Welcome to Gaia! ::

Batyah
Vannak
Batyah
hmm odd question. part of science is to question. but have you ever questioned evulution, like pretended you were on the other side of this deabate? I know i have questioned creation, and hence why im curious what you see in evolution. But have you? like really trully questioned?


There was a time when irreducible complexity, human advanced intelligence, language, altruism, and other "counters" of evolution were arguments I didn't know how to address. I looked into these and I found answers over time. The thing I always noticed about those calling for creationism and intelligence design was how dishonestly and poorly they argued.

I tried to look for the best creationist and intelligent design arguments. However it became very quickly apparent to me that they're not simply wrong, but they're systematically wrong. They're trying to come into science with out putting up the necessary risk. I've never heard a creationist or intelligent design proponent say "This experiment, if it doesn't work how I say, will disprove creationism/ID". Ever. (well, sometimes they will if the experiment has already been done, but that's nothing.)

When you read about the history of science you see a lot of people saying "If we don't see this then the theory we like is wrong". Einstein did this with his famous eclipse prediction, Darwin's theory relied on some way of transmitting codes for building bodies to offspring (DNA and genetics hadn't been discovered yet!).

The only other kind of argument I accepct is that from mathematical accuracy. For instance, Newton derived the path of elliptical orbits from mathematical principles, and you have good reason to think those principles are correct.

Creationism and ID simply have never done this. Incidentally, this isn't something I hold especially true for creationism / ID, I also have a particular uneasiness about psychology being called a science, as well as many other "social" sciences. I also don't like a few popular scientific ideas such as the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and string theory.
weird, what you see in creationists i see in evolutionists. we arent that much diffrent in seeing the world. agreed on the many worlds stuff. Watched a vid on it in physics when we had a sub, im like they prove nothing just say so much.

The only difference really is that evolution can actually answer many of your questions and creationism simply just says it is what it is. It's a pretty poor explination becuse it doesn't converge anything.

What I mean by converge is that in physics, 3 of our 4 fundamental forces, at high enough energy, are the same thing. Falling objects and orbits are the same thing, Dissolving salt and electrolysis of water are the same thing.

We have this pattern set up that the rest of the universe follows: Things react very differently to the same kind of forces in nature, and that produces a lot of complexity. Evolution does this: The variation we see is simply the outcome of many different ways of surviving, like orbits and falling are two ways of being pulled by gravity. That kind of converging is fundamental to understanding things, and creationism can't explain, like in your last post, why we have tail bones at all!

The answer is because we stopped living in trees, like all the rest of the apes which are closely related to monkeys but don't have tails. (We are apes, remember! This has been known for a while before Darwin even came onto the scene).
Batyah's avatar

Shameless Worshipper

7,800 Points
  • Prayer Circle 200
  • Invisibility 100
  • Autobiographer 200
Vannak
Batyah
Vannak
Batyah
hmm odd question. part of science is to question. but have you ever questioned evulution, like pretended you were on the other side of this deabate? I know i have questioned creation, and hence why im curious what you see in evolution. But have you? like really trully questioned?


There was a time when irreducible complexity, human advanced intelligence, language, altruism, and other "counters" of evolution were arguments I didn't know how to address. I looked into these and I found answers over time. The thing I always noticed about those calling for creationism and intelligence design was how dishonestly and poorly they argued.

I tried to look for the best creationist and intelligent design arguments. However it became very quickly apparent to me that they're not simply wrong, but they're systematically wrong. They're trying to come into science with out putting up the necessary risk. I've never heard a creationist or intelligent design proponent say "This experiment, if it doesn't work how I say, will disprove creationism/ID". Ever. (well, sometimes they will if the experiment has already been done, but that's nothing.)

When you read about the history of science you see a lot of people saying "If we don't see this then the theory we like is wrong". Einstein did this with his famous eclipse prediction, Darwin's theory relied on some way of transmitting codes for building bodies to offspring (DNA and genetics hadn't been discovered yet!).

The only other kind of argument I accepct is that from mathematical accuracy. For instance, Newton derived the path of elliptical orbits from mathematical principles, and you have good reason to think those principles are correct.

