Well, unless he doesn't mind us quoting counter points from THGTTGQuote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
|
Well, unless he doesn't mind us quoting counter points from THGTTGQuote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
This, I can agree with. I salute you for recognizing that it is possible to have a flawed understanding of the Bible. This is a peculiar blind spot that too many Bible quoters have. They seem to be willfully ignorant of the choices that they themselves have made in order to arrive at their interpretation of the book. Any suggestion that their understanding is flawed is taken as irrefutable evidence that the suggestion is offered out of selfish (at best) or, more likely, evil motives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
Science, on the other hand, is all about ferreting out the flaws in our understanding and exposing the inconsistencies in our explanations. It accepts the fact that every explanation, model, or theory is limited, incomplete, and inaccurate to some degree and under some conditions. Careful measurements of the degree of those inaccuracies and the conditions under which they occur are the clues that lead to a clearer explanation, a better model, a more general theory.
I generally prefer the company of scientific folks to religious folks because they tend to be more humble.
Hello again:
For what it's worth, Jews make the best scientists because Jews are taught from the get go to question their faith. That's why they're the best lawyers too, because Jews argue about their religion all the time, and it's very Jewish to do so.
Christians are taught to blindly accept it.
You can't be a good scientist if you accept ANYTHING blindly, In my opinion.
Go Jews.
excon
Not so. That's what it should be about. But the fact is that many if not most people make a religion of science.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
That is the entire point of this post. It is literally impossible to bring something from nothing, yet Science insists that it happened.
It is impossible to bring life from nonlife, yet many scientists rabidly insist that it happened.
That also isn't true. That is why the scientific community is against comparing any other theory to evolution in the classroom. Evolution is their dogma.Quote:
and exposing the inconsistencies in our explanations.
In theory. But in practice, what actually happens is each person goes around defending his own work and attacking everyone else's.Quote:
It accepts the fact that every explanation, model, or theory is limited, incomplete, and inaccurate to some degree and under some conditions. Careful measurements of the degree of those inaccuracies and the conditions under which they occur are the clues that lead to a clearer explanation, a better model, a more general theory.
And sometimes that process does lead to innovations which are better for humanity. But frequently, serendipity has more to do with a new discovery than actual logic.
In my opinion, it's the other way around. Religious folk tend to be more humble because they have humbled themselves before God. And if they are vocal in defending the truths revealed by God, that is also humility in comparison to someone that is only defending what he spouts.Quote:
I generally prefer the company of scientific folks to religious folks because they tend to be more humble.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Actually that is false. We've been down that road before. You are a little confused. Science and its tenets have changed with the discovery of new evidence, not so with the truly religious types.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
You need to read more of the posts on this board by your supposed religious friends. You just may have your head in the sand. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Humble? RELIGIOUS people, humble?
At least the scientists I've met will admit when they don't know something, or that they may not be right about something, but that they have a theory and want to test it.
Religious people are incredibly convinced that they, and ONLY they, are right about their specific religion.
If that were not true, we wouldn't have half the wars in this world that we have. I mean, really--what's the constant bombing in Jerusalem about, if not religion? And what about the most recent attack on US soil? Wasn't that Muslims thinking THEIR religion was right?
I've never yet heard of someone going to war for science. I've heard of people getting burned at the stake, beheaded, and tortured for not being religious, though.
Give us another theory and we'll compare it to evolution...Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Intelligent Design.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
Yes, we have been down this road before. Your friend the Pitbull guy had to warn you against getting all upset because we religious folks have opinions which are just as valid as yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Now, if you want to start another round of insults, then post another message to me telling me that I'm confused and I have my head in the sand. Then I'll respond and you can start crying to the mods because you can't take what you dish out.
Sincerely,
De Maria
It's not a theory, it doesn't give meaningful or testable predictions. It also seems to be very subjective, something that a scientific theory cannot be.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Duplicate, please ignore.
That is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
I have met many religious people who admit when they are wrong also. Are you saying you haven't met any? And that is only one aspect of humility.Quote:
At least the scientists I've met will admit when they don't know something, or that they may not be right about something, but that they have a theory and want to test it.
# marked by meekness or modesty; not arrogant or prideful; "a humble apology"; "essentially humble...and self-effacing, he achieved the highest formal honors and distinctions"- B.K.Malinowski
# cause to be unpretentious; "This experience will humble him"
# used of unskilled work (especially domestic work)
# humiliate: cause to feel shame; hurt the pride of; "He humiliated his colleague by criticising him in front of the boss"
# base: of low birth or station (`base' is archaic in this sense); "baseborn wretches with dirty faces"; "of humble (or lowly) birth"
Wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
I've met many religious people who work to help the poor and feed the hungry.
