Evolution Is Religion, Not Science

Originally posted by XtremeVision
The relevance to intelligent design in biochemistry is plain. Design is evident in the designed system itself, rather than in pre-knowledge of who the designer is. Even if the designer is an entity quite unlike ourselves, we can still reach a conclusion of design if the designed system has distinguishing traits (such as irreducible complexity) that we know require intelligent arrangement. (One formal analysis of how we come to a conclusion of design is presented by William Dembski in his recent monograph, The Design Inference (Dembski 1998).)

I submit that this analysis of design based solely on the "designed system" is not how Dembski or anyone else infers design.

For starters, Dembski and the ICR are not saying that the intelligent entity just thought up a good design. They are saying that the "design" is actually a real, assembled or manufactured artifact.  IOW, not only was it designed, but it was made.  Therefore looking at the object alone is not enough to infer that it was manufactured by an intelligent entity. What you have to do is look at the environment the artifact was found in to see if processes in the environment could have produced the object.  Manufacture by an intelligent entity can be inferred only if such processes are absent.  This is one reason  Dembski fails. The other reason is that Dembski does not see that Darwinian selection is an algorithm to get design and thus is a process in the environment of biological organisms that makes them. Thus, when Dembski applies his "explanatory filter" in the monograph referred to, he ends up having to conclude that Darwinian (natural) selection is an intelligent entity.

Originally posted by XtremeVision
lucaspa, if [popularized] evolution is a natural mechanism explaining everything, and implies that God either doesn't exist or that He is not directly and divinely involved in natural affairs, then please explain Jesus and how the Salvation models tailors to this without conflict (fall of man, sacrafice, faith, etc).

Click to expand...

First, your premise "if evolution is a natural mechanism explaining everything and implies ..." is wrong.  Biological evolution explains the origin of species. 

We know that when you say "evolution" you mean all of science that conflicts with a literalistic interpretation of Genesis.  Which includes gravity and the formation of stars and planets, chemistry and the formation of life, and the Big Bang that gives the material mechanism for the appearance of the universe.  But even in this expanded version, you are still wrong.  There is nothing in any of that which implies that deity doesn't exist.

Now, as to "not directly and divinely involved in natural affairs".  Christianity gave up, long ago, the "direct" involvement in nature.  Christian theologians long before Darwin had deity acting by "secondary mechanisms", by which they meant the material mechanisms discovered by science. 
"But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this -- we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws"  Whewell:  Bridgewater Treatise. 

Darwin viewed evolution as just another one of these secondary mechanisms: "To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." Origin of the Species pg. 449.

To exclude deity from being "divinely involved in natural affairs" is to accept the basic statement of faith of atheism: natural = without deity. Science can't tell you this. As Gould put it when Phillip Johnson tried to make this argument: "To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature.  We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists." SJ Gould  "Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge" Scientific American  267(1), July 1992p. 80

Now that we have disposed of your faulty premise, let's discuss "fall of man, sacrifice, faith, etc."

Fall of man: There are a couple of reconciliations here. 
1. The Adam and Eve story is an archetypical story where Adam and Eve simply stand for each and every one of us.  This fits in with Christian theology that Jesus died for our individual sins.  Each of us sins, and not just because Adam did once upon a time.  We do so on our own.  The avoidance of sin even became impossible when Jesus made thoughts sins.  So each of us needs salvation for our own sins.

2. What is sin?  I submit that it is basically putting our desires and wants above what Yahweh wants.  Well, that kind of selfishness is built into our very genes by evolution.  We are who we are because of our "selfish" genes.  Therefore, we are already "fallen" because God used evolution to design us. The only way to overcome our selfish genes to become close to God is through salvation.

Jesus:  Evolution in particular and science in general has nothing to say about Jesus.  There are accounts about the life, death, and resurrection of Yeshu ben Joseph.  But there is no physical evidence of any of that left today. Therefore science is unable to comment.

Faith:  Faith comes, ultimately, from personal experience with deity.  Whether that experience is first hand like Thomas Aquinas, Bishop Spong, and millions of others or it is second-hand from the personal experiences of the people depicted in the accounts in the Bible.  Science also comes from personal experience, but science has consciously chosen to accept only personal experience that is the same for everyone under approximately the same conditions. This is called "intersubjective".  Since personal experiences of deity are not intersubjective, science excludes them from its domain.  That does not mean the experiences are wrong.  It simply means that they cannot be part of science.  Since they are not part of science, science cannot say that the experiences never happened.  Therefore science cannot legitimately comment on faith.