Creationism and ID simply have never done this. Incidentally, this isn't something I hold especially true for creationism / ID, I also have a particular uneasiness about psychology being called a science, as well as many other "social" sciences. I also don't like a few popular scientific ideas such as the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and string theory.
weird, what you see in creationists i see in evolutionists. we arent that much diffrent in seeing the world. agreed on the many worlds stuff. Watched a vid on it in physics when we had a sub, im like they prove nothing just say so much.

The only difference really is that evolution can actually answer many of your questions and creationism simply just says it is what it is. It's a pretty poor explination becuse it doesn't converge anything.

What I mean by converge is that in physics, 3 of our 4 fundamental forces, at high enough energy, are the same thing. Falling objects and orbits are the same thing, Dissolving salt and electrolysis of water are the same thing.

We have this pattern set up that the rest of the universe follows: Things react very differently to the same kind of forces in nature, and that produces a lot of complexity. Evolution does this: The variation we see is simply the outcome of many different ways of surviving, like orbits and falling are two ways of being pulled by gravity. That kind of converging is fundamental to understanding things, and creationism can't explain, like in your last post, why we have tail bones at all!

The answer is because we stopped living in trees, like all the rest of the apes which are closely related to monkeys but don't have tails. (We are apes, remember! This has been known for a while before Darwin even came onto the scene).
there are scientific things in the bible
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
but the bible was not made for science it was made as a love letter, and basic instructions for us
2. i think you may be confusing different types of science, hmm let see if i can put this strait
creation= God created everything, loves us, and is in control (even if it seems He is not)(that also vary depending on how people think, nut you get the idea)
science= physics, such as study of energy movement etc
chemistry=study of reactions, and elements etc
biology=study of life on earth
anatomy=study of the human body etc
and many other categories
then cant forget evolution, or opposite of creation= big bang, we came from monkeys, and soup, we are our own gods, adaptation, (side note:takes from other sciences, and visa versa )

also 2 side notes
one is this vid, basically pointing out people who have the money are very biased to one side vs what the evidences says, this is not proof just an example from someone in the science field
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUgbzPPqE_E&feature=share
2, i find it ironic that at the almost base of our structures is this
http://www.southasianconnection.com/articles/388/1/Laminin---The-Cell-Adhesion-Molecule-That-Holds-Us-Together-Is-In-The-Shape-Of-The-CROSS/Page1.html
Masiakasaurus's avatar

Dapper Conversationalist

Batyah
hmm ok if we came from monkeys, with prehensile tails, according to how our tail bone is shaped and my science book. they why did we lose the tail is it is so useful to the monkeys we see to day with prehensile tails?

Monkeys and their ancestors came out of the trees for a number of reasons. One, increased brain size meant a heavier head, which made the arboreal lifestyle harder (more weight meant a greater risk of falling and a greater risk of injury if you did fall). Two, changing climate resulted in jungle and forest gradually turning to desert and plain. As groves of trees became smaller and more dispersed, monkeys were forced to increasingly travel long distance on the ground, which led to increased bipedalism and a more upright stance. A prehensile tail isn't an advantage to a biped on the plains, so they got shorter and eventually vanished, giving rise to apes and, eventually, humans.

We still have vestigial traces of a tail which serve no biological function (but they're super brittle and break easily). Likewise, our tonsils and appendix, the latter of which pretty much does nothing but kill us when it gets inflamed.
Batyah's avatar

Shameless Worshipper

7,800 Points
  • Prayer Circle 200
  • Invisibility 100
  • Autobiographer 200
Masiakasaurus
Batyah
hmm ok if we came from monkeys, with prehensile tails, according to how our tail bone is shaped and my science book. they why did we lose the tail is it is so useful to the monkeys we see to day with prehensile tails?

Monkeys and their ancestors came out of the trees for a number of reasons. One, increased brain size meant a heavier head, which made the arboreal lifestyle harder (more weight meant a greater risk of falling and a greater risk of injury if you did fall). Two, changing climate resulted in jungle and forest gradually turning to desert and plain. As groves of trees became smaller and more dispersed, monkeys were forced to increasingly travel long distance on the ground, which led to increased bipedalism and a more upright stance. A prehensile tail isn't an advantage to a biped on the plains, so they got shorter and eventually vanished, giving rise to apes and, eventually, humans.

