Evolution Is Not A Theory..........................

[Youwerecreated]

..........................It's a science:

A million life forms have a skelton, mouth at the top or front, a rectum at the bottom or end, a brain, lungs, a heart, a digestive system, genitals within centimeters of the rectum...they are born or hatched, grow to fruition, reproduce and slowly die. Humans are just one species. If one doesn't eat and shit every few days they die.

Only some kind of ignorant human with the IQ of an idiot or someone who has been brainwashed from birth could fail to see that.

Speaking as an atheist, that has to be one of the lamest argument for Darwin I've ever heard...

So you think the invisible man in the sky created every life form from the same pattern. Absolutely no imagination.

The subtle effects of gravity over millions of years caused food and liquid to continue to flow from the top or front to the end or bottom. I guess the invisible man knew he was going to end up with that, no pun intended.

Yes,the creator was able to use the same substances and ingredients to create all the living organisms we see,and all the scietist in the world still can't figure out how he created such diversity since they don't believe in a creator they have to explain it in a natural means goodluck with that.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It's as likely as life suddenly and coincidentally spontaneously coming into being. I'm just not an intellectual dwarf who pretends my THEORY has been proven.

Actually you are, if you have all the evidence, but stick with beliefs that don't begin to explain what we see in the fossil and geological record.

Please explain fossils found in the wrong strata ?

 

[Dragon]

If you're a Neo Darwinist thank you for providing timelines because it further supports the mathematical answer to how long it would take for man to diverge from an apelike creature through mutations. Your timelines show that it was impossible.

On what basis do you say this? You'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it.

 

[Dragon]

You don't consider the orderly harmony of what exists to be science? Einstein certainly did. In those published papers he wasn't dealing with that observable harmony.

I don't consider "the orderly harmony of what exists" to be a good definition of science, no. I consider science to be the study of the observable, measurable processes of nature using the scientific method.

He wouldn't be put into a box that would allow discussion only of that which could be tested, falsified, or written into scientific opinion

As a scientist, yes, he did. Everything that Einstein wrote as a physicist fit into that box. Now, he may well have expressed some personal opinions outside that box; nobody is JUST a scientist and not all important questions are scientific questions; nonetheless, when he was doing science, he played by the rules of science.

For the life of me, I can't understand why so many people who are otherwise bright, intelligent, and open minded on things are so close minded when it comes to the Theory of Evolution which still has more questions than answers even after being studied all this time.

Sure, there are many questions about it, but there are some questions that have been definitively answered, to wit:

Living things do evolve.
Natural selection is almost certainly a part of how that happens, as is mutation.
Human beings evolved from a line of primate species that diverged from the apes several million years ago, reaching modern form beween 100,000 and 200,000 years ago.

There is no serious question about these things at all.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If you're a Neo Darwinist thank you for providing timelines because it further supports the mathematical answer to how long it would take for man to diverge from an apelike creature through mutations. Your timelines show that it was impossible.

On what basis do you say this? You'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it.

There have been many take into account all that would have to happen for mutations to be the engine that drives macroevolution. The figure produced 10 billion years ago for the divergence from ape to man.

There are other figures that give the minimum of 10 billion years let's go with this one.

Genetic debris is similar to genetic entropy, but it works at a different level.



The theory of evolution postulates that new genetic material can be caused by "bulk mutations," such as creating an extra copy of a chromosome or an extra copy of a section of DNA, and after the bulk mutation, point mutations (which would include new individual nucleotides) fine tune these bulk mutations into new gene complexes, new morphing of the embryo algorithms, etc.



Genetic debris has to do with the failed attempts by evolution to create new species. The attempt does create the bulk mutations, but the point mutations fail to create new genetic information. Thus, the mutated bulk mutations stay on the DNA without adding any new genetic information.



Let us start by looking at the big picture of evolution.



After the "first living cell," evolution had to create much more genetic material than it had to create for the "first living cell." Not only was there more genetic material, but it had to be massively more complex.



For example, the average gene on the "first living cell" would have only created one protein. Modern day human genes can create an average of 10 proteins, and each one of these proteins is much longer and massively more complex than any gene on the "first living cell" would have been.



Not only that, but human genes have "introns" in between the "exons" and the introns are not part of the final mRNA. In fact, typically, not even all of the exons are part of the final mRNA. This means that the instructions for making proteins are no longer in contiguous sections of the DNA, which adds a lot of complexity to DNA.



