Faith in God Begins With Creation

Isn't it possible that evolution is one of God's tools?

No, but isn't that what the Catholic Church thinks?

John Paul II gave his endorsement of evolution and the scientific progress as being an admirable way of bringing understanding to the creation of god. I don't believe the same things as he did, but at least he had tried to move religion out of scientific darkness. The current pope then denounced evolution and pushed the church back into the dark ages.

These two things are not mutually exclusive.

Actually, they are. Creation or a creator is based on myth and religious belief. Evolution is based on empirical science. The two are incompatable.

It's disingenuous to present them as if they are.

It's intellectually dishonest to present them as mutually exclusive.

It is an insult to my supposedly god-given intelligence.

First you have to prove there's a god.

Actually, they are. Creation or a creator is based on myth and religious belief. Evolution is based on empirical science. The two are incompatable.

Evolution makes no statement about origin, creation does. They are making different statements, and they don't have to overlap. Besides, I wasn't presenting it as a personal view. From a science perspective, there's no attempt to find out origin since it is untestable. Therefore Science does not say "there is no god", which means it is not ruled out. Science is indifferent until it can be tested.

First you have to prove there's a god.

I was making a facetious statement in that religious beliefs often require that I check my intelligence at the door, despite the fact the intelligence is supposed to be a gift from god. Perhaps the reference was a bit obtuse.

Evolution makes no statement about origin

Actually it does.

creation does

No it doesn't.

Therefore Science does not say "there is no god"

It doesn't have to. Common logic says there is no "God" if you can't prove "God's" existence. It's also a fact that there is no "God" if you refused to provide proof of "God's" existence.

If there is a "god" then how did that "god" come to exist?

Evolution makes no statement about origin, creation does.

From a scientific standpoint, abiogenesis discusses origins, which is also empirically supported. But if you accept the bible as literally true, then evolution pretty mich discredits certain biblical claims, origin being one.

From a science perspective, there's no attempt to find out origin since it is untestable.

Not true. The Miller-Urey experiments provided a probable origin of life. From a scientific standpoint, Creation or a creator is untestable.

Therefore Science does not say "there is no god", which means it is not ruled out. Science is indifferent until it can be tested.

Science might be indifferent to god because it doesn't deal with god in the least. But it also does not consider god a plausible answer until there is evidence to suggest otherwise. That which can be asserted without evidence can just as easily be dismissed without it.

Perhaps the reference was a bit obtuse.

Ah, I see.

Science might be indifferent to god because it doesn't deal with god in the least. But it also does not consider god a plausible answer until there is evidence to suggest otherwise.

Well put.....the existence of or actions of any sort of supernatural entity is theology...perhaps philosophy....not science.

Gordy & Auteur - ease back a tad, I get your arguments and I'm actually way more aligned with you guys.

The only point I'm attempting to make is that in general if someone already has faith in god, there isn't any real reason evolution must destroy it.

If evolution destroys a person's faith in God then that person had no faith in God to begin with.

The only point I'm attempting to make is that in general if someone already has faith in god, there isn't any real reason evolution must destroy it.

Then they're not being intellectually honest because on some level, they're going to go with a theological answer, ie "god did it" as some kind of rationale to reconcile their faith with science. For example, someone can say: "yes there is evolution. But it's a tool god uses" or something to that effect. Destruction of faith is a by-product of science, not the purpose of scientific inquiry because the more we learn and understand something, the less likely we are to utilize supernatural phenomenon as a plausible answer.

That and what Auteur said!

gordy -

I have to disagree, the more I understand things the more I see and am in wonder and awe of God's creation. The more I understand the more I see God's hand in everything. So it provides just the opposite of what you say it strengthens my faith. To me the by products of science is to create things that benefit mankind and to discover the glory of God in all things.

H

I have to disagree, the more I understand things the more I see and am in wonder and awe of God's creation. The more I understand the more I see God's hand in everything.

But you're still going under the assumption that "god did it," or are giving credit to god where it may not be due. Replace "God" with the Flying Spaghetti Monster (or any deity of your choice) and such a statement is equally valid, although not necessarily true. There is still nothing to objectively suggest that god (or any deity) had a "hand" in anything.

The Miller experiments did nothing but produce a few 'mixed' amino acids.

Actually they went far beyond that and given the time-frame and your understanding of the results are incorrect.

...scientific understanding has increased far beyond even these basics. "Genesis" by Robert Hazen does a nice job of laying out some of the more recent research in abiogenesis (although its now a few years out of date) described in a way that if understandable to the layman.

Living fully synthetic cells have already been created from scratch by the Venter group in the laboratory.

Likewise researchers examining the primordial mechanisms involved are able to demonstrate formation of complex components and are within achieving understanding of the natural process probably within this decade.

Living fully synthetic cells have already been created from scratch by the Venter group in the laboratory.

In fact nothing viable pertaining to actual 'lifeforms' and their origins was actually created. This is what was done:

Venter's team of 25 scientists mapped the genome of a bacterial cell on a computer, modified it, broke it into 1,100 pieces and synthesized the pieces using four chemicals. They then assembled the genome fragments, and transplanted the complete genome into a cell that had had its genome removed. The synthetic genome was then "booted up" and the new "synthetic" cell began self-replicating.

We can compare this with taking apart a jigsaw puzzle which was 'intelligently designed', throwing the pieces on the floor, and then reassembling it. All we have left is a dead piece of cardboard. How (or by whom) was this puzzle originally formed? Did it create itself?

Without the genome, the cell is incomplete. The genome is the completed set of genetic material (DNA) of any cell in an organism. Without it we have nothing but a blob of goo. DNA is the basic molecule of hereditary information which serves as a code of production of proteins and is common to all living organisms. It's the best information storage mechanism known to man. A single pinhead of DNA contains as much information as could be stored on 2 million two-terabyte hard drives! Where did this amazing information system, which is a necessary component of all life forms come from? Did it just kind of happen all by itself or by luck? Inquiring minds want to know.

Likewise researchers examining the primordial mechanisms involved are able to demonstrate formation of complex components and are within achieving understanding of the natural process probably within this decade.

Probably? Okee-dokey, but I won't hold my breath ;-)

...scientific understanding has increased far beyond even these basics. "Genesis" by Robert Hazen does a nice job of laying out some of the more recent research in abiogenesis (although its now a few years out of date) described in a way that if understandable to the layman.

As does Signature In The Cell by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer. Try it...you'll like it!

Meyers has a degree in the "Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science"...he is not a scientist.

Did you read his book?

...he is not a scientist.

Nor was Darwin, who was a medical school drop-out and self proclaimed racist. Odd that so many are willing to accept his bigoted, unproven theories as truth while closing their eyes to all other theories. That ain't science, my friend.

It would be appreciated if you would address the questions asked in reply #6.2. Thank you.

I'd appreciate it if you would address any of the quetions I asked in comment #6.2. Thank you.

REALLY need to do some real work and stop letting myself get distracted...sigh....but...promise to try to address your comments later today or tommorrow.

