Why do humans have genes for full body hair?

[Jose Fly]

Well there is no detailed way given that God did it.

Yeah, that's pretty much the point. "The gods made it that way" doesn't actually explain anything or provide insight into how things work. It's just a post hoc assertion.

Science keeps changing it's collective mind and when it says X religious people say, OK that could fit. Then it changes it's mind and says not X, Y. So we look at it and says, yes that could fit also. The goal posts keep moving with science and each generation has a different science myth that it believes. The religious myth does not change however, just the science myth. And the amazing thing is that it does not matter what science finds, the religious myth can still fit.

What "science myth" are you referring to?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lame.

Nope. I cannot help it if you and he do not know how to debate properly. I can only correct gross errors.

 

[We Never Know]

Daddy!

Great great great great great great great great great great great (x1000 more) grandpa on your dads side maybe

 

[Brian2]

Your argument was refuted since you have no argument. It is really that simple.


You need to learn how to logically support your claims. Otherwise a simple handwave refutes you.

I have noticed that is all you do, wave your hand, like shooing a fly away.
I did not say it was an argument, but there is truth in it.

 

[Brian2]

That may be. But it does not help you unless you can show such a linkage with the blue eyed gene. As you gave it it is only a "So what?" argument.

It may have sounded "so what" but was meant to be helpful and a possible alternative explanation.

 

[Brian2]

Yeah, that's pretty much the point. "The gods made it that way" doesn't actually explain anything or provide insight into how things work. It's just a post hoc assertion.

It's just a defense when people say "see what science says now, that get's rid of God surely" and religious people need to say, "not really, how does it get rid of God, science is just showing how God has done things".

What "science myth" are you referring to?

Any science myth of the day that purports to explain origins and keeps changing with new evidence and hypotheses.

 

[Jose Fly]

Any science myth of the day that purports to explain origins and keeps changing with new evidence and hypotheses.

Such as?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have noticed that is all you do, wave your hand, like shooing a fly away.
I did not say it was an argument, but there is truth in it.

Oh please. Give me a real argument and I will do more. So far you have failed to do that. Your source that you gave for the problem in Luke only refuted you if you read it. It gave some objections but it also explained what was wrong with those failures. There is no doubt about it among real Bible scholars that the author of Luke (not Luke if you study the Bible at all) messed up

 

[Subduction Zone]

It may have sounded "so what" but was meant to be helpful and a possible alternative explanation.

It wasn't though. To be an explanation you would need to find some evidence or at the very least some logic behind it. You did the weakest of handwaves and now you are complaining because your handwaved argument was refuted.

By the way, earlier this year I did go rather deep into the Luke argument with another. He or she had only week responses. Where Quirinius was and when is not a deep dark secret.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Any science myth of the day that purports to explain origins and keeps changing with new evidence and hypotheses.

This is the sort of claim that can be refuted with a handwave.

By the way, be very cautious with popular science sources. They quite often get the science wrong. If you see an article that says "Origin of life solved" it is probably not only wrong, they misunderstood their source. What has been happening over the years is that more and more of the problems of abiogenesis have been solved. I recently heard from a biologist on a talk that 8 out of 10 of the top problems have been solved. He did not claim that all of them were. I am aware of some of them. I am not aware of that many of them.

So the Miller Urey experiment did not "prove abiogenesis", it refuted a claim that would have made abiogenesis impossible if true. Other problems such as the chirality problem were of the same order. You are probably unaware of many of the problems of abiogenesis. But this is the way that science solves complex problems. They break it up and solve the ones that we can solve today and begin studying the others so that they can solve them tomorrow.

 

[We Never Know]

This is the sort of claim that can be refuted with a handwave.

By the way, be very cautious with popular science sources. They quite often get the science wrong. If you see an article that says "Origin of life solved" it is probably not only wrong, they misunderstood their source. What has been happening over the years is that more and more of the problems of abiogenesis have been solved. I recently heard from a biologist on a talk that 8 out of 10 of the top problems have been solved. He did not claim that all of them were. I am aware of some of them. I am not aware of that many of them.

