Evidence for God from Science

>>Alas, many (most) of your colleagues in the scientific community are not so forgiving. Here's a sample from talkorigins.org:

Yes, I can not profess to speak for all who teach or study evolution. I was speaking for myself, here, and the way that I teach evolution and the philosophy of science. Yet what I wrote is, as far as I know, true. So I don't know why people get so heavy handed about it. I suppose they feel that because the idea is so well supported that they consider it to be factual in the same way that they feel that matter being composed of atoms is fact.

>>Many textbooks for example include discussions on the origin of life (the Miller-Urey experiment to be specific) within the framework of evolution, even though scientists deny that the origin of life is an evolutionary matter

Well, although it is not technically part of the theory of evolution, the two are inextricably linked. At some point, evolution has to account for the ultimate source of biological diversity. I just checked, and in the edition of Campbell I use (AP Edition) they are quite clear about stating that the stages they describe are speculative and hypothetical, but generate testable predictions. So they don't describe it as fact - at all.

>>There are many other examples like this: homology (being a so-called proof of common ancestry),

Well, the fact that homologies do exist, together with the genes that produce the morphological homologies is extremely powerful evidence for evolution. If they didn't exist, it would be rather difficult for evolution to explain.

>>similarity (or lack thereof, rather) of vertebrate embryos,

My textbook made no references to Haeckel's embryos nor to peppered moths (although evo-devo is a very powerful new field of evolutionary biology and the peppered moths are an example of evolution...even if the mechanism is not well understood).

Cheers
Al

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:I do not accept this definition.

Microevolution is a process which has been observed in lab conditions.
It is change which occurs in a population which can be observed within a span of an experiment.

Macroevolution describes what may occur over longer periods of time.

Obviously we cannot go back in time and observe evolution over millions of years.
But what we can do is notice the types of changes which occurred in the lab and see how they compare to cases where evolution suppposedly occurred over millions of years.

That is how we test evolution. We say if such and such species are related and were once a single population then we should expect this and that to have taken place.
We then see if that is indeed the case.

For example. We see a cave in africa which contains salt. We see that elephants each year journey into the cave and dig salt out from the far end. We watch as an elephant carves out a small portion of the cave.
We then theorize that the entire cave was carved out by elephants! We can make predictions based on this theory. The cave at no point will be too narrow for the elephants to traverse... etc.

If the observations do not conflict with the theory then it has been shown that it was possible that the elephants did indeed create this cave. Now it is possible that other factors went into making this cave. But the conclusion that the cave is a result of the ongoing burrowing habits of elephants is a scientifically sound one.

So in science we have observation, hypothesis and then conclusions.

The "microevolution" is an observation.
The "macroevolution" was a hypothesis.
The conclusions are found in every scientific journal.
More observations are now available in the form of genetic data etc.
With the number of observations and amount of analysis conducted it is scientifically sound to assume that macroevolution has occurred.
Notwithstanding the vast amount of data coming in.

For example the theory of gravity was a well estabilished scientific theory, and Newtons formulas still stand the test of time. Currently there are massive amounts of data becomming available to science through a series of experiments set up to detect micro gravity. This does not mean that we need to put the theory of gravity on hold.

The massive amounts of genetic data coming into the gene bank does not invalidate the vast amount of research already put into estabilishing the theory of evolution.

Ok. Sounds reasonable to me BGood... Even the genetic data coming into the gene bank does not invalidate the ToE part. I never really claimed that it did. Questioned maybe, but not invalidate...

ARWallace wrote:I am not upset. I have been consistently apologetic when it seems that I have upset you. What you have posted is not inconsistent with the ToE, so what reason do I have to be upset?

No… It's not what I've posted, it's what you've posted that seems inconsistent with the ToE… Don't look at me, I'm just a sounding board. And it seems to upset you when I point this out. You then make accusations against what I post, call me a miner, so naturally we aren't going to agree on these issues….

Ok, I'll put it this way, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings on the ToE. Sounds fair?

ARWallace wrote:In several instances, you have conflated what I have said. I have been careful to point out when and where.

Likewise I have pointed things out for you too..

ARWallace wrote:I am sorry if I have. I have sought clarification of your posts when I wasn't sure what you were saying, and I haven't tried to misrepresent your remarks in any way and I certainly haven't been quote mining. But I am not going to be passive when you say something about science that is untrue; and I am not sure how else to say besides "I'm sorry, but I think you're wrong".

All you have shown me here are assumptions that the ToE makes… Those are fine by me, if you what to believe in the ToE, then go for it… But technically you can't force it on me and call it a signed sealed %100 proven fact… Again all you are presenting here are arguments for the ToE (or for macroevolution). Not solid facts…

Ok, now everyone poo poos Richard Dawkins. But you know what? Sometimes he is right on.. In a recent interview in the movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” Ben Stein asked Dawkins, how life got started. Richard calmly replied, "No one really knows how life got started."

Here Dawkins was very truthful and I commend him for it… So why don't we just teach the truth that we don't always know how life came about? Why is that so threatening to science? We can't totally prove that macroevolution happened or it didn't. It's beyond the current capacity of science to draw a conclusion with any degree of certainty on either side. Why can't we just be truthful with science??? I don't get it…

ARWallace wrote:I'm sorry, but nothing I have posted has been inconsistent with science or my philosophy.

I'm sorry too, because may, could, should, possibilities, ideas, think, are just what they are.. They are beliefs.. Not facts.. It's not science…

ARWallace wrote:And again, I'd say that you're being remarkably simplistic about this issue; they're a new discovery, so little is know about them.

Simplistic? For being truthful about what is being revealed in science? Hey, don't get upset with me, complain to your local scientist..

ARWallace wrote:Yet recent discoveries have revealed that many of these are actually artifacts, and scientific explanations for their origins, function and relevance exist.

Not according to the information you posted on this forum… What you posted was that Some ORFans MAY be artefacts. The word “may” is not a fact by any means.

ARWallace wrote:Why should they be evidence for ID? Are they IC?

Why should they be evidence for DE? And no, they are complex… Can you create life out of non-living matter? Again, I can go around and label parts of my car too, but that doesn't necessarily mean I know how all the parts came together.

ARWallace wrote:No, I am not making assumptions. Assumptions are parts of the models and hypotheses, and you're free to examine those and rebut them if they interest you. The only assumption I am making is that naturalistic explanations exist for abiogenesis - in other words, I am assuming that science has an explanation. It's an assumption you make every time you practice science. Your assumptions seem to be that science doesn't have an answer and that the theological explanation is right. So it seems we'll have to agree to disagree - but this certainly doesn't mean that naturalistic explanations for how life could have arisen through natural means don't exist; just that you reject them.

The documents you presented were ALL based on assumptions for the ToE. If you reread what was spoken, they clearly were using words such as, possibly, maybe, perhaps, and the like… I hate to repeat myself, but these are all assumptions… So of course naturalistic explanations exist for abiogenesis.. But are they valid? Has it ever been proven in a lab? Scientists say no….

ARWallace wrote:I'm not sure an apology from me is needed, although I have been repeatedly apologetic from the get go. In fact, I have resisted the urge to request apologies from you. Nevertheless, I simply pointed out that I do not have the time nor energy to sift through articles trying to find the salient points you are trying to make. Make your point and reference and article - it's that simple.

