Do you have a religion?

[eXcessiveForce]

Evolution is just a theory, it have never been observed. Adaptation has been observed but not evolution. Science has never proven that one species can change to another species.

Also the theory of evolution is in tradiction with the scientific law of biogenesis.

so what came before the big bang?

Science does not disprove. It seeks to prove. You cannot establish through the scientific method whether god exists. The only possible way to use science in this regard would be if god did in fact exist and you could prove that he existed.

Theory is an educated guess in this case using scientific reasoning and method.

[eXcessiveForce]

Oh and to the person who said there are no scientists who support intelligent design, there are many, one happened to be Einstein.

Also the person who discovered fractals in mathmatics.

Several creators of the atomic bomb

just to name a few.

[MatthewAlphonso]

Evolution is just a theory, it have never been observed. Adaptation has been observed but not evolution. Science has never proven that one species can change to another species.

AH, but this has been observered. Usually in bacteria, what do you think the type of anthrax used by the military is? it is a mutant species of Anthrax. A new Species that was created and evolved in a laboratory.

Also the theory of evolution is in tradiction with the scientific law of biogenesis.

How precisely do you figure this? the two theories are completley opposite. I.D. is more in line with biogenesis.

so what came before the big bang?

What came before your God? We don't know what came before, we likely won't until the end when we can ask our various gods and goddesses.

Science does not disprove. It seeks to prove. You cannot establish through the scientific method whether god exists. The only possible way to use science in this regard would be if god did in fact exist and you could prove that he existed.

this is where you are wrong. Science is a process of disproving things. Evolution will never be proven, but it can be disproven. Just as the Law of Gravity can not be proven, but it can be disproven. Biogenesis was disproven, it was disproven by Pasteur.

Theory is an educated guess in this case using scientific reasoning and method.

I already assessed this in earlier posts.

Oh and to the person who said there are no scientists who support intelligent design, there are many, one happened to be Einstein.

Also the person who discovered fractals in mathmatics.

Several creators of the atomic bomb

just to name a few.

Give me a few biologists, preferably evolutionary biologists. These aren't supporters, these are people who hoped it was true. Even Einstein said that he could see few problems with the idea of evolution (which states in no way that some higher being had nothing to do with it.)

[Tom Yum]

Oh and to the person who said there are no scientists who support intelligent design, there are many, one happened to be Einstein.

Also the person who discovered fractals in mathmatics.

Several creators of the atomic bomb

just to name a few.

Thanks for the reminder!

Einstein believed in God and a creator, but he did not believe in God in the Christian context. I suppose that's somewhat related to intelligent design, even though I don't understand it yet.

I also remember something of a memoir from one of the creators of the A-bomb somewhere, where he is asking for God to forgive him for what he was about to create (??)

[Tom Yum]

AH, but this has been observered. Usually in bacteria, what do you think the type of anthrax used by the military is? it is a mutant species of Anthrax. A new Species that was created and evolved in a laboratory..)

Is a mutation the same thing as evolution?

What came before your God? We don't know what came before, we likely won't until the end when we can ask our various gods and goddesses.

I don't know. Neither do I pretend to know. We're a little limited here.

this is where you are wrong. Science is a process of disproving things. Evolution will never be proven, but it can be disproven. Just as the Law of Gravity can not be proven, but it can be disproven. Biogenesis was disproven, it was disproven by Pasteur.

Give me a few biologists, preferably evolutionary biologists. These aren't supporters, these are people who hoped it was true. Even Einstein said that he could see few problems with the idea of evolution (which states in no way that some higher being had nothing to do with it.)

Mathew, I am beginning to see some inconsistencies. You say that you believe in polytheism, but seem to distance yourself from any idea of creationism (whether through God or polytheism).

In your religion, do you believe the different dieties created the universe? or did the universe allready exist in your religion and the dieties came together? I am confused.

[eXcessiveForce]

You are incorrect. Evolution has never been observed. Never. If it had been it would be called the law of evolution.

Please cite specific references to information regarding any organism naturally changing from one species to another.

As for anthrax it changed to a new strain, it is still anthrax bacteria. It is not a fish

Biogensis. (life cannot come from non-life) to my knowledge has not be disproven. If so it would have to have been extremely recently.

See there is no inconsistency with intelligent design. (assume an all powerful god and you can then decided that anything is possible.) thus nothing has to come before god. Whereas science says something must have come before the big bang because energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

[MatthewAlphonso]

Thanks for the reminder!

Einstein believed in God and a creator, but he did not believe in God in the Christian context. I suppose that's somewhat related to intelligent design, even though I don't understand it yet.

