The deification of science

[Orogeny]

You’re telling me that evolutionary biologists are concerned about every branch and leaf on the ‘tree of life’, but as far as the deepest root goes, they’re apathetic.

I am telling you that evolution is totally separate from the origin of life. I don’t believe for a minute that ANY scientist, regardless of their field of study, is not interested in other science.

Like I said - this is very weak. If we found out tomorrow what the specific ‘root of all life’ was, it would be disregarded as irrelevant to those scientists who explore evolution? You may as well say that physicists were never interested in the origin of the universe - sure, the causal chain of matter acting on matter is well within the discipline, but the ‘first’ movement means nothing. It doesn’t wash, and I don’t even understand the point of the resistance here.

This sure seems to be a strawman argument on your part. I am not arguing that evolutionary biologists would be uninterested in the discovery of the origin of life. I am arguing that the origin of life is irrelevant to EVOLUTION. The discovery you mention would not change evolution.

For example, I am a geologist. I am also interested in biology. How can that possibly be? Plate tectonics is not dependent upon evolution. Neither is crystallography or sedimentology. So how can I possibly be interested in biology? I don’t claim that biology (or physics or chemistry or any other science) is irrelevant. They are all relevant. But no discovery in biology truly affects plate tectonics or crystallography or sedimentology.

Peace

Tim

ps - why don’t you post the scientific definition of evolution that indicates that the origin of life is essential to the theory?

 

[Nullasalus]

I am arguing that the origin of life is irrelevant to EVOLUTION. The discovery you mention would not change evolution.

ps - why don’t you post the scientific definition of evolution that indicates that the origin of life is essential to the theory?

It sounds like you’re a little trigger-happy from all your discussions with IDers. When did I say the origin of life would change evolution? When did I say it was essential to the theory? You seem to be fighting some phantom who’s arguing that without the knowledge of the origin of life, evolution falls like a house of cards.

I said that certainly, the origin of life - the first organism(s) to exist on earth - is absolutely of interest to scientists studying evolution. I assume - boldly, apparently - that the very first living ‘thing’ is something that evolutionary scientists would love to have knowledge about, applicable to their field. After all, the thing would occupy a place that tree of life - right? It falls within their scope of interest. Maybe you could make an argument about whether the transition from ‘non-living matter’ to ‘living matter’ would be of interest to them - I’d argue yes, but it’s an extension of the claim I don’t even need to get into.

Maybe it’s honestly impossible to discover and is doomed to be a mystery - I would not therefore argue that evolution was a crock. And obviously, the field can yield plenty of interesting, helpful, and yes, scientific findings without this particular bit of knowledge. Well, quantum physicists can do the same without understanding the root cause behind decoherence. But arguing ‘the cause of decoherence has nothing to do with quantum physics because it’s not essential to our studies’ would be a ridiculous claim.

 

[ribozyme]

It sounds like you’re a little trigger-happy from all your discussions with IDers. When did I say the origin of life would change evolution? When did I say it was essential to the theory? You seem to be fighting some phantom who’s arguing that without the knowledge of the origin of life, evolution falls like a house of cards.

I said that certainly, the origin of life - the first organism(s) to exist on earth - is absolutely of interest to scientists studying evolution. I assume - boldly, apparently - that the very first living ‘thing’ is something that evolutionary scientists would love to have knowledge about, applicable to their field. After all, the thing would occupy a place that tree of life - right? It falls within their scope of interest. Maybe you could make an argument about whether the transition from ‘non-living matter’ to ‘living matter’ would be of interest to them - I’d argue yes, but it’s an extension of the claim I don’t even need to get into.

Personally, I don’t see abiogenesis being that much interest to biologists in general, and especially most of the scientists involved in evolutionary biology. Why? Well, if one is studying the mechanisms of speciation or fossils, abiogenesis would do little to elucidate those fields. But for those who are interested in molecular evolution and evolution from a biochemical perspective(such as myself), understanding abiogenesis is extremely interesting. We should remember the Joyce definition of life:

“a self-sustaining system capable of Darwinian evolution.”

Source: astrobio.net/news/article226

Indeed, understanding how Darwinian evolution originated is tantamont to understand how life originated.

