Where Faith Comes From in the "moderate" Christian religions

But that wouldn't prove evolution, because neither of these things are evolution.You have been told time and time again that this is not what the TOE says. Why do you insist on misstating the TOE?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Peg responds to me:

quote:

---

he might believe in God, but if he believes that evolution caused the great variety of life on earth, then can it be said that he believes the bible?

---

Yes. Why not? Have you considered the possibility that the problem is not with god but rather with your assumption of what god is and how god behaves?Consider the possibility that god does exist...just not the way you think.

quote:

---

Did he miss Genesis Chpt 1 in theology school?

---

Of course not. But listen to what you're saying, Peg: The leader of the largest religious denomination in the world doesn't believe in god. That's your claim? The Pope isn't Catholic?

quote:

---

the bacteria may behave that way, but it does not explain all life on earth.

---

Why not? What is it about the workings of a bacterial cell that makes it so different from any other cell? Are you saying human genetic duplication is perfect? No mutations are ever to be found anywhere when a human cell undergoes meiosis?The human mutation rate is about 1 per 1 billion base-pairs. With about 3 billion base-pairs in the human genome, that means compared to your parents, Peg, you are likely to have about 3 to 6 mutations.Or are you simply declaring by fiat that no, you don't? That the DNA you inherited from your parents was perfectly replicated, no possibility for error?

quote:

---

It simply shows how flexible these germs are and surely explains why they survive where nothing else can.

---

Huh? Most of the lawn died, Peg. What on earth do you mean by "survive" when the overwhelming majority died?You've completely ignored the facts, Peg: If there were no mutation, then the entire lawn should die. If there were no change in the genome from generation to generation, then every single bacterium in the lawn is a perfect genetic clone of the single ancestor of all of them. Thus, if it was susceptible to T4 phage, then every single one of them is susceptible and thus, they all die.But the fact that the entire lawn does not die isn't an indication of "adaptation." Remember: If there is no evolution, then the entire lawn necessarily and specifically acts in concert: If one dies, they all die. If one lives, they all live. If one of the bacteria can "adapt" to the presence of T4 phage, then all of them can "adapt" to it and thus they all live. There is no possibility for some to live and some to die if there is no evolution.So the fact that we see some living while the vast majority die is proof positive of evolution.So if mutation happens to bacteria which leads to evolution, why is it nothing else does? What is so special about bacteria that only they evolve?

quote:

---

I would need to see one species produce a completely different species.

---

That has been done. Multiple times. Both in the lab and in the field. You've been shown the references before. I have personally begged you (and am doing so again right now) to go to the library and look at the literature for yourself. Why do you continue to claim that it has never been seen?When are you going to do your homework? Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events
Speciation
PRATT CB910: No new species have been observedLactobacillus uvarum sp. nov.--a new lactic acid bacterium isolated from Spanish Bobal grape must.
Maes-Lzaro R, Ferrer S, Rossell-Mora R, Pardo I.
ENOLAB - Laboratorio de Microbiologa Enolgica, Departamento de Microbiologa y Ecologa, Facultad de Biologa, Universidad de Valencia, Dr. Moliner 50, 46100 Burjasot, Valencia, Spain.
PMID: 18930365 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Microbacterium invictum sp. nov., isolated from homemade compost.Vaz-Moreira I, Lopes AR, Faria C, Sprer C, Schumann P, Nunes OC, Manaia CM.
ESB-UCP;
PMID: 19567581 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]Humibacter albus gen. nov., sp. nov., isolated from sewage sludge compost.Vaz-Moreira I, Nobre MF, Ferreira AC, Schumann P, Nunes OC, Manaia CM.
Escola Superior de Biotecnologia, Universidade Catlica Portuguesa, 4200-072 Porto, Portugal.
PMID: 18398211 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]That last is interesting because not only is it a new species ("sp. nov."), but also it is a new genus ("gen. nov.")The information is out there, Peg. You simply need to turn off the computer, go to the library, and look it up. Talk to your local university biology department for assistance. Go to the local natural history museum and speak to the curator.When was the last time you were in a library?When are you going to do your homework?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Peg writes:

quote:

---

you can't observe evolution happening

---

Yes, you can. I just showed you how. You just agreed that you could. Why have you changed your story?

quote:

---

So, apart from Rrhains bacteria, how are you 'observing' evolution?

