Whats The Point Of All This?

[mtdesmoines 3]

Hi, are you saying that our belief in gravity is faith?

QUOTE(BuffDan @ Saturday, May 20th, 2006, 4:13 AM) "Oh, and by the way, evolution does not say that the iguanas evolved into chickens, nor that it could happen in our lifetime if it did, so it would be kind of hard to do that in a lab. What part of over millions of years is confusing you? But note that the lack of ability to create millions of years in a laboratory in no way diminishes the mounds of evidence for evolution. Oh, and it really isn't possible to "prove" anything in science, as there is no guarantee that what has happened in the past will continue to happen, so I cannot even prove that if I step out of a tenth story window I will fall to the ground, but I can be pretty darn sure of it nonetheless."I'm just saying that entire post can be summed up as saying, "I have faith in science." .... Faith. Same as the religious people.BTW, can show me gravity? Can you demonstrate WHY gravity exists? What are the physical properties of matter that account for gravity? Any 101-level physicist SHOULD readily admit that there is absolutely no accounting for 'thing one' about the force of gravity. As human beings, we only have an unknown force that we observe and have named "gravity." That's it. When it comes to gravity, what's taken place is, "observation and naming," but really no science has occurred.Also, you should know that I do not post what I post in condemnation of people who place their faith in science. In fact, I realize that the study of ccience and the development of technology have afforded me tremendous comforts as a 21st century homo sapien in the U.S. — cars, air conditioning, medicine, etc. ad nauseum. However, I AM saying that there's a ton of smugness on both sides of the issue of these posts, when it's all about faith anyway.

[copernicus 0]

QUOTE(BuffDan @ Saturday, May 20th, 2006, 4:13 AM) "Oh, and by the way, evolution does not say that the iguanas evolved into chickens, nor that it could happen in our lifetime if it did, so it would be kind of hard to do that in a lab. What part of over millions of years is confusing you? But note that the lack of ability to create millions of years in a laboratory in no way diminishes the mounds of evidence for evolution. Oh, and it really isn't possible to "prove" anything in science, as there is no guarantee that what has happened in the past will continue to happen, so I cannot even prove that if I step out of a tenth story window I will fall to the ground, but I can be pretty darn sure of it nonetheless."I'm just saying that entire post can be summed up as saying, "I have faith in science." .... Faith. Same as the religious people.BTW, can show me gravity? Can you demonstrate WHY gravity exists? What are the physical properties of matter that account for gravity? Any 101-level physicist SHOULD readily admit that there is absolutely no accounting for 'thing one' about the force of gravity. As human beings, we only have an unknown force that we observe and have named "gravity." That's it. When it comes to gravity, what's taken place is, "observation and naming," but really no science has occurred.Also, you should know that I do not post what I post in condemnation of people who place their faith in science. In fact, I realize that the study of ccience and the development of technology have afforded me tremendous comforts as a 21st century homo sapien in the U.S. — cars, air conditioning, medicine, etc. ad nauseum. However, I AM saying that there's a ton of smugness on both sides of the issue of these posts, when it's all about faith anyway.

All this post does is point out that you dont know what science is.

[DonkSlayer 1]

The reason gravity is accepted is because it can be mathematically expressed and manipulated.IE, we can judge gravity, manipulate the other factors in the equation, and thus do things like slingshot space probes using Jupiter.I wish we could do that with God, I think the space stuff would get to their destination faster than using gravity.For instance, V = (Mass x God) / Time (flying to Pluto)Assuming it took .002 seconds to get to Pluto (hey, it's God we're talking about here)V = (2,000lbs x infinite power and wisdom) / .002sV = 1 gazillion kph

[mtdesmoines 3]

1) The reason gravity is accepted is because it can be mathematically expressed and manipulated. 2) I wish we could do that with God, I think the space stuff would get to their destination faster than using gravity. For instance, V = (Mass x God) / Time (flying to Pluto) Assuming it took .002 seconds to get to Pluto (hey, it's God we're talking about here) V = (2,000lbs x infinite power and wisdom) / .002s. V = 1 gazillion kph

1) They're manipulating gravity now? You'd think I would have heard something. 2) Permission to continue your smug mode, I guess

All this post does is point out that you dont know what science is.

What are the physical properties of matter that account for gravity?

[Farnan 0]

Of course there are parts of Physics and other scientific theories that have unknowns--we have yet to master every unknown in the universe. But the fact remains--we can make hypothesis based upon these scientific theories, test it and obtain an answer that supports the hypothesis. The same cannot be said for religion.Religion cannot be proved. I have much more faith that if i step off a 30 story building, i'm going to fall to the ground than faith that heaven waiting for me upon my reaching the ground.So if it makes you feel better---lets look at faith, not as a binary function, but as a continuum and religion needs MUCH more faith than the theory of evolution.

