Are discussions on faith and science two different catagories?

[Justatruthseeker]

They are not non-existent though, that's the part you seem to be struggling with.

Unless you also believe that you don't have any human ancestors beyond your ability to trace your immediate family tree. That's the consequence of the argument you are making.

Oh I understand I have "human ancestors" beyond my ability to trace my immediate family tree. But then I am not trying to link my ancestors to another species. You are, the onus of proof is on you, not me. Just as if I claimed my ancestor was Alexander the Great, the onus to prove this would be on me. My pointing to "missing common ancestors" and claiming they prove the link, would not be scientifically adequate.

 

[pitabread]

Oh I understand I have "human ancestors" beyond my ability to trace my immediate family tree.

But your argument is that if one cannot explicitly identify an ancestor therefore it doesn't exist.

It seems you don't like the consequence of your own argument. :/

But then I am not trying to link my ancestors to another species. You are, the onus of proof is on you, not me.

Sure and there is plenty of evidence for that. But to suggest that if we can't explicitly identify the specific ancestor between chimps and humans therefore that ancestor is imaginary is just dumb. By that logic your own family tree doesn't exist beyond your ability to trace it.

Remember this is *your* argument and the consequences thereof.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But your argument is that if one cannot explicitly identify an ancestor therefore it doesn't exist.

It seems you don't like the consequence of your own argument. :/

Again, It is not me that is claiming my ancestors were non-human, you are... I agree all of my ancestors were human, as far back as you care to go.

It's when you get to that split is when you put in imaginary links....

 

[pitabread]

Again, It is not me that is claiming my ancestors were non-human, you are... I agree all of my ancestors were human, as far back as you care to go.

It's when you get to that split is when you put in imaginary links....

Just like you have put imaginary links into your own family tree. Funny, that.

Although I suspect the other part you probably aren't understanding is that the generation-to-generation process doesn't change. Doesn't matter whether you go back 100 years, 1000 years, or one million years. The process of generation-to-generation reproduction/evolution remains the same.

If you accept that process in your own family tree and accept that you have ancestry beyond your ability to identify specific ancestors then there's no difference winding back the clock further.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Just like you have put imaginary links into your own family tree. Funny, that.

I haven't put any in. I fully concur all my ancestors, even if unknown, are human.....

 

[Kaon]

In Hebrews 11:6 we are told it is impossible to please God without faith. That we first must believe that He exists and then second believe He rewards those who diligently seek Him. So then are we just supposed to have blind faith that God exists or did He tell us how we can know He exists? In Romans 1:20 we are told that since creation God's invisible attributes are clearly seen (distinguishable) being understood by the things that were made. So much so that all are without excuse. So what does the Bible tell us God made? It says He made the natural world, universe, and all life. What do we call the study of the natural world, universe, and life? We call this -science. So here is God telling us we can know He exists through the study of science. This would mean faith and science may be two separate categories however they definitely (according to God) intersect. I believe there is a growing popular movement among both atheists and people of faith to try and divorce the two as if they have absolutely nothing to do with one another. What do you think?

Examples of ways we see God through science:

The scientific law of causality states that anything that begins must have a cause. When Einstein formulated his theory of relativity the math predicted that the universe consisting of time, space, and matter, must have a beginning. This observation was confirmed in 1929 when astronomer Edwin Hubble observed the expanding universe. Now since we have never observed something come from nothing its just not logical or "scientific" to claim the universe sprang from nothing. We must conclude that whatever caused our universe has always existed (or is infinite in nature). So we have reached point A.

A. The universe was caused by an infinite source.​

This begs a key question. Do we observe anything in the known universe which suggests it was engineered? Typically when we observe engineering we observe features that tell us they were formed for a specific intent or purpose. Examples: The way archaeologists at a dig site look for recognizable design features, or the way marine biologists trying to detect intelligence in dolphins look for specific sound patterns, or even the way SETI astronomers look for narrow band radio signals coming from deep space if ever observed would tell them they were engineered. If we apply these exact same principles to our observations of the universe we find that it does display evidence for engineering in three of its main characteristics. In its laws of physics, in its systems, and in its life.

Physicists tell us that all the laws of physics like electromagnetic forces, nuclear intensity, strength of gravity, mass of material, temperature, excitation of nuclei, and speed of light, are all fine tuned to the exact parameters needed for life to be possible. If any of these factors were out of proportion slightly then none of the elements (especially carbon so necessary for life) could even exist.

British Astrophysicist George Ellis is quotes as saying, “Amazing fine tuning occurs in all the laws that makes this possible…” He went on to say that he finds it difficult not to use the word miraculous when describing their complexity.

