12 Oct 08
Originally posted by EladarYou will notice that is John's story, not firsthand from Jesus. I view all such second hand tales with suspicion.
[b]Why deny evolution as a part of the creation?
Try reading this:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%202:%201%20-%2011;&version=49;
Assuming what you read is a true account, how was the wine in the story created? If a scientist were able to get a sample of that wine and determined that it was indeed wine, how would the scientist suppose it was made? What process was undertaken to create the wine?[/b]
12 Oct 08
Originally posted by sonhouseI am so surprised that people here in Science Forum actually believe that the laws of nature can be surpassed by anyone.
You will notice that is John's story, not firsthand from Jesus. I view all such second hand tales with suspicion.
There simply are no miracles! Can't they understand this?
And if there are, that's not science. If those believeing in miracles argue for that in the Spiritual Forum, I wouldn't mind. Bit it is not science!
One cannot ever mix science with religion.
I heard once that a magician turned wine into water! A miracle! Halelujah! But this was only hearsay, so I didn't believe it... 🙂
They are funny...
12 Oct 08
1 edit
I am so surprised that people here in Science Forum actually believe that the laws of nature can be surpassed by anyone.
There simply are no miracles! Can't they understand this?
You assume that God does not exist and demand that others agree with you.
I guess that's what the Science Forum is for*. It isn't about discussing what's going on in the world of science. It is to tell people they must assume that God does not exist.
Nice.
*Although I can see where you'd have a problem understanding the point of view from someone who wasn't brought up in a Society that tells you what to believe from "Cradle to Grave".
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
12 Oct 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasyes, without a logical process one can say just about anything, and since it was derived without logic It cannot be understood with logic......for instance
I am so surprised that people here in Science Forum actually believe that the laws of nature can be surpassed by anyone.
There simply are no miracles! Can't they understand this?
And if there are, that's not science. If those believeing in miracles argue for that in the Spiritual Forum, I wouldn't mind. Bit it is not science!
One cannot ever mix scie ...[text shortened]... cle! Halelujah! But this was only hearsay, so I didn't believe it... 🙂
They are funny...
Jesus was from an alien race, observing our species, perhaps even guiding us. Maybe we are infact, a part of Its race..I can interject here with, "That is why we can't find the missing link in the human evolutionary chain, becuase it doesn't exist. We are infact alien to this world" ..sounds locical, but its not provable by examination, or no evidence leads to these conclusions. So it is also inherantly not disprovable by way of logic
Try proving my asssertations wrong. If I feel the need to make a point, we will argue tll death....
12 Oct 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasActually its more complicated than that. If you define a miracle as an event that takes place in the universe that violates the laws of science then miracles cannot exist by definition.
I am so surprised that people here in Science Forum actually believe that the laws of nature can be surpassed by anyone.
There simply are no miracles! Can't they understand this?
And if there are, that's not science. If those believeing in miracles argue for that in the Spiritual Forum, I wouldn't mind. Bit it is not science!
The 'laws of science' encompass all events that take place in the universe even apparently miraculous ones. If we observe an apparent miracle then we were either deceived or our model of the laws are wrong. The laws themselves are never ever violated - by definition!
12 Oct 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe basic religious assumption is g/God is beyond mere laws and can just wave a metaphorical finger or fart or whatever and we have instant energy or instant matter or instant total destruction of the planet or instant flood, or instant cure the blind, heal the sick, all of that stuff humans cannot do, the religious set aside this portion of their brain that they desperately want to believe is totally true, their G/god has absolutely no limits, can turn wine into cowshiit or whatever. Actually, cows can do that now🙂
Actually its more complicated than that. If you define a miracle as an event that takes place in the universe that violates the laws of science then miracles cannot exist by definition.
The 'laws of science' encompass [b]all events that take place in the universe even apparently miraculous ones. If we observe an apparent miracle then we were either d ...[text shortened]... our model of the laws are wrong. The laws themselves are never ever violated - by definition![/b]
12 Oct 08
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"Firstly, are you now implying that ALL mutations that natural selection works on are bad? -if so, what possible logical reason can there be for this?"
[b]…Natural selection only gets to filter that which is given to it if nothing
positive comes along it only works through the bad, the point being it
isn’t designing anything,
..….
Firstly, are you now implying that ALL mutations that natural selection works on are bad? -if so, what possible logical reason can there be for this?
