- Very few Christians disagree with that notion- only the very liberal sort who can barely call themselves Christians, having no idea what it's about nor having read the bible on which it is based.

What's that little bit about "no one reaches the father except by me", not to mention constant 1 expression throughout the old testament- including in the 'ten commandments' about accepting YHWH or else…
2-Sure, religious people have the right to be hypocrites. If they don't want to be hypocrites, then if they want to 'correct' their points of views that have already been mandated in a 'perfect divinely inspired' book, then they need to admit that that book is pretty much useless as a source of any facts.

It's a fiction. We can take moral lessons from fiction- that's fine- but until people admit that it is a work of fiction and not of their god, they have no honest basis to go about changing things on a whim3
Science accepts itself as self-correcting. Science is not based on 'revealed' truth, but reasoned truth, meaning things can be updated and improved, and as such, has nothing to do with religion.



Religion is inherently conservative- it relies on it.
what you say about this help me

What notion are you asking about?

I'm not understanding what the question is.

Claims that science should stay out "of philosophy, origins, and religion." when it helps with origins, it can explain a lot of stuff that the bible is totally wrong on

God's word is always changing as there's a lot that people don't follow any more?

Are there any god?

God is real and His word never changes, it is people that change God's word to suit themselves.

Gods word does not change, Gods covenant or agreements with man do at times. Originally man had to come to God only though the sacrifice of animals or earthly things as a way to cleanse their sins, they had ritual baths to clean. This was a start for the coming of Christ to be the final sacrifice. So no the rules have not changed, only the type of sacrifice required changed from animals to God's son.

And religion may at time laugh at science as it stumbles to find early knowledge but he has nothing against science since most science only proves the bible true.

No, I have logical proofs that such a god does not exist. It only applies to certain definitions, but it covers every significant historical and common English definition- that god does not exist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snowgirl

.... what you say about this help me ...

---

... "no one reaches the father except by me"... is claimed to have been stated by Jesus, and indeed makes little logical sense if it is related to the Trinity claim that Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit are one. Because than it actually says that "no one reaches me except by me".

As to the rest of your topic post : people should be free to believe whatever they prefer to believe, whether you agree with their belief or not.
Because you also like to be free to believe whatever you prefer to believe.
(Remember : do not to others, what you do not like others to do to you).

In principle science is indeed self-correcting. In reality that self-correction can be improved upon, as scientists are also human beings with ego problems, specific interests, and prone to make mistakes. But that principle itself is correct !

Real science is only partly based on reasoned truth (what is truth?) , but mainly on objective supported evidence.
Therefore it is totally incompatible with anything related to religion, as that is based on belief and faith.
A point supporters of "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" seem unable to understand.

May I ask you why you are attacking religious views here on this Christianity board?
A better location for opposing views is the Religious Discussion board.

John
Secular Humanist Freethinker

Cred:

Logically exlpain to me, prove to me INTELLIGENTLY, how DNA , RNA came about?
How did DNA become coordinated with ribosomes and amino acids to form proteins.

How the vision or hearing or echo location or the clotting / fibrinolysis cascade come about?

What specific genetic mutations caused humans to diverge from apes?

How do you explain that for 2 billion years of only single cells.

How do you explain the Cambrian "big bang"

If eukaryotes took prokaryotes to be their own mitochodria [ has this ever been observed or replicated in a lab ] why did they not incorporate photosynthesis also? The best fit for survival. You can make atp 2 different ways rather than one.
Think about it, plants take co2 water and sunlight to make oxygen and carbohydrates. Oxygen at high concentrations is toxic. We and animals take o2 and cabohydrates for energy and the byproducts are also co2 and water. A balance. Now which came first?

How did random chance time and natural selection lead to this - again reproduce this in a lab. Oh wait in order to do lab experiments the scientists have to be INTELLIGENT


You will understand science reporting about evolution these days when you memorize the Darwin Party M.O. A review.
• Step 1: Assume evolution.
• Step 2: Observe a fact.
• Step 3: Make up a story to show how the fact might fit in with the assumption of evolution.


Don't worry if you'll be scratching your head for a long time.
These scientists are doing the same thing.


Scoop: Mazur: Altenberg! The Woodstock of Evolution?

"Well there's 25,000 genes, so each could be on or off. So there's 2 x 2 x 2 x 25,000 times. Well that's 2 to the 25,000th. Right? Which is something like 10 to the 7,000th. Okay? There's only 10 to the 80th particles in the whole universe. ARE YOU STUNNED?"