Originally posted by XtremeVision
lucaspa, assuming it's unerrantly true, can you tell me WHY all that stuff you explained to bluetrinity is and HOW it came to be the way it is?

 

edit - FYI - I don't think "it just does" and "I don't have to explain it" constitute as "scientific" lol

Click to expand...

Which stuff? You didn't quote or specify what you are referring to.

Originally posted by XtremeVision
lucaspa, assuming it's unerrantly true, can you tell me WHY all that stuff you explained to bluetrinity is and HOW it came to be the way it is? 

Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what level of detail you want here.

DNA derives from RNA.  After all, DNA is simply deoxyribose as opposed to ribose in RNA.  Nucleic acids are formed by simple chemical reactions wen ribose, bases, and phosphate are present. This happens even in the absence of catalysis by enzymes. Bases and ribose are formed by chemical reaction of ammonia, methane, cyanide, water and other simple compounds.

The asscociation of the bases via their hydrogen bonds is also simple chemistry.  Now, RNA not only can function as hereditary material but also as enzymes, even to catalyzing its own synthesis.  Also, some proteins, particulary those with a lot of arginine, preferentially associate with RNA/DNA containing a lot of adenine or thymidine while proteins having a lot of lysine preferentially associate with RNA/DNA having a lot of guanine-cytosine.  So there, by simple chemistry, you have the beginnings of protein coding.

People have looked at the evolution of RNA and protein coding.  One group derived a possible Darwinian route from the RNA world to today's DNA-based protein coding, with all the intermediate steps being useful.  The paper is: AM Poole, DC Jeffares, D Penney, The path from the RNA world.  J. Molecular Evolution 46: 1-17, 1998. 

In terms of mutations and gene duplication, the "why" is simply that no chemical reaction is or can be 100% accurate for reasons I gave in the post.  To make DNA copying 100% error-free would require more energy available for work than is present in the entire universe.  As it is, there are repair enzymes that take care of most of the methylation damage to DNA.  But it can't get all, for the reason listed above.

The mutation rate observed from experiment and DNA analysis is a little over 1 per individual.

Originally posted by XtremeVision
pete, concerning "design":

<snip>

Click to expand...

That document didn't really answer my question. The closest was a vague mention of "irreducible complexity", with no specifics. The rest of it didn't answer anything (unless the answer is that IDer's don't know themselves?).

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
That document didn't really answer my question. The closest was a vague mention of "irreducible complexity", with no specifics. The rest of it didn't answer anything (unless the answer is that IDer's don't know themselves?).

Click to expand...

It was simply&nbsp;meant to give some insight and the possible application.

Lucaspa, when I refer to evolution explaining “everything”, I meant explaining all the natural process NOW, as in, after the first-cause (i.e. God) not necessarily anything about a "literal interpritation" of Genesis. There are absolute principals which are not dependent on how you interprit the actual phrases. For example, God DID create everything.

And I wouldn’t claim you’ve “disposed” of my “faulty premise” just yet.

It seems illogical to understand evolution as natural processes that can explain all current biological/environmental processes (secondary mechanisms, whatever) separate God’s first-hand intervention and still hold true to claims like God’s perfection, the intentional flooding of World to “start over”, God speaking and using people directly, the history, lineage and the many miracles in the Bible, the Virgin Birth, the power of Jesus and his own miracles, and his glorious Resurrection, etc. How do you propose sin was first introduced? Major problems here: you said we are “already fallen because God used evolution to design us” which implies imperfection. Would you say then God had to intentionally introduce the imperfections and death, which is contradictory to the Word that says everything was perfect and good at one time? Would we have been perfect, biologically, from when God first decided to make the world? Death, disease, evil and hatred, character and physical flaws do not represent the work of an infinite, Holy Creator unless you can show they could come along “naturally” and somehow dependent of a perfect Creator’s intents. Why then, would a Creator decide to make a perfect being (Jesus) later on to provide a means to escaping these imperfections? This is quite contradictory to Biblical claims. Even IF the imperfections were somehow introduced, I believe science should be able to show something that would imply this. Since evolution itself is defined as independent natural processes and as you’ve said, only secondary mechanisms of God. If these things defy natural processes then there must be a way to show this as well, like finding a hole in these natural processes, which should be able to be revealed by natural (scientific) means as well.

