Evolution Is Religion, Not Science

[bluetrinity]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
I guess we can blame God then for down syndrome, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, hemophilia, etc, etc.

Yes.

 

[kaotic]

Originally posted by bluetrinity
Yes.

No, cause in the bible god loves everyone why would he give people stuff that hurts and kills people.

 

[ocean]

According to the Bible, God does not send diseases. Diseases happen naturally.

 

[XtremeVision]

Smilin, I make no assumptions about you, but I do quarrel with the fact that you accept evolution “as is” and claim to be a Christian where evolution, as propagated today, is a tool for discrediting Christianity and denying God.

Pete and Smilin, your rebuttals are irrelevant to this case. Let me elaborate:

-I made the claim that science can be used to determine if something is intelligently designed, therefore it must have been created, implying a Creator.

-Smilin and most disagree and believe that science should be independent of these types of claims because it’s exclusively “theological” and due the lack of falsifiability of “proving” a Creator.

I argue that we do not need to prove the Creator directly, just like evolution cannot be proven directly as a means to verify, as absolute FACT, that the first cause cannot be a Creator (no evolutionist would logically disagree, watch out: I have LINKS! LOL).

Before you object that “Evolution is not the ‘big-bang’” and all that non-sense, I need to point out all areas related to supporting the whole biological process are dependent and are just as relevant and that we are talking “science” in general here anyway. I continued to say that, if we can show evidence that would suggest everything we observe is intelligently designed, THEN it would imply a Creator. The implications themselves are not dependent on the Creator or origins at all. We are talking science and it’s ability to derive conclusions. I understand that we cannot prove a distinct Creator directly, but just like much of evolutionary science is unempirical and can be used for its case, so should we be able to use science to conclude a possibility of intelligent design. I agree that then, if we can get there, all science itself would have to be left alone but that does not exclude science from getting us to that point.

So, I used my watch example simply as a means to see if there is a possibility that science could be used to potentially arrive at a conclusion that it was intelligently designed. This is all I ask because Smilin seems to think otherwise. Whether it’s biological or not, whether it was self-created, etc have no bearing on “the ability of science to derive conclusions”. We are not arguing the specific details, the processes or testing required, I just want to know if it is at all possible to conclude the watch must have been created (among whatever other possibilities there may be). You can object if you will and say we can equally conclude it arose by itself, or any other means, but I will let the absurdity speak for itself. I am simply testing science as a means here. If you wish to say the science method cannot come to a conclusion on the origins of a watch, then I can only question the utility of science on much more ambiguous matters.

Is not “intelligently designed” and therefore “created” a possible conclusion to this example?

(If you don’t like my bold emphasis get over it.)
-------------------

I also want to point out that MY original argument was that there is a scientific effort put forth by Creationists (I believe I have shown that appropriately), which was adamantly denied.

Also, I find it interesting that many evolutionists agree that evolution/modern science is a dogmatic (evolutionary humanism) system founded and driven by naturalism and atheistic instincts, which is a system that can be equated to religion.

I could, of course, provide exhaustive articles of interest but I know now that most here are not interested in an object means of receiving the truth and would refuse to read them. I’m sure most here did not even read the first article posted as the opener of this thread. LOL

There is a problem with simply “quoting” what anyone would consider “relevant material” on such complex subjects is one being that its fails the complex question fallacy and two: the out of context nature that could possibly pervade would give rise to straw-men arguments and would hinder the debate. All the material is relevant. As a simplified example, one would not expect someone to accurately object to a quoted equation without knowing the theorem and application to their fullest extent. Quoting “multiple sections” is quite lame and would just seem more logical to go directly to the source. Whether or not we are on a subject where a specific piece of information or part is debated means very little, though it is circumstantial. Aside from this, most of the material I use fully directly address, with full quotation of the originally refuted material, for thoroughness and to leave no room for error (It should also be noted that these are NOT specifically MY own arguments, the argument has already been made). I believe most people are either lazy (don’t use this against me, I believe I’ve shown otherwise), lack desire of objectiveness, and/or are quite bias, driven by a self-serving pride – of course, IMHO

 

[XtremeVision]

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

 

It's part of the Christian/Creationists' "Fall of man" framework.  Digression from God brings about many unwanted by-products.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by bluetrinity
Please explain to me how mutations happen? Your rhetoric is self-serving and offensive. Do you know how and why mutations happen?

