Does science actually admit "design"?

[Ophiolite]

So the 'common ancestor' theory is out?

No. What makes you think that? OK. I'm being mean. What makes you think that is that you don't understand what the "common ancestor" theory says. Nor, seemingly, do you understand hybridisation, or the meaning of species. If you did you would never have asked that question.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I was talking about questions concerning how reality works. Not social organization.

Also, tell it to all the women who were oppressed for millenia and confined to the kitchen sink and the baby diapers by their husbands waving a bible.

Please, more women have been oppressed throughout history by man for his own purposes. Sad attempt to use that, since the Bible clearly states a woman is to be treated as a precious vessel and revered. Perhaps those who didn't were not really Christians, but just using the claim at the time to further their own ends. I certainly don't believe the Pope that started the inquisitions was a Christian, but a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Just sad.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I've got my material reality neatly organized. It's the behavior of others that I have to watch out for. I find that highly educated people don't have a 'hands on' grip of material reality, relying on others to do this for them.

Maybe you should read the bible and discover why all that misogyny (and why it isn't going away anytime soon).

Whatever man, you're wandering off into irrelevancy.
None of this has any relation to the point I was making.

Which was that religions don't provide answers to questions about how reality works.
Science does.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So all 'ruminants' sprang from a common ruminant? Lots of variety there.

Sure, all life came from the same exact protons, neutrons and electrons. That some might confuse that as all came from a single original form, is understandable.

Isnt it amazing how both gold and lead use the same protons, neutrons and electrons, yet are so different and yet at the basest of levels so similar, but yet nobody tries to say gold came from lead. Granted, some have tried to prove that, but all have failed.

All atoms are formed from the same exact protons, neutrons and electrons, yet lots of variety there too.

So the combination of three basic entities in different orders and quantities can create a huge variety of form. Now add billions of possible combinations and why be surprised life is so varied?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No. What makes you think that? OK. I'm being mean. What makes you think that is that you don't understand what the "common ancestor" theory says. Nor, seemingly, do you understand hybridisation, or the meaning of species. If you did you would never have asked that question.

I asked the question because I found it in several sites on the subject, and DogmaHunter excluded it from his criticism.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Whatever man, you're wandering off into irrelevancy.
None of this has any relation to the point I was making.

Which was that religions don't provide answers to questions about how reality works.
Science does.

If you want to limit reality to the physical I'm ok with that. I just have a broader view.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Please, more women have been oppressed throughout history by man for his own purposes

Indeed. And ancient religious scriptures like the bible, the quran, etc... neatly reflect that.

Sad attempt to use that, since the Bible clearly states a woman is to be treated as a precious vessel and revered.

Yeah... the quran says that as well.

Perhaps those who didn't were not really Christians, but just using the claim at the time to further their own ends. I certainly don't believe the Pope that started the inquisitions was a Christian, but a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Just sad.

No true scottsman, to the rescue!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Sure, all life came from the same exact protons, neutrons and electrons. That some might confuse that as all came from a single original form, is understandable.

Isnt it amazing how both gold and lead use the same protons, neutrons and electrons, yet are so different and yet at the basest of levels so similar, but yet nobody tries to say gold came from lead. Granted, some have tried to prove that, but all have failed.

All atoms are formed from the same exact protons, neutron and electrons, yet lots of variety there too.

I think that's a different subject altogether.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sure, all life came from the same exact protons, neutrons and electrons. That some might confuse that as all came from a single original form, is understandable.

That's absurd. It also nicely shows how mega ignorant you are on this subject.

Isnt it amazing how both gold and lead use the same protons, neutrons and electrons, yet are so different and yet at the basest of levels so similar, but yet nobody tries to say gold came from lead

Why would they? They aren't living organisms that reproduce with variation and compete with peers over limited resources...

Why would these non-biological elements be subject to a process of biology?
You make exactly zero sense.

All atoms are formed from the same exact protons, neutron and electrons, yet lots of variety there too.

And none of them reproduce with variation and are in competition with peers over limited resources. None of them are biological entities. Non-biological entities that don't meet those criteria (reproduce with variation, compete for limited resources), aren't going to be subject to a process like evolution.

 

[Ophiolite]

I asked the question because I found it in several sites on the subject, and DogmaHunter excluded it from his criticism.

Unacceptable. Please cease equivocating.

Of course dogs are descended from wolves!

There is some debate about that. (Google the topic, lot's of controversy.)

You did not ask a question. You made a clear cut statement, challenging the claim that dogs are descended from wolves. You then referenced google as supporting evidence for your assertion. A google search did not reveal any such controversy.

