[Bobboau]

So let me get this straight, I can either believe in science or I can believe in God (Christianity). And I have no choice to chose to believe both can co-exist. Am I right on the money?

you can beleve ether God made man or there was no god involved our creation, I don't see how any (sane) person could beleve both at the same time

How come the first sciencetists did not think this?

becase the exsisting, yet untested establishment of knowleg at the time was this and these people were only focusing on one small aspect of reality, no one had thought of evolution yet (and if they would have they probly would have been burned at the stake) so god was a logical nesesity to fill in the unknown gap.

.* How come evolution is more believable then Christianity/God?

becase it does not rely on 'magic'™©®,
'becase there is a mecanism that can be understud tested and manipulated,
becase it has been proven to be a system that exsists and is currently working on us, becase you can see it happen, becase you can make it happen,
becase it follows a set of simple rules that don't change

Isn't evolution random chance and occurrences?

no, it isn't,
you have now reinforced my belef that nobody who understands evolution can deny it as reality

How can that fit in a universe that science has found to be orderly and predicable?

first we understand some mecanisms, the universe is in unfathumably complex place that we don't yet fully understand, 'random' is short for small things that we don't have the capability nor desire to get specifics on.

second, becase the random changes that are a small part of evolution have results that gives an individual ether an advantage or disadvantage, then directly relaits to it's ability to pass genes on to the next generation.

I could come up with a math problem to say you are older or younger then you are

I'd like to see that

How come the Bible can't be my proof like math is yours?

becase his math is not soley dependent on his math book to be proven,
1+1=2

you see scientific things are determined by observing the world trying to figure out why something is the way it is, then testing that assumption and changeing it when ever a better idea comes around.

religion stops before the test phase
the only proof you have that would give you the world veiw you have comes from you're holy book,
example: you say that us being alive is proof of God, becase if there wasn't a god we wouldn't be here.
but were did you come up with god, why is it a necsesity?
it is added with out any further proof.
were here, so it is logical to assume we were some how created, but it is not logical to say a magical invisable man in the sky scooped mud out of a river bank and breathed life into it wich then became us. unless that is you have some sort of evedence that makes such a senario more likey than, a giant space goat takeing a crap on the planetwich then sat in the sun untill it became human, or the magic red dragon forged us from a lake of molten fire.
evolution has physical, tangable, "hold in you're hand an look at it", evedence, that makes it more likely a senario than any of the previusly mentioned posabilities.

now go find us something that gives the creation story some creedance, that does not require you looking for something out of the book, or major interpetation to fit it in.

[diamondgeezer]

Originally posted by Alikchi
That proves it, then. God is Mike.

It being a Sunday lunch time, he's currently asleep on the sofa, but I shall tell him this when he wakes up. I'm sure he'll be pleased

[HotSnoJ]

One question. Did you even read the whole post? Or for that matter know any history?

For instance you quoted

How come the first sciencetists did not think this?

Your reply.

becase the exsisting, yet untested establishment of knowleg at the time was this and these people were only focusing on one small aspect of reality, no one had thought of evolution yet (and if they would have they probly would have been burned at the stake) so god was a logical nesesity to fill in the unknown gap.

Evolution had been suggested before. Just no possible means of how it could be done.

Me
---------
How come evolution is more believable then Christianity/God?

You
---------
becase it does not rely on 'magic'™©®,
'becase there is a mecanism that can be understud tested and manipulated,
becase it has been proven to be a system that exsists and is currently working on us, becase you can see it happen, becase you can make it happen,
becase it follows a set of simple rules that don't change

Where is the proof that evolution is happening and has happend? If you go for the bones then you are use bad evidence. #1 the bones don't prove a thing #2 The flood could have done the samething by burying them. Any "evidence" (e.g. Bones and rock) for evolution is circumstantial, that goes for the creation model too.

Me
---------
Isn't evolution random chance and occurrences?

You
---------
no, it isn't,
you have now reinforced my belef that nobody who understands evolution can deny it as reality

Yes it is random chance/change and chance. I do understand it but unlike you I don't believe it. Duh.

Me
---------
How can that fit in a universe that science has found to be orderly and predicable?

You
---------
first we understand some mecanisms, the universe is in unfathumably complex place that we don't yet fully understand, 'random' is short for small things that we don't have the capability nor desire to get specifics on.

second, becase the random changes that are a small part of evolution have results that gives an individual ether an advantage or disadvantage, then directly relaits to it's ability to pass genes on to the next generation.

Are you agreeing with me? Random is something you can't calculate will happen. You can predict what the chances are for a di to land on 4 but not that it will. We can calculate where the planets, moons, and other bodies in space where they will be decades or centurys from now. we can tell where they were in the past. That my friend is not random chance. We can even predict what flowers will look like.

Me
---------
I could come up with a math problem to say you are older or younger then you are

You
---------
I'd like to see that

You forgot the important part, the next two sentences. "But would that make it true? Note I'd have to make a least one assumption to do this, or one mistake."

Me
---------
How come the Bible can't be my proof like math is yours?