When complex life started to exist (assuming the theory of evolution); gene complexes, the morphing of the embryo algorithms, etc. became so complex that the percentage of viable random permutations (given the growing length and complexity of DNA for the increasingly complex species) became increasingly and astonishingly small.



As things got more complex, and the percentage of viable permutations plummeted, the seemingly infinite number of failed attempts to create a new gene complex (either from an existing gene complex or a copy of an existing gene complex) or make a change in the morphing of the embryo algorithm, etc. would massively outnumber the successful attempts.



There are two problems for evolution at this point.



If you start to modify an existing gene complex, but the attempt fails to create a functional new gene complex, you have very likely destroyed an existing and important gene complex and it will never again function properly in the descendants of the animal!! This also means the offspring of this animal may not survive.



On the other hand, if you start to modify a copy of an existing gene complex, but the point mutations fail to create a new gene complex, then you have a large amount of worthless genetic material on the DNA.



Neither of these options are good. But if evolution were true, both of these options would have happened many millions of times during the creation of human DNA due to the statistical problems of the theory of evolution. Vastly, vastly more failures would occur than successes.



These failed attempts would extend the length of the DNA, by worthless nucleotides, plus would have extended the length of time needed to create humans, even under the most ideal conditions, to a virtually infinite amount of time.



These failures would have massively extended the length of DNA because there is no mechanism to remove unwanted debris.



A person might think that if there was a failed attempt in creating a new gene complex; that the new species simply would not survive, thus the genetic debris issue would not be a factor.



It is not that simple because most new species would have needed 10 or 20 or even more new gene complexes. The probability of creating 20 new gene complexes, each on the first attempt, on a new DNA strand (i.e. in the same attempt to create a new species) is insanely absurd and would not happen a single time in a quintillion quintillion quintillion years!!



Thus, it would be impossible that the creation of a new species would not include massive amounts of "baggage or debris" from failed attempts to create viable gene complexes from copies of existing gene complexes.



In fact, starting with the first complex species (i.e. a species which had a circulating fluid), every new species would have had residuals of bulk mutations which did not end up being viable genetic material.



There is no mechanism on DNA to get rid of these mutations; partly because these are new species, by definition, and the final design of the DNA is unknown until the species is complete and functioning.



Since humans have roughly 3,000 ancestor species (i.e. different species on our evolutionary or phylogenetic tree), on 3,000 different occasions there would have been a significant amount of new genetic debris added to our DNA.



Scientists do not see any residual bulk mutations, which have no function, on human DNA. While there are sections of DNA which are not understood yet, there is no section of DNA which has been shown to be unnecessary.



But genetic debris would have created many trillions of unused nucleotides during the creation of the 3,000 ancestor species of humans due to the impossible odds of creating a new gene complex by random mutations, on the first attempt, and the fact that many new ancestor species would have needed 10 or 20 new gene complexes.



Bottom Line: If evolution were true, massive, massive numbers of non-functional nucleotides would be left on our DNA due to the concept of "genetic debris." Such nucleotides are not observed.



See Chapter 19 for more information on genetic debris.





Reason #4) Consecutive Impossible Probabilities



We have assumed that the number of ancestor species, between the first complex species (which was our ancestor species) and human beings, was 3,000.



In a prior chapter it was calculated that the probability of creating a new species from an existing species is 10‑100. Thus, a person might conclude that the probability of human beings being created, after the first complex animal, was 10‑300,000.



Evolutionists would look at this probability and say "this is no big deal." This is how they "brush off" their obscene statistical problems.



Well, they can't brush off this probability for two reasons. First, this probability is equivalent to picking the single, correct atom from among 10299,920 Universes, because it is estimated that there are 1080 atoms in our Universe. Try to pick the single correct atom (in a game of "hide and seek") from among 10299,920 Universes in a billion years!!



But there is a second reason which makes the theory of evolution even more absurd. That concept is "consecutive or sequential lotteries."



Creating each new species from an existing species is like winning a lottery with a probability of 10‑100.



The concept of "consecutive or sequential lotteries" is that you have to win one lottery before you can even "buy tickets" in the next lottery.



If there are 3,000 species, between the first complex animal and human DNA, then each of these ancestor species had to be created consecutively, meaning one after the other, because they are all our ancestor species, assuming the theory of evolution.



