YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Well, how about fish? You think they could evolve after lots and lots of years to fish??
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How does the story of Adam and Eve compatible with science?
- Thread starter InvestigateTruth
- Start date
Apostle John
“Go ahead, look up Revelation 6”
I’m one of a few that believes the Bible literally and that God made creation and not ToE.
nPeace
Veteran Member
I must say Tag, I have to hand it to the atheists. When it come to winning the contest for the most dishonest human beings on the planet... the atheists go away with first, second, and third prize.
Here are your words...
I note you didn't bother to actually reply to the points raised, or bothered to name a few of these supposed paleontologists that apparently don't agree that the environment controls the selection pressures and therefor the environment steers evolution in a certain direction
Evolution is not natural selection, and you know this, don't you. We were talking about natural selection. Not evolution.
Need your other words?
Here you go...
Which means natural selection is directed by the environment.
Yeah. You changed your tune... knowing full well what you are doing. Strawman.
It's not something new with you. I see it all the time. When it's not that, what do you do? Run.
Then you have the gall to talk about hypocrisy.
nPeace
Veteran Member
It's clear who is the one doing their best to avoid acknowledging anything.
Quote
The article also says this:
but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don’t. Natural selection is NOT random!
Unquote
So what? What does that have to do with what was said. Nothing.
Just another of your distractions - strawman.
The point is, natural selection is not directed.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, you keep claiming that God is a liar. Most Christians do not believe that which is why most Christians accept the fact of evolution.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Such a shame that you did not understand that article. it does not support you. It supports @TagliatelliMonster .
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I was kidding anyway. I no longer believe in evolution as if that's how all the various lifeforms came about. Thanks.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You do not have to "believe" evolution. But an honest and informed person does have to accept the fact of evolution.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Still running away from every substantive points and questions people have put to you and just posting ad homs. You must be really frightened and insecure...
I also wonder why it is that theists seem far more obsessed with Richard Dawkins than atheists. He's good at explaining evolution (you should try one of his books for that, as you don't seem to understand the first thing about it) but, quite frankly The God Delusion wasn't his finest hour. Daniel Dennett did a far better job in Breaking the Spell.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, here is something about Sam Harris as related to some other threads as for science and what it can't do, instead of what it can do.
Now here it is for this thread:
There is no evidence for any God. That is correct.
The problem is what follows from that as next in line. Well, that it is wrong to believe in Gods, is not a fact. It is an indirect ought or norm that has no evidence.
So your group as in effect scientific skeptics taught me to understand science. And then I asked the next question: If science works, is that limited for the human existence or universal? And in that process I became a general skeptic and not just a scientific skeptic.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
That's not the direct link though.
If you don't care whether what you believe is true or not, then you can believe whatever you like. But, if you're going to come on a forum like this and try to persuade other people that your beliefs are rational and based on evidence, then you can expect to be asked to justify them with evidence and/or reasoning.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well here are the 3 options.
There is positive evidence as per science for everything humans do and science can answer that for everything humans do.
There is no evidence as all.
There is evidence, but it is limited and only apply to some cases in the universe.
I do the last one. What about you?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
I'm not actually sure that's what you meant. Of course there is evidence for what people do, human behaviour is directly observable. There isn't a full scientific explanation for what people do because minds are very complicated and not fully understood.
This is not unusual. Even systems which are fully understood can be unpredictable in practice, see:
Chaos theory - Wikipedia
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
I'm not actually sure that's what you meant. Of course there is evidence for what people do, human behaviour is directly observable. There isn't a full scientific explanation for what people do because minds are very complicated and not fully understood.
This is not unusual. Even systems which are fully understood can be unpredictable in practice, see:
Chaos theory - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
No, can you do morality using the scientific method? No observe it, but do it.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
What do you mean 'do' it?
There has been quite a lot of work on the origin of morality with reference to evolution, for example, using game theory, and behaviours in other species.
