Evolution and the Existence of God

[dilloduck]

Science and religion are welded together with the same question. Where did god come from? Where did the material of the universe come from? There is no answer to either question.

We as humans don't have a brain capable of exploring either question to any satisfaction.

agreed---awe and absurdity are the best we can do.

All of our middle of the road life fantasies just keep us from eternal boredom.

 

[HUGGY]

Science and religion are welded together with the same question. Where did god come from? Where did the material of the universe come from? There is no answer to either question.

We as humans don't have a brain capable of exploring either question to any satisfaction.

agreed---awe and absurdity are the best we can do.

All of our middle of the road life fantasies just keep us from eternal boredom.

We simply are not wired to get it. The best minds actually hurt in deep thought of this puzzle.

Our best effort is baby steps. As you said...Awe. We do somehow stumble on ways of seeing what cannot be seen though... Galileo... Newton... against all known reason and tolorance we somehow muddle forward. My guess is that we will not be the ones to get it. If there are extra terrestrial beings, there must be hundreds or thousands of them...chances are that in some distant future we will be told..unless we are seen as nutrition..then maybe not..

 

[dilloduck]

Science and religion are welded together with the same question. Where did god come from? Where did the material of the universe come from? There is no answer to either question.

We as humans don't have a brain capable of exploring either question to any satisfaction.

agreed---awe and absurdity are the best we can do.

All of our middle of the road life fantasies just keep us from eternal boredom.

We simply are not wired to get it. The best minds actually hurt in deep thought of this puzzle.

Our best effort is baby steps. As you said...Awe. We do somehow stumble on ways of seeing what cannot be seen though... Galileo... Newton... against all known reason and tolorance we somehow muddle forward. My guess is that we will not be the ones to get it. If there are extra terrestrial beings, there must be hundreds or thousands of them...chances are that in some distant future we will be told..unless we are seen as nutrition..then maybe not..

I think there are some people who have already gotten all there is to "get".

Anything past that would be a scientist's heaven and no more real that a religion's.
all they have is hope

 

[HUGGY]

agreed---awe and absurdity are the best we can do.

All of our middle of the road life fantasies just keep us from eternal boredom.

We simply are not wired to get it. The best minds actually hurt in deep thought of this puzzle.

Our best effort is baby steps. As you said...Awe. We do somehow stumble on ways of seeing what cannot be seen though... Galileo... Newton... against all known reason and tolorance we somehow muddle forward. My guess is that we will not be the ones to get it. If there are extra terrestrial beings, there must be hundreds or thousands of them...chances are that in some distant future we will be told..unless we are seen as nutrition..then maybe not..

I think there are some people who have already gotten all there is to "get".

Anything past that would be a scientist's heaven and no more real that a religion's.
all they have is hope

Hope is not knowledge or understanding. My wish is that we learn how to prolong our lives indefinitely so we can share in whatever comes.

 

[antagon]

It is an affront only to those who accept only the possibilities they understand and refuse to open their minds to any other possibilities.

No, it's an affront to those who understand how scientific methodology works.

Science never does that. Science never presumes anything as absolute but that the possibility of other possibilities is always present.

Absolutely, but those possibilities must be able to be explained through natural measures and fit within the scientific method. Introducing any supernatural force automatically makes the venture non-scientific.

Again, Dr. Miller does a better job with this than I ever could.

BTW, the Santorum recommended and Bush Appointed Judge at the Dover Trial also agreed that ID is not a scientific theory.

But you see, you're trying to dismiss ID with scientific logic which puts you squarely into the faith based category.

I'm not trying to support ID with science. My contention is that science does not include what cannot be verified or falsified via scientific method, but neither does it suppose that we will never be able to use scientific method in areas that do not now apply.

Nor does science assume that it has the answers or even probability for all things and does not presume to speculate about those things for which it can establish no measure of probability. Science never concludes that those things outside the realm of science will never be within the realm of science. For that reason, good science is an ever expanding discipline unrestricted by premature conclusions.

