Redstate

A sensible discussion. I wish I wasn't at work.

... I'm interested in what you think.

Unless I misunderstand you, you are attempting to either prove or disprove a supernatural event by scientific method.

Let us turn to your reference Wikipedia

The supernatural refers to conscious magical, religious or unknown forces that cannot ordinarily be perceived except through their effects. This word is often used interchangeably with preternatural or paranormal. Unlike natural forces, these putative supernatural forces can not be shown to exist by the scientific method. Supernatural claims assert phenomena beyond the realm of current scientific understanding, which are often in direct conflict with current scientific theory.

For what it's worth I think the "big bang" theory requires no less credulity than believing in the "seven days" version.

great, great resistance to the idea that the earth was round by mostly religious "scientist" as they called themselves. On the other hand there were once alchemist who determined that life could be created in a bottle. Both were wrong of course.

Facts are in a haze for biological evolution, they are strong for geologic evolution and as far as some physics are concerned, have not been disproved at all. For instance; so far there is not a single experiment that has done anything but to reinforce all aspects of the Quantum Physics Theory.

It may very well be that throwing a 10 lbs. metal ball into a concrete wall and me and others observing that wall became damaged is only a theory or hypothesis that it became damaged, but it sure does look that way to me.

For instance; it is my observation that there are no written accounts in any religious doctrine that refer to living with creatures resembling dinosaurs, especially those that were 30-40-50-60-70 feet and more in height and length. Why is that? Were those fossils put there by God? And , if they were why? And, why isn't there any reference to them?

Certainly, if we did indeed live with such creatures someone would have written about them and described them accurately as they have described most things from history to the best of their ability. This probably means God put them there and that they were never alive at all. But why did he do that? What does he want us to do? Is that a test of our faith? Is that what this fossils are all about? My observation says no, but nevertheless, it could be a faith test.

I am very spiritual, and have no problem in the thought of our interpretationn of some things in any religious doctrine as inaccurate. A simple return to my childhood and the experience of going to many different churches in dozens of cities and towns shows me how different each pastor, minister, rabbi or other can interpret and retell their readings. Nor do I have any problem in the thought of many parts of science not being incorrect.

To me, God never meant for anything to be absolute, as everything changes in time, no matter how he created it.

As with earth itself, one day, as both the bible and science note, there will be no earth and it will be destoryed by fire. Wow, in this point they both agree.

He's at least suggesting that the "young earth" part of what some creationists believe could be proven wrong.

I haven't gone as far as characterize the creationists' theory of how the earth and the rest of existence came to be as supernatural.

Do you view the creation story as being outside of just contemporary scientific understanding, or do you think that scientific understanding will never reach the point of being able to explain the creationists' story? In other words, if creationism is supernatural and outside of science now, do you think that will always be the case, or do you think that science will be able to explain the creation story and back the story up with enough observable evidence that an honest scientific person would be able to say that the theory of intelligent creation is the most likely explanation for the origin of the universe?

characterize an act of God?

To attempt to prove an act of God, outside acknowledging it exists, seems to me to border on the futile.

From your construct, creationists would then have the additional burden of poking and prodding the Almighty to prove His existence.

that science to confirm creationism in time. But, I think the other too, that it is the measurement of time that creationist may end up having incorrect.

Given your faith and your mention of destruction by fire, do you think that the events described in Revelations (interpreted tightly or loosely) describes the fate of humans, the fate of Earth, or the fate of the rest of the universe? In other words, assuming that the end times happen with the good people going to a heaven and the sinners going to hell, could sinners escape eternal damnation by fleeing Earth?

Just some random musings...

...because it is not a scientific hypothesis. It is a full blown theory of the original of the universe and all it contains that one has the option of believing or not.

By definition, Creationism cannot be scientifically disproven because it is not a scientific hypothesis. It has not been developed as an hypothesis. The assumptions that would underlie such an hypothesis have not been adumbrated. Those assumptions have not been tested by experimentation. Nor have the design and results of those experiments been published.

As Richard Dawkins has pointed out, Darwin's theory was the first scientifically viable alternative account of the origin and diversity of life on earth. Prior to Darwin no consistent alternative existed to the stories of myth and the origin as revealed in various sacred texts.

Darwin's hypothesis that biological diversity can be accounted for by genetic mutation refereed by the viability of the mutations is a scientific hypothesis that has been subjected to 150 years of the testing and revision as the scientific method and tradition requires.

Meanwhile, certain assumptions of the theory of evolution have proven deeply offensive and challenging to those who believe the revealed truth of the original testament of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god must be taken at its word. The faithful believe that human dignity is offended by the assumption that we are descended from "lesser" species and that the creation of Adam and Eve is not literally true. Their beliefs are further challenged by the requirement that evolution as currently understood can only occur over a great deal more time than a literal reading of the original testament would permit.

Creationism is essentially a scientific sounding term for a literal reading of the original testament. It is not a scientific hypothesis. It is a position taken regarding the validity of the revelation contained in the original testament.

Darwin's hypothesis that biological diversity can be accounted for by genetic mutation refereed by the viability of the mutations is a scientific hypothesis that has been subjected to 150 years of the testing and revision as the scientific method and tradition requires.

All this is fine and good for subspecies mutations. To date there has been no evidence of creation of a new species that can propagate itself. Hybrids such a mules, ligers, wallaroos are sterile.

Added to that there is more art than science in taxonomy (which is being established daily as DNA is analyzed) the identification of species itself is a doubtful accomplishment.

But that's what science does. And sometimes those mysteries that seemed forever hidden to human understanding yield to the inexorable grasping of our curiosity, and become known.

For the record, the formation of the Earth and the solar system is in no way, shape, form, or matter controversial. The formation of the universe is understood back to within 1e-45 seconds after the big bang -- and we're probing deeper. There's still room for God -- but there's also room for no God, if you prefer.

Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars - mere globs of gas atoms. Nothing is 'mere'. I too can see the stars on a desert night, and feel them. But do I see less or more? -- Feynman

my faith is in God (For lack of a better description) in whatever form that may be, because I do not know. My faith is not in a man made book. If there are any relevances between them it is small and sometimes coincidental. (i.e. destruction by fire) and (man will be able to do all things in time [near the end] according to Christian scripture and those related to it).

To be spiritual, for me I cannot exclude all others with differing religions or faiths. All others with different views. All others with polar opposite religious reflection. This to me is absurd. I think translation of religious text is far more likely to be incorrect than current science.

To me all religious doctrine seems to have one overwhelming message, "BE GOOD TO EACH OTHER".

I have no idea the fate of mankind on earth other than what I see that science has provided, and that could be incorrect I realize. I believe God or whatever, never meant for us to ignor and make ourselves stupid. i.e. "The earth is flat".

I have no idea what will eventually happen to the universe either with science or doctrine.

And finally, and most controversial I am sure, I go back when I did decades of work on this subject years and years ago, I think the concept of hell as a total joke. When the Spanish first began the translation in the 1100's they had no idea what "Zero" meant. I am not even going to say here what that ended up doing to the original message, but it was enough for me to dismiss many parts of the biblical text altogether.

As with the idea of creationism, it is defined as being undefinable, not available to scientific scrutiny because it's creation was Godly. So too was the bible to me, it is argued to be created devinely and by God and not available to scientific scrutiny nor available to literal interpretation because we cannot understand those things created devinely.

If you take the literal arguement for creationism and why it cannot be disproven by scientific means, then so too the bible has the same rules apply by biblican definition and cannot be interpreted accurately or literally, but only losely for a general message with nothing specific that it relevant.

If you accept the universality of God then moving off planet is not going to help you. When its over, its over everywhere, fat lady singing or not. :-)

Would I be misrepresenting the creationist views by saying that creationists think that each species on Earth are generally identical to their form when first created by a higher power as described by religious texts?

That is, throwing aside categorizations that humans invent for living things, plants and animals and other living things have basically reproduced since the beginning of time without any significant changes? So, I could go back in time to minutes after the creation and easily identify modern versions of life? (A human is easily recognized as a human, blue jays as blue jays, and so forth.)

If this is the case, then in the eyes of a creationist, are species like Neanderthals and other advanced (but inferior to humans) primates parallel, but extinct species?

... but is there textual support that it is about the end of Earth, or the end of humanity? At one point, there wasn't much of a difference. However I'm wondering how it would be interpreted given modern technology.

Even the young Earth proposition is quite unfalsifiable. It is, after all, quite reasonable to posit that an omnipotent, ineffable God might very well have created a universe which appeared to all scientific inquiry to have existed for many billions of years, even though it may have existed only since, say, Wednesday. An infinite and omnipotent God is hardly to be bothered by concerns of detail or scale; He could, it is supposed, have created the universe, in toto, complete with photons in mid-transit from stellar and non-stellar objects.

Likewise, (macro)evolution is difficult to disprove, because the timespans it is presumed to operate on are far, far longer than a human lifespan--which is practically as good as infinite.

cjkarr "...with the good people going to a heaven and the sinners going to hell..."

Just for clarification, Chritianity does not support your formulation.  We believe everyone is "bad" (sinful), but that belief in Jesus Christ will enable eternal life with God (the opposite of hell.)  

I realize you were simply trying to pose a question, but please, it's just as easy to posit it correctly:

"In other words, assuming that the end times happen with believers in Christ being eternally joined with God, and non-believers eternally separated from Him,  could the latter group escape said separation by fleeing earth?"  

Posing the question accurately answers it precisely, i.e. "No".

Does it upset me that this Christian view is so dominate in America, where it was native American Indians that ruled these lands since the beginning?

Does it upset me that it isn't the Great Spirit that actually created all things, including the Christian God, the Hindu God and all others for the benefit of those people isn't the prominant religion in America? (and there isn't any proof that didn't happen).

No.

It's just as absurd the other way, but the other way has votes and this one doesn't, and many times that seems to be the only difference for those seeking power and discussing this issue.

... though I have one question. In you interpretation, what precisely does separation mean? Does it mean being tortured for the rest of eternity, or is it more along the lines of life will go on, just without the Christians?

Apologies to all for all of my end times questions. I find different people's interpretations of Revelations to be fascinating.

perhaps the only person of earth to make this statement with such certitude.

I see in another post that you are upset about being lumped in with defenders of creationism, and that was the intended target of my remark. Naturally one can debate the precise details but the timeline for the formation of the Earth is quite well established from a variety of evidence.

If you are looking for scientific theories to criticize, the mechanism of evolution seems to me to be poorly understood. Just stay away from knocking astronomy and we'll get along fine...

I do very earnestly believe that science must continuously seek to push the bounds of our understanding, especially into areas that may seem mystical to us at present. This is not to deny the existence of God; as in the Feynman quote I referenced, I think that many times understanding how something works makes it more, not less, miraculous.

The logic goes like this. Because it takes light so long to travel from distant objects to earth, therefore those objects must be at least that old.

The counter argument goes like this. Because God created those distant objects, he can also create all the photons in transit between here and there. It wouldn't do much good for Him to create those awesome sights in the sky if the people He created them for couldn't see them for another several million years...

The problem either way is that possibilities are arbitrarily excluded from consideration which could logically have fit within the context of each theory. To say the photons couldn't have been created is to presuppose that God couldn't or wouldn't create them, i.e. only natural forces could be responsible. To say that the photons were created is to presuppose that natural forces weren't at play. Either way, some form of faith is exercised.

In a scientific context the goal is to seek to eliminate all other explanations. Only then can it be considered beyond doubt. Even then science has a track record of revision. For example, new evidence shows that the universe is actually expanding at an accelerated rate, meaning the previous theory that it would eventually slow and collapse is false. That obviously means the previously "established" timelines are actually wrong. There is an article in Discover magazine about this. (Yes, I know that may come as a shock that I actually read such a magazine.)

At any rate, lets take the constant revisions of science off the table for a moment. The larger point is that the timeline of astronomy can only be considered established if you rule out any supernatural creative events. To do so it to put God in a box. You are essentially saying He could create a star, but not the photons between here and there. That He could create an expanding Universe, but He couldn't have created them across vast reaches of space with an existing motion. I could go on, but I think you get my point.

On the issue of dinosaurs, the Bible is pretty silent. However, there are explanations of earth history in a Biblical context that include living dinosaurs. In fact, there are many evangelicals that believe dinosaurs were on the ark. The Bible mentions categories of creatures, yet not every specific creature. That doesn't mean that the Bible says that trilobytes never existed. In fact, if anything dinosaurs would have likely existed during the rather boring parts of Genesis where only lineages are described (but not during the detailed recounting of Jewish history) along with a few stories about the first murder and first city, etc.

To give an example of an explanation, the Bible makes it very clear that the climate of Earth was radically different after the flood. Rainbows didn't exist before, nor did rain occur. Not only did water fall from the sky, but it spewed from reservoirs buried deep beneath the earth. After the flood, we had regular rain and water vapor in the air.

Combine this with the theory that a dramatic climate change resulted in the extinction of dinosaurs. It is very possible that both coincide and fit. If so, then it would also be reasonable to speculate about them being on the ark. And to deal with the argument of space, I should point out that scripture never said specifically whether the species were young or old. Simple common sense would say that baby animals (and thus small) would be those preserved on the ark. Another note is that scholars are also somewhat divided over the theory of a global flood vs a local flood. So there are many areas of difference, and the above is a presentation of just one of those theories that deals with the issue of dinosaurs.

The larger point is that the timeline of astronomy can only be considered established if you rule out any supernatural creative events. Agreed. The job of science is to explain what we observe. But I think it's important to note that even when science succeeds spectacularly well and removes the necessity for a God, it doesn't mean there's no place for religion. You don't need to postulate that God created the photons in between the stars in midflight to realize the awesome majesty of creation could be reflective of a higher power.    

