A Bio Genesis

@sonhouse said
Only one is correct. The religious interpretation is in the mind of the believer only. And you cannot prove otherwise. The religious interpretation cannot be falsified so it is not in the slightest a science.

Inventing the motor and the laws that govern the motor are both correct one does not rule out the other. You cannot falsify your someday we will figure that out, you can say we will continue to look at it that is the only real truth that we can say. Having someone look at a process and come up with a conclusion not to your liking isn't science, it is personal.

@kellyjay said
Inventing the motor and the laws that govern the motor are both correct one does not rule out the other. You cannot falsify your someday we will figure that out, you can say we will continue to look at it that is the only real truth that we can say. Having someone look at a process and come up with a conclusion not to your liking isn't science, it is personal.

You can tilt it any way you want, religion is still in the mind of the believer and the truth has nothing to do with faith.
So you figure out of the thousands of creation tales, for some unknown reason, only YOUR religion is the correct one.
Have your god come down and tell me I'm wrong to suggest you religion is just one of the crowd and in fact the ALL can be wrong.

@sonhouse said
You can tilt it any way you want, religion is still in the mind of the believer and the truth has nothing to do with faith.
So you figure out of the thousands of creation tales, for some unknown reason, only YOUR religion is the correct one.
Have your god come down and tell me I'm wrong to suggest you religion is just one of the crowd and in fact the ALL can be wrong.

Truth, what do you think truth is?

@kellyjay said
Truth, what do you think truth is?

Whatever it is, I am sure it is not in the bible, a book written by men to control men and especially women. Nor is it in the Quran or the upanishads and vedas. All written by men, no doubt talented story tellers but none of them know jack about deities.

@sonhouse said
Whatever it is, I am sure it is not in the bible, a book written by men to control men and especially women. Nor is it in the Quran or the upanishads and vedas. All written by men, no doubt talented story tellers but none of them know jack about deities.

I think your foundational thinking on how and why Biblical scripture was written is in error. For a high level explanation I suggest looking at that video I shared with caissad4 on the Spiritual forum in the "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Proof" thread. There are somethings there I think even you would have to be impressed with, things that couldn't have been known until just a small handful of years ago, let alone when the gospels were written.

Do you worry that with some (even you) that evolution is now looked upon as something that cannot be questioned? Science if it is to be self correcting must be able to be challenged by anyone, unless you have a "doctrine", because a doctrine cannot be questioned is more of a religious nature than a scientific theory isn't it?

@kellyjay said
I think your foundational thinking on how and why Biblical scripture was written is in error. For a high level explanation I suggest looking at that video I shared with caissad4 on the Spiritual forum in the "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Proof" thread. There are somethings there I think even you would have to be impressed with, things that couldn't have been kn ...[text shortened]... use a doctrine cannot be questioned is more of a religious nature than a scientific theory isn't it?

Evolutionary biology is still a very active area of research, so people in science question the details all the time. But they don't question the theory. The Pope does not question evolution as a theory, and argues eloquently that the science of evolution is completely consistent with biblical teachings.

Obviously, you can disagree, but anti-evolution is not pro-religion. They are distinct positions and yours appears to be a fringe element of religion inconsistent with most faith-bound people. Faith takes many forms.

@wildgrass said
Evolutionary biology is still a very active area of research, so people in science question the details all the time. But they don't question the theory. The Pope does not question evolution as a theory, and argues eloquently that the science of evolution is completely consistent with biblical teachings.

Obviously, you can disagree, but anti-evolution is not pro-religion ...[text shortened]... o be a fringe element of religion inconsistent with most faith-bound people. Faith takes many forms.

You think that the theory of evolution is beyond questioning?

@kellyjay said
You think that the theory of evolution is beyond questioning?

Just like any proven theory, yes. This applies to both the theory of evolution and the theory of relativity but it is only some of the fine details of the theory that can rationally be questioned (such as theories of how its rate varies in the case of evolution and such as theories of how it can be compatible with quantum physics in the case of relativity) but the theory, in its most basic form, i.e. excluding all miner details, is at least in the main correct and proven correct.

@humy said
Just like any proven theory, yes. This applies to both the theory of evolution and the theory of relativity but it is only some of the fine details of the theory that can rationally be questioned (such as theories of how its rate varies in the case of evolution and such as theories of how it can be compatible with quantum physics in the case of relativity) but the theory, in its ...[text shortened]... st basic form, i.e. excluding all miner details, is at least in the main correct and proven correct.

Wow

@kellyjay said
I think your foundational thinking on how and why Biblical scripture was written is in error. For a high level explanation I suggest looking at that video I shared with caissad4 on the Spiritual forum in the "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Proof" thread. There are somethings there I think even you would have to be impressed with, things that couldn't have been kn ...[text shortened]... use a doctrine cannot be questioned is more of a religious nature than a scientific theory isn't it?

Of course evolution can be questioned. BY SCIENCE. If someone comes up with a 400 million year old parrot fossil, evolution goes out the window.
Till then, it is the best theory we have and we don't need to know how life started to understand evolution, as much as you want to force evolution and OOL to be conflated together.

@sonhouse said
Of course evolution can be questioned. BY SCIENCE. If someone comes up with a 400 million year old parrot fossil, evolution goes out the window.
Till then, it is the best theory we have and we don't need to know how life started to understand evolution, as much as you want to force evolution and OOL to be conflated together.

I don’t think that they go together one is supposed to be an on going process, the other an event.

@humy said
Just like any proven theory, yes. This applies to both the theory of evolution and the theory of relativity but it is only some of the fine details of the theory that can rationally be questioned (such as theories of how its rate varies in the case of evolution and such as theories of how it can be compatible with quantum physics in the case of relativity) but the theory, in its ...[text shortened]... st basic form, i.e. excluding all miner details, is at least in the main correct and proven correct.

So truth now is how all lines of thought line up with those two theories, they are now plum lines by which all other thoughts/theories needs to be judged? This places them as the truth table for all other thoughts on par with the Bible for religious people in how they view truth? You think that is why when they get questioned in minorly that people go nuts about it?

@sonhouse said
Of course evolution can be questioned. BY SCIENCE. If someone comes up with a 400 million year old parrot fossil, evolution goes out the window.
Till then, it is the best theory we have and we don't need to know how life started to understand evolution, as much as you want to force evolution and OOL to be conflated together.

Why focus on fossils, you should turn your attention to today! If all of the changes were done one small step at a time, why don't we see living today a string of not quite humans running around? If the changes were little here and there, shouldn't there be a host of them living today? Not a huge leap away like the big foot variety, instead some that are not at all human with every phase between them and us? The same goes for not quite rabbits, or eagles, or elm trees, or spiders, or cat fish? The world should be full of all of the not quite lifeforms that didn't die off, there should be some at the zenith of some evolutionary path and those far away.

Natural selection doesn't kill off an old lifeform as soon as a single small advantage arrives in DNA. The older models do not automatically die off with every introduction of a tiny change in the physical body.

@kellyjay said
Why focus on fossils, you should turn your attention to today! If all of the changes were done one small step at a time, why don't we see living today a string of not quite humans running around? If the changes were little here and there, shouldn't there be a host of them living today? Not a huge leap away like the big foot variety, instead some that are not at all human wit ...[text shortened]... r models do not automatically die off with every introduction of a tiny change in the physical body.

So look at this and tell me evolution theory is bogus:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29040024/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/signs-evolution-action/#.XUGVZ_lKiUk

@sonhouse said
So look at this and tell me evolution theory is bogus:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29040024/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/signs-evolution-action/#.XUGVZ_lKiUk

I will when I get home