ID has even less constraints than does science. Our understanding of ID is limited only by the limitations of the human mind to grasp ideas, propose, consider, hope for, or contemplate realities and/or possibilities. Actual ID isn't even limited by that.

i recall when ID was thrust into the the fray of science in an attempt to present a religious perspective informative enough to constitute a topic in american education, specifically science. failing that, it has changed to be a banner for folks who abide with a coincident understanding of creation or one which has no interest in how things work in scientific detail.

i'm not on the intelligent design bandwagon, but believe that god created the world in the manner which we are able to observe it. i could accept the desire to support ID outside of the realm of education. we're all on our computers here. not many of us have put them together or fully understand how they're made. i guess it is sufficient outside of computer science class to say our computers are intelligently designed.

how do you see ID, fox? i dont know much about it, truthfully. what when the contentions of ID dont fit with findings in science?

 

[geauxtohell]

But you see, you're trying to dismiss ID with scientific logic which puts you squarely into the faith based category.

I am dismissing ID as science. That doesn't put me into the "faith-based" category. It puts me in the "keep faith out of the science classroom" category.

I'm not trying to support ID with science. My contention is that science does not include what cannot be verified or falsified via scientific method, but neither does it suppose that we will never be able to use scientific method in areas that do not now apply.

The scientific method operates off rules and procedures. Basically something has to be observable, reproducible, and every hypothesis has to have a null hypothesis (can be falsified). I agree that the SM is a logical approach to other problems, but it can never be used in the field of the supernatural. In order to do that, we would have to be able to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Nor does science assume that it has the answers or even probability for all things and does not presume to speculate about those things for which it can establish no measure of probability. Science never concludes that those things outside the realm of science will never be within the realm of science. For that reason, good science is an ever expanding discipline unrestricted by premature conclusions.

I agree with this. However, you can't teach ID as science on the presumption that "someday it might meet the rigors of the scientific method". That's backwords. ID first has to prove it's a legitimate scientific theory and then it is accepted by the field.

ID has even less constraints than does science. Our understanding of ID is limited only by the limitations of the human mind to grasp ideas, propose, consider, hope for, or contemplate realities and/or possibilities. Actual ID isn't even limited by that.

Of course it does. It doesn't have to abide by those pesky rules that science limits itself too. If people want to embrace ID as a personal philosophy or form of Christian Apologetic thought, that's fine. What it is not is a legitimate scientific theory and it should not be held out to be one.

Dover established that legally. The scientific community knew it without having to go to court over the matter, but we are a nation of laws so ID deserved it's day in court. It got it and lost.

Badly.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

if you ignore evidences available to you, you can't credibly refute them.

can you take up evidences proposed for evolution and demonstrate that the theoretical conclusions associated with them are false? any bit will do.

i'm not impressed with your baseless argument, even if you put it in all caps.

You have no evidence for me to refute. You have made a claim, that animals can evolve from one species into 2 or more different species. I have stated you have no proof. It is not my job to prove the negative, it is your job to prove the positive. Provide for me actual evidence that a single species has ever evolved into 2 or more other species and I do mean animals. Not viruses and not plants.

All you have is the DNA strands that YOU claim provide evidence that species are related. Using those records man is related to all kind of species. Pigs, Mice, Apes and I bet there are others as well. That is not evidence of evolution at all. You and science do not have the source for each species to prove they did not have those DNA relationships from the start.

Once again, you have a long list of ASSUMPTIONS. Assumptions made with out any evidence to support them. The only thing that IS proven is that within a species evolution occurs. They have extensive fossil evidence of the Horse for that part of the theory.

you drive home the obvious that theories are presumptions or assumptions. theories in science are explored by way of hypotheses which are proven or disproved. these shape or refute the theory under examination. as the theory of evolution stands, no hypothesis has ever been raised and proven which refutes that there has been evolution, while many hundreds support it. in science, there is indeed an onus on the challenger to disprove a theory. the ball is in your court.

you've not challenged me, sarge, i've not published anything on the topic. can you put forward a finding or claimed resolution to a hypothesis supporting evolution which you have the wherewithal to refute? i take for granted that you've actually made such examinations and studied on scientific contentions before writing them all off with one of your own. a benefit of the doubt.

i reject your simplification of the ways DNA evidence indicates evolution. first you likened the DNA of a mouse and a human to be like a pool. i directed you to the specific, evolutionary relationship between the two genomes. ignoring that, you have reduced these the commonalities between pigs, mice, apes and men to be generic relationships. i advise you again, that the relationships can be shown to be that of descendancy, indicating a closer proximity between apes and men than between mice and men.

