[Dr Liftalot]

Originally Posted by jomi822

bees and flowers didnt automatically develope their relationship in a day. there is no intelligence involved in the issue. flowers need the aid of bees to pollinate, bees need nectar. its really that simple. why do we have to bring god into it?

many smaller cell organisms evolve and take on new characteristics. thats about as far as you needed to go with that point. obviously single celled organisms dont have intelligence. you have intelligence, wouldnt it be convenient to be able to fly or lie out in the sun all day and photosynthesize your glucose?

intelligence has nothing to do with new physical characteristics. natural selection and small genetic mutatations over hundreds of millions of years are what produce new characteristics and life forms, not intelligence.

the problem here is that evolution, more or less a scientific absolute truth at this point, survives perfectly without god or religion.

religions really cant survive with the theory of evolution...unless you scramble things up a bit, concede some points, and overall just overlook all of the facts to hold onto the dying anachronism known as religion.

My point being that how does one object change over time? How does a cell start displaying new characteristics? Also you didn't explain Bee's and Flowers became co-Dependant. Theres no doubt they are and they adapted to befit each other. But even with millions of years(time aside) What causes two things that are unlike to work together. Its not like one day the Bee got up and said to the flower. You give me nector and I'll pollinate other flowers for you? How would a flower realize that a bee could carry its pollen? And according to evolution Bees/Flowers weren't always on this planet.

Also what would cause a small mutation that conveniently becomes the right adaptation for the surroundings? If things were always randomly mutating we'd have allot of worthless non-functioning creatures and don't give me the spill about natural selection. Because there would be allot of things out there that would survive but have allot of useless mutations.

[anabolicrhino]

Originally Posted by Dr Liftalot

My point being that how does one object change over time? How does a cell start displaying new characteristics? Also you didn't explain Bee's and Flowers became co-Dependant. Theres no doubt they are and they adapted to befit each other. But even with millions of years(time aside) What causes two things that are unlike to work together. Its not like one day the Bee got up and said to the flower. You give me nector and I'll pollinate other flowers for you? How would a flower realize that a bee could carry its pollen? And according to evolution Bees/Flowers weren't always on this planet.

Flowers get pollinated in other ways, such as the wind. Bees just optimize the process. I think its more amazing that flowers have both male and female sex organs, otherwise the bees would just be nectar thieves!

Also what would cause a small mutation that conveniently becomes the right adaptation for the surroundings? If things were always randomly mutating we'd have allot of worthless non-functioning creatures and don't give me the spill about natural selection. Because there would be allot of things out there that would survive but have allot of useless mutations.

Evolution is just a theory!

The evidence is reverse engineered through de-constructing the dominant species. A scientist will see that the "meat eaters" dominate the planet, so eating meat must be a dominant characteristic.

It is almost like revisionist history, in that we cannot examine the process as an "intelligent choice", because we don't know that it was the "intelligent" choice, until it is proven through the progression of dominance within the given biosphere!

Then, we look back and say oh yeah, that was the intelligent choice.

Stupid dinosaurs!

Here is a new viral on the subject !
MIENFOKS: ITS THE EVOLUTION REVOLUTION ! ! !

[Dr Liftalot]

Originally Posted by anabolicrhino

Evolution is just a theory!

The evidence is reverse engineered through de-constructing the dominant species. A scientist will see that the "meat eaters" dominate the planet, so eating meat must be a dominant characteristic.

It is almost like revisionist history, in that we cannot examine the process as an "intelligent choice", because we don't know that it was the "intelligent" choice, until it is proven through the progression of dominance within the given biosphere!

Then, we look back and say oh yeah, that was the intelligent choice.

Stupid dinosaurs!

Here is a new viral on the subject !
MIENFOKS: ITS THE EVOLUTION REVOLUTION ! ! !

BTW I'm against teaching Intelligent Design in the science room, I am just giving perspective as to how it could all fit together.

Dr liftalot

[vince spider]

Originally Posted by Dr Liftalot

BTW I'm against teaching Intelligent Design in the science room, I am just giving perspective as to how it could all fit together.

Dr liftalot

[vince spider]

Originally Posted by Dr Liftalot

My point being that how does one object change over time? How does a cell start displaying new characteristics? Also you didn't explain Bee's and Flowers became co-Dependant. Theres no doubt they are and they adapted to befit each other. But even with millions of years(time aside) What causes two things that are unlike to work together. Its not like one day the Bee got up and said to the flower. You give me nector and I'll pollinate other flowers for you? How would a flower realize that a bee could carry its pollen? And according to evolution Bees/Flowers weren't always on this planet.

