Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Science is based on the presumption of disproving the null hypothesis- fact, as we know it.
Religion is based on faith. Science and religion are not incompatible, and one must realize that the Bible was written by men to describe events that occurred long before it was written. Many of the events in the Bible are descriptions of the world, as they knew it. The New Testament was written long after the death of Christ and described his teachings and parables.
Science and faith are COMPLETELY irreconcilable.
Religion is simply man's first attempt at explaining phenomena that was otherwise unexplainable. Science put religion to bed centuries ago.
Ok darwin and religions students assuming we came from apes we have no proof how life came to be. If we had a big bang THEORY how did that come about and I really don't think teascopes are now seeing is believing.
Guesses are not fact. If the bang was able to produce such energy and create our galaxies and billions of stars and planets we are we so sure we evolved from apes. Any reason we can't just be something and unquie. Seems to me we have chaos in the universe which is also orderly and designed.
The planets rotation, gavity, all animals, fish, and the universe. Christians don't like darwin because science destorys the bibles idea of creation. Science doesnt like god or religions ideas of creation because it doesn't use facts and figures. Both science and the bible's ideas come from MAN, Man wrote and ideas based on faith or science but are still mankinds failed attempts at putting the unknown into boxes.
Mankind has consistantly been wrong and we have no idea about the forces and energy that bind our univere together.
Mankind once thought the earth was made in 6 days, the world was once flat, the sun revolved around the earth. Everyone was a witch and need to be burned at the stake. Science still doesnt know if milk is good for you, eggs are bad for you, how much water you really should drink.
It comes to mankind is flawed in all its ideas and sometimes briliant ideas we still have much to learn assuming we make that long to learn anything.
there is no reason that "god" and science cant coexist peacefully. if you believe in creation, then you believe in the concept of god, or multiple gods, either way you believe in a creator. that creator didnt just snap his fingers and have everything come to life all at once, rather they likely started things into motion and then directed the course of events. in this case, the bible tells us WHAT god did, and science is telling us HOW he did it.
if you believe in evolution, you still have to account for how things came into being in the first place, so you really cant eliminate a creator completely as there has to be an initial point of creation by some entity. and if that is the case then science is either going to prove or disprove there being an entity that started the whole thing 13.5 billion years ago.
if you believe in intelligent design theory, then you have to believe in a creator, as there had to be an intelligence behind the design.
if you believe in the chaos theory, you still have to account for the initial creation of the bits that make up everything. in other words something had to create gravity, electromagnetism, the initial particles, the glue that holds those particle together, the mechanism by which those particles came together as atoms, etc.
Neandertals, the closest evolutionary relatives of present-day humans, lived in large parts of Europe and western Asia before disappearing 30,000 years ago. We present a draft sequence of the Neandertal genome composed of more than 4 billion nucleotides from three individuals. Comparisons of the Neandertal genome to the genomes of five present-day humans from different parts of the world identify a number of genomic regions that may have been affected by positive selection in ancestral modern humans, including genes involved in metabolism and in cognitive and skeletal development. We show that Neandertals shared more genetic variants with present-day humans in Eurasia than with present-day humans in sub-Saharan Africa, suggesting that gene flow from Neandertals into the ancestors of non-Africans occurred before the divergence of Eurasian groups from each other. A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome
That was done May 2010. Notice the closest relative and it doesn't say, chimp, or ape....
However, some things publish in 2005 does.
Also, not all of us came out of Africa.
Just as some find it tough to believe our evolution began with God, I find it tough to believe modern man came from an Ape. We are much more complex than that. Now I just wait for technology to catch up.
Also, it is not a quite out in the Universe as some would like to believe. They have proved it rather chaotic.
Neandertals, the closest evolutionary relatives of present-day humans, lived in large parts of Europe and western Asia before disappearing 30,000 years ago. We present a draft sequence of the Neandertal genome composed of more than 4 billion nucleotides from three individuals. Comparisons of the Neandertal genome to the genomes of five present-day humans from different parts of the world identify a number of genomic regions that may have been affected by positive selection in ancestral modern humans, including genes involved in metabolism and in cognitive and skeletal development. We show that Neandertals shared more genetic variants with present-day humans in Eurasia than with present-day humans in sub-Saharan Africa, suggesting that gene flow from Neandertals into the ancestors of non-Africans occurred before the divergence of Eurasian groups from each other. A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome
That was done May 2010. Notice the closest relative and it doesn't say, chimp, or ape....
