Evidence for God from Science

So we accept speciation, and we accept microevolution. But, once speciation occurs (let's say due to environmental separation), it's impossible to imagine over a long period of TIME and various environmental conditions (micro evolution) we would be left with 2 different species which look nothing alike?

Not much to add to what Reactionary said, except this.

I am surpirsed that you would start with this. Imagine? Well, you are certainly welcome to imagine all you want.
You have no mountain of evidence. If you do, simply provide the best single example in the fossil record of evolution along with what it specifically and previously evoloved from and later specifically involved into. This would be a hands down slam dunk.

Remember artists renderings and imaginative drawings are not evidence.

We can all observe the flat changes and the loss changes we know as 'evolution'. Do you have any testable, observable and repeatable, peer reviewed, clear cut evidence that moves us upward from single cells to complex organisms, which is absolutley necessary for Darwinism?

This lack of an ability to weave a convincing evolutionary tale, however, does not rule out the possibility that the complex system in question did in fact evolve.

Seriously? Weren't you blasting the anthropic prnciple? If you are basing on gambling odds, then at least be consistent, and 'open minded.'

jlay wrote:We can all observe the flat changes and the loss changes we know as 'evolution'. Do you have any testable, observable and repeatable, peer reviewed, clear cut evidence that moves us upward from single cells to complex organisms, which is absolutley necessary for Darwinism?

I asked the question once to be shown evidence of such upward movement or increased function and you know what the only example they could come up with? I don't remember when or with whom this conversation was but I kid you not, the answer I got was Downs syndrome. They claimed that the extra chromosome is an indication of evolution.

Reactionary wrote: Nothing better than a good straw man to begin a post. Well done, Pierson. You conveniently ignored all the objections raised in the discussion, and twisted the facts so that it turns out that we don't believe in something obvious.

Jlay simply stated: Time is not an answer. You made some comment about adding more information, which I addressed, twice.

Reactionary wrote:Nobody was talking about "species that look nothing alike", but about species that evolve over time. Bippy, Jlay and I explained why time is not an answer.

Can you explain the difference to me? You have an organism that evolves over time and we are left with a species that looks different than its ancestor.

Reactionary wrote:In other words, you may not know if, let alone how, something evolved, that still won't shake your faith in evolution. I'm not surprised - what else to expect from someone who says:

I'm not saying I don't question evolution. Everyday scientists question evolution, in order to progress it further and further.

You may not know all the details on the behavior of atoms, or the intricate details of germ theory, does that shake your faith in them? I don't know why you keep pointing to that quote. It's the same for all aspects of science. You question how something works, and test it. This equates progress. Maybe you are hung up on the word progress. If evolution was proven false, I would consider that progress. We are closer to the correct answer.

Reactionary wrote: "Stunning"... Wow! Care to show us some? Or is it typical evolutionary "evidence", like ifs, buts and maybes?

https://homes.bio.psu.edu/people/Facult ... ject2.html

Reactionary wrote:"Didn't have to"... "likely"... In other words, 'I don't know what I'm talking about, but I'll make it sound like science'.

It's called a hypothesis, and it holds much more weight than what Behe is proposing.

Reactionary wrote:Of course. The unshakeable faith in evolution is at work once again.

See above (atoms/germ theory, etc...)

Reactionary wrote:"Chaotic and messy" is euphemism at its best. It doesn't take a mastermind to realize that redundancies and random mutations destroy organisms and make them flawed, not to mention infertile. No wonder, if they're random. Natural selection "gets rid" of such examples and works to preserve a species. It certainly doesn't create anything new. If it does, I asked you for experimental evidence of an increase in genetic information, and you conveniently avoided replying.

Random mutations destroy organisms and make them flawed/infertile? Some do, yes. But are you really implying that we have never seen a beneficial mutation? If not, please define what you mean by "increase in genetic information." We might be thinking of different things.

I gave you an example at the very beginning of this conversation concerning bacteria. Many organisms have been observed to acquire various new functions which they did not have previously. We see bacteria acquire resistances to viruses and antibiotics in the hospital all the time. Unicellular organisms evolve the ability to use nylon and other manmade chemicals as their sole carbon sources. Bacteria growing in previously unviable temperatures. Insects resistant to insecticides, animals and plants resistant to new diseases and poisons.

Here are some in humans:
//www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html

Reactionary wrote:Judging by what you present as "evidence" for evolution, no wonder people are looking for alternate explanations.

There is nothing wrong for looking for alternate explanations. But they better hold up to scientific scrutiny (and, again, in court...). There is still much we don't understand about evolution, germ and atomic theory (as well as others).

Watch:
//www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelli ... trial.html

Reactionary wrote:How is this relevant to the discussion? Another mixture of red herring and straw man.

It was a simple comparison. It's blatantly obvious to see the parallels between that situation and this one. See your quote below.

Reactionary wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:Behe, in the style of Kelvin, is attempting to dismiss all of the findings of evolutionary biology through a single line of argument, that of a biochemist who is not an evolutionary biologist. He does not address the multiple independent line of evidence that point to the fact that life on Earth evolved. This evidence includes (1)a mountain of fossil evidence, including (2) many transitionary forms, (3)geological evidence of strata, (4)genetic evidence showing evolutionary relationships between living species, (5) embryological evidence, and (6) evidence of an evolutionary past captured in some current structures of modern organisms.

Blah, blah, blah... You ran out of arguments, so you started resorting to the original evolutionary fairytales, refuted over and over.
1. Fossil evidence actually shows that species have always been strictly defined. Note the hyperbole - "a mountain" of evidence.
2. Controversial or misinterpreted at best.
3. How is that relevant? We're not YEC-ers.
4., 5., 6. Subjective. Can easily be attributed to a common designer.

1. We can address this with #2
2. We can get into this *below*
3. The age of geological layers correlate with what we should expect from evolutionary theory (taking into account earthquakes and plate tectonics of course)
4. Sure they can, we can make up any number of fictional beings to account for these. But we have no evidence of them, so they are dismissed.

Reactionary wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:The vast majority of the scientific community accept evolution as a fact.

An appeal to authority is not an argument.