we have a strong understanding that genes are transcribed in reproduction, and are related to the phenotypes which are expressed in lifeforms. there is no evidence that any other mechanism is responsible for these functions. granted these understandings, we can determine which creatures are related to eachother and how. given collateral findings like fossils and RNA gene-dating, the relative time of divergence can be determined. all the broader theory of evolution contends is that there is a descendancy between creatures whereby adaptations represented in heritable genes are responsible for biodiversity. can you refute that without paraphrasing inaccuracies into play, or without ignoring major implications of the nature of genetics?

failing that, a hypothesis which i'll put up here in relationship to our discussion on faith could be addressed:

many who make faith(or lack there of)-based conclusions on the topic of evolution do so by ignoring and dismissing rather than exploring and examining evidence for evolution. in doing so, the contentions raised by such people as yourself aim to deem 99.xx% of the bioscience community as inept in their pursuits, without raising any plausible alternatives, or engaging in any real debate based on observations of nature on par with those scientists.

if you cant deny the realities of my theory, might you be among the first to act outside its bounds and base your negation of evolution on an observation of nature? can you deny that rather than addressing evidence, that you have already ignored and dismissed all that has been presented you without any specific argument refuting it?

We are done then since your only defense is " you can not prove me wrong" The onus of proof is on you not me.

 

[Foxfyre]

But you see, you're trying to dismiss ID with scientific logic which puts you squarely into the faith based category.

I am dismissing ID as science. That doesn't put me into the "faith-based" category. It puts me in the "keep faith out of the science classroom" category.

I'm not trying to support ID with science. My contention is that science does not include what cannot be verified or falsified via scientific method, but neither does it suppose that we will never be able to use scientific method in areas that do not now apply.

The scientific method operates off rules and procedures. Basically something has to be observable, reproducible, and every hypothesis has to have a null hypothesis (can be falsified). I agree that the SM is a logical approach to other problems, but it can never be used in the field of the supernatural. In order to do that, we would have to be able to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Nor does science assume that it has the answers or even probability for all things and does not presume to speculate about those things for which it can establish no measure of probability. Science never concludes that those things outside the realm of science will never be within the realm of science. For that reason, good science is an ever expanding discipline unrestricted by premature conclusions.

I agree with this. However, you can't teach ID as science on the presumption that "someday it might meet the rigors of the scientific method". That's backwords. ID first has to prove it's a legitimate scientific theory and then it is accepted by the field.

ID has even less constraints than does science. Our understanding of ID is limited only by the limitations of the human mind to grasp ideas, propose, consider, hope for, or contemplate realities and/or possibilities. Actual ID isn't even limited by that.

Of course it does. It doesn't have to abide by those pesky rules that science limits itself too. If people want to embrace ID as a personal philosophy or form of Christian Apologetic thought, that's fine. What it is not is a legitimate scientific theory and it should not be held out to be one.

Dover established that legally. The scientific community knew it without having to go to court over the matter, but we are a nation of laws so ID deserved it's day in court. It got it and lost.

Badly.

I don't know how many ways I can say that ID should not be taught as science before you would be able to read, comprehend, and acknowledge that I said that. Several times now.

And I don't know how many times I can explain how ID does not need Christianity or any other religious beliefs in order to be a reasonable and logical concept before you would be able to understand that.

And I seem unable to persuade you of what ID is and how it addresses questions that science cannot. I accept responsibility for being a poor teacher on that front.

But do have a great day.

 

[antagon]

you drive home the obvious that theories are presumptions or assumptions. theories in science are explored by way of hypotheses which are proven or disproved. these shape or refute the theory under examination. as the theory of evolution stands, no hypothesis has ever been raised and proven which refutes that there has been evolution, while many hundreds support it. in science, there is indeed an onus on the challenger to disprove a theory. the ball is in your court.

you've not challenged me, sarge, i've not published anything on the topic. can you put forward a finding or claimed resolution to a hypothesis supporting evolution which you have the wherewithal to refute? i take for granted that you've actually made such examinations and studied on scientific contentions before writing them all off with one of your own. a benefit of the doubt.

