Evidence for God from Science

Okay, so starting tonight, 9/12/05, The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, will be airing a week long special called "Evolution Schmevolution" on the theories of evolution, creationism, and intelligent design. This show is on Comedy Central. According to Jon Stewart, the "anchor" of the "news team", he says the show will "solve this debate" and come to a "conclusion" by the end of this week long special, more specifically the show announcer says "The questions will be answered, no more monkeying around" . Daily show information for this week long show special is currently available on the The Daily Show With Jon Stewart website. As you know, there are many ID/Creationism/Theistic Evolution websites criticizing Darwinian Evolution/Neo-Darwinian Evolution websites and many Darwinian Evolution/Neo-Darwinian Evolution websites criticizing ID/Creationism/Theistic Evolution websites, back and forth, non-stop. Based on all the evidence examined from all sides of the debate, what is the best supporting theory?

"Evolution Schmevolution" - Day One - 9/12/05

Jon Stewart kicks off the week long special with the history of evolution, what's taught in science class, or, as it's known in some places, "The Crazy Claim Magic Fun Hour"?:


Click Picture To Watch

Ed Helms, the "correspondent" of the "news team" on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, visits at a quaint reenactment town (home of the Scopes trial) that would be terrifying if it were real:


Click Picture To Watch



Chris Mooney

Chris Mooney is welcomed on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart to present his new book - The Republican War on Science.


Click Picture To Review And/Or Purchase His Book

Chris Mooney is in favor of Darwinian Evolution/Neo-Darwinian Evolution, and he says there is TONS of evidence for it. He thinks the Republicans stance on science is skewed. He also discusses his subtly titled book "The Republican War on Science."


Click Picture To Watch


Evolution Facts: The 8th Day
There is a growing consensus that on the eighth day God created Cher.


Click Picture To Watch

Dipstick doesn't seem to know what science is...probably like other ignorant people and think that origins science is the same as operational science...lol.

What do you expect from people on the comedy channel?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Dipstick doesn't seem to know what science is...probably like other ignorant people and think that origins science is the same as operational science...lol.

Where in the world do you get these distinctions?
Organic Chemistry and Biology are practical sciences. Evolution is based on physical evidence.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Dipstick doesn't seem to know what science is...probably like other ignorant people and think that origins science is the same as operational science...lol.

Where in the world do you get these distinctions?
Organic Chemistry and Biology are practical sciences. Evolution is based on physical evidence.

Like I said

What I was referring to is the fact that a lot of people, most likely this bozo, says that saying there's a creator IS NOT SCIENCE because science looks for naturalistic explanations...but, as I've said before, that's operational science's definition being used for origin science...

And, really, what physical evidence is evolution based on?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:And, really, what physical evidence is evolution based on?

There are many.

Let us first state the fact that all living organisms must come from other living organisms.

Next there are many types of organisms.

And Finally the fossil evidence contains many more species than are living today. And does not always contain examples of species living today.

Examine the evidence and it is clear that organisms have changed over time.

We could continue to what organic chemistry has contributed to our knowledge base, but I will save that for another post if need be.

BGoodForGoodSake, two simple questions. Do you deny the existence of a divine creator not of these dimensions and deny the existence of an afterlife? I'm just curious.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:And, really, what physical evidence is evolution based on?

There are many.

Let us first state the fact that all living organisms must come from other living organisms.

Next there are many types of organisms.

And Finally the fossil evidence contains many more species than are living today. And does not always contain examples of species living today.

Examine the evidence and it is clear that organisms have changed over time.

We could continue to what organic chemistry has contributed to our knowledge base, but I will save that for another post if need be.

A living organism must come from another living organism..yes, we call this the law of biogenesis-life comes from life. But then you have a problem, because evolution is built upon the assumption of abiogenesis-life coming from non-life. I win.

Many types of organisms...? So?