We still have vestigial traces of a tail which serve no biological function (but they're super brittle and break easily). Likewise, our tonsils and appendix, the latter of which pretty much does nothing but kill us when it gets inflamed.

we need out tail bone
http://www.ehow.com/about_4595962_the-tail-bone.html
and the tonsils are part of the lymphatic system, helps move the lympgh, and it the starting process of cleaning out bad crap,
http://www.ehow.com/list_6123048_functions-tonsils_.html

also you need your appendix
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008102334.htm
and thank you , you are the first to ever answer the monkey tail question, but i think it would still be use full to grab thing like say a car door when carrying groceries
Masiakasaurus's avatar

Dapper Conversationalist

Batyah
we need out tail bone
http://www.ehow.com/about_4595962_the-tail-bone.html
and the tonsils are part of the lymphatic system, helps move the lympgh, and it the starting process of cleaning out bad crap,
http://www.ehow.com/list_6123048_functions-tonsils_.html

also you need your appendix
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008102334.htm
and thank you , you are the first to ever answer the monkey tail question, but i think it would still be use full to grab thing like say a car door when carrying groceries

You don't need your tonsils or your appendix; they have somewhat useful functions that are redundant and certainly not worth the trouble they cause (again, the appendix literally can kill you, and people can live without it with no harmful effect). The tailbone's function is pretty limited, and it isn't as good at it as an extension of the pubis would be - and again it's brittle and easily injured.
Batyah's avatar

Shameless Worshipper

7,800 Points
  • Prayer Circle 200
  • Invisibility 100
  • Autobiographer 200
Masiakasaurus
Batyah
we need out tail bone
http://www.ehow.com/about_4595962_the-tail-bone.html
and the tonsils are part of the lymphatic system, helps move the lympgh, and it the starting process of cleaning out bad crap,
http://www.ehow.com/list_6123048_functions-tonsils_.html

also you need your appendix
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008102334.htm
and thank you , you are the first to ever answer the monkey tail question, but i think it would still be use full to grab thing like say a car door when carrying groceries

You don't need your tonsils or your appendix; they have somewhat useful functions that are redundant and certainly not worth the trouble they cause (again, the appendix literally can kill you, and people can live without it with no harmful effect). The tailbone's function is pretty limited, and it isn't as good at it as an extension of the pubis would be - and again it's brittle and easily injured.
also you dont need your eyes, you dont need all your limbs, or most of your liver, if your kidneys swell up it can kill you, if your liver fails it can kill you, if any of your skin get a bad enough infection it can kill you, such as cuts, your stumic can eat holes in itself and kill you. but yes you can live without tonisls or appendix, and the intestines have been known to make a new apendix if the old one is removed. also if your lymph system shuts down for not apparent reason, like in some people, it can kill you, or your heart dosent beat when its supposed to and stop for no reason, in some cases, it will kill you.
Batyah
Vannak
Batyah
Vannak
Batyah
hmm odd question. part of science is to question. but have you ever questioned evulution, like pretended you were on the other side of this deabate? I know i have questioned creation, and hence why im curious what you see in evolution. But have you? like really trully questioned?


There was a time when irreducible complexity, human advanced intelligence, language, altruism, and other "counters" of evolution were arguments I didn't know how to address. I looked into these and I found answers over time. The thing I always noticed about those calling for creationism and intelligence design was how dishonestly and poorly they argued.

I tried to look for the best creationist and intelligent design arguments. However it became very quickly apparent to me that they're not simply wrong, but they're systematically wrong. They're trying to come into science with out putting up the necessary risk. I've never heard a creationist or intelligent design proponent say "This experiment, if it doesn't work how I say, will disprove creationism/ID". Ever. (well, sometimes they will if the experiment has already been done, but that's nothing.)