"Oh sure natural selection's been demonstrated. . . the interesting point, however, is that it has rarely if ever been demonstrated to have anything to do with evolution in the sense of long-term changes in populations. . . . Summing up we can see that the import of the Darwinian theory of evolution is just unexplainable caprice from top to bottom. What evolves is JUST WHAT HAPPENED TO HAPPEN."




"Pigliucci cites epigenetic inheritance as one of the mechanisms that Darwin knew nothing about. He says there is mounting empirical evidence to "suspect" there's a whole additional layer chemically on top of the genes that is inherited but is not DNA. Darwin, of course, did not even know of the existence of DNA"



-----Evolution cannot explain DNA and yet these scientists think there is something more complex than just genes involved? ------

inthebox I'm going to leave a more thorough refutation of your points to someone more trained in biology (I am not.)

But two elementary points.

1. First of all, your math is WAY off. 2×2x2×25,000 = 8×25,000 = 200,000 = 2×105^. It is nowhere NEAR the absurd figure of 107000^ you propose. Sorry, but you should check your work before you hand in your paper. .

2. Even if there are unexplained parts of evolutionary theory now, it does not mean they are 'unexplainable'. And the alternative solution you propose is way more complicated, and introduces way more unanswerable questions and logical inconsistencies than Darwinism.

11

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snowgirl

11

---

What does that mean? Coherent posts are important.

Sorry nothing

Hi intheboxes questions are in bold as for this kind of thing the quote unquote thing gets very tedious. If I have skipped a question I have explained why just so it doesn’t look like I’m dodging things that I am not. I am not as eloquent as some people are on this subject or explaining things so bear with me!

Logically exlpain to me, prove to me INTELLIGENTLY, how DNA , RNA came about?
How did DNA become coordinated with ribosomes and amino acids to form proteins.?
I personally don’t know the answer, but this doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

How the vision or hearing or echo location or the clotting / fibrinolysis cascade come about?
Through a step by step processes, the irreducible complexity argument just keeps on having to move its goalposts as each system is explored and explained. Of course there will be a couple of systems that haven’t been explained yet but I’m sure they will be (I am working on such a system for my Ph.D). Vision and hearing have been explained, as have most cascades which are quite simple really. I won’t explain them here as I am lazy.

What specific genetic mutations caused humans to diverge from apes?
There are a couple it wasn’t an overnight clear cut thing. Myself I am a supporter that the point mutation in the myosin (muscle component) gene allowing a decrease in energy expenditure and consequently brain expansion as being a fundamental change.
Neuroscience for Kids - Brain Expansion

How do you explain that for 2 billion years of only single cells.
I don’t understand what you are trying to say here.


If eukaryotes took prokaryotes to be their own mitochodria [ has this ever been observed or replicated in a lab ] why did they not incorporate photosynthesis also?
Not all prokaryotes can photosynthesis. Obviously those incorporated did not. Also this is not as firm a theory as evolution.

The best fit for survival. You can make atp 2 different ways rather than one.
This also makes no sense to me.

Think about it, plants take co2 water and sunlight to make oxygen and carbohydrates. Oxygen at high concentrations is toxic. We and animals take o2 and cabohydrates for energy and the byproducts are also co2 and water. A balance. Now which came first?

The plants this is discussed in further here
History of Atmospheric Oxygen Levels
And very nicely here, it also discusses the Cambrian explosion

How do you explain the Cambrian "big bang"
What conditions led to the first animals − the mysterious Ediacara biota −

How did random chance time and natural selection lead to this - again reproduce this in a lab.
We don’t have that much time! Although many people have reproduced it in silico (computer models).
Oh wait in order to do lab experiments the scientists have to be INTELLIGENT
You’d be surprised... :eek:

"Pigliucci cites epigenetic inheritance as one of the mechanisms that Darwin knew nothing about. He says there is mounting empirical evidence to "suspect" there's a whole additional layer chemically on top of the genes that is inherited but is not DNA. Darwin, of course, did not even know of the existence of DNA"
Do you even know what epigenics is, what has it got to do with this argument? What does it matter if Dawin knew of the existence of DNA or not? The fact it exists and genetics explains his observations only further supports the theory.

Intdbx If eukaryotes took prokaryotes to be their own mitochodria has this ever been observed or replicated in a lab why did they not incorporate photosynthesis also


They did. Where do you think chlorophyll came from? Plants are Eukaryotes, and that's exactly what they did.

