by Hold Me-Thrill Me 73 Replies latest jw friends
Cofty: If all god ever did was ignite life he/she/it is an irrelevant concept.
Cofty, you are one of my favorite posters on this site. I love your quick honesty but man what you wrote above is a bit crazy. But that's okay, I've had my crazy moments as well.
Frank
Cofty....... really doesn't do crazy hold me-thrill- me.
Science is not able to replicate life. They can play all they want with the physical components found in a living cell but try as they may will never cause those components to suddenly start living.
My opinion is that there is a distinct possibility that science may be able to generate a wee tiny cell or two of new life, maybe in the near future....... one thing leading to another (which is often how new discoverers come about).
However creating life is not at the top of my list.This is something the religiously inclined like to use because to date science has not achieved that goal.
Instead and what is generally in agreement among the conscious class of humans is...... 'go science'. Get more cures for cancer, grow new body parts from basic cells, continue to help us live longer etc. etc. None of which, as far as I can tell, god has participated in. If god created life he has left it up to humans to tame life.And only science provides an understanding on how to manage and at times control the life that already exists........... especially all of the deadly and harmful life forms be it disease, germs, dangerous critters and dangerous humans that this creator has left us to contend with. We may not be able to create life....yet but we have become more skilled in dealing with the life that does exist..
"As we learn more and more about the universe, you find you can understand more and more without any reference to supernatural intervention. And that is one of the great things about science it has made it possible for people to not be religious."
Steven Weinberg
It is the irrefutable evidence, striking proof of God working.....Fisherman
No it`s not..
In order to make that claim..
You would have to 1st Prove "God Exists"..
Giordano: Instead and what is generally in agreement among the conscious class of humans is...... 'go science'. Get more cures for cancer, grow new body parts from basic cells, continue to help us live longer etc. etc. None of which, as far as I can tell, god has participated in. If god created life he has left it up to humans to tame life.And only science provides an understanding on how to manage and at times control the life that already exists........... especially all of the deadly and harmful life forms be it disease, germs, dangerous critters and dangerous humans that this creator has left us to contend with. We may not be able to create life....yet but we have become more skilled in dealing with the life that does exist..
Science did not create the immune system neither did it create the complex organs and organ systems within which the organs must operate in conjunction with one another or not at all. The respiratory system, for example, is a physically and chemically complex apparatus whose many parts must all function in conjunction with one another. Any significant deviation, any significant genetic mutation in any of its parts corrupts the whole system. Are we to believe that such a system is merely the product of blind mutations? Of trial and error?
If so, then why is it that scientists do not loudly oppose the abortion of fetuses with multiple genetic defects? After all there could be a new forward step in the making. Why does science in practice not support survival of the fittest and oppose vaccination in order that the species may be enhanced. I can only assume it is because when it comes to evolution science speaks out of one side of its mouth but in practice out of the other.
Neither did science create all the subtle expressions in a woman's face that serve to signal not just her mood but her very thoughts...sexual or otherwise. I had pleasure with my wife and that pleasure was not just sexual satisfaction it was the pleasure of holding beauty personified.
Science did not give me that. Neither did a blind process called evolution nor its mother abiogenesis.
Frank
Are we to believe that such a system is merely the product of blind mutations? Of trial and error?
No. Evolution by natural selection.
You haven't read a single book ever about evolution have you?
Science did not give me that.
Actually evolution did. Would you like to know the exact chemical signals that give you sexual desire and pleasure and the exact genes that code for them? If you were genuinely interested you could find out.
why is it that scientists do not loudly oppose the abortion of fetuses with multiple genetic defects?
The clue is in the question.
There are only 17 words to choose from. Have a guess.
If so, then why is it that scientists do not loudly oppose the abortion of fetuses with multiple genetic defects? After all there could be a new forward step in the making. Why does science in practice not support survival of the fittest and oppose vaccination in order that the species may be enhanced. I can only assume it is because when it comes to evolution science speaks out of one side of its mouth but in practice out of the other.
Perhaps because humans, as a species, have evolved enough to care for each other, which ultimately means they have the morality that convinces them that killing other humans for the sake of evolving the human race is not exactly the nicest thing to do. Believing in evolution based on the mountains of evidence doesn't mean you should support the continued evolution of the human race at the cost of other humans' lives, it simply means you understand how life forms became the way they are today based on the information that is available.
Cofty, does natural selection introduce new genetic material into the species? Or does it in fact favor a trait that is already genetically present but not always pronounced in every individual of a particular species or allows an individual animal whose coloring, or other natural trait, is more advantageous to survive in greater numbers and produce more offspring.
But does natural selection actually create new genetic material which in turn eventually causes great changes in an animal line? If this is the case than knowing how DNA works how does natural selection cause a change in the DNA strand of a particular individual or group to include something which was not there in the first place? Is it not true that genetic mutation is credited for the changes in DNA that are necessary for the claimed evolving of a species?