When you read about the history of science you see a lot of people saying "If we don't see this then the theory we like is wrong". Einstein did this with his famous eclipse prediction, Darwin's theory relied on some way of transmitting codes for building bodies to offspring (DNA and genetics hadn't been discovered yet!).

The only other kind of argument I accepct is that from mathematical accuracy. For instance, Newton derived the path of elliptical orbits from mathematical principles, and you have good reason to think those principles are correct.

Creationism and ID simply have never done this. Incidentally, this isn't something I hold especially true for creationism / ID, I also have a particular uneasiness about psychology being called a science, as well as many other "social" sciences. I also don't like a few popular scientific ideas such as the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and string theory.
weird, what you see in creationists i see in evolutionists. we arent that much diffrent in seeing the world. agreed on the many worlds stuff. Watched a vid on it in physics when we had a sub, im like they prove nothing just say so much.

The only difference really is that evolution can actually answer many of your questions and creationism simply just says it is what it is. It's a pretty poor explination becuse it doesn't converge anything.

What I mean by converge is that in physics, 3 of our 4 fundamental forces, at high enough energy, are the same thing. Falling objects and orbits are the same thing, Dissolving salt and electrolysis of water are the same thing.

We have this pattern set up that the rest of the universe follows: Things react very differently to the same kind of forces in nature, and that produces a lot of complexity. Evolution does this: The variation we see is simply the outcome of many different ways of surviving, like orbits and falling are two ways of being pulled by gravity. That kind of converging is fundamental to understanding things, and creationism can't explain, like in your last post, why we have tail bones at all!

The answer is because we stopped living in trees, like all the rest of the apes which are closely related to monkeys but don't have tails. (We are apes, remember! This has been known for a while before Darwin even came onto the scene).
there are scientific things in the bible
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
but the bible was not made for science it was made as a love letter, and basic instructions for us
2. i think you may be confusing different types of science, hmm let see if i can put this strait
creation= God created everything, loves us, and is in control (even if it seems He is not)(that also vary depending on how people think, nut you get the idea)
science= physics, such as study of energy movement etc
chemistry=study of reactions, and elements etc
biology=study of life on earth
anatomy=study of the human body etc
and many other categories
then cant forget evolution, or opposite of creation= big bang, we came from monkeys, and soup, we are our own gods, adaptation, (side note:takes from other sciences, and visa versa )

also 2 side notes
one is this vid, basically pointing out people who have the money are very biased to one side vs what the evidences says, this is not proof just an example from someone in the science field
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUgbzPPqE_E&feature=share
2, i find it ironic that at the almost base of our structures is this
http://www.southasianconnection.com/articles/388/1/Laminin---The-Cell-Adhesion-Molecule-That-Holds-Us-Together-Is-In-The-Shape-Of-The-CROSS/Page1.html


There might be true things in the bible but it's definately not scientific. The scientific principles are absolutely not in the bible, even if the truths are in there somewhere.
Batyah's avatar

Shameless Worshipper

7,800 Points
  • Prayer Circle 200
  • Invisibility 100
  • Autobiographer 200
Vannak
Batyah
Vannak
Batyah
Vannak
Batyah
hmm odd question. part of science is to question. but have you ever questioned evulution, like pretended you were on the other side of this deabate? I know i have questioned creation, and hence why im curious what you see in evolution. But have you? like really trully questioned?


There was a time when irreducible complexity, human advanced intelligence, language, altruism, and other "counters" of evolution were arguments I didn't know how to address. I looked into these and I found answers over time. The thing I always noticed about those calling for creationism and intelligence design was how dishonestly and poorly they argued.

I tried to look for the best creationist and intelligent design arguments. However it became very quickly apparent to me that they're not simply wrong, but they're systematically wrong. They're trying to come into science with out putting up the necessary risk. I've never heard a creationist or intelligent design proponent say "This experiment, if it doesn't work how I say, will disprove creationism/ID". Ever. (well, sometimes they will if the experiment has already been done, but that's nothing.)

When you read about the history of science you see a lot of people saying "If we don't see this then the theory we like is wrong". Einstein did this with his famous eclipse prediction, Darwin's theory relied on some way of transmitting codes for building bodies to offspring (DNA and genetics hadn't been discovered yet!).