While we like to speculate about the possibility of hyperspatial travel and warp technology, there is no solid evidence that I am aware of that such things exist and would make interstellar travel possible. Two thoughts come to mind:

1. That interstellar travel may in fact be impossible given our limited lifespans (even including ideas of hibernation). If that is so, then Revelation need not allow for the possibility of an escape from earth.
   
2. Revelation may occur before such technology is developed. If so, there is no need to deal with a possible escape from earthly destruction.

I look at how little we have done in terms of space travel over the decades since we first put a man into space, and I am not overly hopeful about the possibilities of travel to other hospitable planets outside our solar system, much less to nearby planets in our solar system.

You should be hesitant to lump all creationists into one simple category. For more detail on the variations within the "creationist" camp, see this post. Someone like Hugh Ross would postulate exactly what you said above, except he would say that there were non-human precursors to man that no longer exist. Those precursors had no soul or anything else that separates man from the rest of the animals. Young earth creationists generally challenge many aspects of the fossil record.

It is one thing to put scientific efforts to work in collecting data. It is another to postulate about historical cause. The problem with applying scientific experimentation to a historic question, is significant. For example, suppose we create life in a laboratory. The problem then becomes one of proving that such a process occurred naturally on our young planet. In other words, I could document all the prerequisites for a natural occurance of the beginning of life, but the trouble becomes proving that such conditions actually did exist on earth in the past. It is not enough to emphatically state that they MUST have existed that way simply because we are here today asking the question.

Looking at origins of the universe, both rely on supernatural explanations. Whether God exists or not, both explanations rely on a "matter out of nothing" hypothesis. The problem with that is that whether you believe in God or not, it is belief in a supernatural beginning. The question becomes what was responsible for the supernatural event? It is no less silly to postulate that it was God than to postulate that nature produced a supernatural event. It is the question of cause, not of whether the event happened.

The same is true of the question of evolution. Even if the biological timeline is accepted as offered by paleontologists, the question of cause is still outstanding and unprovable. One could say that random chances produced evolution. Or one could say that God supernaturally crafted each step in the progression of the fossil record--just that He did it over a long time.

I find little inconsistency in the old earth vs. the young earth positions. I know that many in each camp tend to look with disdain at those in the other camp, citing ignorance of evidence or weakness of faith, but I find such bickering to be counterproductive and of little benefit. On one hand, confining God in the box of time suggests that He is more like us in temporal perspective than He really is. If God created the universe and authored the laws of physics, including time, then He is more different in perspective from us than we are from ants. IOW, he must exist outside of time and space. On the other hand to put God in the vastness of creation and universe box, we assume limits on His power. IOW, He was limited in creation by the laws of physics and time. I'm not ready to put God in either box and rule it an open and shut case of either faith or geological evidence.

See my last post at the bottom. I honestly believe there is a spiritual case for both old and young creation theories. I have my opinions on the subject. Yet I also recognize that each camp imposes some silent limitations on the nature, purpose, and character of God. That is why I am not very dogmatic about my opinion. I think creationism is a very big tent, and the latest movement, intelligent design, promotes this very perspective.

If that is where our modern Bible comes from, you'd have a good point here. The simple fact is that there are texts traceable back to within a century or two of the writing of each book. And such texts translated today are not dependent on what the Spanish did or did not do in the 1100's. Nor are the problems of the Spanish an invalidation of the text they were translating. If scripture is invalid, you have to find a different argument to present.

I also don't understand how translations are an insurmountable problem when many can read scripture in the language it was originally written in.

... I'd suggest reading Stephen Baxter's "Manifold Space". It's a big-idea hard sci-fi book that deals with some of these issues.

I've heard of this before, but I've always wondered whether there are any paleontologists who support the idea of humans coexisting with dinosaurs. Given the relative richness of the fossil record, wouldn't we find human bones and fossils that are comparable in age using modern carbon and other dating technologies. Have such fossils been recovered?

Also, if there was no rain prior to the flood, how did shallow-rooted vegetation receive moisture to grow? I can't imagine grass being able to grow in an environment with no rain. Given that the potential for evolution is discounted in these circles, the odd situation would arise where we have modern fragile plants growing in arid areas.

Pardon my skepticism, but is there anyone in the scientific community that takes these ideas seriously?

According to mainstream science, a non-supernatural process where swirling disks of dust and stellar mass coalesced and created the solar planetary system. (Astronomically-inclined folk, please step in and correct any misstatements.) In the view of mainstream science, once you get past the initial big-bang, the creation of the galaxies, stars, and planets can be explained using well understood theories such as gravitation and atomic theories. It is not also inconceivable that this can be an observed process (if it's not already) by looking to the stars and observing similar planetary systems forming.

According to the creation story, the creation of the earth and the universe were one and the same. (God taking the void and separating the earth and the sky. Biblical folk, please correct me if I'm wrong.) The origin of the earth is just as supernatural as the creation of the universe, given the involvement of a higher intelligence.

Taking these two theories and evaluating them from a scientific perspective, is it fair to say that the origin story that is not supernatural is superior in a scientific sense to the one that is supernatural. That is, should the pursuit of knowledge using scientific methods place more weight on theories that use ordinary non-supernatural processes than those that rely upon the involvement of supernatural forces for justification? Ockham's razor certainly suggests so.

Thoughts?

Generally, what people refer to as the scientific community (in this context) is the group of people firmly committed to the philosophy of naturalism. Among those people, of course none would affirm anything related to God, much less the Bible. There are Christian scientists and scholars that have invested lots of research into these areas. It is up to you whether you would call them scientists. I see nothing about the scientific method that says you can't believe in God, or that the Bible is accurate while testing your theories and hypothesis.

Yet this reveals the inadequacy of science. Science can test theories today. They can't test historical events. You can't run a series of experiments to prove that Abraham Lincoln existed.

I admit I am unfamiliar with the bulk of research around the topic of the flood and dinosaurs, so I am not a good person to ask to substantiate such theories. I meant merely to point out that such theories exists and have been explored in light of evidence. IIRC, there have been some cave drawings discovered that include pictures of dinosaurs, but I just don't recall for sure. If you are interested, I'd suggest googling, because I don't have any specific book references for you and if I were to provide some it would be from googling myself without knowing the quality of the book(s).

There is a difference between what can be explained and what happened. I could say that my car rolled down my driveway into the alley because I forgot to set my parking brake. Or I could say that someone took it out of my garage and left it in the alley. Both are plausible, but just because one is plausible doesn't make it the factual recounting of what happened to the exclusion of the other possibility.

the creation of the earth and the universe were one and the same.

Not exactly. The creation of other celestial bodies came after that.

is it fair to say that the origin story that is not supernatural is superior in a scientific sense to the one that is supernatural.

No, I don't think that is fair to say. In light of Gould saying that "gradualism has always been in trouble" though remaining the official position of evolutionists (full quote in this post) I don't find it to be necessarily superior. I studied chemistry for a few years. In light of the laws that govern chemical reactions, I see no reason to believe that the process of going from simple low energy molecules and disorder to complex high energy molecules and order is sustainable. Having a degree in mathematics, I see no reason that the science of statistics would support such a theory based on random chance. I also don't believe the science that creates things like Pro-avis out of thin air to explain the transition from reptile to bird is any more reputable as a result of that theory. Nor do I find the science that takes a skullcap, three teeth, and femur and turns it into a very detailed description of Pithecanthropus erectus (accompanied by drawings) to be something of superiority.

Now don't get me wrong. I am not saying scientists shouldn't pursue knowledge and shouldn't seek to find practical explanations to events. What I am saying is that evolution is elevated to the level of fact in education circles and it need not be. What I see happening is evolutionists postulating things like physics being different in the past to explain away the laws of thermodynamics. Well, why not just say God defied thermodynamics? Why is one greater and the other lesser when one simply avoids the term "supernatural" through symantic gymnastics. I don't even mind evolution taught in biology...as long as its problems are clearly explained. All too often, you only get the pretty side of the evidence without hearing that Gould has abandoned the theory of gradualism in favor of punctuated equilibrium (which sounds a whole lot more like special creation spaced out over a long period of time than it does evolution as taught in high school).

No matter what your belief system, man never coexisted with the big reptiles.

If there is a paleontologist who believes otherwise, he is very, very lonely.

The folks in the scientific community are probably more diverse in their personal beliefs than you might think.  Glumping them all into a naturalism box is no more fair than saying all Christians are fundamentalists who believe in the literal reading of the Bible.

as well as I do the origins, and more than most I have meet to date. A descriptive allegory shouldn't be taken so literally. I cannot go into the particulars about what happened with the Spanish unless you really feel compelled to do so in which case I will try to humor you. But, I think you know as well as me what happened without it having to be spread out over endless entries and personal passages so I will forego that effort and offer this final sentiment if I may.

Many elements of the New testiment can be disputed, and they can be disputed over time, over translation, over interpretation and so on. Any good debate over the issue is fundamentally healthy. I attempt to use instances to reflect and lend to points of arguement only for the end purpose to make a theological point [which by definition is nearly impossible to do]. I truly am not interested in going into every single point that you find contentious or is subject to scrutiny of every level, unless you absolutely must have it that way, in which case again I will try to humor you.

but it sure sounds like "I can't argue with what you just said so I'll just accuse you of being argumentative as a smoke screen"

If you must go into particulars about the Spanish, feel free. However, I'm telling you that it is completely irrelevant to the subject of translations. If we were simply translating today translations of translations from the Spanish, it would be relevant. However, the Spanish are bypassed when we translate the Dead Sea scrolls or other second century NT manuscripts. I fail to see how human failures in translation long after the writing of scripture has any bearing on the validity of early manuscripts. But I'd love to see where my reasoning is deficient.

I clearly wasn't talking about all scientists. The physicist and chemist do not have to invoke philosophy to practice their science. However an evolutionist has to invoke naturalism (which presupposes that no supernatural events have ever had a part in our origins). I know of no evolutionist that is not a naturalist. Do you have any counter examples? [And don't list any old earth creationists, because they are not evolutionists.]

For the sake of friendly discussion I'll find the info. I'll need some time, [trying work, but interested as well. it's remote to find, but compelling nonetheless when found. And, how these instances reflect what was divorced from the bible altogether as so many books were, (it gets better), from the very same sources you've mentioned.

What I am asking is how such issues reflect upon the actual text itself. There is no doubt that translations differ and that humans are fallible. However, noting such things does not by proxy prove that scripture is itself wrong. That is where I have a problem with what you said above.

As an example, the Inquisition simply shows what happens when man twists scripture to support his own cruel ends. It doesn't mean that scripture itself supported the actions and interpretations. So while history is rife with such abuses, they don't present a compelling argument that scripture is the source of the abuse.

The entire issue began with my intonation and "Personal Views" from a question entitled.

"Off-Topic Question"

These personal views are "My" interpretation as, and in the content of, the original question, seems you missed that.

The Inquisition is not my focus whatsoever, and that assuption was incorrect. How I see things because I mentioned that "fire" is something both evolution and theology agree upon as the instrument of final destruction and how that may affect my "personal" views has nothing remotely to do with your necessity to reason that all things must meet your own personal inflections and standards of accuracy that have nothing to do with the point whatsoever.

His book and it's theories are horrendous(excerpt)

First of all, it is not for the faint of heart (1433 pages), or for anyone with anything else to do with his or her life. And second, the writing is so inflated, both polysyllabically and by median sentence length that the dutiful reader cannot help feeling that he or she has been sentenced indeed. Here is a sample outpouring, masquerading as a single sentence:

"On the second branch of full efficacy for natural selection as an externalist and functionalist process, the stunning discoveries of extensive deep homologies across phyla separated by more than 500 million years (particularly the vertebrate homologs of arthropod Hox genes) - against explicit statements by architects of the Modern Synthesis (see p. 539) that such homologies could not exist in principle, in a world dominated by their conception of natural selection - forced a rebalancing or leavening of Darwinian functionalism with previously neglected, or even vilified, formalist perspectives based on the role of historical and structural constraints in channeling directions of evolutionary change, and causing the great clumpings and inhomogeneities of morphospace - phenomena that had previously been attributed almost exclusively to functionalist forces of natural selection. [pg. 26]"

Such billowing clouds of verbal flatulence herald a new phenomenon - the literate bio-terrorist - or maybe a biologically literate deconstructionist, more interested in generating complex clauses than in communicating anything.

Gould is so eager to beat his own drums that objectivity is lost altogether. The interested reader will find essentially no Haeckel or Spencer, a smattering of Cuvier, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and Owen, lots of Paley and Weismann, snatches of Goethe (Gould is fond of archetypes, leading to his soft spot for Goethe's claim that all plant parts are modified leaves), and then: on Theodor Eimer's theory of orthogenesis, and on Alpheus Hyatt's ideas of phyletic life cycles and ontogeny, on C. O. Whitman's orthogenetic analysis of pigeons (from which Gould quotes approvingly that "natural selection waits for opportunities to be supplied, not by multifarious variation or orderless mutation, but by continuous evolutional processes advancing in definite directions"), on William Bateson's search for the causes of discontinuous variation, on Hugo De Vries's "mutation theory," as well as on Goldschmidt's now discredited "systemic mutations" and "hopeful monsters." Of such stuff are 1400-page tomes created, not evolved.

