Yes, the chemicals that gave life, give life to another organism.

Yes, the chemicals that gave life, give life to another organism.

This life is a bunch of chemicals yes. But the true energy life that lives inside of your body is not. Of course why worry about those things that we cannot see. You cannot see the air so go ahead and pollute all you want to.

I have no idea, I thought you knew. I know what things that don't look like they were made by God look like though: they're things which, when investigated scientifically, don't require God to be included in the description of how they work or where they came from.


Yes, we are just here. No-one gets to choose. Do you think people do get to choose whether they are here then jelly? I'm not sure where you're going with that one.


No of course not. Faith is belief in the absence of logic or evidence - i.e. irrational belief.


The Big Bang is an extremely - indeed, overwhelmingly - well-evidenced theory. 'Proven' is not a term in scientific parlance; if it was, then ideas would become sacred and impossible to throw out if required; all facts in science are subject to further data.


I'm sorry, I still suspect that you only think you do. If you did understand these terms, then you would know that a scientific theory is not 'just' an idea, but a synthesis of carefully-made observations and testable predictions. The heliocentric (Earth going round sun) theory of our solar system is still 'only' a theory, despite the fact that we can now test it in a thousand different ways, and that many of the things humans do rely on it being true. This is not to say that all scientific theories are equally well-evidenced - they're not - but what you're still doing is mistaking the jargon term 'theory' for its everyday counterpart, which can mean 'guess'. A scientific theory is not a guess.


There are those unscientific words again, 'proven' and 'guess'. Science deals only in testing hypotheses, collecting evidence and constructing and testing theory with more hypotheses. And this approach to the past - depending on the question - is just as applicable as to the present. Evidence-gathering. Simply put (I'm assuming you're talking about the Big Bang), the approach is not 'let's all try to guess what happened long ago', but 'at present, there are several competing theories which each adequately explain current observations. So let's try to make predictions from each of those theories to try to disprove them, and then make new observations. Then we can discard the inadequate theories.' In the case of the Big Bang, the smoking gun (almost literally) was the discovery of microwave background radiation, which was predicted by the BB model and not its competing theories (for instance the Steady State theory), and which gave us an age of the universe which correlated with the theory. BB model also explains other features of the universe with a high degree of accuracy, and hypotheses continue to be generated by the theory and tested against experimental observation. As the theory is refined, so the evidence mounts.


I hope I've shown that there are. There are a few scientific theories a present which adequately explain current observations, but which generate hypotheses we are as yet technologically unable to test (string theory, M-theory, Copenhagen vs Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics, etc.); these each have different things going for them, and are not claimed to be on a par with BB theory, evolutionary theory, or heliocentrism (except by non-scientists who misunderstand them).


The theory is correctly taught as an extremely well-evidenced theory which best explains all of our current observations, and is being continually supported by new ones. This is not a double standard, as I've explained.


Interesting. Which particular DNA-related discoveries are you still waiting before you reject God and the soul? Because I rather think the field is more advanced than you think. And, to say once again, it certainly hasn't stalled, which puts your premise in the realms of yet another 'what if', rather than a valid argument.

But I really would appreciate you being as precise as possible in stating which DNA-related discoveries you're waiting for before admitting you were mistaken.

If you believe in intelligent design, you believe a little bit of both. But you believe that G-d designed it, so he planned it before he did it.

I.D is a concept that says life was placed on this planet as is and specifically states evolution never happened and then unsuccessfully but continually tries to attack evolutionary theory. How does that allow for both? This is not an attack at you, I'm just curious. I think you may have a slightly more liberal view than the I.D concept.

What? That is a terrible analogy. Namely air pollution can be seen, what do you think smog is? It can also be tested for. Secondly, true energy, you have just made up, is in fact just assumption. Can you see hormones? Nope yet they are proven to affect us, even hormones produced by others effect our behaviour and even our physical development. You dismiss abiogenesis on the grounds that science is only 95% of the way of creating a life, so instead you support an idea with 0 evidence to support it? Seriously, do you not see a huge flaw here? Nearly a silly as believing your heart is involved in emotions and believing it actually hurts when your feeling folorn.

