes with?

Of course you assume two completely asexual beings here. Most infertile people just got a bad propability for fertilisation. Eggs or sperm do exist however in a bad condition. Which should be enough for IVF.
Your scenario might be possible, but highly unlikely I think. Would cloning be ethical then? Hmm. Maybe. Of course the question would be if the infertibility is a genetic defect that will propagate to the clone,...

Originally posted by steampunk

Cloning technology isn't simply directed towards the goal of make identical copies of people. A lot of the research will *gasp*, make our understanding of other biological processes better. You don't seriously think scientists what cloning research to continue just because they want to make more of themselves do you?

Point taken. But what you say is close to lets experiment with a-bombs to get a better understanding how to build nuclear reactors.
If you want to find out how to make cells multiply then try on that cells and not at an atrificial construct of a clone.

 

[Aries]

Originally posted by cff
Well either it can be done in a petri dish or at least by creating a transgenetic animal or it won't happen. You cannot bread a human being, then kill him off for replacement parts...
Not for the public at least.

that's what i ment, cloning specific organs without cloning an entire person just to kill him to get the organs. that is the absolute limit cloning human tissue should go to.

 

[Preacher]

Originally posted by cff
Prove me there is a creator and show me how he/she/it looks first

Actually, I don't even need to get into religion here. The fact is, there's been a great movement in the scientific community over the last several years whereby many scientists who aren't even "religious" are leaning towards and even embracing the idea of "intelligent design". This is simply the conclusion that, with all the beauty, complexity, interdependence, and vast variety seen in nature, surely there must be some intelligent designer (read: a Deity or "greater power") behind it. Think of it; it's all around us: When we look up at the sky and study the cosmos through a telescope, or peer into the world too small for our eyes to see with a microscope, or simply enjoy a great day out in the fields and forests, complexity, order of structure and function, and interdependence abound. Only the fool would/could decieve themselves into thinking that things "got that way" by accident.

If the Earth was any closer/further from the sun than it is, or earth's axis any more/less tilted than it is, the earht would be unable to support life. If plants (esp. trees) didn't need CO2 and give off O2, and animals need O2 and give off CO2, neither would be able to live. If the pH of your blood wasn't/isn't within about mere half a point of normal (7.4), you would die rather quickly. These are just a few examples. The whole list is rather exhaustive.

The Law of Entropy states that, left to itself, all matter would tend towards a state of chaos and disorder (entropy). That said, how can it be explained that all this order and interdependence just "happened"?... The ironic thing is, it takes more faith to believe that than to believe there is a Designer out there somewhere. Put another way, the weight of the empirical evidence (see references below) argues against existence NOT being of intelligent design. More and more, scientists are beginning to realize this.

Originally posted by cff
That's hard to prove. But I'd dar to say apes and whales.

Huh? and where do you draw that inference?... Sure, both are highly intelligent, but that don't make for a conscience. Have any empirical evidence to support you?...

Originally posted by cff
Beavers?

Read the post again, guy; I said "on a massive scale" (such as houses/facories/office buildings in any major city, let alone the cities themSELVES...).

Originally posted by cff
Apes?

They can use tools. Period. We use a screwdriver to build a machine. We then use machines to build factories. These factories can then mass-produce screwdrivers, hammers, power saws, etc. Apes' use of tools don't even begin to compare...

Originally posted by cff
How would you know? Some apes or pigs or dogs can calculate.
We also know that music greatly influences animals (cows give more milk for example with classic music)

Influence animals ONLY. They don't compose concertos, or use higher mathematics to solve the problem of heavier than air flight, for example...

Originally posted by cff
Do we? That question is highly philosophical.

Not really. It's a well-established scientific fact that animals are driven by instinct, not free will and choice. The fact that we humans can overrule our "instinctive" responses to things is what sets us apart. It's what allows most spouses to stay true to their mates, while the Bill Clintons of the world simply ignore their ability to choose and "go with" their carnal instincts and mate with anything.

Originally posted by cff
Rats

Rats defending the helpless; giving their lives for one another? Where'd you hear that?... I'd love to read THAT news story...