 

[Nullasalus]

Personally, I don’t see abiogenesis being that much interest to biologists in general, and especially most of the scientists involved in evolutionary biology. Why? Well, if one is studying the mechanisms of speciation or fossils, abiogenesis would do little to elucidate those fields. But for those who are interested in molecular evolution and evolution from a biochemical perspective(such as myself), understanding abiogenesis is extremely interesting.

Sure, biology is a wide field - I’ll absolutely grant the origins of life aren’t applicable to many in biology. But saying it’s of no interest re: evolution in general is a bit too far. Those listed fields are what I was thinking of in the back of my mind - been reading up on viral evolution and such lately, at least in article form.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

orogeny

For example, I am a geologist. I am also interested in biology. How can that possibly be? Plate tectonics is not dependent upon evolution. Neither is crystallography or sedimentology. So how can I possibly be interested in biology? I don’t claim that biology (or physics or chemistry or any other science) is irrelevant. They are all relevant. But no discovery in biology truly affects plate tectonics or crystallography or sedimentology.

---

But certainly what we find under the crust of the earth impacts on the theory of evolution! Aren’t fossill fuels part of geology? And aren’t fossill fuels also part of the evolutionary process? How do you separate them? Ever heard of biochemistry? At one time scientists would not have seen any connections between chemistry and biology. Now all kinds of connections are seen between chemistry and the building blocks of life. You are trying to drive a wedge between all the sciences that just doesn’t work. More and more scientists are seeing that all things are connected. We cannot have evolving life forms without shifting land masses, oceans, glaciers, etc. We cannot have life forms without the formation of different molecules coming together (molecular physics). We cannot have evolving life forms without certain astrological events happening in a manner fortuitus for life itself (for example, being just so close, but not too far away from our sun). We cannot have evolving life forms without gravity holding us to the surface of the planet. And most important of all, we cannot have evolving life forms unless the elements produced at the time of Creation were precisely those elements that would later give rise to evolving life forms.

There are just too many conditions imposed on biological evolution to any longer say that evolution must be viewed from Darrow’s narrow perspective. The whole universe has been slowly evolving, unfolding itself in such a way as to reveal ever so dimly to our struggling intellects the mind of God. Try to see, if you can, that evolution cannot be used to knock down God, since it is only by a master plan that God breathed life into His creation right from the very moment that He said, “Let there be light!”

Ever heard of photosynthesis?

 

[ribozyme]

I agree with Gilbert Keith…

Here’s a reaction:

3H + 2H ----> 4He + 1n

This reaction requires high temperatures to overcome the repulsion between nuclei. I ask what is the importance of this reaction in nuclear chemistry in biology.

 

[Orogeny]

It sounds like you’re a little trigger-happy from all your discussions with IDers. When did I say the origin of life would change evolution? When did I say it was essential to the theory? You seem to be fighting some phantom who’s arguing that without the knowledge of the origin of life, evolution falls like a house of cards.

OK, let’s back up a moment and see how this discussion came about, shall we?

In post #4, Darrel said:

Scientist must have a ton of faith in evolution to believe the universe just up and created it’s self one fine day without a shred of evidence to prove it.

I questioned which part of evolution deals with the origin of the universe. Darrel acknowledged that evolution does not deal with the origin of the universe in post #24. Gilbert Keith then said, in reply to my question to Darrel:

Originally Posted by Orogeny forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Would you care to explain which part of evolution deals with the creation of the universe?
*

The part that says things change gradually. Life on earth would not have been possible but for the gradual changes in planets and stars throughout the universe. Hydrogen became the dominant element in the universe right from the start. Guess what ingredient essential to life is dominated by hydrogen.*

WATER!

After I pointed out that evolution is a biological process that deals with the way life has changed over time, Gilbert Keith responded back with:

The universe evolved through billions of years. The part of evolution you are talking about only concerns the evolution of life on this planet. Evolution on this planet was impossible without the evolution of the ingredients of life on the stars and planets.

and I replied with

orogeny:

Evolution is independent of how the universe was created AND how life began. It just doesn’t matter.

You (Nullasaurus) then said:

I hear this response a lot, and I have to ask - do you really believe that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution?

I answered and still hold that no, the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. I didn’t say that there was no interest in the origin of life. I didn’t say that evolutionary scientists wouldn’t love to have knolwledge about the very first living thing. I said that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. It simply doesn’t matter how life began.