I also remember something of a memoir from one of the creators of the A-bomb somewhere, where he is asking for God to forgive him for what he was about to create (??)

Believing in God is not the same as believing in what most people accept as creationism.

Is a mutation the same thing as evolution?

Mutation is a process of evolution, we are all mutant strains of out parents. But the strains of anthrax are not mere mutations, they are completely different species.

Mathew, I am beginning to see some inconsistencies. You say that you believe in polytheism, but seem to distance yourself from any idea of creationism (whether through God or polytheism).

In your religion, do you believe the different dieties created the universe? or did the universe allready exist in your religion and the dieties came together? I am confused.

I agree with the Big Bang theory. it is how the gods I believe in first appeared. I care little for whether or not they caused it. It matters not to me.

I simply disagree with the Christian Creationism ideas. I do believe the gods organized the univers and created life on this planet, but that they let it evolve, let things happen as they may. why? perhaps they were curious. I disagree with the idea that any being can be perfect or all knowing. how can a perfect being create something that is imperfect? (note, my own ramblings, not to be mistaken for the beliefs on any other pagan.)

I already explained the difference between law and theory. A Law states that things do happen, (Law of Gravity: a dropped item falls) A theory states why it happens (an invisible force emanate from all items having density, this force naturally pulls smaller items into the center of mass of the larger item) this is why there is no Law of Evolution. A law is not more proven than a theory. Theories simply explain laws.

As for anthrax it changed to a new strain, it is still anthrax bacteria. It is not a fish

Do you have any idea how many different species of anthrax bacteria there are? literally hundreds of thousands if not millions. there are new species of Anthrax bacteria evolving every day.

Please cite specific references to information regarding any organism naturally changing from one species to another.

Drug resistant bacteria. Bacteria that used to be easily killed by a short round of penecillin have evolved to be far harder to kill

Biogensis. (life cannot come from non-life) to my knowledge has not be disproven. If so it would have to have been extremely recently.

Biogenesis states that life does come from non-life and was refuted, and accepted as disproven quite a long time ago. his chicken broth still has developed no bacterial growth.

See there is no inconsistency with intelligent design. (assume an all powerful god and you can then decided that anything is possible.) thus nothing has to come before god. Whereas science says something must have come before the big bang because energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

ID has Scientific inconsistencies which is a big problem because it tries to pass itself off as a scientific theory yet offers no evidence for itself. Instead it offers non-evidence for other theories which simply does not fly in scientific communities.

[Toudiyama[NL]]

Ok



I'm a Christian.

I do not discredit dinosaur fossils. No one can deny the fact that science is a very usefull tool. Money is a usefull tool as well. Did the guilder exist during the Pre-Historic era?

I did not say All christians

Evolution is a theory. Its an interesting one too, but no one is certain how it fits into the grand scheme of things. Just like many Christians denied the sun centered model of the universe in favor of the earth centered one. The sad thing was that Copernicus was a Christian too.

Correction, Evolution is a fact, the reason for evolution is still a theory ( survival of the fittest)

Was evolution responsible for high temperature fusion of hydrogen into helium 40 something million years ago? Boy that's an awful lot of energy and pressure to be concentrated in one space...

Has noting to do with evolution but what part of Einsteins E=MC² didn't you get?


[QUOTE]
Evolution is something that we have created to try and explain our existance.
You could argue the same is true of religion, but under many dire circumstances religion has overcome statistical odds. It has refined the lives of those who have truly come to find it on its own merit.
[/QOUTE]

Hehe, again the Evolution theory not evolution and tthese weren't created to explain our existance b ut to explain the excistance of fossils and variation in species


{QOUTE}
Toudiy, Christians do not believe they are helping God by killing certain people. The ability to distinguish what is really said in the Bible versus twisting it to fit political actions and agendas is becoming a more improtant issue amongst Christians today. There are voices in the media who are begining to make this distinction.[/QOUTE]

Sorry but thats a deadringer, I hear the same from muslims about muslim terrorists, guess what they will say the same about others
Al Zaqawi sais that Shi'ítes aren't Muslims
The Morron that killed the Doctor of an abortion clinnic considdered himself a better christian than most

Good point.

If you were a US citizen, you have a freedom to practice your own religion, whichever it may be. You do what the law allows you and you do what your religion calls of you.

I will not persecute someone on the basis of their religion. Even during this conflict with the middle east, I have never said or thought anything harmfull of other's religions, except the possibility of extremists being the people responsible for the terrorist acts.