Oh, and you don't reference articles…? Ok, then I'll apologize to you… I Gman apologize to you for telling you the truth about Darwinian evolution. It has never been witnessed to occur. Scientists go into the field with their own presuppositions.. Collect their data, and then make their arguments from what they have observed.. And that is pretty much based upon an assumption.. Hardly factual.. Sorry..

ARWallace wrote:Again, if you have a specific point to make, make it.

Read the article… The article makes the point…

ARWallace wrote:You have been really evasive on this - you provided 2 definitions that have no biological relevance, so how would you know when micro ends and macro starts in the real world? You reject one and accept the other, but seem not to have a clear, biological and genetic definition to be able to recognize them in nature. I have been using the term because you have been using them - I have stated that they are ambiguous which is why they are usually not used in the scientific literature.

Hey don't get upset with me… You are the one who keeps saying macro.. If macroevolution doesn't exist then why do you keep saying macro?? Again my argument is that you can't have the macro without the micro.. They go hand in hand..

ARWallace wrote:Nevertheless, we have ample evidence that small, measurable population-level changes add up to large scale changes.

Ah, no we don't… And the articles you submit confirm that..

ARWallace wrote:No, they are not assumptions: we have seen and measured population level genetic changes, we have witnessed speciation events, we have phylogenetic analyses at every level that confirm the branching patterns that are predicted to exist, we have a fossil record which reveals large scale changes over time, we have patterns that exist in nature that should only exist if evolution is true. These are not assumptions; they are data. They are evidence.

What evidence? We have not witnessed speciation events, we have never witnessed a new species of animal.. Ever. We have a questioning or dead tree of life…. And the fossil record? The major problems with gradualism is that it is not reflected in the fossil record. By far, the fossil record is extremely discontinuous.

ARWallace wrote:What is your definition of micro and macroevolution? How would you know when we have witnessed it if, in fact, it did occur? You seem to be working from the negative here - that you disbelieve an idea and therefore there are no evidences that could exist to support it.

I have given you my definition of macro/micro evolution about ten times… If you want to prove macroevolution you would have to rent a time machine and prove it..

ARWallace wrote:I don't follow.

Have you ever followed what I'm saying?

ARWallace wrote:I never claimed it did. I'm not sure how I can be clearer about this: both evolution and plate tectonic theory explain large scale changes as the product of small scale phenomena. Both have observable evidences to support them, both use observations in the natural world from events that occurred in the past to reconstruct patterns that exist today. You logically should reject the notion that Pangea existed if you are going to reject the notion of descent with modification leading to large scale organismal changes.

You never claimed that you did? They why are you bringing this up? Again, as long as it aligns with your Toe, then it's valid… You can't pull a logical argument on me because I disagree with what you think is logical... Again this does not interfere with the ID case..

ARWallace wrote:So you reject the evidences suggesting SA and Africa were once joined millions of years ago, but accept the general notion that they were because it is consistent with Biblical text?

Oh boy… I'm not rejecting any of the sciences… None… Could macroevolution be a possibility? Perhaps.. Could ID a possibility? Perhaps… Is pangea a possibility? Sure why not?

ARWallace wrote:You didn't read the article, did you? That is not the title of the paper, it is the title of a 1 paragraph blurb from the God and Science website that reviewed the article. The validity of serial endosymbiosis is not being questioned in the paper that was linked to the paragraph you referenced. If you aren't going to read the papers that you provide as support for your claims, then why should I (although in this case I thank you because I had missed this and found it intriguing)? I again extend my offer to email you a copy of the paper if you're actually interested in reading it.

I did read the article but it appears that you haven't… He stated very clearly “However, there is recent evidence from a primitive, previously little-studied group of protists (Archezoa) that the theory is probably incorrect.” Again, it is being questioned in this statement… If you are referring to the article that Rich posted (their work), then why do you think the scientists were saying that? Probably because they were not certain.. Hence questioning their "so called" facts..

ARWallace wrote:I am not certain how many ways I can explain this - historical science is still science!!! You can use the scientific method to understand events of the past based on evidences they left behind. You waved your hand and dismissed serial endosymbiosis without addressing a single evidence that has been used to support the theory. That does not mean science can't explain the origin of eukaryotes. When no one was around to witness a murder, we don't simply throw up our hands and say "oh well, I guess we'll never know whodunnit". We use evidences and logic to recreate the crime and identify the culprit. It's the same thing!

Historical science is based on what happened in the past.. No one was there to witness it… No one.. ID doesn't claim "oh well, I guess we'll never know whodunnit"… The case being made we should only infer ID where the evidence warrants. Nothing more, nothing less.

ARWallace wrote:No I am not. The way in which science is conducted precludes the involvement of any supernatural entity. What I said is no more theological than saying apples fall for natural reasons or that god has no part in why we get sick. These are natural phenomena that beg natural explanations.

Oh you fell into my trap here… You say “The way in which science is conducted precludes the involvement of any supernatural entity.” And that"These are natural phenomena that beg natural explanations." You just made a theological/philosophical statement… This is why I'm saying here that you are simply debating theology/philosophy…. Not solely science.. Sorry.

ARWallace wrote:What does atheism have to do with science? Belief in god has nothing to do with how science is conducted.

Careful now… Again you are contradicting yourself… You say, “What does atheism have to do with science? Belief in god has nothing to do with how science is conducted.” and then in the context of, "These are natural phenomena that beg natural explanations." You are making a theological claim…. Now I'm going to make a theological claim… How do you know that God has nothing to do with how science is explained? Do you get it now? We are simply having a theological argument here… Which is why I'm pushing back.. This is not science.. You are attacking my theology.

ARWallace wrote:Proofs are for mathematics. But since you asked - find vertebrate fossils in PreCambrian rock.

How does this solidify macroevolution?

ARWallace wrote:That is not at all what I said. You accused me of having a biased perspective - something about sunglasses on my head - and I provided evidence that I have not reached my conclusions without a great deal of introspection, and even once believed things that I now firmly reject. I never, ever accused you of lacking critical thought just because you don't agree with me.

That simply isn't true.. You say you haven't reached your conclusions?? But then you stated, “The theory of evolution is true beyond reasonable doubt in science.” So which is it?

ARWallace wrote:Um. Where did I say that?

You said that God and science don't mix…

ARWallace wrote:I am not disagreeing with your assessment of court trials vis-a-vis creationism. But you have not provided any references to any court cases prior to Dover that ruled ID was another form of creationism despite your repeated claims to this effect.

Teaching any form of creationism, design, ID etc., probably goes back to the scopes trail. That is why they don't allow ID into the public school systems.. The judge was claiming that it was simply another form of creationism.. He wasn't examining the science; in fact he isn't even a scientist. He is a judge. And his judgment was that ID was religious…

ARWallace wrote:No, I am saying that it is not illegal. Presently.

Then why isn't ID alluded to in my biology book like DE?

ARWallace wrote:It depends - if ID is another form of creationism, then it would be illegal to teach it. If it is not, then fine. What evidences does Design Theory have that "account for life"?

What does macroevolution have that accounts for life?

