But no child has the same fingerprints as anyone on earth....DNA is different...there might be commonalities between a child and parent they get through genes but every human being on earth is different...there have never been two people identically the same. Identical twins don't have the same fingerprints but have the same DNA.
Every human is indeed different, but not as different as you might think. We can see differences in personality or the shape of the face or height or posture, but that's nothing compared to what's the same: every aspect of their biochemistry is practically identical, and that's a lot of stuff right there. A parent is virtually identical to the child; the differences we humans can see are absolutely minuscule compared to the similarities.
I am interested to a point. We will never agree because our worldviews are opposite. I won't budge and I am sure you won't. You seen very confident and I believe that Christ is the only way and the Truth. I am not going to sit and read pages of scientific theory that I don't get.
Well, that's point of the thread - to ask questions about science and technology, and to understand what you don't as yet understand. And, as it happens, I'm more than happy to budge. I'm a scientist, and one of our core skills is the ability to swiftly and unashamedly change our minds, once given a sufficiently good reason. I've been proven wrong before, and I'll undoubtedly be proven wrong again - and that's a good thing, becuase otherwise I'll forever be holding on to false beliefs.
The point I made is valid. Science can't answer the big questions. At best they guess at the first cause...and like you admitted....they don't know. So we are left with a few choices. And I choose a creator. It is just as logical as what science thus far has to offer.
In the face of no evidence, I consider "I don't know" to be the logical choice. Why is "God did it" more logical if there's no evidence either way?
"First, a clarification: science is the search for truth through empiricism and logical deduction. Scientists acquire facts, then posit hypotheses to explain those facts, then make predictions from those hypotheses, then test those predictions with experiments. If the hypotheses are right, they eventurally become theories. If the predictions fail, then the hypotheses are discredited. This is the Scientific Method."
And do scientists error? Yes Do they work from a bias or viewpoint? Yes
Scientists certainly err, which is the purpose of peer review: all the other scientists scrutinise a published paper mercilessly, and only the truth is left standing. As for biases, scientists are well aware of those, and there are a lot of quite clever techniques to remove all possible bias. Clinical trials are double-blind for that very reason - no matter what the personal bias, there's no way for it to contaminate results.
And they won't ever know. God does exist and He knows everything. Science can't begin to address this question.
Why not? Why is science fundamentally incapable of accruing evidence regarding whether or not there was a first cause?
Yes, again Science does not know. Not a clue. All those brilliant scientists and no answer. How long have they been working on this one?
There are clear mechanical and technological limitations on experimenting with such things. Primarily, we simply can't recreate the conditions of the early universe to probe what happened back then - but that's why the LHC was built, to recreate such conditions.
Sure and some humans kill their own. But we do not crawl around on the earth as the animals do...so to say we are living like they are is absurd. We do not live or at least it is not accepted that society live based on ......"the survival of the fittest." People help people and we have laws that prevent this from happening.
At one time if we were one in the same.......how on earth did we end up looking like we did.....and the monkey and ape.....we see in zoos.....still look the same?
Yes. Ever seen a chimp with no fur? They look pretty much like old men. Humans and chimps have certainly diversified, but our similarities are staggering.
We are civilized, we have morals......animals do not.
Darwin was a racist...his theory racist. He would be horse whipped if he made the statements he did then today. He also was sexist. His theories that the black race would die out......was totally wrong. Or do you think he was right and in the end...they will die out..and be overtaken by the white race? Seems to me the black race is doing fine. Boy there were people however that ran with his theories (Hitler and Margaret Sanger) and set upon making his theory happen.
On the contrary, Darwin and his theory made great strives to show the races were, in fact, very similar. The culture of the time was extremely racist; Abraham Lincoln, despite advocating freeing the slaves, was quite firm that the black race was in all ways inferior to the white race. Darwin was not racist - rather, he explicitly argued
against racist ideology, and his theory only served to show that the races were not distinct species but nothing more than subtle blends of skin colour, that the intellect of white and black people was virtually (if not exactly) identical, that both white and black people are descendants from the same ancestors, etc. Primarily, he showed that it is culture, not biology, that accounts for differences in intellect.
Darwin himself remarked, "I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the "Beagle," with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate." - though he had always been taught that black people were inferior, his experiences with them, especially in light of his thoughts on evolution, showed white and black people were practically identical.
So, no, I do not agree that either Darwin or evolution are implicitly or explicitly racist; rather, they are the ground upon which racial equality walked. And besides, even
if Darwin was racist (he wasn't), that wouldn't change the veracity of evolution.
Not really. People overtake governments to survive. They want to wipe out religions to survive. Who competes in our country for food? Sure we have homeless.....but most Americans have a roof over their heads.
What is the cause of violence in relation to evolution? Isn't is directly connected to evolution? We are animals.....we want to survive....so look out I have a right to kill you for my own survival?
Would killing me help you survive? No. Therefore, you have no right to kill me. If we were ever in a situation where murder is essential for survival, then there are laws to excuse such actions - those lost at sea who resort to cannibalism to survive are often seen in a pitiable light. Murder for no reason is inexcusable, but for reasons of necessity (self-defence, for instance) it can often be excused.
Im not talking about traits....as in hair color or height or build...I am talking about emotional makeup....the inside drive will of a human being. More importantly a moral code....why we do the things we do.