This isn't an appeal to authority. The appeal to authority logical fallacy is when you argue that a conclusion is correct simply because a known authority said so. There is an important distinction to be made here. If you argue that evolution is a fact because most relevant scientists think so, that is a logical fallacy. However, if you argue that evolution is a fact and most relevant scientists agree with that conclusion based upon the evidence, this separation between scientific skepticism and appeal to authority is a little clearer.

We put our trust in experts and scientists because they represent the evidence. Experts are then vassals of knowledge, public manifestations of the evidence science uncovers. If this was truly a fallacy the whole movement was committing, we would never see any expert admonished for their position. If a beloved scientist came out tomorrow in full favor of crop circles, cryptozoology, etc... we would certainly change our views of his or her "authority" pretty quickly. It is not the authority of the figure that I trust, it is their interpretation of science, the scientific method, and evidence that I trust, and even this is open to revision.

Reactionary wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:If evolution were to be proven true (which is has) what does that say about your worldview?

I'm still looking for experimental evidence. Speculations are not proof. Is it that much to ask for?

For the sake of argument, just answer the question. I've answered the reverse several times.

Reactionary wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:Again, the scientific community accepts the fact of evolution using the same methods as other scientific theories. We have Bippy123 misquoting (as has been pointed out several times) various evolutionary biologists to fit his view on the situation. He also admitted he would not accept ANY evidence contradictory his worldview (the very definition of being close minded).

You're not exactly the best example of an open-minded person, you know. Once again:

I'm not saying I don't question evolution. Everyday scientists question evolution, in order to progress it further and further.

I've addressed the quote, please elaborate on my close-mindedness.

Pierson5 wrote:Why? Because it conflicts with an ancient book containing stories of witches, demon pigs, super human strength derived from hair, talking serpents/donkeys, global flood/ark with 2 of every ~8.7+ million species, flying chariots of fire, curses, enchanted tree with the holy garden and 2 naked people, the God of all the universe who cursed a fig tree because he didn't realize when figs were in season, etc... etc... And evolution is the fairy tail?

You mean, "fairy TALE"? What an intellectual, can't even spell his own language. Thanks for bolding it and making it more easily noticeable.


My mistake, I'll admit grammar/spelling isn't my strong point. But it's irrelevant. It would be one thing if the error was so bad you couldn't make out what I was saying, but come on. I don't point out grammatical errors made by your colleagues (Jlay misspells "absolutely" below, which I would have ignored if it wasn't for your remark ). Feel free to correct me though (I appreciate it), but also address the point you conveniently ignored.

Reactionary wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:I can't even believe we are having this conversation. Judging from the title of this site, I was expecting to be engaged in conversation with people like sandy_mcd.

But instead, you're engaged in conversation with... who?

I'm engaged in conversation with people who are claiming the vast majority of the scientific community is wrong about a well established fact. Sandy_mcd hasn't made any such claims, so I have no beef with sandy.

Reactionary wrote:We've been through this already. If you were truly open-minded, you would browse the main site and ask questions about things you don't understand, things that don't seem convincing to you, etc. We would try our best to provide answers, as we always do.

Fair enough. When I first came here, I wasn't looking for answers to these questions. I lightly looked through the "Answers for Atheists" section. I'll read through the site in its entirety (maybe not through each of the hundreds of bible contradiction explanations though...) and create a new thread with the problems (if any) I have with the answers.

Reactionary wrote:But you demand 100% absolute proof, which you can't even provide for your worldview, although proving evolution, if it was true, should be an easy task.

NOOOO! Gah! I do not demand 100% absolute proof. When have I said that?!

Pierson5 wrote:Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Reactionary wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:Distrusting the scientific community proves nothing and puts you on the same pedestal as scientologists who reject mental illness.

Spare me, please. Try focusing on facts instead.

Fact: You are claiming an accepted scientific fact is false by poking holes in some parts we yet to understand (and some parts we do understand). Scientologists do the same thing. It's an apt comparison.

jlay wrote:I am surpirsed that you would start with this. Imagine? Well, you are certainly welcome to imagine all you want.
You have no mountain of evidence. If you do, simply provide the best single example in the fossil record of evolution along with what it specifically and previously evoloved from and later specifically involved into. This would be a hands down slam dunk.

//wshsscience.edublogs.org/files/2010/05/18_EVOW_CH03.jpg

Don't like artists renderings? Tough, Google each specimen's names to get the actual fossils, they are all there.
This image shows the evolution from dog like creatures into modern whales. Notice the third fossil down. It is called Ambulocetus. Ambulocetus fits what you are looking for. It has both whale-like features and dog-like features. It's finger bones are elongated (like a whale's) what would make Ambulocetus a faster swimmer. It's hind legs are smaller than previous forms (like a whale's, which still have remnants of hind legs) It's rib-cage is larger (like a whale's) which would give Ambulocetus a larger lung capacity and therefore be able to stay underwater longer. However, it still walks on 4 legs, and has a nose on the end of its snout (like a dog). Ambulocetus is a transitional organism from a dog like creature to a whale.

I would also like you to know that these are not at all isolated situations. Transitional fossils are everywhere, all one has to do is look for them with an open mind. I would advise you to Google Tiktaalik, Indohyus, Eryops, Pederpes, Tulerpeton, Eocaecilia, Eupodophis, Anchiornis, Scansoriopteryx, Morganucodon and, Kutchicetus. Do not tell me that after looking at these and using your brain that there are no transitional fossils.

Now I have clearly shown you transitional forms, but I have not (or ever will) be able to show you a dog that produces a whale, because that is simply not how evolution works. Whales did not just one day come from dogs and evolution never claims that is how it happened, this is what evolution claims happened. I will once again use the evolution of a whale to show you what I mean. A species of dog-like creatures live in a environment where there is a slowly declining population of land prey animals, and an increasing population of fish in the nearby ocean. The dog-like creatures are driven to hunt in the ocean for fish because of the lack of available food on land. One day, one of these dogs has a baby that has slightly longer finger bones, thus letting him swim faster, catch more fish, thrive, and reproduce. His children will all have slightly longer finger bones. Of his children, the one with the longest finger bones will be the most successful, and therefore, her children will have even longer finger bones. Since the dogs with longer finger bones will usually be able to out complete the ones that have shorter finger bones, the short-fingered dogs will not be able to reproduce as effectively, and the long-fingered dogs will become more numerous, thus the average population of dogs will have longer fingers. This could also easily happen with rib cage size (bigger rib cage = more lung capacity = longer time spent underwater = more fish eaten = reproduction = the passing on of genes), nose position (easier to breathe when resurfacing if closer to the top of the head), webbing between the fingers (faster speed in water), tail shape (faster speed in water), shrinking limbs (more streamlined in the water), less fur (more streamlined) etc, until one day, millions of years later, an organism is born that we would identify as a whale and not a dog.