1. My disagreement with you is by no means 'self-serving'...I abandoned Christianity the first time due to such statements being taught as 'facts' by uninformed, uneducated Christians who claimed to possess 'absolute knowledge'.  You may find it offensive simply because scientific truths offend you personally (or maybe its an ego thing...i.e. the fact you can't handle being disagreed with) 

2.  God DOES NOT cause mutations.  As pointed out before.  You display genetic ignorance.  Go back to the books and study more.  (Don't come back saying Satan causes them either after you learn of all the diseases people suffer from genetic mutations.

To satisfy your challenge:

There are two ways in which DNA can become mutated:

1. Mutations can be inherited. This means that if a parent has a mutation in his or her DNA, then the mutation is passed on to his or her children.
2. Mutations can be acquired. This happens when environmental agents damage DNA, or when mistakes occur when a cell copies its DNA prior to cell division.

<H3>What Causes DNA Mutations?</H3>Mutations in DNA sequences generally occur through one of two processes:

1. DNA damage from environmental agents such as ultraviolet light (sunshine), nuclear radiation or certain chemicals
2. Mistakes that occur when a cell copies its DNA in preparation for cell division.

If debating offends you, take up crocheting, quilting, jigsawpuzzles, or some other activity that doesn't challenge you to think outside your own box.

Smilin

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by XtremeVision
Smilin, I make no assumptions about you, but I do quarrel with the fact that you accept evolution “as is” and claim to be a Christian where evolution, as propagated today, is a tool for discrediting Christianity and denying God.

If you'd bother reading all my posts &amp; surveys you'd be qualified to comment on my views of evolution.&nbsp; Until you do...you can only speculate...since you refuse to pose any questions...simply state your own opinions as facts.&nbsp; And HOW DARE you insenuate my beliefs discredit Christianity.&nbsp; It is you're ignorance of WHAT the science of evolution ACTUALLY teaches that offends Christianity and deny's the complexity of God's creation.&nbsp; HAMMER THIS INTO YOUR THICK SKULL:&nbsp; Evolutionary science DOES NOT seek to discredit ANY theological belief...INCLUDING Christianity. (doh...Homer Simpson impression)

Originally posted by XtremeVision

Pete and Smilin, your rebuttals are irrelevant to this case. Let me elaborate:

-I made the claim that science can be used to determine if something is intelligently designed, therefore it must have been created, implying a Creator.

Since you refuse to (KISS) (Keep it Simple Stupid), I've erased everything else..and we'll start with this singular point of yours.&nbsp; Science can prove the F-14 Raptor fighter aircraft WAS designed...it CANNOT prove that it was created from nothing.&nbsp; Why part of this do you not understand.

You're using a creation of man (designed from existing raw materials) to try to prove the existance of our creator (who we are taught created the universe from NOTHINGNESS)...&nbsp; This is comparing apples to oranges.

I do not deny the creator...I just don't accept your analogy.&nbsp; Get it?

Now let us proceed from here.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by XtremeVision
So, I used my watch example simply as a means to see if there is a possibility that science could be used to potentially arrive at a conclusion that it was intelligently designed.

Okay...first you asked for proof it was created, now you assert to prove it was designed....BIG DIFFERENCE!

You're crawfishing on us now.

Watches are designed from existing raw materials, but not created from 'nothing'......

Perhaps you are confused over the difference between 'design' and 'creation'......

For example...there are Design Engineers, I've never met a 'Creation' Engineer.&nbsp;

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by Smilin
If you'd bother reading all my posts &amp; surveys you'd be qualified to comment on my views of evolution.&nbsp; Until you do...you can only speculate...since you refuse to pose any questions, but merely&nbsp;state your own opinions as facts.&nbsp; And HOW DARE you insenuate my beliefs discredit Christianity.&nbsp; It is you're ignorance of WHAT the science of evolution ACTUALLY teaches that offends Christianity and deny's the complexity of God's creation.&nbsp; HAMMER THIS INTO YOUR THICK SKULL:&nbsp; Evolutionary science DOES NOT seek to discredit ANY theological belief...INCLUDING Christianity. (doh...Homer Simpson impression)





Since you refuse to (KISS) (Keep it Simple Stupid), I've erased everything else..and we'll start with this singular point of yours.&nbsp; Science can prove the F-14 Raptor fighter aircraft WAS designed...it CANNOT prove that it was created from nothing.&nbsp; Why part of this do you not understand?