Secon ...[text shortened]... es? -else how did those insects evolve a biochemistry that gave them resistance to insecticides?[/b]
I'm not at all implying that ALL mutations that natural selection works
on are bad, I'm saying natural selection does not care, it has no
feelings about mutations one way or another, it works on everything
because natural selection is just life working out the ends and outs of
all mutations as it does everything else, life weeds it all out, if
something isn't fit to make in the environment it is in, it will not make
it, if it is, it may. Can you point out to me how you came up with
the notion I said all mutations that natural selection works on are
bad?
Kelly
12 Oct 08
3 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton-But what you appear to be saying here is “Natural selection isn’t designing anything” -well, natural selection is not the whole process of evolution but one-half of it, the other half being mutations, so, yes, “natural selection ALONE isn’t designing anything” if that is what you mean -it needs to work in conjunction with the other half of the process of evolution to disign things which is the occasional mutation -so what is your point here? -I mean it is clearly still true that “EVOLUTION designs things” -yes? -else how did those insects evolve a biochemistry that gave them resistance to insecticides?
[b]…Natural selection only gets to filter that which is given to it if nothing
positive comes along it only works through the bad, the point being it
isn’t designing anything,
..….
Firstly, are you now implying that ALL mutations that natural selection works on are bad? -if so, what possible logical reason can there be for this?
Secon ...[text shortened]... es? -else how did those insects evolve a biochemistry that gave them resistance to insecticides?[/b]
Natural selection is not designing anything; it isn’t even one half of the
process either. Natural selection basically is just life playing out all the
ins and outs of what happens to each life form, with or without change
going on in their DNA. If there is an effect of change created by some
some change in the environment, and if the current life forms living in
that environment cannot adapt to those changes quick enough they
die off or move away if possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design
(Design is used both as a noun and a verb. The term is often tied to the various applied arts and engineering. As a verb, "to design" refers to the process of originating and developing a plan for a product, structure, system, or component with intention.)
You really do need to understand the word design if you are going to
use it to describe a process you claim is without intent. Evolution does
not design anything, there isn’t a plan, purpose, or design in the
whole of evolution unless you want to put some intelligence into
the equation, and that will cause some minor levels of hostility among
your peers here if you do, trust me.
“…-else how did those insects evolve a biochemistry that gave them resistance to insecticides?”
Good question, you believe design has something to do with it?
Kelly
12 Oct 08
Originally posted by sonhouseWell from time to time, I think I'm without a plan, purpose, or design
You think?"😉
when it comes to my chess game. 🙁 Do you see my point which you
brought to light very well? Simulating a human chess move in a game
does not in any fashion speak to if humans plan, or design their
moves with purpose, they are just chess moves. The moves are just
chess moves made by some software running its program, they do
not speak to anything outside of the computer can make the moves.
Kelly
12 Oct 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'd disagree, if we had never witnessed a flying animal then we ran into
Actually its more complicated than that. If you define a miracle as an event that takes place in the universe that violates the laws of science then miracles cannot exist by definition.
The 'laws of science' encompass [b]all events that take place in the universe even apparently miraculous ones. If we observe an apparent miracle then we were either d ...[text shortened]... our model of the laws are wrong. The laws themselves are never ever violated - by definition![/b]
one would that be supernatural to us? If God by His nature can do all
that scripture credits Him with, He is just acting out as He can as all life
does. We can call something supernatural simply because we do not
understand them. I love the TV series StarGate that show displays the
notion of science can appear supernatural to some as well. The laws of
the universe were setup by God for a reason, He isn't bound by those
laws He created them and we have grown use to them.
Kelly
12 Oct 08
Originally posted by KellyJay…Can you point out to me how you came up with
"Firstly, are you now implying that ALL mutations that natural selection works on are bad? -if so, what possible logical reason can there be for this?"
I'm not at all implying that ALL mutations that natural selection works
on are bad, I'm saying natural selection does not care, it has no
feelings about mutations one way or another, it works on everyth ...[text shortened]... e up with
the notion I said all mutations that natural selection works on are
bad?
Kelly
the notion I said all mutations that natural selection works on are
bad? ..….
I said you IMPLIED it.
Reminder; your quote:
… Natural selection only gets to filter that which is given to it IF nothing
positive comes along it only works through the BAD, ...…. (my emphasis)
Why would “nothing positive comes along”? -what logical reason could there be for preventing any good mutations?