God vs. Science

Not really. That would be called "circumstancial evidence," and if the knife had no blood or fingerprints, we could suspect Bob, but not prove he did it. Jim could have committed suicide, for instance.We have no evidence of the supernatural. We only know that we exist, and can observe the natural properties and behaviors of the Universe around us. Saying that our mere existence proves there must be a god is an unfounded leap - the Universe could simply exist withotu a creator, could have had multiple creators, could have formed from some cosmic event we have yet to doscover, etc. Without further evidence, it is only accurate to say "the Universe exists." Anything else violates parsimony and treads dangerously close to dishonesty. Not so. Your analogy seems to be addressing abiogenesis and evolution, but the analogy is invalid - neither process is a purely random occurrance. They work by the inevitable and predictable processes of chemistry, which allows for significant random variety within a set of possibilities, and is then selected by the self-evident process of natural selection. We aren't playing "Mouse Trap," we're watching snowflakes form as the temperature drops - random chaos yeilds a startling variety of ordered constructs due to completely natural processes. You're delving too deeply into an analogy - I meant only to illustrate that you are assigning responsibility to an entity based on an invalid leap in logic, and so your conclusion drawn from that leap is invalid. God may or may not exist, but you can't prove he does only by noticing that other things exist.I may as well say that I know you exist because a soda can exists on my desk, and you must have put it there. We know this is false because, while there is a can on my desk, I put it there, not you. You may or may not exist (going only with the information available in the analogy, of course), and it would have been possible for you to have put the can there, but they are compeltely logically disconnected unless additional evidence (a fingerprint, for example) is introduced linking the two.Your arguments are nothing more than personal incredulity and unfounded leaps of logic. You have no evidence of anything at all to support your beliefs - they are simply beliefs taken on faith. You conclusions can still be valid, and god may possibly exist, but your reasons are invalid, and so your conclusion is illogical.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

Extinction is predicted by evolution. And you are incorrect - new species have been observed to form from previously existing species: the so-called "speciation event." We can provide examples, if you like, but it appears you have been misled. And yet we know that this is complete bollocks. There are new things all the time - computers, the internet, medicines, all of these are new, and even their predecessors had a demonstrable beginning.Biology and evolution, of course, agree with Solomon: according to evolution, no feature in any species should be wholly unique, but should rather be a slightly modified version of the same feature in a pre-existing species. This is exactly what we see - wings do not suddenly sprout from cows in a single generation, for instance.Abiogenesis is separate from evolution. It may or may not be a valid explanation for the first life on Earth, but evolution itself works whether abiogenesis, space aliens, a rogue comet with a bacterium onboard, or god started the ball rolling.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

Ah, the misconceptions abound! To tell you the truth, I'm not particularly worried about species going extinct. So maybe you should direct that question to someone who is worried about it. Whoa! Hold on there, buckaroo.I never said any species were better than others. Moreoever, I'm pretty sure very few scientists ever said it either. You seem to be confusing the idea of better adapted to survive with a value judgment. The two are not at all the same thing.Moreoever, your suggestion that we work on a "perfect" animal displays a tremendous ignorance about evolution. There is no "perfect" animal from an evolutionary perspective; there is only better adapted to the environment and less well-adapted. Not sure why you felt that needed clarification, but thanks anyway. Of course, your observation makes me ponder the following point:If humans are the divine creation of god in his image, why aren't they the perfect animal?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Sorry, I tend to do that.Yes, I admit that microevolution is an inevidable chemical process. However, abiogenesis is not inevitable. It is a huge leap of extreme proportions, just like somebody jumping from the lunar orbiter to the moon (and surviving).

And as the fossil record shows that this is not the case, you have just proved the reality of evolution.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, according to evolution, the surviving species/changing species are better. Thus, you have humans, the better form of all of our animal ancestors. Well, humans were the perfect animal, but back then all animals were perfect also. However, when man (and woman) detered from God's plan, we became imperfect.

If new paintings are being painted, why should we worry if someone burns down the Louvre?Extinction is worse than that, though --- the paintings in the Louvre were produced over a mere few hundred years. The biodiversity we're destroying now took a lot longer to produce and will take a lot longer to replace.

quote:

---

Well, humans were the perfect animal, but back then all animals were perfect also. However, when man (and woman) detered from God's plan, we became imperfect.

---

That's religious belief, not science.You should be careful to differentiate the two.

