IF evolution is true,

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Travelsong:
Scientists don't study these viruses through prayer or diligent theological pursuit, they study them through strictly natural means. That's how all science works my friend, regardless of whether one is a Christian, Buddhist or atheist.

PROOF?

 

[Travelsong]

Proof of what? Next time you go to the doctor ask him to pray for you rather than treat you.

Oh, I guess that wouldn't make him a doctor huh? There's your proof.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Travelsong:
Proof of what? Next time you go to the doctor ask him to pray for you rather than treat you.

Oh, I guess that wouldn't make him a doctor huh? There's your proof.

Your initial statement was ridiculously broad, assuming that scientists never pray for understanding or guidance in solving problems. Actually I do go to one doctor who prays before he treats patients. I suspect that many do even if silently.

So you haven't proven anything!

Also I have already admitted to seeing the missing link? in the GEICO commercial.

 

[Travelsong]

The point is that science is not dependant on theism.

If you are sick, blood samples might be taken to determine what you have. The doctor would be be barred from practicing medicine if he simply prayed to God for revelation. Although it is wise and prudent of him to ask God for guidance in his treatment, he has no alternative but to choose natural means when treating you. It's really that simple man. No need to be so stubborn.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Travelsong:
The point is that science is not dependant on theism.

Where have I said science was dependent on theism?

The original question concerned certain laws, I believe the law of gravity. Where did these laws originate, assuming they are indeed inviolate?

 

[Travelsong]

No one here is disputing that God created the laws by which the universe is governed. The fact of the matter is that God is supernatural and therefore beyond measurement or detection. The universe He created is natural, detectable, and can be studied. Knowledge derived from the study of the natural world is independant of the supernatural. One doesn't need to know God to be an effective scientist. One only needs to study.

You're simply not making any sense.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"Since energy input is required for evolution can I assume that energy is in the form of heat since, other than kinetic energy of wind and wave or perhaps the potential energy of falling objects, I doubt any other kind existed back in olden times."

So long as you include radiant energy as heat.

"Also, since the change in entropy [delta S] is defined as [delta Q, the heat added] divided by the absolute temperature [T], is it fair to assume that the entropy of whatever organism received heat is increased?"

I'll go along with that.

Can't let you guys get away with that. Energy comes in many forms. Energy can be stored as chemicals, for example, and then released by a chemical reaction. This occurs every time you eat something - you live off the chemical energy you just gathered into your body. Energy can be stored as potential energy. Every byciclist knows that after he huffs and puffs up the hill he gets some of that energy back on the way down the other side! Energy can be stored as electrical charges in capaciters. Energy can be in radiation, and in heat. Einstein even proved that mere mass is energy according to e=mc^2.

So let's not go around here saying that all energy is heat! But we CAN say that all energy can theoretically be converted to heat. </font>[/QUOTE]No one said that all energy is heat. Potential, kinetic, and radiant energy were mentioned in the discussion. I believe that stored energy, whether chemical or electrical, would be considered potential energy.

 

[OldRegular]

Proof of what? Next time you go to the doctor ask him to pray for you rather than treat you.

Oh, I guess that wouldn't make him a doctor huh? There's your proof.

That is not proof. That is BS!

 

[Craigbythesea]

there would be no Adam & Eve. There then would be no sin.Since there would be no sin, there would be no need for a redeemer.I don't beleive there is any reconciling between the Bible(Gods'Holy Word)and evolution.

Whether the theory of evolution is true or not has no bearing on the gospel message—but only upon how it is presented in the 21st century. I am not acquainted with even one scholar specializing today on Genesis and publishing today his research on Genesis in peer-reviewed biblical journals who does not believe that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are a heavily redacted series of epic tales, myths, legends, or sagas. Indeed the evidence in support of this view is immense—and it is solid!

We do not need for Genesis1-11 to be an accurate account of historical events to know that we have sinned and that Christ Jesus our redeemer is the sole source of effectual forgiveness and cleaning from sin.

 

[Craigbythesea]

We know that evolution is true - micro evolution. The jump in logic is when we try to claim the evidence supporting micro evolution also proves macro evolution to be true.

Microevolution is a term used by fundamentalist Christians and Muslims for the early stages in evolution which are identical to the later stages in evolution that Christians and Muslims call Macroevolution —the differences are merely quantitative rather than qualitative. A friend of mine was the first botanist to observe and document speciation in plants. It has since then been observed and documented in other kinds of plants and animals. The pertinent questions for Christians regarding evolution are did man evolve from a non-human and, if so, how do we reconcile that with the early Roman Catholic interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that has crept into most of our Baptist churches and taken root there as a “Biblical Truth”.