I have found a living transitional organism. It is a whale, for a whale will one day produce a whale with slightly smaller remnants of hind legs (which all whales still have), which will eventually produce a whale with even smaller remnants of hind legs, and eventually there will be no remnants of hind legs on whales at all. Millions of years down the road, and the modern day whale could turn into a sleek, almost snake-like mammal that swims through the water. A modern day whale is a living, breathing transitional organism, that will one day produce something different from its self, and eventually be identified as a different species than as what we would call a whale.

As pointed out by Bippy, you guys are no doubt getting information from a source with a vested interest in claiming evolutionary theory is incorrect as it opposes a world view of a created universe. Understandably many creation scientists find problems with the fossil record and make claims which are then disputed by non-creation scientists and the circle goes on forever. The main claim made by creation scientists is not that there are no known transitional fossils anymore. Even the most hardened creation scientist has to realize the transitional fossil record is coming together, slowly for sure, estimated at only 3% currently, (also remember, fossil evidence isn't the only evidence for evolution. DNA evidence is almost sufficient enough to stand on it's own without fossil evidence) however holding onto this belief of no transitional or not enough transitional fossils is now a position only of the wishful. Even a cursory look at the not so badly referenced wikipedia article (//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils) gives anyone the idea that we have a fair amount of transitional fossils. Bibby also touched on the argument that the fossils are out of order. This is a bait and switch, much like the flat Earth issue from 500 years ago. Once the categorical evidence was enough to satisfy the religious community that the Earth was in fact spheroid, we stopped discussing it and moved onto other ways to root out heretics.

Science does not now and has never claimed to know the truth even given staggering evidence to support the conclusion. Just as it is very likely the Sun rises tomorrow(Or the Earth rotates so the Sun becomes in view), and there are thousands of premises to support the argument, and never has a day passed that didn't support the argument barring natural disaster and geographic location, we still can't be 100% certain. That's the scientific position. Evolutionary biologists are not hell bent on disproving the existence of a creator. They are only interested in the evidence they find as support for a claim. Like I said, there are many singular situations outside of arguments from ignorance, Pascal's Wager and the God of the Gaps, that would invalidate an evolutionary path to modern human. After peer reviewed scientific analysis without the stigma of an agenda behind the research, none have surfaced and held up to review. Making a claim without having 100% of the information does not make the claim incorrect as long as you are willing to accept new information which may refute your earlier data. Making a claim of 100% correctness without any supporting evidence or by trying to disprove an opposing theory, only goes to make that claim less believable. Even if creationist find absolute proof that evolution is a fallacy, it still does not prove that there is a creator. The claim there is a creator is what should require the most intense amount of proof, certainly more than a single book.

You can take all of this with a grain of salt though if you believe the claim that the records are out of order within the geologic time line or that coinciding primates lived side by side disproving the theory. One fallacy claimed as evidence against the Evolution theory is made here by Biblestudy.org "There may be older fossils of H. sapiens that have not yet been discovered. In other words, fossils that are the identical to modern humans have been found that are older than the australopithecines. Which indicates that the Australopithecus line could not be the evolutionary ancestral line leading to modern man". What there "may be" and what there are two different things altogether. The fossil mentioned as "Identical to modern Humans" is a single lower humerus bone from fossil KP 271 which Lubenow states is indistinguishable from a human bone, Parker and Morris state that it is a human bone. Yet Feldesman found that KP 271 was, "far from being more 'human-like' than Australopithecus, clearly associates with the hyperrobust Australopithecines from Lake Turkana". The problem is the lower humerus of chimps is very similar to that of humans, and it is reasonable to suppose that australopithecines would be even more similar, especially since the upper end of the humerus in australopithecines is known to fall within the human range.(Talkorigins.org)(I know I'm going to get slammed for that one , but again, they cite sources like PubMed and JSTOR. We've been over the scientific community "trust")

The claim that KP 271 was human has been one of the stronger creationist arguments because, although it had not been proven, neither was it demonstrably wrong (unlike almost every other creationist argument about human evolution). However a recent paper now strongly indicates that KP 271 is an australopithecine and not a human fossil.

Lague and Jungers conducted an extensive study of the lower humeri of apes, humans, and hominid fossils. They used multivariate analysis, a technique which is highly praised by creationists when it delivers results favorable to them. Lague and Jungers' results show convincingly that KP 271 lies well outside the range of human specimens. Instead, it clusters with a group of other hominid fossils so strongly that the probability that it belongs to the human sample, rather than fossil hominid group, is less than one thousandth (0.001). They conclude: "The specimen is therefore reasonably attributable to A. anamensis (Leakey et al. 1995), although the results of this study indicate that the Kanapoi specimen is not much more "human-like" than any of the other australopithecine fossils, despite prior conclusions to the contrary" (Lague and Jungers 1996)(Talkorigins.org)

The stuff above is literally a drop in the pool when it comes to evidence for an evolutionary path to modern humans. To ignore the amount of data available is to simple turn off the receptors.

jlay wrote:We can all observe the flat changes and the loss changes we know as 'evolution'. Do you have any testable, observable and repeatable, peer reviewed, clear cut evidence that moves us upward from single cells to complex organisms, which is absolutley necessary for Darwinism?

Single cells to complex organisms? Like the 9 months you were in your mother's womb?

Seriously though, how did a single celled organism evolve into multi-cellular organisms? I don't know, and unless I'm mistaken, no one does. (and claiming otherwise would be making an argument from ignorance). There are a number of hypothesis though: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicellularity#Hypotheses_for_origin

As with most of the pre-Cambrian history of life, there's not a whole lot to go on. There's a smattering of fossil records, and circumstantial evidence to be gleaned from microbial genomes and biochemistry, but that's about it. So the below is significantly speculative.