Thanks a bunch! (((((Csp)))))

Without the genome, the cell is incomplete. The genome is the completed set of genetic material (DNA) of any cell in an organism. Without it we have nothing but a blob of goo. DNA is the basic molecule of hereditary information which serves as a code of production of proteins and is common to all living organisms. It's the best information storage mechanism known to man. A single pinhead of DNA contains as much information as could be stored on 2 million two-terabyte hard drives! Where did this amazing information system, which is a necessary component of all life forms come from? Did it just kind of happen all by itself or by luck? Inquiring minds want to know.

Actually the original hereditary information molecule was in all likelihood RNA. Science has shown that RNA can function as an enzyme in cells (called ribozymes). RNA has also been shown to remove its own introns as well as synthesize new RNA. This does not just occur in a test tube....There are over 500 different ribozymes known today.

RNA has also been shown to make a copies of itself. Supplied with nucleotide monomers (A, C, U and G), sequences 5-10 nucleotides long can be copied from the template according to base-pairing rules. If zinc is added as a catalyst, sequences up to 40 bases long are copied with less than 1% error (ie variation). And once you have replication (with some variation) evolutionary selection is possible.

Actually the original hereditary information molecule was in all likelihood RNA.

Ah yes, the RNA theory. Unfortunately, the RNA hypothesis does not explain the origin of genetic information. The RNA "world" was not proposed as an explanation of biological information, but only as an explanation for the origin of the interdependence of nucleic acids and proteins within the cell's info-processing system. We still need to account for how the original information was formed in these templates. Once again we're back to square #1. The RNA hypothesis just presupposes, extrapolates, and in the end just totally ignores (rather than explains) the origin of sequence specificity in various RNA molecules.

RNA has also been shown to make a copies of itself.

A computer is also fully capable of making copies of the information contained on its hard-drive. But where did that information originate from? We have just a couple of choices.

1. It was put there by an intelligent agent.

2. It just kinda formed itself by "luck" or accident.

To accept the fact that the glue, paper, bindings, and ink that make up the physical structure of a book, somehow reacted together excluding intelligent intervention, and formed the contained information...is hardly an example of rational or empirically derived science.

On the contrary. The replicative and catalytic properties of RNA are NOT dependent on being enclosed in a bi-lipid membrane. Also the "information" derived is not required to be present at its outset. Each molecule is rather constrained by its individual interactions with its environment. Think of each strand of ribonucleotides as an individual with variation...those with a sequence which promoted greater stability or replicative ability or catalytic function is able likewise to make more replicates of itself and thus will over time become the dominant structure within a "population" of molecules. Again the same rules apply. and these very concepts HAVE been demonstrated in a test tube. ...As discussed for example in this review...

Evolution in an RNA world.
Joyce GF.

Source

Departments of Chemistry and Molecular Biology and the Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA. gjoyce@scripps.edu

Abstract

A long-standing research goal has been to develop a self-sustained chemical system that is capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution. The notion of primitive RNA-based life suggests that this goal might be achieved by constructing an RNA enzyme that catalyzes the replication of RNA molecules, including the RNA enzyme itself. This reaction was demonstrated recently in a cross-catalytic system involving two RNA enzymes that catalyze each other's synthesis from a total of four component substrates. The cross-replicating RNA enzymes undergo self-sustained exponential amplification at a constant temperature in the absence of proteins or other biological materials. Amplification occurs with a doubling time of approximately 1 hour and can be continued indefinitely. Small populations of cross-replicating RNA enzymes can be made to compete for limited resources within a common environment. The molecules reproduce with high fidelity but occasionally give rise to recombinants that also can replicate. Over the course of many "generations" of selective amplification, novel variants arise and grow to dominate the population based on their relative fitness under the chosen reaction conditions. This is the first example, outside of biology, of evolutionary adaptation in a molecular genetic system.

I would also point out that what we are discussing here is "Abiogenesis" and while researchers in this field have obviously hypothesized tested and to date successfully applied Evolutionary principals to the questions of the origins of life, this is apart from classical evolution and Darwin's Theory of Evolution, both of which deal with understanding how and why existing life has changed (evolved) from the first single-celled prokaryotes to eukaryotes, to the myriad of multicellular organisms that have existed throughout earths long history. This change HAS occurred...the evidence is overwhelming across many disciplines. Darwin's original concept of Natural selection...provided the basic understanding of a mechanism for why this change occurred and that basic understanding has been broadened on an almost daily basis for nearly 150 years...but it has never been overturned.

With all due respect Csp, none of this has anything to do with the question I proposed to you about the origin of genetic information. I'm quite aware of how its replicated, but the original and critical question is where did it come from? If you are unable to provide an explanation, that's fine. None of us are experts, or can go back to the foundations of the world and see what actually happened. We can only examine and test what's in the present, the evidence that's available to each of us. That's what operational science is all about, isn't it?

We can go back and forth until the chickens come home to roost, and just reiterate and rehash information that we're both quite aware of. This accomplishes nothing and does not answer the most important question. If Darwinism is to be taught as 'fact' to our children in the public school system with no other options, it needs to answer some basic and important questions. Showing a "tree of life" with lots of leaves, twigs, and branches, but no trunk or roots...does nothing to satisfy inquisitive and truth-seeking minds ;-)

deacondeelo …. If Darwinism is to be taught as 'fact' to our children in the public school system with no other options, it needs to answer some basic and important questions….

Your question clearly demonstrates that you do not know what is taught in schools; “Darwinism”, whatever that is, is not taught. Biological Evolution (BE) through Natural Selection is what is taught in schools (at every level).

As for the question about origins, that is not addressed by BE! (Period, plain and simple.)

Showing a "tree of life" with lots of leaves, twigs, and branches, but no trunk or roots...does nothing to satisfy inquisitive and truth-seeking minds ;-) #6.11 - Thu Apr 28, 2011 10:41 AM EDT

The sentence above further proves my point. The “Tree of Life” analogy is no longer used. It is
now more the “Multi Stemmed Shrub” the details of which are too much to present here.

none of this has anything to do with the question I proposed to you about the origin of genetic information.

On the contrary....I wrote...Also the "information" derived is not required to be present at its outset. Each molecule is rather constrained by its individual interactions with its environment. Think of each strand of ribonucleotides as an individual with variation...those with a sequence which promoted greater stability or replicative ability or catalytic function is able likewise to make more replicates of itself and thus will over time become the dominant structure within a "population" of molecules.

but the original and critical question is where did it come from?

The "information" as you term it was simply the sequence of nucleotides semi-randomly formed. I say semi-random because each is constrained by its molecular makeup and its ability to form specific types and arrangements of chemical bonds or interactions with other molecules in its surroundings....again if a particular strand of nucleotides has chemical properties which promote chemical replication, stability, catalytic activity, etc that strand is more likely to persist and be replicated. Any inaccuracy in the replication provides variation which allows for new permutations of each "successful" strand.....

no designer needed...