Science can be used to test theories of evolution vs theories of creation.  But first we must agree on our definition of, and scope for, science.  Using your Wikipedia (which seems to be a very good source of information, by the way), I prefer to use the older definition for science (which comes from the Latin word, scientia, and means knowledge).  As I've said before in other posts, even secular historians agree that were it not for Christianity in Western Civilization during the Middle Ages, we would not have science as we know it today.  Up until that time, science had started in older civilizations, but always died an aborted death.  There are many reasons for this, but to give a few reasons:  the God of the Bible seems to want to reveal Himself both through the Bible (His Special Revelation) and through nature (His General Revelation).  Theology became the study of God's Word, Science became the study of nature.  Early scientists EXPECTED to learn more about God and what God has done through a systematic, detailed, verifyable study of nature.  But as Wikipedia nicely points out, "more recently, 'science' has come to be restricted to what used to be called 'natural science' or 'natural philosophy' ".  In other words, science has been REDEFINED to restrict itself to just a naturalistic/ materialistic point of view (probably occurred during the rise of Darwinism).

Nevertheless, models can be developed for both Creationism (permits supernatural events to occur RARELY) and Evolutionism (rejects any possible supernatural events in the past).  One of the great failures for the Creationists are that, although they like to "punch holes" in various Evolutionary models, they rarely are willing to present any coherent/ testable Creation model for Evolutionists to falsify.  But now, thankfully, this situation is beginning to be rectified and the contest can return to a more rational base.

One of the leaders in the Old Earth Creationism points of view is Dr. Hugh Ross.  He and his team of Creationists at Reasons to Believe (www.reasons.org) are working on a testable Biblical Creation model which can make testable predictions.  If these predictions fail, it casts doubt on the model...but if future scientific findings are in agreement with the model, it gives the model greater credibility. Of course, science will never be able to "prove" absolutely any theory/ model...but it can give a guide to the probability that any particular model may be true or false.

For example, if the universe as a whole was designed for a purpose (such as for the appearance of intelligent life...the ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE), as time goes by, scientists will find more and more evidence of "fine-tuning"...ie "design") in the laws of nature, the intitial parameters of the "big bang", the uniqueness of a life supporting solar system and Earth-like planet.  On the other hand, if there is no Designer and everthing is by "chance" via naturalistic/ materialistic means, then scientists will be able to come up with reasonable ways to explain away the apparant "fine-tuning" in nature, scientists will find our solar system is NOT too unique and our planet is NOT too unlike other planets that might also have a chance to support life.  However, over the last 50 years, the evidence for design keeps rolling in.

Similarly, if life originated "by chance" and not by "Special Creation", chemists should be able to come up with a reasonable scenario for how a "simple cell" could have originated (either here on earth, or elsewhere and was then transported here).  However, instead of coming up with a better and better idea as to how this may have happenned, evidence keeps rolling in just how complicated a "simple cell" really is and how impossible all those chemicals could have come together by some strictly naturalistic way.

As for the origin of the species, the fossil record reveals species seem to "pop" into existence in the fossil record, remain relatively unchanged, then go suddenly extinct...only to be replaced by another new species that "pops" into existence with no transitional forms.  This seems to go against traditional "gradualism", or "Neo-Darwinism".  Neo-Darwinism has a reasonable sounding mechanism (small mutations that build up over time and which finally result in a new species).  But the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record seems to falsify this model.  A substitute Evolutionist model called "Punctuated Equillibrium" tries to face this lack of transitional forms in the fossil record by saying that what happens is that as 1 species begins to decline and becomes isolated, the species is stressed and change occurs rapidly until a new species emerges, then undergoes a popultion explosion as more fit to face the competition and the environment.  When the population is small and changing "rapidly", it is unlikely to leave behind any transitional fossil evidence.  This may seem to fit the fossil record, but there is no reasonable naturalistic mechanism for this to occur!  If large numbers of organisms spread over large areas cannot "build up" enough mutations over a long period of time to produce a new species, what do you think is likely to occur to a few organisms under stress in a small area??? (Hint: extinction!...common sense seems to tell us that just from real time experience nowadays).  On the other hand, from an Old Earth Creation point of view with God creating over 6 long periods of time, the fossil record agrees with this...especially with God "resting" after 6 days and no more new species being created after the appearance of mankind in the fossil record.  Evolutionists need to either find more new species in the fossil record after the appearance on man, or come up with a good explanation for the lack of new species since the appearance of mankind.

Then there is the origin of Homo sapiens sapiens.  If we evolved from other "hominids", we should have increasing evidence of this in the fossil record and there should be some DNA evidence for this.  But if mankind is the result of a "special creation" event by God, we would expect a discontinuity in the fossil record and DNA evidence between mankind & other hominids.  The more hominids found in the fossil record, the more cloudy the "evolutionary tree" becomes for mankind.  With every new find, there seems to be a re-shuffling of the evolutionary tree.  It was thought the Neanderthals were related to humans (there is evidence they even co-existed for a while between 50,000-30,000 years ago (more or less).  But this idea was shot down by mitochondrial DNA analysis recovered from some Neanderthal specimens and both old/ recent human specimens...there seems to be NO evidence that we descended from Neanderthals or came from a common close ancestor.  Again, fossil & DNA analysis seems to be running AGAINST Evolution and in favor of Old Earth Creationism.

Whole new fields are openning up (such as information theory) that point out the unlikelyhood of a naturalistic means for the accumulation of complex & specific information needed for the ever increasing complexity of oganisms.

But almost none of these problems with "Evolution" are known by the general public because of the manner in which "Science" has been re-defined to exclude ANY possible supernatural event in the past and in which any contradictory evidence against "Evolution" is not mentioned to students.

It is incumbent upon Creationists to develope more testable Creation models, make conclusions that are testable & falsifiable...and then go test them out.  I believe Young Earth Creation is failing basic tests already...but that is a whole other story.  Nevertheless, it is not impossible to devlope testable/ falsifiable models, but the Creationists have, on the whole, failed to do so.  

That was indeed both thoughtful and agreeable. I believe DNA evidence is much more compelling however, than you present, which is not to say you are incorrect, you are not. It only remains compelling. Since it has been found that every single creature tested so far on earth has giant swaths of interchangeable DNA, (e.g. Banana and man share more than 50% or thier respective genetic information), and (chimps possess approximately 98.4% identitically interchangable genetic encoding) and so on it appears there be lending information toward evolution (NOT CONCLUSIVE). You did not however, neglect to mention this.

On the other hand, although (now) several dozen examples exist to trace some sort of perceived mutation patterning through indeed the fossil record itself, no such record exist for homo genus study.

I also agree with you that the origin of life most likely was inspired in some fashion or another by intellect. In what manner that exist or it's origin may never be know, yet seeking it's foundation is nevertheless an honorable endeavor. By using a model fashioned question "why" does life exist you find answers only in the spiritual, a concept that very well may not be known to the laws of nature or at least restricted by our current knowledge (which you mentioned).

In closing no conclusions can be drawn whatsoever from the current fossil record that supports the idea that humans changed over time or will do so. (Medical studies do however, provide some evidence, but that is off in a different direction, so sorry).

I am not sure whether or not scientific explanations could ever be afforded to explain creationism in it's current form. An adjusted form (as to the timescale and other important variables) on the other hand, could indeed  provide proof positive and evidence of devine creation.

But that is my next post, so I'll end it there.

for even learned theologians to understand.  

To your question, I believe separation from God is itself torture.  Have you ever strongly regretted something and agonized over it for days and days?  It's like that, only a magnitude worse.

  For instance, "If I had only listened instead of trying to convince everyone of my own theory.  Who am I, anyway?  I only lived 70 odd years in what I even then would have acknowledged is a reality - the existence of eternity.  Even if time and space do stop, it's all the same to me without God.  All I had to do was acknowledge His existance and that He sent His only Son to die for me so that I might have eternal life with Him.  It didn't have anything to do with politics, or science, or theories.  Now here I am, alone, cold, and lonely..."

Forgive the melodramatics, I'm not trying to channel the "Left Behind" series, honestly.  But this is my conception of the issue we're discussing.  And all one need do to avoid this is have a little faith and believe that possibly, some way, some how, they are not the center of the universe and that Christ is.  As mentioned in an earlier post, it takes a measure of faith to believe in any of these theories, since none can be proven.  

It is an historical fact, however, that Jesus did live and had many followers.  We use a calendar which revolves around His life and death, we live in great country founded largely by devoutly Christian men, we are despised the world over because we are largely Christian and are hated widely because we dare defend God's chosen people, the Israelis.  Can evolution claim such a pedigree?

If you have not read "The Srewtape Letters" by C.S. Lewis, I strongly urge you to do so.  It is a tour de force of how people's equivocations, justifications, and rationalizations can be used against them by a spiritual adversary.  It is quite illustrative of how easiy folks can fool themselves.  I can guarantee that you will see yourself in those pages.  I did.    

I believe the evolution of Homo Sapiens, for example, from earlier primates has been well established.

Ligers and mules are not mutations. They are the product of cross breeding and have no relation to the primary processes the theory of evolution explores. Modern biology has an explanation for their sterility, by the way, as I'm sure the Bible does as well.

Thought you all might find this thread over at DailyKos interesting in light of our conversation here.

Creationism should be taught to our children is the title.

I don't see that DNA evidence lends itself toward evolution. It is completely inconclusive. I'll give you an example. All cars share huge swaths of core technology in common from doors, to engines, to wheels, etc. One doesn't conclude that they then must have evolved by natural forces or that the commonality was a product of random processes. Quite the contrary. One would conclude that they share a school of thought and technology concerning automobiles, i.e. it is essentially proof of intelligent design, not happenstance. I don't see where the thought of a God-creator necessitates the belief that any life must be very very different from each other. If I were God (and I know that is a dangerous thought to pursue), I would reuse common elements that work too.

It encapsulates the reason I am very apprehensive to break the line between church and state.

Theological discussion aside, that could dilute the meaningful lessons within theology to the point it be indecipherable from anything else lobbed in with it. And, in the end I forsee that it may be Evolution that emerges as the only viable scientific endeavor, leaving it virtually unchallenge by minds that might have been able to form some synapse in other areas of study.

Indeed, I feel it likely that taking a knife to the issues of seperation of church and state and fileting it to conform to one theological ideal, will only install a mandate that will crush the effort through sheer volumn of entries, and again diluting it to the point of it being completely insignificant in the future.

I want to warn with all my heart and good intentions, that I do have reason to think this a viable outcome so please understand it is only a personal view not intended to offend or challenge anyone elses information or beliefs.

I as a man, would too would use one design for all if I could even think in those terms of actually creating a universe. (which I do not pretend to).

Having a single solitary piece of DNA potentially creating everything or what everything was created from is purely, "Inspirational", and beyond my ability to rationally understand in it's full scale.

What do creationists really care about?

1. Science is a monolithic system that tells us how to think.
   
   
2. The Bible is the literal truth. God made all the creatures.
   
   
3. I refuse to believe I'm descended from monkeys and fish and bacteria.
   
   
4. Science is inherently atheistic.
   
   
5. Evolution denies the immortality of the human soul.

Some comments:

Regarding item 1: if you believe that science is a monolithic system then we might as well stop teaching science altogether for all the good it is doing us. Pick up a copy of any of Richard Dawkins books and you will quickly see how contentious the evolutionary biology community is. Science by its very nature is non-monolithic. Scientific truth does not admit of the kind of certainty, reliability and timelessness that religious truth gives us. It is a different animal (pun intended).

Why evolution? The geologists are busy explaining the form of the earth with plate tectonics and glaciation. Thus they are offering counter explanations to Genesis and their accounts require that the earth be much older than 6K years. Why is geology not being challenged as strenuously as evolution?

I think it must be that it all comes down to some combination of the last three items. Creationists do not wish to believe that mankind was not directly created by the deity as described in Genesis. It is about dignity, immortality and mankind's special relationship with God. Somehow we loose all of that with evolution in way we do not with geology or astronomy.

If the last paragraph is correct then the only consistent position would be to deny science a place in our communities. The scientific method which enables our modern technologies (transportation, entertainment, military, etc.) will always push to explain the origin of natural phenomena including human beings. Biblical literalism can co-exist with scientific accounts, I believe, but it will not have the field to itself unless we banish science from our communities--and that would be kind of weird.

I'm not sure why, but we seem to be talking past each other on a couple of things.

If the issue of scripture and translations was what you refer to as a personal view, then ok. But I would say that if you aren't willing to have your views challenged and if you are going to raise a stink about me rebutting them, then you shouldn't express them on a public forum. The problem here lies with you, not me. As you have noticed, I am willing to defend anything I present as a personal opinion on this board. I don't turn around and complain if people challenge them. In another thread, you even made the comment that we are better for the discussion. I agree. It seems you want to selectively apply this when it is convenient.

As for the Inquisition, I was not assuming that was your topic. I was presenting that as an example of something. That is why I lead that comment with "For example..." If I were assuming that to be your topic, such a prelude would not have made sense. In any case, I was pointing out that historical interpretations of earlier writings has no bearing on the actual writings. Many people try to make the case against Christianity based on events like the Crusades, Salem witch trials, etc. The argument is that because those things happened, 1) scripture is a mirror and 2) scripture caused it. This is then used to conclude that scripture must be incorrect since it is so contrary to common sense values. However, that logic is based on many false premises as I have shown. And the Inquisition was simply an example I provided. I still have no idea how Spanish translation problems of the 1100's have any bearing on the legitimacy of second century manuscripts. It seems that unless the Spanish had a time machine accessible, there is no way anything they did could have any bearing on the subject of accuracy of documents that existed long before their time. That was my point.

your necessity to reason that all things must meet your own personal inflections and standards of accuracy

That sounds like code for, "I don't want you to reply to anything I say." I didn't comment on the fire bit because I didn't have anything to say about that. I did have a problem with the other thing you said, so I replied. Of course I am not going to apply your inflections or standards of accuracy...I'm not you. If you want everyone to be like you and post like you, then participating in a public forum must surely be an aggravating experience. You certainly don't hear me complaining that you have no right to apply your own inflections or standards of accuracy to posts or replies. One wonders why you would lodge such a complaint at others? Surely you welcome the challenge of ideas. I know I do. I don't then complain about the challenge itself. Nor do I complain about standards of accuracy or insist that mine should be applied. So I don't really even see where you get the notion that I have insisted what you say I have insisted.