Salvation, to “overcome our selfish genes” by “faith” - I find this ridiculous. Overcome a naturally programmed imperfection of ourselves by something unnatural? Sin is part of a spiritual ideology, a spiritual death and is crucial to explaining how a spiritual and faithful relationship can be had with the Creator. I do not see how you can introduce natural processes and natural obstacles to this. I can elaborate more if necessary for anyone who wishes for me to go into detail.

EDIT - About your explanation to bluetrinity: simply put, pick any idea/principle/fact (doesn't matter)&nbsp;you present and ask yourself "why?" and keep going and you'll find that there is a dead-end (which is kinda where philosophy begins).&nbsp; I think this is what he was getting at.

chikenman and blader: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=426100#post426100

And unless you wish you accept my proposal or go directly to the sources that you've ignored so far, I guess we'll just have to call it a day on this.

Originally posted by lucaspa
Originally posted by XtremeVision
The relevance to intelligent design in biochemistry is plain. Design is evident in the designed system itself, rather than in pre-knowledge of who the designer is. Even if the designer is an entity quite unlike ourselves, we can still reach a conclusion of design if the designed system has distinguishing traits (such as irreducible complexity) that we know require intelligent arrangement. (One formal analysis of how we come to a conclusion of design is presented by William Dembski in his recent monograph, The Design Inference (Dembski 1998).)

I submit that this analysis of design based solely on the "designed system" is not how Dembski or anyone else infers design.

For starters, Dembski and the ICR are not saying that the intelligent entity just thought up a good design. They are saying that the "design" is actually a real, assembled or manufactured artifact.&nbsp; IOW, not only was it designed, but it was made.&nbsp; Therefore looking at the object alone is not enough to infer that it was manufactured by an intelligent entity. What you have to do is look at the environment the artifact was found in to see if processes in the environment could have produced the object.&nbsp; Manufacture by an intelligent entity can be inferred only if such processes are absent.

Click to expand...

Ok, we’re going to be moving into highly philosophical ideology here, but we’ll see what we can do.&nbsp; I’m not going to argue the actual material because I believe debating over an abstract idea like “what is 'design'?” is ridiculous, but believe insight can be had.&nbsp; That’s all I was trying to do.


According to the above:&nbsp; If you can look at an “environment” and notice that “environment” is in fact that NOTHING EXISTS, then you are forced to conclude that NOTHING could NOT have been responsible and therefore something BEYOND (intelligence beyond observable means) must have been responsible because it would have to exist outside of our observable means to “observe” the nothingness.&nbsp; The only way I can see getting around this is to prove the universe has infinitely existed and that “nothingness” is impossible – which actually impossible for us to do itself (hard to word this).&nbsp; I understand there are working theories for this, but they are ambitiously and hopefully drowned in speculation and theoretically impossible to “prove”.&nbsp; Why then, is God (an infinite intelligence beyond all comprehension) so illogical?&nbsp; It seems to be the “simplest” and best explanation to me.


&nbsp;

Originally posted by lucaspa
This is one reason&nbsp; Dembski fails. The other reason is that Dembski does not see that Darwinian selection is an algorithm to get design and thus is a process in the environment of biological organisms that makes them. Thus, when Dembski applies his "explanatory filter" in the monograph referred to, he ends up having to conclude that Darwinian (natural) selection is an intelligent entity.

Click to expand...

&nbsp;
Perhaps I do not understand what you are concluding here exactly and whom you are advocating.&nbsp; So an "intelligent entity" referred to as "natural selection" is more logical than the concept of “God”?&nbsp; If everything must be present first in order for natural selection to work, how does it explain natural selection itself?&nbsp; What was it doing before it had to work on that material to make sense/design of all the randomness/chaos? Just looking at this you can see it’s circular and recursive, which just doesn’t make sense.&nbsp; How would any part of science reconcile this unless two portions were brought together and somehow the big picture was drawn (in a sense opposed to people who say evolution and abiogenesis are totally independent).