None of us are experts, or can go back to the foundations of the world and see what actually happened. We can only examine and test what's in the present, the evidence that's available to each of us. That's what operational science is all about, isn't it?

True we cannot go back...but as with any "crime scene investigation" we can gather evidence from the past and using that evidence recreate the "crime scene". That's perfectly valid science.

We can go back and forth until the chickens come home to roost, and just reiterate and rehash information that we're both quite aware of. This accomplishes nothing and does not answer the most important question. If Darwinism is to be taught as 'fact' to our children in the public school system with no other options, it needs to answer some basic and important questions. Showing a "tree of life" with lots of leaves, twigs, and branches, but no trunk or roots...does nothing to satisfy inquisitive and truth-seeking minds ;-)

AGAIN...we are talking apples and oranges here with regard to Darwinian Evolution and Abiogenesis...they are separate entities and the fact of evolutionary change in organisms over time and the validity of the mechanism proposed by Darwin to explain why this change occurred is in no way dependent on an understanding of abiogenesis. Life HAS changed...regardless of where it originated from....it has expanded in a very distinct manner from largely primitive, single celled prokaryotes to a vast diversity of single and multicellular organisms ...and Darwin provided and answer to the question of WHY.

As for teaching schoolchildren ...we teach evolution as a fact because we are teaching them the concepts of the field of SCIENCE. And there are certain "facts" accepted by science. The earth rotates around the sun. A ball, released from the roof of a building, will be acted upon by a force called gravity and will fall to the ground. Matter is composed of particles known as atoms that interact with one another to form larger molecules. These are widely made observations that are no longer questioned at a fundamental level. In addition, they are the basis for scientific theories (Heliocentric theory, Theory of gravity, Atomic theory) that are so well established that it is accepted that no new evidence is likely to alter them significantly.

Outside of the scientific realm, a theory means a hunch or guess. Within science it is something quite different. As stated by the National Academies of Science, a scientific theory "is a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence". In other words it is a model made based on a large number of scientific observations that attempts to explain those observations and, in many cases, to make predictions based on those observations. Evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are now confident both that biological evolution has occurred, (i.e. that living organisms have changed over time and that organisms existing today have arisen from a common ancestry over millions of years) and that the basic tenants of Darwin's Evolutionary theory (which provides a mechanism for how evolution occurred through natural selection) will not be overturned by new evidence.

Like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing testing and refinement with regard to issues such as the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and other related questions....but these issues are usually far beyond the level of scientific understanding of a school classroom.

As for no other options......when a valid alternative arises or evidence that the mechanisms proposed by Darwin are in fact invalid....evidence for either based on science, that has been tested and vetted through the scientific method and peer review such that it is widely accepted among the experts within the field......it will be taught in the science classroom.

Darwin's original concept of Natural selection...provided the basic understanding of a mechanism for why this change occurred and that basic understanding has been broadened on an almost daily basis for nearly 150 years...but it has never been overturned.

Nor proven! Darwin admitted this to a fellow scientist Asa Gray, about his book "Origin of the Species" (which has nothing to do with origins but rather variations and adaptations in living things) the following:

"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."

Source: Charles Darwin and the problem of Creation, N.C. Gillespie, 1979, p. 2.

Your question clearly demonstrates that you do not know what is taught in schools; “Darwinism”, whatever that is, is not taught. Biological Evolution (BE) through Natural Selection is what is taught in schools (at every level).

You're comparing apples with watermelons. Evolution (micro-evolution) is a scientific fact which can be proven by observable science. We can define it as change within a species by natural selection. In other words, this type of evolution allows change within groups but not between groups. For example, lions and tigers both belong to the same feline group with compatible DNA, and although different can interbreed forming a different type of cat. However, cats can't breed with dogs, reptiles with birds, or human beings with orangutans.

This is why wolves and poodles look different although both are canines. Using basic principles and operational science and 'programmed' DNA, say A,B, and C as recessive/dominant genes in the canine group...if an AaBbCc male were to mate with AaBbCc female, there are 27 different combinations possible in the offspring. This is accepted and verifiable science.

Now for Darwinism or macro-evolution (if you please). Macro-evolution claims that all organisms on earth share a common ancestor by decent with modification. So somehow, a lungfish grew legs, crawled out of that warm pond, and evolved into a common ancestor of man. We know that no DNA can be added to any living creature after birth. So how could a single cell have 'evolved' more complex information by additive mutations (which involve a loss of DNA) so that a reptile could turn into a bird?

Oh please don't resort to 'quote mining" here....<eyeroll> and not even a new one.....

Rather than type it out myself I will simply present you with and example the facts presented by a myriad of others regarding the quote

It should be noted at the outset that the above citation is incorrect. The quote does not appear on page 2 of Professor Gillespie's book (Gillespie, Neal C. 1979. Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.) but, rather, on page 63, in a paragraph carrying over from page 62.

Neal C. Gillespie is Professor Emeritus of History at Georgia State University in the United States and is a recognized expert on the era in science that includes Darwin's work. The citation he gives as the source of the quotation is: "Some Unpublished Letters of Charles Darwin," Royal Society of London Notes and Records, 14 (1959) but he does not give the date. Further checking located it as coming from a letter by Darwin to Gray on June 18, 1857. The original letter can be found in: Burkhardt, Frederick and Smith, Sydney, eds., 1989. The Correspondence of Charles Darwin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 6:412.

Some context as to the subject matter is needed to understand what the creationists are doing. In large part the book deals with the change that was underway in the methodology of science at the time Darwin published Origin of Species. The method of "induction," championed by Francis Bacon, had been the "standard" for scientific reasoning up until that time, although perhaps paid lip service more than strictly followed. Ideally, in induction, facts are gathered until "lower" axioms or propositions can be derived, from which more general axioms can be arrived at by induction. As these more fundamental laws of nature are discovered, they can then, in turn, be used to deduce other lower axioms, which can then be tested by experimentation. (See Klein, Juergen, "Francis Bacon", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2004 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).)

By the time Darwin published Origin of Species, philosophers of science such as John Herschel, William Whewell, and John Stuart Mill had begun to recognize that science was not limited to strict induction. Darwin (according to Gillespie) operated with a methodology that came to be known as "actualism," whereby the existence of uniform and lawful causes of phenomena in nature are assumed. This assumption, in turn, allowed the use of analogies from those causes known to exist (vera causa) to fill in any gaps in our knowledge, as well as to serve as a basis for future research. Thus, "theorizing" was not strictly limited to being done only after fact gathering but could proceed concurrent with and as a guide for ongoing research.