If you want to challenge a stated hypothesis then by all means feel free I encourage it, and indeed seek just that. If you want to harbor reation to personal ideals and views in the form of challenge as if it were fact, then I must say, I know of no one that reflects all their views or beliefs as purely facts, I certainly do not. The seperation of fact and belief I believe is indeed the topic of discussion. I never concluded Inquisition and translation in the same sentense as any related outcome. And, even if I did (according to you) nothing was ever presented as fact, only personal opinion.

My personal notations on the Spanish and their influence is literally thousands of pages with topics ranging to nearly all sides, and what the concept of "ZERO" did to those who were beleaguered to decipher it. But, again it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of response to the author of the topic whatsoever.

I don't disagree with everything you say, but not too far from it. I agree with your general conclusion, but not at all with many things you have said.

1. You treat evolution as synonymous with "science" and then go on to present some monolithic views and conclusions based on that mistake. If you are arguing that there exist some who think that way, fine, you are right. But to say that substantially all creationists think that way is to make the same mischaracterization that you claim they make. The fact is that science, is not inherently biased toward any belief system. Science, such as chemistry, biology, physics, etc. can be practiced with or without any particular religious beliefs. It is inherently not theistic or atheistic. It just requires the belief that supernatural occurances are the exception not the rule in the realm of modern experimentation. It doesn't require the belief that supernatural events never occur anywhere at any time. In fact, the scientific method neatly weeds out the noise that supernatural events might cause through repeated trials. Evolution however precludes the existence of any supernatural events that may have been involved in our origins. It is one thing to say that supernatural events are not involved in creating the results of modern experimentation, and quite another to say that supernatural events have never occured in the past.
   
2. You seem to imply that creationists are simply trying to justify their prejudices while evolutionists are simply presenting the result of rational thought. I am unclear if you really think that, but in any case, it is not necessarily true. Evolutionists are just as prejudiced against any supernatural explanations as creationists are against naturalistic explanations. Both are based on unprovable beliefs. A creationist can apply principles of intelligent design theory and come to a reason based conclusion about origins just like evolutionists do. A chemist can apply thermodynamics and come to conclusions about the viability of the theory of evolution. Mathematicians can apply statistics to the problems posed by evolution and come to conclusions about the viability of the theory of random processes producing the result of life. It isn't a closed system argument either way.
   
3. You also put creationists in a very tight box. Many don't challenge geologic records (to be fair to your point, many do) because they believe God created life and the universe over a long period of time. You seem to think that substantially all Christians have a wooden literal hermanuetic. However, you fail to note that such a hermanuetic is untenable for even the simple things like interpreting parables. Therefore, any thinking Christian must recognize that not all things are meant in a wooden literal sense. And hence some hold Genesis more loosely than others. In fact, the word translated as "day" is also used in other places in scripture to refer to very long periods of time. So no, Genesis is not completely conclusive with regard to the time scale. It is conclusive on the aspect of who did the creating.
   
4. The last paragraph, if correct, doesn't lead to the conclusion you present. The correct conclusion is simply at minimum that evolution shouldn't be taught as undisputed fact. It does not mean all science should be suspended. No Christian I have ever heard of disputes optics or gravity or electromagnetism. All Christians believe that God created the natural laws that govern our daily existence. The only question is whether God occasionally violates those laws, or whether he did once upon a time. So we can absolutely promote the discovery and definition of those natural laws in action. They simply don't promote the notion that natural laws and only natural laws have ever existed since the beginning of time. In fact, you will find that many evolutionists propose that natural laws were once different to get around the fact that we witness none of the processes today that evolution depends on (such as the laws of thermodynamics). In such cases is it so assinine to pose that God bent the laws back in the dawn of time, or is only nature responsible for the apparent violation of itsef? These are great philosophical questions. However, I think I have strayed too far from the point.

The last thing I will say on this subject is that a creationist need not promote the concept that six day creation be taught in schools. There is a very neat solution to this dilemma. One could teach intelligent design theory without teaching doctrine. In fact intelligent design can be taught without endorsing Christianity or any other religion. Intelligent design does not address the identity of the designer, and would be compatible with just about any religion that believes in some form of creationism. Thus it neatly avoids the delicate issues of church/state delineation.

I really don't know what you are talking about anymore. You said:

When the Spanish first began the translation in the 1100's they had no idea what "Zero" meant. I am not even going to say here what that ended up doing to the original message, but it was enough for me to dismiss many parts of the biblical text altogether.

I was responding to the last phrase in particular. If you are saying you dismiss 1100's Spanish translations of the text, fine, I do too. If you are saying you dismiss the source manuscript itself because the Spanish had trouble translating it, then I have a problem with that. I presented the Inquisition as an example of imperfect human reflections of a divine source. Of course there exist problematic translations. It doesn't mean one way or the other that the source is incorrect. It is inconclusive. I'm not sure how you can contest this simple point.

All this is fine and good for subspecies mutations. To date there has been no evidence of creation of a new species that can propagate itself. Hybrids such a mules, ligers, wallaroos are sterile.

This is indicative of a general misunderstanding of the theory of evolution.  As alluded to by other posters, "cross-breeding" has nothing to with the theory; rather, the theory largely rests on the different genetic expressions that occur within a species, and how those expressions may make each individual within a species more or less likely to survive.  Over time, nature "selects" the individuals with the genetic traits most suited to survival in their evironment (this is variously, and broadly, termed "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest").*

A lot of opposition to evolution is based upon a misimpression of what the theory teaches.  And, though I don't have much time to discuss it now, a lot of support for "intelligent design" is based on a misimpression of what science is.

von

*Incidentally, I have a degree in the humanities (economics) and a law degree; my knowledge of science is, literally, at the high school level.  If actual evolutionary biologists are reading this, I'll defer to your better understanding.

you to review the entire entry under the the heading,

"Personally".., above.  

Take the entire statement into account and try to stay with the final point made at the conclusion, this may help direct you to the point of the statement in "context".

Again, my personal views on what the Spanish did was mentioned to be too lengthy and not worth pursuing because of the enormity of the issue, and since it was not part of the point at all, postulate only a positble lending premise if you familiar with the thousands of things that occured and how that affects the text today. You want to know what those views of how I dismiss parts of the scripture because of this part of history and it's outcome came to be, you'll find I offered no explanation for just that reason

that it is personal.

When you throw the word "personally" in that you will get worked up if someone questions what you personally hold as a belief. Fair enough. But I still question why you would state something if you aren't willing to have someone question it, or why you would then turn the discussion to "why we are discussing your personal belief". If you aren't willing to defend it, then simply let it go. I am not willing to continue wasting time defending the fact that I questioned a statement of yours. If you find it a profitable exercise to discuss why we are discussing something, so be it. But I'd rather stick to the original point. If you aren't willing to do that, then we have reached the end of any progress we might make together.

Sorry to but it, but I'm a bit confused by your use of the term "naturalism."  You seem to posit that a naturalism and religious faith cannot coexist with one another.  You're wrong (as the Roman Catholic Church, among others, have observed).  Indeed, it's fair to say that every person who practices science is a naturalist when they are practicing science (contrary to your suggestion, this includes physicists, chemists, astromers, etc.)

Let's be absolutely clear:  Science is the study of natural phenomena.  It is based wholly upon sensory evidence.  By definition, then science cannot assess claims that are non-sensory or extra- or supernatural.  An evolutionary biologist can believe in God (and, contra to your suggestion, many do), but they cannot resort to God in assessing an evolutionary theory.  They can only resort to the natural evidence before them.  (Obviously, if God ceases to be supernatural -- that is, appears and starts building mountains, creating new species of daisy, and making deserts bloom-- science can take him into account as part of the natural world.)

There's a heck of a lot of confusion regarding the nature of science in this thread.  Really, folks, you gotta return to first principles and dictionary definitions:  They are there for a reason.

von

p.s.  My apologies if I've misread you, and the immediately foregoing comment does not apply.

I don't know of any creationist that would disagree with the application of natural selection to the subject of microevolution. That is, the change in frequency of genes that already exist within the gene pool due to environmental factors. What is contended is the subject of macroevolution, i.e. when genes mutate enough such that species actually change into another, diverge into to separate and distinguishable species, life out of primordial soup, etc. We know that genes mutate, but they almost always mutate in a negative and destructive way.

I'd also like to know where intelligent design proponents, particularly those scientists advancing and developing the theory, are misinformed about science.

Ok my man, fair enough, I guess I should be prepaired to defend it, I look at that as so exhausting I did not want to get into it, but, perhaps you are correct, I should let you know what I am talking about.

I have compiled several thousands pages on this particular subject and am more than willing to to share and send them to you or provide a link where you can read it. I'll need some time of course. This will be between me and you and I offer my most endearing invitation for you to comment on it as I appreciate your views and enjoy these topical antidotes.

Please understand the firestorm some of these views I know will cause, is of course is my reasoning of why I did not include such desciptives, but in your case I would be happy to provide these views, no matter how opposed you may be, the discussion nonetheless is indeed healthy.

All in all I do hope you saw the overall message of the post in the context in which it was intended.

new species of daisies would be appearing all the time, would they not?  If not, according to evolution, why not?  

However, and I know you must roll your eyes at these constructs, several hundred new species have been discovered in just the last few years in the oceans (info provided by search engine querry) We do not know if these are new or old do we?

Warrior --

new species of daisies would be appearing all the time, would they not?

No, that's not true.  If I recall HS biology correctly, the theory of evolution predicts that plants/animals/etc. require thousands of years (or more) to diverge on the species level as well as an environmental pressure that causes the divergence.  There are examples of micro-evolution, of course, but nothing on the level of species.

The original point was about cross-species hybrids, which have nothing to do with evolution -- as I point out and your response tacitly concedes.  

We know that genes mutate, but they almost always mutate in a negative and destructive way.

What?  Again, my understanding of biology is at the high school level, but this strikes me as a strikingly false statement.  Genes mutate all the time, and virtually all mutations are neither positive nor negative.  Remember, too, the time frames involved (thousands of years) and the relatively small genetic differences involved (fractions of a percentage).  

Obviously, I'll considering revising my argument if you point me to data showing otherwise, but you haven't pointed to data.  Only assumptions that seem out-of-whack to both my distant memory of my education and common sense.  

I'd also like to know where intelligent design proponents, particularly those scientists advancing and developing the theory, are misinformed about science.

Everything I've read about intelligent design indicates that it is a critique of evolutionary theory, not a theory itself.  The distinction is important.  A theory must produce testable predictions that distinguish it from other, competing theories.  Far as I know, intelligent design has never done so.  

It is very clear that naturalism and a belief in the existence of supernatural events are diametrically opposed. The definition is such:

2 : a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena

Now tell me how you can hold that view and also hold the view that supernatural events (whether from God or something else) were responsible for the creation of life. Remember this is a study of what happened a long time ago. We can't directly test what happened through the scientific method, any more than the scientific method can prove that Abraham Lincoln was a real person.

A scientist (excluding the field of evolution) doesn't have to be a naturalist to study nature. It is very clear that supernatural events are the exception, not the norm. Therefore you can study nature, you can study physics, chemistry, statistics, etc without believing in naturalism (that science is sufficient at explaining everything. Recall that a scientist can study physics and still believe that death results in supernatural spiritual events such as going to heaven etc. Such a person while studying nature doesn't believe that all phenomenon can be explained by scientific laws. He is merely studying the things that can be explained by scientific laws.

Hence the scientist doesn't necessarily have to believe in naturalism (which is all inclusive), though the evolutionist, by definition believes that natural laws alone are adequate for explaining all questions of origin.

The evolutionary biologist that believes in God has some difficulties to overcome. "What made God?" comes to mind. "Who is this God character and what gives Him the authority to tell me what to do?" is another that comes to mind. It is certainly incompatible with any view of God that has him creating anything. And if you cite pantheistic beliefs to make the point that they can coexist in a bizarre way, fine. But most religions reject pantheism. I'm not suggesting you can't find an evolutionary biologist with a tortured belief system somewhere. But I challenge you to find one prominent evolutionary biologist who maintains a faith (any faith) in God.

Really, folks, you gotta return to first principles and dictionary definitions:  They are there for a reason.

Yes, I encourage you to do so. You'll find that I have broken down the situation quite accurately.

Genetic mutation has been established many times as a postive outcome when found, and is indeed considered advantageous.

The genetic marker CCR5-delta 32 is the culpret and is certainly a mutation.

Strangley, I have been tested for just such a marker from my Irish/English background, so have family members. My mother has (2) two markers, she is comletely immune to aids altogether, I have (1) one, indeed resistance to the disease.

This link should provide a launching point for your "discovery".

http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1998/May-Jul/msg00026.html

Genetic diseases are perfect examples of mutations that entered the genetic pool which are destructive to the species, not constructive. Vestigial winged fruit flies are another example. The only known example of a constructive mutation is sickle cell anemia, which is both helpful and harmful, so even this one example is a mixed example. But we have no record of a mutations that have advanced the species. We only assume that they must have occured.