Originally posted by lucaspa
DNA is the famous double helix.&nbsp; The bases in the nucleic acids (phophate -ribose - base) stick out like flat playing cards between the strands of the double helix.&nbsp; The bases engage in what is called 'hydrogen bonding" between them.&nbsp; The chemical structure of the bases is such that adenine hydrogen bonds to thymine and guanine binds to cytosine.&nbsp; There are 2 hydrogen bonds in the A-T pair and 3 in the G-C pair.

Now, mutations occur by several different chemical reactions.&nbsp; Some chemicals add a methyl group to either guanine or cytosine. When that happens, it destroys one of the hydrogen bonds and makes the guanine look like adenine and the cytosine look like thymine when the DNA is copied. Therefore, the new DNA strand has a A in place of a G and a T in place of a C.&nbsp; Other chemicals have other modifications that change the appearance of the bases so that, when the strand is copied, the a different base is in the copied strand.

The process of copying the DNA is extremely complicated and is done by a host of proteins/enzymes that catalyze the chemical reactions.&nbsp; This is not perfect.&nbsp; Occasionally, the enzymes will insert a base into the copied strand, or delete one.&nbsp; Sometimes, just because of stochiometry, they will insert the wrong omplementary base.&nbsp; A G instead of an A.&nbsp;&nbsp;The hydrogen bonding isn't as aligned in that case, but there is some, so the double&nbsp;helix is still stable.

Sometimes the enzymes will detach a whole segment of DNA from one strand (chromosome) and move it to another chromosome.&nbsp; At other times,&nbsp;an entire stretch of DNA will be duplicated. That is, instead of moving along the DNA strand, the enzymes will go back to the beginning and copy the whole thing again on the end of the copied strand. These are the ways you get duplicated genes and chromosomes.

It all comes down to the energies of the chemical bonds involved and the specificity of the enzymes.&nbsp; Neither can be 100% perfect. The energy of hydrogen bonds is low, only about 3.0 kCal/mole compared with the 7.5 kCal/mole of a covalent bond.&nbsp; So they can be broken easily and they form easily.&nbsp; No active site on any enzyme is 100% specific.&nbsp; It can't be.&nbsp; There are always other chemicals that have almost the right shape to fit the site, and, after all, cytosine is pretty similar to thymide in the type and arrangement of the atoms.

Now, once the mistake has been made, the next time the DNA is copied, it is likely to be copied faithfully, mistake and all. After all, the enzymes doing the job have no way of knowing that a particular base is a "mistake". They aren't intelligent.&nbsp; So this is the way that mutations are inherited.

Click to expand...

It is fascinating to read about how these mistakes occur, but I still do not understand where the initial impetus for the mistake comes from.

It is fascinating to read about <B>how </B>these mistakes occur, but I still do not understand where the initial impetus for the mistake comes from.

Click to expand...

&nbsp;&nbsp; Thermodynamics, honestly. Error-correction and perfect duplication are not easy things. They are not an "initial stage".

&nbsp;&nbsp; So, basically, that's how things are. Imperfect replicators would have emerged first, because a perfect replicator requires a lot of work, assuming it's even possible.

&nbsp;

Originally posted by XtremeVision
First, I was alluding to the "new information increase" as required for macroevolution (vertical, cross-speciation) to occur, not just a general content increase. I retract the original statement only "as is" for clarification; but my “goalpost” has not moved.


How do you suggest I show or qualify "no increase"? This is illogical. The burden is on you as the affirmative proposer. Hox genes and duplication, mutation, etc all have been shown to be hog-wash examples as, simply put, mutations only reorganize (redirect, recombine, change, whatever) already existing information and duplication is not as empirical and evidential as you put forth (and have not been observed to increase entirely new genes, 100% positive and distinct from the existing), nor do they actually support evolutionary claims and cannot sufficiently show how these processes can overcome the plethora of difficulties and improbabilities.


I am not obligated to show how "something is not". I can only show "something is" that is contradictory another “something is” - that "something is" is what I've stated above, the fact that the actual observations themselves have no been made, and my succeeding references. They just are derived as "suggestions" from “assumptions” that they "may have", "propose", "supports possibilities” and other shaky assertions and speculation. I'm not only speaking of chickenman's own quotation about “hox genes” and “bloc duplication in vertebrate genomes” but others as well like the fruit fly experiment, mice testing, anti-biotic resistance, peppered moths, etc.