Also what would cause a small mutation that conveniently becomes the right adaptation for the surroundings? If things were always randomly mutating we'd have allot of worthless non-functioning creatures and don't give me the spill about natural selection. Because there would be allot of things out there that would survive but have allot of useless mutations.

[dsade]

How's that Appendix treating you?

[jomi822]

dude thats what im getting at....the bee and the flower arent talking to each other at all. what are YOU talking about?

the process took millions of year. just think about that for a second. these things arent instantaneous.

it is very graspable for me to think about evolution and realize that with very small mutations and letting natural selection take its course, bees and flowers can become co dependant.

if you cant think for 30 seconds and realize its more than possible than by all means believe in "intelligent design". throw the easter bunny in there while youre at it

[Dr Liftalot]

Originally Posted by jomi822

dude thats what im getting at....the bee and the flower arent talking to each other at all. what are YOU talking about?

the process took millions of year. just think about that for a second. these things arent instantaneous.

it is very graspable for me to think about evolution and realize that with very small mutations and letting natural selection take its course, bees and flowers can become co dependant.

if you cant think for 30 seconds and realize its more than possible than by all means believe in "intelligent design". throw the easter bunny in there while youre at it

Firstly I don't believe in intelligent design, the earth is much much older then 10,000 years. Also I think your missing my point about mutations, So i'll drop it.

[awmcdon]

I really don't want to get into the middle of this but I will say this . I spent six years in college studying chemistry, physics and biology. I started on my masters in chemistry but had to stop. It would suprise you how many PhD scientists believe in god and say there is no way evolution and the big bang could have created all this. ALL of my chemistry professers believed in god.........all of them.
A large group of scientists have even started some organization called "Scientists against the big bang" or something like that.
I'm sure there are alot of scientists that don't believe in god also, but my point is this, if the most intelligent scientific minded men in the world can't agree on an answer, what makes any of you so certain.

[anabolicrhino]

Originally Posted by awmcdon

I really don't want to get into the middle of this but I will say this . I spent six years in college studying chemistry, physics and biology. I started on my masters in chemistry but had to stop. It would suprise you how many PhD scientists believe in god and say there is no way evolution and the big bang could have created all this. ALL of my chemistry professers believed in god.........all of them.
A large group of scientists have even started some organization called "Scientists against the big bang" or something like that.

Well, that would depend if you went to a school like say; Notre Dame, Villanova or Boston College,ect. where the foundation of the school is based in a belief in god. Then a faculty of open "believers" would be expected!

I'm sure there are alot of scientists that don't believe in god also, but my point is this, if the most intelligent scientific minded men in the world can't agree on an answer, what makes any of you so certain.

Does an academic degree denote a greater ability to
understand the existence of a deity?

If it did we would not have to debate about it!

[jomi822]

Originally Posted by awmcdon

I really don't want to get into the middle of this but I will say this . I spent six years in college studying chemistry, physics and biology. I started on my masters in chemistry but had to stop. It would suprise you how many PhD scientists believe in god and say there is no way evolution and the big bang could have created all this. ALL of my chemistry professers believed in god.........all of them.
A large group of scientists have even started some organization called "Scientists against the big bang" or something like that.
I'm sure there are alot of scientists that don't believe in god also, but my point is this, if the most intelligent scientific minded men in the world can't agree on an answer, what makes any of you so certain.

are you sure that you arent skewing that a bit? im in more or less the same situation as you are, and i still live on a college campus.

i have listened to jesuit professors throw some pretty modern ideas out there, and have read my fair share of scientific literature on the subject and even listened to a debate on campus, featuring some ****head who was systematically shut down by, again, jesuit professors.

i take it everyone knows that jesuits are priests dedicated to eduacation.

i have never heard even one of my biology or chemistry teachers admit to the existence of some mythical spiritual being of any type, including god. im sure some of they do, since i have been to catholic school all of my life, but all of them kept that **** out of a science classroom.

what i HAVE heard them talk about is how the sciences are perfect. too perfect in fact. ive heard chem professors go on about the pefection of molecules and chemical interractions for 5 minute speels during class. ive heard bio professors talk about evolution like the theory is itself a deity.

the one concession ill make after listening to numerous PHD's talk about their field is that there is a natural perfection to the universe. the fact that this perfection exists is divine in an of itself. it doesnt mean some mythical old dude sitting in a cloud somewhere created the world in 7 days and so on and so forth.

