Facts for evolutionists

[Cabal]

To all that have replied to me, uou guys are contradicting yourself. If you believe man evolved from an amoeba like single cell organism, then there must be multiple species between amoeba-like and man yet you say dogs will still be dogs. Yes it hard do draw the line where hairy becomes bald, but there is a point where someone is clearly bald and bears no resemblance to and is in fact no longer a hair man; he is a bald man. I believe that there is an unobservable line that cannot be crossed by genetics. You cannot prove that it doesn't exist and I can't prove that it does because these theoretical changes take place in geologic time at the minimun over the course of thousands of years which no single person could document.

Try adding changes over 4 billion years. You'll get there.

You say that without knowing the mechanism, there is no reason to not believe that they can't change further but there's no reason TO think that they can change further. Futher more, all the examples of new species emerging through mutation and evolution are actually the mergence of new subpecies. All the "new" organisms are for the most part majorly similar to the previous iteration. The argument that because you can make inumerable little changes to an organism and therefore get a whole new organism is exactly like the mathematical asymtote. You Suppose you start with the nubmer one then you half it, then half it again, and agin to infinitum. You can make an inifinite number of changes to the number 1 but at the end of the day, it will never truly be zero. Until you prove that the function crosses over into the negative realm, you must assume that the function in fact approaches zero but never actually equals zero.

Nope, but you can still get to 10^-(a lot), which is appreciably close. (Although an asymptote really doesn't apply to evolution).

And nope, they are new species. If they can't breed, then they're new species.

I read Genesis 1 and 2 (OK skimmed, even as a Christian I still sadly find the Bible quite a bore to read) and find no inconsistencies.

So you can't even be bothered to read your own book properly? The order of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 is different, for a start.

I'm also curious as to why you think the Bible can be treated as an accurate science book, when the fact that it doesn't even get the value of pi right shows that it's clearly not that fussed.

You ask for evidence of creationism and ID? Here it is. Life. The Bible says God created life and clearly here it is. The Bible says God made the sun, the moon, et cetera and you can clearly observe them. Yes, you may say that's a cop out answer but it's not. The evidence for evolution is more evolution but technically not evolution because the active process hasn't been actually observed but only the before and after. The evidence for the creation of life is life. It makes perfect sense.

Creation/ID hasn't been observed either, and it's at an added disadvantage - it can't be.

And please stop with the "directly observed" thing. No-one's ever seen an electron with their bare eyes, that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Moreover, archeology turns up new information proving more and more that the contents of the Bible are true. Years ago, the city of Jericho was thought to be a myth and yet it was found. They have found the remains of an army at the bottom of the Sea of Reeds (aka the Red Sea) corroborating the story of the Israelites crossing through the sea and then the sea swallowing the armies of Egypt.

Source pls

I could tell you dozens of stories of miracles but unless you believe, they are just unexplained anecdotes. The Bible says that God formed man out of the dust of the earth and breathed into him the breath of life. And yes, the human body is in fact formed out of elements commonly found in the air and in the air and in the ground, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen.

The first sentence of this section is about the truest thing you've said. Tell me, why do you think God can be proven? To prove him would remove all notion of free will to believe he exists. Personally, I think this is why the only thing remotely describable is "proof" when it comes to God is personal experience.

The biggest evidence of the Biblical creation story is what we experience every day, the week. The weekly cycle is the only cycle that doesn't have a linked physical phenomenon. A year is the time it take the earth to orbit the sun. A month is the time it takes for the moon to complete it's cycle (plus or minus, the Caesars kinda effed with it back in the day). The day is the daily solar cycle. After that, everything is based off of base 12 (24 hours, 60 minutes, 60 seconds, are all divisible by 12). But the week is unique. There are no base 7 systems that were wide spread. The only explanation for the seven day week I have ever found was the Biblical story of creation. No matter what the civilization, they all observe the seven day week and the only explanation of this is found in the Bible's creation story.

Given that Genesis was written a good time after the creation event, I don't feel this counts for much. A creation allegory could have been based around the contemporary week.

In response to your question of why a being would put so much deception into a universe, I say that He didn't. He made a perfect universe. It was his artwork. If he made a "new" universe, we wouldn't be able to see the beauty of the stars. Would you call the Mona Lisa a deception? No. It's a work of art. He made a world to please Himself. In particular, radiometric dating is simple. If he began with world from zero and had all the radioactive elements set at their maximum levels, the world would not be able to sustain life. He would have made Adam and Adam would have immidiately contracted radiation poisoning and died if he wasn't boiled alived by the gamma rays. If he didn't make the soil with nutrients already in it, plant would be unable to grow. If he made a world with just baby plants, animals would have nothing to eat. If he made a world with only baby animals, they would have no one to suckle or feed them and take care of them. He made an aged system because this world cannot survive growing one system at a time. He made the whole system and set it into motion.

That would be why life started under something large and radiation shielding, like the sea. Nevermind the fact it had a few billion years to reduce in intensity before the Earth even formed, and then another big gap before life formed.

Re bolded sentence: no reason that shouldn't apply to current cosmology and evolution.

This is why the Biblican story makes so much sense.

sniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiip

Very nice - the problem is, none of it is empirically testable. If you believe it, fine, just don't expect everyone else to. It's really not that cut and dried.

The best part of the story is when God makes women and then tells them to be fruitful and multiply. Even if you DON'T believe in this story, you gotta admit He's got style. He makes paradise for one man, then gives him a smoking hot chick, then tells him to go have lots of sex.

People tend to find the whole arbitrary "apple of death" scenario later slightly spoils that image a bit.

 

[Kyrisch]

Evidence for Evolution.

I expect a full refutation of each of these ten categories of support for evolution before you even think of saying that evolution is preposterous.

I find it funny that this thread is still raging while not a single Creationist has touched mine.

 

[Danyc]

To all that have replied to me, uou guys are contradicting yourself. If you believe man evolved from an amoeba like single cell organism, then there must be multiple species between amoeba-like and man yet you say dogs will still be dogs.

Yes, dogs will only produce dogs. Why is this difficult?

Ok, I think I see where your misunderstanding lies.

First thing, read carefully and understand: Organisms do not evolve, populations evolve. This is why you will never see, as Kent Hovind says we should find, a 'dog producing a non-dog.' This will never happen. A single organism will only ever produce the same subset of itself. Perhaps with tiny changes, like colour of fur or something like that. But that offspring will still be what it came from. It will never be drsatically different enough from it's parents to be called a different species.

Now listen:

Yes it hard do draw the line where hairy becomes bald, but there is a point where someone is clearly bald and bears no resemblance to and is in fact no longer a hair man; he is a bald man. I believe that there is an unobservable line that cannot be crossed by genetics. You cannot prove that it doesn't exist and I can't prove that it does because these theoretical changes take place in geologic time at the minimun over the course of thousands of years which no single person could document.