[DonkSlayer 1]

1) They're manipulating gravity now? You'd think I would have heard something.

They use gravity. Gravity is measurable, Mt. Are you saying gravity is not measurable?

[crowTrobot 2]

What are the physical properties of matter that account for gravity?

we don't know what gravity is specifically, but obviously there's plenty of empirical evidence that it exists as a force of some kind. there is no empirical evidence that god exists.

[BuffDan 0]

When it comes to gravity, what's taken place is, "observation and naming," but really no science has occurred.

I was under the impression that science is precisely that, especially if we can explain a variety of these observations under a simple theoretical framework that also allows us to make predictions about future observations, which of course we can in the case in both gravity and evolution.

[mtdesmoines 3]

I was under the impression that science is precisely that, especially if we can explain a variety of these observations under a simple theoretical framework that also allows us to make predictions about future observations, which of course we can in the case in both gravity and evolution.

Then religion, too, is a simple theoretical framework that also allows us to make predictions about future observations. The only difference is that science deals with the physical world. Religion deals with the spiritual world. BTW, what are some specific predictions about future observations on evolution? What do you know about past evolution that allows you to make even a single prediction about the future of evolution?

[BuffDan 0]

BTW, what are some specific predictions about future observations on evolution? What do you know about past evolution that allows you to make even a single prediction about the future of evolution?

With evolution it is more about the first point, that we have a simple theoretical framework that explains many observations, ie the concept that species change and those species that are more suited to survival are the ones we will expect to see surviving in the long run. The problem with predictions in evolution are that the individual changes are random and it takes a very very long time to see noticable changes. So I suppose I will concede that specific predicions, like we will see humans develop a third arm or something, are not possible, by the nature of evolution.However, that aside, the general prediction that species will change and in time we will see ones better suited to their surroundings, which in a world without evolution we would not expect, has been realized. Off the top of my head, I can think of the case of bacteria which become resistant to antibiotics and moths whose color changes over time; perhaps those who are more knowledgeable in the subject can mention other examples. The point is, evolution predicts we will see changes in species, all though not largely pronounced ones as the timetable is much longer than our lifetime; I suppose it also makes predictions in what we will se in the fossil record, namely a progression different species that are similar but distinct and have evolved in an orderly progression, which of course is what we have found so far.

[Farnan 0]

Then religion, too, is a simple theoretical framework that also allows us to make predictions about future observations. The only difference is that science deals with the physical world. Religion deals with the spiritual world.

Huh? How exactly has religion explained anything that has occurred? How has religion's theory been tested and found to be true?The spiritual world is itself unobservable and unable to be tested.

[Canada 0]

BTW, what are some specific predictions about future observations on evolution? What do you know about past evolution that allows you to make even a single prediction about the future of evolution?

You might want to look into Xanthopan morgani praedictaor read this

Huh? How exactly has religion explained anything that has occurred? How has religion's theory been tested and found to be true?

What he said

[DonkSlayer 1]

I still don't understand how religious people (myself included) aren't willing to grasp evolution as a great way for God to "create."

[mtdesmoines 3]

I still don't understand how religious people (myself included) aren't willing to grasp evolution as a great way for God to "create."

I'm very much with you on this. For a long time, many readers / believers have debated on the creation story as allegory. However, if man were created in the image of God, does it make sense to say that God started with apes? Does that mean God is an ape?

1) Huh? How exactly has religion explained anything that has occurred? How has religion's theory been tested and found to be true? 2) The spiritual world is itself unobservable and unable to be tested.

1) Religion explains a great deal about the spiritual world.2) The great majority of cosmological theory is unobservable and unable to be tested. In fact, many precepts that were long-accepted as fact, have been disproven.

With evolution it is more about the first point, that we have a simple theoretical framework that explains many observations, ie the concept that species change and those species that are more suited to survival are the ones we will expect to see surviving in the long run. The problem with predictions in evolution are that the individual changes are random and it takes a very very long time to see noticable changes. So I suppose I will concede that specific predicions, like we will see humans develop a third arm or something, are not possible, by the nature of evolution.However, that aside, the general prediction that species will change and in time we will see ones better suited to their surroundings, which in a world without evolution we would not expect, has been realized. Off the top of my head, I can think of the case of bacteria which become resistant to antibiotics and moths whose color changes over time; perhaps those who are more knowledgeable in the subject can mention other examples. The point is, evolution predicts we will see changes in species, all though not largely pronounced ones as the timetable is much longer than our lifetime; I suppose it also makes predictions in what we will se in the fossil record, namely a progression different species that are similar but distinct and have evolved in an orderly progression, which of course is what we have found so far.

