Christians should keep Scripture out of politics

[This_person]

Scientists haven't duplicated evolution but they have discovered chemical reactions that are similar to what are believed to be the precursors of life. But since you are familiar with the term "abiogenesis" you already know that, you just choose not to believe it.

No, I believe it. I believe they have concepts, ideas, a hypothesis or two, and absolutely no proof of anything regarding a single celled organism become trees and dogs and squids.

Fine, your prerogative; but to continue this comparison of faith and science just provide some evidence, something that backs up your belief, that is as close to "proof" as that is, or just admit that you have nothing but a story in a book.

That's my point exactly - neither do you.

As if you didn't know (Peppered moth evolution): - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The evolution of the peppered moth over the last two hundred years has been studied in detail. Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths had light colouration, which effectively camouflaged them against the light-coloured trees and lichens which they rested upon. However, because of widespread pollution during the Industrial Revolution in England, many of the lichens died out, and the trees that peppered moths rested on became blackened by soot, causing most of the light-coloured moths, or typica, to die off from predation. At the same time, the dark-coloured, or melanic, moths, carbonaria, flourished because of their ability to hide on the darkened trees.

And, in what way does this answer my question? How does this demonstrate an offspring species that is significantly different than the parent species and is significantly more advanced (like a single cell to a dog and a tree from the same original species)?

 

[This_person]

You want tangible? Jump out of an airplane at 10,000 feet without a parachute (E=mc²) while praying to your god of choice to save you from death (faith).

Before I touch any of the rest of this, what does gravity have to do with E=MC^2?

 

[This_person]

give it time. 100 years ago we didn't have thing like TVs or Radios or decent medicines etc. etc. Only by challenging the unknown and picking apart the everyday were discoveries like those made. If you assume you have all the answers you'd never find things like those because you wouldn't be looking.

one day perhaps science will find the proof you desire.

Or maybe it was god .... at least one side is looking.

Let me try it this way:
No one says stop looking
Did you get it that time? Looking for HOW God made things happen is very enlightening, and having faith that, in time, we'll know is great. We don't know now, we have faith we'll figure it out.

 

[wildsage]

No, I believe it. I believe they have concepts, ideas, a hypothesis or two, and absolutely no proof of anything regarding a single celled organism become trees and dogs and squids.That's my point exactly - neither do you.

(I know you are but what am I!) As I suggested, provide something that is as close to proof as the examples given, something other than a tale handed down by simple people who developed superstitions to explain the unknown workings of their world. The Christian belief of the first man is similar to that of many other religions -- like the Incans, for example.

And, in what way does this answer my question? How does this demonstrate an offspring species that is significantly different than the parent species and is significantly more advanced (like a single cell to a dog and a tree from the same original species)?

Genetic (oh, look they stole a biblic- wait, nevermind) variation does not work that way; read about evolution before dismissing it. For a fungus to give birth to a fish, or a bacteria to a bird, would be a miracle -- which is the realm of magic and not science.

 

[wildsage]

Before I touch any of the rest of this, what does gravity have to do with E=MC^2?

Okay, if you doubt gravity, as well, try this:
Drive a motorcycle, naked, at 120 mph directly into a brick wall (E=mc²) while praying to your god of choice to save you from death (faith).
[the discussion had to do with intangibility of natural laws like energy and their relation to physical properties like mass]

 

[Xaquin44]

wildsage, you are a fine fellow (or woman as I don't personally know you)!

 

[This_person]

(I know you are but what am I!) As I suggested, provide something that is as close to proof as the examples given, something other than a tale handed down by simple people who developed superstitions to explain the unknown workings of their world. The Christian belief of the first man is similar to that of many other religions -- like the Incans, for example.

Okay, so I'll try again, in smaller words. I have no proof. Neither does science. See, that means we both have the same amount of proof. 0 = 0. None is the same as none. Am I getting through?

Genetic (oh, look they stole a biblic- wait, nevermind) variation does not work that way; read about evolution before dismissing it. For a fungus to give birth to a fish, or a bacteria to a bird, would be a miracle -- which is the realm of magic and not science.

Okay, let's take this back. Where did man come from. Uh huh, and before that? Uh huh, and before that, ad infinitum? Uh huh. So, where did my rose bush come from? Uh huh, and before that? Uh huh, and before that, ad infinitum? Okay, see.... Unless this one in a bazillion-gazillion chance of life forming from non-life happened several times (but, only here on earth!), everything came from the same original life cell. That had all of the genetic information in it for everything that exists today, with all it's variety. Oh, and the 99% of life that's existed on this planet that is already dead and gone.

Read up on what you're saying is right before you argue about it.

 

[This_person]

Okay, if you doubt gravity, as well, try this:
Drive a motorcycle, naked, at 120 mph directly into a brick wall (E=mc²) while praying to your god of choice to save you from death (faith).
[the discussion had to do with intangibility of natural laws like energy and their relation to physical properties like mass]

It looked a lot like you were referring to gravity as E=mc² when you said:

Jump out of an airplane at 10,000 feet without a parachute (E=mc2)

I don't doubt gravity, or E=mc², I just don't think you know they're not the same thing.