According to that article, it looks like the Colonial theory is pretty heavily favored. Single-celled organisms enter an environmental circumstance in which fitness increases when several members of the species work in unison. This constant unison enables different individuals to specialize somewhat -- a sort of genetic "division of labor." Once that specialization has occurred to a large enough degree, return to a non-colonial lifestyle is not easily possible for that species, even if the environmental pressures that caused it are removed. They have no reason, then, not to continue to specialize until they reach the point that one might call it "multicellular" (it's a bit of a fuzzy distinction if you think about it). This has been observed to occur in modern species. (//www.algaebase.org/search/genus/detail/?genus_id=43497) called a Grex. (//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grex_%28biology%29)

Here are a couple more relevant (not proof of one cell --> many) articles:
//www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028184 ... arity.html
//www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm? ... ast-evolve

jlay wrote:

This lack of an ability to weave a convincing evolutionary tale, however, does not rule out the possibility that the complex system in question did in fact evolve.

Seriously? Weren't you blasting the anthropic principle? If you are basing on gambling odds, then at least be consistent, and 'open minded.'

This is different. I was saying, we don't know yet exactly how everything evolved, this doesn't prove that evolution as a whole is bunk. How is that basing on gambling odds? The Anthropic principle says that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it.

Long story short, the scientific community accepts evolution as a fact. I'm an undergraduate biology major, but my interest is in the human body. I am not an evolutionary biologist. I trust the scientific community's evaluation of the evidence. This has nothing to do with whether a deity exists or not. Feel free to respond, but I'm done with the evolution discussion (whether it's true or false). Instead, find a well known evolutionary biologist and email them your concerns. I'm sure they can articulate it better than I. I am curious about something though. What are you guys proposing exactly? Evolution is false, therefore, what? We don't know how these organisms came about, or you have some other explanation? If it's the latter, do you have evidence for it (more than evolution I'm guessing)?

I am curious about something though. What are you guys proposing exactly? Evolution is false, therefore, what? We don't know how these organisms came about, or you have some other explanation? If it's the latter, do you have evidence for it (more than evolution I'm guessing)?

Pierson5, this website has a lot of info that you might be interested in. Do a search for their podcasts.
http://www.reasons.org/

Reasons.org has a biochemist by the name of Fazale "Fuz" Rana http://www.reasons.org/about/who-we-are/fazale-rana.
His info is right up your alley. Very intelligent scientist. And, he believes in Old Earth Creationism, not Naturalistic Evolution. I suggest you look at their site, for anything Fuz has written, or even his podcasts. You won't be disappointed. He's really good.

RickD wrote:

I am curious about something though. What are you guys proposing exactly? Evolution is false, therefore, what? We don't know how these organisms came about, or you have some other explanation? If it's the latter, do you have evidence for it (more than evolution I'm guessing)?

Pierson5, this website has a lot of info that you might be interested in. Do a search for their podcasts.
http://www.reasons.org/

Reasons.org has a biochemist by the name of Fazale "Fuz" Rana http://www.reasons.org/about/who-we-are/fazale-rana.
His info is right up your alley. Very intelligent scientist. And, he believes in Old Earth Creationism, not Naturalistic Evolution. I suggest you look at their site, for anything Fuz has written, or even his podcasts. You won't be disappointed. He's really good.

Thanks Rick, I'll take a look.

Pierson5 wrote: I am curious about something though. What are you guys proposing exactly? Evolution is false, therefore, what? We don't know how these organisms came about, or you have some other explanation?

I think ultimately creationism proposes that life has purpose...

Pierson5 wrote: If it's the latter, do you have evidence for it (more than evolution I'm guessing)?

There will never be enough evidence for God as long as it is competing against an imagination that believes life could form by chance. This is a veil. Creationist beliefs are foolishness to those whose imaginations allow them to perceive a more 'logical' answer for existence.

Pierson5 wrote:

Reactionary wrote: Nothing better than a good straw man to begin a post. Well done, Pierson. You conveniently ignored all the objections raised in the discussion, and twisted the facts so that it turns out that we don't believe in something obvious.

Jlay simply stated: Time is not an answer. You made some comment about adding more information, which I addressed, twice.

This is a link to Jlay's post:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 05#p119218

Pierson5 wrote:

Reactionary wrote:Nobody was talking about "species that look nothing alike", but about species that evolve over time. Bippy, Jlay and I explained why time is not an answer.

Can you explain the difference to me? You have an organism that evolves over time and we are left with a species that looks different than its ancestor.

Compare bacteria and humans. We're not only radically different, but we humans are significantly (to say the least) more complex than bacteria. On the other hand, compare dogs and wolves. The ancestor of modern-day dogs was some wolf-like creature, if I'm not wrong. But taming, interbreeding, adaptation etc. changed the appearance of dogs, so now a poodle looks very much different than a wolf. However, it still belings to the Canini tribe, and we can't say that it's more evolved compared to a wolf.

Pierson5 wrote:

Reactionary wrote:In other words, you may not know if, let alone how, something evolved, that still won't shake your faith in evolution. I'm not surprised - what else to expect from someone who says:

I'm not saying I don't question evolution. Everyday scientists question evolution, in order to progress it further and further.

You may not know all the details on the behavior of atoms, or the intricate details of germ theory, does that shake your faith in them? I don't know why you keep pointing to that quote. It's the same for all aspects of science. You question how something works, and test it. This equates progress. Maybe you are hung up on the word progress. If evolution was proven false, I would consider that progress. We are closer to the correct answer.

What I'm saying is that when open-minded people conduct scientific experiments, new discoveries may lead them to rejecting present theories, proposing new ones, and holding to those that make most sense in the light of currently available evidence. Now, I'm not a physicist, but I know that atoms aren't really unobservable, since scientists uses particle colliders, observation of energy etc. I don't know what you meant by 'intricate details of germ theory', but I know what it feels like to be infected by a germ. I'd have no need to reject germs as causes of diseases, especially since germs can be observed via microscopes.

