oh dear david/i reacted to the content..of the post...Religion and science:..respecting the differences

then steven comes in with his adgenda....NOTING...steven...didnt set the topic...only managed to polute it..with his/loaded biased adgenda

<<<..questioning why one should take any scripture seriously.>>as you put it

further you feed his bias with<<<..That is a good question.>>.we can agree to disagree...but one thing must be clear...

*he didnt/respect the topic...or the content...
SET BY<<By Michael Zimmerman,>>.

to wit..<<The teachings/of most mainstream religions/are consistent with evolution.>>

SO LETS GET BACK TO THE FIRST REASONing..,
not the first replie

i can agree...<<However,..it shortly disappeared>>>but that was because of redirection/begat from the first/reply....BY THOSE OF LIKE/belief as steven

till i raised the issue...raised by the auther...that of faulsi-fables...claimed/by the high priests of evolutionary/THEORY...yet conveniently...consistantly...NOT PRESENTED

but its not too late...
you can chose to present...any FAULSIFYABLES..you might have...lol

but you dont...so thus refuse to leave the question of non..faulsifyables..being able to be presented...

with/out constant..re-direction..
onto topics..for which you do have OPINION...but no fact/EITHER

neither the ORIGONAL questioner...NOR the respondants...have conducted as many redirections..from the posted topic as yourselves...

YOU WITHOUT FAULSIFYABLES...!

for your faith...in a flawed THEORY/ecvolution...exta/outof..genus

masking as science...
but without any of the faulsifications...TRUE SCIENCE REQUIRES

PRESENT YOUR FAUL-ASIF-YABLES
but that you dont got!

what you lot do have is FAITH...!
its time you respected your sameness...decieved by decievers/..all

each following the blind...by faith alone
BUT.../you claim/your faith/../lol..by fact...LOL

you CLAIM science...
WELL...present/ya faulsifyables

or realise your just the same/
believers/believing a flawed theory

Oliver
You say that the single handedness common to all life “suggests that the event occurred only once and was replicated over and over again. The initial state was copied.”

‘Genesis 1:12, The land produced vegetation—all sorts of seed-bearing plants, and trees with seed-bearing fruit. Their seeds produced plants and trees of the same kind.
Genesis 1:21, So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water, and every sort of bird—each producing offspring of the same kind.
Genesis 1:25, God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind.’

It sounds like you’ve been reading the first page of Genesis; life reproducing ‘of the same kind’. Your description sounds like the initial creation event, after which a lot of things were being copied.

The only part you left out was the phrase “And God saw that it was good.”

David,
It’s not just fundamentalists that continue to question evolution. The triumph of Darwinian theory is a boat that hasn’t arrived.

This was the summary of Zimmerman’s article, which we discuss:
“The teachings of most mainstream religions are consistent with evolution.”

Using Oliver’s discussion of chemical handedness as an example leads to suggest:
“The teachings of Genesis are consistent with science.”

But of course Dan, you should be able to interpret them as to make them consistent with anything.

i should/let..the lack of..faulsifyables..speak for itself

but/even..watching..the abc/..voyage..to the planets...just/now,,,the delusions/deceptions...just keep/..rolling along

the show/was..about the voyage...to pluto...got-to talking/..about how pluto/wernt..a planet/no more...[now its called/a micro-planet...lol..apperntly...]

but note/..the word planet...is still/there..[so pluto/..IS still a planet...infact..they now add in..4 more...

so..the story/should have said..we added 4 more...

