chruch, you're making more out of this than I intended to. I really could care less why I feel what I feel, as log as I continue to feel the proper emotions at the proper times. I am talking about what science can actually determine and what it can't. I'm simply using the points made in the "What Science is Not" lesson plan to point out that some of our Evo friends are perfectly happy to abuse science in the same way that some Creationists abuse the Bible. There are limitations to what science can examine. The fact that science cannot examine something does not actually say that particular thing does not exist or is not true, all it means is that science can't study it. Am I wrong about that?

Not necessarily. I'm simply pointing out that just because science can't study something, or worse, because science can only study a portion (the physical) of an event/situation that does not mean that the portion that can't be studied does not exist or is not true, it simply means that science cannot study it, nothing more, nothing less.

Mr. Son,

I think the problem here is not what causes emotions, but rather you claiming to be able to delegate what science can and cannot study/be. Emotions simply are not something off limits to science. You can repeat your mantra in bold ad nauseam, it however does not change reality. I am not even sure why you are arguing for the case that "emotions are off limits to science", other than to create your own defined boundaries that you may use at other times. For instance, how you draw the correlation that science cannot study emotion or certain aspects of evolution.

I am not sure if your doing this is an honest case of mistaken identity or an honest case of purposely mistaking the identity. If it is a case of the latter, I think you should ask yourself what you have to gain by deceiving people and how that makes yourself look in the eyes of those that may respect you.

Before you had posted an excerpt from IU on "what science is" and then challenged anyone who disagreed with their piece and your interpretation of it to "take it up with IU". Since you seem to believe that material garnished from a college website is authoritarian, I thought it fitting I post you an excerpt from where a friend of mine does his research (He is a Neurochemist at UW). Anyway with out further ado, here is the excerpt taken from the University of Wisconsin's Neurobiology page, this excerpt is from 2001 mind you (which means in the scientific world its old news):


Edit for the LINK

In the Bible, the concept of "Faith" is in relation to Trusting the promises of God. hebrews 11 was a good example of how all those Old Testament folk acted on Faith (Trust in God). Not a single one of them was mentioned as having "Faith that God exists" (as said, many of them dealt with God directly, through burning bushes and the like).

I have a brain, I reason, I think critically, and I make proper decisions. And in all of this, as far as I'm concerned, God is real. I don't believe he's real. I know he's real. In no way, shape or form, is my Faith related to "believing in Him". As I said, I know this knowledge I have cannot be proven to anyone else, but that does not negate the way it is for me. My Faith is Trust - Trust that the promises God has made are to happen.

To re-use the example in my previous post, and to rephrase your post just a tad: When it comes to love, wonder why a god would give us a brain to reason, think critically, make proper decisions with.... and then expect us to do a 180, shut down such critical processes.... and rely solely on faith/hope that our partners who we pledge to marry will actually keep their promises of fidelity.

Using such cynicism, every pledge of truthfullness we make is an abandonment of critical thinking. If you have a wife/husband/spouse, and they say "I love you", do you think it is "critical thinking" to dismiss what they say? I wouldn't. How can trust between individuals ever be possible under such circumstances? We take it on FAITH that they are trustworthy.

In vows of love, we accept their words on Trust, because we have a reasonable belief that they are true. Naturally, sometimes this Trust/Faith is misplaced. As my Faith/Trust in God could be misplaced. But God has not yet let me down and have seen no compelling reason why God would be anything but completely truthful.

But then again, they say Love is Blind, so perhaps I'm just being blinded by my Love for God. Only time will tell. All the best, my friend

~ PA

*raises hand* I've made that statement myself also. I am a Christian and still believe that God could just as easily have set up the beginnings of evolution and let it run its course. Technically, that I believe God was behind it all, that makes me a "creationist", but I believe God used natural means to do this. Just as I believe medicine and healing is a natural way to heal that God gave us to use.

Just a thought,

Take away the neurochemistry from a human brian and I guarantee you will find a person with no emotional response, in fact probably no response whatsoever [dead]. Your demands of science are ridiculous and unethical and based on wanting to believe rather than looking at the evidence.