The fossil record has more types of life than currently are living...well, yes, extinction occurs at a certain rate (can't remember the number, but a certain number of species die out per year) Your point? Also, almost ALL phylums of the animal kingdom have been found in the fossil record, in ONE small section!....some scientists venture to say ALL are in there, but only about 5 are missing according to our current knowledge. What does this have to do with evolution? Have you heard of the Cambrian Explosion?

Organisms change over time...yes, microevolution...your point?

Organic chemistry...?? Continue with your evidence, don't stop at the title.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:And, really, what physical evidence is evolution based on?

There are many.

Let us first state the fact that all living organisms must come from other living organisms.

Next there are many types of organisms.

And Finally the fossil evidence contains many more species than are living today. And does not always contain examples of species living today.

Examine the evidence and it is clear that organisms have changed over time.

We could continue to what organic chemistry has contributed to our knowledge base, but I will save that for another post if need be.

A living organism must come from another living organism..yes, we call this the law of biogenesis-life comes from life. But then you have a problem, because evolution is built upon the assumption of abiogenesis-life coming from non-life. I win.

This is not true, study the topic more and we can continue the argument.
Evolution concerns speciation and change of organisms through time. It does not pose the origins of life.

Many types of organisms...? So?

The fossil record has more types of life than currently are living...well, yes, extinction occurs at a certain rate (can't remember the number, but a certain number of species die out per year) Your point? Also, almost ALL phylums of the animal kingdom have been found in the fossil record, in ONE small section!....some scientists venture to say ALL are in there, but only about 5 are missing according to our current knowledge. What does this have to do with evolution? Have you heard of the Cambrian Explosion?

Yes your right all phylums of life did occur in the precambrian along with other animal types which are fantastic and no longer exist. But, you don't even have to take a close look to see that life at that period was extremely alien to life forms which exist now. The phylum chordata which mammals belong to was represented by a lone urochordate, a very primative organism. Also arthopod like forms dominated the cambrian seas. Fish, nowhere to be found. So where did the fish come from? Did they microevolve from the urochordates? Did they appear out of nowhere? What happened to the law of biogenesis?

Organisms change over time...yes, microevolution...your point?

Organic chemistry...?? Continue with your evidence, don't stop at the title.

Lets finish this topic before going onto more complex matters. Fossil finds are the most basic and tactile of evidence for evolution.

Thinker wrote:BGoodForGoodSake, two simple questions. Do you deny the existence of a divine creator not of these dimensions and deny the existence of an afterlife? I'm just curious.

No of course I don't.
Don't be silly,
but I am always in favor of increasing human knowledge.
I beleive that there is a limit to human understanding, but we have yet to reach it. Systematic discovery is the best way to realize this potential.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Thinker wrote:BGoodForGoodSake, two simple questions. Do you deny the existence of a divine creator not of these dimensions and deny the existence of an afterlife? I'm just curious.

No of course I don't.
Don't be silly,
but I am always in favor of increasing human knowledge.
I beleive that there is a limit to human understanding, but we have yet to reach it. Systematic discovery is the best way to realize this potential.

Yes, I am in favor of increasing human knowledge as well and I do believe we are "capped off" to a certain extent of human understanding. For me, maybe not you, it is that we are "capped off" because we are divinely hard-wired that way, we do have a percentage of brain mass that goes unused, but it may be used for some other purpose besides our knowledge on Earth .

Thinker wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Thinker wrote:BGoodForGoodSake, two simple questions. Do you deny the existence of a divine creator not of these dimensions and deny the existence of an afterlife? I'm just curious.

No of course I don't.
Don't be silly,
but I am always in favor of increasing human knowledge.
I beleive that there is a limit to human understanding, but we have yet to reach it. Systematic discovery is the best way to realize this potential.

Yes, I am in favor of increasing human knowledge as well and I do believe we are "capped off" to a certain extent of human understanding. For me, maybe not you, it is that we are "capped off" because we are divinely hard-wired that way, we do have a percentage of brain mass that goes unused, but it may be used for some other purpose besides our knowledge on Earth .

Agreed,

On an off note we actually use 100% of our brains.
The 10% thing is a myth and continues to survive despite it being obviously wrong.