How did blood clotting evolve?

[Ninja Turtles]

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

You told me what? Did you give me an answer on whether God is falsifiable?

 

[Ninja Turtles]

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.

That's of no concern in evolution. Evolution is about the mechanism. You can't measure whether God did it or not, God is not falsifiable, thus you can't say it plays a part in science. Personally you can do whatever you want, but in terms of science, it is agnostic on the issue of God's involvement/non-involvement.

 

[ChrisS]

You told me what? Did you give me an answer on whether God is falsifiable?

Oh, I thought you meant something else.

No, he isn't, he's provable, but not falseifiable. However, are these rules or guide lines?

 

[ChrisS]

That's of no concern in evolution. Evolution is about the mechanism. You can't measure whether God did it or not, God is not falsifiable, thus you can't say it plays a part in science. Personally you can do whatever you want, but in terms of science, it is agnostic on the issue of God's involvement/non-involvement.

So your saying that science purposely excludes God? God's provable though. So, though you can provide other theories, that doesn't disprove him. My theory is provable, and will be proven, so God can enter science, or course, only as a fact.

 

[gluadys]

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.

So how did God program in the capability to vary and adapt? What is there in living beings that gives them this capacity?

I would suggest that this is God's program:

1. Give living beings a genetic base for characteristics which changes from time to time, thus producing variations in their morphology. IOW a mutating genome.

2. Provide for those organisms which are best adapted to the current environment to have a higher rate of surviving offspring. IOW natural selection.

Mutation + natural selection (or any other mechanism which allows for differential reproductive success) = evolution.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

Oh, I thought you meant something else.

No, he isn't, he's provable, but not falseifiable. However, are these rules or guide lines?

Exactly, God isn't falsifiable. For a theory to be scientific, it must be falsifiable. If it's not falsifiable it is not science. That doesn't negate your beliefs, it just means it can't be taught in a science class because rightfully so, it's not science.

 

[ChrisS]

Exactly, God isn't falsifiable. For a theory to be scientific, it must be falsifiable. If it's not falsifiable it is not science. That doesn't negate your beliefs, it just means it can't be taught in a science class because rightfully so, it's not science.

But if His existence is a fact, then yes it can be taught in science class.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

But if His existence is a fact, then yes it can be taught in science class.

How can that existence be taught? What experiments prove this existence?

 

[raphael_aa]

But if His existence is a fact, then yes it can be taught in science class.

If God's existance is a fact, what has faith got to do with anything?

 

[ChrisS]

If God's existance is a fact, what has faith got to do with anything?

I worship Him, I have a relationship with God, so he's definately fact for me.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

I worship Him, I have a relationship with God, so he's definately fact for me.

But it's not whether something is real to you or not, it's about whether you can prove that as a fact to everyone else. If it's not a phenomenom that can be reproduced repeatedly through experimentation, then it can't be taught in science. Does that mean it's all of a sudden false? No, it's just not measurable. It has to be able to be explained within the realm of the scientific method in order to enter into the equation.

 

[ChrisS]

But it's not whether something is real to you or not, it's about whether you can prove that as a fact to everyone else. If it's not a phenomenom that can be reproduced repeatedly through experimentation, then it can't be taught in science. Does that mean it's all of a sudden false? No, it's just not measurable. It has to be able to be explained within the realm of the scientific method in order to enter into the equation.

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.

 

[random_guy]

But if His existence is a fact, then yes it can be taught in science class.

ChrisS, do you ever stop to read what you post? Suppose there was a Hindu person that believed in his Gods the same way you believe in your God. Would that mean that Science classes should also teach that the Hindu's Gods exists?

What if science was done the way you think it's done. Some scientist believes that the Earth core is cool because he has a personal relationship with the Earth core's spirit and he knows it to be true. Therefore, his theory also belongs in a science class.

Tell me, do you honestly believe that science classes should teach that your God exists, and do you understand the rammifications of what will happen if we allow your beliefs into science?

 

[ChrisS]

ChrisS, do you ever stop to read what you post? Suppose there was a Hindu person that believed in his Gods the same way you believe in your God. Would that mean that Science classes should also teach that the Hindu's Gods exists?

What if science was done the way you think it's done. Some scientist believes that the Earth core is cool because he has a personal relationship with the Earth core's spirit and he knows it to be true. Therefore, his theory also belongs in a science class.

Tell me, do you honestly believe that science classes should teach that your God exists, and do you understand the rammifications of what will happen if we allow your beliefs into science?

Thus ID is invented.

A hindu hasn't made any scientific claims, so it must not be taught in science class.

However, ID, as I have explained it, can be taught in science class as it is scientific. Just replace God with designer, or something, maybe even natural selection! It is a perfectly scientific claim.

And yes, I do re-read my posts, several times in fact.

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

I worship Him, I have a relationship with God, so he's definately fact for me.

the simple fact is, science does not say anything about god... one way or the other... it can't, unless your god can be quantified and measured... if an apple falls on someone's head, we do experiments, look at available evidence, and find out why it fell. if a christian wants to say that god created gravity, that is fine.

any scientific explanation is BY NECCESITY devoid of a supernatural explanation. we cannot say anything scientifically about the supernatural, because if we can, it isn't supernatural, just natural that we didn't understand yet. this is NOT to say that god isn't involved... or doesn't exist... we simply could not begin to explain what role god had in whatever process we are looking at. evolution is NOT an attack on god, it is an explanation of all the evidence. it doesn't say god doesn't exist, nothing of the sort. science deals with natural phenomenon... the supernatural does not fit...

 

[gluadys]

I worship Him, I have a relationship with God, so he's definately fact for me.

The key words are "to me". Lots of people, including myself, claim a relationship with God that makes his existence true "to me".

But something that is true "to me", yet cannot be shown to you, is a subjective truth.

For something to be scientifically true, it must be inter-subjective truth. It must be seen by everyone who examines the evidence to be true.

So what evidence is there, that can be shown to everyone, that God exists?

 

[raphael_aa]

Thus ID is invented.

A hindu hasn't made any scientific claims, so it must not be taught in science class.

However, ID, as I have explained it, can be taught in science class as it is scientific. Just replace God with designer, or something, maybe even natural selection! It is a perfectly scientific claim.

And yes, I do re-read my posts, several times in fact.

Chris,

you seem to have strange ideas about what science is. Primarily science is a methodology, a way of looking at the world and drawing conclusions. Ideas can't be scientific in themselves.

 

[ChrisS]

the simple fact is, science does not say anything about god... one way or the other... it can't, unless your god can be quantified and measured... if an apple falls on someone's head, we do experiments, look at available evidence, and find out why it fell. if a christian wants to say that god created gravity, that is fine.

any scientific explanation is BY NECCESITY devoid of a supernatural explanation. we cannot say anything scientifically about the supernatural, because if we can, it isn't supernatural, just natural that we didn't understand yet. this is NOT to say that god isn't involved... or doesn't exist... we simply could not begin to explain what role god had in whatever process we are looking at. evolution is NOT an attack on god, it is an explanation of all the evidence. it doesn't say god doesn't exist, nothing of the sort. science deals with natural phenomenon... the supernatural does not fit...

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

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

what actions of god can we measure?

 

[ChrisS]

what actions of god can we measure?

Our creation.