But who controls us. The right or religion? That has been tried and failed horribly. We are in the 21st century and we still drive internal combustion engines. We still use fossil fuels, are still for the most part stuck on this tiny rock in space. WHo decides.
I understand your point and believe that we do a pretty good job of monitoring ourselves, but if there must be some type of "control" or review (better word) then let us have an equal part in the process.
In order to understand where the first one celled organism came from you would have to first understand bio chemistry and cellular biology as well as organic and inorganic chemistry. It is not a simple answer and it took probalby millions of years to happen. The real question is where did the Big Bang come from?
I dont know about you and Ill speak for me...no one controls me but my boss and weve been married along time
Wolfman that sounded very good...it sounded professional intelligent and knowledgeable....errr except it didnt tell me where the first line of the living came from....who created it or made it or how it even came to be...so im still in the same boat....clueless just like everyone else
Yes I agree but my answer is in my last statement and most scientists have long ago accepted the answer to that question.
I dont have full trust in scientists...scientists that were HAILED as gods in the 1940s have been proven dead wrong...and Im sure scientists in 2012 in the future will be proven dead wrong....point is what they accept is not necessarily what is.
I have no idea what you are talking about but lets leave it that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I do not want to get into a yes they are no they aren't. This would be pointless and no one would get very far.
The funny thing about science is that when proven wrong,it is more willing to admit it was wrong far quicker than religion does.Then it tries other avenues to pursue far quicker than religion does.I dont have full trust in scientists...scientists that were HAILED as gods in the 1940s have been proven dead wrong...and Im sure scientists in 2012 in the future will be proven dead wrong....point is what they accept is not necessarily what is.
Never going to happen. Physical v Natural evolution
If you have been keeping track they have already found some of the "building blocks" for life on Mars. Whether they ever got beyond that point is a good question.
The funny thing about science is that when proven wrong,it is more willing to admit it was wrong far quicker than religion does.Then it tries other avenues to pursue far quicker than religion does.
It may take a generation for science to admit it was wrong about something,but it takes religions centuries or even millenium (if it ever does) to admit it.
In my profession,there's a saying,"there is a science to cooking and an art to dining.A chef that relies of faith alone is a lousy chef".
Who says it doesn't...Religion?Making statement out of the heiner means nothing...who says science admits their wrong more...science ? lol
Who says it doesn't...Religion?
Thinking out one's heiner doesn't means nothing either.
A lot of scientist used to believe the earth centric model of the universe was correct,and anything else was considered practically religious and scientific heresy.
How long did it take science to admit the earth centric model of the Universe was wrong,and how long did it take the the Catholic Church?
And before you answer, the device you are looking at right now,how did it come about?From religious belief or scientific investigation?
Isaac Newton (25 December 1642 – 20 March 1727)[1] was, as considered by others within his own lifetime, an insightful and erudite theologian.[2][3][4] He wrote many works that would now be classified as occult studies and religious tracts dealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible.[5]
Newton’s conception of the physical world provided a stable model of the natural world that would reinforce stability and harmony in the civic world. Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.[6][7] Although born into an Anglican family, by his thirties Newton held a Christian faith that, had it been made public, would not have been considered orthodox by mainstream Christianity;[8] in recent times he has been described as a heretic.[9]
There will always be the question, "What came before that?", and science can only answer that question up to a certain extent. People ask the question, "What came before the Big Bang?", and science may very well answer that question. But, then the question will be "What came before that which came before the Big Bang?", and science may find out the answer to that as well. But, this will just keep going on and on until science really can't give an answer.
Again, it does not appear to me that "life" is a bright line, scientifically speaking.
Eh, a reduction in ignorance outweighs a bunch of whiny parents and the like who probably need their own ignorance reduced. The idea that something immensely positive should be avoided because it might upset some people and has the potential to abuse just doesn't sit well with me. There's hardly anything positive in the world that doesn't come with potentially negative consequences and in this case, not pursuing education because of ignorance doesn't make sense.I see only one potential gain in a HS required course on Comparative Religion: a reduction in ignorance and fear.
I see a whole raft of problems with such a course: complaints from parents amd the community about how their faith is presented; attempts by students, teachers, parents or the community to co-opt the course so as to proselytize; students of minority faiths feeling bullied; parents like me who believe that teaching values is not a proper function of public schools; etc., etc., etc.
IMO, a required HS course of this sort is just not a good idea.
Yes, he certainly did. I believe one point of reference was Alexandria.And he verified this mathematical formula by hiring men to walk off the distance between one of his base points and the other keeping track of their measurements as they went. A distance (as I remember of several hundred miles).
Yes, he certainly did. I believe one point of reference was Alexandria.
One can do the same experiment and measurement today.
Those ancient Greeks were a crafty lot of people, well ahead of their time.
In fact, the worlds first computing device was traced back to about 200 BC, you may wish to check out the "Antikythera Mechanism" it's a very interesting bit of Ancient Greek technology
I'm sorry but I don't understand what "bright line" means
Eh, a reduction in ignorance outweighs a bunch of whiny parents and the like who probably need their own ignorance reduced. The idea that something immensely positive should be avoided because it might upset some people and has the potential to abuse just doesn't sit well with me. There's hardly anything positive in the world that doesn't come with potentially negative consequences and in this case, not pursuing education because of ignorance doesn't make sense.
Moreover, the very problem that you're illustrating in this thread - of some religious people's irrational perception of science - can only be effectively combated with education which is the very thing you oppose. Odd.
And before everyone goes down this facetious path of who admits wrong ideas first, let's remember that science and religion are not mutually exclusive
Science always existed, we just haven't always been around to be aware of it. Physics doesn't not exist because no one is around to observe it.
Poorly worded, pardon.
I meant that at the line between mineral and plant or other living organism, the division between what is "alive" and what is "inert" is likely far less rigid and impermeable than most would suppose.
So, as matter moves from an "inert" state towards an "alive" one, it doesn't fall of a cliff -- it slides down a hill, metaphorically speaking.
Am I right?
That is true, but evolution is the change in allele frequencies over time. Non-living matter that never had alleles cannot evolve. In a simpler term, evolution can only occurring in living matter (with the exception of viruses). The first life could not have evolved because there was nothing to evolve from. That said, life arising from non-life in certain scenarios is not impossible.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?