Just like our grandfather (our father's father) and our father cannot both be born in the same year, our 3,000th ancestor species (starting with our oldest ancestor species with complex DNA) must have existed prior to our 2,999th ancestor species. And our 2,999th ancestor species had to exist prior to our 2,998th ancestor species. And so on.



Thus, human evolution, from the DNA of our oldest complex ancestor species to the DNA of human beings, would be like winning "3,000 consecutive or sequential (i.e. one after the other) lotteries," where the probability of winning each lottery was 10‑100!!!



This creates an issue of time for the theory of evolution.



For example, suppose you could buy 1,000 tickets in a lottery every second, 24 hours a day, in a lottery with a probability of winning of 10‑100. How long would it take you to buy half of the lottery tickets to give you a 50% chance of winning this lottery?



You could buy less than a trillion lottery tickets a year, which is 109, but we will assume you could buy a trillion lottery tickets a year (this book is always generous to the theory of evolution).



It would take 5 times 1099 (this is the number of tickets you must buy) divided by 109 (which is the number of tickets you could buy every year) to have a 50% chance of winning this lottery. This would be more than 1090 years!!



Thus, it would take more than:

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years to have a 50-50 chance of winning one lottery!!



But you must win 3,000 of these lotteries, one after the other!! In other words, you cannot buy a "ticket" in the second lottery until after you win the first lottery. You cannot buy a "ticket" in the third lottery until after you have won the first lottery, then the second lottery.



To apply this to evolution, suppose you take an existing animal, which is an ancestor species of humans, and you make 1,000 attempts to create the next ancestor species of humans, every second, 24 hours a day, for 10 billion years. It is almost impossible you could create the next ancestor species of humans in double the estimated age of our earth.



But that is not the problem.



Each of our 3,000 ancestor species must be created consecutively or sequentially, meaning one after the other.



For example, we could not begin to create our 2,999th ancestor species until after our 3,000th ancestor species already existed (i.e. we had already won that lottery).



Likewise, we could not begin to create our 2,998th ancestor species until after our 2,999th ancestor species already existed (i.e. we had already won two consecutive lotteries).



And so on.



Thus, the theory of evolution consists of 3,000 true "consecutive or sequential lotteries," each with a probability of 10‑100.



While evolutionists might brush off a probability of 10‑300,000, they cannot just brush off a probability of winning 3,000 consecutive or sequential lotteries, each with a probability of 10‑100. They have to win 3,000 impossible lotteries, one after the other (i.e. one lottery cannot start until after the prior lottery is won), in a time period of about a billion years.



There is no word in the English language to describe just how ludicrous the theory of evolution is!!



Bottom Line: Evolution could not have occurred in a billion years or even a trillion years or even a quintillion quintillion years. The reason is that human DNA would have required "winning" 3,000 consecutive or sequential evolution lotteries, each with an impossible probability of 10‑100.



Seven Scientific Reasons the Theory of Evolution Cannot Be True

 

[Dragon]

If you're a Neo Darwinist thank you for providing timelines because it further supports the mathematical answer to how long it would take for man to diverge from an apelike creature through mutations. Your timelines show that it was impossible.

On what basis do you say this? You'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it.

There have been many take into account all that would have to happen [snip]

An honest answer can be given in a single paragraph. It would take the form of "The probability that H. sapiens, or a species of equivalent intelligence and ability, could evolve from its precursors on the hominid line over the course of roughly 2 million years is found by considering the number of such possible lines of evolution X, with the probability P of any one of them being determined by the number of beneficial mutations Q that would have to take place during that time, each having a probability of N, so that the final probability is (N^Q); and the probability that one or another human-like species would evolve over that time being equal to 1-(1-P^X)."

Put this in your own words, briefly, to show that you actually have a clue what you're talking about and aren't just cutting and pasting words that you don't really understand. Do not resort to a blizzard of verbiage; I'm onto that game, thanks.

In the meantime, reflect on the fact that this is actually likely to be a fairly large probability, as X is likely a very large number; that is, there were in fact a near-infinite number of highly intelligent, social, tool-using species that could have evolved from the hominid line, so that, while the chance of any ONE of them evolving was small, the chance that ONE OR ANOTHER would evolve was in fact pretty substantial.

