Quote:
|
Originally Posted by omega2xx
IMO it all boils down to which one, matter or God is eternal. IMO it is is more logical to accept the God is eternal. Neither can be proved, neither can be disproved.
|
You need to reconsider your logic logically. Matter IS energy. We know energy exists, because it is us. A couple of centuries of experimentation with energy has led to the observation that energy can neither be created or destroyed, only changed in form. Thousands of years of claims concerning the existence of God has led to the observation that no such God can be observed. God has to be imagined. Now,
LOGICALLY, which has more potential for being true, something which can be directly observed to be true, or something which can only be
made up and imagined to be true?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by omega2xx
No formula, no matter how accurate, can explain the origin of energy. You also don't know what the first cause was.
|
Since we observe NO first causes, at what point are we required to declare that a "first cause" must exist? Again, this only occurs in the imagination, because no first causes are observed. Did energy have a cause?
I don't know! According to our best observation it is eternal. It's certainly easy enough to
imagine a cause for energy. But that's just make believe since no such thing is actually observed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by omega2xx
Christianity did not squelch science, Christians ignorant of science tried to.
|
Coincidentally, these "Christians" happened to be the one's calling the shots and running the show. For centuries. But it is true that some of the most prominent early scientists were devout Christians. Newton is a prime example. Nothing in Newton's research served to indicate that no God was necessary for the universe to exist, however. That would come later.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by omega2xx
Any knowledgeable e Christian knows that is our best protection to keep our religion the way we want it.
|
There are currently something like 44,000 different denominations of Christians. And of course the other of the world's great religions are also fractured into competing groups with competing ideologies. So how do we know which religious belief is the one
true religious belief? My experience has always been the the one true religious belief happens to belong to whatever believer that I am speaking to at that precise moment.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by omega2xx
If you think natural selection can be proved, I know more about science than you do. If you don't knowk genetics don't actually refute evolution, I know more science than you do.
|
Please substantiate this statement. While you are working on that, here is a little bit of a recent and very thorough scientific study done on comparing the human genome to the chimp genome.
Genome Research
Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes: Searching for needles in a haystack
Ajit Varki1 and Tasha K. Altheide
Abstract
The chimpanzee genome sequence is a long-awaited milestone, providing opportunities to explore primate evolution and genetic contributions to human physiology and disease. Humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor ∼5-7 million years ago (Mya).
The difference between the two genomes is actually not ∼1%, but ∼4%—comprising ∼35 million single nucleotide differences and ∼90 Mb of insertions and deletions. The challenge is to identify the many evolutionarily, physiologically, and biomedically important differences scattered throughout these genomes while integrating these data with emerging knowledge about the corresponding “phenomes” and the relevant environmental influences. It is logical to tackle the genetic aspects via both genome-wide analyses and candidate gene studies. Genome-wide surveys could eliminate the majority of genomic sequence differences from consideration, while simultaneously identifying potential targets of opportunity. Meanwhile, candidate gene approaches can be based on such genomic surveys, on genes that may contribute to known differences in phenotypes or disease incidence/severity, or on mutations in the human population that impact unique aspects of the human condition. These two approaches will intersect at many levels and should be considered complementary. We also cite some known genetic differences between humans and great apes, realizing that these likely represent only the tip of the iceberg.
Humans (Homo sapiens) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) last shared a common ancestor ∼5-7 million years ago (Mya) (Chen and Li 2001; Brunet et al. 2002). What makes humans different from their closest evolutionary relatives, and how, why, and when did these changes occur? These are fascinating questions, and a major challenge is to explain how genomic differences contributed to this process (Goodman 1999; Gagneux and Varki 2001; Klein and Takahata 2002; Carroll 2003; Olson and Varki 2003; Enard and Pääbo 2004; Gagneux 2004; Ruvolo 2004; Goodman et al. 2005; Li and Saunders 2005; McConkey and Varki 2005). Most genome projects focus on elucidating the sequence and structure of a species' genome and then identifying conserved functionally important genes and genomic elements. The finished human genome (International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium 2004) provides such a catalog of genomic features that ultimately interact with the environment to determine our biology, physiology, and disease susceptibility. Completion of the draft chimpanzee genome sequence (The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium 2005) provides a genome-wide comparative catalog that can be used to identify genes or genomic regions underlying the many features that distinguish humans and chimpanzees.
Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes: Searching for needles in a haystack
This years long study found that humans and chimps do not share a 99% common genetic background which has an earlier more preliminary study suggested. More precise comparisons indicate that the figure is actually closer to 96%.
Natural selection can be substantiated simply by reading the genetic code of different species. Some species like chimps and humans are clearly quite closely related. Our break from a common ancestor occurred more recently than did our break from, say, a lemur. But we have common traits with virtually ALL living species. It's just that the genetic similarities became less and less as time passed.
Denying science is no different from promoting ignorance.
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.