ARWallace wrote:again, if you have a specific point to make, make it and reference the article. I don't have to time to wade through this to try and figure out what point you're trying to make...

Ok then you stop referencing articles too..

ARWallace wrote:I am not playing the victim. These were your words "But when you start invading my space and say that how we got here is through random chance mutations, I've got a problem with that.." It sounded like I upset you, and this was not my intent. I am sorry (again) if I misunderstood you, but those were your words.

Not exactly… You start talking about banning and the likes.. Taking things to the extreme.. Seems victim'ish to me...

ARWallace wrote:I am not dictating. Explaining, yes. If this seems like a philosophy debate to you, I submit that it is partly because you do not appear to fully understand (or at least accept) science.

Oh what and you do? I don't think we are getting anywhere in this debate… I have to constantly repeat myself, and waste my time.. And from what you said previously too, you don't have the time either… So what is the point of this debate? We will never agree...

ARWallace wrote: 1. I am a biology teacher. However, I have 2 graduate degree in biology, worked with scientists and published my research. And scientists rarely directly quote other scientists in published research papers.

I'm happy that you are a biology teacher, have 2 graduate degrees in biology, and worked with scientists and published your research. But that doesn't give you the authority to say that you are 100% correct either...

ARWallace wrote:2. It would seem that you sometimes don't read the papers that you cite.

I did read them and found words like, possibly, perhaps, maybe, etc.. Sounds like an argument to me.. Likewise... In fact you even stated that you didn't read mine as well...

ARWallace wrote:3. You seem to be lampooning the way that science is conducted. When an idea has reached the status of theory, it has been through intense scrutiny and has broad explanatory power. That's what theories are. And by definition, a working theory has to be used to understand the phenomena it seeks to explain. You use it as a lens through which to understand things. This is no different in evolution than it is with germ theory, atomic theory, quantum mechanic theory and so on and so on. If the theory is wrong, then lots of things can't be explained by it - but just because something new isn't fully understood doesn't mean you reject the theory. Until they're well understood, ideas are considered hypotheses and are tentative explanations. So yes, the scientific literature abounds with "is possible that" or "seems consistent with". That's just the way science works. But the bottom line is, the ToE is used to understand phenomena - so what? So is every other theory.

Ok, so now I''m a lampooner... First I was a miner, now I'm a lampooner.. Again I'm not here to reject the ToE... I think it's cute, it could be a possibility, I'm not denying that... But it isn't the alpha and omega. I'm willing to draw the line on it, and I'm also willing to examine the science.. And the years I've been debating this topic on this forum hasn't phased me in the least.... In fact I feel better for it...

Gman -

We seem to be at an impasse on virtually everything, and this is evolving (pardon the pun) into more than just a pleasant exchange of ideas. Let me just summarize where I think we are and reiterate a few things, and we may just have to leave it at that:

1. You disagree that the historical sciences are a valid approach to testing ideas about historical events. I actually provided you with a link on this to counter your claim, and you either read it and chose not to reply, or didn't read it. Since I don't have the time to rebut the numerous articles you link, it's not a bad thing either way. Nevertheless, I also provided an example of how the historical sciences have provided a valid, testable and well supported explanation for the origin of eukaryotes. You did not refute any of this except to link me to an 1 paragraph summary of an article that did not refute the theory of serial endosymbiosis. What's more, it is evident that you did not read this article, and that you still have not read this article. I repeat my offer to send you the original article if you like, but the fact remains you have not discredited the historical sciences as a method of scientific inquiry.

2. You seem to think that I am making assumptions about abiogenesis. I have tried several times to explain to you that the steps that could have lead to organic molecules capable of being acted on by evolution were not assumptions. The steps may not have been the steps leading from nonlife to life, but they are possible steps, and they do not require divine intervention. Each of the models is based on assumptions, and these assumptions are testable (for example, the early experiments did not have an atmosphere similar to the one that likely existed on ancient Earth as part of their setup. Since the assumptions were wrong, the models were discredited). The only thing I am assuming here is that science can offer a valid hypothesis that does not require divine intervention; and it does.

3. You have not provided definitions of micro and macroevolution that have any biological relevance, so you have no real way of applying this to the real world to know whether macroevolution has or has not occurred. "Extrapolation" is too vague to be of any real, practical use. I have provided you with numerous examples of evidences supporting large scale evolutionary change, and you have largely ignored these. I have made the comparison of small, incremental changes in the Earth due to plate tectonics to small, incremental genetic and morphological changes in organisms. Both have theories to explain them, both can be witnessed operating over time, both have evidences supporting them, both require deep time to account for the patterns we see on Earth today, and both occur in small, incremental steps. Rejecting large scale evolutionary changes is a little like saying "I believe the sea floor in the Pacific is spreading, but I don't believe Hawaii was formed as a result of this". It makes no logical sense to reject one and accept the other.

4. You said have not been able to provide any evidence that the Edwards case as in any way about ID. It was not. You are either wrong and have difficulties admitting it, or you are holding out on providing the evidence to support this claim.

5. Science is not a religious endeavor. You do not have to abandon religious beliefs to practice science. However, by definition you must exclude supernatural explanations as part of your explanatory system. End of story. As soon as you do entertain supernatural explanations, you are by definition no longer doing science. So I am not making a religious statement, at all. Apples fall for natural reasons, not because god is pulling them. Evolution prescribes natural explanations for natural phenomena. You can't involve god in any explanatory system for natural phenomena and still call your explanation science. You can involve him in your explanatory system, but your explanation will by default not be scientific.

6. Your claim that the ToE has lead to my rejection of the Bible and God is patently false. You can retract your statement and issue and apology, or continue to misrepresent me and my beliefs.

7. Your claim that I have a biased perspective and lacked critical thinking is patently false. I accept the ToE which is, in the scientific community, seen to be true beyond reasonable doubt. But this does not change the fact that I once viewed the world through the same lens that you do (i.e. that I did not have the same biases and beliefs that I do now), or that I do not think critically. You can retract your statement and issue an apology, or continue to misrepresent me and my beliefs.

8. The main reason why ID is not taught in public schools is because the idea, in its current form, has not done what it says it can do - find IC structures. However, ID in the form presented in Dover, was ruled by the district court to be a religious idea and therefore teaching it in public schools in that district violated the Establishment Clause (note: I revised this - I asked my wife, an attorney, whether the district court ruling had direct legal implications beyond that district, and she said that it does not. It could, however, be a legal precedent in future court cases involving ID. So the only place in the US where it is illegal to teach ID is the Dover district). So the reason it is not "alluded to" in your text or taught alongside the ToE in public schools is because the idea doesn't work. And as I have said repeatedly, science only embraces ideas that work and teachers don't teach ideas just because someone finds them appealing.

9.Do you understand why the ToE is used as a lens through which we understand biological phenomena and not just an idea into which new evidences and observations have to be forced to fit? And that this is true of every scientific theory? The distinction is not subtle, but I want to be sure you understand it.

Unrelated question - why do you almost always end your sentences with 2 or 3 periods? Just curious...

Cheers
Al

AL wrote:but they are possible steps, and they do not require divine intervention.

