Kinsa jud imo gituohan kung diin jud tah gikan, ang Bible or Science?

[hitch22]

---

On the self-replicating molecules which Richard Dawkins talked about...

I don't know what they are, so I can't make a judgment on it yet. But it's not definitely an idea you can just laugh off without even researching the subject.

Here's a link about the pioneering scientist in that venture: Julius Rebek

Here's one of the recent developments in the field of molecular evolution, particularly one that deals with self-replicating molecules: PHYSORG.COM - Darwin in a test tube: Scientists make molecules that evolve, compete, mimick behavior of Darwin's finches

And from the New Scientist: Artificial molecule evolves in the lab

People like bungot25 would laugh at Dawkins for propounding the idea of self-replicating molecules. A lot of influential people (like Martin Luther) mocked Galileo for advancing his heliocentric view of the universe. Who's laughing at Galileo now? Self-replicating molecules is a joke? tsk tsk...Withhold judgment until you've gotten to know the subject much more in-depth.

[bungot25]

@hitch

darwins theory fails again....

Michael Robertson quote:

"If somebody makes something great in the lab, it's fantastic. But really the origin of life on Earth is an historical problem that we're never going to be able to witness and verify,"

this does not prove evolution at all....pls quit your non sense arguments!

epic fail mR hitch....lols

[hitch22]

SPRINGFIELD, I'll just group the related points and tackle them separately.

Uhm ... did I tell my statement as a reference to your arguments ? I am being neutral here because we all know mura ni ug AKP and TGP , SKEPTCIS and BELIEVERS , THEIST and ATHEIST ... they share something in common ... walay kahumanan na lalis

.........................

That is the whole point why I voiced out other than giving a warning to those ma mersonal and insulto na ang comments . Its not you though ...

Thanks for clearing that up. I really thought you were referring to me since your post came at the heels of my post.

That doesnt stop me from being a THEIST and INCLINING a LEVERAGE that I am more into accepting EVOLUTION that CREATION .

............................

Sometimes ... our religion dictates us what is right or wrong to the point mag ka interchange na . Thas why I am more comfortable sa EVOLUTION because I have the freedom of keeping my faith but still working on science on whats best to come .

Two thumbs up on those two underlined statements!

On a different note ... true that they dont overlap but they have to work hand in hand . Both has to co exist .

I agree somewhat with the point on co-existence. Again, that goes back to the non-overlapping magiteria concept: leaving to religion matters of morals and spirituality; leaving to science to what it does best, science.

Mo agree na unta ko when you say they don't overlap...gipakapin pa man gud nimo nga THEY HAVE TO WORK HAND IN HAND...because that's a contradiction. When Gould stated the non-overlapping magisteria, he meant to keep religion out of the scientific sphere. The National Academy of Sciences (I do hope you've read the links and the quotes I've pasted in page 42 of this thread) have made their position very clear: that religion and science CAN'T MIX.

We have to understand that these are all MAN MADE so ang convictions kay kutob ra pod sa capacity of the human mind and thinking . The awards , achievements , names , organizations etc are all man made . There is something beyond that what it makes not man made because it is not beyond the capacity of the man made science explanations . Mao na diha mo sidestep ang " FAITH " because it is UNEXPLAINABLE due to the lesser capacity of thinking maski i volt in pa ang tanan utok sa mga gipang nganlan nimo na scientist and achievers to think , explain and come up with a conclusion and at the end of the day , weeks , months , years , decades , centuries etc .. still empty handed .

And you see the difference in attitudes between science and religion. In the face of uncertainty, science is humble enough to say "I don't know but I'd like to find out". Religion, on the other hand, starts with revelation and dogmas...and when they used to have everything their own way, they burned people at the stake for questioning them. TELL ME, WHICH ATTITUDE WOULD LEAD MAN TO GREATER DISCOVERY ABOUT THE NATURE AND THE UNIVERSE?