 

[wildsage]

choose ignorance...

... just don't foist it on the rest of us. (By that I refer to your willful display of ignorance regarding science, not the fact that you choose a specific religion, or ANY religion.)

Okay, so I'll try again, in smaller words. I have no proof. Neither does science. See, that means we both have the same amount of proof. 0 = 0. None is the same as none.

Science has proofs of many things. The scientific claims that stand the tests designed to break down and disprove those ideas, tests by people educated in that field, are accepted as theory. The judgment of naysayers who have nothing but "it couldn't happen that way" mean nothing. We're dealing with facts, not wishes.
You want to play on a level field, just give us SOMETHING that approaches what science provides as evidence.
What do you have? A similarity with numerous other religions which also had devout adherents who exhibited faith in the stories that they were told. None of those other religions can or could prove anything, either, yet yours is the "one" that explains everything? Your whole argument boils down to "I believe that God did it, so that must be the truth."
By trying to continue this battle you do your chosen religion an injustice, cheapen your beliefs, and discount your faith. Faith: belief in something with no proof or evidence.
Fine make that choice but keep it in the category where it belongs: religion. Do not try to teach faith as science.

Your rose bush? It probably came from, or is a descendant of a plant from, a garden nursery. It could be a species of wild rose -- not having visited your garden I can't discount that possibility. Maybe it isn't even a real rose. Was it placed there by a god? I consider that highly unlikely, given what I know about the way things work in the natural world.
(That is a free lesson in making logical assumptions using current knowledge, even with missing data.)

Read up on what you're saying is right before you argue about it.

Funny you would write that; your responses sound like they come from someone without much education. I have studied biology, chemistry, anthropology, sociology, psychology, geology, geography, paleontology, and a few other things -- and oh yeah, theology.

 

[wildsage]

again, there's knowledge & there's belief

Was that a slam? Ouch, mommy, that hurts.
So did a god make one and Einstein make the other? Or was it Newton that invented gravity? Or, wait, was it --- SATAN!?

 

[This_person]

... just don't foist it on the rest of us. (By that I refer to your willful display of ignorance regarding science, not the fact that you choose a specific religion, or ANY religion.)

I don't choose ignorance. I choose learning and trying to know. Just don't call an apple an orange.

Science has proofs of many things. The scientific claims that stand the tests designed to break down and disprove those ideas, tests by people educated in that field, are accepted as theory. The judgment of naysayers who have nothing but "it couldn't happen that way" mean nothing. We're dealing with facts, not wishes.

Exactly - the tests. Show me the tests that demonstrate how a single cell can result in all of the species discussed, and I'll buy evolution as a science, not a myth on the same level as religion. Show me the test that demonstrates how life came from lifelessness, and I'll buy abiogenesis as a science, and not as a myth on the same level as religion. Show me the facts, not the wishes, and I'll believe you're discussing facts, not wishes.

You want to play on a level field, just give us SOMETHING that approaches what science provides as evidence.

I have. I've provided you nothing, as science has provided me.

What do you have? A similarity with numerous other religions which also had devout adherents who exhibited faith in the stories that they were told. None of those other religions can or could prove anything, either, yet yours is the "one" that explains everything? Your whole argument boils down to "I believe that God did it, so that must be the truth."

Well, no. But, regardless of my specific beliefs, I've yet to see anything beyond "we think it must be this way, so that's the truth" from the science side of things.

By trying to continue this battle you do your chosen religion an injustice, cheapen your beliefs, and discount your faith.

How?

Faith: belief in something with no proof or evidence.
Fine make that choice but keep it in the category where it belongs: religion. Do not try to teach faith as science.

I would suggest you do the same! Until you can show me the tests that prove abiogenesis, or the tests that demonstrate human (HUMAN) evolution, we're talking PURE FAITH in a WISH that science will one day know what the truth is.

Your rose bush? It probably came from, or is a descendant of a plant from, a garden nursery. It could be a species of wild rose -- not having visited your garden I can't discount that possibility. Maybe it isn't even a real rose. Was it placed there by a god? I consider that highly unlikely, given what I know about the way things work in the natural world.

Are you trying to be funny? It's not working. However, I'll presume you were too slow to follow - go back further, up the evolutionary chain of plant life for the parent life form of a rose bush. Go ahead, I'll wait for you to figure it out.

Funny you would write that; your responses sound like they come from someone without much education. I have studied biology, chemistry, anthropology, sociology, psychology, geology, geography, paleontology, and a few other things -- and oh yeah, theology.

Great, than you can stop sounding foolish now and use that education (or, er, did you not get very good grades? Argue with your teacher a lot about whether f=mg is the same as e=mc²?) to try and show the difference between science and abiogenesis, or the difference between science and HUMAN evolution.

 

[This_person]

Was that a slam? Ouch, mommy, that hurts.
So did a god make one and Einstein make the other? Or was it Newton that invented gravity? Or, wait, was it --- SATAN!?

Now you're getting closer to funny, if I didn't think you were asking in all seriousness.

 

[wildsage]

getting hot?