Intelligent design is in itself testable in many aspects. At least no less testable than theories about primordial soup, etc. Just because intelligent design is a response to evolution doesn't necessarily make it less scientific. String theory is a response to Einsteins search for unifying theory. It doesn't make one or the other less scientific, does it?

because I fear there is too much animosity netween us, but not only are there verifiable test that directly test the past, but also those that can prove Abraham Lincoln was a real person, do in fact exist.

Which leads me to a final enquiry. Why is it that you are so contentious about this subject? As you yourself ignor googles of information on the subject.

Evolutionary and Creationalistic ideals are differing, absolutely, but finding that every little single thing that could be mentioned in favor of an opinion that exist in opposition to your arguement is almost a enterprise of a narcissistic attitude. I'm not sure if your playing "devils advocate" or really believe what you post, as it doesn't seem to represent a cognitive and unbias view, as I have not seen you present anything that favors the other side, just a single minded, one sided view of this issue.

I could be wrong of course, because I do respect your postulates, but I cannot for the life of me see any unbias opinion.

That's your definition of naturalism?  Get a better dictionary.  Really (American Heritage Dictionary entry follows*):

Naturalism

1. Factual or realistic representation, especially: a. The practice of describing precisely the actual circumstances of human life in literature. b. The practice of reproducing subjects as precisely as possible in the visual arts. 2a. A movement or school advocating such precise representation. b. The principles and methods of such a movement or of its adherents. 3. Philosophy The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. 4. Theology The doctrine that all religious truths are derived from nature and natural causes and not from revelation. 5. Conduct or thought prompted by natural desires or instincts.

That aside, I understand you now.  Now, what's your point?  All evolutionists believe in the Philosophy of Naturalism (Def'n 3, above)?  Or all evolutionist must believe in the Philosophy of Naturalism in order to believe in evolutionary theory?

(Incidentally, one can argue that the Roman Catholic Church has promoted the theology of naturalism, as I pointed out in my initial post.)

A scientist (excluding the field of evolution) doesn't have to be a naturalist to study nature.

If you mean to say that a scientist must believe in naturalism (the philosophy) to study evolution, you're incorrect.  A scientist may believe whatever he or she wishes.  When practicing science, however, only natural explanations are permissible.  

You go so far as to postulate that man and T-Rex lived together as a posibility. Hope he likes Meow-Mix, because having it under my shoes resting and watching television would make me a bit nervous. One minute I'm watching "Everybody loves Ramon" and the next "I'm a Beagal Bite".

Again, I appreciate your stance, but some conclusions seem to be stretching even the most pliable of reasoning.

are that you weed out the ones that clearly don't apply to the context. So basically #4 of yours is precisely the same as #2 of Websters. Your point? Clearly the evolutionist believes in the philosophy of naturalism. I have said nothing different all along. After all the stink you now agree with me.

Yes, one could be a creationist and "study" evolution. I think you are capable of understanding what I meant, because I wouldn't call that person an evolutionist.

If you insist on playing verbal gymnastics with my statements, perhaps we should stop right now.

As for the only natural explanations, I have yet to see a definition of the scientific method that states that very thing.

The mutation CCR5-delta 32 is a viable construct of an incident that indeed favors human existance and self preservation. What are you doing my man? Does every single thing bother you?

I am beginning to think you are incapable of unbais thought conmcerning this issue. Which, considering my respect for you would be disappointing to say the least.

but not only are there verifiable test that directly test the past, but also those that can prove Abraham Lincoln was a real person, do in fact exist.

Such as?...

Why is it that you are so contentious about this subject? As you yourself ignor googles of information on the subject.

Such as?

but finding that every little single thing that could be mentioned in favor of an opinion that exist in opposition to your arguement is almost a enterprise of a narcissistic attitude.

Read each in its context. But I don't think saying I am a narcissist is going to reduce tension between us. Perhaps you think that is progress. Nor are ad hominems something I have offered to you. But if you want to take the gloves off, I'll oblige in return. It's up to you.

I'm not sure if your playing "devils advocate" or really believe what you post

In some cases the former, in some cases the latter.

as I have not seen you present anything that favors the other side, just a single minded, one sided view of this issue.

Why would you expect me to present the "other side" when others here have done so admirably? I don't expect a liberal to defend pro-life. But the clash of ideas from each side in itself is a productive exercise. For the record, you don't appear to be unbiased either. The only difference is that I don't see bias as an "evil". All people are biased, even evolutionists. Is that bad? No.

You didn't like me taking your comment out of context. Please don't take mine out of context either. The repeated mistake in this thread has been mischaracterizing creationism. Most common has been the idea that creationism only includes young earth 6 day beliefs. Someone presented some ideas about dinosaurs. I pointed out that there are also scholars who believe otherwise in the Christian community. That isn't necessarily a representation of my beliefs, but I find myself having to clarify that the tent is bigger than many of you assume it to be. It is a tiring exercise, but as long as the misunderstandings continue, I'll continue to expand on the varying positions.

If you will notice, I have expanded in many cases on the support for both young and old earth creation positions. I obviously don't believe both, so you know that I am not presenting my own conclusions in every post. Whether you believe the reasoning to be pliable, I still await you showing me one case where the reasoning is flawed. We may disagree on the premises, as is often the case when reason leads two people in different directions. But that doesn't necessarily mean the reasoning itself is wrong.

What is conclusive is that the gene existed and increased in frequency in Western culture after the plague. What isn't proven is that the gene is a result of a mutation. But taking it further, it is certainly not the type of mutation that would make us into another species...

I don't doubt the gene exists and has increased in frequency. What isn't elucidated by your link is the data that shows the gene was not part of our gene pool going way back in time before that.

I'd think you'd respect skepticism? Isn't that the hallmark of a good scientist?

What is ironic, is that if I attributed every explanation to evolution and natural forces no one would call me biased would they? Everyone is biased. I'm simply honest enough to peel back the curtain and admit that.

I posted #72 while you were posting #71. So I didn't see your post when I wrote #72. Chastising me for ignoring #71 when I hadn't seen it is like chastising me for not knowing everything about everything. I don't have ESP either.

Right now, I'm trying to understand.  

First, you're absolutely correct that one cannot believe in strict Biblical creation and accept that evolution provides the best theory for explaining the origins of humanity on Earth.  But that's not the point I took issue with.  Rather, you wrote:

"A scientist (excluding the field of evolution) doesn't have to be a naturalist to study nature."

And I responded:  "If you mean to say that a scientist must believe in naturalism (the philosophy) to study evolution, you're incorrect."  One can believe in God, for instance, and also believe, based upon the available natural evidence, that the theory of evolution provides the best current explanation for humanity's origins.  You can even believe that God "guided" evolution through extra-sensory (and therfore extra-scientific) means -- by subtly adjusting weather patterns, for instance.

In other words, your form of belief may be incompatible with evolution, but this does not lead to the conclusion that all forms of belief are incompatible with evolution.  Again, the Roman Catholic Church (as well as most mainline Protestant denominations) specifically allows for the possibility of both evolution and the big bang.

"...without teaching doctrine".  This is exactly what the leaders in the Intelligent Design movement are hoping for, since it seems that the various leaders themselves hold to different religious beliefs...yet they all seem to agree on rejecting simple Naturalistic models for the origin of the universe, origin of life & origin of the species.

Students could learn the strengths & weaknesses of various Origins models (simple Naturalism/ Evolution vs possible Intelligent Design/ Creation), come to their own conclusions and then (if they want to) check out the various Creation stories in the various world religions on their own, or with the help of their parents/ spiritual leaders.

Seth:

Your case is not that some genetic mutations are hamful to life (what your two examples establish).  Of course they are.  Your case is the following (your words, emphasis mine):

"We know that genes mutate, but they almost always mutate in a negative and destructive way."

Remember, you are attacking macroevolution based upon the asserted inability of genetic mutation to produce macroevolutionary results.  

Intelligent design is in itself testable in many aspects.

Provide, or point me to, a test that distinguishes intelligent design from other scientific theories.  It's not enough to say that evolution doesn't (yet) explain X, or that in your opinion Y is irreducibly complex and could not have been created by evolutionary means.  Those may be valid critiques of evolutionary theory, but they are not a theory unto themself.

What you define as evolution with God is really the "old earth creation position". I have seen zero "evolutionists" postulate that God provided extra-sensory means of weather control, etc. However, people like Hugh Ross, who are self-proclamed creationists, have similar theories. I am comfortable with old earth theories. However, to say the Catholic church allows the possibility that God didn't do the creating is just plain false. If anything the Catholic church accepts old earth creationism as a distinct possibility. And so do I. The question that divides an evolutionist from a creationist is not "how long". Rather it is "who" vs. "what".

I did say a scientist (non evolutionist) doesn't have to be a naturalist to study physics or chemistry. It is a non-sequitur to apply that statement to an evolutionist which you did in your response.

Yes the burden of proof is high. I stand by the statement, though I don't have time to more firmly establish a point that should be quite evident. Even if we quibble over more, most, some, etc, what hasn't been provided is any evidence that mutation has resulted in a new species.

Intelligent design: I'll refer you to books by Behe and other intelligent designers for further reading. Much more that you'd like to know, probably.

Indeed, there is no solid proof that the gene did not exist before the plague. A few samplings have been found, but none that could conclude a sampling of an entire generation in a single place. It does though seem odd, that this gene only exist in the very same place where the plague was at it's worse, do you not think?

If it is that you present your constructs in the dimension of many sides to be presented, and you advise to keep all things considered, then we have found common ground in the explanation of your intentions. And, I give you my promise to keep my mind open to all possibilities until which time they can be proven or disproven, (which is what I think you are saying) if that is something that could happen in my lifetime.

And, to extend a lifetime promise is nothing but openmindedness. I hope you too, regardless of what or who or what you have posted here has been by it's personal definition, you would still consider the same. Because, as it appears to me has not been done.

Here is a longer post with a breakdown of various creationist and theistic positions. So we don't keep having breakdowns over definitions, I'll refer you to that for a description of the terms I am using.

I think that may already be occuring on a far broader social venue. I tell my children what I think and encourage them to make up their own mind, regardless of my opinion. And, I sincerly mean that is truly what I do.

history channel. IIRC, the gene also exists in other parts of the world. The reason it is in higher concentration in Western Europe is clearly because of survival of those who had it and death of those who didn't.

I may not appear to be open minded, but I hope you can see that I also don't hold every opinion I have listed in this thread. I can be convinced that I am wrong, but I'm not the type to shift with the wind and seas.

Where we often disagree is a result of differing premises. Unless we dig those up and examine them, it is unlikely to result a change of conclusions. I expect no less in reverse.

are you saying that you completely discount the possibility that this could have manifested itself through exposure and condition?

No, you cannot. You are open minded and surely see that this too is a possibility?

But, this is arguement for arguement sake and von is correct in his deciphering of your intentions and actions.

I mean I like you, but you skip from point to point not even seeing your own contradictions.

Your a smart man and I know that by reading your passages, but why such fervency with this issue I am still curious to note to my mind?

May I ask what faith you are?

I've asked you to present a contradiction of mine. You have failed to do so.

Von insists on calling people who call themselves creationists as "evolutionists".  Sorry, but I think an old earth creationist knows very well what his stance is.

I could ask you what your fervency is. This is the last resort for someone who has failed to uphold their end of an argument. That and ad hominems. You have done both. I have done neither. So I really have no reason to qualify your remarks.

Am I then going to turn around and conclude that must be the case then? Certainly not without more data. However, the point I made about what the program said concerning the existence of the gene in most parts of the world (though varying in frequency), lends itself to the idea that the gene may very well have existed in the gene pool since the very beginning (or at least near the beginning).

what faith are you?

Where are my contradictions?

My faith or lack thereof has little to do with whether or not I present a logical argument. However your inability to cite one contradiction within my arguments is imminently more relevant to the subject under discussion. Also your use of ad hominems doesn't lend me to think you are just wanting to get to know me better on a personal level. So I'm sticking to the subject of discussion, if you don't mind.

That is as equal as other inflections. Time will be the only thing that you or I can truly rely and whether or not it will be in our lifetime to see such results. It's cool to talk about thought isn't it?

that your faith may inflect your reasoning, however bias that may be. I understand the question is unfair, I should not have asked, but at the same time, if an issue comes to fruition about Supereme Court Judicial appointments and you say anything about previous and religious views affecting their reasoning, then I think you may have a contradiction, no?

Anyways, I shouldn't even ask that as I am trapping you and it is unfair, forgive me.

Disclaimer post only to move box to a wider discussion area.

Well it was my consideration that your faith may inflect your reasoning, however bias that may be. I understand the question is unfair, I should not have asked, but at the same time, if an issue comes to fruition about Supereme Court Judicial appointments and you say anything about previous and religious views affecting their reasoning, then I think you may have a contradiction, no?

Anyways, I shouldn't even ask that as I am trapping you and it is unfair, forgive me.

I admit that I, like any human being, possess bias. The question is whether it affects my judgement. If I told you I was an atheist who believes in evolution, would you then accuse me of bias? Or if I were an atheistic evolutionary scientist, would I be free of bias? That is why the question of bias is irrelevant. No one is free of bias. I am more distrustful of those who claim to be unbiased than I am of those who admit being biased.

I think a more important question is what my stance is on these issues, not what my faith is. I know both old and young earth evangelicals, and I know both young and old earth Catholics. Saying you are one faith doesn't confine you to one or the other camp. So it isn't really relevant. Truthfully, I am an intelligent design proponent. Beyond that I am not dogmatic about timescales either way. I find both creationist camps intriguing for different reasons. Yet, I don't find myself entrenched in either camp. Does that tell you anything? I doubt it. As an example, I admitted I was unfamiliar with evidence backing the man/dinosaur/ark theory. I can't imagine anyone thinking I was advancing that as my position if I don't even know much about what evidence exists. Yet you seemed to be willing to pin that one on me. I am simply open to the idea, and if I were more interested in the subject, I would actually look into it to see the merits of the claims. But without having done so, I really have no particular stance on it. This is very unlike so many who rule evolution as fact or creation as fact while not having personally investigated the claims of either. IMO, I think that should be condemned more than I deserve condemnation for having some faith or another.