You cannot see the air so it doesn't exist. Thus there is no such thing as air pollution. What you don't like your words being used against you. Something like. YOU CANNOT SEE GOD SO HE DOESN'T EXIST.

So some idiot is able to design life on Earth. But, not be able to design it so it can change with the long term circumstances.

So some idiot is able to design life on Earth. But, not be able to design it so it can change with the long term circumstances.

You cannot see the air so it doesn't exist. Thus there is no such thing as air pollution. What you don't like your words being used against you. Something like. YOU CANNOT SEE GOD SO HE DOESN'T EXIST.

Did I miss something? Air does exsist or you would not be sitting there typing on your computer you would be hooked to medical equipment that does have air that exsist.
I have used the"" Air exsist but we can't see it but we know for a fact that it exsist, God can't be seen but we know He exsist""
Is that your point here? If you have faith and know without a doubt God exsist like I do then why do you need to prove it as you know and believe it to be true. Thats all that matters is your true faith to yourself. I am asked all the time to prove my faith in God is real and that my beliefs are fact, while I want to prove it I can't so I accept the fact that everyone will not find my beliefs real but that does not matter to me because I am the only one who needs to believe it.
Always a pleasure

What you don't like your words being used against you. Something like. YOU CANNOT SEE GOD SO HE DOESN'T EXIST.

Did I miss something? Air does exsist or you would not be sitting there typing on your computer you would be hooked to medical equipment that does have air that exsist.
I have used the"" Air exsist but we can't see it but we know for a fact that it exsist, God can't be seen but we know He exsist""
Is that your point here? If you have faith and know without a doubt God exsist like I do then why do you need to prove it as you know and believe it to be true. Thats all that matters is your true faith to yourself. I am asked all the time to prove my faith in God is real and that my beliefs are fact, while I want to prove it I can't so I accept the fact that everyone will not find my beliefs real but that does not matter to me because I am the only one who needs to believe it.
Always a pleasure

yes that is my point,

Is it really? Then why did you start a debate on it? Are you confused a lot?
I clearly remember you arguing that because science has not created a viable living organism from scratch that it is not possible and that life must have not been spontaneous.

What does believing in God have to do with the above statement.

First you have to be believe in God or at least a Highly technology race or you get stuck believing life was just an accident. This would be intelligent design.


I believe God designed the animals and created them on Earth. I also believe that He designed all animals on Earth to be able to evolve with the change environment. I should say all animals but one, that one is humans. We do not change with the environment we change the environment for our comfort.

Well quiet a lot really. The question is one you put and the argument you put forth was a religious one. You tried to debate the subject, fail to make a good point, posted a lot of very bad information some of it completely false and ridiculous. Since I posted counter posts to you showing flaws in you arguments you come up with trying to argue the existence of God with bad analogies which were pointed out. You then say that having faith is more important after all your arguments have been shown to be poorly thought. Then we got back here. Seems pretty linked to me.

bipedal definition


Definition: [adj] having two feet

Synonyms: biped, two-footed

Antonyms: four-footed, quadruped, quadrupedal





Webster's 1913 Dictionary

Definition: \Bip"e*dal\, a. [L. bipedalis: cf. F. bip['e]dal. See
{Biped}, n.]
1. Having two feet; biped.

2. Pertaining to a biped.


http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=bipedal



upright definition



At right angles to the horizon or to level ground: perpendicular, plumb, vertical. See horizontal/vertical/change of position.
Directed or pointed upward: erect, raised, upstanding. See horizontal/vertical/change of position.
Having or marked by uprightness in principle and action: good, honest, honorable, incorruptible, righteous, true, upstanding. Informal straight-shooting. Idioms: on theup-and-upup and up. See honest/dishonest.

http://www.answers.com/topic/upright


===============================================================================



No sir I didn't lose this debate. As soon as I came up with these definitions you ignored them.


My definition of an upright animal was correct. Your definition of a biped was correct. But you can be a biped without being an upright animal in motion.

