Theory Of Evolution

[THOTH]

Here is a good one (and from a Christian site no less!)

 

Various U.S. court decisions have concluded that "creation science" is not actually science. This is because the beliefs of creation scientists cannot be falsified. i.e. it would be impossible for a creation scientist to accept a proof that naturalistic or theistic evolution is true. That is because their fundamental, foundational belief is that the Book of Genesis is inerrant. All physical evidence is judged by comparing it to Genesis. No evidence from nature can disprove this belief. Once a person accepts a religious text as the basis of their scientific studies, they no longer are free to follow where the data leads; they cease being a scientist.

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_over.htm

 

Oh and at the very bottom of the page:

 

Only 0.15% of earth and life scientists subscribe to one of the creation science belief systems.

 

LOL

Edited January 30, 2004 by THOTH

[gurgen]

Just because we don't know exact mechanism of that process it does not dismiss the evidence.

Yes it does. This is science, not a betting parlour. You can't give half-answers like this to the most important question in life.

[Armat]

Well, from the time Darwin had his holy visions, and until now, there is little reason to believe in the theory of evolution, which is, yes, a belief. It is an assumption that we evolved, not an established fact.

Anon

I had to read you again and it turns out you not only dismiss Darwin but everyone else up untill now.

I had given much credit to you but your ignorance is deliberate.Sure you can dismiss any scientific fussil as incomplete any theory short of perfection to amuse you in the perpetual assertation that evolution is a belief.

I just took the time to read lot of data counter to Darwin and these scientists make lot of great points.

Thomas Huxley (1863) thought that Darwin had not adequately explained hybrid sterility. Thus, the cross of a horse with an ass is usually fertile ("first crosses" succeed), but the hybrid progeny, a mule, is usually sterile ("second crosses" fail). Gamete production in the maldeveloped gonads of the mule is impaired.

Romanes focussed on the sterility barrier, which often appears to be the only barrier separating members of closely related (allied) species, and, indeed, seems the most useful criterion for distinguishing such species (Box 1). He suggested that, like cells of all other organs and tissues, germ line cells might undergo random variations.

Variations, for example, in height or eye colour were familiar to everyone. In 1886 no one knew what caused variations, but no one doubted their existence. Romanes emphasized one possible class of variation affecting germ line cells, which would make an organism less fertile (more sterile) with other members of the species but would not directly influence somatic characters.

Normally the loss of fertility would be highly disadvantageous because the organism would leave no offspring. However, he argued that if two organisms underwent the same type of variation, they would still be fertile between themselves. They would be "physiological complements"

"The problem of physiological isolation has received but little attention during the last two decades, but the modern picture of the mechanism of reproduction and the physico-chemical processes that it involves would have a very large influence on any consideration of the subject today. The immediate cause of infertility between species would be sought at the present time in either chromosomal incompatibilities or maladjustments of a serological nature .... From several viewpoints the old proposition of Romanes seems today exceedingly plausible, that a rather trivial mutation or group of mutations might set up a barrier of sterility within a species, and cause the two portions to diverge thereafter into well-marked new species

[THOTH]

Yeah, I see Anonymouse. I believe we have evolved but Darwin's theory may not be correct. There should be a driving force behind the evolution which is not acknowledged in his theory. It doesn't take into account the notion of entropy (I think this was discussed somewhere else in the forum) and so contradicts to the universal fact that things when left alone get less orderly/evolved not more orderly/evolved. Therefore, for the evolution to be true there must be a driving force. What is it? Could Darwin's natural selection serve as a driving force? Does it qualify as such? That is the question I am curious to know.

Leonard Krishtalka, director of the University of Kansas Museum of

Natural History. Referring to ID, he said, "That's a religious belief, and science has no comment on that."

 

Referring to the lack of understanding of the evolution of a living cell, Dr. Kristalka commented: "The absence of knowledge does not mean the answer is a supernatural creator."

 

 

and more...