So you're argument that there is an unobservable line in genetics that can't be crossed is that we can't say there isn't...?

...right.

Moving on

You say that without knowing the mechanism, there is no reason to not believe that they can't change further but there's no reason TO think that they can change further.

Of course there is, seeing and observing is only half of how science does what it does. We know from evidence that evolution takes place, in the ofssil record, in genetics, etc. Of course we have reason to think it can change further, why else would we support it? In science if there is no reason and no evidence to support something it is tossed. You don't seem to understand this. The scientific world is harsh on new theories; they need to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt before they are accepted by the majority. Science does not just allow a theory a place in the

Further more, all the examples of new species emerging through mutation and evolution are actually the mergence of new subpecies. All the "new" organisms are for the most part majorly similar to the previous iteration. The argument that because you can make inumerable little changes to an organism and therefore get a whole new organism is exactly like the mathematical asymtote. You Suppose you start with the nubmer one then you half it, then half it again, and agin to infinitum. You can make an inifinite number of changes to the number 1 but at the end of the day, it will never truly be zero. Until you prove that the function crosses over into the negative realm, you must assume that the function in fact approaches zero but never actually equals zero.

You're mistake is even making such an analogy in the first place. It does not respresent reality. Populations evolving into new species is not like dividing something in half to infinity.

To make your analogy accurate, the way evolution works would have to be fundamentally changed. It would go something like, the animal would adapt halfway to what it will become, then halfway again, then halfway again, then halfway again...but even then, there would be no physicallly possible way for them to continually get as close as possible to 0, or the target outcome, without actually being the target outcome. This is because at some point, an animal simply cannot evolve any longer without being the target animal. An organism will only ever be a number of mutations away from another. The number is not infinite, and unless you are saying that the mutations would appear infintiely in stages, such as half of the toe getting bigger and then half the rest of the toe getting bigger, and thenthe rest of the half of the half of the half of the toe getting bigger, and then....

Hopefully you see why this is ridiculous.

You ask for evidence of creationism and ID? Here it is. Life. The Bible says God created life and clearly here it is. The Bible says God made the sun, the moon, et cetera and you can clearly observe them. Yes, you may say that's a cop out answer but it's not.

It is a copout answer, and this is because I can go write my own holy book saying that life is direct evidence of my own version of ID/Creationism, and following your logic, you must accept this evidence. It's called circular logic.





The evidence for evolution is more evolution but technically not evolution because the active process hasn't been actually observed but only the before and after. The evidence for the creation of life is life. It makes perfect sense.

Moreover, archeology turns up new information proving more and more that the contents of the Bible are true. Years ago, the city of Jericho was thought to be a myth and yet it was found. They have found the remains of an army at the bottom of the Sea of Reeds (aka the Red Sea) corroborating the story of the Israelites crossing through the sea and then the sea swallowing the armies of Egypt. I could tell you dozens of stories of miracles but unless you believe, they are just unexplained anecdotes. [/quote]


Can you provide links to these instances, reliable ones please? They sound interesting.

The biggest evidence of the Biblical creation story is what we experience every day, the week. The weekly cycle is the only cycle that doesn't have a linked physical phenomenon. A year is the time it take the earth to orbit the sun. A month is the time it takes for the moon to complete it's cycle (plus or minus, the Caesars kinda effed with it back in the day). The day is the daily solar cycle. After that, everything is based off of base 12 (24 hours, 60 minutes, 60 seconds, are all divisible by 12). But the week is unique. There are no base 7 systems that were wide spread. The only explanation for the seven day week I have ever found was the Biblical story of creation. No matter what the civilization, they all observe the seven day week and the only explanation of this is found in the Bible's creation story.

In a way that's true because the seven day creation is a big motivator to use a seven day week, heralded by the sabbath. But the truth is, there are conflicting opinions on how the week originated, and it is not the only explanation.

Speaking of women, how does evolution or albiogenesis explain the arrival the sexes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex

There are a few other links but I am not sure if they were good or not, so I refrained.

What is to be remembered, however, is that creationists will always jump on sex and say that we don't know how it came about. That's true, we evilutionists don't know. We do know, whoever, that evolution is a fact, that it happens. With this knowledge, it is plainly obvious that sex did evolve. The debate is simply how it evolved, not if it evolved.

 

[Split Rock]

To all that have replied to me, uou guys are contradicting yourself. If you believe man evolved from an amoeba like single cell organism, then there must be multiple species between amoeba-like and man yet you say dogs will still be dogs. Yes it hard do draw the line where hairy becomes bald, but there is a point where someone is clearly bald and bears no resemblance to and is in fact no longer a hair man; he is a bald man. I believe that there is an unobservable line that cannot be crossed by genetics. You cannot prove that it doesn't exist and I can't prove that it does because these theoretical changes take place in geologic time at the minimun over the course of thousands of years which no single person could document.

OK. One More Time. Please pay attention.

Humans are still all of the following even after all the evolution our ancestors went through:

1. Eukaryotes
2. Chordates
3. Vertebrates
4. Tetrapods
5. Mammals
6. Placental Mammals
7. Primates
8. Apes

We will never not be all of these, because our ancestors were in these categories.

In addition, if you think there is some invisible genetic line, YOU have to provide evidence for it. We do not have to prove a negative.

You say that without knowing the mechanism, there is no reason to not believe that they can't change further but there's no reason TO think that they can change further. Futher more, all the examples of new species emerging through mutation and evolution are actually the mergence of new subpecies. All the "new" organisms are for the most part majorly similar to the previous iteration. The argument that because you can make inumerable little changes to an organism and therefore get a whole new organism is exactly like the mathematical asymtote. You Suppose you start with the nubmer one then you half it, then half it again, and agin to infinitum. You can make an inifinite number of changes to the number 1 but at the end of the day, it will never truly be zero. Until you prove that the function crosses over into the negative realm, you must assume that the function in fact approaches zero but never actually equals zero.

But there is plenty of reason to believe common descent, because all the evidence infers common descent. The speciation list I showed you provides evidence for just that... the emergence of new species, not sub-species. Of course these new species are going to closely resemble the mother species, just as a son will resemble his/her parent. As far as your analogy goes it is flawed. If you start with a terrestrial even-toed ungulate and eventually a population evolves into blue whales, you will certainly note the differences, though they will still be many similarities.

I read Genesis 1 and 2 (OK skimmed, even as a Christian I still sadly find the Bible quite a bore to read) and find no inconsistencies.

The inconsistances involve the order of creation. The stories were clearly written by different people at different times (the experts say the second story with the Garden of Eden was the oldest) so it is not surprising to find some differences.