I know where I incline. I'm comfortable leaving uncertainty as unanswered. Many people understandably don't. They'd rather fill mystery with speculation. Why do you think man has invented thousands of religions?

That is his only and nobody else . That is his conviction as an author gathering up all the " evidences " he can to validated his claim . Of course you , agrees with it because it favors your opinion so maka ingon ta na medyo bias .

This is the part where you criticized my statement that EVOLUTION IS TRUE. Okay, we're grasping at straws here on the semantics. What do you expect me to say? EVOLUTION IS FALSE? EVOLUTION IS AN IFFY PROPOSITION? EVOLUTION IS TRUE...just like GRAVITY IS TRUE or THE CHAIR YOU'RE SITTING ON IS TRUE.

Jerry Coyne, like Dawkins, Venter, Lewontin, is a highly respected evolutionary biologist. His statement that EVOLUTION IS TRUE is shared by the mainstream scientific community. Ask the National Academy of Sciences if the statement EVOLUTION IS TRUE is valid or not.

Am I biased? Well, if I'm biased, then those who attack the Theory of Evolution are not biased? If both camps are biased, then it comes down to WHICH SIDE IS SUPPORTED BY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Because to everyone (including myself), it's only not biased when it supports their stance. Now, isn't that the truth?

That is the whole point . To elaborate terms in laymans terms aron makasabot ang tanan . Maybe you are disagreeing what it portrays but I am pretty sure you agree what it defines .

.................................

Let me ask you this ... did it follow the characteristics and elements of the conduction research to become a valid SCIENTIFIC THEORY ? I guess if it is then it is valid but then it remains a THEORY as long as there is no CONCLUSION . FInd me a link where the THEORY is already CONCLUDED ... that would be IRONIC right but then if it takes for that route for me to rest the case ... that would also be in behalf of the CREATIONIST . Everybody happy hehehe .

This is where you say the THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS JUST A THEORY.

There's a lot of misunderstanding about the word "theory". A theory is an explanation that's consistent with all the observable evidence, and every new piece of evidence has to be consistent with the theory. The theory has to be consistent with new theories in other fields of science. And, of course, new technologies based on the theory have to work.

As long as no other theory has even remotely matched this consistency, that scientist's theory is a fact and can be added to school textbooks. But that doesn't mean it can't be modified. Even pillars of science like the Theory of Gravity and the Theory of Evolution have been modified as new evidence comes along. But these modifications don't overturn the theories. They just show more precisely how they work.

So, did the Theory of Evolution follow the scientific method? It's upheld by the National Academy of Sciences. Enough said.

...EVOLUTION is a FACT ... true because we see things evolved around us , some even MUTATED but the point is ... we are comparing the EVOLUTION of LIFE and the STORY of the CREATION which we all know didnt really exist unless you understand the bible literally but ... BUT if you also say that we all came from the monkeys , ngano ni hunong man ta ug pagka TAO ? Shouldnt we supposed to evolve mor einto something more of a SUPER HUMAN RACE ? mao na akong gipasabot ... we are all caught up in the middle .

Before the "but..but" part, you got that right.

After the "but..but" part are questions about Human Evolution. Sir, you haven't kept up with the conversations I've had thus far. I really don't want to keep repeating myself. If you really know the Theory of Evolution, you wouldn't be asking questions like "If we all came from monkeys" or "Are we supposed to evolve into a super human race"? Humans (homo sapiens) and the modern monkeys are "cousins" in the evolutionary tree. We descended from a common ancestor, with our lineage splitting from our "cousins" several millions of years ago.

I think, implicit in your SUPER HUMAN RACE question is: Are we still evolving? My answer to you would be: Some say yes and some say no. Some say human evolution is still going on in Africa, as evidenced by the gene pool of a specific community that has grown resistant to the AIDS virus. Small changes in genes won't really impress a lot of people. But that's part of evolution. The spectacular change people want to see is SPECIATION. I won't discuss that here or else I'll be spending a lot of time explaining its mechanics. There's a lot of resources here in the web on that, including several instances of OBSERVED SPECIATION in nature. Just Google that topic.