You're using a creation of man (designed from existing raw materials) to try to prove the existance of our creator (who we are taught created the universe from NOTHINGNESS)...&nbsp; This is comparing apples to oranges.

I do not deny the creator...I just don't accept your analogy.&nbsp; Get it?

Now let us proceed from here.

 

[XtremeVision]

Originally posted by Smilin
1. My disagreement with you is by no means 'self-serving'...I abandoned Christianity the first time due to such statements being taught as 'facts' by uninformed, uneducated Christians who claimed to possess 'absolute knowledge'.&nbsp; You may find it offensive simply because scientific truths offend you personally (or maybe its an ego thing...i.e. the fact you can't handle being disagreed with)
…

Your whole case about uninformed Christians and “absolute knowledge” is just a matter of personal experience and an assertion not properly founded for general application.&nbsp; The whole CRUX of Christianity is humbleness and subjection to God, which is quite opposite your claims.&nbsp; Obviously your assertive statement about "scientific truths" offending someone is quite fallacious, as these so-called “truths” are quite questioned by many scholars.

&nbsp;
There are considerable amounts of evolutionary scientists turned creationists and many, many scholars supporting their cause.&nbsp; I understand this is not an argument in itself, but trying to say there is no scientific effort or credulous claims made by Creationist is a far stretch.&nbsp; I find it interesting that no evolutionary effort (scientist, organization, etc) is willing to step up to Dr. Walt Brown's challenge (reference available upon request, though it has already been posted here).&nbsp; There is also a considerable prize up for grabs (I think $1.3 million) for anyone who is able to put forth an irrefutable case for evolution and origins.


Also, your general slander and sly remarks could be left out, being that the guy is asking simple questions and making sincere comments in self-defense.&nbsp; Says much about your character.


I would like to see if I can elaborate at what bluetrinity is trying to get at: do you know specifically how and why the actual mutative processes occur?&nbsp; For instance, saying “radiation damage” or “copying mistakes” or whatever still does not show how and why they actually happen, as in their inner-most workings and why these natural processes even exist the way they do (if it’s natural, why isn’t it done ‘this way’ or ‘that’, and ‘what is ultimately responsible for allowing mutations’).&nbsp; I’m not making a case here, just elaborating on what he’s getting at.&nbsp; Correct me if I am wrong bluetrinity?

&nbsp;

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by XtremeVision
Before you object that “Evolution is not the ‘big-bang’” and all that non-sense, I need to point out all areas related to supporting the whole biological process are dependent and are just as relevant and that we are talking “science” in general here anyway. I continued to say that, if we can show evidence that would suggest everything we observe is intelligently designed, THEN it would imply a Creator. The implications themselves are not dependent on the Creator or origins at all. We are talking science and it’s ability to derive conclusions. I understand that we cannot prove a distinct Creator directly, but just like much of evolutionary science is unempirical and can be used for its case, so should we be able to use science to conclude a possibility of intelligent design. I agree that then, if we can get there, all science itself would have to be left alone but that does not exclude science from getting us to that point.

XtremeVision, one question: Where does the line fall between what has to be designed and what does not?

Also (just out of curiosity), have you read The Blind Watchmaker?

 

[ifriit]

XtremeVision: You claim science itself cannot determine whether or not something must have a creator.&nbsp; Throwing all things aside, take my above example.&nbsp; No assumptions about it, no foreknowledge about it- just science and the watch.

This is a self-contradicting situation. The device in question cannot both be completely unknown (leaving us without assumptions or foreknowledge) and be a watch. If it a watch, a whole host of information is assumed about it.

Your analogy fails.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by XtremeVision
You're just plain wrong here.&nbsp; Show me evidence directly showing an INCREASE in genetic information (DNA, etc), proliferation as a result of mutations, more complex life forms from simple ones,&nbsp;show how a mechanism&nbsp;of Neo-Darwanism processes can result in evolutionary claims,&nbsp;etc.&nbsp; Don’t just show me horizontal adaptation or new, by-product "features".

You can find this information for yourself by searching Pubmed under the keywords you are using.&nbsp;

Increasing DNA is very easy. There are several mechanisms that do that, resulting in duplication of genes, duplication of whole chromosomes, even the duplication of the whole genome. The visatch rat is a duplication of all the chromosomes except the sex chromosome.&nbsp; Once you have an extra copy of a gene, of course, then modifications in that gene are easy since you already have a good copy to keep up the original work.

