The Battle Between The Christian Religion and Science

[omega2xx]

Well sir, I'm glad you chose corn and dogs as your proof that evolution is a farce because that just made my life a whole lot easier...

Before corn ever existed, there was Teosinte. Teosinte is basically a tall wheat grass. It is not a vegetable. It is definitely not corn. It is the ancestor of corn.

Fully developed

The modern corn that you eat is an artificially selected hybrid plant, naturally and biologically crafted to be sweet and juicy. Teosinte was crossbred with Maize. The first few generations were small, hard, and nearly inedible. Over time, and by applying different environmental factors, the corn that you know and love came to be. Within just a few generations, a plant that never before existed on Earth was "created" using the same processes and forces that drive evolution. A species of plant that never before existed now exists entirely independently of its parent populations. Corn is not Teosinte. Corn is not Maize. Corn is corn. There are ever new species of corn that are developing, some sweeter, some more plump, some that grow in different environments.

And that, my friend, is evolution. A new species emerged from a parent species:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/selection/corn/
https://www.learner.org/courses/essential/life/session5/closer1.html



You seriously could not have picked a better example of evolution-in-action than dogs!

There was a time, not too long ago, when there were no dogs on planet Earth. There were wolves, which are canid, obviously. But there were no other dogs, anywhere. No Great Danes, no Labradors, no Chihuahuas, and no poodles... just gray wolves as far as the eye could see. Through and initial natural divergence of populations in Europe, followed by thousands of years of artificial selection (which as you should have read above is simply a fine tuned version of natural selection) all of the species of dog that you see today have resulted. Are they all still furry, four-legged, canids? Yes they are. But is a Chihuahua a Gray Wolf? No it's not.

A group of organisms that did not previously exist now thrives and produces "after their own kind" never having to bother with the parent population ever again. Were Chihuahuas "created" by the hand of god? Nope... they sure weren't. They were produced by natural means, over the course of multiple generations, through environmental selection and normal, everyday, biological processes. A wolf never gave birth to a chihuahua. That's a stupid idea. But slow changes to offspring over long periods of time produced Chihuahuas from wolves.

And that, my friend, is evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_domestic_dog



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_fish
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle
http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2016/02/cattle-domestication-from-aurochs-to-cow/

Oddly enough, you're right! There's not a single living organism today that did not have ancestor parent populations that were entirely different from their modern counterparts. There are extant species of canids, as we've discussed, which live right along side the modern show Poodles. This holds true for birds, fish, cows, horses, dogs, vegetables, and humans.

See how this works?
We weren't Chimpanzees - we just share a common ancestor with them. Our divergence and theirs took very different paths. That's to be expected. But we are both still apes - producing, as you've said multiple times, after our own kind.



I don't have to do anything, really, since you've unwittingly done it for me.

Not really. You have no link between teosinte and corn. If you plant teosinte you will never get corn. You have no evidence ther were no dogs before wolves. However it is irrelevant. Dogs and wolves can mate and have offspring. They are just different varieties of the same kind. You are trying to sell variety as a change of species, Sorry, that won't fly scientifically.

If you think a chimp holding it's baby and a human mother doing the same thing is evidence of evolution, you need to take basic course in genetics.

 

[omega2xx]

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

All living things originated from one source. Of course they have figured out how that one things came to life, but given another 1000 years, maybe they will.

 

[omega2xx]

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

Specific.

 

[omega2xx]

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

Keep going and soon you will be as smart as I am.

Thus there has always been something.

Right again. ou ae on a roll.

no idea what you mean to say here.

Me neither. I really botched thtg one up.

 

[omega2xx]

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.

Cosmology is the poster child for wild guesses.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It is not that I am not answering your questions. I am. Just you are disagreeing with me. Disagreements does not mean you have to end the conversation. It just means if you want to have a discussion rather than an argument, you'd have to take interest in what I say as I do with you. Hence why I am on RF. If you just want to debate, I'm not here for that.