It is in this context that Gillespie refers to the quote, as follows (p. 62-63):

Darwin's application of these principles to particular scientific problems seems to have taken shape in the early period of his species work and to have changed little in later years. Surrounded by "inductionists," he was not always confident of the propriety of his practice. Thomas Kuhn has remarked that "all crises begin with the blurring of a paradigm and the consequent loosening of the rules for normal research." In the present case, those who drifted away from special creation also showed a tendency to abandon "induction" as normal scientific method. Darwin embodied the innovative use of "hypothesis" at its best, but he never fully accepted its philosophical implications, nor did he completely overcome the inhibitions of one who knew that he was innovating and necessarily violating the supposed Baconian methodological canons of his time: "I am quite conscious," he wrote to Asa Gray on the eve of the publication of the Origin, "that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."When [it was reported that John Stuart Mill had characterized the Origin of Species] as being "in the most exact accordance with the strict principles of logic (and that) the method of investigation (was) the only one proper to such a subject," Darwin was relieved. ... [H]e suffered much at the hands of mathematicians, who usually, like so many of his critics, approached the Origin as if it were a proof of evolution, which of course it was not. Its supporters, on the other hand, commonly viewed it correctly as a hypothesis, based on plausibly ordered evidence and heuristic in purpose.

For Darwin, then, explanatory theory was equally as important in scientific inquiry as fact-gathering, and the test of the truth of a theory was its ability to group facts under a single generalization. "I believe in the truth of the theory [of natural selection], because it collects under one point of view, and gives a rational explanation of, many apparently independent classes of facts," he wrote in 1868. It seemed incredible, he told Hugh Falconer, that "a false theory would explain, as it seems to me it does explain, so many classes of facts." ... Again, following the principles of positive science, the explanation had to be within the bounds of natural causation and had to employ causes and processes known or believed on good evidence to occur. Any hypothesis that met these two criteria could be held provisionally as work went on, and then modified if necessary. ... Natural selection, he thought, met both criteria; special creation met neither. It merely verbally accounted for species; it "explained" nothing.

With this context, including the additional quotations from Darwin, it is clear that Darwin had some qualms about his use of this new methodology in place of the traditional idea of "true science," not least of which was the reception it would receive from the rest of the scientific community. But it is also clear that he had great confidence in the results he had achieved. Needless to say, the methodology Darwin used is the basis of much of modern science.

More importantly for the issue of quote mining, it is impossible to believe that anyone can actually read the above, in context and with even a pretense of objectivity, and honestly come away with the impression that Gillespie was using the quote to establish some sort of admission by Darwin that he felt his method was not sound.

Evolution (micro-evolution) is a scientific fact which can be proven by observable science. We can define it as change within a species by natural selection. In other words, this type of evolution allows change within groups but not between groups. For example, lions and tigers both belong to the same feline group with compatible DNA, and although different can interbreed forming a different type of cat. However, cats can't breed with dogs, reptiles with birds, or human beings with orangutans.

Ah...so you ACCEPT the principals of so called "micro-evolution"?!?....and by what mechanism (or WHY?) do these changes occur?

Oh please don't resort to 'quote mining" here....<eyeroll> and not even a new one.....

There's no need for rudeness or childish theatrics (eyerolls) lol. This invariably occurs when someone becomes frustrated, after their flawed theories are questioned and they can do nothing but dance around questions without giving clear answers to them.

Ah...so you ACCEPT the principals of so called "micro-evolution"?!?....and by what mechanism (or WHY?) do these changes occur?

Changing the subject now? I think this discussion (at least between us) has about run its course, as all concerning the subject matter of Justin's 'original' thread always seem to do. Worldviews and spiritual beliefs are not likely to be influenced on an internet chat-site. I appreciate the conversation and your input, but have no intention of taking part in any discussion that will ultimately result in hard feelings and acrimony. Your replies started out quite polite, but have gradually deteriorated as time has gone on. I think both of us can find better uses and more productive ways to spend our time.

May peace be with you!

deacondeelo
...Your question clearly demonstrates that you do not know what is taught in schools; “Darwinism”, whatever that is, is not taught. Biological Evolution (BE) through Natural Selection is what is taught in schools (at every level).

You're comparing apples with watermelons. Evolution (micro-evolution) is a scientific fact which can be proven by observable science.

My assertion is not a comparison of “apples to watermelons”! If you have proof of my assertion being false then, please, by all means present it.

We can define it as change within a species by natural selection. In other words, this type of evolution allows change within groups but not between groups. For example, lions and tigers both belong to the same feline group with compatible DNA, and although different can interbreed
forming a different type of cat. However, cats can't breed with dogs, reptiles with birds, or human beings with orangutans.

You are the one making incompatible comparisons and appear to not have a clear understanding of the principles of biology or BE as it is presented. No one has ever claimed that the organisms you are attempting to mate can do so. Further, no scientist has claimed that the “production” of of a new species occurred “out of” an extra-familial cross or that one family gave rise to another.

This is why wolves and poodles look different although both are canines. Using basic principles and operational science and 'programmed' DNA, say A,B, and C as recessive/dominant genes in the canine group...if an AaBbCc male were to mate with AaBbCc female, there are 27 different combinations possible in the offspring. This is accepted and verifiable science.

Who claimed it was not?

Now for Darwinism or macro-evolution (if you please). Macro-evolution claims that all organisms on earth share a common ancestor by decent with modification. So somehow, a lungfish grew legs, crawled out of that warm pond,…

Please, post citations with links to peer-reviewed articles.

... and evolved into a common ancestor of man. We know that no DNA can be added to any living creature after birth. So how could a single cell have 'evolved' more complex information
by additive mutations (which involve a loss of DNA) so that a reptile could turn into a bird?

Go back and read a High School biology book, mutations and the rise of mutations is explained in those texts.

You are presenting Straw-man arguments and trying to distort what science says. Moreover, postcitations of peer-reviewed work with links to buttress your assertions.

Spot on Csp, thanks for debunking the "quote".

Quote mining is dishonest. It is a deleberate attempt to mislead and those who engage in such underhandedness deserve to be called out as deceitful. Allow me to demonstrate:

deacondeelo wrote on April 28th "a lungfish grew legs, crawled out of that warm pond, and evolved into a common ancestor of man." "This is accepted and verifiable science." So there you have it, clearly deacondeelo accepts the validity of the ToE, as demonstrated by these quotes.

When one resorts to prevarication to prove a point, they admit to a fatal weakness in their argument. If you have to lie, your position is untenable.

There's no need for rudeness or childish theatrics (eyerolls) lol. This invariably occurs when someone becomes frustrated, after their flawed theories are questioned and they can do nothing but dance around questions without giving clear answers to them.

Sounds like you are upset that I called you out for taking quotes out of context and insisting they have some relevance.

Changing the subject now? I think this discussion (at least between us) has about run its course, as all concerning the subject matter of Justin's 'original' thread always seem to do. Worldviews and spiritual beliefs are not likely to be influenced on an internet chat-site. I appreciate the conversation and your input, but have no intention of taking part in any discussion that will ultimately result in hard feelings and acrimony. Your replies started out quite polite, but have gradually deteriorated as time has gone on. I think both of us can find better uses and more productive ways to spend our time.

I was not the one who changed the subject...I am simply making the next logical step based on your response

This is why wolves and poodles look different although both are canines. Using basic principles and operational science and 'programmed' DNA, say A,B, and C as recessive/dominant genes in the canine group...if an AaBbCc male were to mate with AaBbCc female, there are 27 different combinations possible in the offspring. This is accepted and verifiable science.