Originally posted by cff
Again, this is a philosophical question.

Originally posted by cff
That is oversimplifying. Just because a human is an atheist and so voiding one of your prequisites doesn't make him less 'superior'. Similar just because we are unable to see one of the aspects in one animal you cannot say it isn't there.
I merely mentioned different organisms at it can be best show with them.

Actually, you are wrong: A person being an athiest doesn't at all negate my premise. The vast majority of humans have an overwhelming belief in a Deity, though we obviously don't all agree on the particulars as to how to worship Him, etc. Those who are atheists choose to be so, and they are in the extreme minority. I never said they were "less superior"...

...And, to a large degree it CAN be said that if we can't observe it, it ain't there regarding these traits in animals. These things can be inferred via empirical evidence, even when they can't be scientifically proven ..yet. After all, bumblebees aren't supposed to be able to fly, yet we observe them doing so all the time. When things can't yet be proven, we go with where the weight of the empirical evidence leads us.

The fact that you had to mention different organisms "as it can be best shown with them" only goes to prove my point; WE are the only species to possess all these traits, and more where that came from... And that doesn't tell you anything?...

 

[ChrisReid]

Originally posted by Preacher
If the Earth was any closer/further from the sun than it is, or earth's axis any more/less tilted than it is, the earht would be unable to support life. If plants (esp. trees) didn't need CO2 and give off O2, and animals need O2 and give off CO2, neither would be able to live. If the pH of your blood wasn't/isn't within about mere half a point of normal (7.4), you would die rather quickly. These are just a few examples. The whole list is rather exhaustive.

I think all that's pretty reasonably explained with the vastness of opportunities nature had to "get it right. It's not that Earth eerily happens to be in the right spot, it's that there are billions of planets out there and just by chance a whole bunch must be in the right orbit. Plants and animals' CO2/O2 symbiosis is a product of the two evolving from the same thing at the same time. On another world it could be organism X excretes chemical A and organism Y excretexs chemical B, and both need the other to survive. Your blood and body is mostly water, which has a neutral pH.. so "coincidentally" you thrive off something darn close to pH 7. I don't see any of this as being intelligently designed.. it's pretty easily how things have naturally sprouted around eachother on one world that happens to allow certain things to sprout. I don't really accept the notion that "some scientists believe in intelligent design." Some scientists believe aliens created clones and populated Earth with their magic technology. The vast vast majority of scientists don't accept either of these assertions.

 

[steampunk]

Originally posted by Preacher
The Law of Entropy states that, left to itself, all matter would tend towards a state of chaos and disorder (entropy). That said, how can it be explained that all this order and interdependence just "happened"?... The ironic thing is, it takes more faith to believe that than to believe there is a Designer out there somewhere. Put another way, the weight of the empirical evidence (see references below) argues against existence NOT being of intelligent design. More and more, scientists are beginning to realize this.

I hate it when people use the entropy argument. Fact is only the net entropy needs to be reduced - go check your thermodynamics textbook. So you can raise the entropy in one part of the universe, say Earth, and so long the entropy of the whole universe is lower than it was before, all is well in the universe and we don't need an omnipotent creator.

 

[steampunk]

Originally posted by Preacher ...And, to a large degree it CAN be said that if we can't observe it, it ain't there regarding these traits in animals. These things can be inferred via empirical evidence, even when they can't be scientifically proven ..yet. After all, bumblebees aren't supposed to be able to fly, yet we observe them doing so all the time. When things can't yet be proven, we go with where the weight of the empirical evidence leads us.

The insects flying problems has been all but fixed. Some details to iron out but the theory is pretty solid. One of the big problems with the static flight model (y'know aerofoil shaped wings, move really fast, fly) was that it only applied to things that fly like airplanes and things that are relatively big. Insects are small and they flap so the physics involved is different. Actaully flapping changes a lot of things that I don't really understand since I don't do fluid mechanics.