The only other kind of argument I accepct is that from mathematical accuracy. For instance, Newton derived the path of elliptical orbits from mathematical principles, and you have good reason to think those principles are correct.

Creationism and ID simply have never done this. Incidentally, this isn't something I hold especially true for creationism / ID, I also have a particular uneasiness about psychology being called a science, as well as many other "social" sciences. I also don't like a few popular scientific ideas such as the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and string theory.
weird, what you see in creationists i see in evolutionists. we arent that much diffrent in seeing the world. agreed on the many worlds stuff. Watched a vid on it in physics when we had a sub, im like they prove nothing just say so much.

The only difference really is that evolution can actually answer many of your questions and creationism simply just says it is what it is. It's a pretty poor explination becuse it doesn't converge anything.

What I mean by converge is that in physics, 3 of our 4 fundamental forces, at high enough energy, are the same thing. Falling objects and orbits are the same thing, Dissolving salt and electrolysis of water are the same thing.

We have this pattern set up that the rest of the universe follows: Things react very differently to the same kind of forces in nature, and that produces a lot of complexity. Evolution does this: The variation we see is simply the outcome of many different ways of surviving, like orbits and falling are two ways of being pulled by gravity. That kind of converging is fundamental to understanding things, and creationism can't explain, like in your last post, why we have tail bones at all!

The answer is because we stopped living in trees, like all the rest of the apes which are closely related to monkeys but don't have tails. (We are apes, remember! This has been known for a while before Darwin even came onto the scene).
there are scientific things in the bible
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
but the bible was not made for science it was made as a love letter, and basic instructions for us
2. i think you may be confusing different types of science, hmm let see if i can put this strait
creation= God created everything, loves us, and is in control (even if it seems He is not)(that also vary depending on how people think, nut you get the idea)
science= physics, such as study of energy movement etc
chemistry=study of reactions, and elements etc
biology=study of life on earth
anatomy=study of the human body etc
and many other categories
then cant forget evolution, or opposite of creation= big bang, we came from monkeys, and soup, we are our own gods, adaptation, (side note:takes from other sciences, and visa versa )

also 2 side notes
one is this vid, basically pointing out people who have the money are very biased to one side vs what the evidences says, this is not proof just an example from someone in the science field
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUgbzPPqE_E&feature=share
2, i find it ironic that at the almost base of our structures is this
http://www.southasianconnection.com/articles/388/1/Laminin---The-Cell-Adhesion-Molecule-That-Holds-Us-Together-Is-In-The-Shape-Of-The-CROSS/Page1.html


There might be true things in the bible but it's definately not scientific. The scientific principles are absolutely not in the bible, even if the truths are in there somewhere.
it was not writen to be a science book, but there are things in it that the people of the time could not have possibly known
Batyah
Vannak
Batyah
Vannak
Batyah
weird, what you see in creationists i see in evolutionists. we arent that much diffrent in seeing the world. agreed on the many worlds stuff. Watched a vid on it in physics when we had a sub, im like they prove nothing just say so much.

The only difference really is that evolution can actually answer many of your questions and creationism simply just says it is what it is. It's a pretty poor explination becuse it doesn't converge anything.

What I mean by converge is that in physics, 3 of our 4 fundamental forces, at high enough energy, are the same thing. Falling objects and orbits are the same thing, Dissolving salt and electrolysis of water are the same thing.

We have this pattern set up that the rest of the universe follows: Things react very differently to the same kind of forces in nature, and that produces a lot of complexity. Evolution does this: The variation we see is simply the outcome of many different ways of surviving, like orbits and falling are two ways of being pulled by gravity. That kind of converging is fundamental to understanding things, and creationism can't explain, like in your last post, why we have tail bones at all!