Increases in information and/or new functions via mutations are known.&nbsp; A few examples in the literature are:
5: J Bacteriol 1999 Jun;181(11):3341-50.&nbsp; Isolation and characterization of mutations in Bacillus subtilis that allow spore germination in the novel germinant D-alanine.
7: EMBO J 1999 May 4;18(9):2352-63.&nbsp; The specificity of polygalacturonase-inhibiting protein (PGIP): a single amino acid substitution in the solvent-exposed beta-strand/beta-turn region of the leucine-rich repeats (LRRs) confers a new recognition capability.&nbsp; Leckie F, Mattei B, Capodicasa C, Hemmings A, Nuss L, Aracri B, De Lorenzo G, Cervone F

Note the use of the words "novel" and "new" in the titles. Abstracts upon request.

9: Genetics 1998 Aug;149(4):1809-22.&nbsp; Gain-of-function mutations in the Caenorhabditis elegans lin-1 ETS gene identify a C-terminal regulatory domain phosphorylated by ERK MAP kinase.&nbsp; Jacobs D, Beitel GJ, Clark SG, Horvitz HR, Kornfeld K
15: J Mol Biol 1995 Jun 16;249(4):693-9.&nbsp; A single amino acid change in a pathway-specific transcription factor results in differing degrees of constitutivity, hyperinducibility and derepression of several structural genes.&nbsp; Oestreicher N, Scazzocchio C&nbsp; "unYc462 is a gain-of-function mutation in the purine catabolism positive regulatory gene of Aspergillus nidulans. This allele leads to a constitutive, hyperinducible and derepressed expression of a least three genes controlled by uaY, and this occurs at different levels depending on the target gene."
17: J Biol Chem 1995 May 19;270(20):12152-61.&nbsp; Three different rearrangements in a single intron truncate sterol regulatory element binding protein-2 and produce sterol-resistant phenotype in three cell lines. Role of introns in protein evolution.&nbsp; Yang J, Brown MS, Ho YK, Goldstein JL

"The cholesterol analogue 25-hydroxycholesterol kills animal cells by blocking the proteolytic activation of two sterol-regulated transcription factors designated sterol regulatory element binding protein-1 and -2 (SREBP-1 and SREBP-2).&nbsp;... Here, we report that two additional sterol-resistant cell lines (SRD-2 and SRD-3) have also undergone genomic rearrangements in the intron following codon 460 of the SREBP-2 gene.&nbsp; Although the molecular rearrangements differ in the three mutant lines, each leads to the production of a constitutively active transcription factor whose SREBP-2 sequence terminates at residue 460. These findings provide a dramatic illustration of the advantage that introns provide in allowing proteins to gain new functions in response to new environmental challenges."

"And yes, secular science is a “religion” in the sense that it requires just as much “faith” in man’s imperfection and unempirical evidence as any theistic religion.&nbsp; There are no absolutes after all, right? "


&nbsp; There are "absolutes".&nbsp; It is absolute that the earth is NOT flat.&nbsp; Any argument? It is absolute that the sun is NOT the center of the solar system. It is absolute that species were NOT created individually in their present form.&nbsp; You have forgotten that, while the deductive logic used by science can't "prove", it can absolutely DISPROVE.

 

[Smilin]

Xtreme:
Since you request the exact mechanisms of how radiation and chemicals (such as benzene) can cause mutations, I'll reference my books tonight and answer you later.

You seem to want to neatly 'categorize' us all into either 'creationists' or 'evolutionists'. This is one of the biggest mistakes made within this forum. Some of us do not so 'neatly' fit within your classifications. Sorry.

If you TRULY wish to know me...like I said...read all my threads. THEN you can try to 'classify' me.

As far as my character goes, don't assume anything about my character. That is very rude. I've made no assumptions about you. If someone can't take criticism or the heat of a debate...they are free to leave.

Finally: my posts, polls, comments, etc do NOT necessarily reflect my own viewpoints. You should REALLY ask for opinions or question someone if you REALLY want to know them.

Like I said,,,,if you want meaninful debate,,,keep it simple, forget spamming the thread with links, state your opinions, and ask for comments. So far, you've only asserted your opinions without considering how others have responded to you.

As far as the 'absolute truth' notion...feel free to vote and comment in my thread on the topic. It's not my notion (as you wrongfully assumed).

Would you answer this one simple question?
Do you reject evolutionary science completely?