 

[steampunk]

Originally posted by ChrisReid
I think all that's pretty reasonably explained with the vastness of opportunities nature had to "get it right. It's not that Earth eerily happens to be in the right spot, it's that there are billions of planets out there and just by chance a whole bunch must be in the right orbit. Plants and animals' CO2/O2 symbiosis is a product of the two evolving from the same thing at the same time. On another world it could be organism X excretes chemical A and organism Y excretexs chemical B, and both need the other to survive. Your blood and body is mostly water, which has a neutral pH.. so "coincidentally" you thrive off something darn close to pH 7. I don't see any of this as being intelligently designed.. it's pretty easily how things have naturally sprouted around eachother on one world that happens to allow certain things to sprout. I don't really accept the notion that "some scientists believe in intelligent design." Some scientists believe aliens created clones and populated Earth with their magic technology. The vast vast majority of scientists don't accept either of these assertions.

Like the algae(?) that live near thermal vents in the ocean- very very hot - which are food for these white blind crabs which I think get eaten by these huge 5 meter long 10cm diameter blind worms. No actaully i think I'm missing something... anyway we don't really need to look at another world to see what Chris is talking about.

 

[Preacher]

Originally posted by steampunk
I hate it when people use the entropy argument. Fact is only the net entropy needs to be reduced - go check your thermodynamics textbook. So you can raise the entropy in one part of the universe, say Earth, and so long the entropy of the whole universe is lower than it was before, all is well in the universe and we don't need an omnipotent creator.

No, YOU go check yer textbook:

greater chaos/disorder = greater entropy.

Thus, net entropy over time would be greater, acc. to the postulate, not less. And the 'local' entropy here in Sol would be LESS than elsewhere, if your theory is to be believed (not "greater")...

In any event, good luck zippin' around to other parts of the universe to "spot check" for greater net entropy than in Sol system...

 

[Ghost]

No, the *disorder degree* here is greater than another part of the universe.

 

[Preacher]

Originally posted by Ghost
No, the *disorder degree* here is greater than another part of the universe.

Only if yer talking about the human psyche...

As to other natural systems, the only way your statement would be accurate is if you could show us a greater degree of organization and structure elsewhere in the universe (sorry, can't include the WC Universe here, since it, sadly, is fictional...at least as far as we know )

Well?... We're waiting... ::taps foot impatiently::

 

[Ghost]

Eh?
AFAIK here (the earth) is the place with more disorder, cities,living things,non-lived,etc.The disorder here compared to the *void* is greater here than any other place (AFAIK),that also energetically speaking

 

[Preacher]

Originally posted by Ghost
Eh?
AFAIK here (the earth) is the place with more disorder, cities,living things,non-lived,etc.The disorder here compared to the *void* is greater here than any other place (AFAIK),that also energetically speaking

Wrong. The very things you cited are examples of how much MORE order there is here in Sol than elsewhere (so far as we know at present, anyway). That is, until you can point me to a city on some other planet that's MORE clean & neat than things are here.

In short, the fact that things could be MORE well-ordered and clean, neat, etc. than they are (ask your Mom!) does not negate the fact that things here are already more ordered as is than elsewhere...

 

[Ghost]

We die because our *human system* pass from a state of disorder to a state of order, it´s like a cancer but the other way.
in the life your body has a state of disorder when you grow that state diminishes to zero (death),
And Yes, Mars (for example) has more order than the earth, and any other planet without lifeforms, specially as civilizated and expanded like ours.
The degree of disorder here is vastly supperior to the disorder of Pluto or Mercury.

 

[steampunk]

Originally posted by Preacher
No, YOU go check yer textbook:

greater chaos/disorder = greater entropy.

Thus, net entropy over time would be greater, acc. to the postulate, not less. And the 'local' entropy here in Sol would be LESS than elsewhere, if your theory is to be believed (not "greater")...

In any event, good luck zippin' around to other parts of the universe to "spot check" for greater net entropy than in Sol system...

Yup, you're right, I got it the wrong way round. Entropy increases.

However that does not change the fact that you still need to consider the net entropy of the universe. You cannot just consider our solar system as seperate to the rest of the universe.