You have taken this approach to science before Iams, and one can only conclude it is because you actually do not respect it but, deep inside you, you loathe or fear it for stripping away what you consider the 'magic' of the human condition (and possibly making you uncertain of your own experiences).

If you wish further evidence (than that provided here) about how body/brain chemistry causes and dictates our emotional response then I suggest you study the condition of psychopathy. It (the study, not the condition!) is very educational and enlightening.

My apologies for making a personal statement about your attack on this [the science of emotion], it is not my intent to hurt you but to open your eyes to your own bias.

Mandrake, I am sorry that you have chosen “EvilBible.com” as a source for your copy-pasted Scriptures. It is a website dedicated to maligning God and Christ.

The following from their home page says it all: “This web site is designed to spread the vicious truth about the Bible. For far too long priests and preachers have completely ignored the vicious criminal acts that the Bible promotes. The so called “God” of the Bible makes Osama Bin Laden look like a Boy Scout. …” Enough said. I can understand your reluctance in giving it as your source. I also would be embarrassed to use that source.

Tell me Mandrake -- after reading the above isolated verses, how much understanding would one gain about the incidents described there? No understanding at all, agreed? ... But then, the whole purpose of the EvilBible.com website is to distort the Bible.

To understand the verses you copy-pasted, in context, you must read chapters 19, 20 and 21 in the book Judges. Mandrake, please follow the commentary, below, through the printed pages of your Bible; but if you do not own a printed Bible, I’m sure you can read these chapters on the Internet.

Let me copy-paste some excerpts from “New Bible Commentary 21st Century Edition” pp. 283 – 286, as follows:

Judges 19:1-28
... shows us how debased even such a noble thing as hospitality had become in Israel ... and it throws a significant light on the character of the Levite, who is to play a key role ... The first (verses 1-10), is normal enough, but he second, in Gibeah (v11-28), is perverted and grotesque, ... This is particularly ironical because the travellers had deliberately avoided pagan towns in order to seek hospitality with their fellow-Israelites (v12-14). The rowdies in the streets of Gibeah were clearly morally bankrupt, but so too was the [host]. ...

The Levite himself, however, is the most perverted of all. After having thrust out his concubine to the mob he retired to bed and apparently gave no further thought to her until he found her dead or unconscious on the doorstep in the morning. Then, with almost unbelievable callousness, he told her to get up because he was ready to go (v27-28).

This was the man who will summon all Israel to war ...

19:29 – 20:11 Preparation for war.
... the “assembly”, an ad hoc meeting of representatives of the tribes of Israel. ... in the days before Israel had a king it was an important institution. The welfare, and in some cases the very existence of the nation depended on its functioning effectively. Here ... the convenor of the assembly is the [earlier mentioned] Levite.

Irony is created by the fact that we, the readers, know more about the convenor and the matter in hand then the members of the assembly do:
* To us the Levite’s dismemberment of the concubine and distribution of her parts is the extension of the cool callousness he showed towards her at Gibeah.
* To them it was an act of holy zeal. They were galvanised into action ... (20:1).

Having called the assembly together, the Levite gave what was at best a distorted account of what had happened, designed totally to camouflage his complicity (cf. 20:5 with 19:25).

In view of this, the high moral tone he adopted has a particularly hollow ring to it. It is not even clear that his concubine had died (as he implied) as a direct result of her rape in Gibeah. She may have died at his own hand when he got her home (19:28).

For all this, the members of the assembly are just as impressed by the Levite’s speech as they were by his grisly summons. They are as one man and decide at once on united punitive action against Gibeah (20:8-11). It may well have been that drastic action was called for, but what would become of Israel when its assembly could be convened and manipulated by a person of such dubious morals as this Levite?

20:12-48 The war itself.
The outcome of the assembly was a holy war ... Here is a divided Israel, fighting a civil war in which brother is pitted against brother (v28). Victory is withheld until Israel is thoroughly broken and demoralised (20:26-28). Indeed, the ‘holy’ war of this chapter scarcely rates as such. It was decided on at an assembly convened by a man of bad character, and it concluded in a blood bath that reeked more of vengeful excess than of justice.