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

Nothing comes out of thin air. Everything always was. Everything forms from one thing to another. Like a baby doesn't pop into thin air. We don't either. We don't need an origin to exist.

That is what I know is true. You can disagree but please don't be rude about it.

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

It is not starting in the middle. There is no beginning. Everything that has existed has always in one shape or form. If you try to make an origin of existence, you'd be "having faith" that an origin exist for years. That's not what I know is true. I am comfortable with not having an origin. It lets me know that I continue on without dying and without ever being born from thin air. It lets me know I am part of my mother and father and they are a part of me. It lets me know that if I had children, I would be a part of them. It lets me know that my body will be part of this earth and my soul a part of it and the people I love as well.

It gives me comfort to know there is no "beginning." That is me.

That is what I know is true. You can disagree but please don't be rude about it.

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

I am telling you what I believe. I do not agree there is an origin. We did not pop out of thin air. Everything forms. We just create names for things that come into our existence. We are not the center of the universe.

I cannot answer the question how you want me to answer it. It is not my belief. I can tell you what is in scripture. However, you are asking me what I believe. There is only but so much I can say because I am not looking for the "beginning" of anything. I am comfortable with living as a continuation of life and mystery of it.

Some people need to find a purpose. I am not one of them.

That is what I know is true. You can disagree but please don't be rude about it.

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

I live with Christians, work with Christians, live in a residential home with christians, owned by christians, in a christian environment. I hear this a lot. You can't make someone believe something that is not in their reality and worldview to believe in. That's coercion. Instead, take interest in what the other person believes. Share thoughts and learn from each other.

Not everyone needs to be saved.

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

I have no reason to. He isn't part of my reality. I don't believe in a deity. I don't see how that even makes sense.

Wonderful. How did life begin?

It did not have a beginning. Life always was. I like that. It gives me a feeling of one continuum. It lets me know there is no black and white answer.

That is my belief. Just because you disagree doesn't mean I haven't answered your question.

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

Where have I said my belief is superior to yours?

No. I know what I believe is true. You can disagree, but don't be rude about it.

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

I have. I don't have to agree with you, though.

 

[omega2xx]

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.

Man tinkering with he process is not natural selection. You don't know for sure the original bacterium was not already resistant. If it was not, they would have all died from the original injection.

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.)

Bacteria becoming a different variety of bacteria , is no more evolution than the offspring of a poodle and a bulldog being an example of evolution. Don't get med wrong. I have great respect for scientist, who continually discover things that help us live better and longer. That takes dedication and knowledge.

The bottom line for me always is, how did our universe and life come into being without a Creator. I have forgotten your question, but if you will remind me, I will give you an answer.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

Think for a little – please, just try to think. When does an altered characteristic become something else altogether? How many tiny alterations does it take before the original is simply unrecognizable as progenitor?

Think of the whale (you brought them up, after all). What would a creature created for water need with legs or hips? And yet, there is a fossil of basilosauras – truly a marine mammal – that had, protruding from its hind flank, legs perfectly formed, but no bigger than a 3 year old girl’s, and perfectly useless. Why?

Even modern whales have very vestigial, seemingly useless, hip bones. (And yes, I've read the rubbish that Answers In Genesis tries to use to defeat this argument. And trust me, it is pure rubbish. Same as all the apologetics I've ever read. Sophistry without basis, "reason" without common sense.)

And the Mexican blind cave fish, evolved from living in lightless caves over millennia, still retain vestigial eyes. They don’t work (they don’t need to) because working eyes are energy-expensive, and with little food available, every little energy saving is important in ensuring survival of the species.

The world is littered with vestigial this and that – your appendix is an example. Yours is puny (mere centimeters), because what you eat doesn’t require it. The Koala’s is immense by comparison (2 meters, and the koala is much, much smaller than you), eating eucalyptus, as it does. The appendix harbours bacteria whose specific function is breaking down cellulose.