 

[ifriit]

XtremeVision: There are considerable amounts of evolutionary scientists turned creationists and many, many scholars supporting their cause. I understand this is not an argument in itself, but trying to say there is no scientific effort or credulous claims made by Creationist is a far stretch.

Hey, it's not our fault Creationists don't come up with valid scientific theories. Do you have one?

XtremeVision: I find it interesting that no evolutionary effort (scientist, organization, etc) is willing to step up to Dr. Walt Brown's challenge (reference available upon request, though it has already been posted here).&nbsp; There is also a considerable prize up for grabs (I think $1.3 million) for anyone who is able to put forth an irrefutable case for evolution and origins.

Then Dr. Brown's challenge is not about science. Science cannot and does not present irrefutable cases. In fact, it must put forward refutable cases. Theories stand when they are refutable but unrefuted.

 

[ocean]

Walt Brown is just another Kent Hovind. His "theories" are not accurate.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by XtremeVision Smilin, I make no assumptions about you, but I do quarrel with the fact that you accept evolution “as is” and claim to be a Christian where evolution, as propagated today, is a tool for discrediting Christianity and denying God. ... I argue that we do not need to prove the Creator directly, just like evolution cannot be proven directly as a means to verify, as absolute FACT, that the first cause cannot be a Creator (no evolutionist would logically disagree, watch out: I have LINKS! LOL).

You are no longer discussing evolution or science, but are arguing your corner of the atheism vs theism debate.&nbsp; What you seem to object to is that some people and SOME scientists have tried to use science to bolster atheism.&nbsp;

The correct approach here would have been to see if they were representing science correctly.

Instead, what you did was simply take their word that what Dawkins, Atkins, Provine, etc. said about deity was the word of "science".&nbsp; So now you are down on science and fighting atheism on the wrong playing field.

Smilin can quite easily be both a Christian and accept evolution as a scientific theory.&nbsp; At least half the evolutionary biologists in history have done so, starting with Darwin.&nbsp; See Finding Darwin's God and Can a Darwinian be a Christian?

&nbsp;I continued to say that, if we can show evidence that would suggest everything we observe is intelligently designed, THEN it would imply a Creator. The implications themselves are not dependent on the Creator or origins at all. We are talking science and it’s ability to derive conclusions. I understand that we cannot prove a distinct Creator directly, but just like much of evolutionary science is unempirical and can be used for its case, so should we be able to use science to conclude a possibility of intelligent design.

The issue is how a Creator "intelligently designed".&nbsp; It is not enough to "design" in the abstract.&nbsp; Your watch is not just designed, but manufactured.&nbsp; Any&nbsp;hypothesis of biological organisms as "intelligently designed" has as its necessary component that the organism is assembled/manufactured by the Creator in its present form.&nbsp; And then, like an artifact, it doesn't change.&nbsp; Evolution is also viewed by the majority of Christianity as a how a Creator designed. In this view, the "Creator" used the secondary process of natural selection to do the designing.

So, I used my watch example simply as a means to see if there is a possibility that science could be used to potentially arrive at a conclusion that it was intelligently designed.

Ah, but how do you do that? I submit that you compare the watch with the heath (actually Paley did it, you should give credit) and decide that there are no processes in the heath that can produce a watch.&nbsp; IOW, it's not the watch alone that leads you to conclude that it was manufactured/designed.&nbsp; It's also the observation the the environment in which you found the watch could not possibly have produced it.

The problem for your argument is that the universe does contain processes that will 1) produce life from non-life and 2) produce the designs in biological organisms. The first is chemistry and the second is natural selection.&nbsp; The reason you spend so much effort trying to deny natural selection is because it does produce design, so you have to deny that it does before you can conclude that organisms are manufactured artifacts.

I just want to know if it is possible that you can conclude that the watch must have been created (among whatever other possibilities there may be).

Yes.&nbsp; But you cannot conclude that biological organisms are "created" by the same criteria because 1) we can see new species evolve and 2) we can observe that natural selection yields design.&nbsp; So science has looked at your issue and decided that biological organisms are not manufactured artifacts.&nbsp; Science has actually done what you asked and falsified intelligent design.

I also want to point out that MY original argument was that there is a scientific effort put forth by Creationists (I believe I have shown that appropriately), which was adamantly denied.

There was a scientific effort put out by the creationists in the 18th and early 19th centuries.&nbsp; That effort falsified creaitonism.&nbsp; Modern-day creationists are not putting out any scientific effort. The only effort they are engaged in is trying to conceal that creationism is a falsified theory and has been proven to be wrong.

