Can I Be A Scientist And A Christian?

You know even if you think that you can disprove evolution it does matter.

You still have to prove that gods exist.
 
i am saying that the theory that all came from a common ancestor is not possible and is only believed by fanatics. like what theory of evolution states. clear now?

you don't need to understand if you cannot. :)
 
workmx said:
Why is it "not possible"?
Click to expand...

MyGodisYahweh said:
the theory of evolution states that all living organism came from a common ancestor. which is proven to be not possible because of the incapability of living organisms, humans for instance, to add genetic information, we can only lose genetic information, we cannot gain it.
Click to expand...

without adding genetic information how can an amoeba evolve to human beings?, how can a fish have a common ancestor with humans?

i still do hope that you are not a fanatic you know.
 
workmx said:
So I am on a bus in the CBD. What does that prove?
Click to expand...

The fact that our universe is ruled by intelligible, rational laws proves that there is an intelligent, rational creator. Could the law of gravity have arisen from complete chaos? No.
 
Even Wikipedia knows this:

"There is strong evidence that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor, called the last universal ancestor or LUA (or last universal common ancestor, LUCA).[1][2]"

References:
[1] A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry (13 May 2010). "A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry.". Nature 465 (7295): 219–222. doi:10.1038/nature09014.
[2] Steel, Mike; Penny, David (2010). "Origins of life: Common ancestry put to the test". Nature 465 (7295): 168–9. doi:10.1038/465168a.
 
workmx said:
Even Wikipedia knows this:
"There is strong evidence that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor, called the last universal ancestor or LUA (or last universal common ancestor, LUCA).[1][2]"
[1] A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry (13 May 2010). "A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry.". Nature 465 (7295): 219–222. doi:10.1038/nature09014.
[2] Steel, Mike; Penny, David (2010). "Origins of life: Common ancestry put to the test". Nature 465 (7295): 168–9. doi:10.1038/465168a.
Click to expand...

wikipedia = ) ) hahaha 'nuff already with this.
im sorry, im ditching this conversation due to your infallible responses.
and im being sarcastic in case you cant smell sarcasm.
 
MyGodisYahweh said:
wikipedia = ) ) hahaha 'nuff already with this.
im sorry, im ditching this conversation due to your infallible responses.
and im being sarcastic in case you cant smell sarcasm.
Click to expand...

Try reading more carefully.

I said EVEN wikipedi knows this. It is so basic we can rely on even that unrelaiable source.

Plus did you check the references? Both of them are from Nature.
 
MyGodisYahweh said:
without adding genetic information how can an amoeba evolve to human beings?, how can a fish have a common ancestor with humans?

i still do hope that you are not a fanatic you know.
Click to expand...

You really need to stop watching videos like that one. It was full of fallacies.
 
SergioL said:
The fact that our universe is ruled by intelligible, rational laws proves that there is an intelligent, rational creator. Could the law of gravity have arisen from complete chaos? No.
Click to expand...

Characteristics of a thing are just their characteristics not proof of anything external to that thing.
 
workmx said:
Characteristics of a thing are just their characteristics not proof of anything external to that thing.
Click to expand...

That's false. When examining a copy of "The Origin of Species", would you dare say that there's no evidence to prove that this book has been written by a rational being?
 
SergioL said:
That's false. When examining a copy of "The Origin of Species", would you dare say that there's no evidence to prove that this book has been written by a rational being?
Click to expand...

If you truly cannot tell the difference between natural and human made processes, I pity you.
 
workmx said:
If you truly cannot tell the difference between natural and human made processes, I pity you.
Click to expand...

You are changing the subject because you know that what I said is true: the existence of intelligible and rational natural laws require the existence of an intelligent and rational creator.
 
SergioL said:
You are changing the subject because you know that what I said is true: the existence of intelligible and rational natural laws require the existence of an intelligent and rational creator.
Click to expand...

Okay: you have made a positive claim.

Where is your evidence that it is true?
 
workmx said:
Okay: you have made a positive claim.

Where is your evidence that it is true?
Click to expand...

The evidence is that order cannot come from chaos (i.e., the law of gravity cannot have arisen by chance). Since the laws of nature are intelligible and rational, it follows that they must be the product of a rational and intelligent mind. This is almost an axiom and common sense in itself should be enough to demonstrate its validity.
 
Even if you convince me that doesn't make your hypothesis true. Find a way to test it and come back to me with evidence.
 
workmx said:
So who created god?
Click to expand...

Now you are asking sane questions. Do you accept that everything you have asked up to this point has been dumb?

All the evidence points to God and a good God. Now, where did God come from...? Let's think about that question more. We want to know where a being who created us and the entire universe comes from. Would you say that is on par with an ant wanting to grasp where 1. humans come from or 2. earth comes from or 3. the universe comes from or 4. beyond that.

Do you see the problem? Our brains are an OBVIOUS AS HELL limiting factor ;).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top