Reply With Quote
By DarrinS's nihilist argument, everything is a random process since the behavior of matter at the atomic level is random and not deterministic.
DNA sequences are definitly NOT random.
Evolution is not entirely a random process. Mutation is random, natural selection is not.
By DarrinS's nihilist argument, everything is a random process since the behavior of matter at the atomic level is random and not deterministic.
I'm not trying to deny evolution. Why do people think evolution and a supreme being are mutually exclusive concepts?
Those aren't mutually exclusive. The young earth theory is an interpretation of scripture. Being a Christian does not require believing in a 6,000-year-old earth, and even if you do believe in a young earth (from a Creation standpoint) you can still believe in evolution and in million-years-old relics.
No reasonable Christian scientist should have any problem separating his personal faith from his need for tangible evidence/experimentation in the scientific process. All I'm saying athiest/religious coexistence would be a whole lot easier if people on both sides weren't so -bent on manufacturing conflict where none should exist.
Christian scientist
hilarious.
All this, by chance
DNA is like computer code, with different parts having different functionality. As far as I know, computer codes don't spontaneously generate themselves from characters.
DarrinS,
your lack of an education in biology and evolution is apparent. We are aware of what you are TRYING to convey. You are simply wrong.
It is not possible for religion and science to mix.
It just cannot. Any attempt to rationalize it is misguided. You either believe in religion or adhere to scientific principles. One or the other, not both.
A christian can say, "Yeah, I believe in science when it says gravity affects planetary motion" or... "Yeah, I believe in science when it says genetic makeup of a species is a culmination of millions of years of evolution through natural selection/mutations" ....
but then, as a Christian, you have to follow it up with "but god made gravity and evolution in the first place"
so Christian scientist is a ing oxymoron. And it is completely natural and inevitable for Religion and Science to war with each other simply because science is based on observable, actual facts and evidence and subject to change based on TRUTH, whereas religion is not subject to change at all and is based on a rigid dogma.
Sperminator, didn't I have a run in with you in the sexuality thread? Your ignorance knows no bounds.
When YOU'VE taken both organic and inorganic chemistry, come back and talk to me. You shouldn't presume to know another person's level of education. I may disagree with RandomGuy and Manny on many issues, but I don't presume that they are uneducated -- quite the contrary.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -Einstein
You're right. Science has no answer for the origin of life or the universe.
Evolution never tries to explain the genesis of the first bacterium. Science depends on credible evidence, and the evidence of evolution is very much in favor of every species originating from a common ancestor.
I'm not going to be able to instill the years of studying biology that's necessary to understand all this , but I'll try.
We can see all the changes in different forks of evolution. We understand exactly how much genetic programming every species has in common with each other. It's really ridiculous how similar humans are to every mammal.
Here's a cute test: try and distinguish the mouse embryo from the human embryo.
Having trouble? That's because roughly 90% of our genes do exactly the same thing as theirs. I'm gonna repeat that, because it bears repeating: 90% of our genes do exactly the same thing as theirs. Both of these mammals are so young, and the code used to start building a mammal is so unbelievably similar that it's laughably ridiculous how similar the embryos look.
Mammals, and more specifically, chimpanzees are the most similar organisms to humans on earth. There are infinity examples, but I'll just name a few specific to the brain. The mammalian brain shares many qualities of ours. Love, joy, anger, sadness. Mammals form cliques with social structure and hierarchy. Mammals even have dreams. The further away we move from our origin, the less animals have in common with us, because their brain genetics are that much different. Reptiles share only a few of our emotions; pain and fear come to mind. Fish don't even sense pain, they only sense pressure.
Evolution picks winning designs and keeps them. Lots of evolution skeptics note that crocodile skeletons have been around since dinosaurs, yet their current-day skeletons are very similar to these ancient fossils. More rudimentarily, they'd point out that monkeys are still around. Why don't all the monkeys evolve in to humans?
Evolving is not instantaneous; rather, it is a fork from a currently existing species that takes thousands of generations to become altered. An evolutionary fork is NOTHING in the beginning; the descendants must spread apart with genetic drift, as far as a human and a chimp, for it to be noticed as a fork in the lineage of ancestry. Both of your children could be the start of an evolutionary fork for all you know.
As for the other question, why are crocodiles around, nearly unchanged? Once a species has a purebred strain with great capability of survival, it can last for centuries with very little change. Evolution doesn't HAVE to happen, and when it does, only the opportunistic changes live to breed on.
grayforest,
I'm not trying to deny evolution, so no need to argue with me on that point. Science tells us a lot of the "how's", but not many of the "why's".
Christianity doesn't tell many why's at all.
Didn't say it did.
I find both extremes of this debate (non-theistic evotionists and young Earth creationists) intellectually lazy.
It's a dream. Nothing excist.
Don't know why my response didn't show up.
Why is the former intellectually lazy?
Bill is talking it up with Barry now.
well what do you want me to say? it's absurd to try and conceptualize what's beyond our capability. it's absurd to think of the origin of the universe, or life, or our consciousness. there's only so much we can sense and know with our limited ability to perceive, and even still, with science we manage to create instruments to sense things that we cannot and render them in a way which we can.
i will say that science always points towards determinalism; the physics of everything, including organisms and their brains is reduced to a giant reaction of particles governed under mathematical laws. this is where things break down for me, because if this is the true, there's no need for consciousness; if everything in the universe is just a chemical reaction with no outside influence, why am i conscious? why am i only conscious of my own body? what was "i" before i was born, or after i die?
everything's on the table.
Sure. As a Christian scientist you would believe God created all of the scientific laws that govern the universe. Your purpose as a scientist is to study/learn/discover all you can about those laws, regardless of whether the source of the universe was random or divine.
That's not a contradictory worldview.
Observable, actual facts don't change...science is based on observable, actual facts and evidence and subject to change based on TRUTH
I honestly don't remember ever having a conversation with you. Must not have been that memorable. Sorry! Maybe you could link it or something, it clearly made some kind of impression on you.Sperminator, didn't I have a run in with you in the sexuality thread? Your ignorance knows no bounds.
Theism defined is a belief in god/s. Perhaps you meant religious? You could be theistic but not religious.
So you're telling me that we went from nothing to Windows 7? That software programmer must've been pretty smart to not reference any previous forms of OS.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