Now, if you wish to continue to change the argument to one of whether or not evolutionary biologists would or wouldn’t be interested in the origin of life, you will need to argue with someone else because I agree that they would be. But, once again, while interesting, the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution.

Peace

Tim

 

[ribozyme]

Regarding transubstantiation - do you think it wasn’t until the onset of microscopes that people noticed that the bread and wine was apparently not becoming flesh and blood? The essence of the teaching is that body and wine becomes the flesh and blood. For me, I think of it as rock becoming a barrier. You don’t need to transmute the rock to make it into a barrier. A ‘thing’ can change its ‘thingness’ while still having the exact same atomic composition.

And yes, people can force a purpose in their lives - but that’s a true exercise in make-believe, done to ignore the ‘reality’ of the objective lack of purpose. Even people with subjective purpose typically act as if the purpose is objective - it has all the hallmarks of a pleasant delusion. However, I’m sure you can find reviews out there that criticize the work - they don’t even need to be Christian.

prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7803

At this point, Dan Brown’s book is no longer considered a threat - and it was so only because of the popularity it was building, and the accusations it made were on specific, refutable points. Dawkins largely writes off all of religion and spirituality (I notice he has it in for Christians in particular), and tends to… well, rant. At this point, even people sympathetic to his basic assumptions are finding his material to be embarassing because of how unreasonable his claims are. (‘The religious are enemies of free speech!’ → ‘It should considered child abuse to raise a child with religion.’, Implying that all the unpopular acts of Stalin had nothing to do with atheism whatsoever.) I don’t think Dawkins has potent polemic - he simply has a very damning view of religion and blames it for many things (and excuses atheism for just as many), but does so with very weak justification.

I can assert that atheism is the single greatest cause for widespread suffering, immorality, institutional decay, and that they should be considered second class citizens and denied the right to vote. Strong, controversial stuff. But if I can’t provide sound reasoning for why I think this - or better yet, defend theism against the counter claims convincingly - why waste your breath on me? Write me off as a loudmouth partisan. That’s more or less what’s happening with Dawkins.

I’m sorry, but I remain entirely unconvinced. Evolution can be true without knowledge of the origin of life. However, all the denial in the world doesn’t make it irrelevant to the process. You disagree, that’s fine - I just don’t see any reason given other than ‘JUST BECAUSE’.

Well, regarding Dawkins, I found this to match your claims about his extremism:
Richard Dawkins:

To fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used.

guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4257777,00.html

And this is quite interesting too: Richard Dawkins’ world
What do you think of that link?

I answered and still hold that no, the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. I didn’t say that there was no interest in the origin of life. I didn’t say that evolutionary scientists wouldn’t love to have knolwledge about the very first living thing. I said that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. It simply doesn’t matter how life began.

Now, if you wish to continue to change the argument to one of whether or not evolutionary biologists would or wouldn’t be interested in the origin of life, you will need to argue with someone else because I agree that they would be. But, once again, while interesting, the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution.

The origin of life is the start of evolution. This is a historical moment for evolutionary biologists as it is an important milestone. I think however the processess of abiogenesis are most irrelevant to understanding evolution as abiogenesis happened before evolution, but intergral in undestanding biochemistry. Abiogenesis might explain some of the properties of life itself.

 

[Orogeny]

orogeny

For example, I am a geologist. I am also interested in biology. How can that possibly be? Plate tectonics is not dependent upon evolution. Neither is crystallography or sedimentology. So how can I possibly be interested in biology? I don’t claim that biology (or physics or chemistry or any other science) is irrelevant. They are all relevant. But no discovery in biology truly affects plate tectonics or crystallography or sedimentology.

But certainly what we find under the crust of the earth impacts on the theory of evolution!

Yes, of course, fossils certainly do impact the theory of evolution. That, however, wasn’t what I said.

Aren’t fossill fuels part of geology? And aren’t fossill fuels also part of the evolutionary process?

Nope. They are the result of a chemical process.

How do you separate them?

How do I separate what?

Ever heard of biochemistry?

Yes. What does that have to do with plate tectonics, crystallography or sedimentology?

You are trying to drive a wedge between all the sciences that just doesn’t work.

