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.
I just came across an interesting story about evolution on CNN. Science has discovered (and grown in the lab) a new species of bacteria. It was found in a lake highly contaminated with arsenic. It's the only known lifeform that uses arsenic as a food source. The bacteria actually has replaced the phosphorus in its DNA with arsenic (as a chemist that blows my mind). It's truly amazing and novel that a new species could evolve that uses this toxin as its lifeforce and to structure its genetic material.
"The findings could affect the scope of space missions by expanding the criteria of chemical elements that had traditionally defined the building blocks of all known life"
What a bizarre and fascinating sequence of events!!!! Certainly, a sign of God's righteous judgment !!!
Why doesn't the Bible say that then? Why does it inexplicably divide this powerful moral massage into two different parts and then make them appear to be contradictory?
I gotta tell you. God needs a better editor.
If you and someone else both see a car accident...and you both don't recall the EXACT SAME story....does that mean one of you is lying?
You keep using weather as an example of science. Any meteorologist will tell you that a weather forecast is one of probability, not certainty. It's no wonder that 'science' is as good as a gamble, if for you, "science" boils down to predicting rain.
It states that there is a 30% chance that it will rain, and a 70% chance that it will not. I will not take my umbrella today.
You are mistaken. They often will say there is a 0% or a 100% chance of rain. The simple fact is that the universe actually is probabilistic. So rather than "hedging their bets" scientists are being honest in a way dogmatic religionists like yourself appear to not understand.
So... check in at the end of today day and tell us: Was your prediction right or wrong today?
Yes. You will be wrong every day until the day it actually happens. Therefore, if it does not happen by the end of December, you will be 100% wrong for December. In fact, you will be 100% wrong for 2010.
If however you are struck by a car on December 31st, you will have been right about 3% of the time.
As we have seen, meteorologists are far, far, far better at you than predicting the rain. Science keeps people a whole lot dryer than you do.
Along with so many other subjects, your complete ignorance of probability and statistics is in bold display. Life must be very confusing to you.
If you don't take your umbrella, and it rains anyhow, what are you going to think of the weather guessers then? Hey, they did say there was a CHANCE of rain.
During the day, I have a better grasp on it just looking out the window. But it's night by the time I head to work, lately, and I can't use the sky as an indication.
Aahhhh. There's a big part of your problem right there. You are confusing scientists with priests.
Scientists do not even pretend to "have all the answers." They do, however, make an effort to find out the right ones.
No, scientists present their beliefs as fact, that we will all be able to rely on, whereas religion says, "This is what WE think."...which may not be the case over their whole body of worship. I disagree strongly with a number of doctrinal principles of the last church I was a member of.
(Hint: You are actually arguing against the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God by proposing that there can be uncaused causes other than God, but I'll let you wrestle with Calvinist on the issue if he ever comes back).
Actually, I have no issue with that. God is just one potential answer. I'm willing to accept that they may be other potential answers (assuming that any of us actually exist at all), and they all have equal validity.
But there is still a difference between what is an effect, and what is a cause. There is a logical fallacy that takes about confusing the two.
Very true. Meteorology and medicine both employ science. They use the very limited scientific understanding we have of the physical universe and apply it as best they can to extraordinary complex processes in an effort to make predictions and recommendations. The other main function of such endeavors is to increase the very limited scientific understand we have of the physical universe so that in the future better predictions and recommendations can be made.
Yeah, they're both in their infancy, but they'll get better. That, and I'll take their current results in these areas over anything any religion has to offer. If I have a serious bacterial infection I'm going to turn to my doctor instead of my pastor. If I want to avoid getting measles, I'm going to go get a vaccine, not pray to the goddess Shiva. If I want to know the likelihood of rain I'm going to watch the news, not call the Dalai Lama.
Speaking of measles, the vaccine for measles is a type of vaccine called an attenuated vaccine. Attenuated vaccines are made via a guided evolutionary process. If we didn't understand evolution theory, we couldn't produce such vaccines. Perhaps we should pass a law that if you don't believe in evolution, you can't benefit from the results of evolution theory (no MMR, Chicken Pox, Rabies, Typhoid, Yellow Fever, or even some Flu vaccinations for you!).
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.
