How did blood clotting evolve?

[ChrisS]

I am not sure which of my questions this is a response too. Could you answer each question separately please?

The whole question as a whole. If I the creationist were saying that, it could still apply to you.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Cakes are a food, and thus enter a completely different catagory. God made food, like animals, fruit, and vegetables, but cakes are an unhealthy mixture that humans created.

This is irrelevant. If I give you a cake, do you think it's reasonable for me to say, "Take it apart, and you'll find out how it was made?" Yes? No?

Also, the cake isn't nearly as complicated as the humans body or a car.

Well, if you're having trouble figuring out how a cake was put together by merely "taking it apart", what do expect if we do the same to a human?

Still waiting for you to explain how God made humans... details, details, details...

 

[ChrisS]

This is irrelevant. If I give you a cake, do you think it's reasonable for me to say, "Take it apart, and you'll find out how it was made?" Yes? No?



Well, if you're having trouble figuring out how a cake was put together by merely "taking it apart", what do expect if we do the same to a human?

Still waiting for you to explain how God made humans... details, details, details...

Actually, your question answers itself. If you disassemble a cake and examine it, then you WILL find out how it was made, it's the same with humans.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Actually, your question answers itself. If you disassemble a cake and examine it, then you WILL find out how it was made, it's the same with humans.

As I pointed out, the biologists have that deconstructed the human body (including DNA) have concluded that we evolved from earlier primates. Therefore, evolution is the answer.

 

[ChrisS]

As I pointed out, the biologists have that deconstructed the human body (including DNA) have concluded that we evolved from earlier primates. Therefore, evolution is the answer.

Actually, they first assumed we evolved from primates then searched from possible evidence to interpret in their beliefs. Looking from the perspective I have shown you is just as valid.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

Okay, now invite the media, call in dawkings and hawkings, and behold! The thoery is... That God designed everything! Whats the proof? Well look at everything the way I explained in the last few posts. Whats the proof you ask? Everything, that God made, all of us are a testimony to Gods amazing abilities. And then there's that fact that, just as our creator designed us, we can design other things, such as cars.

But you seemed to have ignored all the experimentation involved in order to support that theory. Theories come from more than experimentation. A scientific theory doesn't just come from observations alone.

 

[Linux98]

Except that the alternative to evolution has no explanation. The evidence for Goddidit always seems to come in the falsifcation of evolution. It never comes in the form of positive evidence (i.e. evidence not based on a negative) for that.

This is a terribly fragile position. For example, there was a time when people didn't know where weather came from and how it worked. So they ascribed it to the work of the gods. Nowadays we have meterologists that can tell us how it works. No gods involved.

If we don't know how something was created, then the most intellectually honest answer we can provide is "we don't know". Saying "Goddidit" instead doesn't mask that.

It may be a fragile position, but I have no reason to place my hope in the idea that we will one day discover how evolution produced blood clotting. As of right now, evolution does not provide an answer better than GodDidIt. So, fragile or not, it is the strongest position to hold given the current state of evidence.

I would agree it is honest for an evolutionist to say "I don't know" when it comes to being questioned about the process by which blood clotting could have evolved. I addressed the fact that an evolutionist brushed the question off as though it was satisfactorily answered.

In addition, it does not weaken the evidence for God if it is based on an attack of the theory of evolution because there are only two possible explanations: God is a possible answer and evolution is a possible answer. If evolution is shown to be less probable then that means God is relatively more probable as an explanation. When evolution is shown to be impossible God is only possible answer left.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Actually, they first assumed we evolved from primates then searched from possible evidence to interpret in their beliefs. Looking from the perspective I have shown you is just as valid.

Um, no. I can point to evidence that suggests evolution from earlier primates. I have no idea where the evidence for Goddidit is... Care to show me?

 

[gluadys]

The whole question as a whole. If I the creationist were saying that, it could still apply to you.

But it is not a question as a whole. There are different questions and one answer won't do for them all.

Here. I will number them so that you can give each its appropriate answer.


1. So, if you changed your personal interpretation, the two statements would not necessarily be contradictory, right?



2. So, for you it is a matter of belief, not of science?



3. Or do you think it possible that your interpretation of the bible also has a scientific basis?

 

[Ninja Turtles]

Actually, they first assumed we evolved from primates then searched from possible evidence to interpret in their beliefs. Looking from the perspective I have shown you is just as valid.

