The Battle Between The Christian Religion and Science

[McBell]

When science proves one doctrine of the TOE, get back o me.

You will have to provide this "doctrine" for I have been unable to find it.

 

[McBell]

Plant some corn and in about 90 days, not only will you not only get corn, you will get the exact same "kind." So unless you can falsify that, "after is kind" has been proven

Now buy a male and female dog and let them mate. What has this combination produced since time began? Even a caveman will understand that it proves "after it kind."

WE could go on to birds and fish and cows, and the results would always be "afer it kind."

Your turn. Show me one thing in the TOE that has been proven. Please no websites, they never offer any real scientific evidence.

Define "kind" in a meaningful and or useful manner.

 

[McBell]

Do you think lifeless elements can produce life?

Ah, so god is alive.
Because if god was not alive, god could not create life.

Nothing can never produce something.

Thus there has always been something.

If God didn't not do it, it happen?

no idea what you mean to say here.

 

[McBell]

Why did you respond differently with the above?

my first guess is he is throwing so much crap around around he has lost track of it.

 

[metis]

Thus there has always been something.

And this is the leaning of most cosmologists, namely that we're probably all a product of infinity, which is only slightly older than I am. However, infinity certainly does not negate the hypothetical possibility of there being a god or gods.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I have a rule that I will not answer your question until you answer mine. So name one thing science has proved that the TOE says and I will answer yours. Please don't point me to some evolutionary site. They never provide the evidence for what they say. If you do that, I will ignore it.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a bacterium responsible for several difficult-to-treat infections in humans. MRSA is any strain of Staphylococcus aureus that has developed, through horizontal gene transfer and natural selection, multi- resistance to beta-lactam antibiotics, which include the penicillins (methicillin, dicloxacillin, nafcillin, oxacillin, etc.) and the cephalosporins. MRSA evolved from horizontal gene transfer of the mecA gene to at least five distinct S. aureus lineages.[1] Strains unable to resist these antibiotics are classified as methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus, or MSSA. The evolution of such resistance does not cause the organism to be more intrinsically virulent than strains of S. aureus that have no antibiotic resistance, but resistance does make MRSA infection more difficult to treat with standard types of antibiotics and thus more dangerous.

MRSA is especially troublesome in hospitals, prisons, and nursing homes, where patients with open wounds, invasive devices, and weakened immune systems are at greater risk of nosocomial infection (hospital-acquired infection) than the general public. MRSA began as a hospital-acquired infection, but has developed limited endemic status and is now sometimes community-acquired as well as livestock-acquired. The terms HA-MRSA (healthcare-associated MRSA), CA-MRSA (community-associated MRSA) and LA-MRSA (livestock-associated) reflect this distinction.

[1] Fitzgerald, J.R.; Sturdevant, D.E. (2001). "Evolutionary genomics of Staphylococcus aureus: Insights

Now, this may need some translation for you, so here it is: the environment in which a bacteria thrived changed (was infused with antibiotics), which worked to control those bacteria -- until they changed themselves so as to no longer be controllable by those very antibiotics. This is evolution, and it does happen. (Unless, of course, you would like to argue that God is interfering just as a way to kill more kiddies.)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Give me a break. I was uneducated in high school and in college about evolution, but one sip of the kool-aid made me spit it out. I strongly suggest you take a basic course in genetics and then tell me how the laws of genetics are not violated by the TOE.

Yes, that much seems evident.

As to "laws of genetics," if they said that DNA copying resulted in absolutely identical copies, you might have a point. But turns out -- nope, that's not how it work. If Gregor Mendel understood that, even without knowing about DNA. Variation is not only possible, it is the norm!

 

[metis]

Yes, that much seems evident.

As to "laws of genetics," if they said that DNA copying resulted in absolutely identical copies, you might have a point. But turns out -- nope, that's not how it work. If Gregor Mendel understood that, even without knowing about DNA. Variation is not only possible, it is the norm!

Not only that, but we also know that there can be variations on how genes may manifest themselves (phenotype) because of various factors that work on it. I personally know a pair of identical twins (they were genetically tested), whereas I couldn't tell the difference when they were young, but now they look quite different and have very different personalities.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Wonderful. Now present some of the evidenced you used to teach them to teach me.