"With evolution it is more about the first point," -- wait, I thought science was predictive? Who said science enabled predictions? Whoever said it ... that was precisely why I responded with this question. "we have a simple theoretical framework that explains many observations" -- much like religion explains many of the mysteries of the soul."So I suppose I will concede that specific predicions, like we will see humans develop a third arm or something, are not possible, by the nature of evolution." -- proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution is purely theory."However, that aside, the general prediction that species will change and in time we will see ones better suited to their surroundings, which in a world without evolution we would not expect, has been realized. I can think of the case of bacteria which become resistant to antibiotics" -- These bacteria didn't evolve; they are simply the subsequent generations of resistant bacteria repopulating the species. "I suppose it also makes predictions in what we will se in the fossil record, namely a progression different species that are similar but distinct and have evolved in an orderly progression, which of course is what we have found so far." -- right ... except for the uncomfortable "Missing Link."

[SilentSnow 1]

I'm very much with you on this. For a long time, many readers / believers have debated on the creation story as allegory. However, if man were created in the image of God, does it make sense to say that God started with apes? Does that mean God is an ape?1) Religion explains a great deal about the spiritual world.2) The great majority of cosmological theory is unobservable and unable to be tested. In fact, many precepts that were long-accepted as fact, have been disproven."With evolution it is more about the first point," -- wait, I thought science was predictive? Who said science enabled predictions? Whoever said it ... that was precisely why I responded with this question. "we have a simple theoretical framework that explains many observations" -- much like religion explains many of the mysteries of the soul."So I suppose I will concede that specific predicions, like we will see humans develop a third arm or something, are not possible, by the nature of evolution." -- proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution is purely theory."However, that aside, the general prediction that species will change and in time we will see ones better suited to their surroundings, which in a world without evolution we would not expect, has been realized. I can think of the case of bacteria which become resistant to antibiotics" -- These bacteria didn't evolve; they are simply the subsequent generations of resistant bacteria repopulating the species. "I suppose it also makes predictions in what we will se in the fossil record, namely a progression different species that are similar but distinct and have evolved in an orderly progression, which of course is what we have found so far." -- right ... except for the uncomfortable "Missing Link."

wow. i dont even know where to begin. it's hard to imagine someone who thinks about things more differently than i do.-spiritual is most likely a meaningless term. the dictionary definition is just circular. and there is no spiritual world, just the world we all live in.-how could it have been disproven if there wasnt some way to adequately test it? you directly contradict yourself.-i get the impression you have no idea what evolution is. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID...E49809EC588EEDF- the bacteria did evolve. period.-there is no missing link. sure, there are not all of the millions of generations, but there are no big unexplained gaps. instead, there are large numbers of fossils that would make a biblical literalist shudder.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

These bacteria didn't evolve; they are simply the subsequent generations of resistant bacteria repopulating the species.

Uh, this is what evolution is. These resistant bacteria were the fittest, so they were the ones who survived and reproduced. Thus, the bacteria "evolved" to be resistant to the antibiotics. Now imagine them doing this for billions of years. That's what evolution is.

Know this: stop lights that are timed for 35 mph traffic are also conveniently timed for 70 mph traffic.

This is wrong. You will just run into red lights and be forced to go at 35 miles per hour as they change to green in succession.

[mtdesmoines 3]

Uh, this is what evolution is. These resistant bacteria were the fittest, so they were the ones who survived and reproduced.

But nothing about them CHANGES. That's like saying that if only blondes bred, all humans would eventually be blonde. Accepted. Still homo sapien, though.

[mtdesmoines 3]

This is wrong. You will just run into red lights and be forced to go at 35 miles per hour as they change to green in succession.

Man. You are no fun at all.

wow. i dont even know where to begin. it's hard to imagine someone who thinks about things more differently than i do.

That probably about sums up all the effort expended in the Religion forum from the beginning to when ever it ends.

[timwakefield 68]

However, if man were created in the image of God, does it make sense to say that God started with apes? Does that mean God is an ape?

What do you mean that He started with apes? First of all, homo sapiens ARE apes, so if God made man in His own image then yes God resembles an ape. Second of all, neither apes or monkeys were not the first creatures on earth.Why not take it back a few steps further and ask 'Does that mean God is a rodent?' or even further back 'Does that mean God is a fish?'

[Farnan 0]

'Does that mean God is a fish?'

phil hellmuth is NOT a fish