Pierson5 wrote:

Reactionary wrote: "Stunning"... Wow! Care to show us some? Or is it typical evolutionary "evidence", like ifs, buts and maybes?

https://homes.bio.psu.edu/people/Facult ... ject2.html

From the article:

Our work has shown that insect flight may have evolved gradually along such a series of stages of wing propelled locomotion on the surface of water.

Emphasis mine. Thanks.

Pierson5 wrote:

Reactionary wrote:"Chaotic and messy" is euphemism at its best. It doesn't take a mastermind to realize that redundancies and random mutations destroy organisms and make them flawed, not to mention infertile. No wonder, if they're random. Natural selection "gets rid" of such examples and works to preserve a species. It certainly doesn't create anything new. If it does, I asked you for experimental evidence of an increase in genetic information, and you conveniently avoided replying.

Random mutations destroy organisms and make them flawed/infertile? Some do, yes. But are you really implying that we have never seen a beneficial mutation? If not, please define what you mean by "increase in genetic information." We might be thinking of different things.

Simple, Pierson. I wrote about it two pages ago:

Firstly, in order for a species to evolve, it obviously needs a net increase in genetic information. If you had single-celled organisms, and now you have humans, obviously a huge net increase of information had to happen. Random mutations, however, aren't creative. They are errors in the process of copying the existing information. So even if a beneficial mutation happens, it only means that the existing gene pool was reassembled, thus "creating" something new, but not without consequences. The natural selection led to an actual loss of information, both by getting rid of the unadapted part of the population, and the simultaneous less-or-equal sum of genetic information within species.

Pierson5 wrote:I gave you an example at the very beginning of this conversation concerning bacteria. Many organisms have been observed to acquire various new functions which they did not have previously. We see bacteria acquire resistances to viruses and antibiotics in the hospital all the time. Unicellular organisms evolve the ability to use nylon and other manmade chemicals as their sole carbon sources. Bacteria growing in previously unviable temperatures. Insects resistant to insecticides, animals and plants resistant to new diseases and poisons.

See above.

Pierson5 wrote:Watch:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/ ... trial.html

Now, if someone could explain to me what Intelligent Design has to do with the separation of church and state...

Pierson5 wrote:3. The age of geological layers correlate with what we should expect from evolutionary theory (taking into account earthquakes and plate tectonics of course)

http://uphillwriting.org/wp-content/upl ... ecause.jpg

Pierson5 wrote:4. Sure they can, we can make up any number of fictional beings to account for these. But we have no evidence of them, so they are dismissed.

We likewise have no evidence of anything coming to being from nothing.

Pierson5 wrote:This isn't an appeal to authority. The appeal to authority logical fallacy is when you argue that a conclusion is correct simply because a known authority said so. There is an important distinction to be made here. If you argue that evolution is a fact because most relevant scientists think so, that is a logical fallacy. However, if you argue that evolution is a fact and most relevant scientists agree with that conclusion based upon the evidence, this separation between scientific skepticism and appeal to authority is a little clearer.

The thing is, that evidence often doesn't speak for itself - in (evolutionary) biology it almost never does. So it can be interpreted in several ways. My example was common descent vs. common designer. Similar to several generations of cars - each is more advanced than the previous one, offers better performance etc., but they were in fact designed by engineers and other experts.

Pierson5 wrote:We put our trust in experts and scientists because they represent the evidence. Experts are then vassals of knowledge, public manifestations of the evidence science uncovers. If this was truly a fallacy the whole movement was committing, we would never see any expert admonished for their position. If a beloved scientist came out tomorrow in full favor of crop circles, cryptozoology, etc... we would certainly change our views of his or her "authority" pretty quickly. It is not the authority of the figure that I trust, it is their interpretation of science, the scientific method, and evidence that I trust, and even this is open to revision.

I know what you mean. A scientist, even if he was renowned, would be bashed if he published an article on, let's say, Intelligent Design, even if he soundly argumented his case. The issue is that a certain interpretation (evolution) is not allowed to be questioned, and anyone who does will be mocked and discredited. The modern day scientific circles aren't really famous for being open-minded, that was my point.

Pierson5 wrote:

Reactionary wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:If evolution were to be proven true (which is has) what does that say about your worldview?

I'm still looking for experimental evidence. Speculations are not proof. Is it that much to ask for?

For the sake of argument, just answer the question. I've answered the reverse several times.

What does that say about my worldview? Not much actually. There are Christians who believe in evolution (theistic evolutionists), and many others who believe that evolution wouldn't falsify Christianity - however, although man being created in God's image refers primarily to the human soul, and not body, Genesis 2:7 still suggests that we're a special creation, different from other animals. Furthermore, evolution is often used to promote atheism, nihilism, amorality, and we Christians need to be wary of that. The difference is still big - it's not the same to be God's special creation, and a deluxe ape. So I don't think that we Christians should accept evolution with open arms, considering the current state of evidence.

Pierson5 wrote:

I'm not saying I don't question evolution. Everyday scientists question evolution, in order to progress it further and further.

I've addressed the quote, please elaborate on my close-mindedness.

Simple. You're unwilling to recognize the possibility that some other worldview, other theory of origins, may be correct. You said that you're an atheist because you question things, and we've explained to you why that doesn't make much sense. So, I raise a question of intellectual honesty. Atheism is not a position that allows questioning, because it denies free will and reason.

Pierson5 wrote:

Reactionary wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:Why? Because it conflicts with an ancient book containing stories of witches, demon pigs, super human strength derived from hair, talking serpents/donkeys, global flood/ark with 2 of every ~8.7+ million species, flying chariots of fire, curses, enchanted tree with the holy garden and 2 naked people, the God of all the universe who cursed a fig tree because he didn't realize when figs were in season, etc... etc... And evolution is the fairy tail?

You mean, "fairy TALE"? What an intellectual, can't even spell his own language. Thanks for bolding it and making it more easily noticeable.

My mistake, I'll admit grammar/spelling isn't my strong point. But it's irrelevant. It would be one thing if the error was so bad you couldn't make out what I was saying, but come on. I don't point out grammatical errors made by your colleagues (Jlay misspells "absolutely" below, which I would have ignored if it wasn't for your remark ). Feel free to correct me though (I appreciate it), but also address the point you conveniently ignored.