In any case, as I said, anyone can cut and paste without comprehension. If you want your claims to be taken seriously, post them in your own words to show that you know what the hell you're talking about.

 

[Foxfyre]

You don't consider the orderly harmony of what exists to be science? Einstein certainly did. In those published papers he wasn't dealing with that observable harmony.

I don't consider "the orderly harmony of what exists" to be a good definition of science, no. I consider science to be the study of the observable, measurable processes of nature using the scientific method.

He wouldn't be put into a box that would allow discussion only of that which could be tested, falsified, or written into scientific opinion

As a scientist, yes, he did. Everything that Einstein wrote as a physicist fit into that box. Now, he may well have expressed some personal opinions outside that box; nobody is JUST a scientist and not all important questions are scientific questions; nonetheless, when he was doing science, he played by the rules of science.

For the life of me, I can't understand why so many people who are otherwise bright, intelligent, and open minded on things are so close minded when it comes to the Theory of Evolution which still has more questions than answers even after being studied all this time.

Sure, there are many questions about it, but there are some questions that have been definitively answered, to wit:

Living things do evolve.
Natural selection is almost certainly a part of how that happens, as is mutation.
Human beings evolved from a line of primate species that diverged from the apes several million years ago, reaching modern form beween 100,000 and 200,000 years ago.

There is no serious question about these things at all.

So if you narrow science down to your definition of "science to be the study of the observable, measurable processes of nature using the scientific method", then we can assume that you believe the following:

1. The scientific probabilities of life existing on other planets or places in the universe are not science but just opinions?

2. Bacteria and viruses did not exist, even though they were theorized, and were not science before somebody devised a way to see and verify them.

3. The theory that gravity exists and works the same everywhere in the universe is just opinion and not science as we have no way to study or measure that.

4. Einstein's theory that we can move through time and space is not science because there is currently no way to study or falsify that.

5. The flat earth theory and treating people with leeches, studied and immortalized in scientific journals of another time, really was science.

I think if the greatest scientific minds of our human population were as limiting as you seem to be re what is and is not science, we would probably still have the flat earth theory and doctors would still be collecting leeches as a form of treatment.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm still waiting for the best scientific minds among us to explain the following:

Please tell us your rationale for why any questions for which there is no answer (yet) have no place in science.

And please explain how you rationalize that it is okay to just start with the fact that things were what they were and are what they are, but why or how that process got started is of no scientific importance whatsoever and could not possibly have any bearing on how the universe has evolved.

 

[Dragon]

So if you narrow science down to your definition of "science to be the study of the observable, measurable processes of nature using the scientific method", then we can assume that you believe the following:

1. The scientific probabilities of life existing on other planets or places in the universe are not science but just opinions?

That we cannot observe or measure a reality at the moment doesn't make it outside the bounds of science. That only happens if, in principle, we can never do so. Of course, being unable to do so in practice limits our consideration of such things to speculation. So in that sense, all such ideas are just opinions -- which doesn't mean they don't have a place in science.

2. Bacteria and viruses did not exist, even though they were theorized, and were not science before somebody devised a way to see and verify them.

See answer to #1.

3. The theory that gravity exists and works the same everywhere in the universe is just opinion and not science as we have no way to study or measure that.

This actually touches on what might be called "meta-science," the philosophical assumptions behind the scientific method. One of those assumptions is that the laws of nature are constant throughout the universe. There is indeed no way to prove this, and strictly speaking it is not science.

4. Einstein's theory that we can move through time and space is not science because there is currently no way to study or falsify that.

This is untrue; we can study these aspects of relativity theory.

5. The flat earth theory and treating people with leeches, studied and immortalized in scientific journals of another time, really was science.

Indeed it was. The glory of science is to progress, and in doing so it leaves obsolete theories in the wake of its progress. The theory of bodily humors which was behind treatment with leeches has been discredited, but it was a sound theory in its time, based on the best knowledge of its time.

 

[Foxfyre]

So if you narrow science down to your definition of "science to be the study of the observable, measurable processes of nature using the scientific method", then we can assume that you believe the following:

1. The scientific probabilities of life existing on other planets or places in the universe are not science but just opinions?

That we cannot observe or measure a reality at the moment doesn't make it outside the bounds of science. That only happens if, in principle, we can never do so. Of course, being unable to do so in practice limits our consideration of such things to speculation. So in that sense, all such ideas are just opinions -- which doesn't mean they don't have a place in science.

