What to talk about...

[juvenissun]

Depends what evidence was presented. But either way, as I said before, reconciling the two is a matter of finding no contradiction; if there's a contradiction, something's wrong. So I'd look at the science and I'd look at my theology. I'd think long and hard until I determined what had to give. I've done it before and, if necessary, I'll do it again. I refuse to knowingly believe a lie.

OK, now that I've answered your question, how about you answer some of mine?

I would be exceedingly glad to share some of my understanding to you. But it seems this thread is not the place for it (I have done that frequently in the Origin Theology forum). Just let you feel it, Biblical author used a term: "spring in the sea". What do you think about it? Is it a reasonable term used at the time of the author?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Are you saying that science could NOT prove that there is no God?

Great, I wish you can broadcast it. I may even contribute some money for this work.

So, you have nothing to back up your original claim, then? Care to do the honest, Christian thing, and retract it?

 

[juvenissun]

In most other developed countries, creationists are a vanishing small minority, and most don't try to wedge their notions into the educational system, as they know they would be doomed to failure from the start.

Creationism thrives in different forms/contents in all countries on earth. It is a innate recognition of all human beings. Creationism is not monopolized by Christian.

 

[juvenissun]

So, you have nothing to back up your original claim, then? Care to do the honest, Christian thing, and retract it?

Sorry that I forgot what I said. Please remind it to me.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Sorry that I forgot what I said. Please remind it to me.

Sure, it went a little something like this:

"What would you do if people (include yourself) challenge your faith by science? There is no shortage of such people in this forum. Would that disturb your reconciliation between science and God?"

Since science makes no challenge to the existence of God via science, there is nothing that needs reconciling, and your question is moot.

Unless, of course, you were referring to your faith in something besides the existence of God -- something you've put in His place. That would need some seriuous reconciliation, but I doubt science would be much help to you there.

 

[juvenissun]

Sure, it went a little something like this:

"What would you do if people (include yourself) challenge your faith by science? There is no shortage of such people in this forum. Would that disturb your reconciliation between science and God?"

Since science makes no challenge to the existence of God via science, there is nothing that needs reconciling, and your question is moot.

Unless, of course, you were referring to your faith in something besides the existence of God -- something you've put in His place. That would need some seriuous reconciliation, but I doubt science would be much help to you there.

If you do not challenge God by science. That is perfect for me (and for you).

But (A LOT OF) people just do that. If you do not agree that science can challenge God, then those people are just doing that illogically. A common format of it is: Because of this and that (scientific facts/theories), so there is no God.

In the case of self-challenge, it is a reality check (is God real?). Logic (science) argument is solid. Many things related to God are not logical. So, the challenge is right there. To reconcile logic idea with illogic concept is never easy. If successful, it is called Faith.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Juvenissun, how do you think ions got into the oceans? were they always there?

1. through the dissolution power of water

That's essentially what i stated previously. The water dissolved minerals trapped in rock and that water washed into the ocean from the land via runoff and from the rivers via estuaries. I guess the only things you would have issue with is what event(s) would cause that and how long it would take.

 

[juvenissun]

I agree it's a very complex issue. That's one reason why I don't believe in a single-factor explanation. Though, would you mind enlightening me? What do these "controls of physics/astronomy" have to do with the Cambrian?

I did not do any literature search on that. The reason I said it is because people called astronomical feature (more than just the orbiting/rotation of the earth) for the explanation of Ice Ages. So, it would be perfectly reasonable to speculate the similar for an even bigger change like the Cambrian Explosion.

There is no need to explain any possible control by physics. It has to be there.

 

[juvenissun]

I suggest you learn about them, then. Chromosome two and endogenous retroviruses are among the best pieces of evidence for our common ancestry with other apes.

One issue shows beyond reasonable doubt that chimps humans are related by descent. If those 99 other issues are to make a difference they should invalidate the evidence of the other 1 and not just pose unanswered questions about the details.

Very much so, but not only. As MasterOfKrikkit said, it's also a matter of nurture. (I wonder how much of the linguistic and cognitive capability of apes like Kanzi or Koko, or the parrots Alex and Griffin, would've developed if they weren't taught by humans)

Which gene is responsible for your height? The answer to both questions is: many genes. This is simply because intelligence is a very complex phenomenon, a composite of many abilities and needs a big brain with a complex structure, biochemistry and physiology. No way to make that all with one gene.

OK, I browsed the Chromosome 2 on the wikipedia. So, the difference between ape and human is on that chromosome.

And we also know how much differences are there between ape and human. So does that say Chromosome 2 is responsible for all the differences? If not, than what is the point of the argument? Even all the Chromosomes are the same, ape and human are still very different. Two things are "very similar" does not mean one is derived from the other.

Why do you say this piece of evidence is VERY strong for evolution?

 

[Skaloop]

OK, I browsed the Chromosome 2 on the wikipedia. So, the difference between ape and human is on that chromosome.

No. If that's what you got from it, then you need to work on your reading comprehension.

Chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes. It says nothing about the differences between humans and apes, but it does speak to their common ancestry.

 

[juvenissun]

That's essentially what i stated previously. The water dissolved minerals trapped in rock and that water washed into the ocean from the land via runoff and from the rivers via estuaries. I guess the only things you would have issue with is what event(s) would cause that and how long it would take.

RAIN !!! That is a magic process which God makes it sustain on the earth.

Besides, you overlooked one source of water: spring in the deep ocean. That type of water does not need to pass over the "land".

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

That's essentially what i stated previously. The water dissolved minerals trapped in rock and that water washed into the ocean from the land via runoff and from the rivers via estuaries. I guess the only things you would have issue with is what event(s) would cause that and how long it would take.

RAIN !!! That is a magic process which God makes it sustain on the earth.

again we arent talking about different things. from wikipedia:

runoff is a term used to describe the flow of water, from rain, snowmelt, or other sources, over the land and is a major component of the water cycle

Besides, you overlooked one source of water: spring in the deep ocean. That type of water does not need to pass over the "land".

That is only relevant to this discussion if the apropriate ions are ejected by these springs. If im not mistaken they mostly spew sulfur. Most of the rock that would contain such ions(i.e. limestone) gets into the water over the land.

 

[Nathan Poe]

If you do not challenge God by science. That is perfect for me (and for you).

Of course.

But (A LOT OF) people just do that. If you do not agree that science can challenge God, then those people are just doing that illogically. A common format of it is: Because of this and that (scientific facts/theories), so there is no God.

Such people are fools -- but no more foolish than the ones trying to use science to prove God's existence/involvement.

But can that compare to the sheer folly of those who attempt to reduce "God" to the simplest terms, claiming that God is, and can only be, (for example) that which is described in a certain ancient book?

In the case of self-challenge, it is a reality check (is God real?). Logic (science) argument is solid. Many things related to God are not logical. So, the challenge is right there. To reconcile logic idea with illogic concept is never easy. If successful, it is called Faith.

I disagree -- the kind of faith you're referring to exists in the absence of logic -- there's little, if anything, to reconcile.

 

[Vene]

RAIN !!! That is a magic process which God makes it sustain on the earth.

Besides, you overlooked one source of water: spring in the deep ocean. That type of water does not need to pass over the "land".

Did you just call the water cycle magic? Wow, you're dense. Even the kids in my mother's fifth grade class know about the water cycle.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Are you saying that science could NOT prove that there is no God?

Great, I wish you can broadcast it. I may even contribute some money for your work.

We can prove that no god is needed in geology, evolution, star formation etc. We can also prove that the Old Testament is a pile of horse manure.

And please do not go down the road of “the god of the gaps”

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

RAIN !!! That is a magic process which God makes it sustain on the earth.

Besides, you overlooked one source of water: spring in the deep ocean. That type of water does not need to pass over the "land".

I would have to admit that the hydrological cycle is impressive, but to call it magic is taking it a bit far, particularly as we have an excellent understanding of how it works.

Keep your magic for things mystical like “god did not need to be created because he always existed”

See the flaw in religious horse manure, the universe needs a creator but god does not.

the hydrological cycle ​

 

[edrogati]

We can prove that no god is needed in geology, evolution, star formation etc. We can also prove that the Old Testament is a pile of horse manure.

And please do not go down the road of “the god of the gaps”

There's still a large difference between "no god is needed" and there is no god. I understand the principle of acting as if there is no god because "no god is needed", but I don't buy it. I'll leave you to your "pile of horse manure" theory.

As I've said before, God is more than a god of just the gaps, so I won't go down that road.

 

[Naraoia]

I did not do any literature search on that. The reason I said it is because people called astronomical feature (more than just the orbiting/rotation of the earth) for the explanation of Ice Ages. So, it would be perfectly reasonable to speculate the similar for an even bigger change like the Cambrian Explosion.

I see. As far as I can tell it's entirely possible that something like that was at play (for example with the snowball earth Baggins(?) mentioned).

There is no need to explain any possible control by physics. It has to be there.

Then why mention it? Unless there was something special about physics at the time, it's not where we would be looking for the explanation. It's like saying we mustn't forget that the sun rose in the east back then. It probably did, but that won't help us explain the CE.

 

[juvenissun]

No. If that's what you got from it, then you need to work on your reading comprehension.

Chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes. It says nothing about the differences between humans and apes, but it does speak to their common ancestry.

I don't know much about the details. But it is not hard to ask question based on common sense:

If this feature is a strong evidence of evolution, then should we see more cases on this process on other evolving species? Why is this one unique?

 

[juvenissun]

again we arent talking about different things. from wikipedia:


That is only relevant to this discussion if the apropriate ions are ejected by these springs. If im not mistaken they mostly spew sulfur. Most of the rock that would contain such ions(i.e. limestone) gets into the water over the land.

It is not true.

But I will stop here since this is not the place to go too far from the topic. Besides, I have answered your question.