How did blood clotting evolve?

Ninja Turtles · May 21, 2005

ChrisS said:
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.

It's not worship of science, but those are the parameters of things in science. There are certain rules for a scientific theory and experiments to be done. If you don't follow those rules, then it isn't science. Personal to you, God can be first, but if you are going to say God is first in science, yet have no methodology to prove this or experiment with this, or provide something falsifiable, then it is not science plain and simple. This does not negate God, it just says that you can't put something in science that is not measurable. Is God falsifiable?

ChrisS · May 21, 2005

gluadys said:
That's #1 and #2.

Now what about the third question?

That God and science can walk hand in hand, I already answered that, yes.

ChrisS · May 21, 2005

gluadys said:
That's #1 and #2.

Now what about the third question?

That God and science can walk hand in hand? Yes.

Sorry for the DP!!

Pete Harcoff · May 21, 2005

ChrisS said:
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.

How did God create them? How did He assemble them?

You claim I don't understand the concept, but I think you don't have a concept to understand.

ChrisS · May 21, 2005

Ninja Turtles said:
It's not worship of science, but those are the parameters of things in science. There are certain rules for a scientific theory and experiments to be done. If you don't follow those rules, then it isn't science. Personal to you, God can be first, but if you are going to say God is first in science, yet have no methodology to prove this or experiment with this, or provide something falsifiable, then it is not science plain and simple. This does not negate God, it just says that you can't put something in science that is not measurable. Is God falsifiable?

God is first in everything for me as a Christian.

gluadys · May 21, 2005

Linux98 said:
+
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.

There is that false dichotomy again (in bold). Why do you consistently ignore that:

1. Something other than God can be responsible if evolution is not?

or

2. God could use evolution as his chosen means of creating biological diversity?

Evolution is still not atheism. So why does God have to be an alternative to evolution instead of the creator of evolution?

ChrisS · May 21, 2005

Pete Harcoff said:
How did God create them? How did He assemble them?

You claim I don't understand the concept, but I think you don't have a concept to understand.

Perhaps he used matter to create atoms? ( Abiogenesis). Then from there he constructed DNA, information. From there he assembled DNA until he got several body parts, and from there he assembled the body parts, added skin, and gave us our souls. I've said it many many times now.

gluadys · May 21, 2005

ChrisS said:
That God and science can walk hand in hand? Yes.

Sorry for the DP!!

No. That was not the question.

This was the question.

Do you think it possible that your interpretation (creation in one day by creating and assembling parts) may have a basis in science?

Ninja Turtles · May 21, 2005

ChrisS said:
God is first in everything for me as a Christian.

But that has nothing to with science. It's like my soccer analogy, there are rules to the game that must be followed. You don't add other parameters that are outside of the parameters. The point isn't that there is or is not a God, the point is that you cannot measure and do reproduce experiments with God, thus it is not science.

Again, is God falsifiable? You have to use the scientific method, else it is not science, as a result you can't teach it in school. Creationism has no place in a biology class as everything taught in biology is based on the scientific method.

Linux98 · May 21, 2005

Pete Harcoff said:
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.

It is perfectly reasonable to believe in something by default. You say you have never seen God make stuff; by default you believe evolution is the cause.

I say random mutation guided by natural selection could not create the cascading system that creates a blood clot; by default I believe God is the cause.

You say that variation and adaptation is evidence of evolution because things seem to happen naturally. I say variation and adaptation is evidence that God programmed in the capability to adapt and that it is so well desinged that we take it for granted when we say it is due to a natural cause.

Ninja Turtles · May 21, 2005

ChrisS said:
Perhaps he used matter to create atoms? ( Abiogenesis). Then from there he constructed DNA, information. From there he assembled DNA until he got several body parts, and from there he assembled the body parts, added skin, and gave us our souls. I've said it many many times now.

And can you produce results similar to this idea through experimentation?

Ninja Turtles · May 21, 2005

Linux98 said:
It is perfectly reasonable to believe in something by default. You say you have never seen God make stuff; by default you believe evolution is the cause.

I say random mutation guided by natural selection could not create the cascading system that creates a blood clot; by default I believe God is the cause.

You say that variation and adaptation is evidence of evolution because things seem to happen naturally. I say variation and adaptation is evidence that God programmed in the capability to adapt and that it is so well desinged that we take it for granted when we say it is due to a natural cause.

Is God falsifiable? In addition, it's not just based on observations...

Pete Harcoff · May 21, 2005

Linux98 said:
It is perfectly reasonable to believe in something by default. You say you have never seen God make stuff; by default you believe evolution is the cause.

I say random mutation guided by natural selection could not create the cascading system that creates a blood clot; by default I believe God is the cause.