Actually ... there is no need for me to opined but still I quoted it because I could really care less about that person having BA from University of Chicago and a PHD from HARVARD . He is nothing different from the rest of the people I know who has the same status as him but from different schools . .

Well, this is your comment about Kurt Wise.

I merely brought up Kurt Wise just to illustrate what most religious apologist would say:

If all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.---Kurt Wise

And yes, I didn't expect you to make a comment on that, or to pay attention that Kurt Wise was a PhD holder from Harvard. I think I owe you that clarification. So there. I'm just pointing out what most religious apologists would say about the matter in controversy.

[hitch22]

@hitch

darwins theory fails again....

Michael Robertson quote:

"If somebody makes something great in the lab, it's fantastic. But really the origin of life on Earth is an historical problem that we're never going to be able to witness and verify,"

this does not prove evolution at all....pls quit your non sense arguments!

epic fail mR hitch....lols

Very well then. It's high time for you to present your arguments. How about answering my question which you've been avoiding for so long?

Come on. Don't be scared. Let's see what you got.

[schmuck]

ang gipangita ni bungot kai crocoduck lolz

FYI bungot, ang lab experiment with the artificial molecules was to disprove the creationist claim nga impossible mahimo ang organic molecules(amino acids, proteins) from inorganic molecules(life from non life).

Plus the fact nga organic materials have been found on asteroids from outer space. Displaying the fact nga organic molecules are easily found in the universe.

Napakita sa experiment nga possible man diay. So what now? Ngita na pd og laing tae malabay?

as usual, akong sources
Evidence of water ice and organic materials on asteroid's surface

question again, bungot, Catholico ka?

[vixenshoppe]

ayaw na lubaga iyno utok, gkan ta sa ato amahan ug inahan, nga gi ganahan pag himo nato

[necrotic freak]

ang gipangita ni bungot kai crocoduck lolz

FYI bungot, ang lab experiment with the artificial molecules was to disprove the creationist claim nga impossible mahimo ang organic molecules(amino acids, proteins) from inorganic molecules(life from non life).

Plus the fact nga organic materials have been found on asteroids from outer space. Displaying the fact nga organic molecules are easily found in the universe.

Napakita sa experiment nga possible man diay. So what now? Ngita na pd og laing tae malabay?

as usual, akong sources
Evidence of water ice and organic materials on asteroid's surface

question again, bungot, Catholico ka?

atong subayon ang pangutana sa TS? diin man diay na gikan ang mga organic materials? nganong naa man na daghan sa universe?

[schmuck]

atong subayon ang pangutana sa TS? diin man diay na gikan ang mga organic materials? nganong naa man na daghan sa universe?

huh?? Nganung dghan?? Dili ba mao to ang point sa experiment og sa asteriod discovery? Because they naturally happen. Duh!

Aw, balik ka sa origin sa universe. Big bang og multiverse theory. Look it up.
Sa tinoud lang, galibog ko. Kai naai lain nga possible answer.
Nga naai nangutot nga magic kanding og gikan sa utot ang organic materials. Wala pa ni cya na disproven gd.

[rOv_rOv]

bible..

[necrotic freak]

huh?? Nganung dghan?? Dili ba mao to ang point sa experiment og sa asteriod discovery? Because they naturally happen. Duh!.

aw naturally happen ra diay to? tabla raman ug mo ingon ka nga ambot ingana nana daan.

Aw, balik ka sa origin sa universe. Big bang og multiverse theory. Look it up.
Sa tinoud lang, galibog ko. Kai naai lain nga possible answer.
Nga naai nangutot nga magic kanding og gikan sa utot ang organic materials. Wala pa ni cya na disproven gd.

mao nay gitawag ug si goat d wonderpol theory.