Searching for GOD...

[Leonard James]

  Organic entities get enhanced by divine intervention.

No they don't! They get 'enhanced' by genetic copying errors which better adapt them to the environment they find themselves in.

Don't you know how evolution works?

No he doesn't, and he's not likely to find out either, Len.

It's desperately sad when people flatly refuse to recognise scientific facts.

[Alan Burns]

  Organic entities get enhanced by divine intervention.

No they don't! They get 'enhanced' by genetic copying errors which better adapt them to the environment they find themselves in.

Don't you know how evolution works?

I understand perfectly well Len.
You must accept that the theory of evolution is still an unproven theory, not a scientific fact.

[BeRational]

  Organic entities get enhanced by divine intervention.

No they don't! They get 'enhanced' by genetic copying errors which better adapt them to the environment they find themselves in.

Don't you know how evolution works?

I understand perfectly well Len.
You must accept that the theory of evolution is still an unproven theory, not a scientific fact.

It is both a scientific fact and a theory.

Just like Gravity is.

[Alan Burns]

Your 'understanding' of the 'supernatural' is entirely the creation of your imagination!

And do you not realise that my imagination is also supernatural   

[BeRational]

Your 'understanding' of the 'supernatural' is entirely the creation of your imagination!

And do you not realise that my imagination is also supernatural   

Is my imagination also supernatural?

[Shaker]

  Organic entities get enhanced by divine intervention.

No they don't! They get 'enhanced' by genetic copying errors which better adapt them to the environment they find themselves in.

Don't you know how evolution works?

I understand perfectly well Len.
You must accept that the theory of evolution is still an unproven theory, not a scientific fact.

Ah. Then you don't, as a matter of fact, understand evolution after all as you claim,  since your second sentence contradicts the first.

[Alan Burns]

It is both a scientific fact and a theory.

Just like Gravity is.

A theory is not a fact.
Gravity, its effects, are defined by the law of gravity.

[BeRational]

It is both a scientific fact and a theory.

Just like Gravity is.

A theory is not a fact.
Gravity, its effects, are defined by the law of gravity.

Gravity is a fact (when you drop things they fall, or follow curved space time), and a theory.

I hope you think theory means guess. Please tell me you know more than that!

I theory in science is the highest possible position it can have.

Do not think because they say the law of gravity it is more than it is. It is a THEORY, one which like ALL other theories at the moment, is incomplete and not 100% accurate.

It cannot account for quantum effects.

[Shaker]

It is both a scientific fact and a theory.

Just like Gravity is.

A theory is not a fact.

That's not what BR said. He said - perfectly correctly - that evolution is a fact, a physical, biochemical, observable process, and a theory as well (which is the conceptual framework that best explains the fact).

[Shaker]

Do not think because they say the law of gravity it is more than it is. It is a THEORY, one which like ALL other theories at the moment, is incomplete and not 100% accurate.

It cannot account for quantum effects.

I wonder if Alan realises that evolution is better understood by a very long way indeed than gravity, and if not, should I tell him?

[BeRational]

Do not think because they say the law of gravity it is more than it is. It is a THEORY, one which like ALL other theories at the moment, is incomplete and not 100% accurate.

It cannot account for quantum effects.

I wonder if Alan realises that evolution is better understood by a very long way indeed than gravity, and if not, should I tell him?

Gravity is a fact, and is called the Law of gravity.

So surely a law is better than a guess, I mean theory?

[floo]

Do not think because they say the law of gravity it is more than it is. It is a THEORY, one which like ALL other theories at the moment, is incomplete and not 100% accurate.

It cannot account for quantum effects.

I wonder if Alan realises that evolution is better understood by a very long way indeed than gravity, and if not, should I tell him?

No you might shake his faith in himself. But on the other hand, he believes himself to be so right that even if there was verifiable proof no deity/afterlife exists, he would still believe he is right!

[SusanDoris]

It's desperately sad when people flatly refuse to recognise scientific facts.