I don't choose ignorance.

some don't have to choose ignorance, they are just incapable of moving beyond it.

Show me the facts, not the wishes, and I'll believe you're discussing facts, not wishes.

2 words: evolutionary record. (Somehow I just know that you are waiting for that answer.)

I have. I've provided you nothing,[...]

true

[...]as science has provided me.

science has provided the facts for all who seek them.

Are you trying to be funny? It's not working. However, I'll presume you were too slow to follow[...] I'll wait for you to figure it out[...] Great, than [then] you can stop sounding foolish now and use that education (or, er, did you not get very good grades?)[...] Now you're getting closer to funny, if I didn't think you were asking in all seriousness.

More slams? If I were a Christian and a practitioner of turn-the-other-cheek I wouldn't call you a "chromosome-deficient, home-schooled, mouth-breather" in response.

Argue with your teacher a lot about whether f=mg[...]

Why would I argue that Fluorine is the same as Magnesium? One is a noble gas, the other a reactive metal!
Or don't you believe in the Periodic Table? It isn't in the bible, is it? (Nor vice versa.)

 

[This_person]

2 words: evolutionary record. (Somehow I just know that you are waiting for that answer.)

Why, because you know there isn't one?

science has provided the facts for all who seek them.

More slams? If I were a Christian and a practitioner of turn-the-other-cheek I wouldn't call you a "chromosome-deficient, home-schooled, mouth-breather" in response.[/quote]But, you're not so you will? And, that advances your argument how?

Why would I argue that Fluorine is the same as Magnesium? One is a noble gas, the other a reactive metal!

I didn't think you knew what the force of gravity was!

 

[wildsage]

evolutionary evidence

Why, because you know there isn't one?

There is: fossil record, anatomical & developmental similarities, genetic information, geographic dispersion, plate tectonics, etc. It supports the theory of common descent and provides evidence that explains speciation over long periods of time. What tiny shred of evidence does your chosen religion have that promotes its story as truth over scientific theory or over any of the other religions' explanations of creation? (Try "researching" from something besides the ICR website.)

But, you're not so you will? And, that advances your argument how?

U slam me, I slam U back (but I'm not the one claiming to follow Christian ideals). Your nonsense responses (non-sponses? I like that; y'all feel free to use that without attribution) already derailed the discussion.

I didn't think you knew what the force of gravity was!

Oh, you were trying for F=mg?

 

[residentofcre]

I'm not reading the entire thread but I doubt anyone that is a true christian would allow a little thing like political correctness stop them from sharing the Gospel.... right?

 

[This_person]

There is: fossil record, anatomical & developmental similarities, genetic information, geographic dispersion, plate tectonics, etc. It supports the theory of common descent and provides evidence that explains speciation over long periods of time.

Great! I'm glad to hear you know of it! Please share and correct me then; what repeatable test has been done to show that a lower level species evolved into a series of higher level species? Obviously you know of one, because that has been one of my repeated questions that you claim to have an actual answer to. Oh, yeah, and the repeatable test that demonstrates life from lifelessness. Oh, yeah, and make that specific to humanity.

I'll wait.

What tiny shred of evidence does your chosen religion have that promotes its story as truth over scientific theory or over any of the other religions' explanations of creation? (Try "researching" from something besides the ICR website.)

I don't know what the ICR website is. I also have answered this question repeatedly. I have no proof. I have offered no proof. That's what makes my theory equal to science.

U slam me, I slam U back (but I'm not the one claiming to follow Christian ideals). Your nonsense responses (non-sponses? I like that; y'all feel free to use that without attribution) already derailed the discussion.

I believe I've responded to each question. You have not. I'm still waiting on the answers to the questions above. BTW, calling names is not a slam (on me, anyway)

Oh, you were trying for F=mg?

Well, if you want to get that specific (into capitalization, etc) then I guess it's F_g=mg_c

 

[wildsage]

Someone else nailed it days ago, T_p

I'm starting to believe your being purposely obtuse.

I shoulda learned then.

I don't know what the ICR website is.

If that is true, then here you go: Institute for Creation Research - A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry
It is a website devoted to the fallacies and ignorance that you already embrace.
I have faith that you would disbelieve information from any science-based sources I could suggest, so I'll spare us both and just sincerely wish that you be blessed in your desired fashion by the god of your choice.

 

[This_person]

If that is true, then here you go: Institute for Creation Research - A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry
It is a website devoted to the fallacies and ignorance that you already embrace.
I have faith that you would disbelieve information from any science-based sources I could suggest, so I'll spare us both and just sincerely wish that you be blessed in your desired fashion by the god of your choice.

I would not ignore any truth you could post. I just know there's nothing you could post. The fact is, if you did, you wouldn't run and hide.

One of us is hiding from the truth, and I know it's not me.

 

[This_person]

science has provided the facts for all who seek them.

Still waiting for the proof any thing has been testable regarding evolution and having daughter species more advanced than parent species. (the moth thing only proved people noticed a color change in moths, and assumed reasons with no justification other than the assumption fit the theory - go ahead and read it, you'll get the same thing)