Evidence for God from Science

Sceptic wrote:Clearly it is difficult to understand!

You've chopped the quote (and removed it from its context, but hey). The process comprises two separate stages:

1. Genetic variation.
2. Natural selection acting on the phenotype.

Natural selection is not a random process.

Difficult to understand? I just gave you the response by LEADING evolutionists of the field. Natural selection is a random process. It's a blend of chance and sorting.. So sorry that is hard for you to understand.

It appears you don't wish to engage in the discussion. Therefore you give us no choice to cut the debate. Perhaps you can find another forum.

Sorry.

Gman wrote:

qqMOARpewpew wrote:Well then join your local school board or become a politician. I like it as is, and I rather them teach what you consider a religion because the rest of the world uses evolution as science, and we have to compete with the rest of the worlds schools. We're already losing in science and math, partly because of the evolution issue. As for evidence for evolution and the general overall topic of creation vs natural origins of life/evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Darwinian evolution is certainly not science... It's a religious philosophy. We're already losing in science and math because evolution has degraded the minds of our youth into stupidity..

Would you like to debate it?

In the world, (outside of your head) evolution (not what you believe evolution is, but actual biological evolution) is science.

And no we are behind the world because our kids are lazy christians whose parents believe as you do.

qqMOARpewpew wrote:And no we are behind the world because our kids are lazy christians whose parents believe as you do.

Ad-hominem is not an argument, but in typical fashion we see insults instead of arguments. Way to go.

In the world, (outside of your head) evolution (not what you believe evolution is, but actual biological evolution) is science.

Why, because you say so? Why don't you give us a definition of science, and how you believe the ToE applies to that.

qqMOARpewpew wrote:And no we are behind the world because our kids are lazy christians whose parents believe as you do.

What an absurd and dimwitted comment. Do you have any evidence at all to back up such a stupid claim?

qqMOARpewpew wrote: And no we are behind the world because our kids are lazy christians whose parents believe as you do.

This is a really bizarre statement. Lazy? What does that have to do with things? Talk about prejudiced. A lot of Christians are the least lazy people I know, giving of their time and money to others in a big way. I haven't read anything lately about where we are in the world as far as educational rankings, and that kind of information would be interesting to see. But qq isn't going to be around anymore, I don't think. There is not a real exchange of information or ideas with him.

DannyM wrote:

qqMOARpewpew wrote:And no we are behind the world because our kids are lazy christians whose parents believe as you do.

What an absurd and dimwitted comment. Do you have any evidence at all to back up such a stupid claim?

He doesn't feel he needs pesky things like evidence to back up his stupid claims. He's a legend in his own mind and to him: that's what counts the most.

qqMOARpewpew wrote:In the world, (outside of your head) evolution (not what you believe evolution is, but actual biological evolution) is science.

And no we are behind the world because our kids are lazy christians whose parents believe as you do.

Charming... Anytime you would like to debate it I'm all ears. Good luck because that is all you have to rely on. Sorry.

Evolution is science. Who the hell doubts this?

cslewislover wrote:Evolution is studied by scientific methods, it isn't science.

Clarify?

touchingcloth wrote:

cslewislover wrote:Evolution is studied by scientific methods, it isn't science.

Clarify?

TC, I think it's very clear. Evolution is studied by "science" but it is not "science" itself. That's all I was saying, because you wrote that it is science.

cslewislover wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:

cslewislover wrote:Evolution is studied by scientific methods, it isn't science.

Clarify?

TC, I think it's very clear. Evolution is studied by "science" but it is not "science" itself. That's all I was saying, because you wrote that it is science.

What do you mean by "it isn't science"?

According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

Evolution (as you hold to it) is not science. To call it so is a great disservice to science.

Evolution is an ideology. A faith belief.

The word itself has so many applications and understandings that one can not call it science and maintain any credibility.

For example. If you asked everyone here, they would agree that natural selection is true. It can be tested and observed scientifically. We might even come to a consensus that natural selection represents a form evolution. However this word, in this context fails to represent what you are saying when you say 'evolution IS science.' That is a faith leap. You are wanting to apply a testable and observalbe truth to your own ideology, and claim victory. That is NOT science, no matter how you cut it. It is vague at best, dishonest at worst.

I could go on, but the bottom line is your question is a loaded question, and you KNOW it.

jlay wrote:Evolution is an ideology. A faith belief.

cslewislover wrote:TC, I think it's very clear. Evolution is studied by "science" but it is not "science" itself. That's all I was saying, because you wrote that it is science.

I agree. Evolution is not science and it is not religion. Evolution is somewhat of a hybrid: it is more of a proto-religion than a science.*

FL

*proto, as in tending toward, giving rise to, as in protoplanet, protomorph, etc.

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

jlay wrote:Evolution is an ideology. A faith belief.

cslewislover wrote:TC, I think it's very clear. Evolution is studied by "science" but it is not "science" itself. That's all I was saying, because you wrote that it is science.

I agree. Evolution is not science and it is not religion. Evolution is somewhat of a hybrid: it is more of a proto-religion than a science.*

FL

*proto, as in tending toward, giving rise to, as in protoplanet, protomorph, etc.

I think the term "evolution" is very broad and used differently by many people in many different context; So much so that it's become something of a catch all phrase that has to be unpacked and terms defined carefully,

There is a very narrow sense to the word that can be used purely scienctifically that refers to the studied and nearly universal acceptance of evolution that relates to a process of change and development with species and gene pools. That's usually not the pure sense in which the word is used outside of that very narrow definition.

On the opposite end of the spectrum the word is used philosophically to equate to a position of belief that is represented to have its roots in science and thereby to somehow be more objective or "true" than positions of theism. Then there are all sorts of combinations and emphases that can fall along the spectrum between those two extremes.

Usually, before any productive conversation can take place, there needs to be a defining of terms and understanding reached by the participants as to what they mean by those terms, or else it becomes an exercise of talking past one another with each meaning something different while using similar words.