Of course, there is absolutely no way that you can really exclude divine works with regard to creation by using scientific methods...all you are really doing is testing what happens with certain molecules....so really this statement means practically nothing

the big fallacy with all of these experiments is that at the end of the day, you are not proven God or God's works false. God can be working throughout his natrual laws all the time and we certainly cannot test for this.

zoegirl wrote:

ARWallace wrote: but they are possible steps, and they do not require divine intervention.

Of course, there is absolutely no way that you can really exclude divine works with regard to creation by using scientific methods...all you are really doing is testing what happens with certain molecules....

I would hope that most scientists would agree with the spirit of your statement up to here.

zoegirl wrote: so really this statement means practically nothing

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but I see Al's statement as far more than meaning practically nothing. ID implicitly requires divine intervention. If Al is correct about the possibility of natural steps, then no requirement for divine intervention in those steps would also be possible, which would mean a lot.

BTW, I suspect Al's meaning of the word possible is closer to the meaning of the word plausible than to the connotation of mathematically possible, which someone could read as possible, but highly improbable.

zoegirl wrote: the big fallacy with all of these experiments is that at the end of the day, you are not proven God or God's works false. God can be working throughout his natrual laws all the time and we certainly cannot test for this.

The only word I have a problem with here is the word fallacy. The experiments, even if successful, don't set out to prove anything about God, or anything else for that matter. So fallacy doesn't apply. Science does not prove. Successful experiments would only add evidence (however small) that abiogenesis could have been a natural process.

my apologies, sloppy language.

My contention was merely about his use of the phrase "wthout divine intervention". Even if you to show that abiogenesis were plausible in the lab, you have no way of disproving God's involvement.

And here I would say that we as CHristians need to simply be careful about how we establish what God can and cannot do. As soon as we place limitations on God's ability to establish His world, ie "situation A could not happen" or "this set of events couldn't have taken place" then we are dipping into dangerous grounds both theologically and physically. Certainly, we cannot establish that GOd could not be working within HIs very own creation and natural laws and so for us as Christians to establish that "since A cannot happen by itself it must have been with GOd's intervention" seems to place limitations on both God's creativity and design and His perogatives as Creator. Why can't God work through chemical reactions? COuld we even really be sure when God's intervenes and when He is not?

BUr scientists sure need ot be careful about the language used as well. Without divine intervention is not something that is even without sciences reach.

Cells don't have a desire to replicate. Replication of non-living protiens and molecultes had been happening for millions of years, we expect, before life on our Earth began approximately 4 billion years ago. Cells of varying types were likely formed and died all over our Earth before a replicating cell group managed to use its environment better than the protiens and other complex molecules around them. It sem that the first replicating protiens were RNA, so of which became viruses and the other important replicating protine was DNA which exists, to my knowledge, in all life today. However, life did not push out the other replicating protiens. They are all around us todat. In fact, it is a peplicating protien which creates Mad Cow Disease today.

Promordial Soup. -- sounds nice but is really not an accurate description. About 4 billion years ago when life first came about our Earth was very much different to e sure. The day was about 4 hours then rather than the 24 hours we have tody. The atmosphere was filled with all kinds of toxins and the oceans were not very salty. Our atmosphere also was high in hydrogen which, because it is so light, it gradually steamed off into space. The climate would also be very hot because the molten core was much closer to the surface then. There was little oxygen so the life at that time could not rely upon photosynthesis to provide energy but the organisms lived off the minerals and each other. There was no ozone layer so life wouldn't survive on land because of the high degree of UV radiation burning.

At about 2.5 billion years ago some life began to produce chkorofil and could 'eat' sunlight to some degree. This life was very strong and covered our Earth's oceans very quickly. Not only did this new life prosper so virulently that it stole the space other organisms were living in, this new life produced a strong effluent called oxygen. Much of the older type of life died off quickly with only some being able to overcome this oxygen toxin.

As our Earth cooled over the next couple of billion years much oxygen was produced and creatures finding oxygen to be a high energy gas for them began to use the fee oxygen to power their bodies. To make a long story short complexity grew upon complexity and life was the opposite of entropy because life actively used its environment to grow and change. Again, life did not "want" to reproduce. Reproduction was an inherent property of its makeup of replicating protiens. Some reproduced better than others in a variety of ways and localities. Not a want; but an inherent value that maks life life. In a simple way it is the survival of the strongest. But that's not all there is to evolution. There are just so many niches in which to survive and therefor, just so many ways to survive. Not all changes in an organism are talented to survival. Lots of ghosts of the past live within the organisms of today. That is why there is so much variation.

There is no theory in evolution suggesting that because there is a newer and better model all previous permutations shall need to die off. I don't know where people get this idea. However, at the rate humans are consuming our Earth thousands upon thousands of species are succumbing to our onipresence here on our Earth. But the inscects will live beyond us if this continues to be so.

There are many ways that evolution deals with reproduction. In humans its a great need to have sex and to want to do it again and again. For most mammals that's just the way it is.

I really don't know why we laugh and we cry and hold our emotions out for all to see. All apes show their feelings to varying degrees as do all mammals in thir own way. Just look how happy your dag is to see you come home - or your horse or your goar------

Our human brain, with all its frailties, has allowed us to build inteligently upon our past and uninteligently too, I might add.

Its not what is available for us to use that matters. It is our ability to use what we have that matters. Our planet and our Sun are products of bilions of stars whose lives have ended in mighty explosions calle super-novas. In the beginning there was little else except hydrogen and hellium. Everything else is the production of stars fussion and spread through space bt super- novas. I don't know how the remains of dinosaurs help us drive cars. You've got me there!

Believing in complex layers of evolution is provided by the evidence which takes us back through millons and billions of years. Evolution is not a leap of faith. Believing in God is a leap of faith. The complexity of man is far more complex than it needs to be. If we were put together by inteligent design I would hope that that inteligence would be able to simplify things a heck of a lot. Inteligence is not so much in the complexity of design the beauty is in the simplification of design.

Your difficulty is that you're trying to believe in God and, given that you are a Christian, you are forgetting your 6,000 year limit and a host of other problems with your Bible..

We only seem irreducibly complex because our complexity has been grown and done its best to assimulate all the parts we have. Each part relying upon another and another and each other to grow a surviving and adaptable creature. We are surrounded by the same in all mamals. By our DNA we are very close family to even the bacteria which surrounds us. We are a product of our environment. The apects of our Earth were not set there for us; we have adapted to what is. If things were different then so must we be different. We.re not talking a lottery here. We are a consequence of our environment. And, until recently the nvironment was not a consequence of us.

ˈeɪθiɪst wrote:About 4 billion years ago when life first came about our Earth was very much different to e sure. The day was about 4 hours then rather than the 24 hours we have tody....

At about 2.5 billion years ago some life began to produce chkorofil and could 'eat' sunlight to some degree...

This from something that came out of the soup...

ˈeɪθiɪst wrote:Believing in God is a leap of faith.

Wasn't this person just telling us about what was going on 2.5 billion to 4 billion years ago as a matter of fact?

ˈeɪθiɪst wrote:The complexity of man is far more complex than it needs to be.

Which is your first complaint. I'll be glad to cut it out/off for you.
.
.

erOist,

You said:

Its not what is available for us to use that matters. It is our ability to use what we have that matters.