2. Bacteria and viruses did not exist, even though they were theorized, and were not science before somebody devised a way to see and verify them.

See answer to #1.



This actually touches on what might be called "meta-science," the philosophical assumptions behind the scientific method. One of those assumptions is that the laws of nature are constant throughout the universe. There is indeed no way to prove this, and strictly speaking it is not science.

4. Einstein's theory that we can move through time and space is not science because there is currently no way to study or falsify that.

This is untrue; we can study these aspects of relativity theory.

5. The flat earth theory and treating people with leeches, studied and immortalized in scientific journals of another time, really was science.

Indeed it was. The glory of science is to progress, and in doing so it leaves obsolete theories in the wake of its progress. The theory of bodily humors which was behind treatment with leeches has been discredited, but it was a sound theory in its time, based on the best knowledge of its time.

I think you're missing the point on most or maybe all of the points made. But go back to your comments on #1:

That we cannot observe or measure a reality at the moment doesn't make it outside the bounds of science. That only happens if, in principle, we can never do so. Of course, being unable to do so in practice limits our consideration of such things to speculation. So in that sense, all such ideas are just opinions -- which doesn't mean they don't have a place in science.

Who is to say that Einsteins theory (you call it mere unscientific opinion) that there is some intelligent creative force behind all that is the universe or interwoven into it will never be measured? Would scientists of Columbus's day have thought there would ever be a way to see something as small as a bacteria?

You either believe that reasoned 'opinion' or 'observation' or 'theory' that we yet have no way to measure, verify, or falsify is still within the realm of science or you don't. In my opinion, you don't get to pick and choose that based purely on prejudices.

And that still brings us back to what existed before the big bang? How did it get there? What caused it to become the phenomenon that we call the 'big bang'? And who is to say that whatever forces existed then have no bearing on what exists now? Or that such questions are not within the realm of science?

 

[Dragon]

Who is to say that Einsteins theory (you call it mere unscientific opinion) that there is some intelligent creative force behind all that is the universe or interwoven into it will never be measured?

Well, I'm confident it won't be, but that confidence is not itself based on science. It's a spiritual awareness thing. So, speaking scientifically, there is no way to be sure that we won't discover such an intelligence eventually. The fact remains that at this time, there's no evidence for it, and no reason to include it in any evolutionary models.

And that still brings us back to what existed before the big bang? How did it get there? What caused it to become the phenomenon that we call the 'big bang'? And who is to say that whatever forces existed then have no bearing on what exists now? Or that such questions are not within the realm of science?

As I said, the Big Bang was the start of time, not just space, matter, and energy; there was no such thing as "before" the big bang.

We can play around with ideas like that all we like. The fact remains that there is no evidence in support of them.

In fact, I'll give you a perfectly sound speculative concept of intelligent design if you like. What if the universe itself, as a whole, is intelligent, and has the ability to alter the probabilities of indeterminate events? (There is evidence, although not conclusive evidence, for the existence of such a probability-shifting quasi-force in the study of psi phenomena.) What if the universe has a purpose in the evolution of intelligent life, and adjusts the probabilities of indeterminate evens such as the emergence of life and the course of evolution on planets throughout its cosmic body? The process of evolution would then be exactly as biology describes it -- mutation shaped by natural selection over the generations -- but its indeterminate course would be shaped by the mind of the cosmos through shifts in the probabilities themselves.

Is there anything wrong with this idea? On the face of it, no -- but neither is there any real objective evidence in favor of it, and so there is no reason to include it in any scientific theories. It remains speculative only.

The problem with ID as a scientific claim is not the claim that it COULD be true, but rather the bogus claim that, due to flaws in evolution theory it MUST be true. That's simply not so.

 

[koshergrl]

Sooo..you have a spiritual awareness of extraterrestrial life...that isn't God.

And...while it's *scientific* to determine that evolution accounts for the existence of life as we know it on this planet, since it's the only reasonable explanation, it's not scientific to determine that God created life because that is the most reasonable explanation.

How very scientific.

 

[Dragon]

Sooo..you have a spiritual awareness of extraterrestrial life...that isn't God.

Not of extraterrestrial life, no. And since the word "God" is undefined, maybe that's what it is. Or maybe it's the mind of the cosmos. Or maybe it's me, writ large. Or maybe it's something beyond the reach of language.