The fact that I nor anyone else can check that this is true in every part of the universe does not suddenly mean Earth is special and thus life was created by some God.

Looks like Ghost was trying to argue for the other way For your, and everyone elses', benefit The 2nd law of Thermodynamics says:

No system exist in which energy can be completely converted into useful work.

Take a car for example. Not all the energy in the fuel is used to move the car, some is lost as heat noise etc ...

You can sorta think of entropy as the amount of energy not available to do work. So since we cannot convert energy totally into useful work, entropy increases.

Now entropy is also a measure of disorder. The more disorder, the higher the entropy. Same sort of soncept as the thermodynamics one, except used to measure orderedness.

Creationist have used this definition of entropy to prove their Intelligent Creation/Desgin theory. But by looking at the original thermodynamics definition and making an analogy that you CAN make something more ordered at the expense of another system. Hell, you shouldn't have make any analogies since in th end everything is just physics and no system has ever been found or devised that breaks the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. If you've found one, I suggest you publish, win a Nobel, invest all the money (carefully) and never work another day in your life.

 

[cff]

Originally posted by Preacher
Actually, I don't even need to get into religion here.

? Your original message was as follows:
"Show me a speicies of animals that are made in their Creator's image"

To answer that prequisite I need to know how god looks, simply as that IMHO.

Originally posted by Preacher

The fact is, there's been a great movement in the scientific community over the last several years whereby many scientists who aren't even "religious" are leaning towards and even embracing the idea of "intelligent design". This is simply the conclusion that, with all the beauty, complexity, interdependence, and vast variety seen in nature, surely there must be some intelligent designer (read: a Deity or "greater power") behind it.

Uhm... around 90% of our DNA is useless IIRC. Intelligent design isn't exactly what comes to my mind here...

Originally posted by Preacher

Think of it; it's all around us: When we look up at the sky and study the cosmos through a telescope, or peer into the world too small for our eyes to see with a microscope, or simply enjoy a great day out in the fields and forests, complexity, order of structure and function, and interdependence abound. Only the fool would/could decieve themselves into thinking that things "got that way" by accident.

Why not?
You see you get uncountable stars with uncountable planets. Just by chance stuff will happen. Every thing has a propability that it will happen. For example one can calcualte the propability that you will fall through the floor at this moment (without it breaking, you just fall through). It is about so unlikely that it will happen once in the whole lifetime of the universe, but it can happen. Similar humanity can just as well be a random cosmic event.

Originally posted by Preacher

If the Earth was any closer/further from the sun than it is, or earth's axis any more/less tilted than it is, the earht would be unable to support life. If plants (esp. trees) didn't need CO2 and give off O2, and animals need O2 and give off CO2, neither would be able to live. If the pH of your blood wasn't/isn't within about mere half a point of normal (7.4), you would die rather quickly. These are just a few examples. The whole list is rather exhaustive.

I know that theory. It just has one big flaw IMHO. Basically we say life on EARTH (respectively earth like life) could not have happened without that.
Now guess what: There might be organisms we cannot even think off that would have evolved instead with parameters that sound completely insane to us.
Think of Silicoids from the game "Master of Orion", only worse.

Originally posted by Preacher

The Law of Entropy states that, left to itself, all matter would tend towards a state of chaos and disorder (entropy). That said, how can it be explained that all this order and interdependence just "happened"?

Intermediate states?

Originally posted by Preacher

Huh? and where do you draw that inference?... Sure, both are highly intelligent, but that don't make for a conscience. Have any empirical evidence to support you?...

What do you define as conscience? Awarness of one self? Put an animal before a mirrow. Most animals will know that it is them, not somewone else.

Originally posted by Preacher

Read the post again, guy; I said "on a massive scale" (such as houses/facories/office buildings in any major city, let alone the cities themSELVES...).

Massive enough to actually modify the environment of humans.

Originally posted by Preacher

They can use tools. Period. We use a screwdriver to build a machine. We then use machines to build factories. These factories can then mass-produce screwdrivers, hammers, power saws, etc. Apes' use of tools don't even begin to compare...