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html

 

 

And from http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ric...finetuning.html

 

"...Creationism is a vacuous theory: intelligent design does not make any real predictions. It doesn't even attempt to explain why we have the specific laws we do instead of others, i.e. others that would support life. It is thus not much of an explanation, being empty of any substantial content. For instance, why is the speed of light just what it is instead of something else? The theist can only appeal to God's whim, while the scientist pursuing methodological naturalism has a good chance of finding a natural reason for the value of the speed of light. And we can say this, because history proves that the odds are entirely on his side (cf. my "Prima Facie Presumptions vs. The Lessons of History").

 

In contrast, what a Creationist theory ought to predict, which a naturalistic theory would not, does not turn up. The laws of physics proceed without any regard for right or wrong, good people or bad, and they proceed relentlessly and monotonously, never demonstrably deviating, much less with anything like a value-laden purpose; resources are arbitrarily limited and randomly distributed without regard for merit; and no clear supernatural events or messages are present in any of our lives--guns are not suddenly turned into flowers, churches are not protected by mysterious energy fields, True Bibles are not indestructible nor do they glow in the dark, preachers cannot regenerate lost limbs, and when we ask God a question, with all sincerity and earnest urging, we never receive a clear, reasoned answer that all can hear and agree upon. Thus, intelligent design is a rather poor explanation for the universe we have, whereas a naturalistic theory fits it like a glove. We are faced with what is ultimately a mindless, careless, silent and blind machine. Doesn't it make more sense that it should have an ultimately mindless, careless, silent and blind cause? The point is that Intelligent Design really doesn't bring anything to the table as far as explaining our universe, our actual universe. By focusing solely on one single feature, an "ability to produce life," Fine Tuning proponents miss the forest for the tree."

[THOTH]

Yes it does. This is science, not a betting parlour. You can't give half-answers like this to the most important question in life.

You fail to understand scientific method

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

 

Also - do you take Asprin for headahes (or at least admit that folks do and that it is effective)? - well do you understand the exact chemical proces why it works? No - but it can be obseved to be effective - thus the statement that Asprin has been proven to cure (some/most/whatever as appropriate) headahces is true. We wouldn't just chew bubble gum to cure a heacdache now would we? Seems to em that You and Sasun are of the belief that we can just make up some explanation and our belief alone is val;id for it to be true...not.

Edited January 30, 2004 by THOTH

[gurgen]

"Proof," then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics. That said, we often hear "proof" mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means." Even though one may hear "proof" used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term. Consequently, except in reference to mathematics, this is the last time you will read the terms "proof" or "prove" in this article.

 

Very convenient to say there is no proof in science when you have no proof. Bravo to the evolutionists. Since when do they make the laws of science?

 

Also I believe Anonymouse has bashed the mathematical part of evolution.

[THOTH]

Very convenient to say there is no proof in science when you have no proof. Bravo to the evolutionists. Since when do they make the laws of science?

 

Also I believe Anonymouse has bashed the mathematical part of evolution.

You exactly "prove" my point...you fail to understand the difference between a "proof" - which exists only in mathmatics and "eveidence" which is in the realm of science.

 

It is impossible for evolution to be disproveed mathmatically at this time because one cannot accuratly determine all of the processes that must be disproved. We are still in a process of discovering what these thinsg are - as the science and our understanding advances. In the meantime evolution is considered factual based on the available - very good empiricale evidence. To deny that it is true is to say that you don't believe in science and scientific method. So yeah - the earth was made in 7 days..is 4,000 years old and all of that...LOL - rihgt..yeah show me the matmatical proof of that! LOL

[gurgen]

You exactly "prove" my point...you fail to understand the difference between a "proof" - which exists only in mathmatics and "eveidence" which is in the realm of science.