There are millions of pages of evidence in libraries and museums all over the world. Why should anyone present you more -- here on the unlikely medium of an internet religious discussion forum -- when you've made it abundantly clear you can't be bothered studying (as @metis has) any of it that already exists in easily accessible, myriad abundance? Why would anybody expect you to do anything other than try to find (in places like "Answers in Genesis") arguments to refute whatever is presented before you can even be bothered to read it?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

The real problem is that man has a limited mind compared to God and yet many people claim they understand exactly what God did and how He did it. Can a bug understand what a man does? People who claim to know all about God only know what their limited minds let them know. And, of course, people who claim only science can explain things do not know about God because their minds do not let them see this.

 

[metis]

The real problem is that man has a limited mind compared to God and yet many people claim they understand exactly what God did and how He did it. Can a bug understand what a man does? People who claim to know all about God only know what their limited minds let them know. And, of course, people who claim only science can explain things do not know about God because their minds do not let them see this.

I agree with you on the first part, assuming there indeed is a "God" of course, but let me remind you that many scientists are theists. What we cannot do as scientists, however, is assume that there is a "God"-- or is it "Gods"?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Not only that, but we also know that there can be variations on how genes may manifest themselves (phenotype) because of various factors that work on it. I personally know a pair of identical twins (they were genetically tested), whereas I couldn't tell the difference when they were young, but now they look quite different and have very different personalities.

The truly astonishing thing for me is that those like Godobeyer and omega2xx are strenuously arguing that the TOE does NOT say something that – in very point of fact – the TOE does not say. This is the essence of the futile argument. Over and over again, they demonstrate that they simply do not even understand what the theory claims – and yet without knowing that, they make the absolute claim that “whatever it is that it says, (which I don’t understand for a moment) is wrong!"

Truly, an argumentum from ignorance (which is different from argumentum ad ignorantiam).Would be funny if it weren't pathetic.

 

[Skwim]

Ecclesiastes 10:1 tells us what made the perfumer's oil stink---dead flies. The dead flies in the oil of evolution that makes it stink is how. Real science tells HOW something happened. So take the dead flies out of the TOE and give the science that explains how it happened.

Gee, Biblical advice. Why didn't I think of that. All I have to do is shelve reason, adopt faith as my operating program, give my thinking cap to Goodwill, and I'm all set to go.

Give me a break. I was uneducated in high school and in college about evolution, but one sip of the kool-aid made me spit it out. I strongly suggest you take a basic course in genetics and then tell me how the laws of genetics are not violated by the TOE.

Hey! If any of the theories of evolution violate the laws of genetics how about helping us out and share your knowledge? Pleeeease. Inquiring minds want need to know.

When there is real science that proves the TOE, it will be changed to the laws of evolution. If that ever happens, I will jump the fence and join you.

Real science? You mean like science that finally agrees with pi equaling 3.0, that bats are birds, that rainbows never existed before Noah, and that either the Sun and Moon, or the Earth can stand still. THAT kind of science? Well hold on a sec while I put my brain into neutral and join your "science" club.





Just a side note. At one time I was about to put you on "ignore," but thought better of it when I realized that you're about the only interesting thing left on RF. Thank you for your contribution.


.

 

[jonathan180iq]

The real problem is that man has a limited mind compared to God and yet many people claim they understand exactly what God did and how He did it. Can a bug understand what a man does? People who claim to know all about God only know what their limited minds let them know. And, of course, people who claim only science can explain things do not know about God because their minds do not let them see this.

Similarly, then, since you and I are both human, neither of us can claim to know anything about god... you know, being all lowly and limited compared to god's majestic knowledge, right? Your guesses about god(s) are just as good as mine, by your own argument.

The difference between your bug and human analogy, when comparing us to men and gods, is that humans actually exist, as do bugs. To this day, no religious ideology or theistic argument as has ever proven that their deity is real... That's a pretty big problem for your side.

 

[Skwim]

Similarly, then, since you and I are both human, neither of us can claim to know anything about god... you know, being all lowly and limited compared to god's majestic knowledge, right? Your guesses about god(s) are just as good as mine, by your own argument.

The difference between your bug and human analogy, when comparing us to men and gods, is that humans actually exist, as do bugs. To this day, no religious ideology or theistic argument as has ever proven that their deity is real... That's a pretty big problem for your side.

You don't think this ............. ...............is proof?

.​

 

[omega2xx]

Tell us just one thing that has been learned "from real science" that contradicts TOE. Because I can't help but notice that you have made that claim, but not provided anything to substantiate that claim.

An offspring can't have a characteristic that neither parent had the gene for.

A mutation does not add a characteristic to the offspring. It only alters the characteristic, the offspring would have gotten without the mutation.

 

[omega2xx]

I do not believe anything was created. Everything forms from one thing out of or into another.

