What God Would Say

[eyeswideshut]

I have not only observed it, I have performed it. So have you.

When you take antibiotics, you are selecting some bacteria over others - non-antibiotic-resistant bacteria over antibiotic resistant bacteria.
Heck, you do it when you wash your hands with antibacterial soap.

To every fish breeder or dog breeder, evolution is routine - indeed, for some, their livelihood depends on it.

Here, observe some evolution.

Again, avail yourself of facts before forming an opinion.

Again, show me evolution to one race to another. Cant be done, or wait, we can, splicing DNA. Wolf, domesticated wolf, dog in natural way, yes.
I have hard time to take as fact that natural selection let something cook up (by chance) crawl up (by chance), differenties it self all the species by mutation (by chance) which is disadvantage in real world almost in every case and so on conflict the whole notion of natural selection by mutations is way to compete, in the stronger asserts it will, unless i have to take fact as well the thing that all those mutations should appear in relatively short time period all over the place and how one survive and multiply complete hostile and new terratory. Lot of strecthing going on just in the basis in the thesis, to take it as absolute truth as a fact, in my opinion. I have seen crawling mud living fishes and crocodiles and I see no reason what kind of mutations drive thosekind out of their terratory, and why, and if so, how come adapted, eating plants or their kind all the sudden? Latter would lead extinction.
I´m well rounded with facts I like to think, we can go to bacterias too in evolution thread.
Stated that God isnt fact in science other than name to given outside source of a universe, agreed at least on that?

 

[Dywyddyr]

I´m well rounded with facts I like to think

Your persistent repetition of the phrase "by chance" shows that you actually aren't conversant with the facts.

Stated that God isnt fact in science other than name to given outside source of a universe, agreed at least on that?

No. "God" isn't a fact in science at all - especially not as something "outside the universe".

 

[Beer w/Straw]

PROOF!

 

[eyeswideshut]

Such as?


Correct. ID is not science.

Interesting, by what reasoning you cut out brilliant scientist to not to be science? Because of the existence of The Evolution theory I guess.

Sure: show me your "work".

It was your claim so where in these thread I did mistake or where else you did see it?

Belief isn't science.
Neither is "god".
Having a favourite colour isn't science or scientific, but it doesn't prevent someone doing science - provided they proceed scientifically.

More interesting would be why it is your favourite colour.

Stating that big bang has to come out for something, is that science?

This is nonsense: applying a name doesn't mean it's an explanation.

Ofcourse it doesnt, that was just my reasoning why there is any point of being in existence, and because we couldnt by any reason come out of nothing, then there must be first cause ~ creator ~ god. If premise is that there isnt you cant ever find evidence for it (unless He reveals himself to you) and so that is not scientific attitude in my opinion , lots of scientific inventions comes out of accident in other word from unproven territory, from "wrong" angles so to speak.

Philosophy, religion and suchs, could science been ever come to existence without? I will argue not.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Interesting, by what reasoning you cut out brilliant scientist to not to be science? Because of the existence of The Evolution theory I guess.

No.
It's because those "brilliant scientists" START with a conclusion and work up from there.

It was your claim so where in these thread I did mistake or where else you did see it?

You want me to go through the entire thread and point out your errors?

Stating that big bang has to come out for something, is that science?

What do you mean "come out for something"?

Ofcourse it doesnt

But that was the implication in what you wrote.

that was just my reasoning why there is any point of being in existence

Again, that's not what you wrote - and, again, simply assigning a name doesn't provide a "point for existence".

and because we couldnt by any reason come out of nothing, then there must be first cause ~ creator ~ god.

Please provide the science that supports this (Or is, yet again, merely you belief?).

If premise is that there isnt you cant ever find evidence for it (unless He reveals himself to you) and so that is not scientific attitude in my opinion

Uh, what?

lots of scientific inventions comes out of accident in other word from unproven territory, from "wrong" angles so to speak.

But they tend not to come out of fantasy.

Philosophy, religion and suchs, could science been ever come to existence without? I will argue not.

So argue - all you've done here is claim.

 

[eyeswideshut]

PROOF!

Ho hoo, where is the egg. In Kalevala world was made out of broken birds egg, well, thats a strech.

Another point from the bible, its just like poetry with reason, is it divine inspired, thats one talking point.

Genesis

In the beginning (first dimension, time) God created the heavens and the earth.(two out of four dimensions) 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep,(fourth dimension) and the Spirit (The force that holds everything together) of God was hovering over the waters.(what are we looking from the space to be evidence of life outside of earth?)

 

[eyeswideshut]

No.
It's because those "brilliant scientists" START with a conclusion and work up from there.

They work from the boths sides, as well, as good, maybe because of their background, science, giving something to possibility exist doesnt make you bad scientist, you have to be curious to be scientist. The rest of it... well, thats it for now. Take care.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Another point from the bible, its just like poetry with reason

Please provide the evidence that the Bible incorporates "reason".

is it divine inspired, thats one talking point.

It's not.
No more talk required.

Genesis

Why should we take this seriously?

In the beginning (first dimension, time)

What gives you the idea that time is the "first dimension"?

God created the heavens and the earth.(two out of four dimensions)

The "Heavens" and the Earth are NOT dimensions. And why do you think there only four dimensions?

