Indeed, science has nothing to say on whether God exists or not. It does, however, give lie to the literal truth of creation stories in Genesis and in other religions. Some poeple think that to accept this, you must reject all of a religion, although logic doesnt really indicate that. The mainstream of Christians for instance, have learned to accept the Bible as an old group of texts, written and compiled by different poeple, and that many parts of it cannot be taken literally, because they are obviously untrue. The message is what is important, not the exact stories.

Poeple like to pick on evolution because they beleive it is hard to defend, because you cant go outside and observe evolution. But in fact this is not really the case. You can observe the effects of evolution in the anatomy of living creatures, just as you can know that world is very ancient by looking at the way water has eroded the land it flows through, the way mountains have risen and fallen, and risen again.

To say that we must ignore out intelligence and our perceptions is to ignore what faculties we possess at birth. Some would say God gave you a brain, so use it. Does God want you to live with your head stuck in the sand, believing that man is so special he cant possibly be related to other living things? Learn some humility.

I accept the age of the universe and the age of the earth, although I doubt radiometric dating methods because of the massive amounts of inconsistencies and contradictions. However I can see the age of the universe and the big bang by simply measuring the motion of the stars and that it is clear that it all started expanding from a certain point. None of this contradicts the bible in any way. Adam was biblically placed at around 6000 BC which is arguably around the time of the dawn of civilization. The bible makes a clear delineation of an unspecified time period between the creation of heavens and earth and creation of homo sapien.

However there is no clear answer on how the big bang started. There are no clear answers on how or where matter began, or why physical law operates.

There are no clear answers on how life began. The probability of all the elements of life gathering from all points of the universe into one environment capable of sustaining life are staggering, and then to add the probablility of some electrical energy "jumpstarting" this cell is so staggering that the mere 4 billion years of this earth is not nearly enough time for this to occur.

The probabilities are so low that you would need an infinite amount of time for the universe to exist in order for it to occur. And in that case, if you had an infinite universe, then there would be all kinds of various assemblies hanging around.

Probability takes the time factor into consideration. 4 billion years is just too small of a time factor for the probability of the essential elements of life to assemble from all parts of the universe.

We havent even begun to discuss what processes your newly born single-celled organism must undergo to become a sexual reproducer. We havent even begun to wonder how our little cell can exist for more than one second.

You dont know anything about the probabilities of this. How do you calculate this, using your special probability drive?

But seriously, you argument is flawed because I can easily say that the fact that we exist discounts entirely the improbability of us existing. It's like if I throw a stone in random direction, I say that it seems too improbable that it would land where it did, because there are so may other places it could have landed. But the fact is, it had to land somewhere. Probability is an odd thing that way. So using that logic, I would say the probability of us having evolved on earth is 100%, because it happened. You cant use probability to prove or disprove evolution.

Think about it, how many planets are there in the Universe? Probably a number too vast to comprehend. The chances that life would evolve on them all? Very low probably, but what about the chance that life would evolve on a few of them (which is still going to be an enormous number)? Likely to be high. The chance that life would evolve on one of them, 100%, because here we are.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So I would ask you a question then, without any malice. Why dont you accept the scientific result that led to evolutionary theory?

What about another theory, say General Relativity? Do you accept this theory? There is a lot more direct evidence for evolution by natural selection than there is for General Relativity, yet most scientist accept both. Why dont lay poeple attack General Relativity? It is far more troubling than evolution, because it is counter-intuitive. How can space-time be curved?

But the reason most poeple dont have a problem with it, is because it clearly has nothing to do with the Bible, nor does it say anything about Man's place in the universe.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What should be apparent then to poeple reading this thread, is that Nitro77 and and others dont really care about the scientific value of evolution, and the psuedoscience they use to argue against it, but in fact the reason they hate the theory is an emotional one

They cant stand the fact that Man isn't something special and unique, that Man is just an animal, that Man is a bunch of chemicals and organic junk stuck together. We are fragile, tenuous beings, with many faults inherent in our bodies. Why do we have to crap and eat so much? Why do we get sick, why do children die for no reason, why are they born deformed, or retarded?

Why? I dont know, and I dont really care. Man is more than the sum of his parts, what you call a soul I call self-purpose.

I dont hate the theory, I hate the fact that it is preached in schools as a fact when it falls from every leg it stands on.

Quote:

---

They cant stand the fact that Man isn't something special and unique, that Man is just an animal, that Man is a bunch of chemicals and organic junk stuck together. We are fragile, tenuous beings, with many faults inherent in our bodies. Why do we have to crap and eat so much? Why do we get sick, why do children die for no reason, why are they born deformed, or retarded?

---

Even from a scientific viewpoint man is unique. We are the only ones who can speak or create. We are much different from the animals. We dominate the animals.

Quote:

---

What about another theory, say General Relativity? Do you accept this theory? There is a lot more direct evidence for evolution by natural selection than there is for General Relativity, yet most scientist accept both. Why dont lay poeple attack General Relativity? It is far more troubling than evolution, because it is counter-intuitive. How can space-time be curved?

---

LOL. I will be doing very well if I understand enough about general relativity to refute Einstein. However I find myself more than capable to refute you and jcl. And in your case, with all of these oddball statements of yours, I consider it childsplay.

Many poeple dont understand what the word "theory" means in sciece. There is a difference betweeen an "unproven" theory (or hypothesis) and an accepted theory. Evolution is accepted, and has been proven as well as any theory of this nature can be.

In fact Darwin's theory is far more established than say, the Standard Model of particle physics. There are open problems in the Standard Model, that everyone agrees with. There is no explanation of how gravity works, so by excluding them, the Standard Model is NECCESARILY incomplete. Does this make it 100% wrong? Of course not.

A theory is just a model of a natural process, it's not a thing or an end in itself. It allows us to understand the natural world better. And the Standard Model and Darwinian evolution through natural selection do that very well, up to a point.

The main way to disprove or challenge a theory is present scientific data that directly contradict it. So far no evidence has contradicted evolution. On the contrary quite the opposite has happened-- the theory has been validated time after time by new discoveries-- in genetics, molecular, paleontolgy, and comparative anatomy.

Darwinian evolution is one of the oldest and most rock-solid scientific theories there is. Is it complete? Certainly not. Darwin doesnt explain everything, like how evolutionary rates are not consistent in every given time and place. Gould attempted to explain that with punctuated equilibrium. Darwin doesnt have a concept of genetics and gives no means by which adapted traits are passed on. Gregor Mendel and his genetic theory did that when it was rediscovered long after Darwin was dead.

Mendel had no idea of how genetic information was passed on-- only with discovery of DNA and the foundations of molecular biology did we begin to understand that.

The remarkable thing is, Darwin knew nothing of these of these things, yet when they were discovered, they only reinforced and fleshed out Darwin's theory. This is what makes it so compelling to us now, more than even when it was developed a century and a half ago.

None of your creationist, biblical GARBAGE helps us understand ANY of these things. Only Darwin does, a humble, quite, sad man who languished for years before publishing a theory he knew would be attacked visciously. He knew he was right, not because he had faith, but because he observed the facts, and induced the truth.

I just wish poeple wouldn't argue against science when they DONT UNDERSTAND science. Having a science degree doesn't make you scientific, just like being a priest doesnt make you a christian--how you think and act does.