If we just step back and take and honest look and the systems of our universe we observes something truly remarkable. Like the way our solar system is perfectly situated in a clear safe zone rather than one of our milky-way’s chaotic spiral arms. Our sun is said to be actually much smaller than the majority of the stars we observe in the universe yet it is the perfect size and temperature to allow for life. Our own moon’s size and distance from earth are the exact parameters needed to stabilize our 23 degree axis tilt with the sun. This is what creates the food chain without which there could be no life here. The very arrangement of our solar system with the gas giants like Neptune, Saturn, and Jupiter all protecting us from rogue meteors out in the outer rim. Scientists tell us that if Jupiter were removed from its current orbit then the impact rate of meteors on earth would increase by a thousand times what we see today. Then consider the magnetic field around our planet. Did you know we live on the only known planet with a solid surface that is still circulating its liquid iron core? This is what generates the magnetic force field around our planet which protects us from constant bombardment of solar radiation. Without that field life here would have long since been completely sterilized. Our atmosphere is the perfect mixture of nitrogen and oxygen. Our land to water mass ratio is the perfect ratio. I could go on and on. There are literally hundreds of conditions like these all working together making life possible. We are told that they must exist at the exact parameters they exist at, at the exact locations they exist at, and even all at the same time in the universe just for life to even be possible.

Esteemed physicist and Nobel Prize winner Arno Penzias said “Astronomy leads us to a unique event. A universe with the exact conditions required to permit life. One with an underlying (you might say) supernatural plan.”

Finally if we examine life itself we find that all living organisms contain a DNA code that is the blue prints to life. You have a copy of your entire DNA in every single cell of your body. Scientists tell us that this code warps our most sophisticated computer software programs by comparison. Several theories have been proposed as to how this code could have formed through natural causes however to date there is no evidence supporting them. We would have to have at least one example of an observed random mutation adding new (gene increasing) and beneficial information to the genome of a multi-celled organism. Nothing of the sort has ever been observed. From the observable science we must conclude that the laws of physics, systems of the universe, and life were all engineered. This brings us to point B.

B. the cause of the universe must possess intelligence.​

If we add points A and B there is only one term in the English language that is defined and an infinite intelligent creator of the universe and life.

I’ll let you guess what that term is…

Science and faith are two sides of the same coin. The Most High never wanted blind faith; that is a myth and mysticism of the degree of devotion He requires of His people.

However, academia and faith are categorically disconnected in the same way Islam and Taoism, or Christianity and witchcraft would be. Academics, and academia are an institution that uses biology, chemistry, physics and the general scientific method (we all use it) as a substitution for a faith system.

Academia and religious institutions ha e the very similar structures because they essentially serve the same purpose with respect to humans.

 

[pitabread]

I haven't put any in. I fully concur all my ancestors, even if unknown, are human.....

Your own argument is than an unknown ancestor = imaginary. I'm not surprised you aren't following the consequence of your own logic.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Science and faith are two sides of the same coin. The Most High never wanted blind faith; that is a myth and mysticism of the degree of devotion He requires of His people.

However, academia and faith are categorically disconnected in the same way Islam and Taoism, or Christianity and witchcraft would be. Academics, and academia are an institution that uses biology, chemistry, physics and the general scientific method (we all use it) as a substitution for a faith system.

Academia and religious institutions ha e the very similar structures because they essentially serve the same purpose with respect to humans.

Ahhh, but most are unable to distinguish between science and academia. Since we believe God penned both the Bible and the Works, if they seem to disagree then our interpretation of one or the other must be flawed.

 

[Brightmoon]

Science is a process that figures out how natural phenomena works . That’s not the opposite of religion. They’re completely different as religion uses none of the tools of science. Science doesn’t have dogmas,for example, as we’re very aware of the fact that we’re still learning about nature and how it functions. Ive long since figured out that creationists never understand that science doesn’t set out to disprove religious beliefs . The fact that some religious beliefs are disproved by the processes of science is just a side effect of understanding natural phenomena

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Your own argument is than an unknown ancestor = imaginary. I'm not surprised you aren't following the consequence of your own logic.

No, my argument is you claim we descended from non-human ancestors. Your only link is with imaginary ancestors. Were you claiming that the oldest ancestor of humans was human, just varied in shape and looks, such would be acceptable, being the great variation we see in the dog species and every other species.... Such an assumption would match observational data and the fossil record....

Is this what you are proposing?