i reject your simplification of the ways DNA evidence indicates evolution. first you likened the DNA of a mouse and a human to be like a pool. i directed you to the specific, evolutionary relationship between the two genomes. ignoring that, you have reduced these the commonalities between pigs, mice, apes and men to be generic relationships. i advise you again, that the relationships can be shown to be that of descendancy, indicating a closer proximity between apes and men than between mice and men.

we have a strong understanding that genes are transcribed in reproduction, and are related to the phenotypes which are expressed in lifeforms. there is no evidence that any other mechanism is responsible for these functions. granted these understandings, we can determine which creatures are related to eachother and how. given collateral findings like fossils and RNA gene-dating, the relative time of divergence can be determined. all the broader theory of evolution contends is that there is a descendancy between creatures whereby adaptations represented in heritable genes are responsible for biodiversity. can you refute that without paraphrasing inaccuracies into play, or without ignoring major implications of the nature of genetics?

failing that, a hypothesis which i'll put up here in relationship to our discussion on faith could be addressed:

many who make faith(or lack there of)-based conclusions on the topic of evolution do so by ignoring and dismissing rather than exploring and examining evidence for evolution. in doing so, the contentions raised by such people as yourself aim to deem 99.xx% of the bioscience community as inept in their pursuits, without raising any plausible alternatives, or engaging in any real debate based on observations of nature on par with those scientists.

if you cant deny the realities of my theory, might you be among the first to act outside its bounds and base your negation of evolution on an observation of nature? can you deny that rather than addressing evidence, that you have already ignored and dismissed all that has been presented you without any specific argument refuting it?

We are done then since your only defense is " you can not prove me wrong" The onus of proof is on you not me.

"not one shred!" i guess without a response to any of the questions above, all there is to do is tuck you nuts back up where they belong on the topic.

no doubt you'll take your not one shred act to the next opportunity to proclaim without merit that virtually everyone in biology is a loon, and without addressing any contention specifically.

 

[geauxtohell]

I don't know how many ways I can say that ID should not be taught as science before you would be able to read, comprehend, and acknowledge that I said that. Several times now.

And I don't know how many times I can explain how ID does not need Christianity or any other religious beliefs in order to be a reasonable and logical concept before you would be able to understand that.

And I seem unable to persuade you of what ID is and how it addresses questions that science cannot. I accept responsibility for being a poor teacher on that front.

But do have a great day.

If I am hypersensitive about it, then it is only because I am used to the ID people being dishonest about their motives. If you stated it as clearly as this before and I missed it, then I apologize.

If you don't think ID is science, then we are on the same page.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't know how many ways I can say that ID should not be taught as science before you would be able to read, comprehend, and acknowledge that I said that. Several times now.

And I don't know how many times I can explain how ID does not need Christianity or any other religious beliefs in order to be a reasonable and logical concept before you would be able to understand that.

And I seem unable to persuade you of what ID is and how it addresses questions that science cannot. I accept responsibility for being a poor teacher on that front.

But do have a great day.

If I am hypersensitive about it, then it is only because I am used to the ID people being dishonest about their motives. If you stated it as clearly as this before and I missed it, then I apologize.

If you don't think ID is science, then we are on the same page.

Thanks. I think the first time I said that was in my very first post on this thread. I have to watch the hypersensitivity sometimes too because so many anti-ID-ers are eager to paint pro-ID-ers as religious fanatics. Some refuse to see that it can be anything other than Christian dogma and dismiss it as delusional superstition on that basis. Such experience can sometimes cause me to misinterpret and overreact to what others say.

It's possible we aren't quite on the same page yet if you aren't a pro-ID guy. But I'll settle for friendly fights any day.

 

[Gadawg73]

Science doesn't have all the answers, but the "God in the gaps" mentality is an affront to scientific inquiry.

It is an affront only to those who accept only the possibilities they understand and refuse to open their minds to any other possibilities.

Science never does that. Science never presumes anything as absolute but that the possibility of other possibilities is always present.

Science is testing with the scientific method; a system where you attempt at alltimes with every test you conduct to prove your theory wrong.
Religion is a belief system where your faith is believed to always be correct.
Do you practice your religion like science? At all times testing your faith that is always false?
That is what science always does. Religion never does that. Science never assumes anything. Science tests and provides proof. Religion is a belief system. In religion you have many different scenarios. Who is right, the Jew, Christian, Hindu or Muslim?