---

There's so much wrong in that statement that it's hard to know where to begin.First: What's so special about bacteria that only they can evolve?
Second: What makes you think that only bacteria have been observed to speciate?You've been given the references, Peg, on multiple occasions. Why are you suddenly changing your story?

quote:

---

so are you saying that evolution disproves a creator?

---

It disproves your assumptions about how god behaves, yes.Who are you to tell god what to do? God can't create life that evolves?

quote:

---

but not all scientists have ditched creation

---

Ah, yes...the old, "More and more scientists are 'questioning' evolution every day!" This is a bunch of bullshit, Peg, and you've been shown the evidence why. Why are you suddenly changing your story?

quote:

---

And science does not always need direct observation (evolution) to believe something exists.

---

So now you're saying that evolution has been directly observed. There you go changing your story yet again. Do you even know what your own argument is or are you simply in contrarian mode and whatever your opponent says, you deny it?

quote:

---

If related evidence and not direct observation is an adequate basis for scientists to accept what is invisible, why is that consideration not given to those who believe in a Creator.

---

So you think you can put god in the box to be poked, prodded, and experimented upon? Well, people have tried and so far, god seems quite stubborn when it comes to manifesting. Attempts to pray to god to affect outcome have led to no positive change in outcome (and some, in fact, show a negative change).So help us out: What sort of experiment did you have in mind that would allow one to conclude the presence of god?

quote:

---

Afterall, they use a similar basis for accepting what they cannot see.

---

No, they don't. Scientists publish their work and request other people who have a vested interest in proving them wrong to go over their work, replicate it, and see if they can find fault with it. If a dominant paradigm is overturned, then they hand you the Nobel Prize, you are considered a genius, and the scientific community beats a path to your door trying to learn from you.Theists tend to keep their "mysteries" hidden, brand those who question their work as "heretics," and seek out to destroy those who would find fault with the work. Do it loud enough, and they'll chase you down and kill you for your blasphemy.How on earth is that "similar"?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Peg responds to me:

quote:

---

I would need to see life spring from the ground with not intervention required.

---

Huh? That's biogenesis, not evolution. Evolution doesn't have anything to do with the origin of life. It is only about how it diversified after it began.Do you even understand the difference?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Peg writes:

quote:

---

I've asked what direct observations are used and the only answer so far is from Rrhain who says that because bacteria has the ability to change and adapt, it proves evolution

---

Huh? Are you saying the bacteria didn't evolve? Are you changing your story yet again?

quote:

---

well, we are not bacteria are we?

---

Huh? Why does that matter? Are you saying that chromosomes in humans don't mutate when they replicate? When a gametocyte undergoes meiosis in humans, it is always 100% perfectly replicated, no chance for any error, ever?What is so special about bacteria that only they evolve? That only their genome replicates imperfectly?If you agree that no cell replicates perfectly every single time, Peg, then you necessarily agree to evolution.All species.All the time.

quote:

---

Or am i to believe bacteria is our common ancestor???

---

Well, nothing like our current bacteria, but something somewhat like it, yes. Are you saying human cells replicate perfectly every single time? Only bacteria cells replicate imperfectly?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Peg writes:

quote:

---

that just shows that theology school isnt concerned with faith

---

Huh? The leader of the largest religious denomination in the world doesn't have faith? Is that what you're saying?

quote:

---

I certainly dont believe evolution is a reality

---

But you just agreed that the bacteria evolved. You're changing your story yet again. Do you even understand your own argument? Do you even have an argument or are you just automatically gainsaying whatever you hear?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Peg responds to DrAdequate:

quote:

---

but what specific observances are you referring to?

---

The ones you were told before. Do we really need to repeat them or are you capable of remembering things that happened more than 10 minutes ago?When are you going to do your homework?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Peg responds to PaulK:

quote:

---

because there doesnt seem to be a clear cut answer.