The answer is because we stopped living in trees, like all the rest of the apes which are closely related to monkeys but don't have tails. (We are apes, remember! This has been known for a while before Darwin even came onto the scene).
there are scientific things in the bible
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
but the bible was not made for science it was made as a love letter, and basic instructions for us
2. i think you may be confusing different types of science, hmm let see if i can put this strait
creation= God created everything, loves us, and is in control (even if it seems He is not)(that also vary depending on how people think, nut you get the idea)
science= physics, such as study of energy movement etc
chemistry=study of reactions, and elements etc
biology=study of life on earth
anatomy=study of the human body etc
and many other categories
then cant forget evolution, or opposite of creation= big bang, we came from monkeys, and soup, we are our own gods, adaptation, (side note:takes from other sciences, and visa versa )

also 2 side notes
one is this vid, basically pointing out people who have the money are very biased to one side vs what the evidences says, this is not proof just an example from someone in the science field
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUgbzPPqE_E&feature=share
2, i find it ironic that at the almost base of our structures is this
http://www.southasianconnection.com/articles/388/1/Laminin---The-Cell-Adhesion-Molecule-That-Holds-Us-Together-Is-In-The-Shape-Of-The-CROSS/Page1.html


There might be true things in the bible but it's definately not scientific. The scientific principles are absolutely not in the bible, even if the truths are in there somewhere.
it was not writen to be a science book, but there are things in it that the people of the time could not have possibly known
Wait. Like what? Anything that could have easily have been guessed?
Batyah's avatar

Shameless Worshipper

7,800 Points
  • Prayer Circle 200
  • Invisibility 100
  • Autobiographer 200
Vannak
Batyah
Vannak
Batyah
Vannak
Batyah
weird, what you see in creationists i see in evolutionists. we arent that much diffrent in seeing the world. agreed on the many worlds stuff. Watched a vid on it in physics when we had a sub, im like they prove nothing just say so much.

The only difference really is that evolution can actually answer many of your questions and creationism simply just says it is what it is. It's a pretty poor explination becuse it doesn't converge anything.

What I mean by converge is that in physics, 3 of our 4 fundamental forces, at high enough energy, are the same thing. Falling objects and orbits are the same thing, Dissolving salt and electrolysis of water are the same thing.

We have this pattern set up that the rest of the universe follows: Things react very differently to the same kind of forces in nature, and that produces a lot of complexity. Evolution does this: The variation we see is simply the outcome of many different ways of surviving, like orbits and falling are two ways of being pulled by gravity. That kind of converging is fundamental to understanding things, and creationism can't explain, like in your last post, why we have tail bones at all!

The answer is because we stopped living in trees, like all the rest of the apes which are closely related to monkeys but don't have tails. (We are apes, remember! This has been known for a while before Darwin even came onto the scene).
there are scientific things in the bible
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
but the bible was not made for science it was made as a love letter, and basic instructions for us
2. i think you may be confusing different types of science, hmm let see if i can put this strait
creation= God created everything, loves us, and is in control (even if it seems He is not)(that also vary depending on how people think, nut you get the idea)
science= physics, such as study of energy movement etc
chemistry=study of reactions, and elements etc
biology=study of life on earth
anatomy=study of the human body etc
and many other categories
then cant forget evolution, or opposite of creation= big bang, we came from monkeys, and soup, we are our own gods, adaptation, (side note:takes from other sciences, and visa versa )

also 2 side notes
one is this vid, basically pointing out people who have the money are very biased to one side vs what the evidences says, this is not proof just an example from someone in the science field
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUgbzPPqE_E&feature=share
2, i find it ironic that at the almost base of our structures is this
http://www.southasianconnection.com/articles/388/1/Laminin---The-Cell-Adhesion-Molecule-That-Holds-Us-Together-Is-In-The-Shape-Of-The-CROSS/Page1.html


There might be true things in the bible but it's definately not scientific. The scientific principles are absolutely not in the bible, even if the truths are in there somewhere.
it was not writen to be a science book, but there are things in it that the people of the time could not have possibly known
Wait. Like what? Anything that could have easily have been guessed?
well i shot you a site that has just a few of them, one thing that should be on there is the sun is the center of the orbit of planets not the earth
Batyah
Vannak
Batyah
Vannak
Batyah
there are scientific things in the bible
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
but the bible was not made for science it was made as a love letter, and basic instructions for us
2. i think you may be confusing different types of science, hmm let see if i can put this strait
creation= God created everything, loves us, and is in control (even if it seems He is not)(that also vary depending on how people think, nut you get the idea)
science= physics, such as study of energy movement etc
chemistry=study of reactions, and elements etc
biology=study of life on earth
anatomy=study of the human body etc
and many other categories
then cant forget evolution, or opposite of creation= big bang, we came from monkeys, and soup, we are our own gods, adaptation, (side note:takes from other sciences, and visa versa )