 

[Gadawg73]

The Federal Dover case in Pennsylvania fully disputed the ID crowd. They showed up with fraudulent evidence, lied in depositions and open court and were verbally toungue lashed by the Federal Judge.
A conservative Republican Bush appointed Federal Judge.
That case proved ID is repackaged creationism. ID is not science and that case proved it.
ID is a belief. Take a good look at that case. It will shock you.

 

[SW2SILVER]

Please, boyo, next time yer car stops working, you don't pray to fix the bloody contraption, YOU fix it. YES? Were does a GOD fit in? I don’t mean “metaphorically” or that bullshit, either. You do the work, god is your conscience, and, boyo, that is ALL religion is. That simple. You don’t wan’t to know what else I have to say, GOD knows that, And Neither do you.

 

[Foxfyre]

Science doesn't have all the answers, but the "God in the gaps" mentality is an affront to scientific inquiry.

It is an affront only to those who accept only the possibilities they understand and refuse to open their minds to any other possibilities.

Science never does that. Science never presumes anything as absolute but that the possibility of other possibilities is always present.

Science is testing with the scientific method; a system where you attempt at alltimes with every test you conduct to prove your theory wrong.
Religion is a belief system where your faith is believed to always be correct.
Do you practice your religion like science? At all times testing your faith that is always false?
That is what science always does. Religion never does that. Science never assumes anything. Science tests and provides proof. Religion is a belief system. In religion you have many different scenarios. Who is right, the Jew, Christian, Hindu or Muslim?

Perhaps though your post suggests you really don't know too much about what you're talking about here.

What difference does it make whether the Jew, Christian, Hindu, Muslim or any other religious group is right in this context? Do you have to reconcile differences of scientific opinion of which there are many before you can accept science as a reasoned discipline?

My whole point from the beginning of this discussion is that ID is not science in the sense that we usually define science.

And ID is not religion in the sense that we usually define religion at least so far as iit being necessary to include spiritual beings or dieties.

The honest and true scientists closes his mind to no possibilities and fully accepts that what he now knows may be perceived differently when new information or evidence is presented. The only way scientists can get ever closer to the truth is with open minds receptive to any new information that is yet to come.

And the same is true of ID which also presumes that there is far more to know than what is known and the only way to get closer to the truth is by an open mind receptive to any new information that is yet to come.

Therefore, for all we know there will be a merging of science and ID sometime in the future, but it is not now merged. But no scientist worth his credentials as a scientist would dismiss ID as an impossibility any more than any ID-er of reasoned intelligence would dismiss science out of hand just because it doesn't fit with some religious doctrine.

 

[FA_Q2]

Excuse the multiples, I have some catching up to do here.

On the other hand, it is not blurring science with faith to acknowledge that religious convictions/beliefs/faith or whatever you want to call it does answer questions that science cannot, and there are billions of question that we cannot answer using science or faith.

The way I see it, any credible scientist acknowledges that we currently know a teensy fraction of all the science that there is to know and that science is no more adequate to prove or dispute religious faith than religious faith is adequate to prove or dispute science.

In my world science, incuding evolution, and religious faith coexist together quite comfortably. The way I see it, God was author of both.

Yes, they co-exist quite well. What they do not do is blend. Faith and science are completely, totally and unquestionably separate and must stay that way in order to coexist. That is not to say you cannot have beliefs about the physical world that stem from faith and beliefs about faith that stem from your observations but they are separate from each other. Faith requires NO proof, it is personal and spiritual. Science requires no faith, it is cold and without opinion and requires a fluidity in beliefs and findings. Science cannot prove what is outside of the natural world (aka God) and faith cannot describe science as faith does not require proof or evidence.

I suppose it all depends on what you mean by 'blend'. If you mean that faith is separate from science as a discipline that is taught or from scientific criteria used to support or falsify various theories/concepts etc. I would agree. Certainly neither Creationism nor Intelligent Design should be taught as science.