Animals could have photosynthesized, but production of chlorophyll is expensive- it uses up a great deal of energy. Since they had a ready supply of plants and other animals to eat, they didn't need to, and thus didn't.
Now which came first

Chemosynthesis, which you probably know nothing about. Then photosynthesis, then standard respiration
How do you explain the Cambrian big bang"
It's the Cambrian explosion, not big bang.

All of those things are explained easily by evolution, geophysics, and the particular conditions at the time- namely the increase in oxygen and the prior extinction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Cred :
------

---

Inthebox :

My reaction to your post #10 of 04:14 PM should actually be :

"Logically explain to me, prove to me INTELLIGENTLY, how and why God came into being. (And don't give me that clincer that God always existed, as NOTHING exists forever (if you disagree please provide objective supporting evidence that anything - including God - (can) exist(s) forever)."

But as I know you won't be able to provide a reply that makes any sense, I just note that :
- You did not react in any way to my post itself, but instead attacked the Evolution Theory.
- In my post I did not attack Creationism or "Intelligent Design" , or religion in general.

So is this the way you react if you fail any serious reply to what I post here?
Interesting (but also rather hypocrite) attitude...

:rolleyes:

Templelane and Snowgirl :

Don't let inthebox draw you into a debate on his attacking post against the Evolution Theory.
Simply because that is NOT the topic here.
Inthebox just had to change the topic subject because he/she had no answer that made any sense against the logic and arguments of my reaction # 9.
Did you note that inthebox actually completely failed to address my reaction ?
.
Therefore I repeat that post, to allow inthebox and others once more to do the right thing, and honestly reply to posts that relate to the topic question, instead of his/her fallacies (delusion perhaps?) on the Evolution Theory.
.
---
---
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snowgirl

.... what you say about this help me ...

---

... "no one reaches the father except by me"... is claimed to have been stated by Jesus, and indeed makes little logical sense if it is related to the Trinity claim that Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit are one. Because than it actually says that "no one reaches me except by me".

As to the rest of your topic post : people should be free to believe whatever they prefer to believe, whether you agree with their belief or not.
Because you also like to be free to believe whatever you prefer to believe.
(Remember : do not to others, what you do not like others to do to you).

In principle science is indeed self-correcting. In reality that self-correction can be improved upon, as scientists are also human beings with ego problems, specific interests, and prone to make mistakes. But that principle itself is correct !

Real science is only partly based on reasoned truth (what is truth?) , but mainly on objective supported evidence.
Therefore it is totally incompatible with anything related to religion, as that is based on belief and faith.
A point supporters of "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" seem unable to understand.

May I ask you why you are attacking religious views here on this Christianity board?
A better location for opposing views is the Religious Discussion board.

John
Secular Humanist Freethinker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

"Logically explain to me, prove to me INTELLIGENTLY, how and why God came into being. (And don't give me that clincer that God always existed, as NOTHING exists forever (if you disagree please provide objective supporting evidence that anything - including God - (can) exist(s) forever)."

---

Hey Cred! I know this post wasn't for me, but I would like to reply to this statement. Of course you will not receive an answer you are looking for because there is no 'scientific' evidence that would show how God came into being. This I understand by looking at things from your point of view. Just as you would want someone to see things from your perspective, I would ask you to do the same.

Look at God from the believer's perspective. God is all powerful, He has limitless ability, Almighty, ever-present everywhere. If you believed God to have these characteristics as the believer does then it shouldn't be hard for you to understand that God did not have a beginning and will never end. He indeed exists forever.

Cred:

"Real science is only partly based on reasoned truth (what is truth?) , but mainly on objective supported evidence.
Therefore it is totally incompatible with anything related to religion, as that is based on belief and faith.
A point supporters of "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" seem unable to understand"

I was responding to that:

And so you answered my questions about the very faith based evolutionary theory with another question. Dodging are you?



As to two ways of making atp - the energy currency of cells.

We do it in our mitochondria through the krebs cycle and the electron transport chain:
simply put:

Glucose/ carbohydrate + o2 = atp + co2 + h2o

PLants, in their chloroplasts, make atp via

H2o + co2 + sunlight = atp + o2 + carbohydrate.


Don't you see the symmetry and balance - plants use our expired co2 and we use plant's o2 produced.