I haven’t time to provide you with the tens of thousands of examples. I just wish you would look for yourself. Still, if you’d rather not, that is your privilege. You are allowed to be just as unknowledgeable as like about any topic under the sun. Just be aware – people who actually do have some knowledge will know for certain that you are pontificating from an empty pulpit.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Man tinkering with he process is not natural selection. You don't know for sure the original bacterium was not already resistant. If it was not, they would have all died from the original injection.

Now, at the risk of being censured, I have to say your comment above of idiotic to a degree beyond anything I've seen from you so far. Is it actually true that every animal shot with a bullet dies? Many do, some do not. Is it actually true that every human dies when ingesting strychnine? Most do, a very few do not. Stephen Hawking has ALS, and should by all rights have been dead 20 or 30 years ago (as almost every suffered in history has died). He lives on. The world is not made up of the kind of "absolutes" that you try to foist on us.

Thus, the "miracle drugs" that killed so many of the terrible sicknesses that once killed humans in their millions actually DID nearly all die. Nobody thought twice about careful followup when given the appropriate dose of penicillin for a case of gonorrhea -- it worked, every time. But while it worked, killing almost every gonococcus bacterium, some very few, from time to time, managed to survive -- and then, (with the confidence of a newly "cured" person) was spread to somebody else. ANd what was spread to somebody else possessed some small modification that enabled a few more to survive the next shot of penicillin in that person, and then a few more in the person after that.

This is anything but "man tinkering with the process." You really do have to learn to start using that thing between your ears.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Man tinkering with he process is not natural selection. You don't know for sure the original bacterium was not already resistant. If it was not, they would have all died from the original injection.



Bacteria becoming a different variety of bacteria , is no more evolution than the offspring of a poodle and a bulldog being an example of evolution. Don't get med wrong. I have great respect for scientist, who continually discover things that help us live better and longer. That takes dedication and knowledge.

The bottom line for me always is, how did our universe and life come into being without a Creator. I have forgotten your question, but if you will remind me, I will give you an answer.

No, I doubt you can. I now have the measure of you intelligence, and it really isn't worth the bother. I've seen the posts (for example to @Carlita) in which you claim not to read things you have been pointed to. That is, of course, nothing more than your "Manifesto of Intentionally Retained Ignorance."

Enjoy it, if it makes you feel good. But I see you for what you are, and won't bother responding any more.

 

[Desert Snake]

Specific.

'kind' is sharing various traits, but not actually specific. Actually, they can vary quite a bit in a kind, imo

 

[McBell]

All living things originated from one source. Of course they have figured out how that one things came to life, but given another 1000 years, maybe they will.

Is that it?
A strawman?

Why am I not surprised?
Oh yeah, your posting history...


Though you seem to have it backwards.
Is it not theism that claims all life from god?

 

[McBell]

Specific.

seriously.
Give it a try.
Just in case you forgot you are trying to define "kind" in a meaningful and or useful manner.

 

[jonathan180iq]

You have no link between teosinte and corn. If you plant teosinte you will never get corn.

Please tell me you're joking...

You have no evidence there were no dogs before wolves.

Ummm...what?

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/06/the-origin-of-dogs/484976/
www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/5/l_015_02.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32691843
http://www.jstor.org/stable/29775234?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016895259390122X
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/90/1/71.short
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/276/5319/1687

There are no dog remains that have ever been found older than roughly 15,000 years. Before that, every sample was phenotypically a wolf. Every single dog breed that you can imagine is descendant from those ancestors. There were no German Shepards. There were no Poodles. There were no Cocker Spaniels. Each of those breeds, and every other one you know of, were biologically crafted by selective breeding. As I said before, that's called Artificial Selection. It works because of Evolution.

If you really wanted JUST ONE example of where evolution was "proven" to be true, it's the fact that humans have produced vegetables from grass and tiny show poodles from wild, pack-hunting, killing machines. There was no magic involved - just biology and genetics.