also 2 side notes
one is this vid, basically pointing out people who have the money are very biased to one side vs what the evidences says, this is not proof just an example from someone in the science field
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUgbzPPqE_E&feature=share
2, i find it ironic that at the almost base of our structures is this
http://www.southasianconnection.com/articles/388/1/Laminin---The-Cell-Adhesion-Molecule-That-Holds-Us-Together-Is-In-The-Shape-Of-The-CROSS/Page1.html


There might be true things in the bible but it's definately not scientific. The scientific principles are absolutely not in the bible, even if the truths are in there somewhere.
it was not writen to be a science book, but there are things in it that the people of the time could not have possibly known
Wait. Like what? Anything that could have easily have been guessed?
well i shot you a site that has just a few of them, one thing that should be on there is the sun is the center of the orbit of planets not the earth
I didn't see that anywhere in there. I honestly didn't see anything in there that's amazing someone would know at the time of writing to be honest...
Batyah's avatar

Shameless Worshipper

7,800 Points
  • Prayer Circle 200
  • Invisibility 100
  • Autobiographer 200
Vannak
Batyah
Vannak
Batyah
Vannak
Batyah
there are scientific things in the bible
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
but the bible was not made for science it was made as a love letter, and basic instructions for us
2. i think you may be confusing different types of science, hmm let see if i can put this strait
creation= God created everything, loves us, and is in control (even if it seems He is not)(that also vary depending on how people think, nut you get the idea)
science= physics, such as study of energy movement etc
chemistry=study of reactions, and elements etc
biology=study of life on earth
anatomy=study of the human body etc
and many other categories
then cant forget evolution, or opposite of creation= big bang, we came from monkeys, and soup, we are our own gods, adaptation, (side note:takes from other sciences, and visa versa )

also 2 side notes
one is this vid, basically pointing out people who have the money are very biased to one side vs what the evidences says, this is not proof just an example from someone in the science field
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUgbzPPqE_E&feature=share
2, i find it ironic that at the almost base of our structures is this
http://www.southasianconnection.com/articles/388/1/Laminin---The-Cell-Adhesion-Molecule-That-Holds-Us-Together-Is-In-The-Shape-Of-The-CROSS/Page1.html


There might be true things in the bible but it's definately not scientific. The scientific principles are absolutely not in the bible, even if the truths are in there somewhere.
it was not writen to be a science book, but there are things in it that the people of the time could not have possibly known
Wait. Like what? Anything that could have easily have been guessed?
well i shot you a site that has just a few of them, one thing that should be on there is the sun is the center of the orbit of planets not the earth
I didn't see that anywhere in there. I honestly didn't see anything in there that's amazing someone would know at the time of writing to be honest...
ok here is one
Job 26:7
He stretches out the north over empty space;
He hangs the earth on nothing.
also
Job 28:25
To establish a weight for the wind,
And apportion the waters by measure.
The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the world’s hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth.[1] (If you are a physics enthusiast, please ignore our omission of the terms mass, gravity, and density from this comment.) and so fourth, lots of cool stuff
Batyah
Vannak
Batyah
Vannak
Batyah
it was not writen to be a science book, but there are things in it that the people of the time could not have possibly known
Wait. Like what? Anything that could have easily have been guessed?
well i shot you a site that has just a few of them, one thing that should be on there is the sun is the center of the orbit of planets not the earth
I didn't see that anywhere in there. I honestly didn't see anything in there that's amazing someone would know at the time of writing to be honest...
ok here is one
Job 26:7
He stretches out the north over empty space;
He hangs the earth on nothing.
also
Job 28:25
To establish a weight for the wind,
And apportion the waters by measure.
The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the world’s hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth.[1] (If you are a physics enthusiast, please ignore our omission of the terms mass, gravity, and density from this comment.) and so fourth, lots of cool stuff
I'm not bothered by lack of modern day terms. But ancient greeks had postulated that air was something that also had weight, as well. Their theory of the elements only really let the aether have no weight at all (except for some disprove ideas like chaloric, the substance that causes heat, and such).
Batyah's avatar