And these changes are then able to be acted upon by the very simple process of natural selection to determine which are most likely to be passed to the next generation

Now for Darwinism or macro-evolution (if you please). Macro-evolution claims that all organisms on earth share a common ancestor by decent with modification. So somehow, a lungfish grew legs, crawled out of that warm pond, and evolved into a common ancestor of man. We know that no DNA can be added to any living creature after birth. So how could a single cell have 'evolved' more complex information by additive mutations (which involve a loss of DNA) so that a reptile could turn into a bird?

and ...as I would have pointed out had you answered my question regarding "microevolution"....the answer is by the very same mechanisms you ans I just descrivbed in the paragraphs above....genetic variation...natural selection....inheritance in successive generations...thus new species arise and may do so in a relatively brief period of time (geologically speaking)......however what you fail to accept s that there is absolutely NO BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM that given sufficient time could prevent these changes from continually accumulating over time...until those divergences expand so much as produce not only new species...but new genera, families, orders, phyla, and ultimately kingdoms

Science recognizes this..regardless of whether or not you accept it....and unless you can prove otherwise through that same scientific methodology...this is what will be taught as science.

I however has discussed enough to agree this is pointless....

Evolution (micro-evolution) is a scientific fact which can be proven by observable science. We can define it as change within a species by natural selection.

The trouble is, speciation events resulting from environmental pressure have been recorded. The reason this is not more widely accepted among doubters lies later in your argument:

In other words, this type of evolution allows change within groups but not between groups. For example, lions and tigers both belong to the same feline group with compatible DNA, and although different can interbreed forming a different type of cat.

But lions and tigers are not the same species. You're casting your doubts to a higher taxonomic level, then holding this out as evidence that evolutionary adaptations don't cross lines of species. They do; what you seem to be concerned with is genus, family, order, class, phylum, etc. But even this gets tricky. For instance:

However, cats can't breed with dogs, reptiles with birds, or human beings with orangutans.

One hopes, anyway, and to most observations, this is true. However, let's look for a moment at the hyena. The hyena is a bit of an anomaly--it looks canine, but is actually more feline. Both canines and felines are within the order carnivora, but felines are within the suborder feliformia (with the mongoose and meerkat), while canines are within the suborder caniformia (along with raccoons and bears). All that said, the hyena can successfully produce offspring, some of them fertile, with members of both suborders--meaning that its breeding habits transcend not only species, but genus, family, and suborder (as well as taxonomic half-measures like tribe, subfamily, or suborder. Indeed, it's believes by some forensic zoologists that the infamous Beast of Gevaudan was, in fact, a hyena/big-cat hybrid (which would explain both its unusual size and its distinctive, canine-like features).

Freind CSP -

Thank you for your response, there are a few points I would like to address.

either to discount what I see in the natural world or to accept that my INTERPRETATIONS of God are wrong.

This is not true, I accept althat I see in the natural world. The difference is that you see evolution I see creation.

because the evidence is so overwhelming that it must be accepted as truth.

Again we differ to me the evidence overwhelmingly points to creation. You make the logical fallacy that if I do notaccept what what others believe the evidence shows I must be wrong. That is not true, the evidence is subject to interpretation, we are talking about historical science, not observational science. We have never seen evolution inaction in the most true sense. We have see natural adaptation happen witha specials or animal kind. I can and do fully understand that mechanism. We have not ever seen the foundationof evolution that is one species ( animalkind) changing into another species ( animal kind). What we have is a very incomplete fossil record that has been expanded to include things that are not there. We have interpreted it to fit the needs of what we want it to say and what we want to believe.

(for which there is no geological evidence in fact all evidence would contradict this idea),

Another fallacy Might I suggest you take a look at this site http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj There are many scientific articles that support the theory of creation. Including the geological evidence of a flood.

BUT these cannot be properly addressed by simply pretending that the evidence in the natural world does not exist.

You again are correct and again Itell you that the natural world is not ignored. I am just looking at it from a different perspective than others. Many will start with man, I start with God.

Blessings

H

If you are getting your information from AIG then I guarantee that you don't understand how evolution works or the evidence for it.

Agreed...

try here instead....

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

its a very small sample of the vast evidence which demonstrates your interpretations are wrong...learning and aspect of it (paleontology, ecology, molecular biology) in depth would take multiple college semesters

Adam -csp

I am well aware and versed in evolutionary theory. I am also aware that every time some one presents an opposing view from a source that others do not agree with the shrug it off as not "real" science. I am only going to assume you did not read any of the articles presented there and or you went there with the presuppositions that they are wrong and you are right. Which is disappointing as science is about discovery and looking at all possibilities, which in the case of evolution we have stopped doing and decided that it is the only explanation. I am currently working on a piece about whether creation is really science and what science really is. I do not know as to when it will be completed but look forward to your input.

its a very small sample of the vast evidence which demonstrates your interpretations are wrong...learning and aspect of it (paleontology, ecology, molecular biology) in depth would take multiple college semesters

One last point these are not only my interpretations but those of other people in the scientific fields you have listed. The people presenting these articles at in the AIG journal have degrees in many of the listed fields of study. You bring up the most important point in this statement that is interpretation, which is exactly what historical science is. To say my interpretations are wrong is only to make the point that yours must be right when in fact all they are is interpretations. They are only opinions based on our own bias as to the cause and origins of life. You say chance mutations though evolution I say Creator.

H

I don't shrug off AIG because they oppose evolution. I do so because they oppose evolution in an incredibly ignorant and incompetent way. They are incredibly disingenuous, misinformed, and generally a horrible source to use. They have one objective only: apologia. They're not interested in truthful science. They just want to spin everything in favor of their religion. I have seen many articles from them, and they are just incredibly wrong every time. I'm telling you, if that's your source then you are misinformed. You may believe that you understand the theory, but if you think that source is valid then you're wrong.

Adam -

Have your read any of the articles from the Research Journal portion of AIG? I understand that AIG's main page is an apologetics page. I am an apologist myself, and use them a a resource as I do other sites. To accuse the scientist that do research into creation as being misinformed is far fro the truth. To accuse them of not being interested in the truth is far from the truth. You make the statement that "they oppose evolution in an incredibly ignorant and incompetent way." In your mind is there a competent and intelligent way to oppose evolution? I can tell you from experience that I have not found many that will say there is. Evolution is a fact and that is that is the usual answer I get. Lastly to accuse these people of ignorance is a fallacy many of the people at AIG that oppose evolution have degrees in everything from astrophysics to micro-biology so I can say withthe utmost confidence that they are not ignorant.

If the main portion of AIG cannot be trusted to be honest then why do you think any other portion should be? It's the same organization. They lie, they distort, they misrepresent. They are not a credible source.

In your mind is there a competent and intelligent way to oppose evolution?