Click to expand...

You still miss the point. I did not ask you for an hypothetical example of a mutation creating new genetic information. What I asked for is an example of ANY change, whether through mutations or other means, that you would consider "increase in genetic information." If you don't even know what an example is, how are you fit to judge what is and what is not increase or decrease of genetic information? Since you have retracted your original statement that "no possible change can increase genetic information," then I would like you to follow up on that and tell me WHAT possible change can increase genetic information. You have agained tried to dodge the question. The burden of proof to show that information can be increased through evolution is up to the evolutionist. However, clarifying what YOU mean when you say "increase in genetic information" is up to you. If you do not clarify this, then we can't even talk about moving goalposts. The goal posts are invisible.

Originally posted by Morat
&nbsp;&nbsp; Thermodynamics, honestly. Error-correction and perfect duplication are not easy things. They are not an "initial stage".

&nbsp;&nbsp; So, basically, that's how things are. Imperfect replicators would have emerged first, because a perfect replicator requires a lot of work, assuming it's even possible.

&nbsp;

Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that you don't know why mutations happen. We know they do and we can describe how, but we don't know why. Is that right?

Originally posted by ocean
According to the Bible, God does not send diseases. Diseases happen naturally.

Click to expand...

Examples of diseases sent by God (according to the King James Version):

1. The last plague inflicted upon the Egyptians (death of the first born)

2. King Herod being 'eaten of worms'

3. But the LORD inflicted serious diseases on <B>Pharaoh</B> and his household because of Abram's wife Sarai.

4.

2 Chronicles 21
<SUP>12</SUP>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;And there came a writing to him from Elijah the prophet, saying, Thus saith the LORD God of David thy father, Because thou hast not walked in the ways of Jehoshaphat thy father, nor in the ways of Asa king of Judah,
<SUP>13</SUP>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But hast walked in the way of the kings of Israel, and hast made Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to go a whoring, like to the whoredoms of the house of Ahab, and also hast slain thy brethren of thy father's house, which were better than thyself:
<SUP>14</SUP>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Behold, with a great plague will the LORD smite thy people, and thy children, and thy wives, and all thy goods:
<SUP>15</SUP>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;And thou shalt have great sickness by disease of thy bowels, until thy bowels fall out by reason of the sickness day by day.

Just a few examples.

(God has sent disease by the King James Version of the Bible)

Originally posted by Smilin
Examples of diseases sent by God (according to the King James Version):

1. The last plague inflicted upon the Egyptians (death of the first born)

2. King Herod being 'eaten of worms'

3. But the LORD inflicted serious diseases on <B>Pharaoh</B> and his household because of Abram's wife Sarai.

4.

2 Chronicles 21
<SUP>12</SUP>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;And there came a writing to him from Elijah the prophet, saying, Thus saith the LORD God of David thy father, Because thou hast not walked in the ways of Jehoshaphat thy father, nor in the ways of Asa king of Judah,
<SUP>13</SUP>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But hast walked in the way of the kings of Israel, and hast made Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to go a whoring, like to the whoredoms of the house of Ahab, and also hast slain thy brethren of thy father's house, which were better than thyself:
<SUP>14</SUP>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Behold, with a great plague will the LORD smite thy people, and thy children, and thy wives, and all thy goods:
<SUP>15</SUP>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;And thou shalt have great sickness by disease of thy bowels, until thy bowels fall out by reason of the sickness day by day.

Just a few examples.

(God has sent disease by the King James Version of the Bible)

Click to expand...

See I always knew god was evil. Sending diseases thats mean. I am glad I am an athiest.

Originally posted by XtremeVision
General: I just hope people here can read and come to the conclusion themselves instead of taking the sly advances&nbsp;of ignorance and bashing for the sake of show as valid tactics.&nbsp; It's quite unbecoming.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Click to expand...

