<Mod Edit- Rule 2/3>....I will provide the information you have avoided <Mod Edit- Rule 2/3> Scientific method: Observe, experiment, verify, form hypothesis. Allow hypothesis to be examined, experimented upon, and either verified or debunked by peers. Repeat all of the above continuously to gain further insight. Theistic method: Make a claim, repeat said claim, deny all claims that say otherwise, claim an attack on your claim, repeat continuously. Did I miss anything?
Of course you did, but that's you, and we expect that from you. No, you do not get to frame the discussion. Sorry, but that is what it is, tecoyah.
So god has no interest in human behavior despite the fact he has REPEATEDLY punished humans for that very same behavior? You have once again demonstrated the circularity of religious dogma and its intrinsic contradictions.
Cosmo said: One can also observe theists that enjoy trolling science forums. I call that being silly. JakeStarkey said: That would be true if that were the case. You are wrong, but you and Immanuel Kant would have a field day exploring your reality.
Whenever I dabble in biology, I'm astonished by the sheer complexity of it all. What might seem nice, tidy and somewhat simple to a naive mind in the beginning, usually turns out to be much more complicated. While reading this thread, I began to wonder what similarities and differences exist among all those mammalian carnivores and how the chromosome count varies among them. There were some surprises. For example, I thought that the hyena is closer to dogs than cats. That's very wrong when it comes to phylogenetics. With 40 chromosomes, they're close to cats with 38 and far away from dogs with 78. Here's a striped hyena: The real surprise for me were foxes though. They're more on the doggy side of things, which I expected, but turn out to be all over the place in terms of chromosome count. Here's a short list of assorted foxes (sorted by number of chromosomes): 72, Bat-eared fox 64, Fennec fox 60, Bengal fox 50, Kit fox 36, Tibetan sand fox 34-40, Red fox Alright, that's quite a variance for a group of animals that shares so many similarities. What does the red fox number mean though? Do individual foxes have somewhere between 34 and 40 chromosomes? Isn't a species supposed to have a fixed chromosome count? As it turns out, most mammals really have a fixed number of chromosomes, but red foxes are an exception. They have a varying number of microchromosomes (chromosomes with less than 20 million base pairs). That number even varies from cell to cell within a single individual. While I was already aware of mechanisms how the chromosome number can change (both fusion and fission), I never heard about this before. Source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00057538 While this doesn't really help answering the original question of the thread, I felt like sharing this. My main takeaway here is that biology tends to be complicated and messy. There are no clear lines between species and various other categories. It's all a blur with countless variations. As an engineer, I do appreciate the idea of intelligent design though. Having a "Great Engineer" that created the whole universe is a comforting thought. If intelligent design turns out to be true, I am almost certain that there were at least two individuals involved in the creation of the universe. After working with other engineers, I've come to realize that there are different approaches to engineering. There is the diligent and structured approach, where the main goal is to look for the most elegant way to solve a problem, which may take some additional time to come up with, but might pay off in terms of reliability later on. On the other hand, there's the more creative and chaotic way to engineering. Churn out as many designs as possible, look for the best one and improve on that with another bunch of design ideas until you reach a working solution. Is it messy? Of course, but if it works, it works. In my imagination, creation went down something like this. There was a girl called Phy, who, inspired by complex numbers and fractals, looked for a way to make something that was huge and complicated, but based on a small number of simple rules. It took her a long, long time to figure out how to go about this, but she persisted and the result was undoubtedly magnificent. She named her creation "The Universe". While Phy was following the formation of galaxies, her friend Bio came along, congratulating her for her awesome creation once more. He could appreciate its elegant simplicity and beauty too, but he also thought of a great addition to this place. Excitedly, he told her about his latest idea called "life". It was all about self-replicating thingies to populate this place. After promising to work on one single planet and not to break the whole universe, he began to tinker. Bio started out with very small living things and progressed from there. He ran into many unexpected issues along the way and most of his creations died somewhere along the way without leaving any descendants. Fundamental changes in the environment on his little planet were devestating, but there were also many unexpected interactions between the different kinds of living beings. For example, some tiny organisms found ways to infiltrate the bigger ones, making them sick. The talented engineer he was, however, Bio quickly found a solution to this issue, called it the immune system. Everything remained a constant work in progress, but he never stopped tinkering. Phy was so amazed by the beauty and sheer diversity of his creations, that she could forget about the disturbing underlying chaos and the many little fixes he had to apply to make it work. Sometimes, Phy and Bio snuggled up to enjoy watching their creation in complete silence.
You evaded providing us with your explanation of how to investigate religious claims in a way analogous to scientific claims. Don't worry you're not the first to do this and you won't be the last. If you can't show it, you don't know it. You couldn't show it
You are not the first to evade the facts that you don't want to hear. You were told, and I am telling you again now, that the proofs for the supernatural and natural are mutually exclusive. You have been shown that above. That you deny it, once again, is meaningless.
You evaded providing us with your explanation of how to investigate religious claims in a way analogous to scientific claims. Don't worry you're not the first to do this and you won't be the last. If you can't show it, you don't know it. You couldn't show it
I'm telling you that the moon is made of cheese. No need for me to show that right? You don't understand? That's your problem. You evaded providing us with your explanation of how to investigate religious claims in a way analogous to scientific claims. Don't worry you're not the first to do this and you won't be the last. If you can't show it, you don't know it. You couldn't show it
Yup, you and Kant. And for the others: I told you that the areas of proof were different. You don't understand? That's your problem. Scientists will do their things. Believers will do their things. When antiGodists interfere in matters spiritual, they will get smashed. That has been the way always, and always will be the way.
Once again, every life form is transitional. I have stated that many times, and you have not addressed it. As others have said, the reasons for not finding more fossils are several, and well known. The requirements for fosilization are simply not present in all places and times. And, fossils tend not to be on the surface. This goes back to your poorly formed prediction.
Okay....then by your logic I can just say "Evolution is Fact and Creation Theology is fiction." I do not need to explain why, all I need to do is say it.
I see no assault on religion here. If some religion states how something in this universe works and there is evidence that the religious explanation is wrong, that is on them - just like it is on science if an erreor is made in science. We are humans. We do not know everything. This is a common theme. The purpose of the heart isn't that of being the residence of the "soul". The sun doesn't orbit the earth. New species are being produced naturally. No flood covered the planet. Etc.
Sure you could, then you listen every one have some fun with it. I do believe that Evolution is agreed-upon Theory. And I think ID and Creationism are very weak in terms of Young Earth expositions.
I didn't mean to imply there is a valid alternative religious "why" answer for how things work. Or a valid method of exploring our physical universe using some as yet to be proposed religious methodology. I mean the "why" of why we are here, what is god's purpose for man, given evidence such as how this universe works as revealed by science, philosophy/logic (especially concerning the supernatural).
Where the hell do you think I learned all about circular logic? As for my english comprehension, I admit I do seem to have a great deal of trouble understanding you. Not the individual words themselves, the intellect behind them.
