christianity
Certainly it makes sense that some evolution happens because it's what you'd expect given what we know about genetics. True also that we have no way of knowing if everything spawned this way, and true also that the very first life needs to be explained - but if you use god to explain it, you have to explain how god exists and why he did it.
Part of me thinks it's more important to think about what the bible's trying to say about ethics and philosophy than it is to just fight over whether god created or not - even if you knew, it's not something we're responsible for - so our concern should be more about each other + sin - if god wanted us to believe in him, i figure he'd make himself more obvious, so he must want something else out of us. Also, those bible stories are good food for thought regardless of whether they actually happened - factual validity doesn't matter so long as the concept gets across
One way to define a species is "2 organisms that are able to mate to produce fertile offspring" - this is why horses and donkeys are considered different - they can breed to produce a mule, but the mule isn't fertile because it's got an odd number of chromosones - because the number of chromosones in the parents are different (46 and 48 i think) and it's averaged out in the offspring (to 47?)
Part of me thinks it's more important to think about what the bible's trying to say about ethics and philosophy than it is to just fight over whether god created or not - even if you knew, it's not something we're responsible for - so our concern should be more about each other + sin - if god wanted us to believe in him, i figure he'd make himself more obvious, so he must want something else out of us. Also, those bible stories are good food for thought regardless of whether they actually happened - factual validity doesn't matter so long as the concept gets across
One way to define a species is "2 organisms that are able to mate to produce fertile offspring" - this is why horses and donkeys are considered different - they can breed to produce a mule, but the mule isn't fertile because it's got an odd number of chromosones - because the number of chromosones in the parents are different (46 and 48 i think) and it's averaged out in the offspring (to 47?)
So you're saying that since you can't view directly every aspect of evolution it's not falsifiable. So despite the soundness of the original theory, the direct evolution we've observed in the last hundred years or so none of it counts because I can't go back in time with a camcorder and record it happening through all of prehistory?
It's important that a theory be falsifiable, but that doesn't mean you have to be able to prove it false, it just has to be possible. I don't think you understand what the term means. Through scientific measurement of existing animals we could prove evolution false over time if it were. It hasn't been done not because it's unfalsifiable, but because it hasn't been proven false yet. An example of something which is unfalsifiable would be the statement, evolution exists, and it is all guided by god. You can't prove that false because while you can measure evolution, it is impossible to measure god's involvement.
Furthermore, I'm certain you don't know how the theory was developed in the first place, or the meticulous scientific research and testing that went into developing the theory. You make it sound like it's false because we don't have camera recording of fish walking on land, and the fact that we can't travel through time and do so makes it unfalsifiable, which of course it doesn't.
Rational Christianity indeed, talk about an oxymoron. In any case, the reasoning you use, admittedly false, if applied to your own faith would disprove it as well, which I'm sure these "rational" christians cope with by completely failing to address it.
I think this is moronic, but I would gladly give up evolution if under the same standards of reasoning you monkeys have chosen here if you would all stop looking at astrological allegories and creating magical fantasies to help you cope through life and death.
It's important that a theory be falsifiable, but that doesn't mean you have to be able to prove it false, it just has to be possible. I don't think you understand what the term means. Through scientific measurement of existing animals we could prove evolution false over time if it were. It hasn't been done not because it's unfalsifiable, but because it hasn't been proven false yet. An example of something which is unfalsifiable would be the statement, evolution exists, and it is all guided by god. You can't prove that false because while you can measure evolution, it is impossible to measure god's involvement.
Furthermore, I'm certain you don't know how the theory was developed in the first place, or the meticulous scientific research and testing that went into developing the theory. You make it sound like it's false because we don't have camera recording of fish walking on land, and the fact that we can't travel through time and do so makes it unfalsifiable, which of course it doesn't.
Rational Christianity indeed, talk about an oxymoron. In any case, the reasoning you use, admittedly false, if applied to your own faith would disprove it as well, which I'm sure these "rational" christians cope with by completely failing to address it.
I think this is moronic, but I would gladly give up evolution if under the same standards of reasoning you monkeys have chosen here if you would all stop looking at astrological allegories and creating magical fantasies to help you cope through life and death.
There has been no observable evolution in the past hundred years, or in any other time frame, except within species. When we take on evolution, pro or con, it is the kind of evolution that is theorized to lead to, or produce a new species that we debate, and not simply evolving examples of the already extant.
Any breeder of dogs can produce new examples through evolution--but only of different examples of dogs.
You really should be more careful what you are "certain" of. You said:
As for the arrogant tone of your reply, and personal attack where you call us (me) monkeys and moronic thinkers I will say only that this will end any discussion we might have had. However, you may still post whatever replies you desire and they will stand for all to see.
Any breeder of dogs can produce new examples through evolution--but only of different examples of dogs.
You really should be more careful what you are "certain" of. You said:
Furthermore, I'm certain you don't know how the theory was developed in the first place, or the meticulous scientific research and testing that went into developing the theory. . .Not true, I just don't see it the same way you do. And,
. . .You make it sound like it's false because we don't have camera recording of fish walking on land, and the fact that we can't travel through time and do so makes it unfalsifiable, which of course it doesn't.But that argument works against you as easily as for you. You, for various reasons, also can't falsify the "God created it" theory.
As for the arrogant tone of your reply, and personal attack where you call us (me) monkeys and moronic thinkers I will say only that this will end any discussion we might have had. However, you may still post whatever replies you desire and they will stand for all to see.
I also don't like personal attacks - but I get the feeling redwoodpecker was just trying to get you to think about points that he considers needs addressing. For sure, he fights the atheist side of the god debate, but if you honestly have thought about those issues, you should be able to answer his questions confidently, directly, and in an even more reasoned + gentle way than him. I have seen both of you helping depressed people, you both have some of my respect for that, you're both decent people, that is where it really matters, you just see different sides to the same coin.
When you responded to me that my comment (regarding big band) made you laugh too much to say anything, that was a personal attack, and you made no attempt to address any point I made - you tried to psychologically undermine me just so you could evade having to answer and deal with my point - if you'd thought your theism through, and still stood by it, you could answer me - unless i see you actually make a point I see no evidence that you have indeed thought of a better, more valid answer. In the case of the above regarding genetics, I acknowledge the thought you have put into evolution being within the species - I think it would necessitate a change in the number of chromosones somehow for evolution to answer to that.
When you responded to me that my comment (regarding big band) made you laugh too much to say anything, that was a personal attack, and you made no attempt to address any point I made - you tried to psychologically undermine me just so you could evade having to answer and deal with my point - if you'd thought your theism through, and still stood by it, you could answer me - unless i see you actually make a point I see no evidence that you have indeed thought of a better, more valid answer. In the case of the above regarding genetics, I acknowledge the thought you have put into evolution being within the species - I think it would necessitate a change in the number of chromosones somehow for evolution to answer to that.
I apologize for that unthinking reply. I don't actually want to debate the issue. I truly doubt that at this point anything has been left unsaid--by someone. I just thought the Rational Christianity was interesting.
done + done! 
- and if you wish to rest that's perfectly fine + understandable - I suppose we didn't know so we assumed you were raising the issue by entry-ing it. I will watch... (i've been doing a lot of o/t at work last few days hence brief absence)
- and if you wish to rest that's perfectly fine + understandable - I suppose we didn't know so we assumed you were raising the issue by entry-ing it. I will watch... (i've been doing a lot of o/t at work last few days hence brief absence) Quick Links
Latest Comment
Re: Hello Deep dark depression - So what you're saying is "home is where the heart is"? Welcome back to the...
| Terms of Service
| Privacy Policy