 

[Brightmoon]

Denial is a river in Egypt . We’re so closely related to chimps that some primatologists consider us to be the third chimp species and want to move chimps into genus Homo with us . They’re currently investigating that and have already officially retired the old family name Pongidae for the other great apes ( chimps gorillas orangutans bonobos) . The great apes are now hominids like us in family Hominidae

 

[Brightmoon]

I don’t see why you make a big deal about dogs when the amount of variation is more than what you see between horse and zebras . Yet horses and zebras are different species . Superficial appearance doesn’t determine whether or not something is related . You would never mistake any canids for a reptile if you just found bones. But you would see that the bones show a pattern that all land vertebrates share that’s impossible to come about by chance. Even Linnaeus figured out common descent even though he wasn’t allowed to say it or print it due to religion being more intrusive into people’s lives in the 1700s

 

[pitabread]

Your only link is with imaginary ancestors.

Just like your own family tree is imaginary. You just keep doubling down on your own goofy argument and it just gets funnier as it goes.

Were you claiming that the oldest ancestor of humans was human.

Of course the oldest ancestor of humans would be humans. But that's based on drawing an arbitrary line between "human" and "non-human".

The reality is that on lineal basis the actual dividing line would be blurred. Just like we see in modern biology with examples like ring species, among other things.

This is where I think the biggest stumbling block is understanding that the generation-to-generation process is the same then as now, conceptualizing the process (of evolution) as being recursive, and that species barriers in biology are somewhat fuzzy in reality.

 

[Jimmy D]

Why just look at all those imaginary lines drawn to imaginary "common ancestors"

They aren’t imaginary lines, I can see them, you can see them, can anyone else see them?

Maybe you don’t know what ‘imaginary’ means?



A dictionary might help.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I don’t see why you make a big deal about dogs when the amount of variation is more than what you see between horse and zebras . Yet horses and zebras are different species . Superficial appearance doesn’t determine whether or not something is related . You would never mistake any canids for a reptile if you just found bones. But you would see that the bones show a pattern that all land vertebrates share that’s impossible to come about by chance. Even Linnaeus figured out common descent even though he wasn’t allowed to say it or print it due to religion being more intrusive into people’s lives in the 1700s

In your false delusional determination of species they are.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_species_concept

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebroid

 

[Justatruthseeker]

They aren’t imaginary lines, I can see them, you can see them, can anyone else see them?

Maybe you don’t know what ‘imaginary’ means?



A dictionary might help.

Maybe YOU don't, since every common ancestor at the species split is imaginary and you think that means real.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Just like your own family tree is imaginary. You just keep doubling down on your own goofy argument and it just gets funnier as it goes.



Of course the oldest ancestor of humans would be humans. But that's based on drawing an arbitrary line between "human" and "non-human".

The reality is that on lineal basis the actual dividing line would be blurred. Just like we see in modern biology with examples like ring species, among other things.

This is where I think the biggest stumbling block is understanding that the generation-to-generation process is the same then as now, conceptualizing the process (of evolution) as being recursive, and that species barriers in biology are somewhat fuzzy in reality.

See above. Why do you think they were different, because they looked a little different like say a wolf and a poodle?

 

[Kaon]

Ahhh, but most are unable to distinguish between science and academia. Since we believe God penned both the Bible and the Works, if they seem to disagree then our interpretation of one or the other must be flawed.

That is because faiths are competing. Academic faith has a facet of ego that tends to draw more toward it - even if they have a spiritual faith. Usually, this puts people in that position you alluded to, where one must second guess one (or even all) of their paradigms.

If people knew the Truth, then academics would be tertiary in our lives, and science would have the same communion with faith as it always has.

Cults are not scientific, for example. But, most every religion has a scientific aspect to it. This disconnect in the scientific (natural) and spiritual is what usually cripples faith. The Most High promised us He would put His law on our hearts. He can also shape us to make the wise look foolish if we have that connection.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That is because faiths are competing. Academic faith has a facet of ego that tends to draw more toward it - even if they have a spiritual faith. Usually, this puts people in that position you alluded to, where one must second guess one (or even all) of their paradigms.

If people knew the Truth, then academics would be tertiary in our lives, and science would have the same communion with faith as it always has.

Cults are not scientific, for example. But, most every religion has a scientific aspect to it. This disconnect in the scientific (natural) and spiritual is what usually cripples faith. The Most High promised us He would put His law on our hearts. He can also shape us to make the wise look foolish if we have that connection.

Oh don't I know. Some of those with the strongest faith on here claim to have no faith at all but are merely practicing science. Not realizing they have simply inserted the "word" science into their doctrine of faith to protect their fragile ego's.

That's why you notice in almost every post they find it necessary to participate in ad-hominem attacks of one sort or another. An attempt to salvage their ego and inflate themselves above others.... They equate this with meaning they have won the argument, when it reality it shows they lost it and need to resort to such to salvage that damaged ego.

 

[Jimmy D]

Maybe YOU don't, since every common ancestor at the species split is imaginary and you think that means real.

Are you suggesting that the computers used to construct such trees use ‘imagination’?