Well, I usually don't correct people's grammar either, but understand me - you speak of the Bible with a condescending attitude, like it's some book of fairy tales in which intelligent people don't believe. You wouldn't be offended if you were me? You insulted my worldview and placed yourself above me intellectually. So my response was warranted.

Regarding your point... You display a lack of understanding of probably the most significant book in the history of mankind, and my advice is that you don't brag about it on a Christian forum because you embarrass yourself by doing that. If you don't understand something, again, ask. For instance, since you mentioned the fig tree, it's a parable with a profound meaning. It's not that difficult to find an explanation on the Internet:
http://www.gotquestions.org/parable-fig-tree.html

I usually wouldn't blame you - these days almost everyone can publish a book or write articles about topics they don't understand or won't understand, so materials that (intentionally) misinterpret the Bible are widespread. But you said that you question things - so if you're interested in the Bible, study it. Find a good resource like an interlinear Bible, and read commentaries written by experts, so you can understand everything more easily.

Pierson5 wrote:

Reactionary wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:I can't even believe we are having this conversation. Judging from the title of this site, I was expecting to be engaged in conversation with people like sandy_mcd.

But instead, you're engaged in conversation with... who?

I'm engaged in conversation with people who are claiming the vast majority of the scientific community is wrong about a well established fact. Sandy_mcd hasn't made any such claims, so I have no beef with sandy.

So Sandy is intellectually legitimate, and we're not. Regardless of the arguments that we present, our views determine our legitimacy? Groupthink and single-mindedness at best - "You disagree with us, therefore you're wrong." It reminds me of certain regimes where such a line of thinking was a practice. They didn't end up well.

Now seriously, you seem to be afraid to oppose anything claimed by the "scientific community". You idolize it like it's a god or something. Well let me tell you - it isn't. It's consisted of imperfect humans like you or me, and so it may make a mistake, or even be biased. As someone once said, scientists aren't always nice guys in labcoats seeking truth. Just as we're somewhat emotionally attached to our worldviews (yes, we are), so can be they. And humans may resort to denial when facts don't suit their wishes and their view of the world. There's nothing to be ashamed about that as it's a part of our nature, it's just that we need to be aware that it may happen, for our own good.

Reactionary wrote: Now, I'm not a physicist, but I know that atoms aren't really unobservable, since scientists uses particle colliders, observation of energy etc.

Atoms are unobservable. They (if they truly exist) are too small to see. Physicists may see traces on oscilloscopes, numbers on detectors, exposures on films. They do not directly observe atoms. And of course the same claim is made for evolution. No one has directly observed a major evolutionary change. They see traces, chemical similarities, etc and conclude evolution is responsible. It is the same process other scientists use to propose atomic theory.


Edit add: And evolutionary theory can't seem any more unrealistic than the idea of atoms and their parts being both particles and waves with wavefunctions rather than positions.

Reactionary wrote: See above.

You reference bacteria, I gave you evidence of similar situations in humans.

Reactionary wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:Watch:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/ ... trial.html

Now, if someone could explain to me what Intelligent Design has to do with the separation of church and state...

"We have concluded that it is not [science], and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," Jones writes in his 139-page opinion posted on the court's Web site."To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions,"

Reactionary wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:3. The age of geological layers correlate with what we should expect from evolutionary theory (taking into account earthquakes and plate tectonics of course)

http://uphillwriting.org/wp-content/upl ... ecause.jpg

How is that circular reasoning?

If we begin at the present and examine older and older layers of rock, we will arrive at a level where no human fossils are found. If we continue backward in time, we successively come to layers where no fossils of birds are present, no mammals, no reptiles, no four-footed animals, no fishes, no shells, and no members of the animal kingdom. These concepts are summarized in the general principle called the Law of Fossil Succession.
- American Geological Institute

Reactionary wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:4. Sure they can, we can make up any number of fictional beings to account for these. But we have no evidence of them, so they are dismissed.

We likewise have no evidence of anything coming to being from nothing.

What does that have to do with anything? Evolution says nothing about the origin of life.

Reactionary wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:This isn't an appeal to authority. The appeal to authority logical fallacy is when you argue that a conclusion is correct simply because a known authority said so. There is an important distinction to be made here. If you argue that evolution is a fact because most relevant scientists think so, that is a logical fallacy. However, if you argue that evolution is a fact and most relevant scientists agree with that conclusion based upon the evidence, this separation between scientific skepticism and appeal to authority is a little clearer.

The thing is, that evidence often doesn't speak for itself - in (evolutionary) biology it almost never does. So it can be interpreted in several ways. My example was common descent vs. common designer. Similar to several generations of cars - each is more advanced than the previous one, offers better performance etc., but they were in fact designed by engineers and other experts.

.... Cars don't reproduce. There is no natural selection going on. This requires no designer.

Reactionary wrote:I know what you mean. A scientist, even if he was renowned, would be bashed if he published an article on, let's say, Intelligent Design, even if he soundly argumented his case. The issue is that a certain interpretation (evolution) is not allowed to be questioned, and anyone who does will be mocked and discredited. The modern day scientific circles aren't really famous for being open-minded, that was my point.

They are open minded if the evidence is there. You can soundly argument a case, but if it's not backed up with any evidence, there is no reason to believe it.

Reactionary wrote:What does that say about my worldview? Not much actually. There are Christians who believe in evolution (theistic evolutionists), and many others who believe that evolution wouldn't falsify Christianity - however, although man being created in God's image refers primarily to the human soul, and not body, Genesis 2:7 still suggests that we're a special creation, different from other animals. Furthermore, evolution is often used to promote atheism, nihilism, amorality, and we Christians need to be wary of that. The difference is still big - it's not the same to be God's special creation, and a deluxe ape. So I don't think that we Christians should accept evolution with open arms, considering the current state of evidence.

Not much. That was the point I was trying to make in regards as why this whole argument isn't necessary. Evolution is used to promote atheism? Maybe some atheists use it that way, and I would take issue with that. As I stated before, it says nothing about whether or not a deity exists. It's a well established scientific theory explaining how life evolved once it was already here. Bippy was the one who brought it up and insisted I talk about it.

