Quote:
Originally Posted by 2percent
again, believe it or not i understand evolution....
|
Based on what you've written in many of these posts, I respectfully disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2percent
your saying bacteria is adjusting to antibiotics... thats great for the micro evolution point.. yes i believe in that... my point its still a freaking bacteria... if you waiting for it to turn into something else its not going to happen it still going to be bacteria no matter how much it adjust...
|
You're right - If I am (or you are) waiting for it to happen, it won't. We'd die many times over before it ever did. I think what many people don't understand about macro-evolution is the immense scale of time it happens over. It's not like micro-evolution, which, you agree, we can see the changes from in a smaller time frame. Not so with most macro-evolution. For example, humans and chimpanzees are thought to have diverged from a common ancestor 4-8,000,000 (still debated, of course) years ago. But using either number, that's
forever compared to the average human life span. And it is hard for our brains to unwrap themselves from our own temporal perspective.
Then again, if you think the earth is only 6000 years old (like many believers in a literal Bible), I can see why you wouldn't think macro-evolution has happened. That's not nearly enough time...
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2percent
""""science is always proving itself wrong""" that is the big different in our beliefs your changes with science... where mine is in the Bible and it states things WILL reproduce after its own kind... and it will....
|
Why is the capability to change your beliefs a bad thing? I don't understand that rationale at all... Do you still believe everything you've ever believed in your life, from when you were born? If you don't (and I don't think you do), then - GASP! - you've actually changed your beliefs about something as you've grown older and learned different ways of looking at and learning about the same things?! OMG!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2percent
I will Believe in the BIBLE no matter what science has to say...the Bible will not contradict itself.. and will never change it has already been written...
|
Really? There are numerous examples that show the Bible contradicting itself. In fact, I think that there was already a post, buried back in this thread somewhere, that listed many of them. If you want, I'll try to find a link for you.
And it will never change because it has already been written? Really? You do know that it wasn't written in English, right? And you do realize that every language does not have the exact same complement of equivalent words in it, right? Translators do the best they can to convey the same meanings, staying as true as possible to the original text (or the already-translated-from-another-language one that they are working with), but of course you must realize that some words, phrases, and meanings are changed or lost in the process, especially in a text of that size. So unless you happen to own the original Bible or texts it was compiled from, and also happen to speak ancient Hebrew (OT) or Greek (and ancient Koine Greek, at that; NT) or Aramaic (some texts, but debated), I think that the version you're reading has already changed. Sorry to disappoint you...
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2percent
If you go in to science with a preconceived notion of what the outcome has to be, a person would not be a very good scientist.
|
Here I don't know what's lacking - you're understanding of science or your understanding of English (I apologize if that sounds harsh, but I honestly don't understand what you're getting at sometimes)...
I don't know what you mean by "go in to science". If you mean go into a
scientific experiment with a preconceived notion, than I understand - but I disagree. You do want a preconceived notion (AKA hypothesis) to be able to, after testing and analyzing your data, confirm or deny whether there is any truth to that notion. If the results don't confirm your hypothesis (and they most often don't), then you change or discard the
hypothesis, not the
data. That may be what you are referring to above - if some one sets up an experiment to test their hypothesis, but then, after getting results that disagree with their predictions, changes the results to now agree with their predictions. If this is the case, then you are absolutely correct - that person would not be a very good scientist.
If, by "go in to science", you just mean to read about or learn about science or something more general like that: I would agree with you, depending on what you did with those preconceived notions. You would not be a very good scientist
if you didn't change your preconceived notions, based on better evidence you've learned about. If you still held your preconceived notions based on outdated, unproven, or dis-proven facts or assumptions, in light of updated, tested, or proven facts or assumptions, then you would be a poor scientist indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2percent
LOOK i keep saying this I don't want anyone to take this wrong... the Bible tells us to turn the other cheek, but i get tired of people slamming CHRISTIANITY.. and i will not let this discussion go ESPECIALLY when some one else can be deceived... and I don't want you to judge me by what i believe either.. to tell you the truth we would probably get along unless you were a Yankees fan.. just a joke not even a baseball fan... see ya
|
I don't think most of "us" are taking it wrong, just as I hope most of "you" aren't taking wrong the thoughts that we are offering here as well (obviously, there have been some inflammatory posts from both sides).
And I think we probably would get along... I'm not a baseball fan either!