Think now folks:

If evolution is about survival of the fittest, is not having two systems to produce atp the most efficient? Having chloroplasts and mitochondria in one cell. One that can get energy by eating and breathing o2 and when that is not enough switch to sun, co2 and h2o. The cellular equivalent of a Prius that can run on gas or electricity.

THe cambrian big bang is bioloical - it debunks darwins "tree of life"
In other words, most of today's phyla appeared in this geological time. How?

Now Cred you claim to be a free thinker but offer no explanation other than parroting that it is all from evolution, but science does not know how or why. That seems unintelligent.

NOw befoe you reply - I am in no way saying you should believe what I believe. I'm not "forcing " you.

I know from other threads that you don't want to believe in a God. You make these erroneus statements that "Science " and Christianity are mutually exclusive and make dismissive statements. My point is that nothing could be further from the truth. Science supports the Bible and God. I'm not using the Bible which you don't believe, but actual observed scientific facts free from evolutionary assumptions and hypothesis.
That is what all those pHDs are scratching their heads about. They believe in science and the facts but it points them in all sorts of different directions and conclusions.



The origins of the universe, of life on this planet, how we all came to be is based on science / reasoned truth - and that truth is that there is a God who created.

so Genesis 1 in the Bible is fact, human explanations are just theories.



The opening post question is very obtuse.


"It's a fiction. We can take moral lessons from fiction- that's fine- but until people admit that it is a work of fiction and not of their god, they have no honest basis to go about changing things on a whim3"

They make these kind of statements and expect Bible believing Christian to respond how?

1] I believe that the God of the Old Testament and the New Tesytament are one in the same.

2] I am a hypocrite, I am a sinner, that is why I depend on and trust in God. The 10 Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount those are the standards, This Christian is not changing them. I get angry, I don't turn the other cheek, I've fornicated,. I'm not trying to change what is written in the Bible, to rid me of the need to repent.

The Bible tells you the Good News that salvation is available and a choice for all. The best way to lead your life. I don't use it as a book of "facts" in the manner of what tomorrow's weather willl be or which stocks to invest in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MoonlitWaves

Hey Cred! I would ask you to do the same.

---

The idea of a Q&A board is first of all to answer the topic question. And my reply did just that.
Please read that question, and you surely will agree with me on that.

As to Christian believers : in nearly all my posts I state that everyone is (should be) free to believe whatever one prefers.
People should be free to believe, and also be free from belief, if so preferred.

As to your reaction, and with all respect :

1-I did not ask a question. My post replied to the topic question (twice now).
2-I always try to see things from both sides.
3-You stated that God is all powerful, that He has limitless ability, that he/she/it is Almighty and ever-present everywhere. But that is what you BELIEVE. Fine with me. But if you want me to accept that as a reality, you have to provide objective supporting evidence for all of that!
4-"If I believed that ... " is no valid argumentation but an invalid proposition. I do not.
5-"He (God) indeed exists forever". Again that is what you believe. It is a hypothesis. Not a fact. At least no objective supported evidence for that has ever been provided.

Please realize that I do not attack your religious views. I just point out what should be clear to all.
:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Cred: "I was responding to that"

---

No you were not. I clearly indicated that there are limits to science and to what appears to be reality. You however introduce a new topic here, simply because you do not WANT or CAN NOT or SEEM UNWILLING to reply to the topic question and/or my reaction to that topic question.

May I remind you that this topic is NOT about two ways of making atp.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about the energy currency of cells.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about our mitochondria.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about the "krebs" cycle.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about the electron transport chain.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about glucose/ carbohydrate.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about plants.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about chloroplasts.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about "symetry" and balance in plants.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about survival of the fittest.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about producing atp most efficient.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about having chloroplasts and mitochondria in one cell.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about getting energy by eating and breathing o2 (?)
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about switching to sun, co2 and h2o.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about the cellular equivalent of a Prius.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about the Cambrian "big bang".
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about "bioloical" (whatever that is).
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about Darwins "tree of life".
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about today's phyla.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about evolution.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about the origins of the universe.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about life on this planet.

This topic centers around the topic question, and replies to that question.
Even if that topic question was rather unclear on it's intention.
But certainly it was not on all these points I mentioned from your lines.

If you want to start a topic on the Evolution Theory, than do so.
On the proper board, and with an appropriate topic question.
Not by trying to blow up another topic because you have no valid reply to one of the reactions there.

It is not I who is trying to dodge anything. You are doing that!
;)

Please note : this is the topic question here :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snowgirl

- Very few Christians disagree with that notion- only the very liberal sort who can barely call themselves Christians, having no idea what it's about nor having read the bible on which it is based.