And very few in the scientific community who care about anything besides their experiments.
Will you please read what you just said. Scientists constantly object to non-Scientists when they think non-scientists have crossed their border. And rightly so.Quote:
Religious people are incredibly convinced that they, and ONLY they, are right about their specific religion.
And it is also right when a Religious person defends his beliefs from someone who doesn't know them as well as he does.
Or do you think ignorance should win out over knowledge? Is that what you are suggesting?
But is war the criteria for dogma? What is the secular definition of dogma?Quote:
If that were not true, we wouldn't have half the wars in this world that we have. I mean, really--what's the constant bombing in Jerusalem about, if not religion? And what about the most recent attack on US soil? Wasn't that Muslims thinking THEIR religion was right?
I've never yet heard of someone going to war for science. I've heard of people getting burned at the stake, beheaded, and tortured for not being religious, though.
# a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
# a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative; "he believed all the Marxist dogma"
Wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
So, just because scientists have not gone to war to prove that something comes from nothing, doesn't mean that they don't still want to pass it off as true without proof. And there is no proof that a state of nothingness ever existed. And there is no proof that life evolved from non-life. Yet they keep trying to pass that off as truth.
And by definition that means that science has turned those theories into religious doctrines.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Then neither is the Big Bang nor Evolutionary theory. Because they each make assumptions which can't be tested.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
The Big Bang rests on the assumption that something comes from nothing. Show me the test that reproduces that prediction.
Evolution rests on the assumption that life comes from non life. Show me the test that reproduces that prediction.
And they both rest on the assumption that complete randomness can create intelligent life and intricate, complex organisms. Show me the test that reproduces that prediction.
Sincerely,
De Maria
You are showing your ignorance here.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Firstly your misconceptions about what these theories predict: The Big bang theory explains how we got here from a singularity, not from nothing. Evolution explains how we got here from the first replicating organism, not how we got here from non-life. We don't have enough evidence to form a theory of how life came from non-life, and we don't have enough evidence to explain how the singularity got there before the big bang. There are multiple scientific hypotheses about both of these subjects, none of which are "it was magic" like the creationist hypothesis, since we have no evidence that magic happens.
Secondly you seem to believe that both theories are based around randomness. This couldn't be farther from the truth. Evolution is a selective process based around individuals of a population competing for limited resources. The big bang theory is based around the formation of matter as the universe expanded and cooled, and later how this matter clumps together under gravitational force. (neither of these are random, and are commonly tested with predictions in particle accelerators and astronomical observation).
You show a complete lack of understanding about these 2 theories, and it's no wonder you don't believe them, because you think they are something completely different from what they actually are.
You mis-characterize scientific methods and conclusions, and then ridicule your own misconception. I'm afraid you're doing your cause more harm than good. Attacking a straw man version of "science" accomplishes nothing except to make you appear both arrogant and misinformed.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Lol!! Typical. Since you don't have a reasonable response, you try to tarnish mine. But I notice you have no specifics as to what strawman was created nor where the mis-characterizations took place.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
No, no. I'm certain that it purports to explains how we got here from nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.
Big Bang Theory
Again, abiogenesis has always been part and parcel of Darwin's theory.Quote:
Evolution explains how we got here from the first replicating organism, not how we got here from non-life.
The fifth phase is "Organic Evolution" (also known as "spontaneous generation"). The theory is that the planet Earth began as a molten mass of matter a few billions years ago. It cooled off into solid, dry rock. Then, it rained on the rocks for millions of years, forming great oceans. Eventually, this "prebiotic rock soup" (water + rock) came alive and spawned the first self-replicating organic systems.
Theory Of Evolution
In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[9] Charles Darwin made the suggestion that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes".
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thank you! Yet many, many scientists spout that as dogma.Quote:
We don't have enough evidence to form a theory of how life came from non-life, and we don't have enough evidence to explain how the singularity got there before the big bang.
And they proclaim their assumptions are valid but when we proclaim our assumption that God is the author of creation and of life, they call our assumption invalid. Yet we have more proof from logic and from observation that only an intelligence can create and design than they have that something came from nothing and that life spontaneously generated from non life.
