Originally posted by Proper Knob
You asked me this a few a years ago. I recommended a book, have you read it yet?

What book was that? 🙂

Originally posted by Suzianne
Wow, so you agree with me. Excellent.

All equally valid in that you can pick and choose your own version of creation mythology, Hindi, Jayne, Christian, whatever, or make up your own, like the flying spaghetti monster or the Australian aborigines version. Take your pick, they are all equally valid. All equally wrong.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Wrong. It is the Lord Jesus Christ that is the way, the truth, and the life.

I love it!

Couldn't have asked for a better Case Study for my "God and Truth" thread!

Dasa: .....who is eternally existent in the transcendental abode, which is forever free from the illusory representations of the material world. I meditate upon Him, for He is the Absolute Truth.

RJH: See above.

I am convinced that both of them would be prepared to die for their Truth.

So what would an independent external observer conclude?

Either both are right, or both are wrong. One cannot be right and the other wrong, their positions are both based on centuries old entrenched positions.

I say both are right, or even better, both are wrong and only a subset of the Ultimate Truth, which neither of us knows yet...

Originally posted by CalJust
I say both are right, or even better, both are wrong and only a subset of the Ultimate Truth, which neither of us knows yet...

I say both are wrong, and neither has even a subset of the Ultimate Truth. And since my set doesn't overlap with either of theirs, you cannot claim that all three of us share a subset.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I say both are wrong, and neither has even a subset of the Ultimate Truth. And since my set doesn't overlap with either of theirs, you cannot claim that all three of us share a subset.

Have you heard the saying:

He drew a circle to shut me out, I drew a bigger circle to include him in...

Originally posted by C Hess
No, but I know the cause of biodiversity: evolution.

Really, you know how that began, you know details, or are you just
accepting some possible explaination?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Really, you know how that began, you know details, or are you just
accepting some possible explaination?
Kelly

Are you saying there is never a change in a species? You have to know changes have been documented and diverging species reconnecting later into two species that cannot reproduce. That has been shown in the here and now.

There are hundreds of examples like that, documented and repeated.

Are you suggesting those observed changes are all directed by some kind of deity on a daily basis?

Originally posted by C Hess
What book was that? 🙂

Why Evolution is True - Jerry Coyne.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Why Evolution is True - Jerry Coyne.

You know, it really is sad why we have to even have this debate. There is this doctrine called separation of church and state and now the church is trying to worm its way into science. That should be 100% illegal. It is in fact a political push, having nothing to do with science and very little to do with religion.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Really, you know how that began, you know details, or are you just
accepting some possible explaination?
Kelly

It began with a population of single-celled organisms. They went through binary fissions as usual, all well, when the first mistakes were made. A mutation, maybe a duplication of genes. Whatever it was, not all of these simple cells were exactly the same anymore. And so time passed, these simple cells accumulating changes until they could survive in almost any environment on earth. But it gets really interesting when they... they... are you still reading?.. hello?..

Pfffft, figures. 😞

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Why Evolution is True - Jerry Coyne.

A great read. I read it myself not too long ago. I think I may have started a thread about it too. Anyway, it's a good recommendation. 🙂

Originally posted by sonhouse
You know, it really is sad why we have to even have this debate. There is this doctrine called separation of church and state and now the church is trying to worm its way into science. That should be 100% illegal. It is in fact a political push, having nothing to do with science and very little to do with religion.

Hear, hear!

Originally posted by C Hess
It began with a population of single-celled organisms. They went through binary fissions as usual, all well, when the first mistakes were made. A mutation, maybe a duplication of genes. Whatever it was, not all of these simple cells were exactly the same anymore. And so time passed, these simple cells accumulating changes until they could survive in almost an ...[text shortened]... eally interesting when they... they... are you still reading?.. hello?..

Pfffft, figures. 😞

A single cell is a huge deal, how did it get that complex?

Originally posted by C Hess
It began with a population of single-celled organisms. They went through binary fissions as usual, all well, when the first mistakes were made. A mutation, maybe a duplication of genes. Whatever it was, not all of these simple cells were exactly the same anymore. And so time passed, these simple cells accumulating changes until they could survive in almost an ...[text shortened]... eally interesting when they... they... are you still reading?.. hello?..

Pfffft, figures. 😞

"when they... they... are you still reading?.. hello?.. "

I try to treat you with respect, can I get the same from you?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Are you saying there is never a change in a species? You have to know changes have been documented and diverging species reconnecting later into two species that cannot reproduce. That has been shown in the here and now.

There are hundreds of examples like that, documented and repeated.

Are you suggesting those observed changes are all directed by some kind of deity on a daily basis?

No, I'm not saying there isn't any change in species, I believe that species
do indeed "evolve" just not to the level some do.

You have changes we can observe were we see one species changing into
another completely different one, or are you referring to changes some
think may have happen and are counting those as an observable change?