Bzzzt...Hey, I know, why not just quote an honest, authoritative description instead of continuing to make it all up as you go? Here's one! Wham, bam, done,... and you're welcome! Okay, next,,, Oh, darn, that's right, there never is any next. It's just one, wild ToE missile attack after another... ptchoo, ptchoo, ptchooie!
I'll reply to both of you since you ask the same question. The problem of novelties. If you don't know what it is, then go look it up. Don't just Wikipedia it either, don't take the lazy route, do some real work. Its been problem for a very long time. And note that you continue in your almost religious insistence that the choice is either the current theory of evolution or god, you are so insistent that you claim I am argueing creationism - show me the post in which I argue for creationism. For someone who claims to be all wrapped in science and objectivity and evidence, you sure jump to false conclusions quickly.
So you don't have any evidence which shows the ToE to be in error. You could have just said so a few pages ago.
LOL, so you aren't nearly as smart as you pretend! If you don't know what the problem of novelties is (not surprising as its not a simple issue suited to populist levels of education), and are too lazy to look it up, then you know nothing about the theory of evolution. And it has nothing to do with religion or creationism, you will find the issue in the scientific journals where real scientists discuss the real issues without the binary evolution-or-god foolishness.
If you are going to propose a solution other than evolution or god, please go for it! Or, are you just as stuck on these two solutions as you accuse others of being? Otherwise, I don't see anything significant that you just said. Yes, those studying evolution have come up with all sorts of novelties that seemingly defy explanation. However, they tend to be solved due to more careful investigation, the availability of new tools (such as technology related to studying genes), the finding of new information, such as new fossils, or whatever.
Okay... Notice, novelty in existing life, not original life, so off topic as previously noted. And a question of (challenge for) biology (science, not intractable nonsense peddlers like usfan). It's now quite clear that Mivart understood very little about mammary glands in his day. But just imagine how little some knucklehead in a similar position understood them 100 years prior. Generally speaking, there will always be questions or challenges to our understanding of how things work or came to be. They continue getting answered faster and better as we advance. The more we discover, the more challenges arise. This is all perfectly logical and predictable. It's just as predictable that upon the release of each newsworthy technical advance, charlatans will jump in and claim all manner of nonsense, whether to profit or simply grab some attention. Novelty is obviously a problem for biology to work out, not anything threatening to replace the ToE.
For an actual example of modern mainstream science going totally FUBAR, be sure to watch this thing (currently playing on Amazon):
Though I know the futility in doing so based on your history, I will ask you the same question once again in hopes you actually provide an answer this time. Since the TOE is wrong, please provide your alternate explanation for the diversity of life found on this planet?
If it is part of the universe and it can be observed by one of our five senses or by a tool that allows us to observe it with one of our five senses, it is natural. If not, it is supernatural. A being that cannot be detected by any means known, is supernatural until proven otherwise. As for my opinion on the origins of life, I don't know, but I'm not going to default to a supernatural explanation. Also, if the opinion in question is ignorant, biased and risks the progress of humanity, then yes, I will disparage it. If you don't like it, too flippin' bad, my right to disparage it is protected by the Constitution. Yes, we are dealing with science here. My "belief", is in the 98% of scientist who subscribe to evolution, so how is that not science? Believing in a "theory" that requires a centuries old conspiracy and has absolutely no proof, is self-delusion at best and indoctrination at worse, but in no way is it science.
You are right, scientists did have discussions about God and you know what they found? Absolutely no proof that He exists. So, if you want God out of the supernatural category and have science recognize Him, by all means, prove that there is a God.
Ok, just one minute here... Scientists DO discuss god. Suggesting that doesn't happen "any more" is just plain silly. History is FULL of scientists who had/have strong religious beliefs. Today, the percent of scientists who are Christians is less than the percent of the general public who claim that. But, suggesting that is because of "PC" or whatever is ridiculous. =>The thing is, Christians can do science just like anyone else. All they have to do is follow the rules of science!! Those rules say you can't refer to god in your hypothesis or theory, because there is no way to test to see if "god did it". Science requires that hypotheses be testable. Christians can do that! They don't have to say "god did it" 24 hours a day. Furthermore, science does NOT say there is no god. God and science ARE compatible in that neither has anything to say about the other. Problems really only show up when some Christian makes declarations about how the physical universe works - and that is something science is designed to address. Of course, if there is a religious claim made about our physical world, that could very well turn out to be false. And, having religion make claims about our physical world makes as much sense as having science make claims about angels.
Commentary seems far more intelligent for some reason? This quote DD dredged up simply doesn't fit: First sentence, total malarkey. Next, classic straw man attack. Last, more control freak, freaking out. Pure egotistical drivel. Yet it reveals the driving lunacy well in that no one has forwarded more of their personal "beliefs" here. These repeated false dichotomy set ups are clearly just a means for usfan to express his disgust with atheists. A disgust that clearly stems from the ridiculous presumption he's made here about us. Namely that we simply "believe in" something just like any religious subscriber. A different religion is all. Another false dichotomy. Can't fathom disbelief. Oh well. Life can be cruel that way. Tough titty.
Ok. The previous is a list of predictions & definitions for the model of universal descendancy, or the 'theory of evolution'. I will at sometime address the difficulties with definitions, point out unproven assumptions, & examine the facts as related to these points. For example, Family/genus/species are arbitrary, not empirically defined descriptions, & are limited as they rely more on morphology & phylogenetic, 'looks like' definitions. The actual DNA of an f/g/s will be a more empirical way to classify organisms, but we are a little lagging in our scientific updates. The definitions within the phylogenetic tree make the assumption of UD, but have no hard science or data to provide an empirical, scientific conclusion. They are mostly declared & asserted classifications. They are circular, in that they presume universal descendancy, without first having shown it to be possible. But first, i will present the model for Intelligent Design, or 'creation', and its definitions & predictions. I'll do that now, so they can be seen comparatively. What would we expect, if the model of ID is the truth about origins of species? A creator, or unseen, intelligent designer created each living phylogenetic type, as a family/genus/species. A multitude of variety of living things began all at once, simultaneously. This is not necessary, but seems reasonable, given the interdependency of living things. Variety within the phylogenetic family/genus/species would be limited by the genes in the ancestral organism. Reproduction would be limited to occurring within each genetic family/genus/species (f/g/s). Time is an unknown & unnecessary factor. There could be ancient dates, or recent. They are non-factors in ID. There should not be 'vestigial' organs. Each organ should have a purpose, designed for a specific use. The fossil record would show complex organisms, appearing suddenly, with no transitional forms. There would be no 'transitional' forms, as there is no transitioning taking place, in the ID model. Mutations & damage to the genetic structure would almost always be a negative, for an organism. Any positive claim from mutation would be circumstantial & projected. Laboratory conditions would not be able to force major structural changes in the genome, as each organism is locked into its genetic f/g/s. Reproductive isolation would not conflict with the ID model. That some organism can breed in an isolated state, narrowing their genetic options, even to reproductive isolation would be a unique trait of the particular f/g/s that is being examined. The genetic structure would be distinct for each f/g/s. There would not be any lingering similarities, or exact copies, or matching strands of DNA that would indicate ancestry. Organisms could be narrowed in their traits, by selective breeding.. either natural or by man. I'll stop here, for now. I am sure there are more predictions for each model, & i eagerly wait for the clever posters here to list some more, or question the ones in my list. I would like to have everyone carefully scrutinize these predictions, before we examine the evidence, to see which models are supported. I especially would like to see other predictions, based on what you would expect from each model.
You stated the real requirement - testability. Its not that God is not allowed in science, its that a hypothesis has to be testable, and nobody has found a way to test for God. And its true that science and religion are compatible. If a religion (any religion) is to be believed, then it must be compatible with the observed universe. Some of the greatest minds in history including Isaac Newton and Galileo were extremely religious. In their minds they were shedding light on Gods creation. Even Galileo, the favorite example of the secularists, was devout his entire life and viewed his issues with the church as disagreements with human interpretation not with God. The real unstated topic in these evolution threads is not the stated scientific issue, as already seen in the inability of these people who claim to be "scientific" and knowledgeable yet don't have a clue what the problem of novelties is and run away at its mention, the real purpose is to denigrate any belief in God.
Of course they have. People have 'hypothesized' alien seeding. Intelligent Design. Big bangs. Multiverse quantum synergism. Abiogenesis. Godidit. Nothindidit. Imagine some scenario for origins, & somebody has already 'theorized' it.. probably written books about it. But to simplify the debate, and to remove the burden of addressing ALL POSSIBLE imaginations for origins, i have narrowed them down to the 2 basic types.. naturalism, & intelligent design (or supernaturalism, for a better contrast). Either there was some kind of intelligent being who created/seeded/started life & the universe, or it all happened by natural processes, without the need of an intelligent force. What other options are there, for 'theories' about origins? I'm all ears, if you have another way of looking at it, but this is a simple debate.. comparing the 2 most common beliefs about origins in the history of man. If you have a new concept you wish to include, spell it out! I will predict that it will fit into one of the 2 binary choices, though. Well, i would say your perception of 'ignorant, biased, risks the progress of humanity' is just your opinion.. i do not see any way of quantifying the beliefs about origins to these negative things. Those are smears, you attempt to project upon your ideological/religious enemies, they are not proven traits that only theists possess. Can you not see the absurdity & bigotry of your statement? Your belief in 'scientists!' is fine, but it is an argument of authority, & is not scientific evidence for your beliefs. You have taken the lazy way out, trusting in 'really smart people!' but not verifying for yourself. That is fine, but how can you critique another's beliefs or opinions, if you merely operate on faith in someone else? Besides, i dispute that '98% of scientists!' believe in evolution. That is likely a contrived number, & depends on the poll question, wording, & the target demographic. How do they define, 'scientist'? But it is an irrelevant point, in a discussion about science. We deal in facts, here, not majority opinions. Science is not a democratic process. It is indifferent to the beliefs & opinions of the status quo.
Is that the scientific attitude you claim to follow? You asked a question, I gave you a real answer, and you stick your head in the sand?
Good post, overall. I appreciate that you do not make a hard line distinction between philosophical beliefs/opinions & science. They are not incompatible. But i do disagree that philosophy & science are incompatible ( you said, 'God', but i am broadening the concept). Many scientific discoveries have been made from philosophical ponderings. And if you could use our senses to examine angels, then science could be a useful tool there. Or, if you could define & isolate another 'sense' that could open up another dimension, then science could operate in that, too. A lack of information is the problem, not science or philosophy.
that's how science works. If you wish to challenge a theory, that has mountains of evidence supporting it, you have to do so using evidence of your own. Whining "nuh uh" and pretending that's a scientific argument is just silly. I didn't ask you a question, so much as I challenged you to support your arguments. You can't do that, because you don't actually have any evidence to support your argument. That isn't ME sticking my head in the sand. That's me calling you out.
17 pages now and the OP has yet to present a single piece of scientific evidence rebutting the peer reviewed evidence he was given. As I predicted on the very first page.
