Are there any "problems" with the ToE that are generally not addressed?

So you are talking about putting a quantified pressure on a population of known genotypes and predicting how the population genetics will shift?I mean if mutations are random that would imply to me they are unpredictable, but shift in ratios of genes in different environments might be predictable.Or have I totally misunderstood you.lfen

I'll admit it Rob. I lost. God has delivered another miracle. You don't understand science, genetics, or ToE but with the help of divinely inspired web sites and recasting the problem in easy to understand but false terms you have overthrown science. May I be the first to congratulate you. We are closing down the labs and turning them in to chapels to study the Bible. We don't need science or any education beyond what it says in the Bible. No more programs in math, physics, chemistry or biology are necessary you have shown the Bible is inerrant, science wrong and unnecessary.Thank you,
lfen

I'd like to hear others views on my answer to the quoted question.
I am going to catagorically say: Yes, there is validity to the idea that there are specific problems with X for values of X that include, ToE, physics, chemistry, geology, any science you wish to name.I say this because science as I see it deals with problems. Solving one problem brings up newer problems. Religionist want an absolute knowledge without any problems. Believe this and go to heaven, don't believe this and go to hell, no questions asked. But science is about addressing problems and trying to solve them in provable repeatable ways. The problems get tougher as we learn more. What creationists won't accept is that this a a good thing, this is the way science is supposed to work. Science doens't claim a revealed truth. A scientiest can't pray over the ToE and then get a feeling that they take as the divine truth and sally forth with the answer. So there are always problems but that in no way invalidates science.lfen

Exactly! That was the point I wast trying to make. The fundamental religious mind set wants absolute certainty. It appears to me they have great problems understanding science because they want it to be a religion that delivers absolute pronouncements and then they can go back to sleep in a dream of certainty.So they think citing problems destroys science. The don't see how very different the Bible and science are. Problems are what science is all about. Scientists would be out of work if there were no problems! IIRC at the end of the 19th century scientist felt that physics was about complete and little could be done, of course shortly thereafter all hell broke lose, to import a metaphor from religion.Not all, but most of the creationist I've seen show up here just don't have a background to understand science and may never understand it. They have been to some creationist web sites and got some trumped up arguments and show up here thinking that those arguments demolish a position when they often are non sequiturs or have been disproven years earlier.I'm glad there are people with more patience than I have who try to educate them.lfen

The libertarian party was wanting to do something similiar in Vermont at one time weren't they?What amazes me is this is the continuation of the original british religous colonist to America. They founded colonies based on their religious beliefs and a firm intolerance of other beliefs. It's amazing that the deists such as Thomas Paine, Jefferson etc. managed to get a non christian constitution with the separation of church and state firmly established. Various christian sects have been put out about this ever since!lfen

I will avoid that other forum. The level of ignorance there is too daunting.lfen

quote:

---

Wow, what would you define as "changed"?

---

I think you've hit on a methodology to deal with the peculiarities of Robert's thought process. I suggest we need to start large and then narrow the range down. Sort of like the "is it bigger than a breadbox" approach.Why don't we start off and see if Robert can perceive the difference between a fish and a, I don't know, rhinoceros? If he does we can begin to narrow in. I'm interested if he can tell any distinctions between sea creatures.lfen