As for justices, I believe in constructionism, not religious belief. I think it is clear that it is far more likely that a conservative Christian would be appointed and raise the ire of the left than an pantheistic liberal who would raise the ire of the right. So it is sort of a nonsensical question you pose. But the real answer is that as long as the person is committed to enforcing the laws as written and not creating new rights and legislation from the bench, I am content whether atheist, Christian, Buddist, ad nauseam.

I don't find that question unfair. What I find unfair is the characterization you have made of me on several instances, whether labelling me a narcissist or saying that Von has deciphered my intent or actions (which he clearly did not comment on my intent). I am curious why you'd be in the position of telling me my intent. It doesn't bother me because I know it isn't true, but I do find it odd that you'd think it was unfair to "trap" me yet be silent about your previous ad hominems. In any event, it is clear I have pushed some of your buttons. I'm sorry if I have offended you in any way, though I don't exactly see what I have done except present contrary viewpoints and provide arguments through reason. Maybe the delivery style is a bit rough around the edges. Either way, I have not done anything beyond attacking the merits of your arguments, though in return I've been repeatedly asked to defend myself, not necessarily my arguments. I'm committed to discussing the issues, not the personalities. I hope you share that commitment.

Hats off for the trifecta. Indeed, your comments are and have only been appreciated.

Happy Thanksgiving to you and those who share your life. Peace for us on this good day my man.

I got dizzy reading all of threads.  Things to think about:  The second law of thermodynamics, no transitional fossils between the different evolutionary forms of man from monkeys, the law of gravity--explosions blows things apart not together no matter how big the bang, ask a terrorist, birds--how can they evolve into birds over years without being a meal for bigger species in the survival of the fittest race?, and don't forget the scientific method for which evolution falls flat.  Finally, a theory is a theory and a fact is a fact.  Which one takes more faith?  One with evidence or one without it?

Clearly the evolutionist believes in the philosophy of naturalism.

He may, but he doesn't have to.

Seth, this is my last post.

Von insists on calling people who call themselves creationists as "evolutionists".  Sorry, but I think an old earth creationist knows very well what his stance is.

Some folks are "creationists," but no one is an "evolutionist" (at least in the same sense).  Evolution is a scientific theory.  The most anyone can do is believe that it has a high probability of being correct, based upon the current evidence.  No one who knows anything "believes" it to be "true."  (Every Evolutionary biologists will gladly concede this point, because it is a basic principle of science.)

With respect, you missed (or now forget) a crucial part of your high school education (or perhaps you were blighted with bad teachers).  The foregoing is a basic, high school-level understanding of scientific theory.  All science -- evolution, biology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, etc. -- operates according to it.

 .... (I found Darwin's Black Box fascinating), and the work of several other ID proponents.  They offer a critique.  They don't offer a theory.

And please understand that my disagreements are with the positions you express, not you or your beliefs.  In the heat of argument, it's easy to descend into the ad hominem.  

My best to you and yours.

but this line of reasoning, on this very topic, is being discussed, and destroyed IMO, over at Metafilter. One of the best links provided in said discussion is this: 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense.

Name one, just one, evolutionist who has ever claimed that supernatural events were involved in the origins. Just one.

A few follow ups. Supposing I were an evolutionist and I postulated that certain parts of the process were results of supernatural processes. Ok, after everyone finished laughing, would I still be considered an evolutionist and/or taken seriously by the community?

And if I cannot speculate about supernatural events in history and still be an evolutionist, how can you honestly say that evolutionists are not committed naturalists?

but no one is an "evolutionist" (at least in the same sense).

Sure they are, no less than people might be physicists, chemists, paleontologists. I have no idea what point you are trying to make other than to torture words.

The most anyone can do is believe that it has a high probability of being correct, based upon the current evidence.

It has a low probability of being correct if you know anything about statistics. I have a degree in that field. If you mean to say that evolution has a higher probability of being correct than creation, you commit another grave mistake. Since evolutionists don't deal with supernatural explanations, how have they fixed the probabilities of alternate supernatural explanations? The only way you can possibly make the statement above is to first rule out anything other than natural origins and then say "excluding all supernatural causes, this is the most probably explanation". Again naturalism at work.

No one who knows anything "believes" it to be "true."

Of course. But they believe naturalism to be true. Otherwise there would be more openness to alternative explanations.

With respect, you missed (or now forget) a crucial part of your high school education (or perhaps you were blighted with bad teachers).  The foregoing is a basic, high school-level understanding of scientific theory.  All science -- evolution, biology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, etc. -- operates according to it.

Actually, I have studied science beyond the high school level. If the best you can muster is condescension about education when you yourself have admitted to not studying the subject beyond high school, then we aren't going to get very far are we? Once again, I will explain. Every science other than evolution is studying present day physics through the scientific methods. Theories are formed and tested through experimentation. This doesn't require any philosophy of naturalism, since no one believes God is going to repeatedly mess with their experiments. On the other hand, evolution has no way to experiment on the past. To craft theories about historical events and completely rule out that supernatural events have ever occured in the process of origins is naturalism. It depends on a commitment to that very philosophy. Hence, no, I don't misunderstand the difference between evolution and the rest of the sciences. However, you do. This fact is evidenced by your posts about posteriori reasoning as a definition of science which even science doesn't agree with.

They offer theory regarding how you can determine something that was designed by intelligence vs something that just happened. This model can be tested, just not against million year old events (neither can evolution). You yourself have commented about science being a series of models that are best explanations of phenomenon. Intelligent design is a model, is it not? Evolution is a model, is it not? Does the model fit, does it not fit. Intelligent design cannot test the past but it can test the present. Evolution cannot test the past but it can test the present. If you can name one test that can be performed on the past for or against evolution, you would have a valid concern.

As for ID being a critique, I see that many evolutionists critique ID. So by your argument are those evolutionists no longer scientists? Who cares what spawned the initial research. That is a red herring, because sciences spawn other sciences all the time.

I only got so far as #1 which said:

Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

and realized the author has no secondary training in evolution, nor has read the leaders of evolutionary thought. They might be enlightened by statements from Gould:

At the higher level of evolutionary transition between morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the "official" position of most western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between bauplane [basically different types of creatures] are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence of them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).

He has also witten that the extreme rarity of evidence of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontologists. (paraphrase)

In addition, Colin Patterson a senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History has said [to the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History]:

During the past few years...you have experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith... Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge.

Now, pray tell, how is it that I know that and the author of that article doesn't. Either he is lying to make evolution look more solid and creation look more desparate, or he is completely uninformed about evolution and has no business writing a commentary on the relative merits of the two theories. Which is it?

When evolutionists stop with the fanciful theories about birds like Pro-avis which have zero evidence to back them, then maybe it could be argued that one is based only on evidence and the others not. But there are many examples of evolutionists making up grand stories without supporting evidence. This is no different than what the other side is accused of when some theorize about man and dinosaurs being contemporary.

And yet people still insist that such practices are "science" on the one hand and deft imagination on the other.

You didn't call me a narcissist. Dubya did. So my remark wasn't at you. Happy Thanksgiving to you too.

Again then.

Gould is so eager to beat his own drums that objectivity is lost altogether. The interested reader will find essentially no Haeckel or Spencer, a smattering of Cuvier, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and Owen, lots of Paley and Weismann, snatches of Goethe (Gould is fond of archetypes, leading to his soft spot for Goethe's claim that all plant parts are modified leaves), and then: on Theodor Eimer's theory of orthogenesis, and on Alpheus Hyatt's ideas of phyletic life cycles and ontogeny, on C. O. Whitman's orthogenetic analysis of pigeons (from which Gould quotes approvingly that "natural selection waits for opportunities to be supplied, not by multifarious variation or orderless mutation, but by continuous evolutional processes advancing in definite directions"), on William Bateson's search for the causes of discontinuous variation, on Hugo De Vries's "mutation theory," as well as on Goldschmidt's now discredited "systemic mutations" and "hopeful monsters." Of such stuff are 1400-page tomes created, not evolved.

Life is designed to "evolve" (important note) in one direction not by multifarious variation or orderless mutation. That is the difference Seth, you should read the man before you quote his meaning, because you are way off.

I, am exacerbated by this effort. Which is why I implyed that you may be presenting things in a narcissistic endeavor, not that you are such, only your comments presented in it's current fashion, regarding no other view or postulate or information or proof or theory or anything else other than two different views of the same view.

Good Day.

There is absolutely not one piece of evidence, not one tiny modicum of evidence that creationism happended either. But rather, it relies on the notion that, "it is inspired, is inerrant or cannot be challenged at all because of such".

There is no reasoning in such chasms of endlessness, but only what those who sought to impose by other charlatanian observational means.

I would love to believe this too, solid proof is needed, but cannot be provided, ever, by such reasoning. And therefore does not belong in the realm of the observational arts, but rather with Socrates and other philosophers and theological idealism.

I owe you an apology here as I re-read it. It "was" just an example, the implication seemed strong, but clearly not enough and is indeed innocuous.

Again, my apologies.

single thing you said was conjecture.

2+2=4.  This can be conjecture in the eyes of same people that I know.  Again, fact=fact.  Theory=theory.  If you consider this conjecture, I proudly stand guilty.

Ask a university professor who teaches the origins of life class about these conjectures and watch them flounder.  I have already seen it.  It put them on the defensive also.  Conjectures though they may be, I have not found one that can answer with evidence to refute my conjectures.  Would you like to try?

I offered that because when you talk to evolutionists themselves, such as Colin, you will find that even they tacitly admit the lack of evidence of transitional forms. Somehow this little tidbit neglects to find its way into the textbooks doesn't it? Gould, whether you like him or not, is one of the modern fathers of evolutionary theory. Stating that he has lost objectivity lends itself to my very point.

In terms of his meaning, clearly I am simply quoting that he rocognizes the lack of evidence of transitional forms. That has little to do with anything else you say. Either he has no idea that all those transitional forms exist, and he is the only one who is in the dark, or maybe his statement is correct. If you want to discredit that quote you will have to work a bit harder. It is a simple statement of fact about what evidence we have or don't have to work with.

regarding no other view or postulate or information or proof or theory or anything else other than two different views of the same view.

Wow, and you call my comments narcissistic? I can't even figure out what you are saying... Two different views of the same view?? Hold on, I'll go get my bong and come back to this conversation after a few hits.

that the second law of thermodynamics is far less of a "conjecture" than the a theory of the historical "natural violation" of that law.

unfalsifiable. Answer the question of what evolutionists would do if suddenly unequivocal evidence that the earth was 6000 years old surfaced. Would they:

A) Get on their knees and pray?

B) Revamp evolution to a new set of theories that include ONLY natural laws as causes, still precluding any ideal that supernatural events had a hand?

Or consider this problem. I come out of a grocery store and find my car has been moved. I can pursue a few lines of theories.

1. A person(s) moved my car deliberately for whatever purposes.
   
   
2. My car somehow got there by itself and only natural forces can explain the mysterious event. Things like I forgot to set my parking brake.

You can pursue #2 but if your theories are that the parking brake was not set, other things like the car being found perfectly positioned in another parking spot on a slope with the parking brake set would be inconvenient to that theory. Certainly you could then come up with more theories of how that parking brake got set by itself after the car moved.

....Or you could just call the police and have them help you find the person who did it...

now discredited "systemic mutations" and "hopeful monsters."

Gould is no different than the other thousands of evolutionists who have offered speculations which have turned out to not be true. You only vilify Gould here for his honesty about the areas where evolution suffers from a severe lack of evidence.

Perhaps you could do one of two things to bolster your assassination of Gould:

1. Show me where all this evidence is of transitional forms that Gould is apparently unaware of
   
   
2. Show me the evolutionist who has never offered a wrong [fanciful] theory (excluding those who have never offered ANY theories)

Good point Seth. I see one (theology) as had been seeking their theological pursuits to perhaps lend proof to an already existing idea.(Good luck)

Applied observation (and those arts) seek to explain (observation), results or outcome are not always hope for or anticipated in one direction as in most instances accidental discovery of another pheonom is the most common case result.

When Einstein sat on a trolly train and then "saw" the relation of time and space and rate of travel etc.., this was not sought, but a happenstance of accident and from that, Relativity was born.

This theater that pretends to use observational art to explain an already known intent, is simply, NOT...... observation, but pure conjecture with nothing that is available in the form of proof, or anything that lends toward proof, or any method that can provide proof or implied results, or any explanation using observation art (any known) at all.

The idea sounds interesting, (That Creationism would like to stand on equal ground as evolution in evidence).Now, what form, method, approach, arrangement, modus, routine, schema or any other viable method is being utilized to provide such proof?

Or is it that Creationism relies on inerrancy? So far this is all I see that you have provided.

Timescale view #1 or timescale view #2 (and variables of everything else smattered in). Are those hypothesis in reference to an entire scale of subject, I think not. To endeavor to find any truth as you have so many times mentioned, you must appreciate all views, see through all eyes, and notice what is left when all else has been dismissed.

There are no "human" or "human like" fossils (Archeological) supporting man as a transitional form into another creature. (On this point there could be no doubt you are correct). That is not the case with the entire fossil record at all. Thousands of dismissals must occure for that to even be conceivable (a practice Gould was fond of).

