Replies

What TOE is seeking to avoid, as well as any other agnostic, or atheistic belief, is in the immediate creative power of God. It is just the scientific mind's reaction to the presence of God in our fallen state. Or what do you think Adam's fig leaf symbolizes?

It isn't seeking to avoid anything. It is a conclusion drawn from the evidence. I don't understand your theological argument I am afraid. I always thought that the fig-leaf symbolised Adam's loss of innocence and emergent self-awareness without which shame is impossible.

Maybe God worked by evolution...something I doubt since the only evidence that evolution occurred as given by agnostic...

and numerous believing scientists of course, a fact that you seem incapable of getting your head round

...scientists (whatever their first names) that I can discern is the continual squawking like maddened parrots: "Evolution is a fact, evolution is a fact." All the red-faced shouting does not make it so, but appears to me as the clenched-fists tantrum of a lot of spoiled brats.

All of the red-faced shouting in this argument comes from the creationists. For some examples study some of your earlier posts. Do you deny that the species living on earth have changed over time? (which is one of the facts of evolution as opposed to the theory). If you deny that you are denying much more science than the ToE, yet you have stated in an earlier post that it is only ToE that you take issue with.

Once again you, or any scientists named "Steve," are unable to give me a fair mathematical description of this "theory," that you would fight to the death to defend, something I find peculiar for "objective" scientists.

Where did you get the notion from that a scientific theory must of necessity have a mathematical description?

And I guess actual evidence does not mean much to evolutionists, but by your own admission, just a majority opinion. Which just reveals that you do not make up your own minds, (rather your minds were already made up, and you went looking for a confirming theory) but are impressed by numbers, and credentials, and need those numbers to buttress your faith.

The list I supplied is a humorous parody of a common creationist argument but it does make an important point. When you say that the ToE is religion not science you are calling the entire scientific community liars, fools, or lying fools. Yet you allow them to be right about everything else which seems a curious position. Creationists sometimes misrepresent that science is divided about the ToE or that ToE is in crisis which is not so. However science is not a democracy as you rightly point and it does listen to the evidence. Publish your evidence that the ToE is wrong and the 500 Steves and everyone else will switch their opinion and you win a Nobel Prize.

Name them, give me the math. Of course theories are not proven. But at least the evidence ought to confirm that theory to some degree.

And it does, to a degree that practicing scientists regard as conclusive as any part of science. Try this. Feynman's quote near the beginning is insightful (as one would expect).

But the fossil record (the beginnings and first basis of TOE) shows NO evidence of ANY transitory species, when there ought to be millions. Where are they?

Your statement is a common creationist misapprehension. Many transitional forms have been found. Whoever told you that there are no transitional forms is misinformed. Whoever told you that there ought to be millions of them is also misinformed. Fossilisation is an incredibly rare event.

Not to mention the complete inability of TOE to account for irreducibly complex structures. Or symbiotic life, or parasites. Or the complex behaviors of animals, some of them with brains far to small to have figured out such behaviors. From whence came all of this?

Natural selection is the answer to all of the above except irreducible complexity. Most modern informed irreducible complexity arguments refer to abiogenesis, about which the ToE has nothing to say.

And remember we are not dealing with just individual species in isolation, we are dealing with interlocking systems, all the way down to certain properties of matter and compounds that if THEY did not first exist, in incredibly exact proportions, no life could exist.

Curious that you should use this argument which is not an argument against the ToE at all. It is a argument for the existence of God commonly used by believers who accept the ToE (you know, that group of people that you refuse to acknowledge). You characterised the God of this belief as "Weak" and "Distant". Your much more interventionary God doesn't need conditions to be suitable in the general universe. He can do anything, right? So why would he bother to make the general conditions suitable?

"It isn't seeking to avoid anything. It is a conclusion drawn from the evidence. I don't understand your theological argument I am afraid. I always thought that the fig-leaf symbolised Adam's loss of innocence and emergent self-awareness without which shame is impossible."

The response of fallen man is to hide from God, or the immediate presence of God. Spirituality and Religion are two different things. Religion is the observance of God though ritual. Spirituality is the seeking of God and his actual presence. The actions of all men are RELIGIOUS, whether they are in a dead church, or are following the dead instinct to cover up and hide from God.

TOE, for all the brilliance and cunning of man (and I will admit man has devoted great intellect to this effort) is a "fig leaf!"

Is it any surprise that man would come up with a "scientific" theory in a scientific age? In the dark ages men did not have science, so they hid from the face of God in their cathedrals, in dead religion and ritual. The church of modern times is SCIENCE. The proponents of TOE are the priesthood.

All scientific argument aside...you cannot accept TOE and actually believe in the principle of redemption, which requires that there was original sin from a single set of parents.

If evolution took place, it could not have taken place for humanity. I believe species were placed in the earth as they are...they did not evolve. Whether God did this personally, through the agency of angels, or some physical mechanism...I don't really care much, I need to make a living.

We only have evidence of variation in species, which evolutionists stretch into a belief that species evolve one from another. The evidence cuts both ways, IMO, it cuts far better toward special creation.

Evolutionists can never get around the fact that the fossil record does not back the idea of slow changes from one species to another. Even Darwin was in despair at the end of his life over this growing fact. At least HE was honest enough to realize it was a bullet to the head of HIS theory.

It simply shows what I maintain: Species appear as they are, and for the most part remain UNCHANGED, or go extinct! Gould (first name Steve), a brilliant man, realized this and so proposed the punctuated equilibrium theory. A ridiculous theory from an otherwise very brilliant mind. He did this because he was driven to try and explain this terrible (theory-killing) lack of transitional forms.

You can play around with the limited plastic nature of life to your heart's content. I do not believe, and it has not been shown that species give rise to unique and various species...even given the MAGIC of millions of years.

And the physical constants of the universe make it clear to any but the most closed (and hostile to God) minds that the universe was created/designed to support carbon based life. The earth is unique in so many ways, just for this end goal it would take a book hundreds of pages long to detail all the unique factors of the earth that setup the atmosphere and conditions for life. And this goes all the way down to the subatomic level, up to the force of gravity!

Evolutionists simply express a tautology. They look at all this wonder and say..."hmmm, life appeared because all the conditions were EXACTLY preset in some way so that life appeared." Duh!!