But if you mean that people of faith cannot see and understand God (or whatever religious concept) in nature and science, then I disagree. For instance, thinking ID people, of which I like to believe I am one, can easily believe that it is both logical and rational to conclude that there is intelligence behind the order within the universe and the universe itself and that in no way negates the scientific knowledge and theories that we have developed about that. Plato and Aristotle understood that. And more recently Albert Einstein, who did not believe in a personal God, understood and promoted that concept.

Science should never teach that Creationism or Intelligent Design are impossible or superstitious nonsense or whatever. When it presumes to do so, it becomes non-scientific and assumes a faith based position.

Apologies for the confusion here. I meant the first statement by blend, not the latter. They do not mix but they do complement.

 

[FA_Q2]

thanks, for the discussion, folks. it figures that the middle-roaders who feel that there is place for religion and science to co-exist would be the ones to voice their opinions. maybe we could get lucky and hear from one of many atheists who've laid an argument against deity on scientific foundations, or a believer who rejects science which they feel contradicts their faith.

to pick a fight, though, what about areas where these realms do overlap. religious leaders have extended ethical boundaries on science for years. today, hot issues include stem-cell research, which is argued to be capitalization on sin by way of abortion. foxfyre brought up education, with christian fundamentalist leaders demanding that faith-based alternatives to evolution theory take a place beside science. lastly, how about 'playing God'? with genetic research probing deep and wide into ways we could alter the design of life on the planet, even as much as create our own, is there an ethical boundary which science should respect?

This needs to be broken down a little:
1 - religious leaders have extended ethical boundaries on science for years. today, hot issues include stem-cell research, which is argued to be capitalization on sin by way of abortion.

That is the general sentiment that many have but I would say that it is INCORRECT! Before jumping here lets examine that stance. I see those ethical boundaries to be created by MORALS not just the religion behind them. To be sure, religion effects your morals but you do not need that religion to be present to have morals. Many times the morals of the religious confuse atheists and that leads to the targeting of religion.

For instance, I would be against any research that would require you to perform a partial birth abortion on a fully viable 9 month fetus and yet I am an atheist. I would be against it for personal moral reasons. In short, I am not against restricting science within moral boundaries but I do not believe that it should be restricted based on strictly religious reasons (ex: God commands in XXX religion that no research be done on geology because he said so)

2 - Religious faith based teaching in schools.
Simple and absolute NO on all accounts. Religions should be taught in a historical and cultural impact type setting but nothing more than a simple overview of the tenants of each religion should be covered and no religious concepts such as ID should be introduced as a curriculum. That religious course should cover all the major religions as well.

3 - Genetics and playing God

Once again, moral choices and boundaries are set with morality and do not necessitate religion though religion structures your personal morality. In this there are many boundaries we should not cross but we are not at that point yet where we even need to delve into that. I do not want to see the world reduced to the one in A Brave New World but the tech for that does not exist and is not currently being developed so it is rather somewhat moot.

 

[FA_Q2]

You have no evidence for me to refute. You have made a claim, that animals can evolve from one species into 2 or more different species. I have stated you have no proof. It is not my job to prove the negative, it is your job to prove the positive. Provide for me actual evidence that a single species has ever evolved into 2 or more other species and I do mean animals. Not viruses and not plants.

All you have is the DNA strands that YOU claim provide evidence that species are related. Using those records man is related to all kind of species. Pigs, Mice, Apes and I bet there are others as well. That is not evidence of evolution at all. You and science do not have the source for each species to prove they did not have those DNA relationships from the start.

Once again, you have a long list of ASSUMPTIONS. Assumptions made with out any evidence to support them. The only thing that IS proven is that within a species evolution occurs. They have extensive fossil evidence of the Horse for that part of the theory.

you drive home the obvious that theories are presumptions or assumptions. theories in science are explored by way of hypotheses which are proven or disproved. these shape or refute the theory under examination. as the theory of evolution stands, no hypothesis has ever been raised and proven which refutes that there has been evolution, while many hundreds support it. in science, there is indeed an onus on the challenger to disprove a theory. the ball is in your court.

you've not challenged me, sarge, i've not published anything on the topic. can you put forward a finding or claimed resolution to a hypothesis supporting evolution which you have the wherewithal to refute? i take for granted that you've actually made such examinations and studied on scientific contentions before writing them all off with one of your own. a benefit of the doubt.