The Benjamites undoubtedly deserved to be punished. But the moral and spiritual state of the nation as a whole was such that holy war almost destroyed it instead of preserving it. ... the Lord appears to be as angry with the rest of Israel as he is with the Benjamites, and he shows it by distributing defeat and victory in such a way that the whole of Israel is judged. He is both the judge and preserver of his wayward people.

21:1-25 Rehabilitation of the surviving Benjamites.
... attention swings back to the workings of the tribal assembly.
The two oaths sworn at Mizpah (21:1, 5b) were intended to stop the evil committed by the Benjamites from contaminating the whole nation and ensure full participation by the other tribes in the punitive action that was required. But the excessive slaughter of 20:48 had now produced an unexpected result: the entire tribe of Benjamin was threatened with extinction.

The first attempt to deal with the problem (it was only partly successful) is a clear case of using one oath to circumvent another (21:6-13). It was a manoeuvre that was legally justifiable, but morally dubious to say the least, and a terrible price was paid by the people of Jabesh Gilead (v11). The second (21:15-23) has exactly the same character. The justification given in verse 22 was a clever piece of casuistry. The same men who had been so outraged at the rape of the Levite’s concubine now asked the men of Shiloh [fellow Israelites] meekly to accept the rape of their daughters as a fait accompli.

The following ironical pattern emerges:
a -- The rape of the concubine;
b -- Holy war against Benjamin;
c -- Problem: the oath – Benjamin threatened with extinction;

(ironic parallel of 'b' above) -- ‘holy’ war against Jabesh Gilead;
(ironic parallel of 'a' above) -- the rape of the daughters of Shiloh.

The behaviour of the assembly in this episode again shows us just how morally and spiritually bankrupt Israel had become. But in spite of this the story finally moves to a point of fragile equilibrium, with the Benjamites rehabilitated and calm restored (21:23-24).

Amazingly, Israel has survived, but looking back we must conclude that this was due much more to God’s overruling that to the performance of its leaders and its institutions.
-=-=-

Mandrake, I'll give you one guess as to why your EvilBible.com omits the last verse:
Jdg 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel. Every man did the right in his own eyes.

Anyway, if you would like more information regarding these three chapters, please feel free to ask.

Edit:
If you have seen the movie "Braveheart", then imagine the above setting of Judges, chapters 19 to 21 in a similar tribal and cultural setting. Just an afterthought, but I believe a valid comparison ... this I think may lend a feeling of reality about the war-torn times of ancient Israel.

Copasetic, given that no one has questioned my respectability, your concern for it seems more like a subtle attempt to lay down the seeds of doubt.

The main reason I posted the "What science is not" list and pointed out it is a lesson plan from a university was because I wanted to insure it would not be immediately dismissed by the Evos on this site. I have noticed that no one has pointed out where any of those points is incorrect or false, the arguments have very pointedly been directed at my posts and as much as I have pointed out that my posts are based on one or several of the items on the list no one has bothered to tell me which of the points I am basing my posts on is incorrect, even when I have specifically asked if they are correct or not.

So, "Come, let us reason together." (Isaiah 1:18a) let's look at the items I am basing my posts on, and I will post what I perceive the item to be stating and what my conclusions are:

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/unt.not.html

I interpret this list item to state:
1. Science is a tool (a process)
2. Science is limited in scope

These are the logical conclusions I arrive at:
1. Since science is limited, then by definition there are things which lie outside of its limits
2. Since science is limited, then it does not define the limits of reality or the human experience
3. Since science is limited, then it cannot be used to validate NOR invalidate those items which lie outside of it's scope


Everyone, please review the item from the list, and if you see a fault in my logic, please point it out.

I am being honest and respectful in my post, and I am really interested in having any fault in my logic or my interpretation of the list item pointed out. Your disrespectful, sarcastic, derisive, or dismissive posts will be a commentary on you and your inability to find an error in my thinking, and I will point it out as such.

Come, let us reason together.