Using real science, which I have never in my life seen come from AIG, and I am not new to this topic. I have been exposed to their content for years. Nothing has changed.

Real scientists present their findings to other real scientists for peer review in scientific journals, not for some apologetics website. If your sources use an apologestics website as a medium them they're not doing real science. They're just participating in apologetics. I have no patience for that.

Adam -

I never said that the sight could notbe trusted. I do trust them and use them as a source both for the science and the theology. Interesting that you use the term "real" science. I find that term very interesting and as stated am working on a piece to define that very term. You should really read some of the articles from the Research Journal they are well written and peer reviewed. It is a scientific journal, not main stream but well done. There is a very interesting article in there on peer review. I guess this is where we agree to disagree, and that is well and good. There are many sites that are posted here by people I do not trust, we each have our own standards.

H

Again, I will not consider AIG as a source. I don't care if they put the word "Research" in their name. That organization is inherently unscientific. If you don't understand that then that says something about your competence in this topic. AIG as an organization exists for one purpose only: spreading fundamentalist Christianity. They are not a scientific organization, and they don't have any interest in the scientific method. You will not find anything from their "research" group which contradicts their interpretation of the Bible because they reject any such claims a priori.

That's how you know it's not science. They start with the assumption that the Bible is infallible, and they search for justifications to support that belief. They reject anything which would lead to any other conclusion.

There are many sites that are posted here by people I do not trust, we each have our own standards.

Do you not trust them because they disagree with you or do you not trust them because they don't follow the scientific method? I'm rejecting AIG based on the latter. How about you?

We have never seen evolution inaction in the most true sense. We have see natural adaptation happen witha specials or animal kind.

Actually, we have also seen speciation events; that is, animals have become other species at a genetic level due to environmental pressure. We have not seen this change at higher taxonomic levels (say, a change of genus), but before we imagine such a thing to be problematic, we should note that some species, like Hyenas, not only belong to multiple genera, but those multiple genera can interbreed amongst themselves and produce fertile offspring; indeed, hyenas appear to be able to produce offspring with both felines (to which they are most closely related) and canines.

have become other species at a genetic level due to environmental pressure.

Give your evedence of this.....

Adam -

They start with the assumption that the Bible is infallible, and they search for justifications to support that belief. They reject anything which would lead to any other conclusion.

We all do this to a certain extent. Your opening statement of post 8.9 supports that you have a bias or prejudice towards those that do not accept evolution. We could use your same quote

They start with the assumption that the evolution is fact, and they search for justifications to support that belief. They reject anything which would lead to any other conclusion.

That statement is also true. Anyone who thinks they have no bias is not being truthful to others or themselves. To reject the AIG Research Journal and say it does not use any scientific method is not a true statement it is a statement made by one who rejects what they teach. If you have indeed read any of the articles submitted you would see they do use scientific methods to support their claims.

I do not trust some sites because they are bias, and others becausee their resources are questionable. I am sure you reject others for the samereason. I have never rejected a site that I have not thoroughly studied. I like you once believed that evolution was fact, that it was indisputable, that was until I really took a fresh hard look at it. I found it lacking in truth, and evidence, and have since come to the conclusion it is wrong.

H

We've been down this road before, Truett; I hold little hope out that you've become less deliberately obtuse than in days past.

That said, feel free to follow any of these links, so you can tell me, again, that though the taxonomic changes fit all genetic definitions of speciation, they don't qualify because they don't illustrate a rat changing into a horse; circumnavigating such intellectual dishonesty on Hiram's part (though, to his credit, Hiram is not so dishonest as you have proven to be in the past) was why I brought up hyenas, who belong to multiple genera, yet can interbreed and even produce fertile offspring with members of both the canine and feline order.

yadayadayada....they start with a rodent..end with a rodent....

Yes. One species of rodent to another species of rodent. Therefore, speciation has occurred, by any legitimate definition.

I'm sorry we didn't see something with a taxonomic leap like that between a squirrel and a hippo. But so far, it's considerably more evidence that what I've seen for, say, the existence of deity (though less than what I've seen for the efficacy of chanting daimoku). ;)

What do you think "species" means? If a change from one species to another according to the accepted genetic definition of species doesn't satisfy, then what level of distinction strikes you as compelling?

Your opening statement of post 8.9 supports that you have a bias or prejudice towards those that do not accept evolution.

No. Again, I have a bias against those who reject evolution based on non-scientific reasoning. AIG does not practice science. They have no capability to do so because their entire worldview is anti-scientific. They reject any evidence which contradicts their a priori beliefs. That is the antithesis of how science works. In science everything must be falsifiable. Everything in science is based on attempts to disprove things. That's how scientific tests work. They're not designed to prove something true. They're designed to prove it false. In failing repeatedly to prove something false they consider that claim to be a theory, and that theory sticks around until it's disproved.

Using the AIG method someone would have declared Newtonian physics to be God Inspired (Newton was a Christian, after all), and anything which contradicted it would be rejected. Einstein's theory would have been rejected because it contradicts the God Inspired Newtonian theory of mechanics.

Fortunately we don't use their logic, and when we proved through experimentation that Newtonian physics break down in certain circumstances we were able to replace it with relativity. Still, today we already know relativity breaks down in some cases, so it will eventually be replaced by some new theory. That's how science works. That's not how AIG works because they won't even consider something which contradicts their worldview. That is why I reject them. Not because they reject evolution but because they reject science.

As expected, you have a twisted understanding of how science works because you rely on AIG, which also has a twisted understanding of how it should work. They don't do science, and since you rely on them as a source you don't even understand how science works, let alone the actual theory. If you want a better understanding of science then read this article. When you understand that then you will understand why I reject AIG.

Adam-

I appreciate your concern for my understanding, I feel I should inform you that I have a very well rounded understanding of science having worked in the medical field for over 18 years now. To say AIG will not even consider something that objects to their world view is simply not true. In truth it is my understanding of science that has caused me to reject evolution. It simply does not pass the test of being fact. I have exhausted every possible means of reconciling evolution to observational science and it does not fit nor work. The fact that I start with the hypothesis that we have a Creator is no different that starting with the hypothesis that we do not and are a result of evolution and random genetic mutations. The evidence I see supports the Creator. I look for to your comments on a work in progressess that I have defining what science is and whether creation fits the accepted mold. It might be a while but I will get it done and published.

H

With respect, the medical field is not the same as the scientific field. It's the difference between scientists and engineers. You use the results of science, but you are not a scientist. You do not use the scientific method.

To say AIG will not even consider something that objects to their world view is simply not true.

Tell me how they would falsify their belief in creation.

[Evolution] simply does not pass the test of being fact.

I'm sorry, but if you keep saying things like this then I cannot possibly take you seriously when you also claim to be well read in science and the theory of evolution. This is so far from accurate that it's just laughable.

The fact that I start with the hypothesis that we have a Creator is no different that starting with the hypothesis that we do not and are a result of evolution and random genetic mutations.

Right there you proved you don't understand the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about whether there is a god. Here is the difference between the claim that there is a god and the claim that life evolved: one is falsifiable (evolution) and one is not (god). That makes one science (evolution) and the other is not (god). AIG has confused you to the point where you can't even see the difference between science and religion in the first place.

If you want to defend the idea that creationism is scientific then you need to go read the article I linked to (it's one I wrote several years ago about this very topic) and learn what science really is first. Science requires falsifiability. If you find a way to falsify creationism then maybe you can call it scientific. I'm sure a lot of people would be very interested in knowing how you could possibly do that. Good luck.

Adam -

The medical field uses science daily as do I. I will leave you with this final thought.

Instead, science is about observing the Universe around us and using those observations to try to understand how the Universe works.

That is exactly what I have done. I observed the world around me I understand how it works. That is a perfect definition of observational science. When we are talking about evolution we are talking historical science. We observe what has happened the evidence that is presented and then we decide how it happened based on that evidence. You see an evolutionary process that has used the tools of genetic mutation and natural selection and I see an organized system that has a creator. So we will part in agreeing to disagree.

Blessings

H

You use science in the same sense that I do (I'm a software engineer). You are not a scientist, though, so don't try claiming that you are in order to claim some authority on this subject.

Instead, science is about observing the Universe around us and using those observations to try to understand how the Universe works.

That may be true, but it's not specific enough. Science fundamentally relies on the concept of falsifiability. Every scientific theory is falsifiable, and the scientific method works by attempting to prove something false (not prove it true). When you think of the steps of the scientific method (observation, hypothesis, test, etc.) the "test" step always involves trying to falsify something. If the hypothesis is "all grass is green" then you don't test this by finding green grass. You test it by trying to find grass which is not green. If you fail to do that then the theory isn't proved true, though. It's just tentatively accepted. Someone could come along later and find some purple grass to disprove the theory.

You can't apply that method to something which is fundamentally not falsifiable. The claims of creationism cannot possibly be falsified. You can't disprove that God made us exactly as we are. No matter how much the evidence appears to indicate (as it does) that we evolved over millions of years the claim that God made us exactly as we are today cannot be proved false (maybe it's just coincidence, after all). That's why creationism is not and can never be science.

AIG doesn't get this because they don't understand what science is or how it works, and it's clear to me that you don't either. Anyone who claims that creationism is scientific doesn't know what science is. It's just contradictory.

I feel I should inform you that I have a very well rounded understanding of science having worked in the medical field for over 18 years now.

No offence intended Hiram but I have worked in and taught in Medical universities and can say without hesitation that I agree with Adam. Medical professionals and indeed even MD's are NOT scientists. They are well trained to understand how things work withing medical science...but they rarely in my encounters have a depth of understanding of WHY things happen particularly on a molecular level. They can diagnose heart disease and treat it. But they are rarely able to explain the complex genetic, developmental, or molecular pathologies from which it originates...and they rarely...in my encounters, have any more thorough understanding of evolutionary biology than the average "non biology" graduates.

Adam - csp

One does nothave to be a "scientist" to understand how science works we are talking semitics here. Having studied biology, micro-biology, anatomy, physiology, physics, and computer science. I can assure yo I understand science and the methods used to understand the world we live in. Csp you are right in one respect the reason most disciples do not understand evolutionary biology in a higher level is that it is not important unless you are an evolutionary biologist. Therefore supporting the argument that even though one believes in creation they can and do understand science and can apply it.

H

One does nothave to be a "scientist" to understand how science works we are talking semitics [sic] here.

This is not semantics. If you believe that creationism is scientific then you don't understand science. Creationism is contradictory to the way science works. I posted an article explaining in detail how science works and why creationism can't be science. You apparently still haven't read it. I can't help you if you won't even read what I'm saying. Science requires falsifiability. Creationism cannot be falsified. Therefore creationism cannot be science. You can't get around that. Every time you claim that creationism can be scientific you contradict your claim that you understand science.

Having studied biology, micro-biology, anatomy, physiology, physics, and computer science.

The very fact that you threw "computer science" in there once again undermines your claim to understand science. I am a computer scientist. Computer science is not science. We don't use the scientific method in computer science. It's more a branch of mathematics and engineering than science. Again, you don't really seem to understand what science is.

but if God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, then he is not bound by the laws of the universe which he created including and especially the concepts of time and space.

He exists according Christian Theology in all times and places.....

You are to thebest of knowledgeincorrect in these assupmtions. God created the laws of time and space and being who He is is bound by those same laws. God does live outside of time in that He is eternal. No where in scripture does it state He exist in all times. To be omnipresnet measn to be in all places at all times, not in all time. Two very distinct and different concepts.

And he did it all...knowing he was creating and condemning to hell for eternity at the same time? Yet he is a loving God who wants us to be with him (if we do X Y and Z of course)? and yet also wants us to have free will to choose to do so even though the concept of fee will and choice has no reality outside a linear existence? You essentially also assert God created knowing that many would NEVER know he/she even existed..

A good analogy yet consider this. The future is constantly changing that is the nature of time,it is not linear. Our future changes with each and every decision we make. God being omniscient, knows the future. Considering this He wouldknow the results of each and every path we take each and every decision wemake. Free will is essential to salvation and even God's love for without choice there is no true love nor salvation.

None of these "knew Jesus"...none could accept him...none could receive "salvation"..all will burn in the fires of hell for all eternity

God judges us based on our knowledge. We will be held accountable unto our righteousness. If you have heard the Gospel, if you have heard the Revelation of Jesus then you will be held accountable for the decision you make. If you have not then you will be held accountbale for your actions based upon what you do know. God so loved the world, that His return for final judgement is contigent upon the Gospel being heard by all people. So that none should perish but have ever lasting life.

Blessings

H

Lastly to accuse these people of ignorance is a fallacy many of the people at AIG that oppose evolution have degrees in everything from astrophysics to micro-biology so I can say withthe utmost confidence that they are not ignorant.

A degree doesn't inoculate a person from ignorance and ignorance isn't neccesarily equal to stupid.

Dr. Behe, a prominent creationist microbiologist who failed at the Dover PA evolution case to even show Creationism rises above religion put forth the ignorant idea of "irreducible complexity". Behe's a smart guy but he was apparently ignorant of other possible solutions to what he saw as irreducibly complex systems within living critters.

I cannot speak for Dr Behe ,but to say he was ignorant of the other possibilities is more than likely a fallacy. I am sure he is More than aware of the other possible solutions to irreducible complexity" as am I. I have read many articles like the one you have posted and find that they do not answer the question in a manner that convinces me that evolution is the cause of life on this planet. It is all speculationand interpretation as both of us has stated before, as neither one of us nor of them were there to wittiness the beginning.

A degree doesn't inoculate a person from ignorance and ignorance isn't neccesarily equal to stupid.

You are correct, I coulduse the same argument. Whereas your sources see evolution I can use the claim that they do not see the hand of a Creator because they are ignorant of the knowledge of who He is. I abhor the word ignorant it is notthe proper word in this case. What we have is the knowledge the science of what we observe and I would contend that some people lack the wisdom to see that it was not evolution but the grand design of our Creator.