It's also quite unbecomming to be 'spammed to death' with links instead of you stating your opinions, conclusions, observations etc. (that is if you have any...other than simply linking to your 'proving genesis' website)

It's also unbecoming when someone answers you,,,you fail to acknowledge them.&nbsp; It's okay to say..I disagree.&nbsp; It's not okay to ignore someone's answers (I dare say because they don't agree with your viewpoint, and then asks the same questions...OVER AND OVER AND OVER.)

Originally posted by Smilin
Okay...no science cannot prove the watch was created from nothing.&nbsp; Sorry to disappoint you.&nbsp; Christianity teaches God created something from nothing.&nbsp; Science cannot show that either.

Now...answer my question on my Bradford Pear tree I handed you...WHERE did it come from?

Click to expand...

Still waiting for you to answer my question...or can you?&nbsp; You're not the ONLY one who gets to asks questions mind you.&nbsp; (Or are you capable of answering the question?)....there's a POINT here..if you'll just simple answer...

BTW..it's OKAY..to admit if you don't know.

Originally posted by Freedom777
Evolutionists often insist that evolution is a proved fact of science, providing the very framework of scientific interpretation, especially in the biological sciences. This, of course, is nothing but wishful thinking. Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested. www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-107.htm

Click to expand...

Excuse me...I have to vent...

WHAT A CROCK OF...err...(don't feel like being mouth-washed today)

Wishful thinking is hoping to hit the powerball lottery.

Can't test evolution heh?&nbsp; Tell that to dog breeders, ranchers, nurserymen, farmers...etc...

Ever heard of 'selective breeding'....from your statement...No you haven't.&nbsp; Look it up...and then please explain to me..(without evolution, how new breeds are generated without the science of evolution)

Ever heard of hybrids?&nbsp; Can you explain them without the mechanism of evolution? If you can...Babwa WaWA will interview you on 20/20

&nbsp;

But thanks for the totally uneducated, ignorant statement.&nbsp; (I'm guilty of the same tactic as well...just to get a great debate started.)...errrr....this is a tactic..right...????

I am crying right now, people keep saying bad things about science/evolution and they seem to know nothing about it. I am crying cause it hurts that people in this time and day don't even know science.

<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=3 width="90%" align=center border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD><B>quote:</B></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #000000 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #000000 1px solid; FONT-SIZE: 11px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 1px solid; COLOR: #ffffff; BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana,Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #828fa2"><I>Originally posted by Smilin </I>
<B>What are you referring to 'secular science'. </B></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Xtreme Vision:
Science that excludes divine/intelligent inspiration as a possible influence.

Smilin:&nbsp;&nbsp;Science does not deal with theology.&nbsp; Neither does Driver's Education, Anatomy and Physiology, Psychology, English, Creative Writing, Statics, Dynamics, Physics, Thermodynamics, Home Economics, Buisness, Economics, wood carving and pottery classes.&nbsp;&nbsp;If you want&nbsp;inspiration, I'd suggest volunteer work with your favorite charity.&nbsp;



<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=3 width="90%" align=center border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD><B>quote:</B></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #000000 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #000000 1px solid; FONT-SIZE: 11px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 1px solid; COLOR: #ffffff; BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana,Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #828fa2"><I>Originally posted by Smilin </I>
<B>I guess there are no 'absolutes' when you turn on any electrical device, listen to your CD player, use your cell phone, use your microwave oven, ..... Shall I continue? </B></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


XtremeVision: Are you implying that I said there were none?

Smilin:&nbsp; You made the claim there were no absolutes with science...NOT ME.&nbsp; Since you've forgotten the claim I made, would you like me to repost it?



<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=3 width="90%" align=center border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD><B>quote:</B></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #000000 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #000000 1px solid; FONT-SIZE: 11px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 1px solid; COLOR: #ffffff; BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana,Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #828fa2"><I>Originally posted by Smilin </I>
<B>If science is a religion...please let me know what 'God' I am worshiping...

<IMG alt="" src="http://www.christianforums.com/images/smilies/help.gif" border=0> </B></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


XtremeVision: Whatever your uttermost absolute is.

Smilin:...I'm not sure what this type of answer qualifies as in debating a topic.&nbsp; If you are referring to 'absolute knowledge'...I've started a poll on that.&nbsp; Be my guest and make your claims there.&nbsp; IMO, you couldn't answer the question (since it would debunk your whole argument), so you hid behind a totally absurd answer.&nbsp; Just my observations.