And...while it's *scientific* to determine that evolution accounts for the existence of life as we know it on this planet, since it's the only reasonable explanation, it's not scientific to determine that God created life because that is the most reasonable explanation.

How very scientific.

It's becoming clearer and clearer that you have no idea what that word means.

It's not scientific to go for "the most reasonable explanation." It's scientific to go for the explanation for which there is the strongest objective evidence. The objective evidence for the existence of God is zero -- my own subjective mystical/spiritual perception doesn't count. I may personally be convinced, on a deep-down level, that there are Mysteries to the cosmos that science cannot touch, but the fact remains that science CAN'T touch them -- which means science need not take notice of them, and should not.

 

[Foxfyre]

Who is to say that Einsteins theory (you call it mere unscientific opinion) that there is some intelligent creative force behind all that is the universe or interwoven into it will never be measured?

Well, I'm confident it won't be, but that confidence is not itself based on science. It's a spiritual awareness thing. So, speaking scientifically, there is no way to be sure that we won't discover such an intelligence eventually. The fact remains that at this time, there's no evidence for it, and no reason to include it in any evolutionary models.

And that still brings us back to what existed before the big bang? How did it get there? What caused it to become the phenomenon that we call the 'big bang'? And who is to say that whatever forces existed then have no bearing on what exists now? Or that such questions are not within the realm of science?

As I said, the Big Bang was the start of time, not just space, matter, and energy; there was no such thing as "before" the big bang.

We can play around with ideas like that all we like. The fact remains that there is no evidence in support of them.

In fact, I'll give you a perfectly sound speculative concept of intelligent design if you like. What if the universe itself, as a whole, is intelligent, and has the ability to alter the probabilities of indeterminate events? (There is evidence, although not conclusive evidence, for the existence of such a probability-shifting quasi-force in the study of psi phenomena.) What if the universe has a purpose in the evolution of intelligent life, and adjusts the probabilities of indeterminate evens such as the emergence of life and the course of evolution on planets throughout its cosmic body? The process of evolution would then be exactly as biology describes it -- mutation shaped by natural selection over the generations -- but its indeterminate course would be shaped by the mind of the cosmos through shifts in the probabilities themselves.

Is there anything wrong with this idea? On the face of it, no -- but neither is there any real objective evidence in favor of it, and so there is no reason to include it in any scientific theories. It remains speculative only.

The problem with ID as a scientific claim is not the claim that it COULD be true, but rather the bogus claim that, due to flaws in evolution theory it MUST be true. That's simply not so.

And yet you are still left with the problem that the big bang probably happened and happened spontaneously and miraculously and has evolved into the consistent, incredibly complex and diverse universe with incredible beauty in its symmetry, all observable, and say there is no scientific evidence for any form of intelligence, however that intelligence is defined, being behind all that. What incredible faith it must take to believe that 'nothing existed before the big bang' but it just somehow miraculously happened out of nothing and all that we can see and observe and know is the result?

Einstein disagreed with you. So do I.

 

[Dragon]

And yet you are still left with the problem that the big bang probably happened and happened spontaneously and miraculously and has evolved into the consistent, incredibly complex and diverse universe with incredible beauty in its symmetry, all observable, and say there is no scientific evidence for any form of intelligence, however that intelligence is defined, being behind all that.

That isn't a problem at all. Note that saying "there is no scientific evidence for any form of intelligence behind all that" is not the same as saying, "there is no intelligence behind all that." Do you see the distinction? As I explained above, I am personally convinced that there are mysteries to the cosmos that science cannot touch. But I come to that realization through a process other than science, and recognize that within the rules of science it has no place.

What incredible faith it must take to believe that 'nothing existed before the big bang' but it just somehow miraculously happened out of nothing and all that we can see and observe and know is the result?

Einstein disagreed with you. So do I.

Einstein actually didn't disagree with me, and in fact neither do you, not about anything important. You don't understand what I'm saying, is what it is.

It doesn't take faith to believe that nothing existed before the big bang. It takes a twisted mind, capable of encompassing the idea that time had a beginning, and that the universe need not have a cause separate from itself but can simply be.