Also, I find it interesting that many evolutionists agree that evolution/modern science is a dogmatic (evolutionary humanism) system founded and driven by naturalism and atheistic instincts, which is a system that can be equated to religion.

Correction. What you find is that many evolutionists (me included) agree that atheism is a religion and that atheism is not supported by science any more than theism is.&nbsp; Science is agnostic.

I could, of course, provide exhaustive articles of interest

I read it, but the ICR article is not accurate.&nbsp; If you have exhaustive articles that show good scholarship, then I for one am very interested.&nbsp; I have found only one ICR article that even approached acceptable scholarship.

 

[XtremeVision]

Smilin, I’ve changed NOTHING.&nbsp;

Originally posted by Smilin
If you'd bother reading all my posts &amp; surveys you'd be qualified to comment on my views of evolution.&nbsp; Until you do...you can only speculate...since you refuse to pose any questions...simply state your own opinions as facts.

You’ve explicitly shown you support evolution in the sense I was referring to right here in this thread and I believe it’s fine for me to draw the comparison.


&nbsp;

Originally posted by Smilin
And HOW DARE you insenuate my beliefs discredit Christianity.&nbsp; It is you're ignorance of WHAT the science of evolution ACTUALLY teaches that offends Christianity and deny's the complexity of God's creation.

Yes, I dare - the truth hurts doesn’t it?&nbsp; Take one of your polls and see what evolutionary scientists and what organizations allow room for the possibility of Creation beyond science.&nbsp; Or I can save you the time: they don’t.&nbsp; They just out-right DENY any “possibility” that their precious evolutionary ideas could at all be part of an even bigger design via a Creator.&nbsp; The more they get to their side, whether you are a Christian or not, the more it gives their dogma more credibility in weeding our religion and God.&nbsp; I can give references on a critique of Talk.Origins general persona that can help give a more elaborative explanation on this.&nbsp; They don’t tell you certain things to deceive you, uhh ohhh!&nbsp; If they allowed room for a Creator outside their little scientific minds, why aren’t are they investigating those matters at all?&nbsp; Why are they atheists?

Since you believe in evolution, you have two choices:

1)&nbsp;Believe it the way atheists support it, showing God is UNECESSARY
2)&nbsp;Believe it another way

If you believe it another way, you’d be fine.&nbsp; You’d have to use different interpretations of the facts and apply science differently in order to conclude “evolution is ok and God is too!”, or “evolution does not conflict with God” or “evolution does conflict with God” and then go from there.

But guess what?&nbsp; Everything you post and all your support is in perfect agreement with the atheists’ movement.&nbsp; How do I know this?&nbsp; It’s the same material, same so-called “facts”, same illogical conclusions based on the same interpretation of that data.&nbsp; If you draw the same conclusion (evolution must have happened) from the same scientific data and the same interpretation, then you are NO different and have the same ultimate absolute.&nbsp; So, since you are no different in trying to put forth evolutionary ideology, it is perfectly logical to say it’s damaging because the ultimate conclusion of the atheists’ movement to push evolution (using their facts, their interpretations, etc) implies THERE IS NO GOD because natural and random processes got us here.&nbsp; I don’t care what’s in your heart, what you hide in your mind, what charade you put on as an excuse, this is what you project and what you defend – a Godless dogma.&nbsp; You may try to separate the two, but the sad fact is that evolution (“as is”) denies God without explicitly stating it.

Originally posted by Smilin
HAMMER THIS INTO YOUR THICK SKULL:&nbsp; Evolutionary science DOES NOT seek to discredit ANY theological belief...INCLUDING Christianity. (doh...Homer Simpson impression)

Uh huh.&nbsp; Keep saying that to yourself.&nbsp; Does the whole evolutionary model allow any possibility for a Creator to have been the first-cause?&nbsp; No.

Originally posted by Smilin
Since you refuse to (KISS) (Keep it Simple Stupid), I've erased everything else..and we'll start with this singular point of yours.

Simple?&nbsp; Well my question required a simple yes or not and it simply wanted to know if science has a possibility of proving something is designed (which implies creation because something that exists that is designed must have been created).

&nbsp;

Originally posted by Smilin
Science can prove the F-14 Raptor fighter aircraft WAS designed...it CANNOT prove that it was created from nothing.

