Replies

"The conjecture that God must have intervened to originate life in the first place would not damage or invalidate the ToE in the least if it were shown to be true. In fact the belief that God started the process and then let evolution take over is quite a common one. Did you not know that?"

Which goes to my conjecture that TOE is simply a way to give you a weak or distant God. 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?

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

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.

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.

"Numerous laboratory experiments and mathematical predictions have confirmed the ToE. Your use of the words "prove the theory" betrays that you don't understand the scientific method. No theory is ever proven."

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. 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?

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?

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.

All just happy circumstances in the view of the idiots that rush to agree with each other and continue to publish such fallacies and slaps at God (THE CREATOR) as TOE.

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?