i reject your simplification of the ways DNA evidence indicates evolution. first you likened the DNA of a mouse and a human to be like a pool. i directed you to the specific, evolutionary relationship between the two genomes. ignoring that, you have reduced these the commonalities between pigs, mice, apes and men to be generic relationships. i advise you again, that the relationships can be shown to be that of descendancy, indicating a closer proximity between apes and men than between mice and men.

we have a strong understanding that genes are transcribed in reproduction, and are related to the phenotypes which are expressed in lifeforms. there is no evidence that any other mechanism is responsible for these functions. granted these understandings, we can determine which creatures are related to eachother and how. given collateral findings like fossils and RNA gene-dating, the relative time of divergence can be determined. all the broader theory of evolution contends is that there is a descendancy between creatures whereby adaptations represented in heritable genes are responsible for biodiversity. can you refute that without paraphrasing inaccuracies into play, or without ignoring major implications of the nature of genetics?

failing that, a hypothesis which i'll put up here in relationship to our discussion on faith could be addressed:

many who make faith(or lack there of)-based conclusions on the topic of evolution do so by ignoring and dismissing rather than exploring and examining evidence for evolution. in doing so, the contentions raised by such people as yourself aim to deem 99.xx% of the bioscience community as inept in their pursuits, without raising any plausible alternatives, or engaging in any real debate based on observations of nature on par with those scientists.

if you cant deny the realities of my theory, might you be among the first to act outside its bounds and base your negation of evolution on an observation of nature? can you deny that rather than addressing evidence, that you have already ignored and dismissed all that has been presented you without any specific argument refuting it?

We are done then since your only defense is " you can not prove me wrong" The onus of proof is on you not me.

To be honest, it matters not where the onus of anything is. There IS evidence for evolution and if you think it is shaky then provide an alternate theory. ID is NOT a scientific theory so it is not an alternative. In that light, there is no other explanation so evolution is the best answer so far. You were provided a TWO HOUR video explanation in the evidence for evolution so the evidence HAS been provided. Please support your contention.


By the way, the onus IS NOT on the individual to prove a theory false. It is on the one that put forth the theory so the real onus is on the evolutionists here. The rub is that has already been done and some are frustrated here that you have failed to address it and then claimed there was not one shred of evidence. it is there, just come to it with an open mind.

 

[FA_Q2]

what when the contentions of ID dont fit with findings in science?

Not possible. ID just stipulates there is an intelligent designer that drives the force. The problem that many an IDer comes up against is the seemingly laughable notion that God cannot use the path of evolution to create - he MUST use magical supernatural methods. I have to ask why is God limited to the path that WE chose instead of any path open to himself?

Therefore, for all we know there will be a merging of science and ID sometime in the future, but it is not now merged. But no scientist worth his credentials as a scientist would dismiss ID as an impossibility any more than any ID-er of reasoned intelligence would dismiss science out of hand just because it doesn't fit with some religious doctrine.

That depends on where you are taking the ID theory. If you are speaking as a God or gods standpoint then no, ALL scientists worth their credentials should immediately dismiss it as a SCIENTIFIC possibility. Note I did not say wrong, just that it could never come under scrutiny of science and would forever remain as an unknown in science. This is because science cannot and should not be applied to the supernatural. You cannot merge the supernatural with science and I would never want to see that anyway. God would mean an entirely different thing if her were able to be tested and quantified. What a terrible thought. On the other hand, if you ascribe to the ET form of ID then that can be tested and may certainly come under the scrutiny of science.

 

[antagon]

thanks for the responses, everyone. this is turning out to be a jive debate.

what when the contentions of ID dont fit with findings in science?

Not possible. ID just stipulates there is an intelligent designer that drives the force. The problem that many an IDer comes up against is the seemingly laughable notion that God cannot use the path of evolution to create - he MUST use magical supernatural methods. I have to ask why is God limited to the path that WE chose instead of any path open to himself?

i'm hoping for some clarification on ID. i think it must have changed since the court examined it or that it may be very freeform/'moving target' theory to start with. originally, it was a rehash of creationism which contended that supernatural determination, rather than natural selection/epigenesis was the mechanism by which adaptations were tested and determined. doesn't that constitute an overlap of logic basic to evolution by one basic to ID?