Either you did not understand what you were reading, or you were deliberately suggesting a viewpoint (dogs did not evolve from wolves) you knew was not supported by science.

Which was it?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I think that's a different subject altogether.

Not, since all life was formed from "dust" and dust is protons, neutrons and electrons. Why hey, it is even what makes up DNA at the basest of levels..... So its spot on the subject and perhaps the most relevant part, since everything in existence is made from them.....

 

[DogmaHunter]

If you want to limit reality to the physical I'm ok with that. I just have a broader view.

I'm setting the scope of my point.
Which is a rational thing to do, otherwise nobody knows what I'm talking about.

Again, I said that science is great at finding answer to questions about how the world works. I also said that religion isn't capable of providing answers to those questions.

You then started talking about completely different questions.

It starts to sound as if you are doing your very very best to avoid the point that was actually being made. I get it though.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Also, tell it to all the women who were oppressed for millenia and confined to the kitchen sink and the baby diapers by their husbands waving a bible.

I'll ask them about that in the resurrection.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not, since all life was formed from "dust" and dust is protons, neutrons and electrons. Why hey, it is even what makes up DNA at the basest of levels..... So its spot on the subject and perhaps the most relevant part, since everything in existence is made from them.....

Actually everything is ultimately made of spirit, upheld by the word of God.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'm setting the scope of my point.
Which is a rational thing to do, otherwise nobody knows what I'm talking about.

Again, I said that science is great at finding answer to questions about how the world works. I also said that religion isn't capable of providing answers to those questions.

You then started talking about completely different questions.

It starts to sound as if you are doing your very very best to avoid the point that was actually being made. I get it though.

I granted you that, but some problems require more answers. It's not enough to know that gravity, acceleration, and inertia kills someone who jumps off a building. We need to know why they jumped.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That's absurd. It also nicely shows how mega ignorant you are on this subject.

No, it just shows you refuse to accept that even life and DNA is made up of those same identical entities. Mainly because it shows how varied things can be without the need for dead theory, just interbreeding and the exchange of genomes into new formats.

Why would they? They aren't living organisms that reproduce with variation and compete with peers over limited resources...

I beg to differ, since all living organisms are made up of atoms, which are made up of the same protons, neutrons and electrons as are rocks. The problem is yours, in explaining why some protons, neutrons and electrons are inanimate, and others produce life.

Why would these non-biological elements be subject to a process of biology?
You make exactly zero sense.

They are subject to the process of biology, since biological entities are made up of these same protons, neutrons and electrons as are rocks.....

And none of them reproduce with variation and are in competition with peers over limited resources. None of them are biological entities. Non-biological entities that don't meet those criteria (reproduce with variation, compete for limited resources), aren't going to be subject to a process like evolution.

And yet all life is made up of the same protons, neutrons and electrons that rocks are. Are you claiming the protons, neutrons and electrons that make up DNA are somehow different than the protons, neutrons and electrons that make up rocks? If so, please provide sources.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Actually everything is ultimately made of spirit, upheld by the word of God.

If by "spirit" you mean Energy/Mind, I would agree.

 

[Mr Darcy]

I'ld say that science is the best tool we have to find out how stuff works.
You can call that "worship" if you want, but I don't see how that is meaningful.

I agree with the first sentence. Regarding the second, I'm only referring to the attitude of some I've discussed with over the years. In some cases, their "god" is the human intellect and the only measure of the power of that god is "science". They virtually worship at the feet of science.

But that is not everyone. For many, science is simply a very useful tool to figure out how stuff works. And many Christians fit into that subgroup.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If by "spirit" you mean Energy/Mind, I would agree.

I mean the 'undetectable' force/energy/spirit/mind of God. I also believe that science is very close to coming to the conclusion that everything is made of nothing. When they finally admit that there will be great sound heard around the earth as their collective heads explode (figuratively of course).

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I mean the 'undetectable' force/energy/spirit/mind of God. I also believe that science is very close to coming to the conclusion that everything is made of nothing. When they finally admit that there will be great sound heard around the earth as their collective heads explode (figuratively of course).

Yes, we are getting close to understanding that invisible (Energy/Mind) that is God and makes up all things. Once science fully understands, all the excuses will melt away. Romans 1:20

Sadly at this point in our knowledge we understand but a fraction, just that all things come from Energy, are filled with Energy and will return to Energy. What Energy is still remains a mystery, so the excuses still abound.

Oh no, not nothing - Energy. Even science understands that Energy can not be created nor destroyed, but has just always been. And it is Energy which infuses us, makes us capable of breath and movement and is responsible for our thoughts. The image we were made in. IMO God is Energy/Mind, pure Thought or Consciousness.