How did blood clotting evolve?

[ChrisS]

Yes, because your answer amounted to "take apart the human body and you'll find out how it was made". Oddly enough, biologists have been doing this for centuries and the conclusion they arrived at is evolution from primate ancestors.

If you have another answer, then provide it in detail. If you think humans were created de novo, then please detail how this was done.

Okay then, even though I already answered your question.. first DNA was created my God, ( hopefully I don't have to spell out how that was made), then God used DNA to create all of the organs, and skin, and eyes, and everyother design body part in the human body, then he assembled it, and gave us our souls. All of this occuring in one day.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Okay then, even though I already answered your question.. first DNA was created my God, ( hopefully I don't have to spell out how that was made), then God used DNA to create all of the organs, and skin, and eyes, and everyother design body part in the human body, then he assembled it, and gave us our souls. All of this occuring in one day.

How did God create the DNA? Does He have a laboratory somewhere where He engineerings DNA from scratch? Where did these people grow? Does God have a lab full of test-tube babies somewhere?

And these souls of which you speak... What are they? What are they made of? How did God give us them?

C'mon, I want details. Lots and lots of details.

 

[Linux98]

So? The only way to know specifically what happened is to build a time machine and anaylze the evolution of blood clotting over millions of years. But since we know evolution occurs, it's more than reasonable to construct scenarios based on available evidence.

Do you have another scenario you have constructed based on avialable evidence?

#1) Yes, the only way to know for sure is to build a time machine. Since that is ludicrous then that should give you some clue as to how it is an exaggeration to say "the answer" has already been provided. It hasn't, there has only been speculation and from that point you need to determine the value of the speculation. We are dealing with "best" guesses that could very well be wrong or flawed. And that does not constitute a concreate answer that should cast aside all reasonable doubt on the matter.

#2) GodDidIt. My evidence is based on personal reasoning just as the counter evidence is based on personal reasoning. I believe it is too improbable that random mutations and natural selection could have produced a process such as this. And if that is the case it is evidence that the theory of evolution and natural selection is wrong. However, I'm not the only one who agrees with this assesment:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

-Darwin, C. (1872) Origin of Species, 6th ed. (1988), New York University Press, New York, p. 154.
​

I just happen to believe that blood clotting is a case that cannot be adequately described as having evolved from numerous, slight modifications. Evolutionists seem to always ask me to believe that natural selection and random mutation has won a successive series of California lotteries since the beginning of time, I have a hard time accepting that level of faith in evolution.

As far as I see it you only have two alternatives to explain the complexity and diversification of life. 1) EvolutionDidIt, or 2) GodDidIt. And in the reasoning of Sherlock Holmes: When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. I believe it is impossible for random mutations guided by natural selection to create the blood clotting cascade. Therefore, I believe it was created by God.

 

[ChrisS]

How did God create the DNA? Does He have a laboratory somewhere where He engineerings DNA from scratch? Where did these people grow? Does God have a lab full of test-tube babies somewhere?

And these souls of which you speak... What are they? What are they made of? How did God give us them?

C'mon, I want details. Lots and lots of details.

I didn't think I'd have to say that to. Tell you what, if what I'm about to say is completely impossible even in the eyes of creationists then I'll continue to spell it out to ya.

Take apart DNA, like I said earlier, whats it made of? That's the answer to how DNA was made. Abiogenesis may of had a part in it.

As for our souls, that's our living being pretty much, when we die, all that will remain of us is our soul. God created our souls so we may spend eternity with Him.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

I didn't think I'd have to say that to. Tell you what, if what I'm about to say is completely impossible even in the eyes of creationists then I'll continue to spell it out to ya.

Take apart DNA, like I said earlier, whats it made of? That's the answer to how DNA was made. Abiogenesis may of had a part in it.

As for our souls, that's our living being pretty much, when we die, all that will remain of us is our soul. God created our souls so we may spend eternity with Him.

And how do you come to this conclusion based on the scientific method?

 

[ChrisS]

And how do you come to this conclusion based on the scientific method?

On souls? Or on our bodys? As for our bodys, we have several explanations based upon the facts, my interpretation is that God created humans the way a mechanic would create a car, which does not contradict science, just the idea of common descent. As for souls, I have a relationship with God, that's science enough for me.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

On souls? Or on our bodys? As for our bodys, we have several explanations based upon the facts, my interpretation is that God created humans the way a mechanic would create a car, which does not contradict science, just the idea of common descent. As for souls, I have a relationship with God, that's science enough for me.

But can we do experiments and provide reproduceable results. It's not whether something goes against science, but whether it is something that can be measured and be taught and accepted as a scientific theory.

 

[ChrisS]

But can we do experiments and provide reproduceable results. It's not whether something goes against science, but whether it is something that can be measured and be taught and accepted as a scientific theory.

Okay then, ask a mechanic to build a car, there's your scientific theory.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

Okay then, ask a mechanic to build a car, there's your scientific theory.

Well can we do the experiments or not? That's the point. If the theory is not in the frame of science, then it is not a scientific theory. It could be completely true, but it can't be classified as a science unless it can be done in the realm of a scientific theory.