There is only one animal on the planet whose main means of walking is bipedal and upright. Birds, with the exceptions of animals, do not move upright. Some sit upright or at least semi-upright but they do not move that way. Or at least their main means of movement is not in an upright position and this one does include the penguin since they main means of movement is swimming.

Now you can argue till your blue in the face but upright means vertical.

We do not change with the environment we change the environment for our comfort.

People indigenous to areas near the equator have dark skin. Those living further along toward the poles have light skin.

So it would seem the environment has affected us and caused a "change" on a macro scale.

I await your denial or complete avoidance of this truth.

So are birds horizontal then? No they are not. Learn some real science and you'll find you are wrong. Dictionary definitions do affect biology. Hence ask any zoologist, including me, and you find that birds are upright animals as well as bipedal animals. Hey even the scientific report I post stated so specifically.
But I'm not sure you can read multisyllabic words so it may have been a little to complex for you .

Really the last time I saw an eskimo they had dark skin. The natives of austrilia and new zealand are also dark skin. The native people who live in south africa are also dark skin. In fact I think that these people have the darkest skin on the planet.

north american indians living at the same attitude as the earopeans are also dark skin. The chinese living in the same are are dark skined.


Mongolians live further north than the chinese they are darker skinned.


Now I wait for you to call me a lier.

OK as I said before someone who knows everything can never be wrong.

Really the last time I saw an eskimo they had dark skin. The natives of austrilia and new zealand are also dark skin. The native people who live in south africa are also dark skin. In fact I think that these people have the darkest skin on the planet.

north american indians living at the same attitude as the earopeans are also dark skin. The chinese living in the same are are dark skined.


Mongolians live further north than the chinese they are darker skinned.


Now I wait for you to call me a lier.

As I said before I am a zoologist, I gave you scientific evidence, you gave dictionary definitions that make no mention of animals.

Your ignorance is unbounded .

Do you still think that the human heart is really in pain when your upset?

If yours does you should see a cardiologist .

Ok what ever mattshark I will just bow to your prefection and I will ignore any more of your posts. My difintion is very strict. Yours is as lose as possible to include any and all animals that you can get. I also looked for upright animals and the only one I found was humans. They are the only ones talked about at all on Yahoo and Google posts. When I looked it up on wikipiedia they kept takeing me to the difinition of a biped and never did talk about upright animals. So as I said I will ignore your posts from now on. You may post on any of my threads I do not care.

Ok what ever mattshark I will just bow to your prefection and I will ignore any more of your posts. My difintion is very strict. Yours is as lose as possible to include any and all animals that you can get. I also looked for upright animals and the only one I found was humans. They are the only ones talked about at all on Yahoo and Google posts. When I looked it up on wikipiedia they kept takeing me to the difinition of a biped and never did talk about upright animals. So as I said I will ignore your posts from now on. You may post on any of my threads I do not care.

Ok what ever mattshark I will just bow to your prefection and I will ignore any more of your posts. My difintion is very strict. Yours is as lose as possible to include any and all animals that you can get. I also looked for upright animals and the only one I found was humans. They are the only ones talked about at all on Yahoo and Google posts. When I looked it up on wikipiedia they kept takeing me to the difinition of a biped and never did talk about upright animals. So as I said I will ignore your posts from now on. You may post on any of my threads I do not care.

Life could not have started by accident. There is no way for it to have been an accident.

You must have a cell membrane for life and you must have life to have a cell membrane.

As for the earth the cell membrane we call the crust. It protects the Earth from those meteory strikes.

my arguements are going to flawed compared to an expert in a field. That howeve does not make me wrong.

I have more info on what really is going on. Which I would use but people like shark would just attack me. Like they tried to do on another thread where I did give the info that I had.

Bipedalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Biped)
Jump to: navigation, search

Bipedalism is standing, or moving for example by walking, running, or hopping, on two appendages (typically legs though it can also include hand walking). An animal or machine that usually moves in a bipedal manner is known as a biped (pronounced /ˈbaɪpɛd/), meaning "two feet" (Latin bi = two + ped = foot).