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep,(fourth dimension)

I'm not quite sure what you're claiming to be the "fourth dimension" here: darkness, a surface or the deep but none of them are dimensions per se.

and the Spirit (The force that holds everything together) of God was hovering over the waters.

For which there is no evidence whatsoever.

They work from the boths sides, as well, as good, maybe because of their background, science, giving something to possibility exist doesnt make you bad scientist, you have to be curious to be scientist. The rest of it... well, thats it for now. Take care.

No, they aren't "working from both sides".
They START with the conclusion (that they already believe in) and misuse science in order to arrive at (supposedly "prove") the a priori conclusion.
That is not how science is done.
Nor do they consider "possibilities": they are convinced that "god" exists and will not accept the possibility that he/ she/ it doesn't.

 

[spidergoat]

One has to wonder how millions years old the most low lifeforms have such a sophisticated system in them? and still stopped evolving.
Something that build itself from pure information, even keeping eye on itself while building is truly a marvelous thing.

Yes, it's a sophisticated system, and evolution explains how such systems emerge on their own. No, primitive life forms did not stop evolving. They are some of the most successful organisms ever. In fact they evolve far more rapidly than larger life forms that take longer to reproduce, and in lower numbers.

Your statement is the very definition of the argument from incredulity fallacy. You haven't said how it's not evolution, just that it's so amazing, it must be the result of intelligence.

 

[kx000]

No. "God" isn't a fact in science at all

Skeptics are no better. Belief is just as viable of an option.

 

[DaveC426913]

Again, show me evolution to one race to another. Cant be done, or wait, we can, splicing DNA. Wolf, domesticated wolf, dog in natural way, yes.

You keep saying 'race'. It's a scientifically ambiguous term. Please clarify.

I have hard time to take as fact ...

Perfectly understandable.

Luckily the natural world doesn't care if you understand it.

If it did, we all would have suffocated the first time we rode a train at 60mph.

 

[Sarkus]

Skeptics are no better. Belief is just as viable of an option.

Belief in what, though? If you believe you can fly, as R. Kelly once did, is that going to save you from the effects of gravity as you plummet off the edge of the precipice?

 

[sideshowbob]

I forgot, "we could figured out anyway" was your position, well, another opinion without reasoning.

The onus is on you to show that human behaviour came from some spooky unevidenced source.

If so, from where the second rule did come about?

We evolved social behaviour because it improves our chances of survival.

 

[sideshowbob]

Why we invented God then if we got our morals from feelings (derivating from working together) ?

Priests invented gods to keep barbecued ox on the table.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Skeptics are no better.

At what?

Belief is just as viable of an option.

Not with regard to knowledge and facts it isn't.

 

[kx000]

At what?


Not with regard to knowledge and facts it isn't.

It's your own disconjuntual nature to not prove a belief true or not.

 

[kx000]

Belief in what, though? If you believe you can fly, as R. Kelly once did, is that going to save you from the effects of gravity as you plummet off the edge of the precipice?

Wishes.

 

[Dywyddyr]

It's your own disconjuntual nature to not prove a belief true or not.

That isn't even English, let alone coherent.

 

[James R]

Again, show me evolution to one race to another. Cant be done...

Race?

Do you mean something like species? Or are you thinking at some higher level of classification, like genus, or family, or whatever?

There are many observed examples of speciation, including ones directly observed under lab conditions and others than are inferred from field studies and other evidence.

I have hard time to take as fact that natural selection let something cook up (by chance) crawl up (by chance), differenties it self all the species by mutation (by chance) which is disadvantage in real world almost in every case and so on conflict the whole notion of natural selection by mutations is way to compete, in the stronger asserts it will, unless i have to take fact as well the thing that all those mutations should appear in relatively short time period all over the place and how one survive and multiply complete hostile and new terratory.

That's a long sentence.

You keep saying "by chance". But evolution isn't just chance. Natural selection, for example, is not a process that happens "by chance", and it is an important driver of evolution.

The idea, for example, that a fish one day crawled out of the water onto land and immediately adapted for survival in "hostile and new territory" is not a helpful one. It didn't happen like that. Sea creatures evolved gradually to creatures that had both gills and lungs, and eventually to creatures who only have lungs. That's just one example. The point is that there's a middle ground, where the creature is adapted to both the sea(shore) and to the land, to some extent.

Lot of strecthing going on just in the basis in the thesis, to take it as absolute truth as a fact, in my opinion. I have seen crawling mud living fishes and crocodiles and I see no reason what kind of mutations drive thosekind out of their terratory...

Well, crocodiles are a pretty bad example to choose, because they have been around a very long time in approximately the same kinds of territory. They have remained the same precisely because there was no particular effect driving their evolution away from the kinds of habitats they live in.

As for why fish would start crawling on the mud, a good reason is access to food resources that would otherwise be unavailable or scarce.

I´m well rounded with facts I like to think, we can go to bacterias too in evolution thread.

How much biology have you studied?

Stated that God isnt fact in science other than name to given outside source of a universe, agreed at least on that?

Science is the study of nature. God is, by definition, supernatural. Science doesn't do God, except where God supposedly has effects on nature.

 

[kx000]

That isn't even English, let alone coherent.

Or worse, cardinal deception.