No.Perhaps you could let us do the sentences starting with "According to evolution ..." You know, we could tell you our point of view and you could tell us yours.Call me a staid old traditionalist if you will.

Better adapted for their current enviroment. How perfect could man be if we were able to become imperfect?

---

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

No worries - it seems we all do.Hell, I think that's the reason many people have so many misconceptions of evolution - analogies are taken too far. That's good. I hope you also realize that, absent a specific mechanism to prevent it, those small changes you identify as microevolution will inevitably add up to what you call macroevolution. You should also realize that the micro- and macro- terms are exclusively Creationist/ID inventions - there is no distinction between the two in actual science. Not necessarily, no. However, I think you'll find that the steps required for abiogenesis that we have determined thus far (presence of organic chemicals, spontaneous formation of amino acids, spontaneous assembly of amino acids into proteins, etc) are inevitable given the appropriate circumstances - which we model off of the conditions of the early Earth. We have not demonstrated every step and actually created artificial life, but we have gotten very, very close. No, this does not mean abiogenesis is the source of all life on Earth, necessarily, even if we manage to duplicate the process from early Earth chemicals to a self-replicating molecule. And no, it does not mean that "god" could not have gotten it started in the first place. But it certainly means that it was completely possible, and even likely - and it doesn't require "god." Out of curiosity, what would you say if scientists were able to, from base organic chemicals we know occur naturally in environments devoid of life (see: Titan, Saturn's moon), over several steps cause life to form? If scientists are eventually able to create life from nonlife, what will be your reaction? I mean, that will be solid proof that life on this planet could have arisen by totally natural means - and without any evidence of any other cause, it becomes the logical default explanation.

That's extremely inaccurate, and it represents taking "survival of the fittest" too literally as a representation of evolution.Evolution would be closer to "survival of the fit enough, and better survival for the more fit." But that's too long for a quick soundbyte Humans aren't "better" evolved than microbes, for instance - we simply have a completely different niche to fill, and are both well-adapted to fit those niches.Species go extinct when either their predators evolve to be too efficient, or when other selective pressures (natural disasters, loss of food supply, etc) mean that the species is no longer able to survive to reproduce enough to overcome the death rate.If a population is spread over a large geographical area, and a natural disaster puts selective pressure on only one part of that population, a new species can arise due to natural selection, and the progenitor species will continue to exist as well. Do you have any evidence aside from stoneage mythology suggesting any animals were "perfect?" Can you define "perfect" as it pertains to biology?

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

Evolution has absolutely nothing to say about abiogenesis... whatsoever. For someone such as myself, the answer is "I simply don't know". For someone such as yourself, if it helps you could just tell yourself that god "poofed" into existence the first life on Earth and allowed it to evolve. To distinguish the difference between micro and macro evolution, it helps to think of it like walking. If you take a step from where you are to the next house, you are one step closer to it. If you take another step, you are another step closer to it. The small changes in your position by taking those small steps you could see as "micro" evolution. Now, if you take enough steps over long periods of time, you could end up a thousand miles away.What's the difference between the motion of walking from where you are to the next house and walking from where you are to the next state? Nothing, really, except for the number of steps that you take. It's still walking.That's what evolution is. Very small minute (tiny) changes in the allele frequencies of populations that over eons of time would inevitably add up to large changes.In the past, people have nitpicked my analogy and say it's impossible to walk for a thousand miles. If this is what you intend to do, make sure to visit this site first.People used to walk for thousands and thousands of miles before the invention of automobiles, you know.

1. The problem with this analogy is if one takes a long walk a step at a time, the trail can be traced and reproduced all the way back to the point of departure which is not the case with evolution.2. As for the auto analogy, the same applies. We know it began with the wheel to the chariot etc. Then came the Industrial Revolution and the auto. Again, every step of every make of auto has been recorded in history so as to verify all the way back to the wheel. Not so with evolution.3. Your analogies imply ID.4. Whoever is telling to you that a normal person cannot walk 1000 miles?ABE: Btw, so far as your 2nd analogy goes relative to your position on abiogenesis, perhaps the wheel can be analogous to abiogenesis. Without abiogenesis, no evolution.We don't agree on much, but your contribution to the debates is appreciated. Edited by Buzsaw, : ABE:

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

All the time? Every step? In every case?This sounds like pure hyperbole.TTFN,WK