If you're not talking about traits, then you're not talking about survival of the fittest. As I said, the phrase is used for something quite specific indeed, and it is often misunderstood to have something to do with social eugenics.
So why are they wrong based on evolution? If we all evolved and are different...then who is to say that anyones morals are wrong? If I want to sleep with your husband is that wrong? Hey I might have lost mine and have starving children and he said he would give me money. Would stealing files from my doctors office and giving the information to someone who might be hurt by someones records.....is that wrong? How does evolution address this? No God...no morals......we are just animals. No moral absolutes in evolution?
Indeed, but not for the reason you think. Evolution is a scientific theory explaining the origin of biodiversity. It has nothing to do with morals, except insofar as it can explain certain biological drives (such as altruism). It is no more related to morality than Einstein's theory of General Relativity.
What is necessity? Mine might be different than yours. And by evolutionary standards......we both are right.
On the contrary, evolution is silent on the issue of who's right.
Explain as in factual or guess? It should be easy for the evolutionist because none of what you just posted should matter like you said. Altuism gene? How about passing the "I am a terrorist and gonna blow up the Twin Towers" or passing the "I am a serial killer gene"?
As I said, there are moral urges that have evolved, but culture can twist them into something altogether different. How do you think terrorist leaders convince people to blow themselves up? By convincing them that it's the right thing to do, that it will save their friends and families. In essence, they take the benign 'altruism' urge and twist it into something evil. Even though the terrorist leaders know its wrong, they trick others into thinking its right by preying on these otherwise quite moral urges.
As I said, culture is a far bigger influence on behaviour than instincts.
I don't believe they evolved and of course you just include them because you have too but you can't exlain the W's. How was evil born? How was good born? Why?
You want be to believe that they just evolved?
'Good' and 'evil' weren't born. They're labels used to describe actions. "Killing is evil", "Charity is good", that sort of thing. We have these labels because we have instinctive, gut feelings that such-and-such an action is 'right' - and these instincts have evolutionary origins. Culture can twist those base instincts and change what we view of right and wrong, convince us that killing is right by preying on the more basal instinct of protecting one's family. Culture can do that, and that, my friend, is the origin of evil - influential people convincing others to do something that they themselves would otherwise have considered wrong.
But what created the energy that created the hydrogen etc? And the energy that produced the energy what created that? What was the first cause......
The energy that created these basal elements, hydrogen and helium, stems ultimately from the singularity wherein all matter in the universe was condensed. When that came from, or if it came from anywhere at all, is presently unknown to us. Nonetheless, we can trace back the biodiversity of life to that first lipid bubble full of polymers, and we can trace those back to simple molecules in a warm ocean, and we can trace those back further still. The current barrier is the singularity - but there's no reason to suppose that, in the future, we won't be able to probe further still.
and why are we here? What purpose did evolution benefit?
Evolution is was happens when replicators replicate inaccurately. It doesn't serve a benefit or purpose, it just happens, as inexorably as gravity.
How did all this happen and in PERFECT HARMONY. The stars aligned just right mathematically....
What do you mean, they "aligned just right mathematically"?
and the design of the eye.
What about it? It has a very well-understood biological origin. I can explain it in depth if you like, but this post is already quite long.
Evolution....all happened by random chance? To believe all this happened by chance.....takes a lot of faith to believe.
Indeed, which is why no one believes it happened by change - it is chance coupled with selection mechanisms. It's the latter that drives these changes to occur. Random mutation varies individuals from the mean, and then selection mechanisms push the population one way or the other.
What created the first molecule? Big Bang........what happens when something explodes? Do things come together or do they blow up ? So out of an explosion....the eye was formed.....our morals....humans......animals......our bodies working in perfect harmony...our organs.....come on. How far fetched is this kind of thinking? I look at nature...and I see things growing old, they die and decay....they lose stucture. Evolution says however that things develop in complexity and stucture.
You seem to be conflating a lot of different issues and terms, so I'll address them seperately.
First, the Big Bang wasn't an explosion - it is the term for the continuing expansion of space, time, and energy from a singularity that occurred 13.5 billion years ago. To draw analogies from earthly explosions is rather missing the point.
Second, it is not at all far-fetched to believe that, from those humble beginnings, the complexities of life formed. That's why science is replete with
theories: explanations of how this or that occurred. From the Big Bang, we can explain the formation of stars and galaxies, planets and moons, simple molecules, complex molecules, simple cells, all the way up to big complex animals like us. The explanations are
there, my friend.
Thought you said the first cause is not known? What is the first cause? A cell just doesn't appear. What caused the first life. And how did it come about if nothing before it was alive? Can you make a rock come alive?
I already explained, in quite some depth, how the first life came to be. Remember my explanation of the lipid bubble filled with polymers? That, for all intents and purposes, was the first living thing. Or the precursor to the first living thing.
Do unto others.......evolved? Yea right. Does everyone live by that motto? No
Why don't they if morals evolved and we all are the same?
Obviously, because we're
not all the same. Our morals are evolved, but our culture is not. We share the same basal instincts and urges, from "I'm hungry and need to eat" to "That's my kid and I'll protect her to the death", but culture can twist those into quite unusual ends.