 

It is impossible for evolution to be disproveed mathmatically at this time because one cannot accuratly determine all of the processes that must be disproved. We are still in a process of discovering what these thinsg are - as the science and our understanding advances. In the meantime evolution is considered factual based on the available - very good empiricale evidence. To deny that it is true is to say that you don't believe in science and scientific method. So yeah - the earth was made in 7 days..is 4,000 years old and all of that...LOL - rihgt..yeah show me the matmatical proof of that! LOL

'eveidence' as you call it can be a result of a number of thing. Telling people that it happened because of one thing and then failing to show (see I am using the word show since you have a natural distaste for proof) HOW it happened is not really 'the realm of science', it is merely the realm of speculation.

 

Moreover, where did I say that I believed that the earth was made in 7 days and that it's 4000 years old? I just don't take evolution for granted because everybody else does. Who am I to decide whether God exists? He either does or he doesn't, we'll never find out anyway.

[THOTH]

A very brief (but effective) refutation of Eden: (yes its all in the assumptions...matmatics is only as good as what you feed into it and only as applicable as the validity of those same assumptions...)

 

Adaptive change by mutation has been shown in the laboratory and is not in question. It is quite easy to demonstrate in bacteria, and advantageous forms which were generated by the co-occurrence of multiple mutations are quite possible. Three points are usually being missed by people who make Prof. Eden's mistake:

 

1 - Disadvantageous forms can persist in the population for a long time;

 

2 - Multiple ways to the same end (multiple mutations giving the same result) are not only possible but common;

 

3 - Intermediate steps often have an inobvious advantage in themselves, making them targets of natural selection.

 

Seriously, there is something badly wrong with the mathematician's models if this story is true. In the first place, there isn't really a necessity for each mutation to occur from a blank slate - virtually all species have a fair amount of diversity. In the second place, there is a considerable amount of recombination - even with base pairs on the same chromosome (crossover) (or maybe the mathematician has never heard of sex :-). Thirdly, the rate of mutations can be measured and is significantly higher than what appears to be implied by the fixing of 6 mutations in 1 billion years. Fourthly, if any intermediate forms have any slight advantage (due to partial implementation of the feature), then those forms will be selected -- and selection is NOT a random process. Fifthly, many single point mutations have similar/identical effect (that is, it wouldn't be necessary for 6 specific mutations to occur but one from each of 6 different sets, a much easier problem).

 

All I can figure is that the model assumes a population of a single homozygous individual whose progeny never exchange any genetic material and in which the mutated genes never recombine by crossover during mitosis. In other words, sort of like analyzing the aerodynamics of racehorses by assuming a spherical horse

 

Sounds like he's talking about six simultaneous mutations, which may very well be statistically phenomenal. Not required they be simultaneous by evolution however, and once one mutation is replicating throughout a group of related organisms, the odds then go up that one of them might develop another significant mutation in addition to the one they are now carrying.

 

etc etc

[THOTH]

'eveidence' as you call it can be a result of a number of thing. Telling people that it happened because of one thing and then failing to show (see I am using the word show since you have a natural distaste for proof) HOW it happened is not really 'the realm of science', it is merely the realm of speculation.

 

Moreover, where did I say that I believed that the earth was made in 7 days and that it's 4000 years old? I just don't take evolution for granted because everybody else does. Who am I to decide whether God exists? He either does or he doesn't, we'll never find out anyway.

Evolution is not speculation..and more then belief in gravity is...the evidence is clear to see..please spare us...

 

And please actually (take soem time and) read some of the links I put up...the eveidence is clearly there...clearly...that you don't accept it is just tantamount to rejecting Science...so who is the fool...?

Edited January 30, 2004 by THOTH

[Armat]

Gurgen your belief in God does not contradict science.Myself and Sasun do believe in God but we both also believe in science as well.I personnaly never belived Adam and Eve idea but creationism as whole I do believe.So please no need to get perssonal on this matters since the subject here is very specific.

[gurgen]

Where did I get personal?

 

Never mind, this is an endless discussion. Continue if you will.