You ask for evidence of creationism and ID? Here it is. Life. The Bible says God created life and clearly here it is. The Bible says God made the sun, the moon, et cetera and you can clearly observe them. Yes, you may say that's a cop out answer but it's not. The evidence for evolution is more evolution but technically not evolution because the active process hasn't been actually observed but only the before and after. The evidence for the creation of life is life. It makes perfect sense.

So, becasue there is a sun and a moon and life, it naturally follows that your god created it all and he did so according to your Holy Book? And you have the nerve to claim this is not a cop out? WOW.

Moreover, archeology turns up new information proving more and more that the contents of the Bible are true. Years ago, the city of Jericho was thought to be a myth and yet it was found. They have found the remains of an army at the bottom of the Sea of Reeds (aka the Red Sea) corroborating the story of the Israelites crossing through the sea and then the sea swallowing the armies of Egypt. I could tell you dozens of stories of miracles but unless you believe, they are just unexplained anecdotes. The Bible says that God formed man out of the dust of the earth and breathed into him the breath of life. And yes, the human body is in fact formed out of elements commonly found in the air and in the air and in the ground, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen.

The human body is also missing elements that are commonly found in earth... like silicon. Why aren't we made of silcates, then?

The biggest evidence of the Biblical creation story is what we experience every day, the week. The weekly cycle is the only cycle that doesn't have a linked physical phenomenon. A year is the time it take the earth to orbit the sun. A month is the time it takes for the moon to complete it's cycle (plus or minus, the Caesars kinda effed with it back in the day). The day is the daily solar cycle. After that, everything is based off of base 12 (24 hours, 60 minutes, 60 seconds, are all divisible by 12). But the week is unique. There are no base 7 systems that were wide spread. The only explanation for the seven day week I have ever found was the Biblical story of creation. No matter what the civilization, they all observe the seven day week and the only explanation of this is found in the Bible's creation story.

The seven-day week is an invention of those who wrote the Bible. Again, you are using the puddle-in-a-hole mistake. And no, not every culture uses the seven day week.

In response to your question of why a being would put so much deception into a universe, I say that He didn't. He made a perfect universe. It was his artwork. If he made a "new" universe, we wouldn't be able to see the beauty of the stars. Would you call the Mona Lisa a deception? No. It's a work of art. He made a world to please Himself. In particular, radiometric dating is simple. If he began with world from zero and had all the radioactive elements set at their maximum levels, the world would not be able to sustain life. He would have made Adam and Adam would have immidiately contracted radiation poisoning and died if he wasn't boiled alived by the gamma rays. If he didn't make the soil with nutrients already in it, plant would be unable to grow. If he made a world with just baby plants, animals would have nothing to eat. If he made a world with only baby animals, they would have no one to suckle or feed them and take care of them. He made an aged system because this world cannot survive growing one system at a time. He made the whole system and set it into motion.

Why did he make an aged system with a clear history? Did he make Adam with a scar from an injury he never had? The earth has many such scars. If God wanted an earth with no radiation, then He simply would have made it with no radioactive elements. Afterall, they are hardly necessary for life to exist.

This is why the Biblican story makes so much sense. In John, it says "In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was God and the Word was with God." What are the prerequisites for a univers. The first thing you need is data, rules, laws. The word "word" in greek is logos or in English, logic. This is data, information. "In the beginning" this establishes time. "And the Word was with God," this establishes space. So you have the beginnings of the universe, data and the time and space in which to organize it. Then God creates light, energy, without energy there is no matter, antoher building block of a thriving universe. At this point, God starts his first organization of time, night and day. Then he makes fluid, air and water (air is often mathematically modeled as a fluid as in fluid aerodynamics) and He organizes it again into gasses and fluids. So far we have information, time/space, matter/energy, and the first two types of matter. At this point, there are no starts which means no solar energy but I will explain this later. He then adds the third on the third day, solid ground. He then makes life in the form of plants. Notice that each new stage would be impossible without the stage previous. Then he makes fish and birds. Notice again. Birds and fish need oxygen that's made by plants. Plants can't live without water. Water can't sustain plants without energy, in this case solar energy. It can't sustain plant life because without solar energy it would freeze. Now at this point, there is no sun and moon or stars because he's about to make them. Assumedly, plants would die and water would freeze without this incoming energy. However, God IS this energy source. Cheap answer I know but even when Moses sees God thousands of years later, He's still blindingly bright. AFter the sun, moon, and stars are created, God made it's first moving live, fish and birds. They need the oxygen provided by the plants (which they can't make without photosynthesis, hence the sun made in day four) that are on the land and sea. On the sixth day, God made the creatures of the land. Why not make these guys at the same time? Very few land creatures pollenate. Also, the land was made separately from air and sea so it makes sense that land animals are made separate from land and sea animals. Then God makes Man, reasonably explainable by the fact that a planet without all the previously created features would be terribly depressing. Imagine you're Adam and God made you on pre-Earth. You're standing there in the middle of no where with no landmarks and no animals. Wouldn't you expect a bigger introduction to the world for the universe's first reproducing sentient being?

It makes little sense to make "light" first, then the Sun. It also makes little sense to make the earth first and then the sun, since the earth is in orbit around the sun! Also, having plants on the earth for one day will not provide enough oxygen for animals. There are plenty of other illogicals, such as talking animals, trees that can magically provide knowledge or immortallity, etc. Please don't try to convince us that Genesis is somehow logical.

It's important to note that the events of the Biblical creation story make perfect scientific sense. Consider this. Humans bodies need energy, then air, then water, then nutrients, then food in the form of vegies, meat (again fish and bird coming earlier in the creation story are healthier than cows and pigs which come later) then finally we need companionship. This is Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs before Maslow pointed it out.

Why do we have salt water in our veins?
Why do we have backpains?
Why do we breath and eat through the same tubing?
Why do we have an appendix whose main function is to become infected and kill us?
Why do we have a libido that makes monogamy so difficult?
Why do we have a broken gene to make vitamin C?

Evolution has the answers. Does your Holy Book have them?

The best part of the story is when God makes women and then tells them to be fruitful and multiply. Even if you DON'T believe in this story, you gotta admit He's got style. He makes paradise for one man, then gives him a smoking hot chick, then tells him to go have lots of sex.

Yeah, he's got some style alright. He creates a "perfect" Adam and then tests him with a talking snake while knowing full well he will fail the test. He makes a perfect creation, knowing ahead of time that Adam with throw the whole creation into chaos. He then waits thousands of years to "fix" his "perfect" creation, because He has better things (apparently) to do with his time. Whatever...

Speaking of women, how does evolution or albiogenesis explain the arrival the sexes?

This is a specialized form of gene exchange. Even single-celled organisms can exchange genetic material. Look up "conjugation."