What's that little bit about "no one reaches the father except by me", not to mention constant 1 expression throughout the old testament- including in the 'ten commandments' about accepting YHWH or else…
2-Sure, religious people have the right to be hypocrites. If they don't want to be hypocrites, then if they want to 'correct' their points of views that have already been mandated in a 'perfect divinely inspired' book, then they need to admit that that book is pretty much useless as a source of any facts.

It's a fiction. We can take moral lessons from fiction- that's fine- but until people admit that it is a work of fiction and not of their god, they have no honest basis to go about changing things on a whim3
Science accepts itself as self-correcting. Science is not based on 'revealed' truth, but reasoned truth, meaning things can be updated and improved, and as such, has nothing to do with religion.

Religion is inherently conservative- it relies on it. what you say about this help me

---

Cred, Question for you.. I was just readind the statement you just posted.
"I believe it as soon as I see it "
So are you saying you only believe in things you can only see?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

No you were not. I clearly indicated that there are limits to science and to what appears to be reality. You however introduce a new topic here, simply because you do not WANT or CAN NOT or SEEM UNWILLING to reply to the topic question and/or my reaction to that topic question.

May I remind you that this topic is NOT about two ways of making atp.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about the energy currency of cells.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about our mitochondria.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about the "krebs" cycle.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about the electron transport chain.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about glucose/ carbohydrate.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about plants.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about chloroplasts.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about "symetry" and balance in plants.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about survival of the fittest.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about producing atp most efficient.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about having chloroplasts and mitochondria in one cell.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about getting energy by eating and breathing o2 (?)
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about switching to sun, co2 and h2o.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about the cellular equivalent of a Prius.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about the Cambrian "big bang".
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about "bioloical" (whatever that is).
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about Darwins "tree of life".
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about today's phyla.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about evolution.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about the origins of the universe.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about life on this planet.

This topic centers around the topic question, and replies to that question.
Even if that topic question was rather unclear on it's intention.
But certainly it was not on all these points I mentioned from your lines.

If you want to start a topic on the Evolution Theory, than do so.
On the proper board, and with an appropriate topic question.
Not by trying to blow up another topic because you have no valid reply to one of the reactions there.

It is not I who is trying to dodge anything. You are doing that!
;)

Please note : this is the topic question here :

---

This is a quote from your post #116 on the Bible being [ not ] factual.


"That is a ridiculous claim. There is overwhelming scientific objective evidence for evolution"


Yet you nor any other scientist can prove what I have asked.


If you are true to your saying "I'll believe it when I see it."

Then neither will you believe evolutionary theory, unless you have all the "provable" answers.

An honest answer would be we/ I don't know.

Just remember that when dealling with non Christians, they wish to set the rules that only they will accept, so they set the game field up so that no answer will satisfy them, any attempt will only draw them back to another area or wanting to change the game field,

In the end, they can not prove there is NOT a God, so since they can not prove there is not one, that means there has to be one,
That makes as much sense as their statements that they will not BELIEVE it, unless they see it, since belief in something is only really possible without seeing it, believe takes a faith,
But for a christian, it is far past belief, it is knowing, since once God is in their heart, they also feel it, and for many they will see the workings of God. But you don't see or feel, until you believe first.

I have no idea why and what over 2/3 of your posts have to do with the actually question, so addressing that question

Actually most Christians or any religious are not hypocrites, but that does not mean you don't have them in a church, In fact there are a percent of athiests and other non beleivers in every church in the US, and many pastors are not even beleivers, We were told this happens even in the bible. So merely a person who calls thierself a christian means nothing, it is their actions that prove if they really are, or if they are not.

Next you are totally wrong, the bible is a very historical book, proven by sceince time and time again from 100's of studeis. Next no it is not fiction, so your idea is wrong from the start, so your question in itself is pointless since you assume a false idea. But yes it is moral lessons and people need to learn from it, even if they don't accept the truth of it, the moral issues are universial or should be. But God is not self adjusting bu he is growing, as he made new agreements with mankind, though the old testement and the new.

What is self correcting is the evil man brings from time to time into religion, not the word of God, but the evil man sometimes drags into it, in the name of religion.