Early reptiles and lizards

The first known biped is the bolosaurid Eudibamus cursoris whose fossils date from 290 million years ago.[9][10] Its long hindlegs, short forelegs, and distinctive joints all suggest bipedalism. This may have given increased speed. The species was extinct before the dinosaurs appeared.

Independent of Eudibamus, some modern lizard species have developed the capacity to run on their hind legs for added speed.

[edit] Dinosaurs and birds

Bipedalism also developed independently among the dinosaurs. Dinosaurs diverged from their archosaur ancestors approximately 230 million years ago during the Middle to Late Triassic period, roughly 20 million years after the Permian-Triassic extinction event wiped out an estimated 95% of all life on Earth.[11][12] Radiometric dating of fossils from the early dinosaur genus Eoraptor establishes its presence in the fossil record at this time. Paleontologists believe Eoraptor resembles the common ancestor of all dinosaurs;[13] if this is true, its traits suggest that the first dinosaurs were small, bipedal predators.[14] The discovery of primitive, dinosaur-like ornithodirans such as Marasuchus and Lagerpeton in Argentinian Middle Triassic strata supports this view; analysis of recovered fossils suggests that these animals were indeed small, bipedal predators.

[edit] Mammals (excluding humans)

A number of mammals will adopt a bipedal stance in specific situations such as for feeding or fighting. A number of groups of extant mammals have independently evolved bipedalism as their main form of locomotion - for example humans, giant pangolins, and macropods. Humans, as their bipedalism has been extensively studied are documented in the next section. Macropods are believed to have evolved bipedal hopping only once in their evolution, at some time no later than 45 million years ago.[15]

[edit] Humans

There are at least twelve distinct hypotheses as to how and why bipedalism evolved in humans, and also some debate as to when. Evidence points to bipedalism evolving before the expansion in human brain size. The different hypotheses are not necessarily mutually exclusive and a number of selective forces may have acted together to lead to human bipedalism.

All courtesy of Wikipedia, which you just said told you that only humans are bipeds. Maybe you should look harder in the future. Its getting very hard for me to take your posts seriously when you refuse to do your research.

why are you misquoting me. I said upright not bipeds.

Bipedalism is standing, or moving for example by walking, running, or hopping, on two appendages (typically legs though it can also include hand walking). An animal or machine that usually moves in a bipedal manner is known as a biped (pronounced /ˈbaɪpɛd/), meaning "two feet" (Latin bi = two + ped = foot). (Forgot to insert this)

Im not misquoting you, you've misunderstood this entire discussion and have taken nearly everything thrown your way out of context. Please, cease and desist. Nucular already confronted you about your ignorance to certain facts and inability to produce evidence towards your claims. I, personally, am going to be slightly less harsh.
Next time you posit something in this forum be sure you can back up what you say. Also, be sure that you do not take things out of context. I have had a very hard time understanding where you have been coming from on many of your posts, and your lack of clarity is detrimental to this discussion.
Please, if you have evidence of the ideas you throw out on this forum, bring it to the table. I am more than happy to listen to what you say (and I cannot stress this enough, I'm all ears to anyone with a solid position on anything), however the misinformation you have been providing has not helped anyone in this debate. So, please, I beg of you, make sure the positions you take are supported by facts. I'm not talking about faith in God, there is no empirical evidence for God, and I'm not going to berate you for believing or not believing in God, that is your choice. However, I will be irritated when you misconstrue simple facts such as the difference between Hebrews and Arabs and then argue about it for multiple posts, or when you try to one up a professional zoologist with false information.

Nucular


we all are confined by our own capacity.

before everything ever. there has to be something that put the rules into place for whats happening all around us every day.

The soul lives in the heart. This is why your heart hurts when it is broken and usually not your head.

I don't think that religion created the soul. however it has twisted the idea to fit that religion's idea of what a soul is and/or does.

Hi jelly,

Thanks for a thoughtful and clear post, I enjoyed reading it.

