How can you not believe in evolution? Also ideas on Genesis

Key word: Suggest

Suggesting something is not proof of something. Therefore it is not fact but ideal.

Ok, this presents another question then. Why is a male cardinal red and a female cardinal brown? Are their diets THAT different?

Sheesh Cyracuz they could have just as easily been orange don't you think?

Science is not concerned with answering "WHY" something had happened. It merely tries to answer "HOW" something could have happened. Please note that I have said "could have" happened. Science, unlike religion, is open to incorporating NEW EVIDENCE into it's theories. When new evidence present's itself, science tries it's best to understand and incorporate that new information/data.

Instead of this dance, why don't you just say that you believe that god did all of this and that science has just as many holes as religion does.

While you're at it, please explain to me why you think that it was the Christian god that did this and not Allah or any of the other gods that could have done it.

hephzibah wrote:

Key word: Suggest

Suggesting something is not proof of something. Therefore it is not fact but ideal.

High white blood cell counts 'suggest' that something is wrong. It may not be specific until further tests are conducted, but the suggestion is there.

Trace residue of evolution suggest that evolution is true, it may not be specific but the suggestion is there.

hephzibah wrote:

Ok, this presents another question then. Why is a male cardinal red and a female cardinal brown? Are their diets THAT different?

The diet is the same. What seems to be different is the male's ability to metabolize red carotenoid pigments in his diet.

Animals certainly acquire these molecules in the diet, but also use a complex physiological processing system to transport carotenoids through the body to the site of deposition at the growing feather. Thus, we must consider these physiological steps as potentially costly components of pigment utilization and thus a direct means by which male birds can communicate their nutritional, physiological, and genetic quality to females. Preliminary work has in fact shown that certain male songbirds (e.g. American goldfinches) develop differently colored plumage when fed the same diet (McGraw and Hill 2001), suggesting a role for physiological regulation of color development.

http://www.public.asu.edu/~kjmcgraw/
http://southernsierraresearch.org/McGrawSchuetz_CBP.pdf

I'm sure learning a lot about birds here.

heph wrote:

Sheesh Cyracuz they could have just as easily been orange don't you think?

Maybe they were at one time. Unfortunately, they orange ones sucked at hiding from predators. They kind of stood out, and so they quickly vanished..

Holy cow Pauligirl! That's awesome. Ok, so I'd like to ask you another question... Why is it that among animals the males are the ones who tend to be more "beautiful" than the females, (meaning having the physical qualities to attract a mate) yet among humans it is the woman who seems to have more of the "beauty" qualities than males?

Ok, I'll give you credit for science being willing to incorporate "new evidence". However.... the problem is science will not take everything as evidence to be considered. It will only take what fit's it's agenda. Just like religion is accused of doing.

Precisely my point maporsche. Thank you for bringing it out. Science isn't concerned with why. Therefore, IMO it is dismissing important information simply because science knows it can't prove everything.

Don't you see the hunted look on that bird's eye? I can just see him thinking 'gotta get rid of this screaming color, or I'll be someone's dinner for sure.

hephzibah wrote:

Holy cow Pauligirl! That's awesome. Ok, so I'd like to ask you another question... Why is it that among animals the males are the ones who tend to be more "beautiful" than the females, (meaning having the physical qualities to attract a mate) yet among humans it is the woman who seems to have more of the "beauty" qualities than males?

With birds, many times the male is more colorful than the female. This may be because the female does primary duty incubating the eggs, and it benefits her and her eggs if she is better camouflaged.

Not all animals, or even birds, follow this design. Male and female chickadee's look very similar, and so do male and female garter snakes. A lot of times the animals life style has something to do with their size and color.

hephzibah wrote:

Ok, I'll give you credit for science being willing to incorporate "new evidence". However.... the problem is science will not take everything as evidence to be considered. It will only take what fit's it's agenda. Just like religion is accused of doing.

Science doesn't have an 'agenda'. Science is just following a methodology within certain limits. It's the only way it can function.

hephzibah wrote:

Precisely my point maporsche. Thank you for bringing it out. Science isn't concerned with why. Therefore, IMO it is dismissing important information simply because science knows it can't prove everything.

Science answers a lot of 'why' questions. It tells us why Monarch butterflies fly south, why the planets move the way they do, why hydrogen is lighter than helium, why earthquakes happen along faults, why leaves change color in the fall, why the sky appears blue, why Ostriches can't fly, why fish appear in the fossil record before mammals, why things happen and work the way they do.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say, 'Science isn't concerned with why'.

and dismisses the one's it can't.

It "may be" because.... Hmmmm... not a definite? Why not?

rosborne979 wrote:

hephzibah wrote:

Ok, I'll give you credit for science being willing to incorporate "new evidence". However.... the problem is science will not take everything as evidence to be considered. It will only take what fit's it's agenda. Just like religion is accused of doing.

Science doesn't have an 'agenda'. Science is just following a methodology within certain limits. It's the only way it can function.

Ok. So who sets the "limits" for science?

Yes it does answer some why questions. But not all. It only answers the one's it can and dismisses the one's it can't. That's my thought anyway. Doesn't necessarily mean it's right... or wrong...

WHY is a bluejay blue?

WHY is a bluejay blue?

Not all animals, or even birds, follow this design. Male and female chickadee's look very similar, and so do male and female garter snakes. A lot of times the animals life style has something to do with their size and color.

WHY is a bluejay blue?