[Bored chemist]

"Science is supposed to be a free for all, where as long as evidence can be presented, the presenter is listened to, rather than shouted down."

So, present some evidence.

[Asyncritus (OP)]

no creationist or ID person is published in their pages, at least, not being able to say what they really believe? Are you going the same way?
Just as no person claiming that life was created by faeries has been published.  Your ideas are based on a flawed assumption, and so journals wouldn't publish them.

Ben this is tripe, and you don't know it. If you look back at the transactions of the Royal Society, and many of the major journals of the 1800's you will find God mentioned there abundantly.

Let me remind you that Sir Isaac Newton, a founder of the Royal Society of London, and possibly the greatest scientist who ever lived was one of the staunchest Christians you could name. You're smarter than he was, I assume. If not, then for goodness sake go read some of what he said, before listening to people like Dawkins. Then let's go from there.

[Asyncritus (OP)]

"Science is supposed to be a free for all, where as long as evidence can be presented, the presenter is listened to, rather than shouted down."


So, present some evidence.

See above.

[Asyncritus (OP)]

The issue is that you are unwilling to engage in discussion, you merely tell us we are wrong and your imaginary friend did it.  You ignore the evidence we present, and although some of your objections are evinced, your alternative is based on fantasy.

This is again pure nonsense. There are numerous scientists today who are devout believers - like John Polkinghorne who is a Fellow of the Royal Society. Ernst Chain holds a Nobel Prize and FRS; WR Thompson was FRS and so the list goes on.

Unless you are prepared to call them all a bunch of loonies, then your remark is quite false.

The issue is that you are unwilling to engage in discussion, you merely tell us we are wrong and your imaginary friend did it.  You ignore the evidence we present, and although some of your objections are evinced, your alternative is based on fantasy.

Let's set up some discussion rules.

I've presented a lot of material. Let's start with the avian lung.

Reread the case, make comments, and I'll comment on your comments. When that runs out of steam, we'll take another topic, like the eye of the rock lobster.

All personal slanging is to be avoided.

Let's have a moderator who will tell us to get back on topic, or see that a question is not being answered, and demand that it be answered.

'I don't know' or 'I have no explanation' are acceptable answers, even if weakening to the case.

That's fair, isn't it?

[Asyncritus (OP)]

Hmmm...not sure why, but some of this reminds me of a good quote...

"He can compress the most words into the smallest idea of any man I know." - Abraham Lincoln

Iwouldn't talk about Ben like that Evie!

[BenV]

Yes, you're right, Newton was a christian, and did some great science.  I'll point out the major problem with your above post though...

and many of the major journals of the 1800's you will find God mentioned there abundantly.

The world has moved on, and atheism is now far more acceptable.  We know more about the world and we know that there is no evidence for god, and so it would be wrong to publish scientific papers that suggest god as a mechanism.

I'd point out that some of the very first scientists believed in Zeus, and they would be laughing at you for suggesting that life was made by your god, rather than the many gods they believed in.

"Science is supposed to be a free for all, where as long as evidence can be presented, the presenter is listened to, rather than shouted down."


So, present some evidence.

See above.

Bored Chemist and I have asked you for evidence for creation, not just an example you feel can't have evolved.  You have not done so.

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, as I explained on another thread they stem from different paradigms, but none of the religious scientists you have mentioned would attempt to publish something describing god as a biological mechanism - they would be ridiculed, and rightly so.  Either way, my remark was about your conduct on this forum, in that we provide evidence and mechanisms, and you ignore them and claim that 'god did it'.  Thus, my remark is not at all false.

With regards your discussion rules...

You have presented a lot of material, yes, but are unwilling to listen to the replies it receives.  I've read it, and realised that instead of starting from "what are the possible explanations for the existence of x" you have started from "how can I attempt to show that x didn't evolve".

You have presented your case against, we have presented our evidence in favour.  I acknowledge that there are areas where the exact details of evolution remain to be elucidated, but the mechanism is proven and sound.  You yourself appreciate that natural selection causes changes in the genes of a population, yet refuse to follow that to it's logical conclusion.  It is now your turn to provide evidence for your alternative explanation, otherwise the current explanation will remain the accepted one.

I feel I should point out that I am, in fact, a moderator on this forum.

[Don_1]

Easy. God made them.

This is the answer I expected. It's why man made Gods, anything you can't explain or understand is attributed to the them. The easy answer to any question.

[Asyncritus (OP)]

The world has moved on, and atheism is now far more acceptable.  We know more about the world and we know that there is no evidence for god, and so it would be wrong to publish scientific papers that suggest god as a mechanism.

You're quite right - the world has moved on.

If you define 'scientific' as things that are observable and measurable, then of course God cannot be a scientific explanation of anything. But then, neither can evolution be observed or measured. And before anybody leaps forth yelling 'what about bacterial resistance' let me say, I accept that micro-evolution takes place.

The problem arises when we seek evidence of evolution above or at family level. There isn't any.

The world has moved on, and atheism is now far more acceptable.  We know more about the world and we know that there is no evidence for god, and so it would be wrong to publish scientific papers that suggest god as a mechanism.

It may be more acceptable, but that doesn't mean that it is correct.

Paul Davies published a book not so long ago called the Mind of God. I haven't read it, but it does seem an extraordinary title coming from a very modern physicist. And knowing some of the things he has said about the anthropic principle and the evidence for it, I think this is a serious departure for modern science.