However, some things publish in 2005 does.
It Might have if it was specifying closest "living" relative.
Quote:
Also, not all of us came out of Africa.
Just as some find it tough to believe our evolution began with God, I find it tough to believe modern man came from an Ape. We are much more complex than that. Now I just wait for technology to catch up.
Is that an argument from incredulity? Technology in genetics has confirmed it.
Quote:
Also, it is not a quite out in the Universe as some would like to believe. They have proved it rather chaotic.
The first is creation, the second is evolution, see if you can point out the inconsistencies.
Spoiler
In Genesis, it's plants->fish->birds->mammals
In Evolution, it's fish->plants->mammals->birds
You could say that the Bible is right on fish->animals->humans, and if they left it at hat you would have a point. But the bible makes claims that simply don't jive with the facts.
Technically, the bible has never been rewritten in that way. Yes, it's been translated and copied and passed down, but I don't believe it's ever been flat out changed. Unless, of course, it benefits directly the people who are doing the change. It's very difficult to get a religious person to admit they might be wrong.
Yes, science is self correcting. Yes, science makes mistakes. Science then says 'hey, our bad' and tries to figure out a different path or answer.
Wrong, the bible was rewritten, what do you think the King James version is called that for? King James had sections deleted or rewritten to suit his desires. The bible was not written in English either. And it was written by man and rewritten again by many men over time.
there is no reason that "god" and science cant coexist peacefully. if you believe in creation, then you believe in the concept of god, or multiple gods, either way you believe in a creator. that creator didnt just snap his fingers and have everything come to life all at once, rather they likely started things into motion and then directed the course of events. in this case, the bible tells us WHAT god did, and science is telling us HOW he did it.
if you believe in evolution, you still have to account for how things came into being in the first place, so you really cant eliminate a creator completely as there has to be an initial point of creation by some entity. and if that is the case then science is either going to prove or disprove there being an entity that started the whole thing 13.5 billion years ago.
if you believe in intelligent design theory, then you have to believe in a creator, as there had to be an intelligence behind the design.
if you believe in the chaos theory, you still have to account for the initial creation of the bits that make up everything. in other words something had to create gravity, electromagnetism, the initial particles, the glue that holds those particle together, the mechanism by which those particles came together as atoms, etc.
Using the same logic, there has to be an initial point of creation for the entity itself.
It Might have if it was specifying closest "living" relative.
Is that an argument from incredulity? Technology in genetics has confirmed it.
What's not quite out there?
Funny, when was the last time any one saw a prehistoric horse running around? Yet, when one sees the pictures of progression from the way they were and they way they are now, no one is saying, it can't be, because they are not, 'living' now.
Neanderthal Gnome, the scientist who conducted the test, the results of the test, the report of posted for all to read and yet...wow. Did you read the whole thing, because I did and found it all very fascinating.
I went looking for genetic testing and I found old documentation. The gnome sequencing is the most recent that I could find. Perhaps, you know of a test that is dated after 2005? Published in a Science journal would be great.
Besides that Apes don't kill each other off like human animals do, so, I'm thinking they're smarter than the human animal. Something drastic must have happened in the evolution of it all to the human animal brain, because in allot of ways, we are nothing like the Ape and/or their behavioral traits.
Actually that is not the article I was thinking on when I said what I did, but it'll do in a pinch. I was think of the one I read, I believe off the NSA web site about a recording done at an observatory. It was an interesting read and it had to do with the Milky Way, black hole and the disappearance of stars. I remember thinking, omg, we're going to get sucked up. Then I thought, maybe that's not so funny.
All I can get you is the summary. One has to subscribe to read the whole report. Do they have Apes in Europe or Asia? I guess, Asia...so the idea of linking genetics to apes, still might hold up, for awhile longer.
Using the same logic, there has to be an initial point of creation for the entity itself.
He came in with a Bang!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Abstract