 

[Chalnoth]

To all that have replied to me, uou guys are contradicting yourself. If you believe man evolved from an amoeba like single cell organism, then there must be multiple species between amoeba-like and man yet you say dogs will still be dogs.

Precisely! All species retain the history of their ancestry. Sometimes, of course, one has to look closely. If you want to understand just how much of our ancestry we carry around with us, I'd highly recommend Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish.

Neil Shubin is the archaeologist that led the team that discovered one of the most significant transitional fossils discovered so far between fish and amphibians, tiktaalik. He also teaches human anatomy. Here is an excerpt from the above book:
http://dmcr35.blogspot.com/2008/01/getting-in-touch-with-your-inner-fish.html

So while we may not superficially look much like fish, and typically consider ourselves to be a completely different sort of animal, we still retain the features of fish. We are modified fish (as are all tetrapods).

Edit:

Speaking of women, how does evolution or albiogenesis explain the arrival the sexes?

Big animals like ourselves have long stretches of time between generations. The parasites that live within us, however, have very short generational times. This means that if our reproductive cycles were similar in character, we would simply be unable to compete: our parasites would out-evolve any defense we could ever come up with, because they have many, many generations for each one of ours.

This is where sex comes in: the genetic recombination offered in sex allows for evolution to progress far more rapidly than asexual reproduction. And so we achieve parity with our parasites: though we have fewer generations to evolve, we evolve more each generation due to the recombination of genes.

That explains why it happened. As for specifically how it happened, it happened like everything in evolution: through small degrees. First there was asexual reproduction with occasional recombination of genes between individual cells (bacteria do this). This process was specialized so that it occurred primarily during reproduction, resulting in hermaphroditic species. Further specialization resulted in the male/female split.

 

[The Madcap]

Fact: Modern scientific method grew in a religious context. Wiki "Tabula Rasa" and look for the guy who started the idea. You will find he was a religious scholar and scientist (he was also muslim). Several of the more contemporary founders of the scientific method (Bacon and Berkerly particularly).

That's nice.

Fact: Natural Selection =/= Evolution, IF Evolution = Random Mutations OR Evolution = Macroevolution (macroevolution being change from species to species) OR Evolution = Beginning of Life. Natural selection is scienficially verifiable. Microevolution (change within species) is scientifically verifiable. Macroevolution is not scientifically verifiable because no one can ever empirically shown one species turning into another one. Evidence such as the fossil record merely shows that such organisms existed, not necessarily that they grew out of each other.

I hate the distinction between micro and macroevolution. It's a distinction creationists use to appear less stupid by accepting the blindingly obvious while denying the very slightly less blindingly obvious. We have observed speciation by the way. And we don't have large changes in just one offspring. Macroevolution is really just microevolution + microevolution + microevolution + microevolution + microevolution + etc. The fact that creationists accept small changes over small periods of time, but don't accept large changes over large periods of time is ridiculous. It's really a very simple snowball effect.

Fact: No one has ever shown a beneficial mutation involving the creation of a new biological process or structure such as a man who can eat rocks to survive (lithovorism as ridiculous as it sounds). You can find mutations that remove DNA, swap DNA, change an organ's size, shape, color, and function but none of these mutations have been proven to be beneficial. In a previous discussion there was a debate that there was a rare mutation that has been found in the human genome that makes a human immune to some diseases. In fact this mutation removed a certain part of the cell or cell function (I can't remember). This is like saying people who have had their legs amputated are better of than those who have their legs because they are immune to athlete's foot. Please note that this mutation was discovered but the discoverers did not document the change meaning that this "mutation" could have existed all along and was just selectively passed down or dormant in some people. And again, this is not the creation of a new beneficial genetic sequence but removal of a damaging one. Let me remind you, that the most common human mutation is CANCER.

I read the replies to this section, and I thought they summed it up nicely.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

I beg to differ:
http://machineslikeus.com/scientific-proof-of-gods-non-existence

You are welcome to differ if you wish, however if you are basing your opinion upon this single article, presented on a website with a mission statement to "promote the belief that religion is a human construct...", let me make out a few points.

Firstly, I am referring to the fact that science, as a discipline, is not atheistic but agnostic. This does not mean that all scientists are necessarily agnostic. I could name a great many who are atheists, and a great many who are thiestic.

Let me explain my point. The modern scientific method, the falsificationist method, is methodologically naturalist not ontologically naturalist, as it is sometimes mistakenly claimed.

Methodological naturalism is the viewpoint that science can only test naturalistic phenomenon empirically, and therefore can only make statements about natural phenomenon. It goes on to say that the metaphysical can not be tested empirically one way or another, and was a result science can not make statements regarding it, one way or another.

Ontological naturalism on the other hand, makes the claim that only that which is empirically testable can be true, and that the metaphysical can be ruled out as it can not be empirically tested.

Ontological naturalism, as Karl Popper pointed out, was rejected by science as it is intrinsically flawed because it violates its own core assumption in so far as the very statement that only that which is empirically testable can be true is itself not empirically testable.

The article you linked to does not demonstrate that science is atehisitc, rather it demonstrates that the author is an atheist and feels his position is justifiable in a scientific framework. Which is fair enough.

The article itself does not argue that science is itself atheistic, rather it gives a commentary on how the author uses scientific methodology to arrive at a personal opinion that atheism is scientifically justifiable. Which again, is fair enough.

In fact the article seems to be a well constructed, but not infallible, arguemtn for science to abandon what we refer to as the “Demarcation criterion” and switch from methodological to ontological naturalism.

Certainly modern Quantum physicists have been know to argue for abandoning the demarcation criterion, but not in order to adopt Ontological Naturalism. Quite the reverse in fact, they argue that Quantum mechanics can not be fully understood if we limit ourselves to naturalism of any sort!

I would also like to draw your attention to one or two points in the arguments presented by the article which w\rent further comment;-


1). The article states,
"But there is another point about the word 'proof' that needs to be emphasized. When scientists use the word 'proof' they use it in a slightly differently way from the way mathematicians use it. In mathematics, a proof is a construct based on an agreed set of axioms and rules of logic."
-Singham, Mano, 2007, machineslikeus.com

As Jet Black and I are both fond of pointing out, “Proof is for maths and Alcohol, in science we make do with evidence to support the conclusion”. When sceintist use teh term "Proof" at all, we are being sloppy, as we falsificationist methodology does not allow for proof, only firmly supported cocnclusions with error bars within an acceptable range.

2). "The interesting question is how it is that we are so certain that there are just two kinds of charges that we base our entire society on it. Do we have certain proof that there are only two kinds of charges? Do we have direct data that no more charges exist? Have we looked everywhere and convinced ourselves of this? The answer to all three questions is no. So how is it that we are so sure that only two kinds of charges exist? It is because of the absence of certain kinds of data."
-Singham, Mano, 2007, machineslikeus.com (Emphasis mine).