Reading Denton creates the inescapable conclusion that there is far more to science than atoms and DNA molecules. I can't scan his material in, but I do recommend that you have a careful read of Nature's Destiny. He is not a creationist, but the evidence he presents, particularly in his own field of molecular biology is absolutely mind boggling, and far beyond Darwinism and natural selection.

Well let's have a debate, regulated by another moderator. If you are a participant you cannot reasonably moderate as well.

What about it?

[lyner]

I am an atheist, myself, yet I am amazed that so many self-confessed atheists are so passionate in their non belief. This thread is so littered with little-endian and big-endian nonsense that it is hard to find any genuine attention to real Science.
Christians / people of religion and atheists should be able to have a perfectly good conversation involving evidence and what it infers without childishly getting at each other's throats. Grow up chaps and have a proper discussion.

[_Stefan_]

neither can evolution be observed or measured. And before anybody leaps forth yelling 'what about bacterial resistance' let me say, I accept that micro-evolution takes place.

The problem arises when we seek evidence of evolution above or at family level. There isn't any.

This is equivalent to saying that kilometres cannot arise from the addition of millimetres! The distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution is nonsense! There is a continuum! "Micro" evolution is just "macro" evolution in a much shorter time frame. 

You still have not presented any positive evidence for design. Even if evolution as currently known was completely falsified, it would STILL not lend any credence to creationism! You can try to refute evolution as much as you want, but since creationism is devoid of evidence and reason, it is not an explanation for ANYTHING!


Sophie, when people such as Asyncritus pursue ridiculous arguments based on creationism and ignore the actual science, of course the discussion will fall back to criticism of the religious ideologies!

[lyner]

Sophie, when people such as Asyncritus pursue ridiculous arguments based on creationism and ignore the actual science, of course the discussion will fall back to criticism of the religious ideologies!

but there's no point in taking it personally (or appearing to).
If you don't want to keep your argument 'sensible' then back out. There's no way you will persuade a fanatic by frontal argument, in any case.
People may change their opinions sometimes but not in the middle of a steaming argument with someone who they think is barmy. You and I appear that way to some people (many of my friends, for a start).
Basically, you have no proof, as such - just a strong inference from a lot of evidence. That's good enough for me but is of little value against 'faith'.

People have real difficulty with very small and very big numbers. The time for the juxtaposition of changing conditions and a suitable evolutionary change is too long for most people to comprehend. It is the equivalent of a Royal Flush several times in a row (and more) and you need to use Maths to help you through some of these ideas associated with probability and numbers. Anyone who just doesn't want to believe it just won't.

To my mind, the greatest indicator of the Evolution system is the DNA. There is an amazing amount of common DNA in all living things and we can produce all sorts of changes by genetic manipulation and 'artificial selection'. Given plenty of time, anything, viable, could evolve - even religion.

[Bored chemist]

"But then, neither can evolution be observed or measured. "
False- look at the differences we (acting as selective pressure) have brought about in dogs and pigeons, Also consider the fate of the 2 subspecies of peppered moths.

I note that Asyncritus has still failed to explain God's origin.

[Flyberius]

I lol'd

[Evie]

Sophie,

I agree with you 100%. Both sides of the "discussion" have been snarky with one another and that's no way to make a good point on either front.

The time scale issue is what gets most creationists. They profess that because you can't see creatures changing into new species all around us, evolution must not exist! In my first geology class in college, my professor did a wonderful illustration for us of the geologic time scale. He took us out in the parking lot and stretched out a VERY long tape measure. he said, if this is the age of the universe, than THIS much is the age of the earth (placing a mark a little less than half way), and so on, ending with a tiny dot at the very end of the tape to indicate the amount of time humans have been around. It was very useful and I always think of that when I'm feeling a bit superior.  []

[Asyncritus (OP)]

The problem arises when we seek evidence of evolution above or at family level. There isn't any.

This is equivalent to saying that kilometres cannot arise from the addition of millimetres!

This shows a certain in depth understanding of Biology!

Because we can see dark moths being selected out because the tree barks are light, and because we can see bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics, we can also see a land mammal becoming a whale which dives to 2 miles depth!

Wow!

[BenV]

Sophie, you're quite right, I'm allowing this to get to me.

Asyncritus, I decline your offer of a debate, for the reasons I have stated above, and due to the fact that I do not have the time to do the research for you.  I appreciate you will not accept evolution, despite the evidence, and I'm afraid that you must come to terms with that I will not accept your ideas.

Everyone else, sorry if I offended or frustrated you, and fair enough if I have amused you.  I should learn to ignore creationists, rather than letting them get to me.

[Asyncritus (OP)]

Anybody else fancy picking up the gauntlet?

Come on you guys. If evolution is all it's cracked up to be, then here's a marvellous opportunity to showcase the virtues of the theory, and discredit one of the lower life forms (that's me) and creationism as a whole.

[_Stefan_]

Asyncritus, go and read some scientific literature with an open mind and leave us alone. If you actually made an effort to understand how evolution works then you wouldn't need to dispute it this way. Put down your Harun Yahya rubbish and read some real science.

[Bored chemist]

"Because we can see dark moths being selected out because the tree barks are light, and because we can see bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics, we can also see a land mammal becoming a whale which dives to 2 miles depth!"
Yes, we can.
Can't you?

"Anybody else fancy picking up the gauntlet?

Come on you guys. If evolution is all it's cracked up to be, then here's a marvellous opportunity to showcase the virtues of the theory, and discredit one of the lower life forms (that's me) and creationism as a whole."

Don't flatter yourself. Picking holes in your ideas isn't one of evolution's major achievements.

[Asyncritus (OP)]

You want to take up the challenge then?