Yes, all those scientific hypothesis which proclaim that something came from nothing amount to forms of magic. And Creationists do not believe in magic.Quote:
There are multiple scientific hypotheses about both of these subjects, none of which are "it was magic" like the creationist hypothesis, since we have no evidence that magic happens.
Evolution is based on the notion that random changes in the genes will cause variation in the organism which makes those specimens more likely to survive random changes in the environment.Quote:
Secondly you seem to believe that both theories are based around randomness. This couldn't be farther from the truth. Evolution is a selective process based around individuals of a population competing for limited resources.
How does evolution work? - Natural History Museum
Evolution is driven by random changes in the genes of organisms, called mutations,.
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/e...-is-evolution/
The Big Bang theory is based precisely upon the effects of an explosion. An explosion does not produce orderly results but by its very nature produces random results.Quote:
The big bang theory is based around the formation of matter as the universe expanded and cooled, and later how this matter clumps together under gravitational force. (neither of these are random, and are commonly tested with predictions in particle accelerators and astronomical observation).
1. I think I've expounded a thorough understanding of these theories.Quote:
You show a complete lack of understanding about these 2 theories, and it's no wonder you don't believe them, because you think they are something completely different from what they actually are.
2. I never said I didn't believe certain aspects of these theories.
a. But I don't believe they are unassailable facts. As many here seem to believe.
b. I believe many of their assumptions are unproven and unprovable.
And, you have admitted that there is not enough evidence to support those aspects of these theories which I question.
It is significant that the random theory of the universe which was in vogue 20 and 30 years ago is beginning to die out. Perhaps these other illogical ideas will die with it.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Your first two links are part of this website: Holy Bible
Not very objective.
Hello again:
I'm getting off this marygoround...
excon
Sigh, there's too much stuff to set you right on here. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of science, a fundamental misunderstanding of these theories, and enough arrogance to not listen when someone tries to help you to understand it. I give up, I have science to do. It's obvious that you made this topic to spout your point of view, with no intent of really listening to the answers.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
This is amusing in that it goes back and forth like a ping pong ball.
Pro-creationists: Science is flawed! Only God is perfect!
Pro-science: God is your imaginary friend. Prove God.
I'm with excon, and going to go play on the swings.
Nah. I just disagree with you and I can support my arguments with facts. Apparently you think I should agree with you because YOU SAY SO. But it is obvious that you know little about what you are saying. For instance, this nonsensical statement of yours:Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
Quote:
Secondly you seem to believe that both theories are based around randomness. This couldn't be farther from the truth.
That proves that either you know very little about evolution. Very little about science. Or that you don't care about the facts.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Two? I only see the one. And I posted the explanation because it is an accurate depiction of how science says life came into being.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
The following is from NASA's Planetary Biology Program. Note that they depict the spontaneous generation of life from lifeless material:
The final, most important events leading to the origin of life are perhaps the least understood chapters of the story. Life began during the first billion years of an Earth history which is 4.5 billion years old. The illustration depicts an early Earth in which volcanoes, a gray, lifeless ocean, and a turbulent atmosphere dominated the landscape. Vigorous chemical activity is represented by the heavy clouds, which were fed by volcanoes and penetrated both by lightning discharges and solar radiation. The ocean received organic matter from the land and the atmosphere, as well as from infalling meteorites and comets. Here, substances such as water, carbon dioxide, methane, and hydrogen cyanide formed key molecules such as sugars, amino acids, and nucleotides. Such molecules are the building blocks of proteins and nucleic acids, compounds ubiquitous to all living organisms. A critical early triumph was the development of RNA and DNA molecules, which directed biological processes and preserved life's "operation instructions" for future generations. RNA and DNA are depicted in the illustration, first as fragmets and then as fully assembled helices. These helices formed some of the living threads, as shown in the illustration, however, other threads derived from planetary processes such as ocean chemistry and volcanic activity. This evolving bundle of threads thus arose from a variety of sources, illustrating that the origin of life was triggered not only by special molecules such as RNA or DNA, but also by the chemical and physical properties of the Earth's primitive environments.
Obviously this is all unverifiable speculation which these scientists are passing off as facts.
The Prebiotic Earth
This is from RESA, an educational service agency that provides a broad spectrum of services and support to Wayne County’s 34 school districts...
