Replies

<< While I'm sure that someone can provide you with examples of speciation (several instances have been observed throughout human history), >>

Speciation, especially when 'speciation' can be defined as needed, is not evolution. A black bird and a white bird producing a gray bird is not evolution.

<< I fail to understand your demand for observation of matter becoming 'alive all by itself', as that has nothing to do with evolution. >>

Public school and college textbooks lump the entire origins study: cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, stellar evolution, organic evolution and biological evolution, together. You know full well that if you mention the big bang to most people, they would consider it part of evolution. You also know that biological evolution is impossible if you can't produce life naturally from non-life in the first place. Well, I suppose you could claim some flying saucer aliens planted life here - but don't DARE call that science (and that still is life begetting life).

If you disagree that abiogenesis, and all the items before it, are part of evolution, then I'm sure you'll be glad to join us in eradicating them from public school and college texts. We'll be glad to have your help. :-)

X: Is science about finding the TRUTH, or is science about eliminating God from all explanations?

Dimensio: Science is about coming up with the best explanation to fit observed phenomenon within certain specific criteria.

You mean the best explanation that excludes God, don't you?

<< Typically science cannot consider the existence of a "God" because typically "God" is defined as something not entirely 'of the natural universe' and as such not within the scope of science. >>

That's what I thought. God is automatically excluded ahead of time, no matter where the evidence leads, what the facts are, or what the truth is.

Speciation, especially when 'speciation' can be defined as needed, is not evolution. A black bird and a white bird producing a gray bird is not evolution.

You asked for documentation of one "kind" of animal changing into another "kind". That's either speciation or you're referring to something that evolution does not address.

Public school and college textbooks lump the entire origins study: cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, stellar evolution, organic evolution and biological evolution, together.

No competent textbook lumps these fields together. No competent textbook at any reputable school would try to claim that a biological theory also applies to chemistry and cosmology, though I have seen at least one Creationist tract that makes such a laughable claim (Big Daddy by Jack Chick).

You know full well that if you mention the big bang to most people, they would consider it part of evolution.

Even if this were true (and I've seen no reason to believe that it is true), this wouldn't make them right. The big bang ha snothign to do with evolution, and attempting to argue what you think that 'most people' think of as a theory rather than the actual theory doesn't make you look very bright.

You also know that biological evolution is impossible if you can't produce life naturally from non-life in the first place.

Why? Be specific, reference exactly the part of the theory that leads to this conclusion.

Well, I suppose you could claim some flying saucer aliens planted life here - but don't DARE call that science (and that still is life begetting life).

I never did dare call it science (though I suppose that one could bring up enough to apply the scientific method). Nor is it scientific to assert that a divine entity zap-poofed the first life forms into existence, but that also would not preclude the possibility of evolution.

If you disagree that abiogenesis, and all the items before it, are part of evolution, then I'm sure you'll be glad to join us in eradicating them from public school and college texts.

Eradicating them from the public school and college texts? Why? I've no problem with them being taught, so long as they're not being taught as though they are part of evolutionary theory.

That's what I thought. God is automatically excluded ahead of time, no matter where the evidence leads, what the facts are, or what the truth is.

Well, anything that does not fit within the scope of the scientific method is excluded. As such, unless this "God" of which you speak is entirely of the natural universe, can be observed either directly or through tests that will produce repeatable results and can be falsified, then the scientific method cannot say anything regarding the existence or the intervention of this "God". What's your point, are you upset that science doesn't address the supernatural? Science also doesn't consider the possibility that the universe is just one of an infinite series of cycles controlled by the deity Brahman, but I don't hear anyone whining about that.