Where did you come up with such an absurd idea? I am NOT trying to drive a wedge between anything. I am stating a fact. The origin of life is irrelevant to evolution.

We cannot have evolving life forms without shifting land masses, oceans, glaciers, etc.

Can we have shifting land masses, oceans, glaciers, etc… without evolving life forms? Hmm?

We cannot have life forms without the formation of different molecules coming together (molecular physics). We cannot have evolving life forms without certain astrological events happening in a manner fortuitus for life itself (for example, being just so close, but not too far away from our sun). We cannot have evolving life forms without gravity holding us to the surface of the planet. And most important of all, we cannot have evolving life forms unless the elements produced at the time of Creation were precisely those elements that would later give rise to evolving life forms.

Can we have molecular physics, astrological events, gravity, or elements without evolution?

There are just too many conditions imposed on biological evolution to any longer say that evolution must be viewed from Darrow’s narrow perspective. The whole universe has been slowly evolving, unfolding itself in such a way as to reveal ever so dimly to our struggling intellects the mind of God. Try to see, if you can, that evolution cannot be used to knock down God, since it is only by a master plan that God breathed life into His creation right from the very moment that He said, “Let there be light!”

Let me ask you something. Is it possible for a non-believer, who has never heard of God, to look at the evidence and not come to the conclusion that God did it? If so, then how can God be the *scientific *answer to the question of creation?

Try to see, if you can, that evolution cannot be used to knock down God, since it is only by a master plan that God breathed life into His creation right from the very moment that He said, “Let there be light!”

I AGREE!!! Science cannot knock down God. Why do you feel so threatened by science???

Peace

Tim

 

[ribozyme]

Aren’t fossill fuels part of geology

And they are also part of a geological process, and biological processes too. I don’t see how it directly relates to evolution though, as any biological matter could be used to generate fossil fuels.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

orogeny

*Can we have shifting land masses, oceans, glaciers, etc… without evolving life forms? Hmm? *

Yes. Can you have evolving life forms without evolving land masses, oceans, glaciers, etc." Hmm?

You still miss the point. The whole universe has been evolving from day one. The evolution of life forms is dependent on the evolution (slow change and adaptation) of the universe to higher and higher complexities everywhere. ObviouslyDarwin was concerned in his theory only with the evolution of life forms on this particular planet. But evolution is not limited to life forms.

Look at it this way.

Did life once not exist on this planet? Most likely. Was the planet still evolving? Certainly. When life first appeared, did it not evolve out of inanimate matter? Then how can you say that evolution is limited to life forms when life first evolved from non-life?

The program of life was pre-determined by non-living particles coming together slowly and adapting through time to a fortuitous program for survival by replication. Life did not create itself. It evolved as part of the great chain of evolution that preceded it … the great chain of being that began with “Let there be light” and that still makes life depend on that same light for its very existence.

Blot out the sun’s light and there will be no life. As the sun evolves, so also does life. As the sun dies, so also will life.

Science cannot knock down God. Why do you feel so threatened by science???

What are you talking about? I do not feel threatened by science. It’s the misuse and abuse of that part of science called “evolution” that threatens us all. If you don’t know how evolution has been used to knock down God, I’d say you haven’t read many books written over the last hundred years. Have you read Clarence Darrow on evolution? Have you read Richard Dawkins on evolution? Have you read all the other junior league intellectuals who think that because evolution happened, God has been explained away? If you haven’t read them, you’re one of the lucky few.

Stick around. The junior league will be showing up sooner or later.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

I said:

Aren’t fossill fuels part of geology? And aren’t fossill fuels also part of the evolutionary process?

You answered:

Nope. They are the result of a chemical process.

umich.edu/~gs265/society/fossilfuels.htm

 

[Nullasalus]

You (Nullasaurus) then said:I answered and still hold that no, the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. I didn’t say that there was no interest in the origin of life. I didn’t say that evolutionary scientists wouldn’t love to have knolwledge about the very first living thing. I said that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. It simply doesn’t matter how life began.

Now, if you wish to continue to change the argument to one of whether or not evolutionary biologists would or wouldn’t be interested in the origin of life, you will need to argue with someone else because I agree that they would be. But, once again, while interesting, the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution.