There is however, very compelling biological evidence of such. Extremely compelling. I.e. There are no instances of any fossil record that can prove anything other than humans (on average) have become significantly larger than any previous fossil record can show human's to be. In fact, humans since the days of Christ have not change at all? (Doubling in size on average globally is not a remarkable physical change?) Indeed it is. (I'm trying to keep this simple). This was not a spontaneous change? Oh, do you mean perhaps diet may have something to do with it? I hope so, you would make my point.

Knowing you of course only means waiting for another entry describing the long and short (time) version of creationism without any proof offered at all. Instead an effort toward arguement of reasoning will ensue and the migration away from proof will once more be obtained.

The second law of thermodynamics deals with the application of natural law in the concentration and dispersement of energy know as entropy.  This has nothing to do with the willfull violation of the law by man.  This is called lawlessness or trangression of laws of the universe better know is "Sin".  To every action there is a reaction.  To every law broken, there is a consequence either immediately or down the road.  An example would be if you jump off a 2000 foot cliff against jagged rocks without a parachute, you will be splatter all over the landscape.  A long term consequence of smoking can be lung cancer.

The second law of thermodynamcis is not a theory.  You practice it when you, for example, cook your food.  You concentrate heat to `cook it and disperse the heat to cool it down.  Just as creationism is practice everyday in the lives of men (men always are creating new things--artists for example), evolution is not since it is only a theory.

I thought you believed that the law of thermodynamics was conjecture.  You said it was in the previous thread along with the other things that I mention about evolution.

I think we can argue back and forth forever.  Do you agree?  I don't think our minds will be changed either way.  Should we stay on this topic?  If its for education's sake I guess we can go for a little while.  This is a long thread.

Please check the chain of replies. If in doubt, click on the "parent" hyperlink of a post to see the specific parent post it is a reply to. If you do that, you will see that I am replying to Dubya who said everything you said was conjecture. My reply to him is that the second law of thermodynamics (which you mentioned) is far less of a "conjecture" than evolution. That is a truthful statement, and I think you agree.

If you track through these threads, you will see posts from me referencing the laws of thermodynamics and Gibb's free energy equations (which I totally agree with--I studied Chemistry in college!). Relax, I'm not disagreeing with anything you are saying.

You like to point out I haven't offered proof. Where is that proof of transitional forms you think exists. Is Gould lying or uninformed? And your credentials would be __? And I would be a narcissist for quoting Gould and Patterson...right.

So I await you providing the long list of transitional forms that you say exists in the fossil record. Please don't disappoint, because I don't want you to look like a hypocrite when you charge me with not listing "evidence" supporting one thing or another.

As for human size, no one doubts micro evolution (which are changes within the gene pool in terms of frequency of genes--genes which already exist within the gene pool). Surely you aren't suggesting that a bigger human means we are a different species from before are you? I'll go ahead and prepare a laugh (or maybe a guffaw) if that is what you are trying to imply. Knowing you, anything anyone says makes your point in your mind.

The problem with your comment about long and short creation, is that long fits very well with the same evidence that evolutionists cite. They have a fossil record of lifeforms, but no transitional forms from one to the other. They have laws of thermodynamics that say it is impossible outside of winning the lottery millions of times over for species to go from chemicals in a soup to 70 trillion celled organisms. One believes each step happened through shear chance though there is no evidence of the transitional process. The other says it must have been God then. One model depends only on natural causes the other doesn't. Both explain the same set of evidence. So why is yours "proven" (as an aside, what evolutionsts consider their theory "proven"?) and any other position not proven?

Now that you are arguing on shaky grounds, you shift to the language of "proof". Ok, given a fouth grade education where science is a series of proofs, how come evolution isn't now the "law of evolution"? Ok, lets switch back to adult world where science isn't a series of "proofs" but models that explain phenomenon based on evidence.

It seems that in your world, accidents grant credibility. Shall we list all the accidents that didn't lead to truth or insight? Ok, lets dispense with the silly arguments. If evolutionists weren't committed to excluding the possibility of supernatural causes, then you could argue there wasn't theology involved on their part. Name one evolutionist who isn't a naturalist at heart. Silence. Thank you.

This theater that pretends to use observational art to explain an already known intent [naturalism}, is simply, NOT...... observation, but pure [naturalistic] conjecture with nothing that is available in the form of proof, or anything that lends toward proof, or any method that can provide proof or implied results, or any explanation using observation art (any known) at all. [Ah yes, nice use of the word "proof". You are now sounding shrill.]

Creationism doesn't rely on inerrancy any more than evolution relies on naturalism. Intelligent design, the bigger tent, has no ties to sny doctrine, and I have already told you where I stand on that subject. Why would you persist in mischaracterising my previously stated position?

I actually used to be an evolution proponent. So I have looked at the subject through many eyes (I don't suppose you are making the grand claim of having seen it through all eyes are you?). Can you say the reverse?

I got so dizzy reading the threads, I forgot who agreed with me and who did not.  Sorry.  Can we go home now?

You may have missed this but Dr. O presented some nice pieces of evidence in another thread. No less indirect than the evidence supporting random events producing life. Anwyay, you can find much more extensive list of this evidence in books by Hugh Ross (OE creationist) and Intelligent Designers.

Now being the open minded person we all know you to be, I'm sure you will go buy some of those books, read them, and look at things from their perspective before looking ignorant by saying there isn't any evidence to support those points of views.

But wouldn't that be a continuous spectrum, even for species.  I mean, a thousand years (just for convenience sake) from year one is 1001, from year two is 1002, and so forth, until 2004.  At which time, species which began to "evolve" in 1004 would now be sprouting forth.  How come we don't see it?

And I'm like you, it's been a long time since HS biology class.  Still, logic remains immutable in all sciences...

We know we find "new" or previously "unidentified" species and life forms all the time. Whether or not they are "new" or "not new" is really not known.

But, if you take into account that (Theological Christian Premise of) "Supernaturalism can explain all things", then of course this discussion is not even necessary.

I think (which is obviously greatly faultered) that if such scientist were to include all prospects of ideas just because they are there, without first establishing something that can be observed to be true, then it would be a lifetime of including every other idea on earth and no actual observation would even have time to be done, as you would never run out of things to include but would run out of years to live doing it.

So "most" scientist that I know, tend to ( Not that there is anything wrong with it) use the results of observations that can occure.

I don't know about others, but I personally would be ecstatic to work with the idea, I just want some observable "available evidence"* (*Hereunto, and for this document known as the term [Proof]). And it seems that when I indeed seek such "proof", the only explaination of it I ever get is

(1).Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.

(2)Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.

(3)Of or relating to a deity.

(4)Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.

(5)Of or relating to the miraculous.

Supernatural forces (According to you) could be capable to influencing the natural world, yet by definition is only relating to existence outside the natural world.

Yes, if evidence linking, suggesting, implying or otherwise served to "prove" the hypothosis that "Supernatural" forces exist in the natural world, therefore can effect it, then I would welcome this new direction with open arms.

Again, as defined in this document, it needs "proof".

I have already read Hugh Ross, unlike your understanding of Gould. Very interesting, very, very interesting reading indeed.

Tell me , what is the good Doctors biography more or less?

Now you make the vacuous charge that Christian theology teaches that Supernaturalism explains "all things". Please, at least make intelligent arguments if you are going to attack a particular point of view.

Second, name one of these newly found species that scientists believe recently evolved. You can't issue the opinion that they are without evidence.

I think (which is obviously greatly faultered) that if such scientist were to include all prospects of ideas just because they are there, without first establishing something that can be observed to be true,

Um, this happens all the time in other fields. Consider autopsies. They make the distinction between natural causes and unnatural causes all the time. It isn't so hard. In daily life we do it as well. It is a simply judgement to make whether something carries the hallmarks of design vs natural causes. It is so simply we make those judgements without thinking about them. In the case of evolution such judgements are taboo and never made or allowed to be made. Simple.

then it would be a lifetime of including every other idea on earth and no actual observation would even have time to be done, as you would never run out of things to include but would run out of years to live doing it.

Again wrong. Isn't the very process of science conducive to others finishing work that you don't have time to conclude. Many are working on Einsteins unfinished theories. He never had time to complete them. Does that mean it is not valid then?

I just want some observable "available evidence"

So do I. When do I get that list of transitional forms????

And it seems that when I indeed seek such "proof", the only explaination of it I ever get is

Actually, I gave you a link to Dr. O who gave another link and some ID evidence, I gave you some book references. Have you read those yet? Or are you just going to spout more non-sense?

Yes, if evidence linking, suggesting, implying or otherwise served to "prove" the hypothosis that "Supernatural" forces exist in the natural world, therefore can effect it, then I would welcome this new direction with open arms.

Ahh, but the objective person buried inside you would also note that naturalism believes that only natural forces can explain everything in the world, i.e. supernatural forces do not and cannot exist. And the objective person would also note that such a premise has not been proven either. You have no problem ruling out something that you claim to believe in. Nice. Do you enjoy living a contradiction?

Again, as defined in this document, it needs "proof".

Again, to postulate that nothing other than natural forces exist also needs proof. When are you going to tackle that problem? Right after the transitional forms, which would be never, I'll bet.

I specifically referenced Intelligent Designers and some of Dr. O's post.

As for Gould, I have read him. You never answered my question. Is Gould lying or uninformed when he says there are no transitional forms known? If you want to advance your argument, you need to start answering questions sooner or later. As for Gould's biography, what is his? And lying or uninformed?

Before going on, let's confront the most difficult aspect of this review (aside from the problem of digesting the book itself); namely, the fact that Stephen Jay Gould died two months after it was published. The problem is that although I admired much in Gould's work - especially his persistence and panache - and agreed with his politics, I disputed, consistently, his science. Now he is deceased, and of course, we are abjured to speak only good of the dead ... or as Steve would doubtless have insisted on putting it, de mortuis nil nisi bonum. And it is tempting to do just that, to let bygones be bygones, and pass indulgently and in silence over areas of disagreement. After all, Steve Gould cannot now defend himself, a situation that most assuredly did not obtain while he lived! But in fact, he has numerous acolytes today, and moreover, any such cowardly pussy-footing on my part would be unworthy of Gould's memory. Of all the things he loved - baseball, church architecture, chorale music, Gilbert and Sullivan operettas, fossil mollusks, left-wing politics - Steve loved intellectual disputation above all, enjoyed picking scholarly fights, and never ran from one.

Stephen Jay Gould was a remarkably intelligent, learned and effective scientist/writer, but let's face it: he wasn't Moses, bearing the imperishable word of god, marmoreally inscribed (look it up) upon stone, generously carried down from Sinai for the edification of us mortals. The Sherlockian within me suspects that even The Ten Commandments were self-published; despite bearing the doughty imprimatur of Harvard University Press, TSET reads as though it, too, came from a vanity press. Maybe, as a paleontologist, the author was so accustomed to dealing with fossilized material buried beneath layers of encrusted sediment that he simply assumed most readers would approach his book armed with a rock hammer. It might help.

On the other hand, even Gould's persistent logorrhea has some redeeming consequences. One must admire a writer who comes up with "chameleonic" (as a description of George Cuvier's habit of adapting his beliefs to fit the changing ideologies of 19th century France), or "symposiast," referring to a symposium participant. But what in God's name is an "autapomorphy"? It doesn't even appear in my beloved, unabridged Oxford English Dictionary (along with several other Gouldisms). TSET is a platitudinous parcel of impenetrable ponderosity, regrettably but manifestly lacking in clarifying conciseness or concatenated cogency; in short, too many big words.

It is also replete with smug self-congratulation, including the author's repetitive public preening about his "300 consecutive monthly essays" appearing in Natural History magazine and terminated only shortly before his death. Throughout TSET, Gould is nothing if not self-referential, and sometimes this rebounds advantageously, even humorously. Thus, after complaining of being misappropriated by creationists and in the process misnamed "Dr. Jay Gould," our author adds this:

On the same theme of shoddiness in supposed creationist "scholarship," I was quite struck by a photograph, supposedly of me, that appeared in M. Bailey's creationist book for children. ... The gentleman depicted sports a flowing beard and bald pate - while my head hair has a precisely opposite distribution. He is also considerably older (and, I fancy, a good deal uglier) than I. I finally realized that he is the 19th century robber-baron Jay Gould (no relation, by the way).

I agree with Gould, by the way, that he is not to be blamed for the lamentable fact that some of his work was misappropriated by creationists ... just as sociobiology should not be excoriated for its misappropriation by a small number of racists and rightwing nuts.

The reality, however, is that for more than two decades, Steve Gould had the unenviable task of navigating between the Scylla of giving aid and comfort to creationists (who eagerly seized on many of his pronouncements as "proof" that Darwinism is in trouble) and the Charybdis of his own personal ambition. No shrinking violet, Gould was not about to refrain from trumpeting what he clearly believed - and wanted others to believe - was a genuine revolution in evolutionary thought. So he wound up doing both, providing ammunition for creationists while also engaging in an extraordinary orgy of bombastic self-promotion. (In the process, it must be noted, he also came up with more than his share of good ideas.)

Indeed, Gould himself scoffed at "Creationist" and their theories, saying "they themselves try to twist my words into unsubstantiated nonesense and meaningless theory".

What is the proof of Gould you ask? That he himself said that the ideas and theories of your's and those that think like you Seth (Creationist)is quote "Pureeded Garbage" and "Total misappropriation" of his theories.

Now, the man himself that you choose to quote to lend credence to your own arguement is saying your  view through his information is "Garbage".

Any other thing you would like to know about the good Doctor Seth?

that I cannot respect your views, I do. It is obvious your a thoughtful man with a wonderful, and flourishing mind, (exacting in detail no less and highly intelligent). I never pretend to challenge your theological views, indeed I believe it necessary for good human mental health. Your scientific knowledge however, I will assist as best I can, and saying that in a respectful modus.