As for as the bible, esp the Old testement, it is the basis in general for three of the major religions, which don't even agree on other issues, if that does not draw it into a truth, I don't know what else could

But science is often based on assumed truths, and don't adapt easy, but since science does not prove Chrsitianity wrong, there is no issue in it,
It is science that is scared of Christianity, not Christinaity that is scared of religion


No, Religion is merely moral, mankind is just not wanting to follow moral values, So basically mankind does not wish to follow morality,
But again man never did want to follow morality.
And your view of it as either right or left is merely a opinon or belief, it is perhaps middle of the road, and everone that is not following it is way to the one side too far, that may be an opinon of it also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

... So are you saying you only believe in things you can only see?

---

Hello Sassy !

Please keep in mind that it has ALWAYS been my opinion that everyone should be free to believe whatever one prefers to believe.

CredendoVidis is my credo ever since I first joined boards like WeTellYou, Answerway and AskMe HelpDesk , and noticed that many Christians there claim that what they BELIEVE is the "one and only truth", as if it is factual.
There even is a topic here that seeks to prove that the Bible is factual.

I use that credo to express that there is a clear difference between BELIEVING, KNOWING, and BEING the truth / factual !
:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Yet you nor any other scientist can prove what I have asked.

---

I clearly indicated several times that there are limits to science and to what appears to be reality. I also stated that the scientific evidence for evolution is incomplete.
That noted, the scientific support for the Evolution Theory is overwhelming, far beyond what you suggest it to be : alike a Swiss cheese full of holes in it.

I have no control over what any other human beings state and/or claim.
But if you say that evolution is not true at all (even with all the scientific evidence that is available for it), than why do you support the religious claim that the Bible etc. is factual (without hardly any scientific evidence for that being available)?
That attitude is hypocrite.
:rolleyes:

inthebox so if



1. not having two methods to produce atp is inefficient.



2. god created everything.



Then….. well, you can do the math

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

I clearly indicated several times that there are limits to science and to what appears to be reality. I also stated that the scientific evidence for evolution is incomplete.
That noted, the scientific support for the Evolution Theory is overwhelming, far beyond what you suggest it to be : alike a Swiss cheese full of holes in it.

I have no control over what any other human beings state and/or claim.
But if you say that evolution is not true at all (even with all the scientific evidence that is available for it), than why do you support the religious claim that the Bible etc. is factual (without hardly any scientific evidence for that being available)?
That attitude is hypocrite.
:rolleyes:

---

Thank for admitting that there is an insuffiencient amount of evidence to prove evolution. If you believe in evolution despite the lack of evidence then you have faith.
To me evolution is not even science. Evolution is about as scientific as a voodoo rooster plucking ceremony in Haiti... lol Almost.

Science means "to know" and "systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc." It is based on observation and experimentation. Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They assume, guess, suppose, speculate, etc. but they don't "know." Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science.
Dawin was not even a trained scientist.. lol he was a trained minister. So those with FAITH in evolution like yourself, are worshipping at the feet of an apostate preacher or what I like to call the CHURCH OF DARWINISM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snowgirl

inthebox so if



1. not having two methods to produce atp is inefficient.



2. god created everything.



Then….. well, you can do the math

---

If I believed in evolution as he source and creator of everything, and if evolution is about natural selection as a force that allows "beneficial" mutations to reproduce at a higher rate, I have to wonder why the advantage of 2 cellular energy sources were not 1] a "beneficial" mutation that has not already occurred in the past 2 billion years, 2] why we humans are not "evolving" into a more superior form.

Are we better than are ancestors? Yes, in a lot of ways.
- We have used our INTELLIGENCE to see better with glasses, lasik surgery, binoculars, telescopes. We did not evolve a "better" eye that can "see" ultraviolet or infrared.
- We have used oue INTELLIGENCE to invent and make planes to fly us - though that may not be the case with American airlines. - We did not evolve wings.
- We have used our INTELLIGENCE to communicate worldwide via the internet. We did not evolve a 6th or 7th or 8th sense to accomplish that.
- We have used our INTELLIGENCE to advance medical care. We did not evolve a perfect immune system or cancer resistance.

Every advance in the history of humanity is due to INTELLIGENCE, not a natural selction of a "beneficial" gene. In fact as science advances we discover new genetic abnormalities or mutations that are related to disease and illnes. For example breast cancer, colon cancer, alzheimers, hemophilia etc...


There is suffering, and tragedy, and unexplainable horrors in this world and in this lifetime.
It is very hard to accept that God would allow this. The bible tells us that we are fallen and imperfect as a result of sin. The suffering we witnesss is the result of sin.


God is our answer to sin and also our hope.