The traffeler you are, you probably know that in the Netherlands you are also free to believe what you want
This goes even so far that even though our first ammandment of the constitution is that everyone is equal and should be treated as such
(No discrimination allowed based on religion, race or sexual preference)
Religious people may say that non believers are loweer than pigs but I'm not allowed to say that religious people are more stupid because they believe in a virtual being

Our freedom of religion has gone so far that you are free to believe what you want and speak and act according to it but your choises shoul'n't have consequences
In fact you are allowed to refuse certain work if your religion disagrees with it
( think of gay mariages)
Now maybe you agree to the fact that a civil servant should be able to refuce someone his rights ( gay marraige is legal in my country)
But how about a muslim working for a butcher dealing 80% of the time with pork, if he is the only employee, you can hardly say that he doesn't need to work 80% of the time

If you are not allowed to discriminate based on religion, how than can you allow religious people not to stick to rules that apply to everyone
If noone is allowed to wear any headdress, why allow siks to wear turbans, muslimas to wear a chador or jews to wear a cap
If you allow these but you don't allow others to wear a baseballcap, you are discriminating based on religion

Back to Evolution, a christian student put it well, the Evolution Theory is an umbrala where we hang certain other part , it might not be perfect but it is the best we have right now

Annd the way a dutch professor put it, Intelligent Design stops the demand for research, instead of trying to fill the gaps and asking why does something happen this way, the gaps are there becaise god wanted it that way and things happen because he wanted them to happen, can't reproduce the results of an experiment?........... gods will

[Ripe-WithDecay-]

You are incorrect. Evolution has never been observed. Never. If it had been it would be called the law of evolution.

Sorry, but evolution has been proven. Look up how several strains of bacteria can now ( thanks to a frame shift mutation ) metabolize Nylon. Nylon of course is a man-made product! This is clearly a positive mutation.

You may also look up the Peppered Moths, which show natural selection.

As well as Darwin's Finches, which show speciation.

As well as transitional homind fossils showing common decent.

However, this is all the mechanisms/results of evolution. Evolution is not defined as any of those...

Please cite specific references to information regarding any organism naturally changing from one species to another.

That is speciation, not evolution. It is a function that allows change, evolution is simply the change in hereditable frequencies of alleles. Speciation would be Darwin's Finches, or the fruit fly experimentation ( taking one culture and separating them, re-introducing them after many generations and they now are inable to reproduce with one another. )

As for anthrax it changed to a new strain, it is still anthrax bacteria. It is not a fish.

Evolution does not say bacteria will become other forms of life. It is not a progression, it is simply change. When a species gains ( or loses ) hereditable genetic information it undergoes a genetic change in the population. This genetic change is passed down to the offsrping and so on. This is what evolution is classified as, the passing down of the traits.
Denying evolution denies sexual reproduction. You are the change in frequencies of alleles of both your parents genes. You are not a copy, but you carry the inherited genetic information of both. The more successful of those genes make up you, as you acquired that information to pass down to further generations. This does not say that to evolve your parents woul dhave to pass down "super" genes that make you a new species or even on your way to a new species.

Biogensis. (life cannot come from non-life) to my knowledge has not be disproven. If so it would have to have been extremely recently.

Biogenesis is the theory that life always arises from previously existing life, and never from things which are not alive.
The Miller-Urey experiment is the best explaination ( thus far ) for the theory of abiogenesis. It showed that the materials needed for life may have arisen under the same conditions on the primitive Earth which favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. This goes off the best assumed conditions of primative Earth though, as we can not be certain.

See there is no inconsistency with intelligent design. (assume an all powerful god and you can then decided that anything is possible.) thus nothing has to come before god. Whereas science says something must have come before the big bang because energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

Energy could be construed to be God then ( having always existed, never created or destroyed ). If God has always existed, why couldn't energy? Energy can, after all, be concidered matter for all intents and purpose ( E=mc^2, assuming the speed of light as 1, matter and energy are interchangable terms ) as well. So, since matter and energy have always existed, why would we need a God assuming the Miller-Urey experiment holds true?

[eXcessiveForce]

Your reference to pastuer does not in anyway have anything to do with disproving biogensis.


Ripe-

You are speaking about adaptation. Specific adaptations do occur. But when you look at how evolution as a theory is being taught it says all life orginated as single celled organisms and evolved into higher forms of life. To date this has never been observed and therefore the theory of evolution must still be classified as a theory.

As for the experiment, they have been able to produce organic compounds, but not life. To date not one single celled organism has been created.


I have always equated that God is most likely energy and could be considered somewhat interchangeable in the most basic terms.