Shameless Worshipper

7,800 Points
  • Prayer Circle 200
  • Invisibility 100
  • Autobiographer 200
Vannak
Batyah
Vannak
Batyah
Vannak
Batyah
it was not writen to be a science book, but there are things in it that the people of the time could not have possibly known
Wait. Like what? Anything that could have easily have been guessed?
well i shot you a site that has just a few of them, one thing that should be on there is the sun is the center of the orbit of planets not the earth
I didn't see that anywhere in there. I honestly didn't see anything in there that's amazing someone would know at the time of writing to be honest...
ok here is one
Job 26:7
He stretches out the north over empty space;
He hangs the earth on nothing.
also
Job 28:25
To establish a weight for the wind,
And apportion the waters by measure.
The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the world’s hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth.[1] (If you are a physics enthusiast, please ignore our omission of the terms mass, gravity, and density from this comment.) and so fourth, lots of cool stuff
I'm not bothered by lack of modern day terms. But ancient greeks had postulated that air was something that also had weight, as well. Their theory of the elements only really let the aether have no weight at all (except for some disprove ideas like chaloric, the substance that causes heat, and such).
i forget why this came up, but its in there smile
Papa Nito's avatar

Lunatic

9,400 Points
  • Elysium's Gatekeeper 100
  • Partygoer 500
  • Battle: Rogue 100
Batyah
The Hedonist
Batyah
The Hedonist
Batyah
hmm do you believe we used to have prehensile tails? i know my text book said we did and it fell off one day as we didnt need it, but think how nice it would be, oh my hands are full i cant open the car door, tail assist , lol, but really, but i think you are mixing the evolution science and evolution theory there are six of em i know you described two already
1Cosmic evolution: the origin of time/space/matter from nothing in the supposed “Big Bang”
2Chemical evolution: all the elements “evolved” from hydrogen
3Stellar evolution: stars formed from dust clouds
4Organic evolution: life formed from non-living matter
5Macro-evolution: plants and animals produce offspring different than their ‘kind’
6Micro-evolution: variations develop within the kind such as big dogs and little dogs; bacteria becoming resistant to drugs; etc.


Well, lets see. In order:
1.) I already stated this one just can't be proven, really. I mean, too many speculations can be made.
2.) This one is kind of hard to think of as true, because there are too many things that don't contain hydrogen, nor hold many similarities to hydrogen or things that contain hydrogen. Of course, if this means organic beings, then yeah, I can think of it as true, because our bodies contain hydrogen (considering how most living, sentient creatures contain some form of water).
3.) Well, stars can be formed of dust clouds. Think of it logically: the particles inside the cloud collide together, over and over and over, and eventually the collisions create a significant amount of heat, which would ignite any gasses in the cloud, which would make it turn into a sun/star. That's all stars are, are just burning gasses.
4.) I'm not well versed in this one, so I won't even try.
5 and 6.) This pretty much ties into what I said about adaptation. All organic beings adapt to survive, over time.
5 is where apendages grow and stay there and become part of the species, 6 is just how something looks or so


Yes, I'm aware of what 5 and 6 are. This, of course, does not disprove, or change what I said. It's still adaptation.
hmm ok if we came from monkeys, with prehensile tails, according to how our tail bone is shaped and my science book. they why did we lose the tail is it is so useful to the monkeys we see to day with prehensile tails?


Do you see us living in trees? It may be useful for menial tasks, but if one has a tail, one's posture becomes compromised due to a different center of gravity, and a different application of weight. To have a straight up-and-down posture, the tails would have had to go. Yes, there are monkeys that can walk upright, but that's not their natural posture. Also, I'm not claiming we directly came from monkeys. Hell, maybe we're just GROWING tails, over time.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games