Actually it is not because of the absence of certain data that we accept the are so sure only 2 kinds of charges exist so much as, it is the success of the theory that only 2 charges exist in explaining all available evidence and the lack of any unexplained phenomenon that could be explained by a 3rd type of charge which leads us to conclude that the 2 charge theory is correct. The diference is a fine one, but an important one. It is the two strands taken toether which support the conclusion.

In the articles conclusion the author makes it very clear that it is his opinion, based on his application of scientific methodology, which leads him to accept the conclusion that there is no God, which is fair enough. However, at no point does the author attempt to imply that the scientific method itself is atheistic, as you seem to think he does.

Ghost

 

[RTooty]

Responders-
Your arguments are going downhill. Some of your arguments are completely based off of interpretation and semantics. Evolution in it's most popular form includes many attached peripheral ideas including albiogenesis and therefore in discussions of evolution, it must be treated as a relevant topic. Evolution is most certainly a ladder if only because of the element of time in which there is a progression, maybe not with one species replacing another but with one species coming out of another. But this branching bush effect is still just best guess and assumption. We haven't SEEN any of this occur. We have the before and after but no one has seen the process. You have skeletal remains of several similar organisms and you assume from that that they are all related. That's like going to China and calling everyone Jackie Chan and Lucy Liu. Also, if evolution is not random then it is predictible and science should be able to predict a mutation before it occurs. Yes, this is like predicting the weather. But that's what the Farmer's Almanac does, maybe not exact weather patterns but general one and it has done it with great accuracy.

As far as the experiment to make protiens goes, they weren't trying to make life. You're right. But they were trying to prove that the basics for life could occur in such an environment, and they failed at it. Even if they made all the protiens, they would have only proven one thing, that it takes intelligence to make those protiens.

My point of life being impossible without the pre-existence of necesarry protiens is valid. But apparently you're only discussing evolution and avoiding the question of albiogenesis. If you don't wish to discuss it, that's your right but it does leave a bit of a hole in your progression, especially if you believe the creation story to be factless. Furthermore, RNA cannot self replicate. That is a fallacy, there must be another mechanism besides RNA to replicate it. RNA is one of of the DNA strang. It replicates by attachign the other half to it and then tearing it apart. What, pray tell, tears it a part?

The argument ad hominen that I'm not a scientist so how dare I disagree with established scientific theory is moot. Scientific method is based off of critical thinking and asking questions of what we think we know. Many scientist and non-scientists have disagreed with popular belief and been proven right, not that popularity has anything to do with science, so you say.

It was scientists that proved that piltdown man was a hoax. But Christians knew it was a hoax first.

My previous argument that everything proves evolution is admitedly poorly articulated. I meant to say that anything can be fitted into the framework of evolution meaning that if it stays the same, it's in an interim period or there are no stressors forcing change. If it changes, then there's your evolution. But after this point you are arguing evolutionary history. You all say that finding a man in cambrian soil would disprove evolution. How about a tree that runs though hundreds of thousands of years worth of soil deposits? How about the fossils of chittons on top of mountain tops? Futhermore, there is no place where there has been a complete timeline in the fossil record. We only have bits and pieces and they have been ordered according to the evolutinary world view.

You all seem to think that you're the only ones who knows what he's talking about. I've resisted arguments ad hominem but this takes it too far. My facts about gene replication and mutation, while incomplete, were accurate. We understand evolution but you choose to use a very narrow definition of the word as opposed to the broader general usage. Again, it's an argument of semantics rather than actual fact. By that logic everyone who's ever used the term Creation v. Evolution has no idea what they're talking about and that would include pretty everyone who found the data to help prove evolution/abiogeneis and certainly creationism.

About your section on church beliefs. It doesn't matter what a church believes or what pastors teach. It only matter what the Bible teaches. It's a well known fact that Christians are the poorest examples of Christianity. Isn't it Gandhi that said "I would be Christian if I hadn't met so many of them?" What any church teaches may or may not be what the Bible teaches. It is important to make that distiction. Furthermore, many theologians (protestant mainly) do not accept Catholicism as actual Christianity, although it may be the most popular form of it. If you are to take examples of Christianity, do not take it from the Catholic church which is more relgio-political than religious. If you want to make a sticker to put on text books, as ludicrous of an idea as it is, it would be important to note that science hasn't come up with any answers to how life arose which is what the creation story is about. There are currently no good or widely accepted scientific theories as to the arrival of life, not life as we know it, but life. Period.

Yes, there is nothing random about chemistry. But there IS something random about the physics that governs chemistry. Ever hear of the electron cloud, entropy, fluid dynamics, or fission. All of these involve a factor of chance and all are necessary to the study of Chemistry. While the Chemistry itself may be predictible, the physics behind it is not. However, the chemistry of abiogeneis, as I have proved in my first post, is impossible, unless my science is incomplete which it very well may be.

The only difference between atheism and religion is atheism starts witht he belief in nothing and religion starts with the belief in an everything. The only difference is the starting points. Science assumes that God isn't there while relgion does. The important thing is that we should all be using the same logic and factual awareness to arrive at the truth.

 

[Chalnoth]

Actually it is not because of the absence of certain data that we accept the are so sure only 2 kinds of charges exist so much as, it is the success of the theory that only 2 charges exist in explaining all available evidence and the lack of any unexplained phenomenon that could be explained by a 3rd type of charge which leads us to conclude that the 2 charge theory is correct. The diference is a fine one, but an important one. It is the two strands taken toether which support the conclusion.

Right, and the lack of evidence for any god falls into exactly this category: so far we have achieved amazing success in describing the natural world around us without resorting to any sort of supernatural entity, let alone a god. This success, combined with the complete lack of any evidence for a god (or any supernatural) indicates that there isn't any, to a high degree of confidence.

In the articles conclusion the author makes it very clear that it is his opinion, based on his application of scientific methodology, which leads him to accept the conclusion that there is no God, which is fair enough. However, at no point does the author attempt to imply that the scientific method itself is atheistic, as you seem to think he does.

Well, no, that's not what I meant. What I'm saying is that the success of science, and the total lack of evidence for any deity, demonstrates that any god is highly, highly unlikely.

To simply assume there is no such thing as a matter of procedure would be foolish (well, mostly...there are arguments to be had here as well). What makes the statements of science so powerful on the subject is that they are conclusions based upon evidence.

 

[Chalnoth]

Responders-
Your arguments are going downhill. Some of your arguments are completely based off of interpretation and semantics. Evolution in it's most popular form includes many attached peripheral ideas including albiogenesis and therefore in discussions of evolution, it must be treated as a relevant topic.