I'm sure you are correct that there would be no emotional response, but would that prove that the neurochemistry was the cause of the emotions? Could this not also be interpreted to mean that the neurochemical reaction is an integral part of the process of expressing emotions? There is a difference between something being integral to a process and being the cause of the process. If I take the battery out of my car, my car will not start, does that mean the battery is the cause of internal combustion? No, but it is an integral part of the operation of the engine.

Interesting opinion Leo. Interesting, but wrong. Do you fear that your parents are not real? Of course not. Why? Because you know your parents, you have a relationship with them, you have personal experience of their existence. So do I when it comes to God and/or the "magic" of the human condition.

Frankly, saying that I must fear science simply because I disagree with the way some people attempt to use it in certain fields of study seems like a desperate attempt to avoid facing something which is patently obvious.

I think maybe this is more a commentary on your fear of the reality of those things which lie outside the purview of science than on my fear of science.

I'm sure it is. But since I am basing my opinion on the lesson plan "What Science is not" maybe you would be willing to respond to the post I just wrote in response to copacetic's "concern" for my respectability.

Since I am not "attacking" anything, but simply interpreting something based on the list of what science is not, I can't help but see this as an attempt to discredit me since you can't discredit the post. Again, I invite you to respond to my post to copacetic. I am really interested in where I have taken a misstep, my logic or my interpretation.

Why should believing in God have to be difficult?! Why not rock-solid proof?! We're talking about your immortal soul here!

Scoring points ... Just another reason why I left Christianity: insincerity. If I do something nice etc., I'll get rewarded. That's the ultimate goal ... the reward--heaven, 72 virgins et al. How about doing something good out of pure selflessness, with no thought of scoring points--a reward?



Here-here!!!!

Most kindly,

Sean

Apparently, you haven't read my post, #368, in this thread, where I list several things that were once considered "supernatural" that science has since explained.

In fact, the annals of science are filled with examples of beliefs that were once considered "supernatural" that have since been explained SCIENTIFICALLY.

Feel free to redefine supernatural as you see fit to disprove my statement.

Of course whether there is any supernatural at all is very much debatable.
Also since there is nothing to suggest that the brain works in any other way outside of a biochemical way it is possible to use biochemistry to understand how the human brain works and why it does what it is does. That includes how and why the brain arrives at certain conclusions and how emotions occur. Science is limited in its scope to what there is evidence for the existence of. Anything else is merely speculation. But if it exists there is no reason why it can not be studied.

At this point I need to interject a very salient point to the evolution/creationism debate. Evolutionists consistently state there is no scientific evidence for creationism. Then when we actually offer some, they summarily dismiss it. This has happened several times during my short tenure on these boards. Here are three examples.

1. The earth/moon system shown to have a maximum age of 1.5 billion years.
2. Volcanic rock of Mt. St. Helen’s shown to have dates of around 1 million years using modern dating techniques. These rocks are less than 30 years old.
3. Variation in c values. This data has tremendous implication with respect to the currently accepted theories of evolution. See post # 154, 155, 394.

This shows that both sides of this debate are guilty of what evolutionists usually toss at creationists; namely using “BLIND FAITH” to interpret their worldviews.

I don’t think that there is a problem as long as evolutionists are willing to concede the point that they accept the theory of evolution in the same way that creationists hold to creationism; they “BELIEVE” it to be so.

Both worldviews seem to require that much criticized concept of “Faith.”

When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!
That quote is from George Wald, "The Origin of Life" Scientific American 191:48, May 1954

Ah the joys of tabloid style quoting and ignoring context.
A full account of what George Wald said.

Also 1) No they haven't.
2) by delibrately using the wrong dating techniques to falsify results.
3) Which could not get published because they are hugely flawed.
And guess what, even if that was the case, it still wouldn't be evidential support for creationism. No creator = no support for creation.

You aren't getting it Yeti. It looks to me like you have no idea what you are talking about.
Please explain WHY the earth/moon system must have a maximum of '1.5 billion years', don't just say it.


Problems with the the Mt. Helens:
Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old. All of the measured ages but one fall well under the stated limit of accuracy, so the method applied to them is obviously inapplicable. Since Austin misused the measurement technique, he should expect inaccurate results, but the fault is his, not the technique's. Experimental error is a possible explanation for the older date.

Austin's samples were not homogeneous, as he himself admitted. Any xenocrysts in the samples would make the samples appear older (because the xenocrysts themselves would be old). A K-Ar analysis of impure fractions of the sample, as Austin's were, is meaningless.

Henke, Kevin R. n.d. Young-earth creationist 'dating' of a Mt. St. Helens dacite: The failure of Austin and Swenson to recognize obviously ancient minerals. http://noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm



OK, look. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT CHANGES.
Even if the speed of light HAS changed in just a way to screw the radiometric dating stuff off, THEN WHY DO THE DOZENS OF OTHER DATING METHODS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SPEED OF LIGHT AGREE WITH RADIOMETRIC DATING?



There is a difference between Spontaneous Generation and abiogenesis.

Cheers,
SQLserver

No, I keep seeing posts where people respond to these "facts" of yours and point you to sites explaining these fallacies (and not all of the links are to "anti-creationism" websites) in scientific terms (or even explain the fallacies in their posts), which YOU then proceed to ignore or summarily dismiss yourself.

In other words. quoting poor science doesn't make it correct.

I'm not very religious (i try do my best tho) But this emailed to me on MSN thought i'd share, make of it whatever ya like...



BTW note the site name; GodTube lol!

All hail the FSM!!!!!!





I think we will simply have to agree to disagree here PA. IMHO, faith is believing--hoping--God exists in lieu of evidence. That said, both Abraham and Noah had evidence of God's existence--He spoke to them! Why does God not do the same now?



How can anyone possibly know an invisible, omnipotent, omniscient being exists--particularly when that being has refused for time immemorial to make ITS presence known in a concrete manner?



PA, I was not being cynical. This was a question I asked myself countless times during my de-conversion. It was (I felt) an abandonment of critical thinking to be asked to believe in something that there was no proof for. Why not provide simple proof so that we can analyze it with the brain God supposedly gave us? Is this not how He created us--to think critically and reasonably about all things ... particularly those things that are the most difficult and complex?! We are talking about the most important decision in life! Our souls are literally on the line here!



Finally!!! I never called myself a creationist. I simply said I believed in Guided Evolution. I was technically a Gevolutionist!



A good one.

MK,

Sean

It simply boils down to this Creationists ... Has creationism led to advances in medicines, gentics etc.? Has it been demonstatable in the lab? NO!

Most kindly,

Sean

Have apemen evolving into humans been demonstrable in the lab? Has abiogenesis been demonstratable in the lab? Has this led to advances in medicine? NO!

Sean, I WAS JOKING! I was kidding around a little bit. It is possible to score points in heaven, IMO but that was a tongue in cheek comment. I am a sincere Christian but I will admit that there are many who are not. Remeber, Christians are people! We're not perfect, but we love the one who is! I can''t comment on why you left Christianity - that's your own personal decision, but I am sorry to hear it.

That said, and just a thought here, why are both Abraham and Noah accorded as having great Faith - if they had evidence of God's existence...... isn't that a contradiction in terms if Faith is believing/hoping God exists in lieu of the evidence?

As to why God does not do the same now, I have addressed it before and we arrived at a stalemate (well, agreed to disagree as well). Since it's not really the point of this topic, I'll leave it there, I think.

To me, it's just logical. I look outside and I see the glory of God, obvious as you can be. As I said, there is no way I can convince anyone else, but from where I sit, I know God exists. Just as I know my parents love me.

Is it an abandonment of critical thinking to take it on Faith (Trust) that our family loves us? Yes, you could say that they show their love through their actions, but as I said, it's always been clear to me that God exists. I did not always identify this creator as the Christian-God, but I always believed (though at times I moved towards agnosticism). From what I can see (and no, I can't prove this to anyone but me), God has shown his love to us.

I think this belief is more widespread than you would give it credit for. There are quite a lot of people who think Christianity and evolution can go hand-in-hand. Just to clarify though, I'm not saying that evolution is fact. I don't know enough about it to make that assertion. But by the same token I'm not dismissing it. Quite frankly, I don't care. Whether God created the world through evolution or some other means, it's all the same to me.

Thanks, but as I said, I think you'll find it's more popular than you think All the best,

Thank you for so adequately putting an exclamation point on my points from post #412. I hope that at least one evolutionist who posts here will be intellectually honest enough to concede the points made in post #412. Just admit that it is a correct point. That's all I'm asking for.

Oh please WWF!!!!!! Evolution has been proven in thousands of experiments in and out of the lab over a period of over 150 years!!! Creationism? Nothing!!!!! Can be used only in Sunday school and not in the lab!!

Science is used to test itself. That is why you have theories shot down all the time and new ones advanced. This leads to advancements in all the sciences every day. Creationism ...? Nothing--neither on a micro or macro level. It cannot be used in the lab. As Biologist Dr. Douglas Theobald stated to me in an email a while back regarding evolution and creationism:

... But I am a research scientist, and I require that "working" inferences and explanations be tangibly productive (or at the very least not misleading), regardless of my political and philosophical preferences. My research (cancer research at the molecular level) and scientific success depends on it. Contrary to common public perception and to the unsubstantiated claims of many non-scientist Creationists, evolutionary theory is fundamental to progress in the biological sciences, and it is only becoming more so as we become engulfed in the information tsunami coming from large-scale genomic sequencing projects. I cannot afford to use concepts that lead to the wrong inferences or that just lead to nowhere. The real-life stakes are much too high, and in the end reality has no sympathy for quaint philosophical biases.

Cheers,

Douglas

^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`
Douglas L. Theobald, Ph.D.
American Cancer Society Postdoctoral Fellow
http://www.cancer.org/
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry University of Colorado at Boulder

In other words ... If evolution wasn't FACT, he couldn't do what he does, medications et al could not be developed, and people would die. Can creation "scientists" make such claims? No!

Sean

My post
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=2282389

son you are using informal logic which is achieved by focusing on experience rather than form....to have a logical argument one has to meet certain criteria, validity is a concept dervied from 'formal logic' validity is truth preserving, content has little bearing if you form your arguements on soundness to begin with........

when one uses informal logic they come up with their own ways of testing and weighing claims as we can see by many of your posts which has lead to a tendency over time to develop reasoning patterns that do not produce very good results..you don't use your thinking apparatus to its full potential....


you infer from authority alot and thats fine but you have to meet the three key tests, one is you have to be an expert in your field,( gosh you posit with no grounds with known experts on UM for instance, you do this alot , ) you have to have a basis for your judgments, and the authority you infer can't be contradicted by most other experts....You rarely if at all meet these points.....

I do think you would be an excellent arguer if you understood it, you see limits as a 'bad thing" try and get a better udnerstanding of science this would help you alot..... ... I hope this helps you son, i genuinely would like to see some sound arguments from you in the future........

Actually, evidence for creationism has been given on these boards many times by people such as Yeti, IamSon, and myself, but skeptics like to cover their eyes and pretend like it was never posted.

Also, evolution has to be demonstrable in nature and to this point it has failed on most accounts. Most of what's available isn't even science due to it not being testable, observable, measureable, and repeatable, which are necessary for it to be considered valid science.

Medications have been developed for thousands of years, long before any ideas of evolution arose. Medications are developed through testing in labs and on humans and doesn't require any belief on humans evolving from apemen.

Even if I take away points 1&2 from post #412 - this remains. http://www.ldolphin.org/cdkalan.html No one here can dismiss this piece of "good" science from your own team. Please concede post #412, not so I can dance a happy jig around my office and gloat, so that you can show that you are at least honest. Thank you.

3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.

This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.

These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Gal¿pagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.

It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.

REST HERE: Scientific America
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-ans...&print=true

*ESSAY V: EVOLUTION FOR CHRISTIANS
by Christian Robert J. Schneider
http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/essay05.asp

Intelligent Design
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/intelligent_design.htm

Intelligent Design: An Ambiguous Assault on Evolution
http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/050922_ID_main.html

The Top 10 Intelligent Designs (or Creation Myths)
http://www.livescience.com/history/top10_i...nt_designs.html

Top 10 Missing Links
http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/to...ssinglinks.html

*Scientific America: 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
By John Rennie (editor in chief of Scientific American)
http://www.angelfire.com/ok5/pearly/htmls/gop-evolution.html

*National Center for Science Education (NCSE)
http://www.ncseweb.org/

*The New Yorker: DEVOLUTION: Why intelligent design isn’t.
by H. ALLEN ORR
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050530fa_fact

Evolution
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/index.html

Evolution multimedia library
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/index.html

Sean

Dear WalkingWithFire and YetiHunter,

Please see my post #415...

You both keep saying the "Evolutionists" here are ignoring the science "facts" given by Yetihunter.

YOU are the ones ignoring things. Post after post explains the incorrect science behind those "facts" or points you to sites explaining the bad science behind these facts, and YOU keep covering your ears and going "la, la, la"

Exactly, it relies on inference so it's not real science. I highlighted the above remark from what you posted. It would be dishonest to change what science is just for people who want to believe in theories of evolution. Evolution should be held to the same standard as other sciences.

No it has been shown through genetics and the fossil record.
The processes that can lead to abiogenesis have been reproduced in the lab and numerous methods of producing biological molecules naturally have been demonstrated.
The genetics work has lead to greater insight into cancer helping with the diagnosis and screening of it.


swollen_ostrich - Walking with Fire is a WUM (wind up merchant) he will ignore evidence (on the grounds that he didn't like it). and deliberately misquote and will just try and be disruptive with out trying to bring anything to the debate. I may not agree with Yeti, but he will at least try and form a sound argument and is reasonable, WWF is not.

Nobody is ignoring anything, but rather not being sucked into psuedo-science being pushed by skeptics. I suggest you study the arguments in greater detail if you think what's being presented are good supported scientific arguments. True science is testable, observable, repeatable, and measureable per the scientific method. If arguments for evolution aren't supported by science that meets this standard, then they're not valid.

Evolution is a belief system based on scientific theory, the fossil record, modern man's opinion, and faith.

Creationism is a belief system based on faith, the bible, and the opinion that God is honest.

You have more evidence than we do. Please concede the points of post #412. It's not going to change anything. Intellectual honesty demands it - it really does.

You have ignored many scientific papers and even cited "I didn't like the look of them" as a reason to ignore them. Including seminal work such as Dodd's fruit fly experiments showing allopatric speciation.

I let SO speak for me here ... You both keep saying the "Evolutionists" here are ignoring the science "facts" given by Yetihunter.

YOU are the ones ignoring things. Post after post explains the incorrect science behind those "facts" or points you to sites explaining the bad science behind these facts, and YOU keep covering your ears and going "la, la, la"

Maybe you'll listen to a Christian ...

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

Theodosius Dobzhansky

INTRODUCTION

I've chosen this title for the essay on biological evolution because it has become clear to me that most Christians know little about the scientific details of evolution, either about the enormous amount of evidence already gathered to support evolution or the dominant theory that explains how it happens, natural selection. This is true both of Christians who accept evolution and support teaching it in the public schools of the United States and those who reject it and oppose its teaching. Part of the problem for this widespread ignorance lies with the politics of local education, as became clear the first year I taught "Science and Faith" at Berea College. After we had looked at evolution, I asked the twenty students in the seminar if they had learned about evolution in any of their high school science classes. Only four had, one in a Catholic high school. One by one, most of the students who attended public high schools stated, "The teacher skipped that chapter." After the fifth time, I said, "I know why the teacher skipped that chapter. She didn't want to get late-night phone calls with complaints from irate parents, or a pointed request from the principal to avoid 'controversial' subjects."

REST HERE: ESSAY V: EVOLUTION FOR CHRISTIANS
by Christian Robert J. Schneider
http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/essay05.asp

Sean


Sean

Abiogenesis has never been recreated in the lab. If you're saying it has then prove it.

Claims about the fossil record are supposition and can't be proven. They're a guess of how things took place.

Genetics work doesn't necessarily mean evolution. Information theory doesn't demand evolutionary changes. Also, changes within a lab do not necessarily prove changes in nature because it took lab conditions to trigger the changes.

Mattshark, you can flame me all you want. However, I understand it is because I demand real science and you want to provide supposition which isn't fully supported.

I never said that. If I don't like a paper I quote directly from it. A lot of times you will send links to only the abstracts of papers or you will send links to articles that don't follow the scientific method.

Did I say that it had been recreated? No. Try reading.

Fossil record combined with genetic data are in fact excellent evidence. Please show me some real science that says it isn't. And guess what yes it does, if it happens in the lab by just isolating population it can happen in nature. Since you didn't even both to read the paper or learn anything about you are in no position to make comment on it.

Also I was not flaming, I was merely pointing out your behaviour.

I never thought I would see this from the Mattshark. The stoic defender of truth has caved.

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations
by Ian Musgrave
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Intro

Abiogenesis
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB0

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology by Chris Colby (Genetic Variation)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology

4. Problems with Evolution
5. Problems with the Fossil Record

Even during my fifteen years as a Christian, I believed in evolution. The evidence was simply overwhelming, and to deny it - - and I am speaking only for myself here - - would have been intellectually dishonest. So, to have my cake and eat it too, I believed in "Guided Evolution" - - that God created all life, and guided it on an evolutionary path over millions of years to where it is today. I see absolutely no reason why a Christian cannot believe in both God and evolution. It simply baffles me.

The evidence for evolution? If the fossil record isn't enough ... just look at the human body. Genetics ... Both apes and humans are 99% the same. You are also a walking Periodic Table--oxygen, hydrogen, zinc, magnesium, calcium, copper etc.--everything that makes up the earth, a star. And water? By weight we are some 72% water! Our blood? Nearly 85% water! The brain? 95% water! Also, why can you be born covered fully in hair (hypertrichosis) and have a tail (vestigial tail)? Why wisdom teeth, which are vestigial third molars? How can you live without an appendix and other once essential organs? Evolution!

That said, why would God deliberately create so many closely related hominid species--an extensive fossil record of human evolution? Why purposely create confusion amongst His followers? Why not make human beings so unique to this world--so unique that not another single creature even remotely resembles us--that their would be not the slightest doubt that we were created by a deity/force?

2. How did humans evolve?

Since the earliest hominid species diverged from the ancestor we share with modern African apes, 5 to 8 million years ago, there have been at least a dozen different species of these humanlike creatures. Many of these hominid species are close relatives, but not human ancestors. Most went extinct without giving rise to other species. Some of the extinct hominids known today, however, are almost certainly direct ancestors of Homo sapiens. While the total number of species that existed and the relationships among them is still unknown, the picture becomes clearer as new fossils are found. Humans evolved through the same biological processes that govern the evolution of all life on Earth. See "What is evolution?", "How does natural selection work?", and "How do organisms evolve?"

SOURCE: Frequently Asked Questions About Evolution
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/

Evolution
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/index.html

Sean

It has nothing to do with who is a Christian and who isn't. Evolution simply isn't feasible as a theory. Yeti has recently posted several reasons why. One example is the maximum age of the earth-moon system, which doesn't allow for enough time for all the proposed evolution to have taken place.

Oh brother ...

These articles have already been posted on here before. No evidence of abiogenesis, not even in a lab. The most anybody was able to come up with in a thread of about 500 posts was the Miller-Urey experiment which yielded a handful of amino acids (About 2% useable) but they were in the wrong environment.

Oh brother again ...

Why the hesitations? We ARE NOT CRITICIZING SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENTS!!!!!!!! We just want you to concede post #412. It's that simple, like it or not, evolution is a belief system - admitt it.

Evolution isn't a belief system. Its established science in many different fields, from biology to psychology.

Anyone who thinks its a belief system doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.

Evolution is not a belief system. It has been proven in countless experiments! Creationism? Zippo! It is creationism, based on the literal interpretation of Genesis--a religious text--that is a belief system!