Not all of us humans do what you say. Look at some civilisations in the rain forest, etc. I'd dare to say that their use of tools aren't that far off compared to apes.

Originally posted by Preacher

Influence animals ONLY. They don't compose concertos, or use higher mathematics to solve the problem of heavier than air flight, for example...

You always pick the most extreme examples. I'll not challenge the assumtion that humanity is the most intelligent species. But you haven't be able to build a car to be intelligent.
Only relatively a short time ago people didn't know about negative numbers. So they hadn't been humans then?

Originally posted by Preacher

Not really. It's a well-established scientific fact that animals are driven by instinct, not free will and choice. The fact that we humans can overrule our "instinctive" responses to things is what sets us apart. It's what allows most spouses to stay true to their mates, while the Bill Clintons of the world simply ignore their ability to choose and "go with" their carnal instincts and mate with anything.

How do you know that animals are _ONLY_ driven by instinct?
Similar how you know that we got a free will? Personally I indeed don't believe that such thing as a free decision does exist.

Originally posted by Preacher

Rats defending the helpless; giving their lives for one another? Where'd you hear that?... I'd love to read THAT news story...

Actually that is pretty well established. Have a look at some documentaries. Rats are incredibly social animals. They feed their sick/old, ...
Die for each other is stretching it a bit far maye however.

Originally posted by Preacher

Actually, you are wrong: A person being an athiest doesn't at all negate my premise. The vast majority of humans have an overwhelming belief in a Deity, though we obviously don't all agree on the particulars as to how to worship Him, etc. Those who are atheists choose to be so, and they are in the extreme minority. I never said they were "less superior"...

No, but you said an animal has to fullfill all aspects for it to be human like. I showed you that not even all humans are humanlike.

Originally posted by Preacher

...And, to a large degree it CAN be said that if we can't observe it, it ain't there regarding these traits in animals. These things can be inferred via empirical evidence, even when they can't be scientifically proven ..yet. After all, bumblebees aren't supposed to be able to fly, yet we observe them doing so all the time. When things can't yet be proven, we go with where the weight of the empirical evidence leads us.

So the earth is flat? The catholic church officially only accepts for I think 3 or 4 years that it isn't...
'Proven' believes often enough changed over the course of history. Maybe animals will surprise you as well sooner or later.

Originally posted by Preacher

The fact that you had to mention different organisms "as it can be best shown with them" only goes to prove my point; WE are the only species to possess all these traits, and more where that came from... And that doesn't tell you anything?...

No, not at all. I'll go on with another example:
Mytrochondrial DNA. Every higher organism has it. This mytochondrial DNA is practicall only inherited from the mother (and was not cloned so far BTW, thus no clone is a real clone).
How can it be proven that it exists? There is only one known visual example for it:
The cross of a horse and a donkey.
Still we know it is in all organisms and by now with todays tech it can be shown for all. Similar we are maybe just not far enough to see the traits all animals, just in those that show them most prominent.

 

[Phillip Tanaka]

God was a strange animal sort of creature in South Park!

Um, sorry if that only ends up making things worse.

 

[dacis2]

I think, the "clones" and the "company" and the whole fucking cult should be killed off by several well placed Hellfires.

 

[Preacher]

Originally posted by cff

Uhm... around 90% of our DNA is useless IIRC. Intelligent design isn't exactly what comes to my mind here...

You are deceived, Padawan. We are just beginning to unlock the secrets of the human genome. We are, for example, discovering possible ways to "switch on" previously useless (or so we'd thought) DNA to help us recover from illness/injury. Moreover, having built-in redundancy in a system helps that system to be more fault-tolerant. That's why you can survive just fine with only ONE lung/kidney/arm/leg/etc. . Blind folks are reported to have a more highly acute sense of hearing--the remaining systems do what they can to compensate for the losses incurred, sometimes quite marvelously so. Thus, what you call "useless" is simply that which we haven't discovered the purpose for. Even so (as in the examples given), we still have empirical, practical evidence that there is/may well be such a purpose.