I don't particularly have a problem with this concept of God - outside of everything, and undetectable scientifically. There are people, like yourself, who choose to believe in such a being without evidence; and that's okay, I can't tell you what to believe and nor would I want to.

My bugbear in this thread has been the repeated claims by yourself and danielost that the world doesn't work without God, and that science cannot progress and the workings of the world cannot be understood without constant reference to supernatural concepts such as God and the soul. This is, so far, false, as I have tried to show. But you seem to have moved away from that position, and I think that if you have you deserve some kudos.

You've identified there some of the questions science is at present struggling to answer: less "what came before the big bang", than "how do we investigate causality in the absence of the concept of 'before'?" Maybe there was a God who did plan it all out, who lit the touchpaper, put His fingers in His ears and stood back to watch His plan unfold in the universe we see around us. Maybe the universe came from somewhere else, another universe, maybe one that has been there forever. Maybe in the absence of everything, there are no rules, and so anything, including the big bang, could just randomly happen. Maybe it was elves and pixies.

We don't know. Yet. It sounds as if you've had some personal experiences which have convinced you that one particular answer is the correct one; I personally doubt the ability of subjective experience to convey truths about objective reality, but perhaps that's another discussion. However, whilst I do agree that it's difficult, or impossible, to imagine some of these concepts - nothingness, spacelessness, timelessness - scientific models can still accurately model some of these qualities (or anti-qualities), and so still may have quite a lot to say on the subject.

Anyway, one of the main things I wanted to respond to in your post was the idea that


This, you can probably see, is a contradiction - before 'everything ever' there can't be a 'something'. It boils down the the First Cause Fallacy - people say the universe requires an explanation, that there has to have been something which created it, and that that something is God. But this of course begs the question, "what created God?" If everything needs a cause, so does God. If there's a way to define God as not needing a cause, then that can equally well apply to the universe and negate the need for a First Cause.

This is why the whole thing, in my opinion, boils down to what I see as the most fundamental question of all: why is there something rather than nothing?

I don't think God is a good answer to that question, and I also suspect it's a question that science is unable to answer. A proper mystery!

But some may ask, "But who created God?" But the answer is that by definition He is not created; He is eternal. He is the One who brought time, space, and matter into existence. Since the concept of causality deals with space, time, and matter, and since God is one who brought space, time, and matter into existence, the concept of causality does not apply to God since it is something related to the reality of space, time, and matter. Since God is before space, time, and matter, the issue of causality does not apply to Him.

How could I misinterpet what this current discussion is about. I started it. I was not talking about being a biped only. I was talking about being a biped and stand upright at the same time. There is only one animal that walks upright. That is there is only one animal that is biped and walks upright all of the time. The next closest thing is a penguin.


That is a lot further from being a biped or standing upright. meerkats stand upright when on guard duty but they don't walk that way. So according to some here the meerkat is also an upright creature.

We've already had a professional zoologist explain this to you, and you rejected what he said. I dont understand why.

Because his definition and mine are not the same. and by my definition there is only one animal on this planet that always walks upright. birds are bipeds but they do not walk upright their bodies are horizontal to the ground.

Because his definition and mine are not the same. and by my definition there is only one animal on this planet that always walks upright. birds are bipeds but they do not walk upright their bodies are horizontal to the ground.

What makes your definition more valid than that of a professional zoologist? Have you dedicated you life to the study of animals, or just to giving into sensationalist pseudo science?

His is more qualified definition


fullywired

Anyway, one of the main things I wanted to respond to in your post was the idea that


This, you can probably see, is a contradiction - before 'everything ever' there can't be a 'something'. It boils down the the First Cause Fallacy - people say the universe requires an explanation, that there has to have been something which created it, and that that something is God. But this of course begs the question, "what created God?" If everything needs a cause, so does God. If there's a way to define God as not needing a cause, then that can equally well apply to the universe and negate the need for a First Cause.

This is why the whole thing, in my opinion, boils down to what I see as the most fundamental question of all: why is there something rather than nothing?

I don't think God is a good answer to that question, and I also suspect it's a question that science is unable to answer. A proper mystery!