Nullasaurus? ‘Change the argument’? Just because you confused what I was talking about with what Gilbert Keith is talking about… look, this is ridiculous. You’ve obviously got something strange, personal, and defensive going on with a topic like this. Assert what you will, I’m not interested in discussing it with you at this point.

Ribozyme:

What do you think of that link?

I’m not sure what you expect me to comment on, actually. The problem with Dawkins is that I don’t just disagree with his conclusions, but I find the way that he comes to his conclusions to be entirely disjointed and desperate. If you’re asking me to respond to his claims specifically, I’m afraid you’ll have to drop me a private email - I feel bad getting this thread off-subject enough.

But I’ll tell you my general problem with Dawkins: It’s obvious that, for him, atheism isn’t a conclusion he simply reached one day after a lot of thought and weighing the subject. It’s something very personal, as is his dislike of religion. Personal to the point that he displays a strong motivation to ignore, explain away, or even spin any positive aspect of religious life or belief, and do the same for any negative aspect of atheism. Belief in an afterlife absolutely MUST enable someone to do horrible, terrible things, because ‘this life isn’t all we have’ - unless it’s discouraging them from doing bad things for fear of that afterlife, in which case it’s damaging them mentally, even worse than sexual molestation. On the flipside, atheism must absolutely not have been part of the reason for communism’s rise in China and Russia - certainly not as part of the rationale for exterminating people who were inconvenient, religious, or just plain not-very-useful. It’s important to him that atheism has no real flaw, and religion have no real benefit. Note that I’m not saying ‘evident to him’. It’s important to him. He has a motivation - why, I don’t know. Maybe a nun treated him horribly as a kid. I know from experience that one ‘You masturbated! You’re a horrible sinner, you wretch!’ by a 70 year old in a habit can potentially make someone bitter for a lifetime (Not that worse things can’t be done by people, even religious.)

In the end, he’s irrational and unreasonable. The two things that are supposed to be the cornerstone benefits of atheism. I’m sure there are more stable, even-handed atheists out there - Dawkins simply isn’t one of them.

 

[Orogeny]

orogeny

*Can we have shifting land masses, oceans, glaciers, etc… without evolving life forms? Hmm? *

Yes. Can you have evolving life forms without evolving land masses, oceans, glaciers, etc." Hmm?

You still miss the point. The whole universe has been evolving from day one. The evolution of life forms is dependent on the evolution (slow change and adaptation) of the universe to higher and higher complexities everywhere. ObviouslyDarwin was concerned in his theory only with the evolution of life forms on this particular planet. But evolution is not limited to life forms.

I get the point. You are applying the term evolution to all changing processes. However, the evolution in science that causes a lot of consternation is a process in which life changes over time. I don’t know of anyone who claims that oxygen and hydrogen evolving (using your usage) into water is a threat to faith.

Do you see the problem with your question from above? What if no life existed? Could we not have shifting land masses, oceans or glaciers? Exactly what is the requirement for life in those processes?

Look at it this way.

Did life once not exist on this planet? Most likely. Was the planet still evolving? Certainly. When life first appeared, did it not evolve out of inanimate matter?

It evolved once it began, regardless of how it originated. Does it matter if the life began by a combination of inorganic chemicals in some primordial ooze or if God breathed life on dust? No. Life evolved once it began.

Then how can you say that evolution is limited to life forms when life first evolved

from non-life?There again you are using the term evolved differently than a scientist would. In the form you are using it, it certainly cannot be considered at threat to the faith. After all, even this thread is evolving. Nothing threatening there.

The program of life was pre-determined by non-living particles coming together slowly and adapting through time to a fortuitous program for survival by replication.

What is your basis for saying that? How do you know God didn’t just create life instantly?

What are you talking about? I do not feel threatened by science. It’s the misuse and abuse of that part of science called “evolution” that threatens us all. If you don’t know how evolution has been used to knock down God, I’d say you haven’t read many books written over the last hundred years. Have you read Clarence Darrow on evolution? Have you read Richard Dawkins on evolution? Have you read all the other junior league intellectuals who think that because evolution happened, God has been explained away? If you haven’t read them, you’re one of the lucky few.