This is only in the circles that you follow. It is not the case within the scientific community. Again, it's not creationism vs. evolution. It's creationism vs. science.

Again I implore you to examine this excellent excerpt from Neil Shubin's recent book:
http://dmcr35.blogspot.com/2008/01/getting-in-touch-with-your-inner-fish.html
(for the full book, highly recommended: http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0375424474 )

It demonstrates beyond any shadow of a doubt that the history of our ancestry can be seen within our own bodies.

My point of life being impossible without the pre-existence of necesarry protiens is valid.

No it isn't. Life doesn't require proteins. Proteins are merely useful tools that life uses. RNA can do everything that life requires. Proteins are better at it, to be sure, but RNA still works adequately. And RNA also stores genetic information. Again, it's not as good as DNA at this task either, but it's still adequate. Because of this, it is highly likely that the first life was RNA-based. The split between DNA and proteins likely came much later.

It was scientists that proved that piltdown man was a hoax. But Christians knew it was a hoax first.

Who, pray tell?

 

[Vene]

Responders-
Your arguments are going downhill. Some of your arguments are completely based off of interpretation and semantics. Evolution in it's most popular form includes many attached peripheral ideas including albiogenesis and therefore in discussions of evolution, it must be treated as a relevant topic.

No, no, no, no, no! Evolution ONLY explains the diversity of life. It doesn't matter one bit where it came from. Evolution is just as strongly supported whether or not life came from another planet, came about as a result of chemistry, or even from a supernatural force. You just want it to be that way. I am very willing to talk about abiogenesis, but not here. Evolution is already a big enough topic.

Evolution is most certainly a ladder..

Stop there. A tree is a better analogy. It branches and divides. See (link)?

...if only because of the element of time in which there is a progression, maybe not with one species replacing another but with one species coming out of another. But this branching bush effect is still just best guess and assumption. We haven't SEEN any of this occur. We have the before and after but no one has seen the process.

Look up phylogenetics. It matches the tree inferred from the fossil record and even matches the work Linnaeus (a creationist) did based on morphology.

You have skeletal remains of several similar organisms and you assume from that that they are all related. That's like going to China and calling everyone Jackie Chan and Lucy Liu. Also, if evolution is not random then it is predictible and science should be able to predict a mutation before it occurs. Yes, this is like predicting the weather. But that's what the Farmer's Almanac does, maybe not exact weather patterns but general one and it has done it with great accuracy.

Genetic evidence is a lot stronger. For example, the endogenous retroviruses that I pointed out a while ago and you ignored. See?

As far as the experiment to make protiens goes, they weren't trying to make life. You're right. But they were trying to prove that the basics for life could occur in such an environment, and they failed at it. Even if they made all the protiens, they would have only proven one thing, that it takes intelligence to make those protiens.

I already said that we are talking about evolution, not abiogenesis. I will not talk about abiogenesis here. I will talk about it if you start a new topic.

My point of life being impossible without the pre-existence of necesarry protiens is valid. But apparently you're only discussing evolution and avoiding the question of albiogenesis. If you don't wish to discuss it, that's your right but it does leave a bit of a hole in your progression, especially if you believe the creation story to be factless. Furthermore, RNA cannot self replicate. That is a fallacy, there must be another mechanism besides RNA to replicate it. RNA is one of of the DNA strang. It replicates by attachign the other half to it and then tearing it apart. What, pray tell, tears it a part?

You know what, if you really want answers, read this. But we all know you don't want answers. That is why you ignore the majority of the posts. That is why you don't refute specific points. That is why you don't cite.

The argument ad hominen that I'm not a scientist so how dare I disagree with established scientific theory is moot. Scientific method is based off of critical thinking and asking questions of what we think we know. Many scientist and non-scientists have disagreed with popular belief and been proven right, not that popularity has anything to do with science, so you say.

You forgot the most important part of it, evidence. Provide evidence.

It was scientists that proved that piltdown man was a hoax. But Christians knew it was a hoax first.

Lies, lies, and damn lies. There was skepticism from the very beginning (link). Why? Because piltdown man did not fit. With it, human evolution made zero sense, without it, human evolution was logical.

My previous argument that everything proves evolution is admitedly poorly articulated. I meant to say that anything can be fitted into the framework of evolution meaning that if it stays the same, it's in an interim period or there are no stressors forcing change. If it changes, then there's your evolution. But after this point you are arguing evolutionary history. You all say that finding a man in cambrian soil would disprove evolution.

Finally, something correct.

How about a tree that runs though hundreds of thousands of years worth of soil deposits?

Polystrate trees? That was figured out in the 1800s. Remember what I said about checking talkorigins, this is on talkorigins.

How about the fossils of chittons on top of mountain tops?

What about it? They die, fall to the bottom the the ocean. Layers of sediment cover them and due to continenial drift mountains form with those layers (link).

Futhermore, there is no place where there has been a complete timeline in the fossil record. We only have bits and pieces and they have been ordered according to the evolutinary world view.

Fossilization is rare. We don't expect to have every fossil. But, there are some very good ones. And the theory of evolution has been used to predict the location and anatomy of specific fossils. The most recent example is Tiktaalk rosae (link).

You all seem to think that you're the only ones who knows what he's talking about. I've resisted arguments ad hominem but this takes it too far. My facts about gene replication and mutation, while incomplete, were accurate.

Then why did you say that cancer is the most prevalent mutation? Why did you say that there are no beneficial mutations and then fail to response to the examples given?

We understand evolution but you choose to use a very narrow definition of the word as opposed to the broader general usage. Again, it's an argument of semantics rather than actual fact. By that logic everyone who's ever used the term Creation v. Evolution has no idea what they're talking about and that would include pretty everyone who found the data to help prove evolution/abiogeneis and certainly creationism.

You mean, we use the actual definition instead of what you want it to mean. You're dealing with scientists, we use very specific language.

About your section on church beliefs. It doesn't matter what a church believes or what pastors teach. It only matter what the Bible teaches. It's a well known fact that Christians are the poorest examples of Christianity. Isn't it Gandhi that said "I would be Christian if I hadn't met so many of them?" What any church teaches may or may not be what the Bible teaches. It is important to make that distiction. Furthermore, many theologians (protestant mainly) do not accept Catholicism as actual Christianity, although it may be the most popular form of it. If you are to take examples of Christianity, do not take it from the Catholic church which is more relgio-political than religious. If you want to make a sticker to put on text books, as ludicrous of an idea as it is, it would be important to note that science hasn't come up with any answers to how life arose which is what the creation story is about. There are currently no good or widely accepted scientific theories as to the arrival of life, not life as we know it, but life. Period.

