Gnieus

I don't see how you arrived at this statement...perhaps you would care to explain?

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 ...

I am a former Southern-Baptist' date=' so I'm familiar with the bible. I would say the bible makes a far better guide to helping people live much more loving and caring lives than it does at being a guide of science and history.

[/quote']

 

Exactly the MESSAGE of the Bible/Koran/Talmud is about social interactions.

 

If you would see it from a game theoretical stand point, it tries to change the Game from hawk/dove to just dove, which is a neither a bad thing, nor a bad evolutionary strategy.

 

Maybe evolution made humans to make the Bible to make us all communists. Now that's a message for middle America...

 

OK OK, I'll bring my own stake

What are these "so-called" thousands of paper's that tell me different.

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.

It's easy to deny religion it's place but' date=' "There are no atheists in a foxhole"[/quote']

 

Religion is obviously a human escape route for an over worked and frightened consciousness.

 

Who ever says that religion lacks evidence. What about the questions science can't asnwer' date=' but religion can.

[/quote']

Again science is a dynamic faith based on reason and logic. Science is a dynamic process. It doesn't have all the answers and doesn't claim it has them. It tries to achieve them by reason and experiment. Unlike faith which is static and is just made up. That's why creationists don't get science because they can't comprehend the reality of that we don't know everything and unlikely ever will. Religion claims, that they have all the answers, it's done finished and we can all sit down, relax and have a beer [or glass of water ... whatever your faith is]

 

 

Unless you were present and the time of the big bang...It's still impossible to prove it happened. It's impossible to disprove creationism...As i have been saying all along.

 

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.

 

(and btw. your attempts at discrediting creationism and gloriyifying by changing your tone are quite babyish. Using incorrect grammar in an attempt to make Creationism sound less appealing; Come on...grow up.)

 

Personal attack, talk normally.

oh man' date=' you don’t know the half of it.

I stumbled upon a rare doctors book one day showing very detailed photographs of each and every stage of embryo development.

 

it also had all the incorrectly sequenced embryos. and what exactly went wrong and at what stage.

 

the thing I realised is how much you can do with just a few simple rules...grow left. stop ...bud... grow right.... untill... now stop ... divide and so on.

 

and also what happens if you get a small error in the process. [/quote']

 

There is a famous museum in Austria with all kind of embryos going wrong, I think it was Salzburg as AFAIK ...

 

Pregnant women are not avised to visit it.

They're just trying to fight for their theory the best way they know how. To bad there isn't another way.

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 is that lines in the bible can be related to science. Snakes wiht legs is not far-fetched at all. Vestigial appendiges is quite common, in the theory of evolution.

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

You don't to look for fossils: [url']http://www.visual-evolution.com/images/content/snakes%20with%20legs.jpg[/url]

How many languages does it speak?

And didn't God say it would loose it's legs after the apple thingy..

A second reason is that the Catholic Church, at least in the twentieth century, takes a more flexible approach to the interpreting Genesis than do several Protestant denominations.

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 .....

This is my philosophy. It could be that God uses evolution as a means of creation.

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.

Does anyone who isn't a creationist actually care[/u'] what creationists think?

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

I don't consider myself a creationist, and I do care what they think. I, unlike most people on this site, don't discount God too easily.

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 ....

And, by the way, Creationism and Evolution are two seperate things...they don't have anything to do with each other. They are 2 different and completely valid theories.

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.

umm I kind of fail to see any sense in all this. I mean, it all makes sense, but I just don't know where you are coming from. I just aked if a creationist could provide an adequate source of where they heard this mumbo-jumbo. They are defending the bible...I never said they weren't.

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.

Having a "back-catalogue", as it were, of previous adaptations and so forth would be handy in evolutionary terms, but I doubt there'd be any genetic mechanism that could look up and retrieve the correct entries.

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.

I can't remember the reasoning I had at the time, but it probably had something to do with the genes before and after mutation.

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.

"Unused structures remain latent within the genetic coding and may be re-expressed at a later date":

Yes' date=' this needs clarification. It sounds pretty wrong to me, given the mechanisms of selection.

[/quote']

 

Hello everybody,

 

I can't really see how this does not fit in with the mechanisms of selection. If evolutionary stress is present and one of genes that worked in the past gets activated by mutation and works now, why should it not invade into a population? This could also be a strategy for the gene to "survive" periods were it is not useful and provides the organism [the communality of interest] with a ready made sets of workable solutions..

 

Not saying I am right, but why do you see it as wrong?