I have read some, but your problem isn’t with science, specifically evolution, but with some scientists (or in the case of Darrow a lawyer). Have you read Kenneth Miller’s “Finding Darwin’s God”? How about anything by Keith Miller? Those two gentlemen are devout believers who also recognize the reality of evolution.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

I said:

Aren’t fossill fuels part of geology? And aren’t fossill fuels also part of the evolutionary process?

You answered:

Nope. They are the result of a chemical process.

umich.edu/~gs265/society/fossilfuels.htm

Where in that undergraduate class project does it claim that fossil fuels are part of the evolutionary process?

Believe it or not, I actually do know a bit about the formation of petroleum.

Peace

Tim

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

orogeny

*Where in that undergraduate class project does it claim that fossil fuels are part of the evolutionary process? *

The creatures once were, and no longer are. That’s evolution too! Some species die out that others may be born.

What is your basis for saying that? How do you know God didn’t just create life instantly?

I don’t. But the logic of fossil discoveries suggests (doesn’t yet prove absolutely) that evolution was the process.

Again, the whole universe has been evolving toward a place and time for biological evolution to be possible. The universe has been adapting itself here and there toward life. Many solar systems were born and died, as many life forms on earth were born and died, before Man was possible. And for all we know, life has been tried out and triumphed grandly or failed miserably many times in many other galaxies throughout the universe.

The dilemma for atheism is that all this seems to happen by random chance, rather than by precise calibration at the time the universe began. The atheist can prove no such thing. All the markers point to the likelihood that the universe is the product of Intelligent Design, of a Genius at work so powerful and awesome that atheists can hardly stand to be in His presence.

For the atheist, in the presence of an ego greater than his own, deicide is the only option…

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

In a thread titled "deification of science, Mark Twain should be allowed his say:

SCIENTISTS
Scientists have odious manners, except when you prop up their theory; then you can borrow money of them.

• “As Concerns Interpreting the Deity”

A scientist will never show any kindness for a theory which he did not start himself.

• A Tramp Abroad

The scientist. He will spend thirty years in building up a mountain range of facts with the intent to prove a certain theory; then he is so happy in his achievement that as a rule he overlooks the main chief fact of all–that his accumulation proves an entirely different thing.

• “The Bee” essay
  http://www.twainquotes.com/scientist.gif
  Illustration by “Dwig” from HAPPY HOLLOW, 1903
  In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
• Life on the Mississippi http://www.twainquotes.com/conjecture.gif
  Illustration from first edition of
  LIFE ON THE MISSISSIPPI

 

[Orogeny]

orogeny

*Where in that undergraduate class project does it claim that fossil fuels are part of the evolutionary process? *

The creatures once were, and no longer are. That’s evolution too! Some species die out that others may be born.

Nope. That isn’t even vaguely evolution.

What is your basis for saying that? How do you know God didn’t just create life instantly?

I don’t. But the logic of fossil discoveries suggests (doesn’t yet prove absolutely) that evolution was the process.

The fossil record gives us a good history of life on earth but it says absolutely nothing about how life originated.

Again, the whole universe has been evolving toward a place and time for biological evolution to be possible. The universe has been adapting itself here and there toward life. Many solar systems were born and died, as many life forms on earth were born and died, before Man was possible. And for all we know, life has been tried out and triumphed grandly or failed miserably many times in many other galaxies throughout the universe.

So, to sum up your argument, when we are discussing evolution, we are essentially discussing everything that changes over time, be it biological, geological, physical, chemical, meteorological or astronomical. The discussion of the origin of species cannot be done without understanding the origin of life or the origin of the universe. Is that a relatively accurate desciption of your belief?

The dilemma for atheism is that all this seems to happen by random chance, rather than by precise calibration at the time the universe began. The atheist can prove no such thing. All the markers point to the likelihood that the universe is the product of Intelligent Design, of a Genius at work so powerful and awesome that atheists can hardly stand to be in His presence.

I agree that the universe and all in it were created by God. That is my faith. Can you come up with a scientific test to detect God?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

In a thread titled "deification of science, Mark Twain should be allowed his say:

Well, I guess that does pretty much sum up you opinion of scientists.

Peace

Tim

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Orogeny

Right. Scientists are not gods. Like any other class of humans, they ought to be teased from time to time. And they ought to have enough sense of humor to enjoy it … just to prove they really are human.