Do you really want to have your holy book under the scrutiny of scientific thought? Think about this for a second. Can you provide objective evidence of any of the following: God, the Resurection, Egypt's plagues, rods turning into snakes, or a global flood. If you have some, I would absolutely love to see it.

Yes, there is nothing random about chemistry. But there IS something random about the physics that governs chemistry. Ever hear of the electron cloud, entropy, fluid dynamics, or fission. All of these involve a factor of chance and all are necessary to the study of Chemistry. While the Chemistry itself may be predictible, the physics behind it is not. However, the chemistry of abiogeneis, as I have proved in my first post, is impossible, unless my science is incomplete which it very well may be.

Completey and totally off-topic. And do you know how arrogant you are coming across, trying to explain introductory chemistry and physics to scientists? I thought pride was sinful.

The only difference between atheism and religion is atheism starts witht he belief in nothing and religion starts with the belief in an everything. The only difference is the starting points. Science assumes that God isn't there while relgion does. The important thing is that we should all be using the same logic and factual awareness to arrive at the truth.

Then how in the world can there be so many religious scientists? Two that come to mind are Francis Collins (link) and Kenneth Miller (link).

 

[DJ_Ghost]

RTooty, let my beginin for thanking you for the relativly polite way in which you have conducted yourself durring this debate. it can not be easy, as you must be feeling a litttle bit overwhelmed by the number of peopel arguing against you and the lack of support.

I hope you don't feel my points are intended to attack or belitel you personaly.

Evolution in it's most popular form includes many attached peripheral ideas including albiogenesis and therefore in discussions of evolution, it must be treated as a relevant topic.

Relevant? Perhaps, but you are attempting to conflate the two.

Evolution is most certainly a ladder if only because of the element of time in which there is a progression, maybe not with one species replacing another but with one species coming out of another. But this branching bush effect is still just best guess and assumption. We haven't SEEN any of this occur. We have the before and after but no one has seen the process.

We don’t need to see it occur any more than I need to witness a crime to solve it, all I need to do is examine the evidence to learn the truth. Or would you argue that forensic science is some how not science because we reconstruct events we didn’t witness to learn the truth?

ou have skeletal remains of several similar organisms and you assume from that that they are all related.

No, we test the evidence to see if they are related.

My point of life being impossible without the pre-existence of necesarry protiens is valid. But apparently you're only discussing evolution and avoiding the question of albiogenesis.

No one is avoiding the question, we are pointing out that even if abiogenesis was proven wrong (which is unlikely, frankly) this would not effect the theory of evolution one iota, since the two theories explain different processes. Just as, if genesis was proven to be a forgery it would not prove the none existence of God.

The argument ad hominen that I'm not a scientist so how dare I disagree with established scientific theory is moot.

I would agree there to a point. An argument that some one is not able to disagree just because the theory is posited by some one of more qualifications is what we call a logical fallacy, the fallacy of argument from authority.

Having said that, it is important to point out there is a difference betweens argument from authority fallacy and asking some one if they are certain they understand the complexity of the science they are arguing against. I think both have been evident in this thread now and again.

Scientific method is based off of critical thinking and asking questions of what we think we know.

True, this is at the very heart of falsificationism. However, many of the questions you have asked, or points you have posed have been refuted many times and we already know they are flawed. This should not dissuade you from continuing to ask questions, but you should do it with an open mind.

My previous argument that everything proves evolution is admitedly poorly articulated. I meant to say that anything can be fitted into the framework of evolution

This is exactly why the method is falsifications. Now, rather than just looking for things that seem to support a theory, we look for things that would prove it wrong.

You all seem to think that you're the only ones who knows what he's talking about. I've resisted arguments ad hominem but this takes it too far. My facts about gene replication and mutation, while incomplete, were accurate. We understand evolution but you choose to use a very narrow definition of the word as opposed to the broader general usage.

No, we choose to use the actual scientific definition of the theory under debate. Ask yourself, why creationist sources like AIG always want to abandon the actual scientific definition of a theory they want to debate in order to use a wider definition? Does that not seem suspicious to you?

About your section on church beliefs. It doesn't matter what a church believes or what pastors teach. It only matter what the Bible teaches. It's a well known fact that Christians are the poorest examples of Christianity.

Now that is very dishonest of you. You know full well that the reason I pointed out what churches believe is because you claimed that all Christians were creationists. If you wish to alter your argument to all Christians SHOULD BE creationists, then do so, but admit that your earlier point, when you claimed that we all ARE creationists, was incorrect.

Furthermore, many theologians (protestant mainly) do not accept Catholicism as actual Christianity,

Actually, very few theologians deny that Catholicism is Christian, what they deny is that it is the only valid interpretation of Christianity.

The most commonly accepted definition of Christianity is that used by this forum, the acceptance of the creed of Nicea. By this rule of thumb, Catholicism is clearly christian.

although it may be the most popular form of it. If you are to take examples of Christianity, do not take it from the Catholic church

Well, I’m United reform, so I hardly take Catholicism as the bee all and end all, but then I don’t deny it as a Christian sect either.

which is more relgio-political than religious. If you want to make a sticker to put on text books, as ludicrous of an idea as it is…,

I t was your idea initially.

it would be important to note that science hasn't come up with any answers to how life arose which is what the creation story is about. There are currently no good or widely accepted scientific theories as to the arrival of life, not life as we know it, but life. Period.

Except abiogenesis of course, which is a widely accepted theory of how life began. Of course, even that does not rule out God, obviously.

Yes, there is nothing random about chemistry. But there IS something random about the physics that governs chemistry. Ever hear of the electron cloud, entropy, fluid dynamics, or fission.

One or twice. I may be a criminologist, but my step father was a physics professor. I’m not sure I could agree that physics is random eihter. Now phys8icists on the other hand.

However, the chemistry of abiogeneis, as I have proved in my first post, is impossible, unless my science is incomplete which it very well may be.

I’m afraid the chemistry of abiogenesis isn’t impossible, but I must say this sentence has impressed me greatly, because the last part of it demonstrates you have a reasonable and humble disposition.

The only difference between atheism and religion is atheism starts witht he belief in nothing and religion starts with the belief in an everything.

I absolutely agree with you on this point. I have long held that atheism is as much a belief system as theism. Despite being a theists myself, I actually also maintain that the most viable scientific stand point is agnosticism.

The only difference is the starting points. Science assumes that God isn't there while relgion does.

Please do not confuse science with atheism. Science states that ether is no need to assume the belief in a deity, not that their isn’t one. As my sigline points out, the existence or not of any deity is a metaphysical question ect…

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Well, no, that's not what I meant. What I'm saying is that the success of science, and the total lack of evidence for any deity, demonstrates that any god is highly, highly unlikely.