Think of it like a soccer match. Scientific theory have a set of rules and that must be followed like the boundaries, not being able to use your hands, and penalties for things like offsides. If your theory doesn't follow these rules, if you want to pick the ball up with your hands, if you want to go out of bounds and maintain possession, then you're clearly not playing soccer and your theory is clearly not a scientific theory, thus it has no place in schools or scientific journals.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

#1) Yes, the only way to know for sure is to build a time machine. Since that is ludicrous then that should give you some clue as to how it is an exaggeration to say "the answer" has already been provided. It hasn't, there has only been speculation and from that point you need to determine the value of the speculation. We are dealing with "best" guesses that could very well be wrong or flawed. And that does not constitute a concreate answer that should cast aside all reasonable doubt on the matter.

I never claimed "the answer" has been provided. At best we'll be able to infer reasonable scenarios based on available data.

#2) GodDidIt. My evidence is based on personal reasoning just as the counter evidence is based on personal reasoning. I believe it is too improbable that random mutations and natural selection could have produced a process such as this. And if that is the case it is evidence that the theory of evolution and natural selection is wrong. However, I'm not the only one who agrees with this assesment:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

-Darwin, C. (1872) Origin of Species, 6th ed. (1988), New York University Press, New York, p. 154.
​

I just happen to believe that blood clotting is a case that cannot be adequately described as having evolved from numerous, slight modifications. Evolutionists seem to always ask me to believe that natural selection and random mutation has won a successive series of California lotteries since the beginning of time, I have a hard time accepting that level of faith in evolution.

As far as I see it you only have two alternatives to explain the complexity and diversification of life. 1) EvolutionDidIt, or 2) GodDidIt. And in the reasoning of Sherlock Holmes: When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. I believe it is impossible for random mutations guided by natural selection to create the blood clotting cascade. Therefore, I believe it was created by God.

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.

 

[ChrisS]

Well can we do the experiments or not? That's the point. If the theory is not in the frame of science, then it is not a scientific theory. It could be completely true, but it can't be classified as a science unless it can be done in the realm of a scientific theory.

Think of it like a soccer match. Scientific theory have a set of rules and that must be followed like the boundaries, not being able to use your hands, and penalties for things like offsides. If your theory doesn't follow these rules, if you want to pick the ball up with your hands, if you want to go out of bounds and maintain possession, then you're clearly not playing soccer and your theory is clearly not a scientific theory, thus it has no place in schools or scientific journals.

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.

 

[ChrisS]

I never claimed "the answer" has been provided. At best we'll be able to infer reasonable scenarios based on available data.



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.

I spent the last few post providing an answer.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I spent the last few post providing an answer.

You gave an answer, but you didn't give an explanation. I want the explanation.

 

[gluadys]

That's not what I'm saying though, I'm talking about God literally creating the process in one day like it says in the bible. Really it depends on interpretation.

In my interpretation those quotes you just shown are completely contradictory. I'm not saying that God couldn't have used evolution, just saying that he more than likely didn't, unless it evolved after the fall.

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

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

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

 

[ChrisS]

You gave an answer, but you didn't give an explanation. I want the explanation.

The last few posts were explanations, re-read them. They are valid. Simply saying they aren't won't convince me, give me the explanation to why my last few posts aren't explanations.

 

[ChrisS]

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

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

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

Yes, it's pretty much the exact same visa versa.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

The last few posts were explanations, re-read them. They are valid. Simply saying they aren't won't convince me, give me the explanation to why my last few posts aren't explanations.

Because they don't explain how.

For example, you said, "Take apart DNA, like I said earlier, whats it made of? That's the answer to how DNA was made. Abiogenesis may of had a part in it.".

Let me give you a counter example. Say I want to know how a cake was made. Do you think it is acceptable for me to say, "Take apart the cake. There's your answer to how the cake was made." Do you see what's wrong with that as an explanation of how to make a cake?

 

[ChrisS]

Because they don't explain how.

For example, you said, "Take apart DNA, like I said earlier, whats it made of? That's the answer to how DNA was made. Abiogenesis may of had a part in it.".

Let me give you a counter example. Say I want to know how a cake was made. Do you think it is acceptable for me to say, "Take apart the cake. There's your answer to how the cake was made." Do you see what's wrong with that as an explanation of how to make a cake?

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.

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

 

[gluadys]

My evidence is based on personal reasoning just as the counter evidence is based on personal reasoning. I believe it is too improbable ... And if that is the case it is evidence that ...

I just happen to believe ... I have a hard time accepting that level of faith ...

As far as I see it you only have two alternatives to explain the complexity and diversification of life. 1) EvolutionDidIt, or 2) GodDidIt.

I believe it is impossible... Therefore, I believe it was created by God.

In short, the sum total of your reasoning is based on a false dichotomy (only two alternatives) and personal incredulity.

One of the missing alternatives you might consider is that GodDidIt using evolution. Evolution, after all, is not atheism.

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

-Darwin, C. (1872) Origin of Species, 6th ed. (1988), New York University Press, New York, p. 154.
​

Since you are apparently familiar with this sentence, I expect you also know that Darwin's very next sentence was: "But I can find out no such case."

 

[gluadys]

Yes, it's pretty much the exact same visa versa.

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