They do not approach research with a preconceived conclusion, you just keep stating that.

 

[ChrisS]

Actually, they first assumed we evolved from primates then searched from possible evidence to interpret in their beliefs. Looking from the perspective I have shown you is just as valid.

Let me also add to this. Biologists have looked at the human body, at the many different parts and functions, and concluded that evolution is the only thing that could bring all of these together. Creation science concludes that God created and assembled these parts.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

It may be a fragile position, but I have no reason to place my hope in the idea that we will one day discover how evolution produced blood clotting. As of right now, evolution does not provide an answer better than GodDidIt. So, fragile or not, it is the strongest position to hold given the current state of evidence.

Sure evolution does. We know evolution happens. We have evidence that evolution has occurred. We can infer based on this.

On the other hand, we haven't seen God make stuff. We have no evidence that God made stuff. And we can't make an inferences based on this.

I would agree it is honest for an evolutionist to say "I don't know" when it comes to being questioned about the process by which blood clotting could have evolved. I addressed the fact that an evolutionist brushed the question off as though it was satisfactorily answered.

In addition, it does not weaken the evidence for God if it is based on an attack of the theory of evolution because there are only two possible explanations: God is a possible answer and evolution is a possible answer. If evolution is shown to be less probable then that means God is relatively more probable as an explanation. When evolution is shown to be impossible God is only possible answer left.

Except you are merely assuming God as a default explanation. By the same token I could assume Iggydidit or IPUdidit or ETdidit or anything-I-want-goes-here. Such an explanation is no explanation at all. It's no better than saying, "I don't know".

 

[ChrisS]

But it is not a question as a whole. There are different questions and one answer won't do for them all.

Here. I will number them so that you can give each its appropriate answer.


1. So, if you changed your personal interpretation, the two statements would not necessarily be contradictory, right?



2. So, for you it is a matter of belief, not of science?



3. Or do you think it possible that your interpretation of the bible also has a scientific basis?

If I changed my interpretation of both of those posts, then I guess they probably wouldn't contradict.

It's God first, and science third.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Let me also add to this. Biologists have looked at the human body, at the many different parts and functions, and concluded that evolution is the only thing that could bring all of these together. Creation science concludes that God created and assembled these parts.

How did God create them again? How did God assemble them? C'mon, you've been holding out on us haven't you?

 

[Ninja Turtles]

If I changed my interpretation of both of those posts, then I guess they probably wouldn't contradict.

It's God first, and science third.

Well in science, you can't say it's something's first, and as such creationism isn't a science and should not be taught in school as it is belief, not science.

 

[ChrisS]

Um, no. I can point to evidence that suggests evolution from earlier primates. I have no idea where the evidence for Goddidit is... Care to show me?

Transitional fossils? These are also evidence of common design, and in some cases, evidence for neither of our beliefs. I've shown you much evidence for common design, but you haven't accepted it, and you won't, because your beliefs go against it.

 

[gluadys]

Actually, your question answers itself. If you disassemble a cake and examine it, then you WILL find out how it was made, it's the same with humans.

I've baked a few cakes in my time.

Tell me how I would find an answer to these questions by taking a cake apart:

1. Did the baker sweeten the cake with sugar, brown sugar, honey or artificial sweetener?

2. Did the baker use eggs as a binder or an egg substitute?

3. What type of flour did the baker use: cake flour, organic cake flour, enriched white flour or organic unbleached flour?

 

[ChrisS]

Well in science, you can't say it's something's first, and as such creationism isn't a science and should not be taught in school as it is belief, not science.

So you worship science? It's number one in your life? Sorry, but God is number one is my life. Science more than likely wouldn't even make the top ten in my life.

 

[gluadys]

If I changed my interpretation of both of those posts, then I guess they probably wouldn't contradict.

It's God first, and science third.

That's #1 and #2.

Now what about the third question?

 

[ChrisS]

How did God create them again? How did God assemble them? C'mon, you've been holding out on us haven't you?

Hey there, too many questions at once, I'll spread myself around just wait your turn, oh wait, you were first in line .

It's like I said before, He created the parts and assembled them. If you would pay more attention to what I've been saying, you would better understand the concept. Though I know it's hard, we just need to have an open mind though, you can't learn without one.