You
---------
becase his math is not soley dependent on his math book to be proven,
1+1=2

you see scientific things are determined by observing the world trying to figure out why something is the way it is, then testing that assumption and changeing it when ever a better idea comes around.

religion stops before the test phase
the only proof you have that would give you the world veiw you have comes from you're holy book,
example: you say that us being alive is proof of God, becase if there wasn't a god we wouldn't be here.
but were did you come up with god, why is it a necsesity?
it is added with out any further proof.
were here, so it is logical to assume we were some how created, but it is not logical to say a magical invisable man in the sky scooped mud out of a river bank and breathed life into it wich then became us. unless that is you have some sort of evedence that makes such a senario more likey than, a giant space goat takeing a crap on the planetwich then sat in the sun untill it became human, or the magic red dragon forged us from a lake of molten fire.
evolution has physical, tangable, "hold in you're hand an look at it", evedence, that makes it more likely a senario than any of the previusly mentioned posabilities.

You are again forgetting parts of my post. I know you can go to the store and find that 1+1=2 with apples. I posted a verses from Job and about other writers from around Jesus' time that wrote about Him. To establish at least some crediblity to the Bible. Now since we have no other evidence that Christ didn't do the things He did then "Innocent until proven guilty." the same with evolution.

Evolution is a belief just like Christianity is. Since we weren't there we have to rely on others that were or in the case of evolution thought it up.

That's all for now. I'm sure to think up something else.



BTW diamondgeezer are you talking to me?

[Reaper]

Satan... his name is satan... good and evil are all the same...

[diamondgeezer]

Originally posted by HotSnoJ
BTW diamondgeezer are you talking to me?

Err... to which bit are you refering?

Originally posted by Reaper
Satan... his name is satan... good and evil are all the same...

No, that's the light and dark side of the Force you're thinking of there

[HotSnoJ]

Originally posted by diamondgeezer

Err... to which bit are you refering?

The post just before my last one.

[Bobboau]

Where is the proof that evolution is happening

I get sick, I take antibiodics to get better, I feel better, but I don't take the full dose, some of the bacteria survive as something about them made them less suseptable to the drug, they grow and multiply, I get sick again...
this cycle repetes its self untill I die becase my medication no longer henders them.

dog breeders, look for a trait, when theyfind it they breed it with onother with that trait, thus that trait becomes more promonant

Yes it is random chance/change and chance

no it isn't
it is only a part of mutation, wich is a small part of the system overall
it is not all there is to evolution

random is something that is so small and obscure that were neither care to nor could calculate them with acuracy, stuff that is way beond the scope of us careing about them, in reality if the universe were to restart with all the values being 'exactly' the same, all of the "random" events in the universe would play out exactly the same way as it did last time.
but in order to predict random events you'd have to figure in the effects of every subatomic paricle on every other subatomic particle in the univers for everyzilianth of a second

you still don't seem to understand the diference between thinking something is the way it is becase you've looked at it and becase someone told you that was the way,
note science has splits on what things realy are on nearly every aspect of the universe,
religion  excomunicates thouse who think diferently

[diamondgeezer]

Originally posted by HotSnoJ
The post just before my last one.

Er... no. I was talking to Alikchi, it being that I quoted his post, see?

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by HotSnoJ

Yes it is random chance/change and chance. I do understand it but unlike you I don't believe it. Duh.

The mutations are 'random' however the method in which the mutation is carried on is not. (good mutation is found, said specimen lives and manages to spread it's mutated genes, good traits are passed on -that's not "random")

By the way, why don't you believe it? there's plenty of evidence to show it....

(and what exactly is wrong with what Bobbau is saying?)

Are you agreeing with me? Random is something you can't calculate will happen. You can predict what the chances are for a di to land on 4 but not that it will. We can calculate where the planets, moons, and other bodies in space where they will be decades or centurys from now. we can tell where they were in the past. That my friend is not random chance. We can even predict what flowers will look like.

this prediction is not entirely accurate though. THe world is immeasurably complex and you can't simply dictate an absolute for something even if you calculate it with observed data. This is randomness... (if you drop a little bit of water on your hand can you calculate exactly how it will react? no because there are an infinite [or for all practical purposes infinite] numbers of factors affecting that drop of water)

You are again forgetting parts of my post. I know you can go to the store and find that 1+1=2 with apples. I posted a verses from Job and about other writers from around Jesus' time that wrote about Him. To establish at least some crediblity to the Bible. Now since we have no other evidence that Christ didn't do the things He did then "Innocent until proven guilty." the same with evolution.

inability to disprove does not make it true...

Evolution is a belief just like Christianity is. Since we weren't there we have to rely on others that were or in the case of evolution thought it up.

so? evolution is a more sensible belief because it is based on observed information rather than a bunch of supposed content from a book...

[HotSnoJ]

Originally posted by Bobboau
I get sick, I take antibiodics to get better, I feel better, but I don't take the full dose, some of the bacteria survive as something about them made them less suseptable to the drug, they grow and multiply, I get sick again...
this cycle repetes its self untill I die becase my medication no longer henders them.

dog breeders, look for a trait, when they find it they breed it with onother with that trait, thus that trait becomes more promonant
 

The bacteria has evolved but not in the sense that you think. This kind of evolution is micro-evolution. It may have a new immunity to the antibiodics but it doesn't make a new kind of bacteria.  This happens to everything that lives. But it doesn't make new kinds.