It certainly is.

[Shaker]

Alan -

Are you aware that while gravitation can be mathematically formulated,

     - there is absolutely no theoretical basis for how it may operate;

     - that the proposed graviton, supposed to mediate gravity (an extension of the Standard Model of particle physics), is a theoretical particle never once yet observed by anyone anywhere;

     - that while there is some indirect evidence, there is no direct evidence of gravitational waves as predicted by Einstein a hundred years ago; whereas:

     - we understand, at the deepest (i.e. physics, if you really want to) level how evolution works;

     - we understand what mediates evolutionary processes;

In the understanding stakes gravitation is still remarkably poor compared to evolution; rather a lot of very good maths and very good ideas and liberal amounts of Pritt Stick, card and glitter than hard knowledge.

[Alan Burns]

Alan -

Are you aware that while gravitation can be mathematically formulated,

     - there is absolutely no theoretical basis for how it may operate;

     - that the proposed graviton, supposed to mediate gravity (an extension of the Standard Model of particle physics), is a theoretical particle never once yet observed by anyone anywhere;

     - that while there is some indirect evidence, there is no direct evidence of gravitational waves as predicted by Einstein a hundred years ago; whereas:

     - we understand, at the deepest (i.e. physics, if you really want to) level how evolution works;

     - we understand what mediates evolutionary processes;

In the understanding stakes gravitation is still remarkably poor compared to evolution; rather a lot of very good maths and very good ideas and liberal amounts of Pritt Stick, card and glitter than hard knowledge.

The hub of the evolution process is the apparent copying "errors" in the DNA molecule which caused the billions of beneficial mutations to occur.  If God's will is capable of invoking events in our universe, I suspect that He may well have helped the evolution process along on a few occasions by nudging one or two of these DNA "errors" in the right places.  I find it hard to believe that He just lit the blue touch paper of the Big Bang and just left it all to happen by chance.

[Alan Burns]

No you might shake his faith in himself. But on the other hand, he believes himself to be so right that even if there was verifiable proof no deity/afterlife exists, he would still believe he is right!

I can assure you, Floo, that nothing in this world can shake my faith in the God who loves me.

[Shaker]

The hub of the evolution process is the apparent copying "errors" in the DNA molecule which caused the billions of beneficial mutations to occur.  If God's will is capable of invoking events in our universe, I suspect that He may well have helped the evolution process along on a few occasions by nudging one or two of these DNA "errors" in the right places.  I find it hard to believe that He just lit the blue touch paper of the Big Bang and just left it all to happen by chance.

Whoa whoa whoa - you started off reasonably well with a patina of science and then went off-track with all this God twaddle. Talk about the former and you'll be listened to; talk about the latter and rational people aren't interested and will let you get on with preaching to your like-minded cranks. One or the other, not both, as they don't mix.

Give over with the chance bullshit. Evolution is a two-step process - you'd know this already if you'd read Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is as I recommended to you a couple of weeks back. It's a partially random, partially deterministic process, hence the title of Jacques Monod's famous book Chance and Necessity.

And give the argument from personal incredulity a rest for crying out loud.

[Shaker]

No you might shake his faith in himself. But on the other hand, he believes himself to be so right that even if there was verifiable proof no deity/afterlife exists, he would still believe he is right!

I can assure you, Floo, that nothing in this world can shake my faith in the God who loves me.

Which means that you're an individual incapable of changing your mind when presented with new facts, in other words, a fundamentalist, a fanatic.

Not news to me, but it may be to others.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have been aware of the TalkOrigins website for many years, but remain unconvinced by the arguments put forward which suggest that the entire process of evolution did not require any form of intelligent intervention or guidance. 

Gravity is a predictable physical property of this universe, the effects of which can be accurately calculated using mathematics.

Evolution is based on similar predictable physical properties - chemical bonds between atoms and molecules, plus physical interactions with the environment.

ht

I think that's chemistry old son.