Now we can go aroudn and around my quoting my sources and you quoting yours and I can be readilly assrue in saying that niether one of us is going change our minds. Not that is a complete impossibliity as I was once as you are. I was an Athiest who beievedin the fact of evolution. But I have discovered it is not up to me to chgane your or anyone else mind. it is only something they can do, and it is bewteen them and God. All I ask is that when presented wiht oppossing information that we give it the consideration it deserves before we dismiss it with bias.

H

Now we can go aroudn and around my quoting my sources and you quoting yours and I can be readilly assrue in saying that niether one of us is going change our minds.

Speak for yourself, I am always willing to change my mind if presented with the proper evidence.

I cannot speak for Dr Behe ,but to say he was ignorant of the other possibilities is more than likely a fallacy. I am sure he is More than aware of the other possible solutions to irreducible complexity" as am I.

If there was another possible solution to something that was supposedly irreducibly complex than it wouldn't be irreducibly complex now would it? That would make either Behe ignorant of these other solutions OR a liar for promoting an idea he knew to be false.

If you keep an open mind it becomes obvious that the dependancy on superstition that has given so many comfort and yearning for a higher purpose is well on its way to history. There are far too many that have come to understand that the need of a belief in the hereafter is rooted in wishful thinking and does not survive when analyzed with no threat to life or limb. The level of the human intellect has started the process where such constructs are no longer accepted. The wave has begun, it will only grow until only those who chose to wallow will remain captive of its control.

Three Monkeys

Three monkeys sat in a coconut tree
Discussing the things that are said to be—
Said one to another:
“Now listen you two
There’s a certain rumor, but it can’t be true,
That man descended from our noble race—
Why, the very idea; it’s a disgrace!
“No monkey ever deserted his wife,
Starved her babies and ruined her life.
Nor did ever a mother-monkey
Leave her babies with others to bunk,
Or pass them on from one to another
‘Till they scarcely knew who was their mother.
“And another thing you’ll never see
A monkey building a nest around a coconut tree,
And let the coconuts go to waste,
Forbidding all other monkeys to have a taste.
Why, if I build a fence around a coconut tree,
Starvation would cause me to distribute to you.
“Here’s another thing that a monkey won’t do:
Go out at night and get on a stew;
Or use a gun, a club, or a knife
To take another monkey’s life.
Yes, Man descended, the ornery cuss!
But Brother, he didn’t descend from us.”

"and the theory of evolution destroys faith in God"

that's garbage

That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. It means people are actually starting to logically consider objective and empirical information and critically think about the world and such knowledge in general. It means they're not irrevocably mentally indoctrinated by or into dogma.

Science cannot say anything with certainty about the age of the world because the questions of the origin of the world and of the universe are beyond the proper range of natural science.

What makes you say that?

Science cannot say anything with certainty about the age of the world because the questions of the origin of the world and of the universe are beyond the proper range of natural science.

This is the very definition of willful ignorance.

The origins of the world are not beyond the range of science. Neither is the origin of the universe. Do you have a rational basis for your assertion that the Earth is only 6,000 years old?

Just because millions of people believe the earth is ancient doesn't make it so.

That is true. It's the scientific evidence that proves that the earth is older than 6,000 years. Just because you believe science is wrong about that, doesn't mean it is. And just because millions of people believe in a god, doesn't mean there is one.

Biblical chronology is a key basis for my belief in a 6,000-year-old earth.

Do you also believe that, if you go the beach, and you kayak to the horizon, that you'd go over "the edge" of the Earth?

Science, as I see it properly understood and practiced, is the study of the natural world around us now, not as it was in the past.

That is an impressive bit of compartmentalizing.

That is an impressive bit of compartmentalizing.

Justin is suggesting that the "science" of the past, was somehow different than the "science" of the "now". Sorry, Justin, but science is science, then and now.

Biblical chronology is a key basis for my belief in a 6,000-year-old earth.

Sweetie, it is a collection of old folk tales. It cannot be verified. You might as well base you core beliefs on Grimm's Fairy Tales or the Iliad. Perhaps Zeus is displeased with you?? You should make an offering just in case.......

Science, as I see it properly understood and practiced, is the study of the natural world around us now, not as it was in the past. The past belongs to history, archaeology and biblical chronology. The latter subject is particularly interesting to me.

Science is a method, not a specific area of study. There's no reason the scientific method cannot be applied to events from the past as long as those events have testable effects. For instance, the Big Bang theory makes specific predictions about the current state of the Universe. Those predictions have been tested and confirmed.

The requirement for something to be scientific is that it is falsifiable. Anything which is falsifiable can be tested scientifically. That applies to evolution, the Big Bang, the global flood theory, etc.

Biblical chronology is a key basis for my belief in a 6,000-year-old earth.

So the basis of your belief in the age of the Earth is that some book said so? Despite mountains of evidence that contradict a young age for the Earth?

Biblical chronology is a key basis for my belief in a 6,000-year-old earth.

Science is the basis for the fact that the earth is over 4 billion years old.

the Great Flood

Science has also disproven any claims for a "great flood." Besides, the biblical flood is a fable taken from the Epic of Gilgamesh.

roughly 2,000 years from Adam to Abraham, and archaeological evidence shows that Abraham lived about 2,000 years before Christ. Now we're 2,000 years after Christ, so that makes about 6,000 years in all.

Of course, you'd have to ignore all the fossil evidence whch shows our progressive evolution as a bipedal species, not to mention the dating techniques and geological strata which place those fossils in the millions of years old.

Using biblical chronology, Irish historian James Ussher calculated in the 1600s that the world was created on October 23, 4004 B.C.

Start with a flawed premise, end with a flawed conclusion.

believe this is the most reliable guess

The key word here is "guess." I'll take empirical evidence and established fact over guesses any day.

Science, as I see it properly understood and practiced, is the study of the natural world around us now, not as it was in the past.

See Justin, here's the thing. Most of what allows you to enjoy life in the 21st century was developed by people who have an actual understanding of science. Who know the earth is very old. Who have an understanding of how the universe has evolved over time. These people, and their knowledge built over the last several hundred years, provide your medical care, defend your country, developed your computer and internet, provide transportation, developed communication technology, grow your food, and the list goes on.

You best be thankful they do not share your understanding, because if they did you'd still be trying to figure out how to make a stone tool and trying to gather enough food to survive for another few days.

Science, as I see it properly understood and practiced, is the study of the natural world around us now, not as it was in the past. The past belongs to history, archaeology and biblical chronology. The latter subject is particularly interesting to me.

If this is you understanding of science then you should go back to school...(middle school) and relearn some scientific basics. Archeology, paleontology, anthropology, forensics, biogeography, cosmology..............just a few scientific disciplines which SPECIFICALLY DEAL WITH THE PAST!!!!

What is the problem no proof, no null hypotheses, no physical proof, no archaeological proof?

How about All of the Above?