I can only go on what is available to see and what is largely accepted. Even though something is not widely accepted, I do believe creationism is a honorable endeavor nonetheless, but it's postulates and methodes are fractional, unrefined and difficult to make heads or tails out of or to compair against an experimental outcome.

Should this change, again my eyes are wide open.

explains things that confront the (Christian) view of creationism with scientific, Is what I am saying.

There exist no proof either way, which I believe was the statement, but I guess I could be wrong and had forgotten what I meant to write.

Natural and unnatural casues of DEATH? He died of a heart attack (Natural)? He was murdered (unnatural)? You want scientist to conclude by this reasoning? Or you insane? You make it too simply I realize and much of what you wanted to convey certainly must have been lost. I know you too well at this point to know you must have been tired to make such a claim to reasoning

Also, I do indeed have that objective person inside me that knows creationism could very well be  a fact someday, since as you noted somewhere else, and that it is in fact possible. Probable however, hmmmm, not according to known methods of reasoning, but still possible. As it is still possible that an elephant burped up the species of man one day. It's just, improbable.

So was he lying or uninformed when he spoke of the lack of transitional forms.

Now matter how you deprecate or praise him, he did say that. No matter whether or not he was committed to the idea that someday science would uncover them and called creationism garbage, he tacitly admitted that such transitional forms have not been discovered. So don't think you can bury the fact that he said that in a book about Gould. Nor should you think that by not providing that list of transitional forms you say exist do you cloud the subject with a book on Gould.

Please answer the question. Put up or shut up.

Your scientific knowledge however, I will assist as best I can, and saying that in a respectful modus.

Thanks, but I don't think I need help with science form someone wh redefines "science" as abservational arts (thus disregarding the rich history of symbiosis with the scientific method) and who refers to science in terms of proofs. Even Von, who admits to only a high school education in science, has displayed a better understanding of what science is and is not. So no thanks.

for study on the human species, is absolutely correct. I will give you only "evidence" on the other. Give me 3 days, and you'll have your list. PLease inform of whatever else you want as I now have to hire someone to respond to you only.

If that is all that you have deciphered I am worth considered to be, then I have no more ability by mental dismissal to make arguement to your mind.

Sadly.

I am saying that in many other fields there are systems to determine what is natural and what is not. Mysteriously evolution has no such system. Perhaps that is because long before they started evolutionists concluded (without cause) that there could not have been any designer.

As for objective, you first say that evolution/naturalism are essentially proven (when they aren't) therefore you are committed to that belief. Then you say that while the non-existence of supernatural events hasn't been proven you ignore any possibility and suggest that scientists shouldn't waste their time exploring other possibilities. Yeah, real objective.

As for improbability, surely you are aware that there is no probability attached to how something actually happened. If an elephant burped up man, then it is 100% probable that that happened. If Scott killed Lacy, it is 100% that it happened. What you are trying to say, once again in very imprecise and confusing language, is that you may have doubts about it one way or another. Also concerning probability, life exists against all probability, when you look at the odds of cells forming from base chemicals, cells becoming specialized and more advanced, etc. All go against natural laws of chemistry. Thus they depend on randomness or somehow disproving the laws of chemistry. Randomness puts the odds at winning the lottery millions of times over. And you say that is probable? I think I'd take the elephant burping up the man. Only in a system where all other possibilities are excluded does that improbability become probable.

Was Gould lying or uninformed? Answer that and you may not need to hire the other person. If you'd answer my questions the first time you wouldn't need to compile a list.

You were the one that spoke of scientific proofs, ad nauseam. Even Von has a better understanding of science, proofs (or lack thereof), models, and evidence. Reading Bronowski (sp?) might be enlightening (though I disagree with many things he writes, at least he explains what science is).

So sadly, you try to claim to be a scientist when you obviously haven't even mastered the language of science. I find that very improbable, as you would say.

Christians aren't dependent on supernaturalism to explain everything that stumps them. Isaac Newton didn't have a problem in that department. So your mischaracterization only weakens whatever argument you are trying to make.

that you repeated citing of microevolution as evidence of macroevolution makes your scientific knowledge look very suspect...

rooted in.

naturalism proven? No they have evidence. Not withstanding, creationsism doesn't.

Either way, I have countered it. If that were so, how come so many scientists over the past few centuries were Christians?

look into String Theory and Quantum Physics if you turly want to know what random is, scientifically.

Huh? Sure. If you discount evidence of supernaturalism (which you obviously do--it isn't hard, you just hold to naturalism with a death grip) you can say there is no evidence of anything but supernaturalism. Ignore the fact that the universe is fine tuned for life, and no problem, it is all just random chance. No evidence.

As for that, how do you reconcile your "spirituality" with something you don't believe exists?

We have found it. Indeed I need some sort of method that gives me a base to which compair observational data to the concept of "Supernaturalism:.

Again, open arms when that happens. And we both know that isn't today. So stalemate is the best that can be hoped for from a creationist pooint of view, and indeed their sought end.

As I have asked before, when you find something that seems too odd to have "just happened" (like the car being moved) do you search frantically for natural causes or do you think maybe another person was involved? It is a very simple concept. I'm surprised you don't get it.

...that I believe that creationism has not provided me enough evidence for me to consider it within a hypothesized outcomes, that may indeed lead to theory envolving all "observational arts"*? (*Hereunto meaning physics, biology, paleontology, geology, anthropology, archeology and the like..)?

Or do you want to go on a few more days? You think it is likely to progress when we keep circling the same issues over and over? I see no end in sight, nor do I see a point anymore.

that is conjecture, ask any law professor or any other person that can properly define that term for you. As I have failed in this endeavor.

Yes, it's is ok for you to believe anything you want. It isn't ok to state that statistics is in your favor here.

of a man who has given up his beliefs. OK that was baiting lololol....

I have no problem disputing your scientific knowhow, keep at it as far as I am concerned.

It is also conjecture that transitional forms occurred. It is also conjecture that a soup (or is it a tasty pate these days?) produced the first life. You don't seem to have problems with those conjectures do you?

Good Day...

I know you are no scientist when you state that various theories are proven. I also know you are no scientist when you list microevolution or the growth in height of man as an example of macroevolution.

Perhaps you like to think in your own mind of yourself as better than you are, but that is your delusion, not mine. You also called yourself objective...lol.

of the pummeling you are getting ;-)

perhaps you could answer why Patterson stated that evolution was becoming more like religion? These aren't my statements, they are statements of candor from people in your camp. I'm sorry you don't like to hear them, but deal with it.

I can only reflect on his thoughts and actions and come to some (cloudly and perhapsed) knowledge as far as his intent. As it would be just as equally impossible for me to decipher whether or not God made the dinosaur relics to test our faith.

To interpret true intent from someone is a practice in a futile endeavor.

You postulate that there could only be (2) two possibilities of outcome, when in fact there could be countless.

He was either wrong and didn't know it, or he was wrong and knew it. Which do you think it was? Because he made the statement, and you seem to like to denigrate him as a rebuttal. And you seem to imply that everyone should ignore that statement. But if you are going to suggest that, you need to provide a reason for that suggestion. Otherwise, people should take it for what was said.

So question rephrased...why should we discard what he said?

but cannot "prove" it, nor do I have evidence that can support it, but for the life of me I cannot discover the "why" of why life exist, except that it was designed by intellect. (which is a spiritual postulate). I want info that lets me confirm this, but cannot allow those things which (I) personally feel in my scientific measurement are unsupported, generally.

Seth, I know in my heart that God created all of this, but I cannot prove it. If I can I will, but it won't be in my lifetime unless "Supernatural" forces supply me proof.

I await the day, and indeed believe spiritaully that this premise is more than viable, but only "spiritually" because I do not have the swath of evidence I have from evolutionary theory.

I think all life exist within the postulates of String theory (what a limb to go out on, this could ruin me ) where I am seeing some real compelling (not evidence) but inferrances that design is beyond what we "ALL" thought. That indeed Creationism could be so much more than anyone could every have concieved. That life itself could be in fact created from the process of life and that that process could create the highest form of string which is the (abudance and never ending cycle of life) that feeds upon itself from a "designed" (in fact, intelligent) process. Forever and unchangable. Now, that is incredibly similar to what Creationist are saying, but lets get some proof the right way. Do you understand what I am saying?

That's what I think.

that I haven't seen anyone prove his statement wrong though...

I probably shouldn't ask because it will be mistaken in intent. But for the life of me I cannot figure why on one hand you are a rabbid defender of anything evolution. Then you say if you can, you will prove it [God creation]. I hate to use the term but you are flip-flopping all over the place. You say "Facts are in a haze for biological evolution," and then you later speak as if Evolution is a proven fact. You disparage design theory, and then reference design theory yourself. You deny that there is any religiosity involved in evolution when I say it and then agree with the same statement by Patterson.

So my question is, are you suffering from any mental disorders? I really don't mean that poorly, and you certainly don't have to elaborate. I just keep getting the impression that I am dealing with a sort of Jekyle and Hyde, and I honestly can't figure out why. Five minutes from now, we will be arguing about something we previously agreed upon. And it is descending into chaos rather quickly...

damage, just mindless breaths of hot air warming me on this cool fall evening.

Cause it ain't coming from me...

of seeing each side and evaluating their merits is nothing new, the capacity to do such things is what eludes you.

I do this to teach nothing more than a high school lesson. To each his own, your views are simply put, narcissistic. Arguementative for arguements sake and literally nothing more on many accounts. I'm sure your theapist has told you the same. But to keep you indulged in your own swill of argumentative puke I offer you to dismay yourself through your own reasoning.

I have not discredited you, you have done that all by yourself, without knowing. Indeed for those who have followed this, "let those enemies to come you, and hence destroy themselves.

Joke's on you my friend. Resorting to the ad hominem in the end. So typical of you Dubya. I was sincerely concerned, but thanks for proving to me that you are unstable. The only thing proven here is that you are truly arguing to argue (and have the nerve to accuse me of the same, lol).

And what is amusing is the pedantic language of proof in terms of science, straight out of high school (so you got that part right, you are JV). Then you try to claim to be a scientist.

I ask for transitional forms....silence.

I aks where I have contradicted myself....silence.

I ask for any number of things that would help you case....silence.

So yeah, I have been discredited. Lol. Try again.

where I say I am a scientist of any sort?

But you are the one who has never seen anything except from the naturalistic point of view here. I have actually been on the other side of the fence in my lifetime. You apparently have not.

I'll get back to you... At the very least you have tried to infer it, rather pathetically, I might add.

Arguementative for arguements sake and literally nothing more on many accounts.

Of course this is what you would offer. It is the only defense you might muster that might clear you of the same charge, lol.

I have not discredited you, you have done that all by yourself

Again, where have I contradicted myself? I suppose I'll get more silence on that question. I've asked it before after all...

Glad you spent so much time thoughtfully writing instead of stealing work from others and claiming it as your own post, lol:

http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/gould.html

http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/gould.html

Would you like to confess your plagiarism?

...as you as well. To attempt to rpove things that do not exist.

"His book and it's theories are horrendous(excerpt)" - look above. See the word "excerpt".

Read thoroughly, helps in understanding things.

Again, you betray yourself.

Should you want to know of evidence of transitional forms, then go no further than your own post (above) noting a dismissal of evidence.

Could it be, that again, you betray yourself? (As noted).

Good Day.

Or it could be that you betray yourself by pretending to write things that others wrote (saying "excerpt" in some other post does not cover your rear). You quoted the same link at least three times without suggesting that it wasn't your work. As for transitional forms, I'm still waiting for that list. I haven't dismissed anything. You appear to have dismissed all reason. But that is ok, I'm used to dealing with people who claim they are arguing just to prove that the other person is arguing, lol.

Come on!  I have already given you some evidence that supports Creationism in other comments such as:

 1) The INCREASING evidence for "fine-tuning" in the laws of nature.

 2) The INCREASING improbability of another life supporting planet similar to earth.

 3) The INCREASING impossibility for life arising by naturalistic means from simple chemical precursors.

 4) The LACK of any evidence for a single new animal species since the appearance of mankind in the fossil record.

 5) The LACK of transitional forms in the fossil record (specifically goes against "gradualism", Neo-Darwinism)

 6) The PROOF that Homo sapiens sapiens ARE NOT AT ALL related to Neaderthal (we are neither descended from them nor share a recent common answer with them per mitochondrial DNA analysis)...if not Neanderthal, then where is or "missing link" to the other (now extinct) hominids??

I could go on with evidence that favors Creationism, but these were most of the significant points I had mentioned in other comments I've posted on "Redstate".

However, I understand why you (and many others) are very skeptical of any points that I try to make, because you only hear one side of the evidence and one "spin" on any evidence from most scientists today that are (knowingly or unknowingly) pure Naturalists and who have re-defined "science" to exclude any possible supernatural events in the past.  You are also skeptical, because over 90% of what you hear from Creationists are "Young Earth Creation" models, which I agree have been falsified to a high degree.  But please, open your eyes a bit, check out some Old Earth Creationist books (the leader in the field is still Dr.Ross) and also some books by the Intelligent Design movement group (many of which are excellent research scientists, not just philosophers or lawyers).

The genetic marker CCR5-delta 32 is the culpret and is certainly a mutation.

Strangley, I have been tested for just such a marker from my Irish/English background, so have family members. My mother has (2) two markers, she is comletely immune to aids altogether, I have (1) one, indeed resistance to the disease.

Hey, I was just wondering - where did you get that test?

Thanks!

A