[THOTH]

Armat - i can fully understand why (the tendency to want to believe etc) one would believe in a creator of things - this seems just natural to us. But to belive so is entirely unscientific - ie - it is bweyond scence and is only in the realm of faith. At this point we are unable to know anything about any (intenligent/deliberate force or forces) that may have had a hand in the creeation of the universe as we know it (and as Domino has pointed out perhaps there is more to out "universe" then meets the eye as well...perhaps)...however - if we at all accept Science as being useful/meaningful etc in telling us things about the nature of our wold etc...then we must accept that evolution is factual...as factual as any other scientific theory (note: see defintion of theory as it pertains to science). And any arguments or discussions of a creator etc are in fact immaterial. So the issue is - do we believe the evidence at hand...and the whole issue of the validity of scinece - or do we pretty much concoct explanations of much lesser validity to explain the world around us and who and what we are? Too me any who disbelieve evolution - at this time - are just living with their head in the sand..and/or have an agenda of some sort...but the evidence is clear...crystal...

[Armat]

Thoth not to turn this into religion thread.I simply feel by Intuition.No real science, no fact but still something is always present.

[Sasun]

Gurgen your belief in God does not contradict science.Myself and Sasun do believe in God but we both also believe in science as well.I personnaly never belived Adam and Eve idea but creationism as whole I do believe.

You got it right Armat , I agree But I don't think Gurgen is trying to contradict to science, if I understand correctly he is simply saying that the evolution theory is not proven.

 

I think the problem is different standards. I am used to physics and math (and other derivatives of them) where proof means a 100% proof, and if there is a 99% belief/evidence it still is not considered proof.

In biology there is no such thing as a 100% proof and lesser standards are applied. In fact, this is a reason I often do not regard bilology as a science but simply a knowledge field. So for a biologist proof means a different thing from what it means for a phycisist. And the trouble is biologists are often far from fundamental scientific facts.

Edited January 30, 2004 by Sasun

[THOTH]

So Sasun - it is not Evolution that you are opposed to but Biology in general? Is this your position? Well - in fact you are mitaken..the "proof" of evolution is as solid as any other scientific theory - including (or more so) then any in physics. What of the general Theory of relativity...do you accept that one? (I mean its only a Theory Mouse,,,maybe Sasun is just trying to "sooth his own insecurity and ignorance bey believing" such a thing as fact. I mean what part of Theory is it that you don't understand? etc etc

 

Well the general Theory of relativity is still quite controversial - i mean at least among scintists/physiscists...as much or more so then evolution..no? I mena there is all this question of dark matter and the force of gravity etc etc...so yes...everthing has its doubts...and not all apects are entirrly known....thats what science is all about - discovery - based on an accepted empiricle method..not jst saying - I chew gum - theus I have no headaches...why? Because i believe it to be so - its just a feeling etc...So don't try to denigrate evolution (or even biology) as something any less now then other sciences etc etc..as there is no (essential) difference. Again - its just burying one's head in the sand - for ideological reasons....nothing to do with real science....

[gurgen]

You are contradicting yourself here but I know better than to start our whole discussion again

[Anonymouse]

I think that there is a general confusion around evolution. The amount of effort exhibted by the local atheist thoth in defending evolution, shows that he is a faithful person, despite his atheism, he is indirectly putting faith in evolution otherwise you cannot explain his desperate defense of a theory that has gone through more mutations in its premise, than we have organically, in order to somehow remain "legitimate". So whether or not it was proven that one fossil led to another, it is something that you "feel" to be true so therefore it must be so. All we have are some fossils that appear out of no where, and the die out all of a sudden. This is why evolution was in an embarrasing area prior to punctuated equilibria for the long contended notion of the intermediate forms was lacking and the embarrasments that mainstream evolutionists went through to provide missing links, from gemmules to bathybius, to Nebraska Man, were sad attempts to give examples of intermediate forms. To compensate for that we have Gould and Eldridge using the powers of human imagination to try to alleviate this problem and patch up the holes. Now we don't need intermediates for the jump from one species to another is a drastic, rapid jump, therefore eliminating the notion of any intermediate forms. Fossils are fossils, they exist whether one is a creationist or an evolutionist. I myself have a hard time trying to conjure how some random mutations would be enough to produce a whole new species, since we see in our everyday lives examples of mutations and their harm on the organism. Thus the numbers I highlighted in the human body are anything but the result of randomness, for they are all multiples of 11. That our DNA is our blueprint containing our specific information, and all the nucleotides are arranged in a specific order, and when that is violated we have harmful effects, is to any thinking mind automatically a sign that randomness is out of the question, for that exhibits purpose.