Dogs and wolves can mate and have offspring. They are just different varieties of the same kind.

Yes... as I admitted above... But that's not true for all of them.

Now, here's a challenge, tell me why Wolves don't give birth to Cocker Spaniels.

You are trying to sell variety as a change of species, Sorry, that won't fly scientifically.

Do you not know anything about this subject at all?

https://www.britannica.com/science/variation-biology
"Variation, in biology, any difference between cells, individual organisms, or groups of organisms of any species caused either by genetic differences (genotypic variation) or by the effect of environmental factors on the expression of the genetic potentials (phenotypic variation)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
"Speciation is the evolutionary process by which reproductively isolated biological populations evolve to become distinct species."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation
"In biology, an adaptation, also called an adaptive trait, is a trait with a current functional role in the life of an organismthat is maintained and evolved by means of natural selection."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
"Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2]Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules.[3]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_breeding
"Selective breeding (also called artificial selection) is the process by which humans use animal breeding and plant breeding to selectively develop particular phenotypic traits (characteristics) by choosing which typically animal or plantmales and females will sexually reproduce and have offspring together."

If you think a chimp holding it's baby and a human mother doing the same thing is evidence of evolution, you need to take basic course in genetics.

Should I?

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2410314?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
http://www.pnas.org/content/85/16/6002.short
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v33/n3s/full/ng1113.html
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02101694
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/abs/nature04789.html
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/per...ing-our-past/dna-comparing-humans-and-chimps/

 

[metis]

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.

You obviously did not check up on any of them because if you had you would have seen that they do not deal with "opinions" but with actual research. How convenient and disingenuous of you to do that, but it doesn't surprise me as I see a rather clear-cut anti-science pattern to your approach. On top of that, it cheapens your "religious" position.

 

[metis]

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

Whether you started it or not, the fact of the matter is that you lied in what you had posted in response to my post. You indeed are coming from a "religious" position, which you denied. No surprise though as your "pattern" continues.

 

[metis]

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

That depends on where the mutation may occur. If it only affects the phenotype, what you say is true, but if the mutation occurs in the genotype, which it often does, then the changes can be passed on to the offspring.

 

[metis]

Cosmology is the poster child for wild guesses.

And blindly accepting what was written 2000 years ago by people we don't know, and then placing that ahead of objectively-derived evidence is smart, iyo?

Also, it's obvious that you really don't have a clue what the word "hypothesis" means in a scientific paradigm, and the concept of "infinity" is just that. It's not a statement of "wild guesses"-- it's a statement of possibility that has at least some supporting evidence, namely that infinity does work out mathematically and is sometimes used in mathematical calculations.

"Wild guesses" more refers to your "religious approach" simply because there's so little that can be verified, including such a basic question as to whether there are any deities at all? Beliefs are one thing, and they're fine & dandy as far as they go, but beliefs are not necessarily facts.

 

[Reggie Miller]

And blindly accepting what was written 2000 years ago by people we don't know, and then placing that ahead of objectively-derived evidence is smart, iyo?

We don't blindly accept anything. Christ reveals the truth to us in the now. The witnesses that wrote the NT were with Christ and testify to the truth. If you deny the truth then there is no hope for you.

 

[jonathan180iq]

We don't blindly accept anything. Christ reveals the truth to us in the now.

Can you explain the difference between Christ revealing something to you, and you just having a gut feeling about something and "knowing" that a supernatural being is communicating with you? How are those two things different?

The witnesses that wrote the NT were with Christ and testify to the truth.

"Paul" certainly wasn't - and he supposedly wrote the bulk of the New Testament. The others have never been historically verified, even by Biblical Archaeologists.

If you deny the truth then there is no hope for you.

Interesting quote, coming from someone who rejects factual observations in lieu of ghosts revealing things to him through supernatural communications.