You say that variation and adaptation is evidence of evolution because things seem to happen naturally. I say variation and adaptation is evidence that God programmed in the capability to adapt and that it is so well desinged that we take it for granted when we say it is due to a natural cause.

But we know that evolution can create things (here's one example) because we can see it happen. We can observe the mechanisms of evolution at work. So it's not such a stretch to assume it worked in the past (especially given other evidence for common descent).

In comparison, the notion of God poofing things into existence is just philosophy. There's no observable mechanism, no testable evidence.

Linux98 · May 21, 2005

gluadys said:
There is that false dichotomy again (in bold). Why do you consistently ignore that:

Ok, I'll pin it down. There are only two alternatives: 1) God created the diversity of life, or 2) non-God created the diversity of life.

I don't believe in the logic of theistic evolution however I will admit that my previous statement could be fine tuned. I was attempting to distinguish between those who believe in a non-theisitc explanation (calling them evolutionists without "theistic" in front of the word) and those who believe in a theistic explanation (creationists and theistic evolutionists).

So let's try this: either God did it, or it done itself.

Ninja Turtles · May 21, 2005

Linux98 said:
Ok, I'll pin it down. There are only two alternatives: 1) God created the diversity of life, or 2) non-God created the diversity of life.

I don't believe in the logic of theistic evolution however I will admit that my previous statement could be fine tuned. I was attempting to distinguish between those who believe in a non-theisitc explanation (calling them evolutionists without "theistic" in front of the word) and those who believe in a theistic explanation (creationists and theistic evolutionists).

So let's try this: either God did it, or it done itself.

That's the not the point of evolution. Evolution explains the mechanism through which organisms change. There is no position on whether God is there or not. That's why it's theistic and atheistic evolution. Both understand and accept the mechanism of evolution, it's just that one group believes in God, the other does not. Evolution is not about creating life, it's about changes in life. Creationists are just another category that don't use science.

ChrisS · May 21, 2005

Ninja Turtles said:
And can you produce results similar to this idea through experimentation?

Well, get a designer in the lab, there is no reason you can't have a human designer, after all, both God and the human are designers. Have the desginer design something, there is your experimentation!

Ninja Turtles · May 21, 2005

ChrisS said:
Well, get a designer in the lab, there is no reason you can't have a human designer, after all, both God and the human are designers. Have the desginer design something, there is your experimentation!

But you have a theory without having done the experimentation. You need to hit all the bases in a scientific theory before it can become a scientific theory.

It seems as if no experimentation has been done, which means it's not a scientific theory and had no place in school.

Here's a question, what experiments can be done to support your hypothesis?

Linux98 · May 21, 2005

Pete Harcoff said:
So it's not such a stretch to assume it worked in the past (especially given other evidence for common descent).

I don't think it is a stretch to come to the conclusion that evolution is the cause. I think you have perfectly valid reasons, and a valid reasoning process, to believe the way that you do.

I simply look at it a different way. And my reasoning process places a great deal of weight on possibility. I actually sit down and consider the case of the evolutionist. Then I begin to tick off the odds that this could have developed, then the odds that something else could have developed, then the odds that it developed a long time back so that it could be passed on to groups of organisms...etc.

My reasoning relies heavily on intuition, nevertheless, when I consider how many times evolution must beat the odds to produce the diversity of life I begin to find it increasingly improbable that random mutation and natural selection could have led to such a successful diversity of life.

ChrisS · May 21, 2005

Ninja Turtles said:
But you have a theory without having done the experimentation. You need to hit all the bases in a scientific theory before it can become a scientific theory.

It seems as if no experimentation has been done, which means it's not a scientific theory and had no place in school.

Here's a question, what experiments can be done to support your hypothesis?

I told you, but you refuse to accept. You need an open mind, you can't learn without one.

Linux98 · May 21, 2005

Ninja Turtles said:
That's the not the point of evolution. Evolution explains the mechanism through which organisms change. There is no position on whether God is there or not. That's why it's theistic and atheistic evolution. Both understand and accept the mechanism of evolution, it's just that one group believes in God, the other does not. Evolution is not about creating life, it's about changes in life. Creationists are just another category that don't use science.

Like I said, either God did it or it done itself. And that was not in reference to creation, it was in reference to the cause of the diversity of life.

How did blood clotting evolve?

Secrecy and Accountability Cannot Co-Exist

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Senior Veteran

Legend

Senior Veteran

Legend

Secrecy and Accountability Cannot Co-Exist

Well-Known Member

Secrecy and Accountability Cannot Co-Exist

Secrecy and Accountability Cannot Co-Exist

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Well-Known Member

Secrecy and Accountability Cannot Co-Exist

Senior Veteran

Secrecy and Accountability Cannot Co-Exist

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency