Why I believe in God?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

From the time of Hume to the present day, the Argument of Design has been repeatedly shown to be nonsensical. You may be unaware of the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent, and that's why people like Stephen Meyer and Michael Behe can sell so many books. However, that's no excuse for dragging this argument out after it's been refuted so many times.

For the millionth time, you can't use your conclusion as the validation for your major premise. That is, using "only intelligent design could account for the such-and-such natural phenomenon" as your major premise assumes what you're trying to prove. Since Darwin, humans have discovered many natural mechanisms that could account for such-and-such natural phenomenon that don't involve the intentional activity of an intelligent designer. Even if logic hadn't already gutted the Argument from Design, what we've discovered about the biosphere would have made it obsolete.

---

Get lost. The argument sticks because it has validity. Argue with Einstein and Newton.

The problem I have with you personally Babbalanja (or whatever your name is) is that you refuse to give resoect to other people's opinions. It has not been shown to be nonsensical.

Every scientist discovering any scientific revelation is affirming the consequence. Using the "affirming the consequence" as a de facto fallacy rules out by definition any cause. And not just as a proof of God but for any event. If I were to trip over a wire and found me dead on the floor beside it, you would have to rule out my tripping over that wire as a consequence by affirmation, even though the overwhelming probablility shows it to be the fact.. Your argument is in itself a fallacy. You're argument is the fallacious one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Get lost. The argument sticks because it has validity. Argue with Einstein and Newton.

The problem I have with you personally Babbalanja (or whatever your name is) is that you refuse to give resoect to other people's opinions. It has not been shown to be nonsensical.

Every scientist discovering any scientific revelation is affirming the consequence. Using the "affirming the consequence" as a de facto fallacy rules out by definition any cause. And not just as a proof of God but for any event. If I were to trip over a wire and found me dead on the floor beside it, you would have to rule out my tripping over that wire as a consequence by affirmation, even though the overwhelming probablility shows it to be the fact.. Your argument is in itself a fallacy. You're argument is the fallacious one.

---

Hear, hear!!

I'm looking for the uprave button, but I didn't see one!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Get lost. The argument sticks because it has validity. Argue with Einstein and Newton.

---

Man, I really dislike it when either sides of the theist/atheist spectrum use what these men said as spokesmen for their own beliefs. But what I dislike even more is when they use these men's personal beliefs as arguments against a certain scientific theory they happen to dislike.

First off, Newton did not believe in evolution because he lived almost 200 years before Darwin, and thus is a meaningless point. I having read Einstein's biography can state as a clear fact that he most obviously accepted the theory of evolution as almost any reasonable scientist did. Also, based on Einstein's personal and philosophical writings, he was most likely somewhere between an agnostic and a pantheist (the latter very definite in his later years), and though he was no longer an observant Jew, he greatly respected and embraced the culture in his later life.

Besides, what ever happened to faith? Why must the existence of God come down to a little puzzle so that it can compete with evolution?

Quote:

---

Every scientist discovering any scientific revelation is affirming the consequence. Using the "affirming the consequence" as a de facto fallacy rules out by definition any cause. And not just as a proof of God but for any event. If I were to trip over a wire and found me dead on the floor beside it, you would have to rule out my tripping over that wire as a consequence by affirmation, even though the overwhelming probablility shows it to be the fact.. Your argument is in itself a fallacy. You're argument is the fallacious one.

---

Leaving aside criticisms of causality itself in both philosophy and quantum physics, I would like to simple point out that in your analogy of the dead body and the wire, you forcibly inject God into it. If I were a police officer at a crime scene, I would conclude that the dead body was caused by the wire because I saw it right there and made inductive conclusions. This example is ridiculous when compared to the existence of a supernatural entity. No one is denying the existence of the wire because it is perceivable through the senses. The unmoved mover (to use the Aristililean term) is no where in the picture in scientific revelation, He is merely semantically injected into it as the definition of the cause of the revelation a priori. To summarize it, you are assuming that God is even there, and thus the cause. The wire is there and thus can reasonably be concluded to be the cause.

Now I'm not even an empiricist when it comes to these deep philosophical questions of the universe, but I am as almost everyone else is when it comes to everyday life. This is why I've disliked these analogies which are so simplistic and hardly match the question at hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

Besides, what ever happened to faith? Why must the existence of God come down to a little puzzle so that it can compete with evolution?

---

You know, anything and everything that has ever needed to be said about the debate between atheists and theists has already been said by South Park.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

as almost any reasonable scientist did.

---

Why the generalization that ALL scientist accept the hypothesis of evolution? And for those scientist who may not....well, they must just be 'unreasonable'?

There are many scientists...as well as doctors...who do not buy into the sketchy evidences that are forced together to create the illusion that one species could possible change so much as to become something else. The only thing that we can observe is viruses and simple adaptations. Why are there not primates that are continuing to 'evolve'? It's not the LINK that is missing, it is the whole chain. But evolutionists look at ME as the absurd one...really, I tire of the arrogance that is used that drives people to diminish believers of faith, when they themselves have their own faith in their 'so-called' science. It is NOT science, it is speculation. Nothing more...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

Why the generalization that ALL scientist accept the hypothesis of evolution? And for those scientist who may not....well, they must just be 'unreasonable'?

---

I like how you ignored my entire argument and focused on only one unimportant aspect.

Yes they would be, because of the mounds of evidence presented in the past one-hundred years. Also, I find it funny that you have stopped using the word 'theory' and lowered it down to 'hypothesis.'

Quote:

---

There are many scientists...as well as doctors...who do not buy into the sketchy evidences that are forced together to create the illusion that one species could possible change so much as to become something else. The only thing that we can observe is viruses and simple adaptations. Why are there not primates that are continuing to 'evolve'? It's not the LINK that is missing, it is the whole chain. But evolutionists look at ME as the absurd one...really, I tire of the arrogance that is used that drives people to diminish believers of faith, when they themselves have their own faith in their 'so-called' science. It is NOT science, it is speculation. Nothing more...

---

I think the reasons for most of the opposition to evolution by the general public (besides its supposed incompatibility with religion) is because of the many misconceptions, misunderstandings, and just plain ignorance of the theory.

A primate didn't just give birth to a human and volla we have homo sapiens! It took many conditions in the environment (changes in climate, natural disasters, etc.) for natural selection to even come about. And then, slow, at first hardly noticable changes happened over long periods of time. Please, I beg you to at least have some understanding of evolution and the history of the theory before engaging in a debate. Sketchy evidence? Come on. In all the fields of science, evolution is the theory in the past 100 some years which has probably recieved the greatest amount of evidence.

If you want to start arguing evidence, then present us with some evidence on your side of the matter. Why is it that you are allowed to make the claim to reason when criticizing evolution, but then run into the safe-hold of faith when your beliefs are criticized?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

Why the generalization that ALL scientist accept the hypothesis of evolution? And for those scientist who may not....well, they must just be 'unreasonable'?

There are many scientists...as well as doctors...who do not buy into the sketchy evidences that are forced together to create the illusion that one species could possible change so much as to become something else. The only thing that we can observe is viruses and simple adaptations. Why are there not primates that are continuing to 'evolve'? It's not the LINK that is missing, it is the whole chain. But evolutionists look at ME as the absurd one...really, I tire of the arrogance that is used that drives people to diminish believers of faith, when they themselves have their own faith in their 'so-called' science. It is NOT science, it is speculation. Nothing more...

---

The vast majority do accept the THEORY of evolution, not the hypothesis. You display several misunderstanding of evolutionary theory in your post alone.

For one, if simple adaptations aren't evolution, what do you suppose they are?

Secondly, apes are continuing to evolve, no life is static and there is continual change in frequency of alleles within populations.

It is nonsense to dismiss all the evidence for evolution as "speculation". There is phylogenetic evidence, geographical genetic difference, comparative anatomy, fossil record, comparative genetics, embryology, genetics, it all supports evolution.

Let's take a single example like snakes. From the fossil records and comparative examination of the skeleton scientist first concluded that they evolved from a family of lizards. Then we found that genetically it seemed there were two mutations that resulted in the loss of the limbs at two separate points. Finally, after we found the genetic evidence pointing to loss of the front and back limbs at different periods we found a transitional fossil of a species of proto-snake which had two limbs. This is just one of several examples of clear evolutionary progression due to progressive genetic change we know of.

Then we have things like ring species which point to how species diversification can occur.

I can't even begin to scratch the surface of the evidence that exists for evolution. If I exhausted every bit of evidence I know of, I could go out and find twice as much.

"Evolutionist" look at you like you're absurd, because when you say things like this about evolution, you look absurd.

Seriously, if you think no species can change into something else, what do you think of fossils. I'm honestly bewildered by that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

I find it funny that you have stopped using the word 'theory' and lowered it down to 'hypothesis.'

---

It is what it is...

Quote:

---

A primate didn't just give birth to a human

---

At what point did the ape become a human? Heavy question...so then, where are all the species that you speak about in the chain that no longer exists? You speak about ignoring arguments....answer that simple question.

And stop insulting my intelligence...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

It is what it is...



At what point did the ape become a human? Heavy question...so then, where are all the species that you speak about in the chain that no longer exists? You speak about ignoring arguments....answer that simple question.

---

Was about to reply, but thankfully OrphanPip supplied a lucid and intelligent answer.

Quote:

---

And stop insulting my intelligence...

---

Stop insulting the scientist's.

End-note: I find it funny how creationists when engaging in a debate, always seem to have very little understanding of the simple basics of evolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

At what point did the ape become a human? Heavy question...so then, where are all the species that you speak about in the chain that no longer exists? You speak about ignoring arguments....answer that simple question.

And stop insulting my intelligence...

---

They went extinct...

None of the contemporaries of the most recent common ancestor of chimps and humans are alive either.

There are around 15 species of hominid identified in the fossil record that lie between us and the MRCA of chimps and humans.

Greater than 99.9% of species found in the fossil record are extinct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

The vast majority do accept the THEORY of evolution, not the hypothesis.

---

At one time, the vast majority of the world actually believed that the world was flat. At one time, the vast majority believed that the earth of the center of the universe. All of this under the authority of THE CHURCH. Well, this current hypothesis is CALLED a theory, so therefore, everyone just accepts it.

I'm not going to address every little point of your arguments, because they are diversionary in nature.

Where is the chain of evolution? Don't tell me that every link has died off. I don't buy that. We aren't just talking about every link from primate to human, but also in every species on the earth. We witness all species only reproducing within its own species. Nothing is crawling up onto the shore. No one is walking around dragging their knuckles. Please don't open up any new arguments until you answer this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

They went extinct...

.........

Greater than 99.9% of species found in the fossil record are extinct.

---

Oh...really! THAT is a new one...

Then there should be PLENTY of WHOLE fossils......but we never find WHOLE fossils of the evolutionary links. The evidence doesn't exist. Show me pictures that are not just drawings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

At one time, the vast majority of the world actually believed that the world was flat. At one time, the vast majority believed that the earth of the center of the universe. All of this under the authority of THE CHURCH. Well, this current hypothesis is CALLED a theory, so therefore, everyone just accepts it.

---

That's because they were indoctrinated by religious dogma. As a matter of fact, the ancient Greek mathematically proved that the earth was round over 2500 years before Columbus. People just didn't buy it because of religious dogma set up by the church. I wonder if that still happens today? :rolleyes:

Science changes dude. We don't have all the answers nor do we pretend to. Science does not present itself as the absolute truth as religion does. Evolution is merely the best theory we have right now. Understand, science has no way at coming to absolute conclusions. That does not discredit evolution, because right now we have every reason to believe that it is true, just as we have every reason to believe in Copernicean astronomy.

Quote:

---

I'm not going to address every little point of your arguments, because they are diversionary in nature.

---

If you refuse to engage us, we refuse to engage back. Address our points and we will address yours

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

That's because they were indoctrinated by religious dogma. As a matter of fact, the ancient Greek mathematically proved that the earth was round over 2500 years before Columbus. People just didn't buy it because of religious dogma set up by the church. I wonder if that still happens today? :rolleyes:

---

Yes...but now it's called scientific dogma...

I only wish that you would STOP engaging my statements of faith and truth. But you seem to love to try to prove my thoughts and opinions to be wrong. If you wish to have faith the the hypothesis and 'theories' of those who advocate evolutionary processes, you are more than welcome to do that. If you wish to believe that all things just came about with no direction or guidance, by forces that came from no where, and that all things are an accident...that is your prerogative.


I wish to believe the evidence that the earth is about 6,000 years old and designed by a supernatural Being that is greater and more intelligent that what we see around us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

Where is the chain of evolution? Don't tell me that every link has died off. I don't buy that. We aren't just talking about every link from primate to human, but also in every species on the earth. We witness all species only reproducing within its own species. Nothing is crawling up onto the shore. No one is walking around dragging their knuckles. Please don't open up any new arguments until you answer this one.

---

This notion of a chain is a bit misleading to begin with. Evolution is better thought of in terms of clades, with branches.

I can address every one of these points.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by having a problem with every species on Earth. We have transitional fossils and species from all sorts of genuses and orders. It is just a fact of life that the species extant in one period are not the same as those extant in others, for one genetic drift alone would result in new structures and breeding isolation if geographic isolation occured.

The problem with why one may think they observe that species only breed within themselves is mostly because the common public is only familiar with the "biological species" definition of species. This is the definition of a species based on breeding isolation. However, if one looks closely at living things you'll find this isn't really an adequate definition of species. Lion and tigers can breed, but aren't the same species. So can horses and donkeys. Interbreeding amongst different plant species is even more common.

Although, the reason why different looking organisms so often can't breed with each other is because breeding isolation is often a major cause for evolutionary diversification. Genetic drift in isolated population results in significant enough change in the receptors of the sperm, eggs, and chemoattractants that two populations geographically separated can become breeding isolates. This can be seen in ring species.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...es_example.png

In this example of Atlantic sea gulls arrows represent populations capable of interbreeding. You can see how geographical isolation and genetic drift can result in breeding isolation.

As to why we don't often see fish evolving into amphibians as must of happened once in the past. Well for one the niche is now sadly filled by an abundance of land animals that it would not be evolutionarily advantageous. Moreover, we do see fish species that are on this cusp. There are air breathing fish in low oxygen rivers like the Amazon.

I don't see why you would expect people to be dragging their arms. You seem not to understand how gradual speciesation occurs. It doesn't happen with just a single individual, an entire isolated population changes gradually over time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

Oh...really! THAT is a new one...

Then there should be PLENTY of WHOLE fossils......but we never find WHOLE fossils of the evolutionary links. The evidence doesn't exist. Show me pictures that are not just drawings.

---

Fossilization is a very rare event, most species that have existed only ever existed in populations of a couple hundred at a time, we will likely never know of every species that ever existed.

Besides that point, there are complete fossils of H. erectus (dear old lucy) as well as ergaster, habilis, heidelbergensis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

I wish to believe the evidence that the earth is about 6,000 years old and designed by a supernatural Being that is greater and more intelligent that what we see around us.

---

That's totally cool. Have at it. Just don't expect to not be criticized when you say that. I'll speak for myself, but those who attack statements like that aren't attacking you or demanding that you change your mind, but rather as a means of presenting an opposition for those reading or listening. If I were to make a thread and announce "Copernicean astronomy is nonsense and the earth is the center of the universe!" one would expect our fellow intellectuals to discredit such a statement, not for the sake of the one who stated it, but for those who are being fed non-facts.

You may keep your faith, and we may be allowed to criticize it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Lion and tigers can breed, but aren't the same species. So can horses and donkeys. Interbreeding amongst different plant species is even more common.

---

A lot of words, but really nothing...

Lions and tigers...both cats...let's try a...Wolf and a Lion...what happens?

Horse and donkey....BAD example....mules which result are sterile...the end of the line in that "evolution"...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

A lot of words, but really nothing...

Lions and tigers...both cats...let's try a...Wolf and a Lion...what happens?

Horse and donkey....BAD example....mules which result are sterile...the end of the line in that "evolution"...

---

Evolution doesn't occur via hybridization, I don't see your point.

I was just pointing out that the notion that species are perfect breeding isolates is not as true as is thought by the general public. Like I said before, speciesation occurs out of a breeding group isolated from it's parent group.

e.g.

You have a group of wombats who live happily in a field, then a rift in the Earth opens up in the middle of the group. The group has now been divided in two, you now have two breeding groups. Just by genetic drift alone there is a chance that these two groups will become biological breeding isolates. Over time both groups are likely to change and become two new separate species. Where one or the other might go extinct, they might both live on, or they might both go extinct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

You have a group of wombats who live happily in a field, then a rift in the Earth opens up in the middle of the group. The group has now been divided in two, you now have two breeding groups. Just by genetic drift alone there is a chance that these two groups will become biological breeding isolates. Over time both groups are likely to change and become two new separate species. Where one or the other might go extinct, they might both live on, or they might both go extinct.

---

Likely?

But we have never witnessed anything like this...therefore it is NOT science... and no better than something based on religious faith. Your ideas are based more on faith than what I base my beliefs on...

So....EVERY evolutionary link...has gone extinct...and you think that my faith is far fetched...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

Likely?

But we have never witnessed anything like this...therefore it is NOT science... and no better than something based on religious faith. Your ideas are based more on faith than what I base my beliefs on...

So....EVERY evolutionary link...has gone extinct...and you think that my faith is far fetched...

---

Organisms change constantly, life isn't static, it is not possible for species that existed 1 million years ago to be identical today.

We may not see this today because it takes millions of years. However, you are ignoring the evidence we have of this occurring. The fossil record and phylogenetics both support this happening. Moreover, you're ignoring the fact of ring species, which is an example of this in process today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Organisms change constantly, life isn't static, it is not possible for species that existed 1 million years ago to be identical today.

We may not see this today because it takes millions of years. However, you are ignoring the evidence we have of this occurring. The fossil record and phylogenetics both support this happening. Moreover, you're ignoring the fact of ring species, which is an example of this in process today.

---

How does the fossil record prove that?
I don't believe that the earth is millions of years old. There is very conflicting evidence that makes the age of the earth inconclusive. Carbon dating isn't accurate past about 6,000 years....oh, that's how old some think that the earth is...

We will never solve this without some real conclusive evidence...not just the statement that evidence exists either. I grow tired of the mere statements that there is tons of evidence. Nor does telling me that I 'don't understand' evolution prove itself as a viable argument.

I am done here...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

Besides, what ever happened to faith? Why must the existence of God come down to a little puzzle so that it can compete with evolution?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

I wish to believe the evidence that the earth is about 6,000 years old and designed by a supernatural Being that is greater and more intelligent that what we see around us.

---

So there you have it, plain as day. This isn't an argument about facts or evidence, it's wishful thinking. I debated creationists for years, refuting every one of their shopworn talking points, until I realized that when they talked about evidence, they meant something completely different than what it means to scientific researchers. Creationism isn't a search for tentative knowledge, it's a search for comfortable certainty.

Does anyone still believe faith is a good thing if it motivates people to celebrate their ignorance of modern scientific research? Does anyone still believe credulity is just as valid a path to knowledge about the universe as empirical evidential inquiry?

As for "Why I Believe In God," I've said before that I doubt anyone believes because of logical "proofs" and creationist propaganda. These are just the rationalizations that come afterward.

Regards,

Istvan

Personally I believe that the whole creationist-evolutionist debate is ridiculous. It doesn't matter how you believe the world got here in the first place, as long as you believe that it was created. The bible has been stated as spiritual truth, rather than scientific, and the whole "seven days" analogy is simply an attempt to put time on a being who is by definition, timeless. To put it simply, if God is timeless, as most people believe, couldn't his ""seven days" be billions of years to us? Anyway, shouldnt we be debating whether God exists or not, rather than how he created everything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

We will never solve this without some real conclusive evidence...not just the statement that evidence exists either. I grow tired of the mere statements that there is tons of evidence. Nor does telling me that I 'don't understand' evolution prove itself as a viable argument.

I am done here...

---

You're not going to like me very much but...

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/vid...-1404585051071

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/vid...-1403619443814

And finally, for all you people who don't mind Bill Mahr and humorous critiques on fundamentalism...

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/vid...-1596167291434

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Katy North

You're not going to like me very much but...

---

After watching the first video, I concluded that the content has nothing to do with evolution at all. The assumptions made are far reaching. Especially to stretch the observances to humans and primates.

There is nothing really offered here worth consideration as evidence toward evolution.

Actually, it's another common example of ring species, it shows how speciesation and breeding isolation occurs gradually.

I wrote in my satire few moths ago, that is funny, that "human being is usually very proud. But still he wants to be more from apes than God."

Why? Because if we admit that God exists, it also means, that we have to make very serious decisions about our life and way how do we live it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Actually, it's another common example of ring species, it shows how speciesation and breeding isolation occurs gradually.

---

Again...it's not evidence. I don't buy into their conclusions....there are still Grand Canyon size gaps in the evidence...far more than these hypothetical conclusions can account for...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JommiL

Why? Because if we admit that God exists, it also means, that we have to make very serious decisions about our life and way how do we live it.

---

One can say the same for theists who refuse to believe that they are a result of natural selection because to them it would make them deal with questions such as the meaning of their life in this new and different perspective. Bienevu admitted himself that he'd rather believe that he was created by a divine being rather than believe that he came about by "random chance". (which is not how evolution works if you know the meaning of natural selection.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

Again...it's not evidence. I don't buy into their conclusions....there are still Grand Canyon size gaps in the evidence...far more than these hypothetical conclusions can account for...

---

Please, show me where these "Grand Canyon size gaps" are. Yes like all scientific theories, evolution does have gaps. You know why? Because science isn't like religion and learns more and evolves as it progresses.

Orphan Pip and Katy North have taken the trouble to link you all of this information, at least you could give us your objections to it instead of just outright saying there are a ton of gaps, without even having the courtesy to point out to us where these gaps are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

Again...it's not evidence. I don't buy into their conclusions....there are still Grand Canyon size gaps in the evidence...far more than these hypothetical conclusions can account for...

---

I don't get how it isn't evidence. If you ask the question, how does one breeding population become two isolated populations over time? Then ring species are a clear example of how it happens.

Edit: All it would take is for the salamander species in the North to go extinct, to leave you with two genetically isolated populations incapable of interbreeding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

Please, show me where these "Grand Canyon size gaps" are.

---

:rolleyes:

This is the conspiracy-theorist's stock in trade, concentrating on a list of perceived anomalies in a coherent model instead of proposing one of his own. Do you think it's merely coincidental that we're never allowed to consider the "gaps" in creationism, or gauge its statistical unlikelihood?

This is never a matter of someone actually wanting to learn. It's just the scattershot denials of someone with a bad science education and an axe to grind. If you address every point the denier makes, he'll welcome every one of your patient, rational responses by sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting I can't hear you la la la!

Anyone want to make a bet?

Regards,

Istvan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Edit: All it would take is for the salamander species in the North to go extinct, to leave you with two genetically isolated populations incapable of interbreeding.

---

That is an unsubstantiated conclusion of the evolutionists...who are trying to prove the hypothesis...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

That is an unsubstantiated conclusion of the evolutionists...who are trying to prove the hypothesis...

---

No this was a prediction made by evolutionary theory far before we ever had the ability to understand the process at a genetic and molecular level. It strengthens the evolutionary theory that the more we learn about biological processes the more supported the theory is.

I don't see how you can't see that conclusion as plain evident. If the two species at the extremes of the "ring", which is more like a horseshoe, are not able to breed with each other, but still have gene flow between each other because of interbreeding along the ring. Then these two populations of salamander on the extremes are at the cusp of being separate species, if you cut off the gene flow between them, they would have nothing to relate them except ancestry.

Science learns? It does not learn anything. Almost every discovery in science will be fitted into evolution theory. If we just look those programs about nature, it is always evolution this, evolution that.
It is amazing, that we live in incredible rich universe filled with great wonders, and still we want to deny existence of God. Nature has very specific laws, and some has to be set them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JommiL

Science learns? It does not learn anything. Almost every discovery in science will be fitted into evolution theory. If we just look those programs about nature, it is always evolution this, evolution that.
It is amazing, that we live in incredible rich universe filled with great wonders, and still we want to deny existence of God. Nature has very specific laws, and some has to be set them.

---

That's because the discoveries in science confirm evolution.

If God sets natures laws, then of course He too must've been under some kind of law in order to set them. Also, who says that the laws of nature needed a setter? If anything they are tautological results from situation like when two atoms collide. It's rather misguiding when we use the word 'laws' when refering to the nature of the universe, as if they were laws of jurisdiction and so forth. The 'laws' of science are our way of systematically describing situations by means of induction, so that we can make predictions, create new technology and so forth. The laws of motion are merely our systemization of a universally common occurrence amongst objects in space. There's no actual naturalistic 'law' written on a tablet in space saying 'In the absence of a net force, a body either is at rest or moves in a straight line with constant speed.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

That's because the discoveries in science confirm evolution.

- No they are not. They only confirm that we must be very, very humble.

If God sets natures laws, then of course He too must've been under some kind of law in order to set them.

- Why He should be? If we compare God and man, man must create things with has been before, but this has nothing to do with God - He is allmighty. He creates, we just copy.

Also, who says that the laws of nature needed a setter?

Well, as Einstein said, God does not throw the dice with universe, so... :o)

If anything they are tautological results from situation like when two atoms collide. It's rather misguiding when we use the word 'laws' when refering to the nature of the universe, as if they were laws of jurisdiction and so forth. The 'laws' of science are our way of systematically describing situations by means of induction, so that we can make predictions, create new technology and so forth. The laws of motion are merely our systemization of a universally common occurrence amongst objects in space. There's no actual naturalistic 'law' written on a tablet in space saying 'In the absence of a net force, a body either is at rest or moves in a straight line with constant speed.'

---

- Laws of science - well described. We are just schoolboys. Also predictions will base in trust of laws and solid patterns, which will appear all around us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JommiL

- No they are not. They only confirm that we must be very, very humble.

---

Very well. You keep your humility and we will keep our anti-biotics, modern medicine, etc.

Quote:

---

- Why He should be? If we compare God and man, man must create things with has been before, but this has nothing to do with God - He is allmighty. He creates, we just copy.

---

That's your assumption. You may have it.

Quote:

---

Well, as Einstein said, God does not throw the dice with universe, so... :o)

---

I don't see how this has any relation to the point I was making. Besides, that Einstein quote was in reference to his disagreement with quantum theory. Turns out he was wrong.

Oh my God, this goes on and on and on. Let me just address this and get the hell out this thread and all religious threads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

Man, I really dislike it when either sides of the theist/atheist spectrum use what these men said as spokesmen for their own beliefs. But what I dislike even more is when they use these men's personal beliefs as arguments against a certain scientific theory they happen to dislike.

---

Oh Daniel, I wasn't just appealing to any authority to defend my argument. Between this thread and others I' laid out what the correct Intelligent Design argument is. I appealed to Einstein and Newton only because the dope I was arguing with had an implicint appeal to his authority: "From the time of Hume to the present day, the Argument of Design has been repeatedly shown to be nonsensical" and "that's no excuse for dragging this argument out after it's been refuted so many times." That's his indirect way to appeal to authority. I was refuting (after I had already laid out my argument) with other authority. The point being that there is no consensus.

Quote:

---

Besides, what ever happened to faith? Why must the existence of God come down to a little puzzle so that it can compete with evolution?

---

I don't know what you're referring to. I believe in evolution and I said so many times.

Quote:

---

Leaving aside criticisms of causality itself in both philosophy and quantum physics, I would like to simple point out that in your analogy of the dead body and the wire, you forcibly inject God into it. If I were a police officer at a crime scene, I would conclude that the dead body was caused by the wire because I saw it right there and made inductive conclusions. This example is ridiculous when compared to the existence of a supernatural entity. No one is denying the existence of the wire because it is perceivable through the senses. The unmoved mover (to use the Aristililean term) is no where in the picture in scientific revelation, He is merely semantically injected into it as the definition of the cause of the revelation a priori. To summarize it, you are assuming that God is even there, and thus the cause. The wire is there and thus can reasonably be concluded to be the cause.

Now I'm not even an empiricist when it comes to these deep philosophical questions of the universe, but I am as almost everyone else is when it comes to everyday life. This is why I've disliked these analogies which are so simplistic and hardly match the question at hand.

---

Oh Daniel, you didn't understand. I wasn't using the tripping as an analogy to proving God. I was using it to show the fallacy of the dope's claim that I was fallacious to "affirming the consequence." Affirming the consequence is used all the time. It is not fallacious. In fact I would say all scientific discoveries are in essence affirming the consequence. The scientific method is affirming the consequence. In fact that is how Darwin supports the theory of evolution, by observing the consequence and building an argument on how the consequence occured.

I'm am out of here.

My dearest friend Virgil,

I'm not sure what problem you have with your Internet connection, but you must not have seen the part of my post where I explicitly explained the logical and methodological flaws in the Argument from Design. To reiterate, you can't use your conclusion to validate your major premise. It's not at all an appeal to authority.

But, no matter. You have seen fit to move on to your other favorite logical constructs such as the Appeal to Arrogance and the Argument from Unprovoked Personal Abuse. I simply assume that calling me a "dope" has to compensate for your inability to engage any of my actual statements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Oh my God, this goes on and on and on. Let me just address this and get the hell out this thread and all religious threads.

---

In the interests of your emotional health, I wish you would avoid taking part in discussions wherein you seem unable to control your temper.

Regards,

Istvan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

Likely?

But we have never witnessed anything like this...therefore it is NOT science... and no better than something based on religious faith. Your ideas are based more on faith than what I base my beliefs on...

So....EVERY evolutionary link...has gone extinct...and you think that my faith is far fetched...

---

Charles Darwin discovered that on the Galapagos Islands, different islands had different birds; some islands featured birds with smaller beaks, some with larger, some with sharper talons, some with different mating calls. The species different in correlation with different topography. Over the 5-ish years spent observing the finches, Darwin realized that the finches changed over time--natural selection. As a previous poster said, the distance between islands ultimately led to different species.

If you choose to view this as myth or some "non-scientific study" feel free to do so. I won't blame you for adhering to ignorant dogma. I'll just consider you delusional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JommiL

Science learns? It does not learn anything. Almost every discovery in science will be fitted into evolution theory. If we just look those programs about nature, it is always evolution this, evolution that.
It is amazing, that we live in incredible rich universe filled with great wonders, and still we want to deny existence of God. Nature has very specific laws, and some has to be set them.

---

You're right; science doesn't learn. But the scientists that perpetuate and augment scientific theories do. Hardly any study found in science is catered to the topic of evolution just as any hardly any other finding on lung cancer is catered to cigarette smoke (for there are other causes). But if you want to consider science as some blasphemous, irrelevant field of study while your "beliefs" are superior, by all means, do so. Just understand that I'm allergic to illogicality and ignorance.

:puke: