I like science fiction too.
How do you know they didn’t ‘research it’ ?
The scientific method at work - they didn’t understand the purpose - it was researched further - they figured it out - they updated the understanding.
When was the last time “God did it” changed?
Wrong, it works just fine.
More nonsense. The evidence for it is overwhelming, and evolution is a hard fact. The theory is about the details of how it works, not whether it exists. You might as well deny the sun or gravity as evolution. And the “controversy” is because a subset of religious people don’t want to admit that the primitives who wrote their books of mythology had no idea what they were talking about; there’s no scientific dispute over the existence of evolution.
And your “God did it” claim which you are proposing as an alternative isn’t “just a theory”; it’s a totally baseless assertion that outright contradicts the known facts.
“Kind” is a religious term, not a biological one. Your use of it, yet again, reveals that you are repeating Creationist pablum. As if “irreducible complexity” wasn’t a sign already.
:smack:
What is this, Creationist Bingo?
Yeah, evolution is “just a theory”… just like gravitation or that germs cause disease. And no, evolution is a fact. Evolutionary mechanics is a set of theoretical frameworks designed to explain and predict evolution. Just like gravity is a fact but we don’t know if it’s quantized or not.
There is proof. There is no controversy. Only willfully ignorant people who feel threatened by facts that contradict their bronze-age creation myths disagree with the fact of evolution.
I find the projection and lack of awareness-of-irony here truly hilarious. Religious faith is blind faith, which is why you’re trying to pretend that science has tested for and proven a “creator”; you know that proof and blind faith are different, and you’re trying to appropriate proof. And, of course, you’re using “blind faith” as a pejorative… despite the fact that religion is blind faith.
I intended it as just breaking the problem into component parts. Not, “You believe in the Tri-Omni God,” but, rather, “If the God in question is a Tri-Omni God, this argument can be used.”
I very much agree with you that no one should put words in the other guy’s mouth. I would never say, “If you believe in God, then it has to be the Tri-Omni” God.
Before they had a chance to research it they were claiming it was junk DNA just what they would expect to see. You usually don’t hear about stuff like this.
So what? it was their understanding at the time - they learned - they <gasp> evolved!
This does nothing to advance the rest of your ‘its just a theory’ nonsense.
I don’t believe god is a trinity. This idea was borrowed from other pagan religions.
And what makes you think they are any less valid than your own religion?
And, “other pagan religions”? You wouldn’t happen to be one of those people who refuses to admit that Catholicism is Christian, would you?
How many “right answers” are there? Not only every bacterium that has ever existed, but every conceivable bacterium that might exist. Every one of those is a “right answer” for this random puzzle. Every possible life form; every possible string of viable DNA. There are a hell of a lot more answers than just one.
(I watched Henry Morris try to pull this out of his hat. The same logic would prove that snowflakes are impossible.)
I like this one. Is this the take home message?
The ancient religious people were selected by evolution–although it doesn’t exist and is a dead theory–because the Abrahamic God, who is the Creator and has been proven to exist, is stronger than pagan gods, who don’t exist, so people that chose God were more fit than people who believed in pagan gods, who in turn were more fit than people who didn’t believe in any gods. My God is stronger than your god.
I’m convinced. It is obviously irrational not to believe in things science can’t disprove.
Oh. Cells are made up of more than amino acids and DNA, and there are things called ribozymes. What’s the latest on the RNA World, anyways?
I didn’t say “trinity.” I said “Tri-Omni.” As in Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent.
Your mastery of theology appears to be as wanting as your mastery of biology.
According to the bible the Jews kept adopting the pagan religions around them. This was considered very bad. Christendom has the same problem of graphing pagan religious thought into their religion. It makes the bible incomprehensible.
I’ve heard of it but I never see these words in the bible.
The scaffolding of the cell is made of proteins (chains of amino acids). All the molecular machines, enzymes and so forth are made from protein.
The last time I checked origin of life studies, RNA wasn’t cutting it.
I am going to sign off. To sleepy.
Wrong.
Cytoplasm and a phospholipid bilayer.
So, granted that a ribosome has some protein components, what type of molecule performs the catalytic peptidyl transferase activity in a ribosome?
.
Faith and reason occupy two different spheres. If something were able to be believed by reason alone, one wouldn’t need to believe in it on faith. So, yes, faith is by definition irrational. This is not to imply that I’m a wholly rational being, nor is it to imply that irrationality is wrong in some sense.
What are these “laws of logic”? I’d like a little more clarification before I answer.
In what sense is the God of Christianity similar to the Hindu pantheon?
I was conceived and born. My father observed the whole process. Admittedly, he’s an engineer and not a scientist.
“Good” and “bad” are complex judgments that require context. I don’t have enough information to say whether this was good or bad. As a really dumb counterexample, let’s say that there are 100 sick children, and the given action is me discovering a cure that manages to cure 85 of them. The other fifteen are non-responsive and die. Is this a good or bad consequence?
It seems plausible to me that our hardwired notions of what is good or bad can ultimately be explained by some future combination of studies in neurology, experimental economics, and evolutionary psychology, but I don’t know enough about any of those fields to say how far away we are from that point.
I’m going to narrow in on the claim that all great scientists were theists. Do you mean to say that the following were not great scientists?
Svante Arrhenius
John Stewart Bell
Hans Bethe
Niels Bohr
John Conway
Francis Crick
Pierre Curie
Auguste de Morgan (the logician!)
Paul Dirac
Thomas Edison
Paul Ehrenfest
Richard Feynman
Joseph Louis Gay-Lussac
Jacques Hadamard
Stephen Hawking
Roald Hoffmann
Joseph Lagrange
Pierre-Simon Laplace
Andrey Markov
Thomas Hunt Morgan
John Nash
Alfred Nobel
Frank Oppenheimer
Linus Pauling
Ivan Pavlov
Sir Roger Penrose
Henri Poincare
Carl Sagan
Erwin Schroedinger
Claude Shannon
Stephen Smale
Leonard Susskind
Alfred Tarski
Alan Turing
Eugene Wigner
I don’t like the word “irrational”. I understand that there has been much reasoned (i.e., rational) thought about what sorts of ethical and moral consequences arise assuming the truth of Christianity. There are many different conceptions of the Christian god, and so moralities among different denominations vary. How do you cope with this inconsistency? In what sense is the Christian god “good”?
The Bible is “incomprehensible” because it’s a collection of nonsense. But it isn’t nonsense because of “pagans”, it’s nonsense because it’s a religious book.
And you didn’t answer if you think Catholics are Christian or not. You do know that Catholicism has accepted that evolution is true?
Fancy that. Theology isn’t in the Bible. I guess Thomas Aquinas was just making it all up.