My response:

This is a silly statement, no offense, but even if it were random, certainly man is not so vain to think it is how we use our resourses that matters, that we are so ingenious. When a scientist creates life from his own created molecules and chemical combinations, then perhaps this statement will have more credibility.That would be like me making orange juice and saying, its not really the oranges that matter, it's more the way I squeezed them.

You said:

I don't know how the remains of dinosaurs help us drive cars. You've got me there!

My response:

I hope I didn't "get you there". Prehistoric plants and animals, including dinosaurs, make up about 90% of the worlds energy-they are called fossil fuels.

you said:

you are forgetting your 6,000 year limit

I said:
Who said anything about a creators time limit?

ARWallace wrote:1. You disagree that the historical sciences are a valid approach to testing ideas about historical events. I actually provided you with a link on this to counter your claim, and you either read it and chose not to reply, or didn't read it. Since I don't have the time to rebut the numerous articles you link, it's not a bad thing either way. Nevertheless, I also provided an example of how the historical sciences have provided a valid, testable and well supported explanation for the origin of eukaryotes. You did not refute any of this except to link me to an 1 paragraph summary of an article that did not refute the theory of serial endosymbiosis. What's more, it is evident that you did not read this article, and that you still have not read this article. I repeat my offer to send you the original article if you like, but the fact remains you have not discredited the historical sciences as a method of scientific inquiry.

What proof? Possible explanations for the origin of eukaryotes?? How can how this be factual information for life? Can you create eukaryotes from non-life in a lab or not? What is the origin of life of information and where did it come from?

ARWallace wrote:2. You seem to think that I am making assumptions about abiogenesis. I have tried several times to explain to you that the steps that could have lead to organic molecules capable of being acted on by evolution were not assumptions. The steps may not have been the steps leading from nonlife to life, but they are possible steps, and they do not require divine intervention. Each of the models is based on assumptions, and these assumptions are testable (for example, the early experiments did not have an atmosphere similar to the one that likely existed on ancient Earth as part of their setup. Since the assumptions were wrong, the models were discredited).

Possible steps leading from nonlife to life? When does the possible suddenly become factual? Perhaps you would like to explain some of these facts here about abiogenesis…

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html

ARWallace wrote:The only thing I am assuming here is that science can offer a valid hypothesis that does not require divine intervention; and it does.

Then you have given ALL your authority to science… Science speaks a word of authority for you. It is your truth... It is your God…

ARWallace wrote:3. You have not provided definitions of micro and macroevolution that have any biological relevance, so you have no real way of applying this to the real world to know whether macroevolution has or has not occurred. "Extrapolation" is too vague to be of any real, practical use. I have provided you with numerous examples of evidences supporting large scale evolutionary change, and you have largely ignored these. I have made the comparison of small, incremental changes in the Earth due to plate tectonics to small, incremental genetic and morphological changes in organisms. Both have theories to explain them, both can be witnessed operating over time, both have evidences supporting them, both require deep time to account for the patterns we see on Earth today, and both occur in small, incremental steps. Rejecting large scale evolutionary changes is a little like saying "I believe the sea floor in the Pacific is spreading, but I don't believe Hawaii was formed as a result of this". It makes no logical sense to reject one and accept the other.

.

Technically scientists do not know exactly how life evolved out of nonlife. Technically no scientist has ever been able to create a cell, the eye, the pituitary system, etc., in a lab. Technically no one was around millions of years ago to witness how all matter came into existence… Technically there may be hypothesis that may beg natural explanations (without God) for life as we know it. But technically it has never been proven naturally.. But that is your belief system…

ARWallace wrote:4. You said have not been able to provide any evidence that the Edwards case as in any way about ID. It was not. You are either wrong and have difficulties admitting it, or you are holding out on providing the evidence to support this claim.

The Edwards case was in 87.. ID wasn't even around in the 80's so how could it be related to the Edwards case? The plaintiffs were arguing that intelligent design sprang up in the wake of the 1987 Supreme Court decision against creation science... They even used researcher Nick Matzke remarks, stating… "Intelligent design is just a new label for creationism," Mr. Matzke noted. "It is just the latest legal strategy for creationism. It evolved in 1987 right after the Supreme Court ruled against creationism and said that that was unconstitutional."

ARWallace wrote:5. Science is not a religious endeavor. You do not have to abandon religious beliefs to practice science. However, by definition you must exclude supernatural explanations as part of your explanatory system. End of story. As soon as you do entertain supernatural explanations, you are by definition no longer doing science. So I am not making a religious statement, at all. Apples fall for natural reasons, not because god is pulling them. Evolution prescribes natural explanations for natural phenomena. You can't involve god in any explanatory system for natural phenomena and still call your explanation science. You can involve him in your explanatory system, but your explanation will by default not be scientific.

I disagree... Science may be conducted by natural explanations, but natural means cannot fully explain it. Richard Dawkins confirmed that too so your fight is with him also. Darwinian evolution has everything to do with science when you say that life as we know it can only be explained by natural means… You are saying that only through science can we hold truth, that is scientifically.. Whenever you take science and question the meaning or origin of life, then you are making a belief system out of science, the answer for everything, your own concerns, a religion... Your religion..

ARWallace wrote:6. Your claim that the ToE has lead to my rejection of the Bible and God is patently false. You can retract your statement and issue and apology, or continue to misrepresent me and my beliefs.

Nice.. Go back and look what I posted… It was in the form of a question…

ARWallace wrote:7. Your claim that I have a biased perspective and lacked critical thinking is patently false. I accept the ToE which is, in the scientific community, seen to be true beyond reasonable doubt. But this does not change the fact that I once viewed the world through the same lens that you do (i.e. that I did not have the same biases and beliefs that I do now), or that I do not think critically. You can retract your statement and issue an apology, or continue to misrepresent me and my beliefs.

That is not what you stated earlier... You stated, "I never claimed that evolution had all the answers." Now you are changing your tune saying it is true beyond reasonable doubt....

And a apology? For saying that DE is bunk? Give me a break.. Actually I did this critical thinking in the reverse of you… I use to accept the ToE as the ultimate truth, but after examining the evidence and understanding the philosophies, I thought turning to God was the wiser/smarter choice.

ARWallace wrote:8. The main reason why ID is not taught in public schools is because the idea, in its current form, has not done what it says it can do - find IC structures.

You can't find DE either.. Although you can think, assume, surmise, elaborate, speculate, postulate, and pontificate it, you cannot replicate it on a macro evolutionary level. This is what science reveals...

ARWallace wrote:However, ID in the form presented in Dover, was ruled by the district court to be a religious idea and therefore teaching it in public schools in that district violated the Establishment Clause (note: I revised this - I asked my wife, an attorney, whether the district court ruling had direct legal implications beyond that district, and she said that it does not. It could, however, be a legal precedent in future court cases involving ID. So the only place in the US where it is illegal to teach ID is the Dover district). So the reason it is not "alluded to" in your text or taught alongside the ToE in public schools is because the idea doesn't work. And as I have said repeatedly, science only embraces ideas that work and teachers don't teach ideas just because someone finds them appealing.