Originally posted by cff
Why not?
You see you get uncountable stars with uncountable planets. Just by chance stuff will happen.

Why not?... Because you completely sidestepped the other two planes of existence: the macroscopic (the world around you appreciable to the naked eye) and the microscopic (atoms, molecules, cells, living tissue composition, etc.). The likelihood that order and structure of such infinitesimal magnitude "just happened" is nil.

Originally posted by cff
Intermediate states?

Um, nope...

Originally posted by cff
What do you define as conscience? Awarness of one self? Put an animal before a mirrow. Most animals will know that it is them, not somewone else.

Generally, a conscience tends to make us go back and attempt (if possible) to make right what we did wrong. I've never seen a dog (for example) go back, after crapping on its own lawn, and move its "deposit" over to the neighbor's lawn-where it belongs D). It would certainly be easy enough to do, but it never happens.
Speaking of dogs, you must never have owned one, because most pet animals (I have the most experience with dogs) DON'T recognize their own reflection in a mirror. At least, not until they've tried to sniff/lick/attack/mate with it a few times first...

Originally posted by cff
Not all of us humans do what you say. Look at some civilisations in the rain forest, etc. I'd dare to say that their use of tools aren't that far off compared to apes.

You miss the point: That man CAN and DOES do these things, and animals (apes) are incapable of it, is the crux of the matter. The fact that not all civilizations do so is irrelevant (If we showed 'em how, and they chose to do so, they could --that, my man, is the point).

Originally posted by cff
How do you know that animals are _ONLY_ driven by instinct?
Similar how you know that we got a free will? Personally I indeed don't believe that such thing as a free decision does exist.

Countless animal behavioral experiments over the years have pretty well established this fact. For example, if they had a free choice, some would choose NOT to mate when rutting season comes 'round, etc. (allowing for if the animal happens to be ill, or physically incapable, of course...).

To clarify your belief, it follows logically, if you have no free choice, that it's "fated" for you to choose the pink toilet paper (not the basic white) when you go to the store, for example, and you were likewise "destined" to respond in this thread, etc.... Is this honestly what you believe?...

Originally posted by cff
...Die for each other is stretching it a bit far maye however.

Precisely my point.

Originally posted by cff
No, but you said an animal has to fullfill all aspects for it to be human like. I showed you that not even all humans are humanlike.

No, I didn't.

What I said was that the human species is possessed of ALL these extraordinary capabilities; animals (even collectively) aren't even possessed of but a fraction of them. This clearly sets us apart as being, well, "something special" as compared to the rest of the animal inhabitants of this sphere.

Originally posted by cff
So the earth is flat? The catholic church officially only accepts for I think 3 or 4 years that it isn't...

Try 3 or 4 CENTURIES, Bub. Besides, the Catholic church ain't exactly the most progressive-thinking institution around. And, who do you think put 'em on notice that it was round? That's right: a HUMAN (Galileo, wasn't it?...)

 

[Madman]

1) galileo was hounded by the catholic church, his books outlawed and he lived in exile for many years, the church only accepted after hundreds of years.

2) the raelian cult (is that the correct spelling?), and "cloneaid" are both demented in believing that they have successfully cloned a human life, if and when i see proof then i will accept it, until then i, like many other intelligent humans will continue to disbelieve their claims, if we (scientists) cant clone rhesus monkeys then we sure as hell cant clone the infinitely more complex homo erectus.

3) anyone who honestly believes the "created in gods own image" line needs their head examining, it is mere human arrogance to believe that we should be a copy of said deity. it is arrogance to believe that we in fact are the reason the planet exists (working in a religious context here) and not just prey, or a side show for some other species (i dont know, or even care which species) we could even be an exhibit for some super-race of aliens, for all i know!
As a christian myself, i believe in god, and i believe in the creation, yet i believe in the big bang theory, because i reason that god moulded the events of prehistory to create humanity, but even assuming this, i do not presume to claim that humanity are the reason for all this effort, and i anxiously await further evidence on the matter as i admit the creation theory has more than a few holes!