"An equally interesting question that is currently studied in laboratories on Earth is how life originally could have arisen from lifeless molecules, and evolved into the already sophisticated isotope fractioning life forms... [in such a short period of time]... "
From Life on Earth began at least 3.85B years ago
Origins of Life
So, the content of the reference was accurate and unbiased. Science does claim that life was created spontaneously from non-life.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Better watch out! Even children sometimes fight over the swings!Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
Not so. Logically speaking, God had to be here from all eternity. That is the only way that anything could be here now. Otherwise, the law of thermodynamics says that nothing from nothing is nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
No. It is Science which claims that something was created from nothing. Therefore that theory is violating the law of thermodynamics.Quote:
Also, God is violating the first law of thermodynamics because he is creating something out of nothing.
Again, that is illogical. Since there was no universe, there was no law to explain the creation of the universe. It is He who in creating the universe put the law in place.Quote:
Something that creates something out of nothing, even if they are all powerful, is breaking this law.
Compare this to your theory that the universe and the law of thermodynamics which was derived by men to explain the universe, came to be on their own without any intelligence to create them. There is no way of testing this assumption of yours. And that means that your assumption isn't science. Since scientific results are supposed to be testable.
Nor is there any experience of any law being created without an intelligence to create it. Its an assumption based on a broken law. It contradicts the law of thermodynamics. Therefore what makes your assumption better than ours? Just your superiority complex? You said it so it must be so?
Sorry, but our assumption is logically superior to yours. And it is testable. Look around. We know that every mechanical device we see was created by man because of the wisdom of their design. But nature is even grander in design. Look at a human body. Yet science assumes that biological entities created themselves by sheer chance? No, the logical answer is that a vast intelligence far grander than human intelligence created them.
But not before the Big Bang. The theory of the Big Bang assumes that nothing existed before that first particle which exploded for no apparent reason.Quote:
2. A materialistic view has absolutely no problem with accepting that there was equal energy now as there was at the big bang.
Because the existence of God explains why the Big Bang banged. A body at rest remains at rest. If there was nothing to cause that first particle to explode, it would have remained at rest for eternity.Quote:
Why does there need to be a "first sauce"? Couldn't it have always been? The God argument rests on the same fact that God could have always been.
Tornados are unpredictable to humans but they aren't totally random. The law of probability shows that in a world of complete randomness, the event would not be related to the outcome. In this world, we know that mixing hot and cold air results in predictable outcomes. But world is still too vast for human beings to keep track of all the possibilities.Quote:
The tornado itself is proof that increasing entropy can seem to be violated if one doesn't look at the whole system. A tornado is formed by unpredictable and random winds, but somehow these form a stable structure.
Lets take a die for instance. You roll a die and there are six possibilites. Who made it so? The man who invented dice. There are other configurations. Coins have two sides. Who ever decides to use a coin will have two possibilities, 50/50 chance.
But who reduced the possibilities of the universe. Who made it so the universe would have order? Who said apple trees will bear apples?
Genesis 1 12 And the earth brought forth the green herb, and such as yieldeth seed according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit, having seed each one according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Hi DeMaria
I just wanted to pop in and let you know that I don't really understand or I don't let my mind focus on the “science” portion of things. I never liked science, so I guess that is why I don't understand it, or perhaps it is the reverse.
I don't see how religion and science mix and perhaps they don't. What I am trying to say is I don't really understand any of the science things that are being said so I can't really ascertain who is saying what to whom.
But if you are doing all of this, out of Love for your fellow man and for the love of God, I admire you and respect you and send you a hug. You are carrying the torch alone and I just hope your heart is not getting sad because of the difference in opinions.
There are some on this thread that see things very differently then you, that I have been blessed to know, and who I actually love dearly and are sharing their viewpoints on this thread brilliantly (even though most of it is over my head)
I feel that you are doing this with God's love in your heart and I did want to send you encouragement. I guess, if it was me, not sure I would have held up, it would have saddened me by now. So that's why I pop in to send a hug.
It's not that I am siding with anyone here and haven't read through every post so I don't know if any hurtful words have been exchanged, but I just was hoping none of this was making you sad and to keep sharing God's love, either by loving words or actions.
And the same goes for everyone on this thread, don't want anyone to feel frustrated or upset.
I have been experiencing bouts of being “emotional”. I have been doing very well, but it's crept back on me, and it's okay, but I guess that's why it feels twice as important to me to let you know that you don't stand alone and this is only a discussion and I hope the others on here don't get upset at me. I guess what I am trying to say is that I have love and concern for all of you and De Maria , I include you in that.