No.. I said that ID has been labeled as another form of Biblical creationism, a religious endeavor. If it is ever going to be taught in schools, it will have to be proven in the courts on it's religious non-affiliation (due to the Establishment Clause), not based on science.. Judges are not scientists…

ARWallace wrote:9.Do you understand why the ToE is used as a lens through which we understand biological phenomena and not just an idea into which new evidences and observations have to be forced to fit? And that this is true of every scientific theory? The distinction is not subtle, but I want to be sure you understand it.

You have done nothing of the like… ToE? Whatever that means.. Nothing is a problem for ToE because nothing created itself..

Gman —

>> What proof? Possible explanations for the origin of eukaryotes?? How can how this be factual information for life? Can you create eukaryotes from non-life in a lab or not? What is the origin of life of information and where did it come from?

Um, I never said “proof”. This is a red herring. Once again, I have provided testable hypotheses that could have produced organic material capable of being acted on by natural selection. You choose not to rebut them, simply to reject them. That's your prerogative. You choose to reject the historical sciences, writ large. That's your prerogative. That doesn't render them unscientific. And I have no idea what the “origin of life of information” is. But I would still be willing to send you a copy of the paper you cited that you did not read.

>> Possible steps leading from nonlife to life? When does the possible suddenly become factual?

You continue to conflate my statements. I never said it was factual. Why are you deliberately misrepresenting me? But since you seem to have abandoned your misapprehensions about “assumptions” in science, can I assume you are finally clear on this?

>> Perhaps you would like to explain some of these facts here about abiogenesis…

Actually, I would not like to. You will likely simply ignore them and provide yet another tired old list of statements that I have to refute. And since you don't seem to read the articles that you, yourself, cite, I'm not sure why I should bother. But how about if I take a crack at the first 3 and leave it at that.

>> Homochirality somehow arose in the sugars and amino acids of prebiotic soups, although there is no mechanism by which this can occur…

See this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abiopro ... ochirality.

>>In the absence of Proteins that encourage a biochemical reactions there is no chemical reaction that produces the sugar ribose

See this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1471 ... stractPlus

>>Chemical reactions in which is hypothesized to play a role in the formation of life produce other sugars that prevent DNA and RNA replication

The problem, as stated in the original paper, is that other sugars would be present and would compete with ribose in produce RNA. So the question is whether there may be another sugar — a precursor to RNA — that could be present. And indeed there is — see here: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/s ... 8.abstract

>>Then you have given ALL your authority to science… Science speaks a word of authority for you. It is your truth... It is your God…

That is an outrageous statement to make. By this logic, my god is science when it comes to understanding the basis of disease, the cellular basis of life, how atoms behave and whether black holes exist. I have seen this charge leveled against evolutionists time and again, and it is simply a gross mischaracterization of the way in which those who study this particular field of science behave. Once again, I am making an assumption that every single person who studies science makes when they set out to use science to answer questions — i.e. that natural explanations exist for natural phenomena. It is not my god — it is a philosophical basis upon which science is practiced.

>>Technically scientists do not know exactly how life evolved out of nonlife. Technically no scientist has ever been able to create a cell, the eye, the pituitary system, etc., in a lab.

This is your response? Why are you ignoring the comparison I made between this historical sciences and how they are used to understand continental drift, and how they are used to understand patterns in the evolution and diversification of life? Do you reject the notion that Hawaii was formed by small, incremental changes in the Earth's crust over millions of years?

>>The Edwards case was in 87.. ID wasn't even around in the 80's so how could it be related to the Edwards case?

HUH???? I never said it was — YOU did! You said — and I quote “Again The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard that any form of design is another form of creationism and that it violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits state funds to religion..” and “The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard that design is another form of creationism and that it violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits state funds to religion.” You made specific statements about what the Edwards case did and did not say. I questioned you on this several times since it seemed inconsistent with what the ruling established. Now you do a total 180 and question how I could relate ID to the Edwards case? What gives???

>>I disagree... Science may be conducted by natural explanations, but natural means cannot fully explain it.

I'm sorry, but this makes no sense.

>>Richard Dawkins confirmed that too so your fight is with him also.

So what?

>>Darwinian evolution

Please define “Darwinian Evolution”. You use this term time and again, and yet I have yet to encounter scientists using it — certainly not in the scientific literature. What is it? And how is it different than the theory of evolution?

>>You are saying that only through science can we hold truth, that is scientifically..

No, this is not what I am saying.

>>Whenever you take science and question the meaning or origin of life, then you are making a belief system out of science

No, I am not. I am assuming that science will hold answers to natural phenomena — a foundational principle in science. Let's say the literal account of man's origins in Genesis is true — word for word. That is, man was formed from dust more or less instantly about 8000 years ago. If that is true, it is a supernatural event, and science cannot explain it. Some basic observable facts and testable hypotheses could confirm whether there is evidence to support whether this notion is true (e.g. an absence of hominid fossils; a young Earth; no logical phylogenetic patterns between apes and other primates etc). But a supernatural event, by definition, cannot be explained by science. Now, there is rather overwhelming that this was not how it happened — but be that as it may, science assumes that the evolution of life was a natural phenomenon and there natural explanations must exist. This is not a belief system in the sense that you are portraying belief systems — and it is certainly not a religion.

>>Nice.. Go back and look what I posted… It was in the form of a question…

Actually, you posed it as a rhetorical question. “So ToE forced you to reject the Bible and God? Interesting..” I followed up asking where I had said this. And then you followed up by stating another untruth “You said that God and science don't mix…” I said neither of these things, so either you will continue to misrepresent me and pretend you're not, or retract these untrue statements. These are rather serious allegations to level, and without evidence that I have said them, I would rather you retract them.

>>That is not what you stated earlier... You stated, "I never claimed that evolution had all the answers." Now you are changing your tune saying it is true beyond reasonable doubt....

No, I am not changing my tune. I have been remarkably consistent in what I have said; you are choosing to conflate my statements. I have said that the theory of evolution is true beyond all reasonable doubt — just like cell theory, endosymbiotic theory, plate tectonic theory and quantum mechanic theory are true beyond all reasonable doubt. But this does not mean that they have all the answers; evolution cannot, for example, explain gravity. It also fails to explain metaphysical questions such as the meaning of life or whether god does or does not exist. It is limited as all scientific theories are — so it has its limitations. But that doesn't mean it isn't true beyond all reasonable doubt.

>>And a apology? For saying that DE is bunk? Give me a break..

I wasn't asking you to apologize for that — so you need to give me a break. You said my worldview was limited because I had a bias, and implied that I lacked critical thinking. I explained to you that this was patently false — that I was once a creationist and that I read extremely widely on these topics, and that I think deeply and critically about them. That you ignore this and continue to insist the contrary is offensive, and I would think that minimum Christian values would enable one to admit when they were wrong, when they had broken the 9th commandment (bearing false witness) and when they simply had said something untrue about someone else's character and were humble enough to offer an apology.

>>Actually I did this critical thinking in the reverse of you… I use to accept the ToE as the ultimate truth,

Really? Maybe this is why you keep insisting that I do as well?

>>but after examining the evidence and understanding the philosophies, I thought turning to God was the wiser/smarter choice.