I firmly believe and accept the foundation of adaptation. In fact, in creationism does not dispute this. Most creationist believe that the world was created with age. Thus after that point there were processes that continued to make changes to the earth.

[jubaji]

omae wa doaho da na!

religion is fucking lame. bunch of people in a fucking cult who cant think for themselves.

Well, that's that then. Scrap all of human history, 'cause this asshole thinks he's got it all figured out.



Why didn't you say something sooner?

[Ripe-WithDecay-]

Ripe-

You are speaking about adaptation. Specific adaptations do occur. But when you look at how evolution as a theory is being taught it says all life orginated as single celled organisms and evolved into higher forms of life. To date this has never been observed and therefore the theory of evolution must still be classified as a theory.

Adaptation is changes, these changes are hereditable for future generations. This is what evolution entails.
Evolution has been taught incorrectly by many people, there is too much confusion, misinformation and outright bullshit surrounding the subject. Quite simply, evolution is a fact and a theory. The theory of evolution describe the fact of evolution. Evolution does occur, not in the incorrect sense that we need to become a new species or that we 'came from monkies'. Evolution is simply change in the inherited genetic information from one generation to the next ( which occurs with every sexual reproduction ).

Theories are not tentative in any sense of the word. There is no confusion that it does or doesn't happen, that evolution is a fact or that it is not observed because of the label 'theory'. This is one of the main contentions I have from my phylogenetic studies.

As for the experiment, they have been able to produce organic compounds, but not life. To date not one single celled organism has been created.

Yes, I posted about the Miller-Urey experiment as a possible ( and plausable ) experiment with recorded findings for what may have happened to create life. Be it devine intervention, 'pure chance' ( said in quotes, as carbon and other organic compounds found during the experiment bond together simply in order to create what is nessecary for life ) it doesn't seem to matter. Biogenesis is nowhere stated in evolutionary theory. That is common decent or more specificly the origin of the species ( both of which are unproven, but currently being researched/debated from many standpoints, both theistic and atheistic )

I have always equated that God is most likely energy and could be considered somewhat interchangeable in the most basic terms.

I firmly believe and accept the foundation of adaptation. In fact, in creationism does not dispute this. Most creationist believe that the world was created with age. Thus after that point there were processes that continued to make changes to the earth.

Again, I would reiterate the proper ( what should be taught and is agreed upon by the majority of the scientific community ) definition of evolution. A hereditable change in the frequency of alleles. The Catholic Church does not deny this fact, yet many Catholic followers disbelieve based off ignorance of what evolution actually pertains to ( not meant as an insult to any Catholic 'disbelievers'. Pope John Paul II stated both the Catholic faith and evolution are completely compatable ).

My point being, evolution is not atheistic in nature. It is not anti-god. It simply states a function which is abundantly appearent under the correct definition ( not speciation, adaptation, mutation, common decent, etc ) of evolution. Most of the people that argue semantics get into debates about god's existance, or the credability of the scientific research of transitional fossils and so on, none of which pertains to the biological function of evolution. I fail to see the hugely controvercial topic this has become if people would just stop for a second, sift through bullshit, read both sides rationally and come to the realization that neither are polar opposites.

[EmptyneSs]

Well, that's that then. Scrap all of human history, 'cause this asshole thinks he's got it all figured out.



Why didn't you say something sooner?

the truth hurts doesnt it jumanji ?

[MatthewAlphonso]

Your reference to pastuer does not in anyway have anything to do with disproving biogensis.

You're right, I was thinking Spontaneous generation, I apologize.

Ripe-

You are speaking about adaptation. Specific adaptations do occur. But when you look at how evolution as a theory is being taught it says all life orginated as single celled organisms and evolved into higher forms of life. To date this has never been observed and therefore the theory of evolution must still be classified as a theory.

Of course this hasn't been observed, this would take millions of years. However it has been observed through fossil records how different organisms evolved into more complex organisms. And I already told you about the difference between theory and law.

I firmly believe and accept the foundation of adaptation. In fact, in creationism does not dispute this. Most creationist believe that the world was created with age. Thus after that point there were processes that continued to make changes to the earth.

No, creationism doesn't dispute evolution or adaption nor does Evolution by Natural Selection rule out a creator. However, Creationist Bible thumpers want to state that it was all God, he made everything exactly as it is and scientists are liars and that fossils were created by Satan to confuse us.

[Sensei Saki]

I won't say "yes" or "no" right now.Will Ripe-Of course this ever been observed this would take millions of years?How did you feel about that?Ooops I sent you the wrong question. Oh yeah, we were talking about the difference between theory and law.Are you serious?
Try saying that with more or less context.When was this exactly?