Gnieus

Can a part of the watch understand the watchmaker? Religions and even science, if it would try, are likely wrong because we are part of the watch. Nothing to do with corruption. If you take the watch example. Humanity is a small wheel in it. It might be able to reasonably figure out how the watch works, and maybe draw some conclusion about the world around. But the world around where the watch fits in and the watchmaker are more complex than the watch and the wheel. Maybe that helps to understand what I mean.

Atheists in foxholes Consciousness about cr@ppy and scary things provokes emotional need for protection. So what, just the same story and evidence religion is a pure emotional and not rational brain construct. I believe in powers greater than ourselves (aka God), things we don't know, or we will never understand. It's system inherent, that the part of something can't understand the creator of something. Hence all human made up religions must be wrong and I don't believe in them. Also science can't reach that goal. But it will provide a more likely szenario of whats going on, than just making stuff up. Think probability. I think that's much better and more spiritual than reading about who Abraham besothed ..

Has anyone mentioned yet, there isn't only Christianity ...

They tell you that something like reason exists. As these are practically all, I am not gonna quote them. If reason exists the Bible is logically wrong, it's that simple. Again science is a dynamic faith based on reason and logic' date=' as you surely realise hypotheses have been overthrown. Science is an attempts to minimise the likelihood of error in our model system of the world. Personal attack, talk normally.

Are you honestly calling God made the world the planet then light etc in 7 days a theory ... [hypothesis being the right word you should use if you insist to bring it into the science realm], and binning thousands of papers telling you different ... Religion = static faith, no evidence Science = dynamic faith based on common sense and logic and reason It's unproductive and futile to see if apple or apple juice is right. I someones makes a formula and says when I release an apple it goes down with 9.81 m/s^2 then I go and test it and see it's right. If Einstein comes and says this is a subset of a bigger thing and they test and it fits its reasonable, then one accepts it as the current stand of knowledge. If then somebody comes and says it's not right we have to adapt it, then this is a dynamic process evolving to achieve a reasonable model system of the world around us. Going out saying we have to bear children and woman have to suffer in child birth coz a talking snake convinced a woman into eating an apple from a tree it just seems rather odd and unreproducable, untestable and equivalent to saying Harry Potter made the world. Disprove that .. Appreciate your devil's advocat ... but cranberry juice is the way forward

My point it was a joke, a field not really mastered by science or religion...

How many languages does it speak? And didn't God say it would loose it's legs after the apple thingy..

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html Maybe religion can be flexible ...

Creationism and Evolution should be, in my mind, accepted and two sound theories until sufficent evidence is found to disprove one of them (which will probably never happen). ... look for fossiles of talking snakes with legs .....

There are obviously forces bigger than us, call them God if you like and they could have made evolution. That way you don't have a problem and can be a scientist and believe in God. I think even the Vatican is more open minded these days then some middle america flat land creationists.

Nope not really, but the last one said he wasn't one.

God evolution two completely different things ... when will ppl finally understand this ... What is at stake for the creationists is their literal interpration of the bible NOTHING ELSE .. God is some unproveable unevidenced super power ... Evolution a logic explanation how things came made to be.... God, should you choose to believe in such an entity, could have made evolution, the big bang super strings bubbles whatever. Does in vitro fertilsation disprove God or does it just show that "sin nature" [virgin Mary etc] is a lot of pap ... Maybe the bible is a book to transfer an idea, not to be taken literally .... How is someone (aka God) making up a planet in the dark ... a valid theory ... when did he make the rest of the universe ... . It's a 4000 year old fairy tale.

Didn't mean you, besides saying you shouldn't get upset.

The only thing really upsetworthy is that actual valuable discussion about evolution would get you casted as creationist in case you would find loopholes. If THEORETICALLY someone would come up with a better theory, who would swarm around them and basically destroy any reasonable discussion?

I don't think it's really worth it to discuss with people that believe in a book ... in the bible .. in the actual words and not in the message, that this man Jesus tried to spread so that people kill and con each other a bit less. Genesis has been written even longer ago. God and Evolution... completly different things. These people defend the Bible not religion.. God could have made up evolution, the chap is all powerful. Don't waste your energy .. Kinda a 19th century debate, really ... shame some people haven't moved on.

No, what I mean is, that a mutation that activates an existing functioning gene [a limited number of functioning solutions] is more likely than a random mutation [either unlimited or at least a higher number of possibly useless solutions]. Just a probability thing. All what has to happen then, if organisms are in stress that the control gene activates the back catalogue randomly more often. Still many failures, but with less likelihood of getting a unhelpful mutation, as if it is just random per se [chemical/radiological etc]. That comes into it of course too. Additive not exclusive. Nevertheless for new problems this is of course useless.

Hmm, but the mutation wouldn't be in the actual gene, but the genes that control the switching on and off? Would that change the actual gene that is activated? Also might not a library of ready made solutions be possibly more effective than going through the whole chance thing again? After all it has been shown, that evolution speeds up in times of selection pressure. Adding a process like this to what we already know, would speed things up, potentially. Why should life/genes not have learned to deal with the mechanism how to produce mutations/adaptions in a more efficient way. We accept it readily elsewhere. Behaviours are solution banks to anticipated future problems/situations. But if the geneticists say no, than it will obviously be no and it's guess work by now. So let's see.