If there is "no evidence" for evolution...

[HitchSlap]

I think its is bad to call others trolls, considering the hatred involved in saying such things against another. Not because it is bad to say such a thing, instead to say such a thing against a person for no reason. A person who believes in God. I think Jesus may have been accussed of being a troll by those whose only concern is worldly matters such as hatred.

Meh, I think it's bad to troll.

 

[betterorworse]

I happen to think Adapting isn't bad. "Build up one's immune system" so on so forth. I just happen to believe that God already made it good.

Some may have another reason for existence(speak for yourself), and I don't have a problem with that. I just happen to believe in the fact that all that God has made is good.

It isn't the first time a believer in God has been attacked verbally, and probably won't be the last.

 

[Speedwell]

I happen to think Adapting isn't bad. "Build up one's immune system" so on so forth. I just happen to believe that God already made it good.

Some may have another reason for existence(speak for yourself), and I don't have a problem with that. I just happen to believe in the fact that all that God has made is good.

It isn't the first time a believer in God has been attacked verbally, and probably won't be the last.

If you think you are being attacked, it might be a good idea to ask yourself what you are being attacked for. I guarantee you that it is not for your belief in God.

 

[betterorworse]

So explain.

 

[Speedwell]

So explain.

I have been arguing evolution in forums like this for years. I have never been attacked for my belief in God. There are other Christians here and other kinds of theists, likewise. I have never known any of them to be attacked for belief in God. Yes, you will find athiests here who express their scorn for the idea that God exists, but I have never known one to "attack" a theist for it. For the most part they are quite repectful about it.

 

[betterorworse]

Ah, maybe we misunderstood. A poster accussed another of trolling and I just thought it wasn't appropriate to call others that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That said: I am uncomfortable with the idea that randomness created all of chemical biological life.

That might very well be... But reality doesn't owe you any comfort.
Wheter or not something is comforting to you, has no bearing on its accuracy.

I think if it were given a "nudge" once in a while from outside the universe such that certain important key quantum mechanical interactions were directed, not random, I would be much happier.

Great. But same as above: what makes you happy, has no bearing on what is actually true.

This idea is, of course, Intelligent Design, which I admit is not really science at all.

Indeed it is not.

 

[DogmaHunter]

An interesting article, thanks.

Yes of course if there were no intelligent designer then the laws of nature and the properties of matter would direct everything via randomness.

Why exactly do you call it "random"? I think you really mean "undirected by an entity", which is not the same thing.

Given the properties of the O and H atoms, and given the way chemistry works, it really isn't "random" that those atoms form H2O under certain conditions, for example

But this leads to the question of how the universe came to be set up in the first place with everything calibrated and fine-tuned and ready to create chemical biological life.

Sure. And it is a question that requires study and more science to be answered.

Proposing multiple universes or the inflationary phase after the big bang is not science.

That's not really accurate actually.
It's not confirmed theory by any means, sure.
But multi-verses aren't dreamed up out of thin air.... they are actually well-motivated.
They are predicted by various competing hypothesis concerning the origins and early development of the universe.

To paraphrase Lawrence Krauss, he'ld say:
"The multi-verse is not something we just invented or try to impose... it's something we are driven to by science. Because of the science, not because we want to - in fact, I don't even like the multi-universe. "

We are by no means at a stage where we can say that the multi-verse likely exists, that is certainly true. But it's really not so that the proposition thereof is arbitrary or alike. It is a prediction, made by several hypothesis that attempt to explain the origins and early development of this universe.

And so there comes a point at which my discomfort is well-founded.

"discomfort" is subjective and has no bearing on what is true or not.
To put it in perspective: I'm sure Newton wouldn't have been comfortable with the idea that time is relative.

Einstein literally wasn't comfortable with quantum mechanics and black holes - eventhough his own theories laid the foundations. He actually thought some of his ideas had to be wrong, as a direct result of that discomfort.

If science answers these questions, I will immediate accept these answers.

That's a very healthy attitude.

I'm always amazed when I see theists state the exact opposite. They'ld say "if science disagrees with my religion, then science is wrong".

 

[JoeP222w]

... then what have they been publishing in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology all these years?

(Not to mention other scientific journals like Evolution, Molecular Biology and Evolution, Journal of Molecular Evolution, Genome Biology and Evolution, and so on...)

Just because something is in a scientific journal does not mean it is truth. Peer review does not define truth.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Just because something is in a scientific journal does not mean it is truth. Peer review does not define truth.

Kind of true. Evidence defines what's true or not. And the evidence shows that evolution is true.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Just because something is in a scientific journal does not mean it is truth. Peer review does not define truth.

Sure. But it does mean that it has a scientific basis. And after 150 years of scientific publications in favor of evolution and not a single paper that counters it... well, let's just say that the evidence in support of it is taking on epic proportions.

Now, as for ideas that don't even make it to publication.... well.... you can figure it out, right?

 

[JoeP222w]

And after 150 years of scientific publications in favor of evolution and not a single paper that counters it.

Because scientific journals would never publish anything countering Evolution, whether it is valid or not.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Because scientific journals would never publish anything countering Evolution, whether it is valid or not.

Ah, so we're already on the 'worldwide conspiracy to keep Creationists out of scientific publications already'. That was quick.

 

[JoeP222w]

Ah, so we're already on the 'worldwide conspiracy to keep Creationists out of scientific publications already'. That was quick.

Ok, can you demonstrate where a Creationist paper was published in a scientific journal? If you can, I will stand corrected.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ok, can you demonstrate where a Creationist paper was published in a scientific journal? If you can, I will stand corrected.

No. I can't. But why should I?

 

[JoeP222w]

No. I can't. But why should I?

Then my point stands. No contrary document to evolution is published in scientific journals.

You implied I was in error or that I was believing in some kind of conspiracy. Since you cannot provide evidence that I am wrong, your argument is from silence.

By the way, I don't think it is a "worldwide conspiracy". It is just man suppressing the truth due to his unrighteousness before the holy God.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then my point stands. No contrary document to evolution is published in scientific journals.

You implied I was in error or that I was believing in some kind of conspiracy. Since you cannot provide evidence that I am wrong, your argument is from silence.

By the way, I don't think it is a "worldwide conspiracy". It is just man suppressing the truth due to his unrighteousness before the holy God.

No your argument is from silence, not mine. I'm not the one making the claim that 'science' about Creationism, one of the most unscientific ideas to ever be created, is being suppressed in a conspiracy.
You made the claim that no anti-evolution papers are being published, so you have to provide the evidence to back up that claim.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Because scientific journals would never publish anything countering Evolution, whether it is valid or not.

Haaa.... it's a global conspiracy among millions of scientists, on a scale that the world has never seen before, right?

Uhu.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ok, can you demonstrate where a Creationist paper was published in a scientific journal? If you can, I will stand corrected.

It is published nowhere, for the exact same reason that geology journals aren't publishing flat earth papers or that embryology journals aren't publishing papers on Stork Theory.

 

[Jimmy D]

Then my point stands. No contrary document to evolution is published in scientific journals.

Maybe the reason for that is because creationist scientific papers don't exist, or contain only pseudo-scientific nonsense that doesn't stand up to scrutiny?