How did the first from come into being and what was it?

Babies aren't created. They are formed between two separate already existing "things" into who we define another. It's human language not reality. We see something different coming from something else and we designate the creation coming from the thing its made from, a creator. It's totally natural to see someone or something created something that already exists.

You keep wanting to start in the middle. How did matter come into being when there was none?

Not everyone sees it that way. Where, in nature and the natural world, does it suggest there is a deity involve in creating the world?

You keep beating around the bush to avoid answering the question---how did matter originate.

How do I know this deity and from which religion should I attribute the creation of the world?

You can know this deity by sincerely desiring to know Him and asking Him to reveal et you.

Where is this deity's signiture?

Unless you can explain the origin of the universe, the heavens are His signature.

I believe god is life.

Wonderful. How did life begin?

I am an atheist. I do not believe in deities. God is not a deity. It just means object or person of worship. Whatever we put as our place, person, idea, or thing of worship is god. So, I understand how nature is from god because god is life and it is ever evolving from one thing to another-not created.

I am a Christian. I believe in a Deity. Why is your belief superior to mine? Can what you believe be wrong?

However, you'd have to explain how I can see a deity in nature. That's like my finding out I have a long lost child somewhere in Africa and I'm supposed to think naturally that child's mother is an alien with fifty eyes and forty hands.

I have to be realistic. Without the Bible, how would I know nature shows a deity and by whose or what deity is this religion from?



Produce and form from one thing to another, yes. Create out of thin air, no. That's like someone saying "if we came from monkeys why can't we see monkeys evolving to humans today".... it's a theory. Likewise, it's like saying, "if we came from god, why can't we see ourselves coming from god (from dust) today (rather than our parents)?" It's a story. A theory. A legend of ways we were created told by different cultures and their stories all around the world. It doesn't mean it has no value. It just means if you judge how you see the world today compared to 2,000 years ago when the Bible was deemed to be inspired, that time lapse isn't great enough to test that theory to be true. It's based on *cough* faith.



Something always existed. God means person or object of worship. How did you come up with a deity out of all things that created the world?

If the connection to your said deity didn't come from you, where did it come from and how can you express how you got this and not an experience from Brahma or any other deity or deity-like entity or consciousness?

Was it a connection you had with god? If god had a connection with you, explain how that connection exists without using human language and attributes about god to describe it.

That, and you can't use the Bible. John, Paul, Moses, et cetera are people too. They are no different than you; so, I'd ask the same questions.

Evidently you are not going to answer my question. Have a nice day.

 

[omega2xx]

Simple meaning just as a sperm and egg are simple. They come together to create a complex being. It's in context.

They didn't pop into mid air. They always existed. To say that something was created out of nothing would make it possible for the same to do so today. How could you know what happened thousands of years ago and how can you separate the laws of nature then as they are today? Laws of nature do not change in the last 2,000 years. We don't just pop up out of thin air. Nothing is magic.

Nothing is dead. Everything moves even the table I'm sitting at. The energy or however they define it is moving at a slow pace. Then if it's heated up, it moves faster. It depends on the temperature among other things. Nothing is dead. If you want to have a "creator" the only one I can think of is energy. But energy doesn't create but sustains life. So, god is the sustainer of life. God is the breathe of life. God is the energy of life. God IS life itself.

To make life a person is humans trying to define what, by its nature, cannot be defined. That's why we have all of these religions because we are trying to live within god or however we identify life as best we can. Whether it is through ourselves, an other, a deity, family, or so have you.



They are the same. I just use the laws of nature because it makes more sense and I revere nature. It's a part of my faith. Science is the test and study of nature. So, it's making what I find personal, impersonal. So I don't use the word science unless I'm in biology class or maybe chemistry.



What is TOE?

What do you mean? The Laws of Nature is in itself doctrine. We've been studying, defining, creating stories about it, wrapping dogma about it, making tests, and all of that jazz for as long as the human race came into (not created from) existence.

Even though it's not an actual science site, there's plenty of information here plus links to scientific studies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

Even though it's not an actual science site, there's plenty of information here plus links to scientific studies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

TOE is Theory of Evolution.

 

[omega2xx]

Even though it's not an actual science site, there's plenty of information here plus links to scientific studies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

I no longer look at referenced websites. They NEVER produce any scientific evidence. If you want to quote them, that's fine, but it is a waste to time to read their their opinions.

 

[omega2xx]

Why did you respond differently with the above?

I had to quote the Bible to show them their error. But I did not start the questions.