Reactionary wrote:Simple. You're unwilling to recognize the possibility that some other worldview, other theory of origins, may be correct. You said that you're an atheist because you question things, and we've explained to you why that doesn't make much sense. So, I raise a question of intellectual honesty. Atheism is not a position that allows questioning, because it denies free will and reason.

Wrong. I recognize ALL possibilities of other worldviews. What I don't ACCEPT is that they all have equal merit in a classroom. I don't accept that these worldviews are true because of insufficient evidence. I said before, if evidence for God presented itself, I would change my mind. I use to be a Christian and have changed my mind. Is that not considering other worldviews and theories of origins? I could just as easily change my mind and go back the other way. How does it deny free will and reason?

Reactionary wrote:
Well, I usually don't correct people's grammar either, but understand me - you speak of the Bible with a condescending attitude, like it's some book of fairy tales in which intelligent people don't believe. You wouldn't be offended if you were me? You insulted my worldview and placed yourself above me intellectually. So my response was warranted.

The same "condescending attitude" has been used by you guys in response to whether evolution is true or not. I believe I am justified in turning the tables and using the same exact attitude you use on me, on you. I didn't mean to be offensive or insult you, I apologize. But it's not like these stories aren't in the bible.

Reactionary wrote: Regarding your point... You display a lack of understanding of probably the most significant book in the history of mankind, and my advice is that you don't brag about it on a Christian forum because you embarrass yourself by doing that. If you don't understand something, again, ask. For instance, since you mentioned the fig tree, it's a parable with a profound meaning. It's not that difficult to find an explanation on the Internet:
http://www.gotquestions.org/parable-fig-tree.html

Was it a significant book in the history of mankind? Sure. So is the Qur'an, so are the Upanishads. Just because they are significant doesn't make the stories in them true or immune to criticism.

Reactionary wrote:I usually wouldn't blame you - these days almost everyone can publish a book or write articles about topics they don't understand or won't understand, so materials that (intentionally) misinterpret the Bible are widespread. But you said that you question things - so if you're interested in the Bible, study it. Find a good resource like an interlinear Bible, and read commentaries written by experts, so you can understand everything more easily.

It's obviously extremely important that we understand God's word. God knew we were going to speak English. Why is it so difficult? This is the inspired word of God, yet it was written by ~40 different authors, over a period of ~1600 years, across 3 different languages, by thousands of different scribes, in a language that we don't speak, yet is extremely important that we understand it. It seems like, if there is a God out there, he is making it increasingly difficult (nearly impossible) for us to really know what he means. Translation after translation. Once we even get into English, we have multiple versions of the translation. King James, American Standard, etc... With different types of variations. What is God's word versus the translation mistake of some guy 900 years ago? We have several apologetics with several different interpretations...

You say to really reach in and study the Bible. Why not study the book of Islam, why not the Upanishads and discover the truths behind those? Is it because we live in the United States? The same interpretation variations and apologetics exist within all these religions.

Reactionary wrote: So Sandy is intellectually legitimate, and we're not. Regardless of the arguments that we present, our views determine our legitimacy? Groupthink and single-mindedness at best - "You disagree with us, therefore you're wrong." It reminds me of certain regimes where such a line of thinking was a practice. They didn't end up well.

Woh, I never said anything about intellectual legitimacy. If Sandy brought up a disagreement with something I said, we would engage in conversation. We both trust the scientific community, that's something we have in common. I was expecting this community to have a similar mindset (based off of the title of the site), that's all. It's perfectly fine that you don't (as long as you aren't pushing the "distrust" to be taught to my future children )

Reactionary wrote:Now seriously, you seem to be afraid to oppose anything claimed by the "scientific community". You idolize it like it's a god or something. Well let me tell you - it isn't. It's consisted of imperfect humans like you or me, and so it may make a mistake, or even be biased. As someone once said, scientists aren't always nice guys in labcoats seeking truth. Just as we're somewhat emotionally attached to our worldviews (yes, we are), so can be they. And humans may resort to denial when facts don't suit their wishes and their view of the world. There's nothing to be ashamed about that as it's a part of our nature, it's just that we need to be aware that it may happen, for our own good.

Fear has nothing to do with it. It has to do with trust. It's not idolization. You are correct. Humans are not infallible, mistakes are made, people are biased. In the scientific community, however, if a scientist is found out to be biased, it ruins their career. If mistakes are made, their paper gets corrected. The scientific community is a self correcting community. This is THE BEST method we currently have for deciphering truth. We do our best to minimize or eliminate these errors and biases. I have not seen anyone propose a better method. I have not seen a scientific answer, however inadequate, for which now a better answer is a religious one. I have no reason to distrust the scientific consensus. What are yours?

I'm new to this blog so I hope I'm not out of place with this reply.

The name of this thread is Evidence for God from Science.

A good way to introduce children to the idea of God and Universe, or Universe and Possible God of simply the Universe is to start teaching them about the scientific version of how the Universe began.

We all know that the ultimate question that arises from kids and grownups alike is: "...okay, so how the the big bang get started.." This is a question that remains a mystery to both science and spiritual mortal people alike. In science it is hidden from the tools. To those living by faith, it is hidden by faith.

My grandson is three going on four, very smart and inquisitive. I started him on hand tools and some simple woodworking to improve his manual dexterity as well as hand and eye coordination. This really gets a child asking questions about natural things, instead of why the cartoon rabbit goes down the hole.

One day I told him that grandpa would not always be here with him and introduced the idea of death by mistake. My answer was I would go to heaven. He told his grandmother who decided this might be a bit heavy for him but he seemed settled with the idea but, wanted to know what heaven was.

I'm an agnostic by behavior,Jewish by choice and scientific minded by practice. Heaven is hard to explain to myself, much less a child. No matter your belief, most people use the heaven option to explain death to kids. It's considered a cold thing to say to a child, "...when you die, there is nothing but blackness....just nothingness." This can cause nightmares in children to say such a thing so even most atheists use the heaven idea.


The idea of taking a child to church is taken for granted by many people. Most children are put in the nursery where they really receive minimal exposure to spiritual things but are surrounded by books, etc. I remember I was very inquisitive as a child.

