Evidence for God from Science

I'm still waiting for someone to show me where evolution has ever created anything.. It seems it's only in the subtracting business.. Subtract this, subtract that.. Loose an eye, loose your head, loose an arm, before you know it there won't be anything left.. What does that prove?

Evolution is a dying theory. The more knowledge we gain...the morw we realize.....there is more than meets the eye.

As far as vestigle organs go.......there aren't any. EVERYTHING has a purpose. Just because science doesn't know the exact purpose....doesn't mena it's useless. Rather arrogant don't you think.

Jac3510 wrote: Igo, I already acknowledged my original statement was unclear and could be read incorrectly. Why are you so excited about a single mistatement?

Your original statement was worse than unclear or not explaining the details. When you wrote the original statement, did you know about the different long-separated blind fish populations, or that each population had different broken vision genes, or that the scientists cross-bred the populations?

If you didn't know, then you should still have realized that your statement made NO sense in light of how biology works. The implication of "spending a few generations in the light" to bring back the vision of long-blind fish, is not even remotely a "generally true principle" of biology. An appropriate response to the objections to your statement should be: "You know what, I blew it with my statement. I know better now. Let's move on."

And if you did know, then your original statement was simply and incomprehensibly wrong. Your description would have bewildered even a biologist as to what could possibly have brought back the vision.

I already answered that, Igo. YES, I was perfectly aware. I have explained TWICE why I phrased it the way I did. Apparently, you missed the point I had been making, which was MY FAULT for being unclear.

Now, do you want to discuss any of the substantive matters I have brought up repeatedly, or do you want to continue complaining about my phraseology?

Jac3510 wrote: [... the blind fishes' sight] could be restored [...] by putting it in the right environment (hence, by simplification to "in the light"). [...]
What I meant, and what I thought was rather clearly the meaning, was that descendants of blind fish can easily regain their ability to see in a relatively short period of time given the proper circumstances.

No simplification of this science story on sight restoration even remotely has anything to do with being "in the light". And your 2nd sentence above bears no resemblance to, much less a clarification of, your original statement.

Just today I asked yet another person, a language enthusiast, about your original statement that "[...] blind cave fish get their site[sic] back after spending a few generations in the light". His response was exactly the same as that of the engineering geeks, viz., the clear meaning is a cause (spending a few generations in the light) and effect (get their site[sic] back).

So regardless of whether you understand the science or not, your statements continue to cast doubt on your ability to meaningfully describe the science to others. Simply labeling your original statement as "unclear" oddly ignores an admission of your problem here.

Label it whatever makes you feel good, Igo. I frankly am not capable of caring any less than I do. Say I was flat wrong in my original assertion. I don't really care. Not one iota. Does it make you feel good to play "gotcha"? How many days have you spent complaining about this phrase and ignoring the substantive issues I have repeatedly raised?

It is this kind of utter dishonesty, this kind of red herring, that you people uses that makes any rational debate impossible. I know what I meant. I have told you what I meant, so you know what I meant. If you feel like what I meant is not contained in what I said, then fine. Judge it so and move on. The important things are the ideas.

As it stands, I have far too much to do with my time than sit around and argue over what wording I should have used over and idea--a mechanism--we both agree on. If anybody else wants to waste their time on you, then they can have at it. If I can't even trust you enough to have an honest conversation here, what in the world would lead me to believe you are either honest or interested enough to have a real discussion on the actual issues?

I gave you the courtesy of being willing to take your objections at face value. Since you have shown your disinterest in talking about those objections (much less mine), I'm no longer inclined to continue this with you. All the best to you.

Summarizing:

I said I had to start somewhere, so I chose your simple well-defined statement about blind cave fish. I supplied multiple lines of independent evidence that your statement was incorrect or, at best, made no sense. You steadfastly claimed your statement was merely "unclear", while your only "evidence" seemed to be the irrelevant: "I know what I meant."

I focused on just this one problematic statement, patiently waiting for an acknowledgment, so that we could then move on to your other issues. Rather than admit the problem, you kept trying to change the subject, and continued promoting simpleton strawman caricatures of scientists supporting evolution. And yet, I'm the one involved in "utter dishonesty".

For a revelation, try talking to a biologist at a local university. Almost half are Christians, who see evolution as Evidence FOR God. Let me know how that turns out. But, oh, wait, that's a waste of your time. Why leave an insular, protective, mutually-supporting cloister, where everyone already knows the answers.