This seems to me like a false dichotomy — are you suggesting that you can either accept science or religion? I just want to be clear about this.

>>You can't find DE either.. Although you can think, assume, surmise, elaborate, speculate, postulate, and pontificate it, you cannot replicate it on a macro evolutionary level. This is what science reveals...

I'm sorry — what was macroevolution again? Did you offer a definition that had any heuristic value and biological relevance in assessing when it had and had not occurred?

>>No.. I said that ID has been labeled as another form of Biblical creationism, a religious endeavor.

It's funny you should say that — since that is exactly what was shown to be the case in the Dover trial. It wasn't labeled that — it was proven to be in that court trial. Now maybe another court will reverse that decision, or subsequent court trials based on new evidence will find the contrary — but it is not labeled another form of creationism. In its current form, according to the evidence presented in Dover, it is another form of creationism.

>>If it is ever going to be taught in schools, it will have to be proven in the courts on it's religious non-affiliation (due to the Establishment Clause), not based on science..

Fair enough. With this I would agree. But this doesn't change the fact that it is not taught in public schools right now because (a) the idea doesn't work and (b) we don't teach broken ideas just because someone likes the idea.

>>You have done nothing of the like… ToE? Whatever that means.. Nothing is a problem for ToE because nothing created itself..

So you don't understand the distinction? You reject the statement I made that a vertebrate fossil in Precambrian rock would be a problem for evolution, and insist that unlike any other scientific theory in any other scientific discipline, it can't be used as a lens to understand new phenomena. — just as an idea whose validity must be upheld at any cost. Is this your position?

Still curious why you end sentences in 2+ periods…

Cheers ~ Al

ARWallace wrote:Um, I never said “proof”. This is a red herring. Once again, I have provided testable hypotheses that could have produced organic material capable of being acted on by natural selection. You choose not to rebut them, simply to reject them. That's your prerogative. You choose to reject the historical sciences, writ large. That's your prerogative. That doesn't render them unscientific. And I have no idea what the “origin of life of information” is.

Um.. No…. The onus is you to prove ToE.. You stated ToE to be true beyond reasonable doubt. Now you say you have a hypotheses that could have produced organic material capable of being acted on by natural selection. A hypotheses that could have produced organic material?? This isn't science, this is your belief system… Also you haven't answered my question about natural selection. Where did it come from? What is it going to select to get the ball in motion? Itself?

Origin of life? Why are you trying to explain abiogenesis to me then? You are saying that you have uncovered the origin of eukaryotes… So prove it.. Where exactly are you getting this information to produce eukaryotes and where did that information come from? Explain it in detail…

ARWallace wrote:But I would still be willing to send you a copy of the paper you cited that you did not read.

So post it… What are you waiting for?

ARWallace wrote:You continue to conflate my statements. I never said it was factual. Why are you deliberately misrepresenting me? But since you seem to have abandoned your misapprehensions about “assumptions” in science, can I assume you are finally clear on this?

Funny… Again, you stated ToE to be true beyond reasonable doubt. You are making a FACTUAL statement. Lookup the definition of a fact… You are clearly saying that ToE is completely factual.

Fact - a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

ARWallace wrote:Actually, I would not like to. You will likely simply ignore them and provide yet another tired old list of statements that I have to refute. And since you don't seem to read the articles that you, yourself, cite, I'm not sure why I should bother. But how about if I take a crack at the first 3 and leave it at that.

Ignore what? Hypotheses? Possible scenarios? This isn't science… This is what you think is true.. Let's take a look at them then..

ARWallace wrote:See this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abiopro ... ochirality.

Speaking of reading articles, did you happen to read that last section on "Outlook" in your page?? It stated, “Even though recent, exciting research has provided plausible scenarios for the origin of life and has answered many questions, it is clear that a lot of research remains to be done, since much of the origin-of-life scenarios is still hypothesis.”

A hypothesis? Hardly factual… I thought you said ToE was true beyond reasonable doubt? How does this statement back up the truth?

ARWallace wrote:See this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1471 ... stractPlus

One statement? Stabilize ribose? No… What is the chemical reaction that produces the sugar ribose?

ARWallace wrote:The problem, as stated in the original paper, is that other sugars would be present and would compete with ribose in produce RNA. So the question is whether there may be another sugar — a precursor to RNA — that could be present. And indeed there is — see here: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/s ... 8.abstract

Nice it says page not found… Could be present? Either it is or it isn't to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt..

ARWallace wrote:That is an outrageous statement to make. By this logic, my god is science when it comes to understanding the basis of disease, the cellular basis of life, how atoms behave and whether black holes exist. I have seen this charge leveled against evolutionists time and again, and it is simply a gross mischaracterization of the way in which those who study this particular field of science behave. Once again, I am making an assumption that every single person who studies science makes when they set out to use science to answer questions — i.e. that natural explanations exist for natural phenomena. It is not my god —

Baloney! You stated ToE to be true beyond reasonable doubt. Your claim is evolution prescribes natural explanations only for natural phenomena. You say we can't involve god in any explanatory system for natural phenomena and still call the explanation science. Therefore YOUR science is ALL truth! It holds the ultimate authority…. Therefore your science provides the explanations for everything! Whether its origins, the meaning of life, or god or no god, etc… It all has to fit into your science. Why are you trying to explain abiogenesis to me then? We are hardly talking about science at all here now. You are making theological arguments.. You are simply talking your religion..

ARWallace wrote:it is a philosophical basis upon which science is practiced.

Oh, so now it's philosophical… What happened to the science part?

ARWallace wrote:This is your response? Why are you ignoring the comparison I made between this historical sciences and how they are used to understand continental drift, and how they are used to understand patterns in the evolution and diversification of life? Do you reject the notion that Hawaii was formed by small, incremental changes in the Earth's crust over millions of years?

Again.. What on earth does this have to do with our discussion? How does continental drift or incremental changes in the Earth's crust over millions of years impede the existence of God?? Tell me…

ARWallace wrote:HUH???? I never said it was — YOU did! You said — and I quote “Again The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard that any form of design is another form of creationism and that it violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits state funds to religion..” and “The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard that design is another form of creationism and that it violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits state funds to religion.” You made specific statements about what the Edwards case did and did not say. I questioned you on this several times since it seemed inconsistent with what the ruling established. Now you do a total 180 and question how I could relate ID to the Edwards case? What gives???

What gives? What did I say before about this case? I clearly said “the plaintiffs” were arguing that intelligent design sprang up in the wake of the 1987 Supreme Court decision against creation science.. The plaintiffs were simply using the Edwards v. Aguillard case (on creationism or any form of design) against ID.. The court simply agreed with the plaintiffs that ID was another re-making or re-working of the Edwards v. Aguillard decision. That is what I've been saying..

ARWallace wrote:I'm sorry, but this makes no sense.

Ok, then show me how (via natural explanations) how life created itself from nothing..

ARWallace wrote:So what?

So? Dawkins doesn't agree with you.. You are in your own exclusive club...

ARWallace wrote:Please define “Darwinian Evolution”. You use this term time and again, and yet I have yet to encounter scientists using it — certainly not in the scientific literature. What is it? And how is it different than the theory of evolution?