That wasn’t the point that you disagreed with me on though, that is a general apologetics point which wasn’t under discussion. What I said, which you begged to differ with, was that the scientific method is agnostic, rather than atheist.

Ghost

 

[Chalnoth]

That wasn’t the point that you disagreed with me on though, that is a general apologetics point which wasn’t under discussion. What I said, which you begged to differ with, was that the scientific method is agnostic, rather than atheist.

Well, not exactly. My point of disagreement is that it's dishonest to claim that science is "agnostic" because it implies that science has nothing to say on the matter, when it quite clearly does, because a god claim is a claim about the nature of reality, and science has no limits as to what sorts of claims about the nature of reality it can and cannot consider.

 

[Promethean]

Well, not exactly. My point of disagreement is that it's dishonest to claim that science is "agnostic" because it implies that science has nothing to say on the matter, when it quite clearly does, because a god claim is a claim about the nature of reality, and science has no limits as to what sorts of claims about the nature of reality it can and cannot consider.

I with DJ_G that science is by definition and necessity agnostic. Because science is functionally a materialist discipline it cannot address supernatural subjects. What we get from science is that there is no need to invoke supernatural explanations since the materialist approach suffices.

 

[Chalnoth]

I with DJ_G that science is by definition and necessity agnostic. Because science is functionally a materialist discipline it cannot address supernatural subjects. What we get from science is that there is no need to invoke supernatural explanations since the materialist approach suffices.

Except science comes back with a resounding "not bloodly likely" for the proposal that there exist ineffable entities (i.e. the supernatural).

The idea that science has nothing to say on the matter is declared by fiat by those that want to believe otherwise. There is no rational reason whatsoever to take this position.

 

[RTooty]

You misunderstood him. He said there were no fruit bearing plants until ~425 million years ago. Not that there were no plants.

Is did not misunderstand him. I followed the info mentioned. wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowering_plant - Evolution. It says:

"Land plants have existed for about 425 million years. Early land plants reproduced by spores like their aquatic counterparts. Marine organisms can easily scatter copies of themselves to float away and grow elsewhere. Land plants soon found it advantageous to protect their copies from drying out and other hazards by enclosing them in a case, the seed. Early seed bearing plants, like the ginkgo, and conifers (such as pines and firs), did not produce flowers.
The earliest fossil of an angiosperm, or flowering plant, Archaefructus liaoningensis, is dated to about 125 million years BP[1]. Pollen, considered directly linked to flower development, has been found in the fossil record perhaps as long ago as 130 million years."

So again, since there were no land plants, were these early animals supposed to be carnivores for nearly 200 million years? Someone mentioned that the early appearances of animals were supposed to be in the fossil record 610 million years ago.

 

[Vene]

There are photosynthetic bacteria (link). Actually, the chloroplasts in plant cells are a direct result of those bacteria. Plus, there are these neat little plants called algae. At that time, there really wasn't much in the way of land life.

 

[Chalnoth]

So again, since there were no land plants, were these early animals supposed to be carnivores for nearly 200 million years? Someone mentioned that the early appearances of animals were supposed to be in the fossil record 610 million years ago.

There were no land animals at that time either. The first amphibians didn't come about until around 370 million years ago. The first land animals (cockroaches, dragonflies, and scorpions) moved there around 420 million years ago, shortly after the first land plants.

As for the animals in the water, there were many water-borne plants for some of that time, and the earlier animals were filter feeders who ingested algae and other microorganisms.

 

[RTooty]

OK, after reviewing some of the points brought up, thoughts are still lingering….

Concerning polystrate trees, the article on talkorigins only explains how the roots of the tree could have gone through layers of coal, which makes perfect sense. But what doesn't make sense is the trunks of the tree going through layers of coal.

Concerning nylonase. The ability to process nylonase came at the cost of being able to process many other normal bacterial foods.

I think I'm beginning to understand what some have been saying about speciation. You're saying that the first organism is a general organism. You're saying they don't change into a different animal but a more SPECIFIC animal. When you put the list in a heirarchy like Vene or Chalnoth did, it makes more sense. But then, putting a heirarchal list like that essentially produces a ladder system of evolution in regards to specificity but it does make much more sense. If this specialization is what you mean, then my earlier asymptote analogy is even more precise. It must be conceded that changes in organisms just aren't dramatic as say, the leap to multicellularism. Each change gets smaller and smaller. Or perhaps its more akin to a sine function, but even that is limited.

You say we don't need to see the crime occur, but that's because we can test crime. We cannot test the origins of--say--pigeons. We can run expiriments, ballistics, DNA sequencing, fingerprinting, et cetera but we cannot reproduce evolution. We can observe the evolutionary crime scene post facto, we can record it before, but we cannot recreate it.

I looked at the ncbi link and none of them showed the production of adenine, cytosine, guanine, or uracil(again my earlier articulation may have been inadequte. Yes, they made some other organic compounds but you still need A, C, G, U to make DNA and therefore terrestrial life. Yes, proof against current abiogenesis theories would not discredit evolution. But if and since those theories don't hold much water, we are only really left with religious explanations as of present.

In regards to me dealing with scientists, forgive me if I wasn't exactly prepared to find intelligence on a public internet forum was even less prepared to go heads up against the A Team of internet evolutionism.

I have a hard time seeing how I said something dishonest when I was stating that there is a huge difference between what Christians believe and what the Bible teaches? I have never been dishonest. Hasty, yes. Incorrect, yes. But not dishonest. If you make a valid point I give you a valid point. If I find a flaw in your logic, I bring it up to either fully understand what you meant to say or for you to rethink your logic.

In regards to proof of God and rods into snakes, there is no proof. That's why the Bible is taken on faith. Many stories may not be provable by scientific/historic standards but I have yet to find anything that disproves a story in the Bible. As for the pi argument & the Bible not stating the correct value, the full diameter of the pull is 10 cubits. This is important information because this is the dimension that you need to know in order to find where to put it within the temple. The 30 cubits around is the measure of the inside ring. You need to know this measurment in order to know how much water it would hold. How assuming the circumference is 30 cubits, that would put the inside ring's diameter about 9.5 cubits. This would make the walls of the...whatever the hell this thing is (a "molten sea"?) about .25 cubits or about 4 inches thick. This makes perfect sense as its holding in about 1200 cubic feet of water (approx 9000 gallons).

The Nicean Creed says that Christianity is those who only worship God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit but the Catholic Church worships the Virgin Mary, The Apostle Peter, et cetera. Therefore, because of this violation, they are not Christian.

I have a question, is my basic explanation of chemistry of physics wrong? And yes pride is a sin. I never claimed to be perfect, just Christian. Beside, pride is a moot point in regards to science. You're right or you're wrong.