So the Miller Urey experiment did not "prove abiogenesis", it refuted a claim that would have made abiogenesis impossible if true. Other problems such as the chirality problem were of the same order. You are probably unaware of many of the problems of abiogenesis. But this is the way that science solves complex problems. They break it up and solve the ones that we can solve today and begin studying the others so that they can solve them tomorrow.

How life got on earth is currently unknown.
Any maybe's, could be's, could have's, etc work just as well for a god..... be it a god, abiogenisis, a meteor, or anything else.
You all just need to agree with we currently don't know and that's that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How life got on earth is currently unknown.
Any maybe's, could be's, could have's, etc work just as well for a god..... be it a god, abiogenisis, a meteor, or anything else.
You all just need to agree with we currently don't know and that's that.

Sorry, but we do have a reasonable idea of how life got here. You are using the good old creationist black and white fallacy that if we do not know everything that we can't know anything. That is clearly false.

Remember, it does not matter what the scientifically illiterate believe when it comes to ideas like this. What matters is the evidence that one has for one's ideas and there is a good amount of evidence for natural abiogenesis. And so far there is no reliable evidence for anything else. To try to claim that a magical source is just as likely is extreme ignorance.

 

[Brian2]

Such as?

The universe had no beginning (before Hubble) the universe had a beginning (after Hubble) many hypotheses in cosmology these days.

 

[We Never Know]

Sorry, but we do have a reasonable idea of how life got here. You are using the good old creationist black and white fallacy that if we do not know everything that we can't know anything. That is clearly false.

Remember, it does not matter what the scientifically illiterate believe when it comes to ideas like this. What matters is the evidence that one has for one's ideas and there is a good amount of evidence for natural abiogenesis. And so far there is no reliable evidence for anything else. To try to claim that a magical source is just as likely is extreme ignorance.

"we do have a reasonable idea"



Those ideas are exactly what I said... "maybe's, could be's, could have's, etc"

 

[Brian2]

Oh please. Give me a real argument and I will do more. So far you have failed to do that. Your source that you gave for the problem in Luke only refuted you if you read it. It gave some objections but it also explained what was wrong with those failures. There is no doubt about it among real Bible scholars that the author of Luke (not Luke if you study the Bible at all) messed up

How did my source for the Lukan census refute me?

 

[Subduction Zone]

"we do have a reasonable idea"



Those ideas are exactly what I said... "maybe's, could be's, could have's, etc"

But they are not. You need to demote them for some odd reason. Once again you ineptly used the facepalm smiley.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How did my source for the Lukan census refute me?

Did you not read my post? How do you manage to do that? It pointed out weak objections to the reasons why and why those weak objections were probably wrong. And that was from a overly Christin friendly source. A source written by scholars that have put their ideas through peer review would only explain how we know the author of Luke to be wrong.

 

[Brian2]

Sorry, but we do have a reasonable idea of how life got here. You are using the good old creationist black and white fallacy that if we do not know everything that we can't know anything. That is clearly false.

Remember, it does not matter what the scientifically illiterate believe when it comes to ideas like this. What matters is the evidence that one has for one's ideas and there is a good amount of evidence for natural abiogenesis. And so far there is no reliable evidence for anything else. To try to claim that a magical source is just as likely is extreme ignorance.

If you assume abiogenesis is the way then you think we are almost there since I heard somewhere that 8 out of 10 of the big problems in abiogenesis have been solved.
But how life got here is currently unknown. That's just the fact of the matter.

 

[We Never Know]

But they are not. You need to demote them for some odd reason. Once again you ineptly used the facepalm smiley.

Can that idea be scientifically proven?

Or its it just maybe's, could be's, could have's, etc"

Hint.. Abiogenisis isn't proven. Its maybe's, could be's and could have's. That's reality!

Every time you argue it was abiogenisis you are no different than when they say it was a god. Neither of you know.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Jose Fly]

The universe had no beginning (before Hubble) the universe had a beginning (after Hubble) many hypotheses in cosmology these days.

Ah, so you equate hypothesis with myth, right? No difference between the two in your eyes?