I don’t care where it came from; we aren’t addressing that here (because like we’ve agreed, science can’t handle it).&nbsp; I wasn’t asking anything about being created from nothing or created from ANYTHING, just that it must have been created.&nbsp; Can you logically conclude, “This watch was created because it is intelligently designed”?

See, the problem here is: you are locked into a paradox.&nbsp; Guess what that means?&nbsp; Basically, you are wrong by default.&nbsp; You have no other choice but to acknowledge “yes, science can show intelligent design in something” which is opposite what you previously stated.&nbsp; I’ve given you a totally scientifically valid situation, no God, no Creator anywhere in the picture.&nbsp; Just pure, simple logic.

Originally posted by Smilin
You're using a creation of man (designed from existing raw materials) to try to prove the existance of our creator (who we are taught created the universe from NOTHINGNESS)...&nbsp; This is comparing apples to oranges.

Do you realize how much dodging you are doing?&nbsp; Who’s not KISS here?&nbsp; I’m not trying to PROVE ANYTHING, I just want a simple answer as to the ABILITY of science.

Originally posted by Smilin
I do not deny the creator...I just don't accept your analogy.&nbsp; Get it?

Yup, you’re illogical and refuse to see it.

Originally posted by lucaspa

I read it, but the ICR article is not accurate.&nbsp; If you have exhaustive articles that show good scholarship, then I for one am very interested.&nbsp; I have found only one ICR article that even approached acceptable scholarship.

&nbsp;
*clap* *clap* What an unfounded statement.&nbsp; We all know what opinions are like...


Care to tell me WHY they are not accurate and credible?&nbsp; Let’s leave all bias at the door shall we?


You are totally blind to the whole underlying issue here.&nbsp; I can tell you probably have NOT read or attempted to study their position – they tell you why you wont’ accept their own material but this means nothing to you of course.


And Dr.Brown's challenge is 100% scientific, why doesn’t everyone just read the stipulations of the agreement, or better yet, his material?&nbsp; Wait, I’ll post it here in a bit…


&nbsp;

&nbsp;

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by XtremeVision
Uh huh.&nbsp; Keep saying that to yourself.&nbsp; Does the whole evolutionary model allow any possibility for a Creator to have been the first-cause?&nbsp; No.

Strickly speaking, evolutionary theory doesn't really care where the original life came from. Rather, evolution deals with how life changes and adapts to a particular environment.

Yes, abiogenesis and evolution tend to get lumped together a lot, but they are still independent lines of research. If it was proved that God or aliens or whatever created the first life on Earth, this would only affect abiogenesis, not evolution.

 

[bluetrinity]

Originally posted by Smilin
1. My disagreement with you is by no means 'self-serving'...I abandoned Christianity the first time due to such statements being taught as 'facts' by uninformed, uneducated Christians who claimed to possess 'absolute knowledge'.&nbsp; You may find it offensive simply because scientific truths&nbsp;offend you personally&nbsp;(or maybe its an ego thing...i.e. the fact you can't handle being disagreed with)&nbsp;

2.&nbsp; God DOES NOT cause mutations.&nbsp; As pointed out before.&nbsp; You display genetic ignorance.&nbsp; Go back to the books and study more.&nbsp; (Don't come back saying Satan causes them either after you learn of all the diseases people suffer from genetic mutations.

To satisfy your challenge:

There are two ways in which DNA can become mutated:

1. Mutations can be inherited. This means that if a parent has a mutation in his or her DNA, then the mutation is passed on to his or her children.
2. Mutations can be acquired. This happens when environmental agents damage DNA, or when mistakes occur when a cell copies its DNA prior to cell division.

<H3>What Causes DNA Mutations?</H3>Mutations in DNA sequences generally occur through one of two processes:

1. DNA damage from environmental agents such as ultraviolet light (sunshine), nuclear radiation or certain chemicals
2. Mistakes that occur when a cell copies its DNA in preparation for cell division.

If debating offends you, take up crocheting, quilting, jigsawpuzzles, or some other activity that doesn't challenge you to think outside your own box.

Smilin

Debate doesn't offend me, just your arrogance. Truth certainly doesn't.

Either way. If mutations can be inherited, this a meaningless argument because then the question would obviously be, 1) why did they occur in the first place and 2) how are they passed on. Now your second point appears to have some merit, however, it does not address the question, how and why environmental agents damage DNA or how and why mistakes occur upon cell division. Anyway, I doubt that you will find the answer in the books, tuff guy.