[awmcdon]

No I'm not skewing it any.
And I'm not talking about what they're teaching or how it may be affecting their lectures. I'm talking about their personal lives ,the personal decision they made and how science has affected this decision. They don't talk about these things in the classroom, they are completely professional.

During my education I developed a relationship with most of my upper level science instructors, I still keep in touch with a few of them to this day. About half way through my college career I started to develop the science mindset and started to question the existence of god. I went to alot of my professers and asked them about their opinion on god and evolution, I had very indepth conversations with a few of them. And they all told me the same thing "That the more they learned the more they realized that the big bang and evolution couldn't explain all of this".

And these guys are no slouches. My physical chemistry instructor had his PhD in Nuclear Chemistry from Texas A&M and had been employed by NASA.

And you may not have heard any of your instructors talk about the existence of a god, but it's a touchy subject. They're not going to talk about it in the classroom. But have you ever went to one of them and had a one on one conversation. They can't get in trouble that way because your coming to them asking their opinion. You might be suprised at the answers you get.

And I'm not here saying this is the right way or that is the right way. As a scientist it's hard to believe in a god but it's also hard to believe in the big bang. If you really think about it none of it makes any sense. What was here before the universe? What exists outside of the universe, it can't be infinite. There are so many questions. All I'm saying is no one really knows for sure.

[anabolicrhino]

Originally Posted by awmcdon

And I'm not here saying this is the right way or that is the right way. As a scientist it's hard to believe in a god but it's also hard to believe in the big bang. If you really think about it none of it makes any sense. What was here before the universe? What exists outside of the universe, it can't be infinite. There are so many questions. All I'm saying is no one really knows for sure.

Your are saying that nothing makes any sense. That is saying that from everything you have experienced as theory or evidence of facts makes no sense. So you are saying that the way of understanding existence that has been taught up until now is wrong, because it doesn't make any sense to your scientific mind.

The Big band and evolution are just theories of one possibility of reality. The fact that they may not be proven true is not evidence of gods existence.

Why can't reality be infinite? Why can't the universe and god be part of the same web of illusion? Why can't it be possible for all existence to be one and the same thing? Why can't each individual experience reality subjectively from another individual's subjective reality?

Each time you try and answer these type of questions you make the universe a better place, so please keep trying even if academic minds tell you something that they cannot prove either!

[awmcdon]

I see your point.

My only point was that there are so many unanswered questions, can we really be sure about anything?

[EESCHMan]

Originally Posted by awmcdon

I see your point.

My only point was that there are so many unanswered questions, can we really be sure about anything?

Yes, there are many unanswered questions...BUT, that doesn't mean if it is not known (at least not yet) that the answer is: "God did it!"

The biology of evolution is a FACT.
The mechanism of evolution is a theory.

The pope recently even agreed with evolution!

[Squeaks4ver]

Originally Posted by dsade

How's that Appendix treating you?

the appendix is ‘involved in the control of which essential bacteria come to reside in the caecum and colon in neonatal life’.6 Like the very important thymus gland in our chest, it is likely that the appendix plays its major role in early childhood. It is also involved in helping the body recognize early in life that certain foodstuffs, bacterially derived substances, and even some of the body’s own gut enzymes, need to be tolerated and not seen as ‘foreign’ substances needing attack.

Our body has been brilliantly designed, with plenty in reserve, and the ability for some organs to take over the function of others. Thus there are a number of organs which everybody agrees have a definite function, but we can still cope without them. Some examples:

Your gall bladder has a definite function—it stores bile from the liver, and squirts it into the intestine as required to help with the digestion of fat. However, it can be removed and the body will cope—for instance, by secreting more bile continuously.

You can cope with having a kidney out, because there is still enough kidney tissue left in the other one. (In the same way, a part of the Gut Associated Lymphoid Tissue, which includes the appendix, can be removed, and the remaining lymphoid tissue will usually be enough to carry on the total function). You won’t suffer from having your thymus out (if you’re an adult), because this extremely important gland, which ‘educates’ your immune cells when you are very young, is then no longer required. This is likely to be very relevant to the appendix.