When you breed dogs (or anything else) you are propagating traits hidden and seen. These traits are in the dogs DNA already.

If you don't get it find a christian scientist.

[Lonestar]

You cant prove God nor Evolution, so dont talk of evolution as though its fact and don't speak of God as though its fact.

Its all speculation and heresay!

[Tiara]

Evolution can be seen in many ways. One way can be proven at least: Through costums, ways of life, art, books, etc etc etc we evolve (and sometimes devolve). We "learn" from experiences like war (well I hope). This is also evolving. It isn't just DNA.

We evolve in the simplest of things. Once you fall over something you'll watch out next time. Even that is a small example of evolving. And this is tought to the children who will learn more things then their parents. Evolving does not always involve DNA and stuff.

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by HotSnoJ


The bacteria has evolved but not in the sense that you think. This kind of evolution is micro-evolution. It may have a new immunity to the antibiodics but it doesn't make a new kind of bacteria.  This happens to everything that lives. But it doesn't make new kinds.

When you breed dogs (or anything else) you are propagating traits hidden and seen. These traits are in the dogs DNA already.

So what? It is still spreading traits that a certain animal has so as to increase the number of animals with said trait. artificial selection right there, a part of evolution

If you don't get it find a christian scientist.

As CP has said before (IIRC) there is no clear line between "kinds" as you say. The only reason we use our dividing system (to separate animal species and such) is for practicality, we are obsessed with finding ways to identify things but don't want to create too many names and such.

[Levyathan]

Originally posted by Kamikaze
As CP has said before (IIRC) there is no clear line between "kinds" as you say.

If by kinds you mean species, do yourself a favor and grab a biology book.

[Bobboau]

When you breed dogs (or anything else) you are propagating traits hidden and seen. These traits are in the dogs DNA already.

so are you asserting that this sort of thing is imposable in nature useing only the animals uniqe colection of traits vs the hardships of the world rather than a human looking for poofy fur?

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by Levyathan


If by kinds you mean species, do yourself a favor and grab a biology book.

I don't mean species... not sure what hotsnoj wanted to mean.

Anyway hotsnoj do you recognize the existence of 'micro-evolution' then? Then you surely must accept evolution because evolution is essentially lots of micro-evolution which piled up to actually be detectably different (Of course I've heard claims that certain mutations aren't beneficial without other mutations and that simultaneous mutation is not possible/probably/practical/something and therefore said mutation must have been incited by god or something like that... anyone know the scientific explanation for simultaneous development of symbiotic traits??)

[Tiara]

You guys eem to be sticking to the idea that evolution is merely DNA related. But let me say this one more time:

Evolution is not confined by DNA, it goes much further (see my previous post).

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by Tiara
You guys eem to be sticking to the idea that evolution is merely DNA related. But let me say this one more time:

Evolution is not confined by DNA, it goes much further (see my previous post).

But I'm talking about physical change, not behaviorial evolution of whatnot... (it is largely physical change that creationists resist)

[Bobboau]

anyone know the scientific explanation for simultaneous development of symbiotic traits?

you mean things like moles and mole circkets both haveing big front legs, and many cave animals haveing nearly no eyes.
seems logical to me that if there is a simple easy adaptation to be made to an environment by one animal then a similar adaptation would be likely to ocur in other animals, if aplicable.

Tiara , were discusing evolution of organisms, wich is an undirected system. the word evolution is used for many diferent things, most generaly haveing to do with altering or adapting to fit new situations. but this is not exactly the context we are currently discusing,
but you are corect in that things other than DNA are to be consitered, it is mearly the most obvius factor, things like experience and (in socal animals) culture also play into exolution

the only definition of evolution that needs to be proven is that one group of animals can be seperated into two, and then one of these groupes be made geneticaly incompatable (breeding two of them (male and female ) will not result in a animal capable of reproduction) with the other after an extended peroid of time, measured in generations,
usualy many thousands of generations in very diferent environments are needed to cause a new species

and lonestar evolution is much more factual than creationism, if one must be refered to as fact then evolution is the better choice.

[HotSnoJ]

Originally posted by Kamikaze


I don't mean species... not sure what hotsnoj wanted to mean.

Anyway hotsnoj do you recognize the existence of 'micro-evolution' then? Then you surely must accept evolution because evolution is essentially lots of micro-evolution which piled up to actually be detectably different (Of course I've heard claims that certain mutations aren't beneficial without other mutations and that simultaneous mutation is not possible/probably/practical/something and therefore said mutation must have been incited by god or something like that... anyone know the scientific explanation for simultaneous development of symbiotic traits??)

How do I put this. "Kind" is a broader term then species is. Species is a sub-set of kind. For instance canine is a kind, wolves are a species of canie (I can't remember it's scientific name).

I believe the evolution within kinds. For instance the wolf could change (though breeding) to the domestic dog we know today. They could alse change into another speacies of wolf or canine (kind). But never into another kind (eg cats, birds, of something completely new).