 

 

The commonly brought up examples, as we have noted for the thousandth time, are not examples of species changing to knew species. They are examples of within species variation. From that reference point, evolutionists assume that somehow these changes lead to other BIGGER changes. How that is proved, is beyond me and thoth, although he will assert via faith that those changes occur.

 

Herein we'll address the best possible "evidences" evolutionists throw in the name of natural selection. The examples many evolutionists give of bacteria and adaptation are precisely that, adaptation. Bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics becuase of the differential survival of mutant forms possessing the advantage of resistence. Second example evolutionists through is the melanism in moths changes. If we take these examples as the best observational evidence of natural selection we can draw the following conclusion.

 

There is no reason to doubt that certain circumstances can compel bacteria to resist antibiotics, or dark colored moths to light colored ones. In these given circumstances the population that are susceptible to drugs and the light colored moths may decline as long as the circumstances prevail. Furthermore, none of these "proofs" provide persuasive reason to believe that natural selection can produce new species, new organs, and other major changes, or even minor ones, that are permanent. The problem with evolution is essentially the problem of its semantics. Even the most staunch creationists will agree that microevolution occures. These are all such examples. That the melanism in moths raises shows natural selection, it also shows it as a conservative process. It induces some relatively trivial variation within the species boundary but which also conserves the original genetic blue print so population frequencies can shift in the other direction when conditions change again. This is nothing more than adaptation. Such a process does not produce permanent, and irreversible change that is required to produce a wholly new species, let alone a new phyla.

 

The problem arises from one term "evolution" that is used to designation ( as in the case for moths ) processes that may have little or nothing in common. A shift in the number of dark and light moths in a population is called "evolution", and so is the creative process that produced the cell, the multicellular organism, the eye, the mind. The implication of the semantics is that evolution is fundamentally a single process, and most evolutionists, whether consciously or unconsciously will exploit this as a substitute for scientific evidence. Even seperating "evolution" into "micro" and "macro" implies that all the creative processes involved in life comprise single phenomenon. The vocabulary inherent in darwinism limits our comprehension of the difficulties by misleadingly covering them with a blanket term "evolution" and from this vagueness evolutionary theory becomes a tautology. This is why you folks asked mewhy I would deny these changes, since now for her, the definition has changed.

[Anonymouse]

Armat - i can fully understand why (the tendency to want to believe etc) one would believe in a creator of things - this seems just natural to us. But to belive so is entirely unscientific - ie - it is bweyond scence and is only in the realm of faith. At this point we are unable to know anything about any (intenligent/deliberate force or forces) that may have had a hand in the creeation of the universe as we know it (and as Domino has pointed out perhaps there is more to out "universe" then meets the eye as well...perhaps)...however - if we at all accept Science as being useful/meaningful etc in telling us things about the nature of our wold etc...then we must accept that evolution is factual...as factual as any other scientific theory (note: see defintion of theory as it pertains to science). And any arguments or discussions of a creator etc are in fact immaterial. So the issue is - do we believe the evidence at hand...and the whole issue of the validity of scinece - or do we pretty much concoct explanations of much lesser validity to explain the world around us and who and what we are? Too me any who disbelieve evolution - at this time - are just living with their head in the sand..and/or have an agenda of some sort...but the evidence is clear...crystal...

Being material, we can form no adequate idea of the spiritual. We all acknowledge and believe in the infinity of space and time and the spirituality of the soul, but the idea of that infinity and spirituality eludes us. Even omnipotence cannot infuse infinite conceptions into finite minds. Human intelligence can't grasp it, nor our language express it. As the ancient sages would say, the visible is necessarily the measure of the invisible. Where reason ends, faith begins, for reason is limited.

[THOTH]

I believe in the validity of scientific method. Yes what a wide eyed superstision believing primitive i must be. Evolution is proven Jack! - as proven as any scientific theory that is commonly accepted by today's scientists. That there have been frauds and crackpots trying to provbe various missing links has nothing to do with the underlying (proven) premiss (and I have provided my links to demonstrate my point - no need to repeat ad anauseum). And your claim of species evoluton is strictly an exercise in semantics. Besides we have only been observing such for hundreds or at most a very few thousand years - so I wouldnt necessarily expect to see changes significant to the point resulting in the nameing of a new species. But the evisdence is out there - from a friend of mine who is a PHD Biologist at CalTech performing expirments on fruit flies - where they can track adaptive changes over periods of weeks/months etc to the genetic record, to our embryonic development, natural variation (with unique transitory fossil back up - etc) as seen in distinct (closed off) environments - etc etc etc...case closed.

[THOTH]

Being material, we can form no adequate idea of the spiritual. We all acknowledge and believe in the infinity of space and time and the spirituality of the soul, but the idea of that infinity and spirituality eludes us. Even omnipotence cannot infuse infinite conceptions into finite minds. Human intelligence can't grasp it, nor our language express it. As the ancient sages would say, the visible is necessarily the measure of the invisible. Where reason ends, faith begins, for reason is limited.

yes exactly...but thats all it is - faith..it is no science...and it is no truth..in fact it is only speculation (and with very little basis)...doesn't it make mnore sense to just admit - we don't know - and never will...etc...and deal with those things we can grasp and see and actually learn something about through methods that mean something...

[Anoushik]

YES!!! It is time to abandon the Theory of Evolution. It's a very ridiculous theory, very strange. I'd rather rely on what my faith tells me. Our universe is just a product of some rebellious Teens in a spiritual universe. Out of boredom They've created us to see us deal with the challenges They've conceived and everytime we fail, They are just having fun! Who cares for the Theory of Evolution, this is what my faith is telling me. It's something that I just feel inside.

 

 

 

PS. I suggest you guys read The Demon-Hunted World by Carl Sagan.

[Anonymouse]

But the evisdence is out there - from a friend of mine who is a PHD Biologist at CalTech performing expirments on fruit flies - where they can track adaptive changes over periods of weeks/months etc to the genetic record, to our embryonic development, natural variation (with unique transitory fossil back up - etc) as seen in distinct (closed off) environments - etc etc etc...case closed.

I believe in the validity of scientific method. Yes what a wide eyed superstision believing primitive i must be. Evolution is proven Jack!

 

Really? How is it proven? We have already made the dichotomy between micro and macro evolution and the surrounding semantics. What part of that can you not comprehend? Why must you appeal to your ignorance?

 

as proven as any scientific theory that is commonly accepted by today's scientists.

 

It is not "proven" it is assumed and believed. Therein lies a difference. Citing within species variation is within species variation. That that leads to greater and irreversible changes is only assumed, not proven.

 

That there have been frauds and crackpots trying to provbe various missing links has nothing to do with the underlying (proven) premiss (and I have provided my links to demonstrate my point - no need to repeat ad anauseum).

 

This is the point where evolutionary theory becomes a tautology.

 

And your claim of species evoluton is strictly an exercise in semantics.

 

I don't claim it, it IS the problem which many evolutionists cannot make the distinction of. Thus that is the problem with evolution, its semantics, which you are a victim of.

 

Besides we have only been observing such for hundreds or at most a very few thousand years - so I wouldnt necessarily expect to see changes significant to the point resulting in the nameing of a new species.

 

You do realize that this is the flimsiest assumption of evolutionists do you not? The idea of telling time is an arbitrary thing, thus many cultures have different calenders, and even the scientific method, while may dip into carbon dating, or counting tree rings, it nonetheless subscribes to the Gregorian calender. In fact the Mayan Calender is perhaps more accurate than ours. According to the Chinese calender I'm not 21 years of age. Do you understand the elastic nature of time? The only thing we know, is the amount of time we have been on this earth, and have recorded evidence of it, aside from that all things are a conjecture agreed upon. So for scientists to sit there and tell us the age of earth is nothing but an assumption by humans.

 

And to take your assertion seriously, assuming that there were all these changes, where are the intermediate fossils? If you assume punctuated equilibria then that is in itself conceding to some creative process. If species drasticly changed, and older species rapidly died out and new ones popped, they didn't really evolve. In fact the fossil record shows fossils appearing and reappearing out of nowhere, suddenly. Punctuated equilibria is closer to creation than it is to Darwin. Thank you for providing arguments that support me.

 

But the evisdence is out there - from a friend of mine who is a PHD Biologist at CalTech performing expirments on fruit flies - where they can track adaptive changes over periods of weeks/months etc to the genetic record, to our embryonic development, natural variation (with unique transitory fossil back up - etc) as seen in distinct (closed off) environments - etc etc etc...case closed.

 

 

Oh yea, the evidence is there, from a friend of mind that is a PhD. So this is in effect stating that, because your friend is a PhD it means his assertions outweigh everyone else. Nevermind that he won't prove how we make a permanent jump from one species to another, but rather will rely on a complex aura of scientific terms and jargon to confuse the enemy to making him believe they have found the holy evidence.

[Anonymouse]

yes exactly...but thats all it is - faith..it is no science...and it is no truth..in fact it is only speculation (and with very little basis)...doesn't it make mnore sense to just admit - we don't know - and never will...etc...and deal with those things we can grasp and see and actually learn something about through methods that mean something...

This assertion ignores that we exhibit faith in our everyday lives. The idea that all knowledge comes from science is itself a philosophical assumption. Human intellect is limited and finite, thus reason cannot answer beyond the realm of the visible.

 

In our everyday lives we have faith. I have faith that the guy I am buying my Tostitos from at the liquor store wont rip me off. I have faith that the driver next to me won't cut me off intentionally. I have faith that the guy behind me in line won't hit me out of impatience. I have faith that whoever I love will not hurt me. I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, because it has reason previously. In other words, all our every actions are based on faith. We can take this argument even further. I have faith that China exists. I have never been to China, but I have heard testimony from people who have been there, books, and pictures. Thus, until I personally visit China, I am taking that knowledge by faith.

 

Our consciousness of the individual reveals itself alone. Our knowledge can't pass beyond the limits of our own being so our conceptions of God and soul and other things are merely our conceptions not those things themselves. The universe is infinite while our ideas and conceptions are finite, since we are finite beings. Thus God is not an object of knowledge, but faith. You shouldn't approach this by understanding or reason, but by a moral sense, nor should you conceive it, but rather feel it. All attempts to embrace and try to interpet the infinite in the conception of the finite are just accomodations of the frailty of humans, which you and science will be fain to admit. Here thought retreats in conscious weakness, and our intellect is most obviously aware of its own insufficiency. This is why you cannot ask these questions nor receive answers through the realm of reason for that which is unreason. It is here that we as humans display our stupidity by dogmatizing this, and trying to map out Gods nature and qualities.

[Sasun]

YES!!! It is time to abandon the Theory of Evolution. It's a very ridiculous theory, very strange. I'd rather rely on what my faith tells me. Our universe is just a product of some rebellious Teens in a spiritual universe. Out of boredom They've created us to see us deal with the challenges They've conceived and everytime we fail, They are just having fun! Who cares for the Theory of Evolution, this is what my faith is telling me. It's something that I just feel inside.

 

 

 

PS. I suggest you guys read The Demon-Hunted World by Carl Sagan.

there is no need to abandon Darwin's evolutio theory, but there is a need to prove it before calling it absolutely truthful.