[but THEN/they..couldnt have shown/..that neat footage..with protests...etc/..about the bland statement/beatup..with the deception of a planet/..that was/..*and remains...a form of/..planet[oid]...

as if..4 more/..isnt news-worthy enough/..as it was

but that..wasnt/my main gripe...
see the talk..got onto...commets/

specificlly..about how/these/are water/ice...and contain carbon...then the statement/...manipulated..by a revelation..lol

*dna...contains carbon...[wow...no sssssh-it]...lol

they then/..went on about/..how carbon..is a basis_of_life...and thus [via carbon...lol..life...*MUST be common...all over the universe..lol}

indeed/..THEY..went so far as/..to state..life came here...via carbon...

which is all spin..[ie..there is no science/joinder...that carbon/equates..to living...life/../lol

but it..was part/of..the flow...
so the mindless/now have*comet=life abiogenusis..
[planted..in their mindles-ness...}

to reinforce/the delusion of..evolution}..of genus...lol,
being a science/fact...?

and commets did it..[every-where]..and not god...

so subtil..the decievers...
so clever/..those/who decieve..
bit by bit...decieving/..bit by bit

bite this

im not angry...because no doudt/..carbon is in dna...
but that dont validate..THAT..carbon created it...
ie that''C''..made living..

or indeed is..any more/than a small part...
OF A HUGE..UNI-versal big picture..
even/science hasnt grasped fully

[an end?..or a stepping stone..to a beginning?...
but not the cause..not worthy of dumping intelligent/creator..or validating life...FROM carbon..thats plainly deceptive

look..i have a match/...i strike it..
the sulpher lights the match...lots of carbon...

but no life...

we got this huge sun..in the heavens...
no doudt emitting..massive ammounts of carbon...[not just wind]

i would be supprised..if carbon..wasnt in ice/commets...that it is is not worthy of..the spin they spun around...the diss=-covery

but such is..the low/science has sunk/to...
its time/..many of you egsamined..your belief's*

..[god dont judge NO-ONE...}..and evolution isnt..[IS/NOT...science...

WHY?..
be-cause...it has no faulsify-ables]...

live with/..some truths....egsamin the facts...
dont be a blind-follower...god made you unique...

[we each have OUR/OWN face...realise how special/..each of us is]

NO-one is an accident..

the least/can still teach us/..much about the most
god sustains us/..all..our living...just have faith in that

at least DEMAND proof..*
SHOW/ME...the faulsifyables

Dear Dan,

Genetics would go a step further and say that the Kingdoms (of Life)share a common ancestor. Yet, yes, replication is certainly involved.

Dear David f,

Arnold Toynbee suggested that economic systems are too feeble to exist without an underpinning ideology: e.g., religion. However, I wonder as we mature sociologically, whether the "trainer wheels" can come off and moral civilizations can exist on their own two feet. Herein, I would not see science, as an ideology, rather scientific societies would be founded on morality of a human and humane kind.

Science can help us to understand religion. Religion is more pressed at allowing us to understand science.

Dear OUG,

"Genus" is a hypothetical construct in the form of a taxonomy. It is merely a system of classification. There are several classification systems used in biology.

That stable DNA exhibits left-handedness is falsifiable.

Dear Oliver,

Toynbee was wrong in one respect. He put forth the view that societies and nations had a life cycle analogous to that of organisms. Birth, growth, maturity and death. The revival of Poland and Israel after years without a state puts the lie to that. Toynbee, in addition to being a historian, made unsustainable vast generalisations.

You wrote: "I wonder as we mature sociologically." I question that we are maturing sociologically. Furthermore I don't know what a moral civilization is as opposed to an immoral civilization. Any civilization contains an implicit or explicit morality that may be at odds with the values of other societies. I am sure that the Nazis thought of themselves as moral, and they were in the way they defined morality.

From your posts we would probably define 'humane' in much the same way. That is different from the way others might define it.

I don't see why religion should attempt to explain science. Please refer to any instances you know of where religion has tried.

Science has tried to explain religion from various standpoints. I eagerly read those books which are based on anthropology, sociology, evolutionary biology etc. Right now I am reading "The Story of God" by Robert Winston who is a medical scientist. He brings in the possibility that religious feelings have a genetic component. I imagine there will be many more books on the subject, and I will enjoy reading them.