How did blood clotting evolve?

[Ninja Turtles]

God cannot be explained by the knowledge of man, God himself said this, however, his actions can. Saying that God designed us is scientific. If it isn't, but is the truth, then that realm becomes something science can't answer, therefore science needs to be expanded.

Read the subsequent posts to what you wrote, they explain everything. From your posts, it seems you don't understand the scientific method, key word is method. That's what scientific theories are based on. That's why people of all different faiths (or lack thereof) can come together with science as everything is universal to explain mechanisms. It's just like math, it's all the same language.

 

[ChrisS]

Read the subsequent posts to what you wrote, they explain everything. From your posts, it seems you don't understand the scientific method, key word is method. That's what scientific theories are based on. That's why people of all different faiths (or lack thereof) can come together with science as everything is universal to explain mechanisms. It's just like math, it's all the same language.

With science it's interpretation, but never mind that, I can't convince you, just show you my interpretation.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

Our creation.

Let's say you figure out the entire mechanism of how people are created and developed and how they were made, that doesn't prove God, that just proves how we came about. Science is agnostic on God.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

With science it's interpretation, but never mind that, I can't convince you, just show you my interpretation.

Science isn't just interpretation. Okay using the scientific method, explain our creation.

 

[gluadys]

God cannot be explained by the knowledge of man, God himself said this, however, his actions can. Saying that God designed us is scientific. If it isn't, but is the truth, then that realm becomes something science can't answer, therefore science needs to be expanded.

RE: bolded statement

Not until you show a) what the mechanism of the design is and b)that the mechanism requires that God exist and use it.

Evolution is a mechanism of design and explains very well how we came to be, so it satisfies a). But, while it is possible that God designed us using the mechanism of evolution, it is not possible to verify that the mechanism of evolution requires that God exist and use it. So it does not satisfy requirement b).

 

[Pete Harcoff]

We can measure his actions, like I said before, and that's where he enters science.

No, no you can't. If you think you can, then by all means go ahead and show us how. But I'm betting you can't.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

RE: bolded statement

Not until you show a) what the mechanism of the design is and b)that the mechanism requires that God exist and use it.

Evolution is a mechanism of design and explains very well how we came to be, so it satisfies a). But, while it is possible that God designed us using the mechanism of evolution, it is not possible to verify that the mechanism of evolution requires that God exist and use it. So it does not satisfy requirement b).

Exactly, evolution is all about explaining the mechanism via the scientific method. On the subject of God, you can't place a factor that is not quantifiable into your calculations.

Do you see us placing anti-matter in every scientific experiment?

 

[gluadys]

We can measure his actions, like I said before, and that's where he enters science.

No. We can measure natural events and processes. We can measure the speed of light and the distance to the stars. We can calculate the orbits of planets, asteroids and comets. We can study meterological phenomena to the point that we can predict the weather with fair accuracy.

We cannot show that God created the light or keeps the planets in their orbits or sends the rain. It may be true that God does all these things. But we have no scientific way of relating God's actions to these phenomena.

Did you have a specific example in mind that would actually measure God's actions?

 

[jjdoe]

With science it's interpretation, but never mind that, I can't convince you, just show you my interpretation.

Studying science isn't the same as reading scripture.

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Science

hehe...I know I'm evil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

 

[cerad]

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

I'm not sure you really understand to whole concept of false dichotomy.

Let me give you a third choice: it's entirely possible that an alien civilization with slightly more advanced technology than we currently have could be responsible for all life on Earth. There is not a shred of generally accepted evidence to support such a notion but nevertheless it is possible. In fact, there are an infinite number of possible explanations for life. But only evolution has any real scientific support.

 

[Linux98]

I'm not sure you really understand to whole concept of false dichotomy.

Let me give you a third choice: it's entirely possible that an alien civilization with slightly more advanced technology than we currently have could be responsible for all life on Earth. There is not a shred of generally accepted evidence to support such a notion but nevertheless it is possible. In fact, there are an infinite number of possible explanations for life. But only evolution has any real scientific support.

Actually, if that were the case, you would still have to explain how the aliens came to be intelligent life forms. So you don't avoid the God vs non-God by appealing to alien races, you just postpone it.

 

[cerad]

Actually, if that were the case, you would still have to explain how the aliens came to be intelligent life forms. So you don't avoid the God vs non-God by appealing to alien races, you just postpone it.

Nope. The issue is how life on earth developed. Or more specifically, how blood clotting came to be. Science makes no claims concerning alien life forms. Lots of speculations but no theories.

If you want to go back to first causes then you would have to show where god came from.

 

[gluadys]

hehe...I know I'm evil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

Evil indeed. I hate logical positivism with a passion. It makes philosophy so boring.

 

[Linux98]

Nope. The issue is how life on earth developed. Or more specifically, how blood clotting came to be. Science makes no claims concerning alien life forms. Lots of speculations but no theories.

Yep. You do have to answer it. If evolution is really science then it is not bound by the Earth. You are placing a false limit on the theory of evolution. Therefore, naturalistic evolution would still need to explain how the aliens developed without God.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

Yep. You do have to answer it. If evolution is really science then it is not bound by the Earth. You are placing a false limit on the theory of evolution. Therefore, naturalistic evolution would still need to explain how the aliens developed without God.

Evolution is not concerned with how life is created, it is concerned with the mechanisms of life on Earth, as that is all that can be measured at the moment. You are attacking the idea of a person bringing in aliens into the equation, thus proving the point. You can't just bring in something that you can't measure without first having to explain it through use of the scientific method.

Evolution is not a unifying theory of origins of planets, the universe, the mechanism that created life, etc., it just explains how things change and evolve.

Not enough is known to say how to create life, just how life is changed. he most they've done is zap a chemical soup to create amino acids from simple molecules, but that has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[cerad]

Thanks Ninja Turtles. How come creationists are never around when actual goal posts really do need to be moved?

 

[Linux98]

Evolution is not concerned with how life is created, it is concerned with the mechanisms of life on Earth, as that is all that can be measured at the moment. You are attacking the idea of a person bringing in aliens into the equation, thus proving the point. You can't just bring in something that you can't measure without first having to explain it through use of the scientific method.

I never talked about creation or origins. Cerad brought aliens into the equation to say that I was building a false dichotomy. I pointed out that you would still need to describe how those aliens developed intelligece (developing intelligence is not an origins question). And that puts you back into GodDidIt vs evolution without God.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

I never talked about creation or origins. Cerad brought aliens into the equation to say that I was building a false dichotomy. I pointed out that you would still need to describe how those aliens developed intelligece (developing intelligence is not an origins question). And that puts you back into GodDidIt vs evolution without God.

Using your logic, you would have to explain how God developed intelligence.

 

[Linux98]

Using your logic, you would have to explain how God developed intelligence.

If I thought God evolved I guess I would.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

If I thought God evolved I guess I would.

And there's the problem with your argument, you don't have an explanation for God, thus it can't be science.