I don't know of anybody who thinks science can tell you what the moral thing to do is. It can help work out the consequences but not tell you what to do. I really don't know why you seem so utterly obsessed with this sort of thing though. You keep bringing it up everywhere as if it's at all important or controversial, even in threads like this where its totally off topic and irrelevant.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Genes are a segment of larger macromolecules, similar to a single car on a large train. What is often overlooked, is the DNA is not just a double helix of nucleotides. It also contains a double helix of water molecules; mini train, within the major and minor grooves of the DNA double helix. Different configurations of DNA have different amounts of water with the most common DNA configuration; b-DNA having the most double helical water. Water is an active part of any gene, but this is never shown in textbooks. What is shown in textbooks; just DNA, is obsolete, but may be sufficient for casino science. Rational science needs all the facts to draw rational conclusions.
By education, I was a material's specialist; metals, ceramics and polymers. I had extra education in organic macromolecules; plastics. The properties of organic macromolecules is based on their secondary bonding forces. The primary bonding; covalent bonds, is there to hold each large molecule together. However, the properties of such materials; sheet of plastic or a dab of crazy glue, is based on their secondary bonding forces, that stem from the surface of its molecular backbone. This is also true of life molecules, which are a specialty class of organic macromolecules; polymers of many repeating units.
The DNA double helix is held together by hydrogen bonds, which are a strong second bonding force. It is the same bonding force that holds H2O or water together and gives water its many unique and anomalous properties. Secondary bonding is not permanent, like primary bonding. Rather secondary bonds can form and be broken at ambient conditions, without hurting the primary bonds, and are therefore very important to the fluid properties of the living state.
Template relations on the DNA; genes, use secondary bonding for the base pairs and for the templates relations, since it is strong enough to make good connection, but weak enough to come and go. This can occur while the primary bonds never break, allowing a very stable template; primary, but with an active surface of weaker secondary bonds.
This is not new, but it is where the bioscience seems to overlook the obvious. The double helix of water, within the DNA double helix is important since it is part of the secondary bonding structure of the DNA, where the fluidity of life appears. Textbooks tend to show the primary bonding and just the hydrogen bonds between the double helix. But the double helix of water is a critical part of the secondary bonding structure that imparts the material properties needed for life. It never made sense that it is still not included in textbooks, so students can ask the right questions. This may be due to casino science and black boxes working better in the dark. I prefer work in the light of reason and material science.
If you look at the DNA there are coding genes and noncoding genes. Not all the DNA is used as a template. Only a small fraction is based on coding gene templates. The majority of the DNA, is often called junk genes; noncoding. However, the negative label of the noncoding genes, does not diminish their very important purpose, connected to physical properties, through its interaction with water; large layer of secondary bonding forces.
The purpose of the noncoding genes appears to be set the secondary bonding stage in terms of the coding gene expression. This is very useful and critical for multicellular differentiation, where one set of coding genes is used by hundreds of different cells types, but with each cell type only using a specialty part of all the genes. The noncoding genes set the stage, so certain genes come more to center stage and stay there, so a unique cellular character can persist, even though they have all the same coding genes as white blood cells, neurons, and skin cells.
Mutations are not just on coding genes, but they can also occur in the noncoding genes. This can open up the stage, so the same coding genes on the DNA, can have new functionality and differentiations; dial in between existing expressions. Water is critical to this fine tuning, since water, due to having four strong hydrogen bonds, is the muscle of the secondary bonding world of life, and in the end, water gets its way; evolution of functionality.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
With chemical reactions, yes. Even over time they will most likely change.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Humans didn't do it as they evolve on their own. If we want to be selective with mating them, then we can speed up the process.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
The two are not incompatible.
Apostle John
“Go ahead, look up Revelation 6”
No, you keep claiming that, and somewhat perversely. I believe in God’s Word.
Christians only believe the ToE because it has been taught in schools the past 50+ years and taught as if it were fact when it is full of lies, inconsistencies and back-engineering. It has been a form of brainwashing. Mutations is the only fact.