---

Huh? Where on earth did this come from? The answer is quite clear cut: Science uses all observations it can get. Some of those observations will be direct such as the experiment I gave you that allows you to observe evolution right in front of your eyes in less than a week for very little money. Some of those observations will be indirect such as genome sequencing and morphological analysis.

quote:

---

Yet some say that evolution can be reproduced in a lab

---

They don't just "say" it can, Peg. They actually do. I showed you how. You agreed that evolution happened. And now you're changing your story yet again.Since we can observe evolution happening right in front of our eyes both in the lab and in the field, since it is so easy to do that a high school student can do it, why would you have us lie about it?

quote:

---

others say you cant directly observe it

---

No, Peg. You say you can't directly observe it, but you have shown that your knowledge of the state of the science is not exactly reliable. For example, you just agreed that you can see evolution happen in a petri dish right in front of your eyes and now you're changing your story.

quote:

---

others say its the fossil evidence that proves it

---

Huh? You're acting as if direct observation and the fossil record are somehow mutually exclusive. You do realize that the two actually reinforce each other, yes? That we can watch it happening right now in front of our eyes and that we can see the morphological changes that happened to life in the past is very strong evidence that evolution is the cause for the diversification of life upon this planet.

quote:

---

(of which there are huge gaps)

---

No, not really. There are gaps with regard to species, but when it comes to higher taxonomic levels, the fossil record is chock full of transitionals.

quote:

---

Also, why is it perfectly acceptable for science to have beliefs in things they cannot see based on indirect observations, yet creationists cannot?

---

No. The reason why creationist "belief in things they cannot see" is not accepted is because the claims of creationists cannot be replicated. You are free to perform the E. coli experiment on your own and see if you get the same results. In fact, I'd very much like you to do so in order for you to get some idea of how biology happens first hand.

quote:

---

This is confusing to me, its like saying, I can use this tool to prove my point, but you cannot use it to prove yours.

---

Incorrect. Instead, it's like saying, "This is a screwdriver, but you seem to think it's a hammer."

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Peg writes:

quote:

---

lets say that 'tool' is observation, why can observation not be used in the study of a creator?

---

It can. Are you saying god can be observed? Are you saying we have observed god creating? God is willing to be put in the box and be subjected to poking, prodding, and experimentation?The difference between scientific observations and religious observations is that scientific observations can be replicated by anybody anywhere who is willing to run the experiment. That's why I keep telling you about the E. coli experiment: It's something you can do. You can actually watch evolution happen right in front of your eyes.What sort of experiment were you thinking of running that would allow us to observe god creating ex nihilo?

quote:

---

why is the observation of the physical universe an evidence for evolution but not for creation?

---

Because the evidence is not consistent with the creationist description of what happened.Surely you understand how logic works: If A, then B. Not B, therefore not A. This is called the contrapositive.If creationism is true, then we should see certain things in the world. If we don't see them, then we necessarily conclude that creationism isn't true.Creationism espouses sudden appearance of organisms with no connection to what came before. However, we don't see that. Instead, we see a deeply interconnected evolution of life over time.Therefore, creationism isn't true.That's why the observation of the physical universe is evidence for evolution and not creation: None of the evidence is consistent with the claims of creationism.Your complaint is equivalent to complaining that because we can show that 2 + 2 = 4, that is somehow unfair to those who insist that it equals 5.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Peg writes:

quote:

---

Im not against it, i would just like ppl to stop calling it a fact lol.

---

But you just agreed that it was a fact. I gave you an experiment that directly shows evolution happening right in front of your eyes and you agreed. Now you're changing your story. Do you have any principles at all?Since we can observe evolution happening right in front of our eyes, both in the lab and in the field, across multiple species, since we can see the fossil record clearly showing the evolution of all life, why would you have us lie and say it isn't a fact?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Peg writes:

quote:

---

i believe the evidence of the universe and life favors creation.

---

So why haven't they published? It certainly isn't because of some conspiracy against creationists. Overturning the dominant paradigm in a field is the dream of scientists everywhere. They give you the Nobel Prize. It's worth more than a million dollars. That's a huge incentive to do so, so why is it that creationism can't get past peer review?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I can't see this one ever properly getting back on-topic.Closing.Adminnemooseus

---