I think a large part of the problem that religious people have when approaching science is that they have at once too little and too much reverence for it. They expect science to answer questions that are beyond its scope and compass, and because it can't, come to hold its methods in contempt. Science is actually a very limited and specific tool, although extremely useful for what it does. There are truths that it cannot touch, but by the same token, those truths don't touch it, either.

God is too big to fit in a doctrine.

 

[koshergrl]

Sooo..you have a spiritual awareness of extraterrestrial life...that isn't God.

Not of extraterrestrial life, no. And since the word "God" is undefined, maybe that's what it is. Or maybe it's the mind of the cosmos. Or maybe it's me, writ large. Or maybe it's something beyond the reach of language.

And...while it's *scientific* to determine that evolution accounts for the existence of life as we know it on this planet, since it's the only reasonable explanation, it's not scientific to determine that God created life because that is the most reasonable explanation.

How very scientific.

It's becoming clearer and clearer that you have no idea what that word means.

It's not scientific to go for "the most reasonable explanation." It's scientific to go for the explanation for which there is the strongest objective evidence. The objective evidence for the existence of God is zero -- my own subjective mystical/spiritual perception doesn't count. I may personally be convinced, on a deep-down level, that there are Mysteries to the cosmos that science cannot touch, but the fact remains that science CAN'T touch them -- which means science need not take notice of them, and should not.

That's about the most ignorant lump of gobbledegook I've heard in a long time.

 

[koshergrl]

Besides which, you contradict yourself.

 

[Dragon]

That's about the most ignorant lump of gobbledegook I've heard in a long time.

Should I just take that as indicating that it flew right over your head, or are you going to explain what you know that I don't?

Besides which, you contradict yourself.

No, you just don't understand what I'm saying. It's a perennial problem for the mystic, compounded in this case 'cause you don't understand science, either.

 

[Cammmpbell]

You don't consider the orderly harmony of what exists to be science? Einstein certainly did. In those published papers he wasn't dealing with that observable harmony.

He wouldn't be put into a box that would allow discussion only of that which could be tested, falsified, or written into scientific opinion--such opinion which has so often through the centures had to be rewritten when the prevailing scientific wisdom of one time was shown to be in error at another time. Einstein left room for theories that science was still looking for ways to test or falsify.

For the life of me, I can't understand why so many people who are otherwise bright, intelligent, and open minded on things are so close minded when it comes to the Theory of Evolution which still has more questions than answers even after being studied all this time.

There are as many people with an IQ below 100 as there are who have one above 100. Recently a special high cash poker game only had geniuses playing. They played for as long as it took for one player to end up with all the chips. The lowest IQ at the table was 138. As the game progressed one of the players was talking about the cards he was being dealt and said something about the "poker gods." That led the conversation to each of them stating that they did not believe in god. Go figure...six geniuses and not a one of them believed in a god.

Look, nobody has been talking about a "God" except you. If that is what you wanted to talk about instead of evolution being a theory or not, why didn't you be honest and up front and just put that in the OP? It would have saved a lot of us a lot of wasted time because I wouldn't have bothered subscribing to the thread.

If you want to discuss evolution as theory or not, then let's discuss that.

Hey..,.the way I read it this category is entitled, "Religion and Ethics"

Do yourself a favor and believe that my post didn't have a damn thing to do with ethics.

 

[Foxfyre]

There are as many people with an IQ below 100 as there are who have one above 100. Recently a special high cash poker game only had geniuses playing. They played for as long as it took for one player to end up with all the chips. The lowest IQ at the table was 138. As the game progressed one of the players was talking about the cards he was being dealt and said something about the "poker gods." That led the conversation to each of them stating that they did not believe in god. Go figure...six geniuses and not a one of them believed in a god.

Look, nobody has been talking about a "God" except you. If that is what you wanted to talk about instead of evolution being a theory or not, why didn't you be honest and up front and just put that in the OP? It would have saved a lot of us a lot of wasted time because I wouldn't have bothered subscribing to the thread.

If you want to discuss evolution as theory or not, then let's discuss that.

Hey..,.the way I read it this category is entitled, "Religion and Ethics"

Do yourself a favor and believe that my post didn't have a damn thing to do with ethics.

Sorry, but I didn't see anything in the rather rude, offensive OP other than the declaration of evolution being a science. Not a peep or the slightest hint of religion or ethics there.

If you want this to be just another God/religion bashing thread, it's your thread and that's your prerogative and so be it. I've got plenty of other things to do.