[Shaker]

It's evolution, Vlad. Biochemistry, yes, but it's still evolution.

[BeRational]

No you might shake his faith in himself. But on the other hand, he believes himself to be so right that even if there was verifiable proof no deity/afterlife exists, he would still believe he is right!

I can assure you, Floo, that nothing in this world can shake my faith in the God who loves me.

I believe this, as evidence and reason have no value for you.

[BeRational]

I have been aware of the TalkOrigins website for many years, but remain unconvinced by the arguments put forward which suggest that the entire process of evolution did not require any form of intelligent intervention or guidance. 

Gravity is a predictable physical property of this universe, the effects of which can be accurately calculated using mathematics.

Evolution is based on similar predictable physical properties - chemical bonds between atoms and molecules, plus physical interactions with the environment.

ht

I think that's chemistry old son.

Everything is physics.

[Alan Burns]

The hub of the evolution process is the apparent copying "errors" in the DNA molecule which caused the billions of beneficial mutations to occur.  If God's will is capable of invoking events in our universe, I suspect that He may well have helped the evolution process along on a few occasions by nudging one or two of these DNA "errors" in the right places.  I find it hard to believe that He just lit the blue touch paper of the Big Bang and just left it all to happen by chance.

Whoa whoa whoa - you started off reasonably well with a patina of science and then went off-track with all this God twaddle. Talk about the former and you'll be listened to; talk about the latter and rational people aren't interested and will let you get on with preaching to your like-minded cranks. One or the other, not both, as they don't mix.

Give over with the chance bullshit. Evolution is a two-step process - you'd know this already if you'd read Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is as I recommended to you a couple of weeks back. It's a partially random, partially deterministic process, hence the title of Jacques Monod's famous book Chance and Necessity.

And give the argument from personal incredulity a rest for crying out loud.

I suppose the reason why unguided evolution is so vehemently supported by the atheist community is because it is an essential keystone to support the belief that God does not exist.  Whenever I dare to question the viability of so many beneficial mutations occuring by chance in the correct sequence I get shot down and accused of not understanding the theory of evolution.

[Shaker]

I suppose the reason why unguided evolution is so vehemently supported by the atheist community is because it is an essential keystone to support the belief that God does not exist.

The lack of belief in any gods is perfectly well supported by any number of other things well before you bring evolution into the picture.   

Whenever I dare to question the viability of so many beneficial mutations occuring by chance in the correct sequence I get shot down and accused of not understanding the theory of evolution.

That's because you don't. You're accused of it because it's true. You're utterly clueless on the subject, and proved it most recently, condemned out of your own mouth (well, OK; fingers), at 3:41:29 this very afternoon.

[BeRational]

The hub of the evolution process is the apparent copying "errors" in the DNA molecule which caused the billions of beneficial mutations to occur.  If God's will is capable of invoking events in our universe, I suspect that He may well have helped the evolution process along on a few occasions by nudging one or two of these DNA "errors" in the right places.  I find it hard to believe that He just lit the blue touch paper of the Big Bang and just left it all to happen by chance.

Whoa whoa whoa - you started off reasonably well with a patina of science and then went off-track with all this God twaddle. Talk about the former and you'll be listened to; talk about the latter and rational people aren't interested and will let you get on with preaching to your like-minded cranks. One or the other, not both, as they don't mix.

Give over with the chance bullshit. Evolution is a two-step process - you'd know this already if you'd read Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is as I recommended to you a couple of weeks back. It's a partially random, partially deterministic process, hence the title of Jacques Monod's famous book Chance and Necessity.

And give the argument from personal incredulity a rest for crying out loud.

I suppose the reason why unguided evolution is so vehemently supported by the atheist community is because it is an essential keystone to support the belief that God does not exist.  Whenever I dare to question the viability of so many beneficial mutations occuring by chance in the correct sequence I get shot down and accused of not understanding the theory of evolution.

Atheists do not believe that god does not exist.

I am an atheist, and I do not believe that.