I know I may sound like a loopy loop, but it is part of who I am.
Take care.
Of course you shouldn't agree with me because I say so. You should check the facts, realise that I'm right and then agree with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
As you say, I know very little about evolution and science, you're right. But you know even less and you're too arrogant to admit it. The fact you think that the big bang was an explosion just shows you haven't studied even the most basic course in it.
I know that you don't realise that you are misrepresenting science, but you have to believe me that you are. Neither of the theories assert what you say they assert. Evolution does not say where life came from at all. Big bang theory does not say what happened before the big bang at all. This is for the exact reason that you give, we don't have evidence, so we don't claim to have knowledge about it. We do however have hypotheses which we can use to make models and predictions and see if they lead to the things that we do observe, however these are never set in stone and they are always subject to change. And they are EXPECTED to be changed to fit further observations.
I don't know why you state that life from non-life is impossible. Research has shown that it is possible at least in theory. But of course we have not observed it yet (except from the fact that it obviously happened at some point).
If you actually want to learn more about where you're misrepresenting science and want to learn more about these theories, let me know. Otherwise I'm done here.
Thanks AH. May God bless you for your kind words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Allheart
Sincerely,
De Maria
Ok, and to be fair, you shouldn't agree with me because I say so either. You should check the facts, realize that I'm right and then agree with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
Arrogant I may be. But I'll let reasonable people decide who is making more sense in this discussion.Quote:
As you say, I know very little about evolution and science, you're right. But you know even less and you're too arrogant to admit it.
Are you saying that it is wrong to characterize the Big Bang event as an explosion?Quote:
The fact you think that the big bang was an explosion just shows you haven't studied even the most basic course in it.
THE BIG BANG
About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event ...
THE BIG BANG
These folks from the University of Michigan are doing just that.
MOST POWERFUL EXPLOSION SINCE THE BIG BANG
CHALLENGES GAMMA RAY BURST THEORIES
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/1998/98-075.txt
This guy from NASA describes it the same way, as an explosion.
I would think these folks know a little bit about science considering where they work. Are you a higher authority than they?
Not until you provide the proof as we agreed above. Otherwise you'll have to believe me.Quote:
I know that you don't realise that you are misrepresenting science, but you have to believe me that you are.
Then why do evolutionists always compare evolution to Biblical Creation.Quote:
Neither of the theories assert what you say they assert. Evolution does not say where life came from at all.
Why did Darwin say?
Charles Darwin made the suggestion that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes".
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why does this short summary from the NASA website describe the spontaneous generation of life from non living matter:
The final, most important events leading to the origin of life are perhaps the least understood chapters of the story. Life began during the first billion years of an Earth history which is 4.5 billion years old. The illustration depicts an early Earth in which volcanoes, a gray, lifeless ocean, and a turbulent atmosphere dominated the landscape. Vigorous chemical activity is represented by the heavy clouds, which were fed by volcanoes and penetrated both by lightning discharges and solar radiation. The ocean received organic matter from the land and the atmosphere, as well as from infalling meteorites and comets. Here, substances such as water, carbon dioxide, methane, and hydrogen cyanide formed key molecules such as sugars, amino acids, and nucleotides. Such molecules are the building blocks of proteins and nucleic acids, compounds ubiquitous to all living organisms. A critical early triumph was the development of RNA and DNA molecules, which directed biological processes and preserved life's "operation instructions" for future generations. RNA and DNA are depicted in the illustration, first as fragmets and then as fully assembled helices. These helices formed some of the living threads, as shown in the illustration, however, other threads derived from planetary processes such as ocean chemistry and volcanic activity. This evolving bundle of threads thus arose from a variety of sources, illustrating that the origin of life was triggered not only by special molecules such as RNA or DNA, but also by the chemical and physical properties of the Earth's primitive environments.
The Prebiotic Earth
Lol!! In theory!! In other words speculation substituted for science. Please direct me to the experiment that created life from non living matter.Quote:
Big bang theory does not say what happened before the big bang at all. This is for the exact reason that you give, we don't have evidence, so we don't claim to have knowledge about it. We do however have hypotheses which we can use to make models and predictions and see if they lead to the things that we do observe, however these are never set in stone and they are always subject to change. And they are EXPECTED to be changed to fit further observations. I don't know why you state that life from non-life is impossible. Research has shown that it is possible at least in theory.