I have given you many examples.. So maybe you could give me your explanation of what DE is? Whatever that means, whatever it does, whatever it creates via natural selection…

ARWallace wrote:No, I am not. I am assuming that science will hold answers to natural phenomena — a foundational principle in science.

No.. It IS your religion… And your religion answers ALL assumptions, ALL questions, and ALL doubts...

ARWallace wrote:Let's say the literal account of man's origins in Genesis is true — word for word. That is, man was formed from dust more or less instantly about 8000 years ago. If that is true, it is a supernatural event, and science cannot explain it. Some basic observable facts and testable hypotheses could confirm whether there is evidence to support whether this notion is true (e.g. an absence of hominid fossils; a young Earth; no logical phylogenetic patterns between apes and other primates etc). But a supernatural event, by definition, cannot be explained by science. Now, there is rather overwhelming that this was not how it happened — but be that as it may, science assumes that the evolution of life was a natural phenomenon and there natural explanations must exist. This is not a belief system in the sense that you are portraying belief systems — and it is certainly not a religion.

Not according to what you have posted.. It IS your religion… You are saying that ToE is true beyond reasonable doubt… You say “a supernatural event, by definition, cannot be explained by science. You are making a theological claim.. You are simply giving all your authority to science.. Whatever it says, whatever it assumes, whatever so called facts you say it has, and whatever answer it has to the question of the origins of life (abiogenesis).. Your god… The alpha and omega..

ARWallace wrote:Actually, you posed it as a rhetorical question. “So ToE forced you to reject the Bible and God? Interesting..” I followed up asking where I had said this. And then you followed up by stating another untruth “You said that God and science don't mix…” I said neither of these things, so either you will continue to misrepresent me and pretend you're not, or retract these untrue statements. These are rather serious allegations to level, and without evidence that I have said them, I would rather you retract them.

Oh, this is just pure madness… You neither said any of these things? Hey Wallace, are you reading what you are posting? Look what you have stated word for word..

You stated “ToE to be true beyond reasonable doubt.

You stated, “You must exclude supernatural explanations as part of your explanatory system.”

You stated, ”You can't involve god in any explanatory system for natural phenomena and still call your explanation science.”

Guess what? You are excluding God…

ARWallace wrote:No, I am not changing my tune. I have been remarkably consistent in what I have said; you are choosing to conflate my statements. I have said that the theory of evolution is true beyond all reasonable doubt — just like cell theory, endosymbiotic theory, plate tectonic theory and quantum mechanic theory are true beyond all reasonable doubt. But this does not mean that they have all the answers; evolution cannot, for example, explain gravity. It also fails to explain metaphysical questions such as the meaning of life or whether god does or does not exist. It is limited as all scientific theories are — so it has its limitations. But that doesn't mean it isn't true beyond all reasonable doubt.

Oh boy.. What a contradiction.. You say theory of evolution is true beyond all reasonable doubt but it also has its limitations and does not have all the answers? Well then it is NOT true beyond all reasonable doubt…. Period.

Also do you remember earlier that we were having a discussion on abiogenesis?? You said, “We have evidence that abiogenesis is possible.” So you do have an answer for the origin of life… And it DOESN'T involve any god. Its the complete belief that nature is king over everthing… Also called methodological naturalism..

ARWallace wrote:This seems to me like a false dichotomy — are you suggesting that you can either accept science or religion? I just want to be clear about this.

Science and the belief in God can go hand in hand.. Contrary to what you think…

ARWallace wrote:It's funny you should say that — since that is exactly what was shown to be the case in the Dover trial. It wasn't labeled that — it was proven to be in that court trial. Now maybe another court will reverse that decision, or subsequent court trials based on new evidence will find the contrary — but it is not labeled another form of creationism. In its current form, according to the evidence presented in Dover, it is another form of creationism.

Funny.. That was proven to be in that court trial? That is EXACTLY what I was saying to you earlier… Now you admit it… Thanks.

ARWallace wrote:Fair enough. With this I would agree. But this doesn't change the fact that it is not taught in public schools right now because (a) the idea doesn't work and (b) we don't teach broken ideas just because someone likes the idea.

You have clearly proven to this panel that the theory of evolution is nothing more than an assumption as well, a belief system… Thanks for the evidence. Sorry to beat up on your god...

ARWallace wrote:So you don't understand the distinction? You reject the statement I made that a vertebrate fossil in Precambrian rock would be a problem for evolution, and insist that unlike any other scientific theory in any other scientific discipline, it can't be used as a lens to understand new phenomena. — just as an idea whose validity must be upheld at any cost. Is this your position?

There is no distinction.. For you the ToE is unquestionable empirical science..

ARWallace wrote:Still curious why you end sentences in 2+ periods…

It's called a pause…

ARWallace wrote:Cheers ~ Al

Right.. Cheers.

robyn hill wrote:I can buy into some form of evolution, but why did the first cell have a desire to replicate itself? Why would a bunch of premordial soup have a desire to survive? Why would it want to reproduce?

God made it so!

Why are all animals, except humans, still hunter gatherers? Doesn't this go against the evolution theory?

Nope... humans are no longer hunter gatherers, I guess, because we're intelligent enough to maximise efficiency when feeding ourselves and minimising how much effort it takes to feed ourselves. Also not all animals are hunter-gatherers.

Why is it that you get an amazing orgasm after sex? How did nature come up with that one?

It increases our incentive to repeat the act - operant conditioning ensures that since the act produces pleasure, we'd be more likely to do it again, which is good for reproduction. Also, the pleasure we feel causes us to bond with the person we're making love to, ideal for creating a strong family unit suitable for raising children. Also God wants sex to be fun!

Why are we the only mammal that laughs or cries and how does science theorize the need for laughter?

Laughter is simply a bonding technique. Just because other animals don't laugh, they have other bonding techniques.

How come we are the only mammal that is finely tuned right in the middle of everything for use on this earth?

We evolved that way - natural selection over a long period of time caused us to adapt to use things on this Earth.

What a crazy coincidence that our earth had all the materials on it to build the complex technology today. Even the remains of dinosaur helps us to drive cars.

If it wasn't dinasaur remains it'd be something else. We've simply adapted to what we have got on this Earth... aka Evolution.

If evolutionists believe that we evolve to a more complex level, why don't they believe in a more complex intelligent being such as God? Especially if the universe has been around as long as it has.

No evidence!

We have several systems that are irreducibly complex. All parts work together and accomplish one purpose. Like how a watch tells time as long as all gears, hands, and screws work together. We see this in our gravity, if we were tilted more, we would not be able to live. Our water system works because of our set atmosphere. The tides are set so that the moon's pull is just right. I know there is a theory that we are just living in a lottery winning where things just so happen to be adjusted to sustain life. I would buy that if it were one irreducibly complex system. But life as we know it, down to the dna in our bodies, and the complexity of our cells, is as if we have won many lotteries at once. The odds of winning one lottery are astronomical, but many at the same time, that should recon some serious questioning.

There are more stars in the Universe than grains of sands on every beach in the entire world. So for each star there are about 5/6/7 planets, right? Yeah, that's absolutely billions. Winning multiple lotteries doesn't seem so far fetched now, does it?

BTW, I don't believe in Evolution, but I'd just thought I'd stir things up.