If you are needing to satisfy the needs of your wife by attending with her, it shouldn't be a problem for your family. I used to attend with my ex-wife and the contact was fun and socially satisfying. After converting to Judaism, it was even more fun. My current wife is a christian but does not attend church. Her family is very church attentive. We get along fine. She says Jesus bless this food, I say baruk ata adoni....etc.


The main thing about raising children, is it is a good thing for them to be exposed to what mom and dad do regularly (assuming that is not something illegal, of course .
This is just good old fashion common sense that has worked fine for many families throughout the centuries.

I'm 60 years old so my advice is based on much experience. Take the kids to church with you. They will be fine. When they grow up the spiritual ideas will, at least, offer them some ground to start their exploration of the human condition and spirituality. It is very much a part of that condition. It becomes even more so as you grow old and are face with your own mortality. I like to say I'm 60, going on death.


Good luck.

Pierson5 wrote:

Reactionary wrote: See above.

You reference bacteria, I gave you evidence of similar situations in humans.

Reactionary wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:Watch:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/ ... trial.html

Now, if someone could explain to me what Intelligent Design has to do with the separation of church and state...

Science is nothing but a tool, like a hammer.
It's power lies in its ability to describe the reality around us. There are warehouse of data lying in wait to be analyzed. Until science can answer the question: "what caused the big bang" it has no cause to boast. Science can't boast because it is not a human being, it is just a tool, imagined by some to have power beyond the realm of tools.

Faith is the power of spirituality to invoke hope in helpless situations. Hope has power in the mind to cause the body to heal itself, and ease the pain of death. Science has reveled material methods to do the same, but both methods are proven to work but not equally so.

In either case, both faith and science are products of the mind.

Neither can boast that it has the corner on the question of from where did we come and to where are we going.

There is room for both, faith and science, to continue to seek answers to our greatest questions.

To seek answers with science without faith is a futile expedition. It is meaningless. Science cannot give us reason to continue in life but faith can.

ID is religions attempt to wield the two areas of faith and science together but has only exceeded in retaining the notion that life on earth may have been helped along by super intelligent beings. It has not resolved the question of who created the super intelligent beings. It has not resolve the question of what exists outside of the realm of reality. Neither has science (or rather, the tools of science).

So, the question remains to be answered; who are we? What are we? Where did we come from? Where are we going?

The role of the church (religion) is not to fill temples with souls but to spread the idea of hope and keep it sacred in the mind of man. It's a job and faith has it's own power to move the mind of humans.

Is there life after death? Who can prove this?

Science cannot say that the soul (essence or power of a living being) does not exist. It can only say it has not been discovered yet.

There is no living, walking proof that we can all put our hands on and say here is proof. We can only hope it is true.

Hope is power, a real power of the mind. It drives us to invent tools to fathom the measure of our reality.

Science is a tool that can generate power to be wielded by the hands of humans. It is not of itself a power of the mind, like hope or faith.

The poor, the hungry, the homeless, the desperate, the dying are still among us; today in more numbers than in the past.

There is no room for anyone to boast.

We are what we do, not what we intend to do. Look at the wold and tell me, what have we done? Who have we saved from death? Where do they live on this planet that I might have dinner with them and talk about where they went and what did they do?

Science has more work to do then time to boast.
Faith has more hope to give than it can ever satisfy.

There is no time to boast.

John Ray.

Like the above.

Pierson, I've been a little busy these days so I'll respond when I find more time to dedicate to it. Don't think I'm ignoring you or something.

I have found a living transitional organism. It is a whale, for a whale will one day produce a whale with slightly smaller remnants of hind legs (which all whales still have),

This is a text book example of begging the question. And I’ve had this debate with a phd evolutionary biologist.

There is simply no whale that has rear legs. There are whales that have appendages. Of course we know whales have flippers. So, why are the rear appendages presumed to be legs? Because one is imposing their evolutionary presuppositions onto the evidence.
Drawing something in a textbook may convince you, but it is NOT evidence. You can take existent creatures TODAY, put them in succession in a text book and make the same argument. The difference is that because of what we CAN observe we can dismiss the hypothesis. But, let's just suppose for a moment that by some chance those bones we find on some whale and dolphin species are remnants of legs. Guess what? That is atrophy, which is a loss of genetic information, and in no way accounts for the existance of legs in the first place. You can't get from single cells to Dolphins by losing limbs. It just don't happen.

If we begin at the present and examine older and older layers of rock, we will arrive at a level where no human fossils are found. If we continue backward in time, we successively come to layers where no fossils of birds are present, no mammals, no reptiles, no four-footed animals, no fishes, no shells, and no members of the animal kingdom. These concepts are summarized in the general principle called the Law of Fossil Succession.

Again, begging the question. Take Mt. Saint Helens for example. We saw rapid deposition of a lot of material. We actually witnessed it. And guess what. It settled into layers. So, by your analysis the lower layers are older, right? But, we know in fact they aren't older. At least not older in the sense you mean. They were laid down at the same time from the same event. If one examines rock layers looking through the lens of succession, then will create problems. The law of superposition is the presumed way that science looks at layers. But it has flaws by what we are able to observe today. That isn't saying superposition isn't a way, or even the main way things happened in the past. But it isn't observable. And based on what we can observe today, we see multiples layers being laid down at the same time. We also have polystrate fossils that confirm that multiple layers have been laid down in the past.

Let me give you another example. Currently, on the earth we have deep ocean valleys. These valleys are miles lower than say the lowest level of the grand canyon. Science presumes that the lowest levels of the Grand Canyon are millions of years older than the top layers.
Let's say there are fossil layers (and there are) at the bottom of the ocean valley. Which ones are older, the ones at the bottom of the canyon, or the bottom of the ocean? What about layers at the top of mountain peaks that contain sea fossils?
Let's say that today we had a rapid deposition form in that ocean valley. What kind of fossils would we find? humans and land animals? No. So, does that mean that no humans or land animals existed when that layer was laid down? No. We would find crustaceans and others that would look primitive by our analysis. But the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absense. So, can one judge the age of a strata because of what isn't there? No. We know the surface of the earth has changed, and that we even find sea fossils at the highest mountain peaks in the world.

Just an FYI, jlay, it would help when you quote, to add the person's name so I don't have to keep looking back to see who wrote what...