Yeah, when God created it.Quote:
But of course we have not observed it yet (except from the fact that it obviously happened at some point).
I'm sure if I was misrepresenting science, you would be flaunting all the specifics right here and now. But I'm not, so you can't but you want to make a grand exit. But before you go, I do have specifics.Quote:
If you actually want to learn more about where you're misrepresenting science and want to learn more about these theories, let me know.
You have just illustrated how so many scientists make dogma out of their unsubstantiated beliefs. Obviously you think that life can come from non life so you claim research has shown it. In theory. As though that were somehow a fact. But it isn't.
You have assumptions. Not facts. Some of you say nothing existed before the Big Bang, you and others say it was a single point in space, and others make other assumptions equally as unprovable as the existence of God in any experiments.
But the existence of God is the most logical of all the assumptions. If any of you found a simple utensil on the ground, a spoon or a watch, you'd assume that an intelligent being made it. But you see things infinitely more complex and wonderful and you assume that they happened by an accumulation of chance events.
Makes no sense.
I agree.Quote:
Otherwise I'm done here.
Sincerely,
De Maria
You don't really want to know the answer to that!Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
My vote: De Maria makes more sense.
She said reasonable people :p :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
The Steve's seem to support evolution.
NCSE Resource
Sorry, I am going with team Capuchin on this one.
Missing link shows bats flew first, developed echolocation later
"It's clearly a bat, but unlike any previously known. In many respects it is a missing link between bats and their non-flying ancestors."...
"The limb proportions of Onychonycteris are also different from all other bats---the hind legs are longer and the forearm shorter---and more similar to those of climbing mammals that hang under branches, such as sloths and gibbons. "
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Did any of them tell us how complex capabilities like echolocation or flight could have arisen by chance? Did they elaborate the dozens, if not thousands, of lucky mutations that would have had to come together blindly to produce a flying mammal from a mouse? No! If anything, they uncovered a more astonishing thing – that the flight capabilities of bats are dynamically integrated with their sonar systems. Did they watch 52 million years go by? Did they watch the so-called primitive bat change into a more advanced creature? Did they seriously entertain any of the many, many scientific criticisms that could be leveled against their tale? NO."
This is dogmatism masquerading as science.
Looks like true science makes it harder and harder for evolutionist to explain the things we observe. New findings like these only lead to more theories and hypothesis that CANNOT BE PROVED OR TESTED.
Science glorifies God's creations. :)
Why are we still expecting things to have to evolve by chance? I've said over and over that evolution doesn't work by chance, any source who says so obviously doesn't understand evolution or it's mechanisms.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Furthermore are you really expecting full detailed explanations of morphologies etc in a popular science article? The evidence is recent and I'm sure many scientists will study it further and explain how it evolved in the future. Science is an ongoing thing. We don't have all the answers right now.
Of course they can be tested, that's how science proceeds, in contrast to your explanation, "God did it", which CAN'T be tested. That's why creationism, even after being rebranded as "Intelligent Design", isn't science.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Believe me, I know how irritating it must be for you to hear it, but it really does come down to picking an explanation that suits you. If "God did it" works for you, I'm happy for you, really. But for a lot of people, it's no explanation at all, so it's a waste of your time as well as theirs to get in their face with it.
Hello again, Christians:
You think we're the same. You think we're just as religious about evolution as you are about religion. You think that our entire scientific based world would collapse under its own weight, if only we would allow ourselves to see the logic of your argument. But, we're blinded by our religion - science.
Well, that may be true for some, but not me. Science takes work. It takes rigor. It's HARD. And, it STILL doesn't have the answers. So, I'm left scratching my head. Nope, science really sucks!
Believe me, I'd love to have the easy answer - God did it. That would clear up SOOOOO much stuff for me. I could relax and not think about those things, because I'm bothered that I don't know where I came from. I really want to know.
So, I don't have a stake in science. I'd really rather have some other explanation. I WANT an easy way to explain it. I want it very desperately... But, you're not convincing me. I don't know. Is it me? I'm willing. I want to believe.
excon
Ex - You are a bright and beautiful man ( I truly believe that and mean that)Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
The answer is in your heart. It truly is. When you sit quietly - and remove all the "life" stuff from your thoughts... what remains?
Hello again, All:Quote:
Originally Posted by Allheart
I'm unable to do that. Life stuff is always front and center.
In fact, I wonder if you could remove all that "religious" stuff from your thoughts... would science remain?
excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:29 AM. |