Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI

[Dimo]

Nineveh posted:

Mighta, coulda but... let's wait and see what they say next week.

Dimo:

Nineveh, you are free to stick to the certainty of your YEC model. But please don't call that science. Science is about investigating physical mechanisms and the logical cause and effect relationships. We certainly cannot do that with the "supernatural".

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Dimo
you are free to stick to the certainty of your YEC model. But please don't call that science. Science is about investigating physical mechanisms and the logical cause and effect relationships. We certainly cannot do that with the "supernatural".

Hey, now, how many times has the point been hammered that science is ever changing. It's not like the theory today hasn't been proven wrong tomorrow.

 

[Dimo]

Nineveh posted:

Hey, now, how many times has the point been hammered that science is ever changing. It's not like the theory today hasn't been proven wrong tomorrow.

Dimo:

It is ever changing. You can use the imagery of honing in on a target. As science progresses it gets closer and closer to the truth. It will never get to absolute certainty about truth. But it can move to beyond a reasonable doubt.

And yes many theories of yesterday have been falsified or replaced with better explanations. Three main areas are;

1.) A geocentric solar system.

2.) Newton's formulas for gravity.

3.) The "supernatural" explanation for physical and mental illness.

4.) The YEC model of biological origins.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Dimo
It is ever changing.

Ok.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Hey I figured out why I can't get a hold of Dean Kenyon. He retired. Maybe you guys wouldn't mind inviting some people on here that haven't retired that don't believe the same as you. Not many of the colleges are returning my phone calls.

 

[john2001]

Originally posted by Nineveh
(limestones as the result of chemical precipitation)

When I went to the Mammoth caves, the guide told us the rock we saw around us was madeof limestone. He explained limestone is made from the bones of sea creatures.

The term "bones" are not really representative of what is going on. A large amount of limestone is composed of the "shells" (called "tests", because they are not the same as the shells of shellfish) of a type of protozoan called "foraminifera" see
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/foram/foramintro.html

The shells and other calcareous detritus associated with reefs (not the coral reefs of today) is another source of limestone. See for an example in Kansas:
http://www.kgs.ukans.edu/Extension/cuestas/rocks.html

The third type of limestone is called "oolitic" and derives from pellets called oolites composed of inorganically as well as organically precipitated limestone:

http://csmres.jmu.edu/geollab/Fichter/SedRx/Rocks/oospar1.html

Oolites are indicative of the wave action of shallow water.

(equilibrium and tidal flats)

Do you feel that "equalibrium" to be at work during a glabal flood that lasted for months?

Basically most of the geologic record is totally inconsistent with the notion of a "worldwide flood lasting for months", which is why geologists don't believe in it.

As to Austin's claims about coal, these issues have been addressed (and disposed of) by geologist Robert Gastaldo in:

Gastaldo, R.A. 1999. Debates on Autochthonous and Allochthonous Origin of Coal: Empirical Science versus the Diluvialists. In Manger, W.L., ed., The Evolution-Creation Controversy II: Perspectives on Science, Religion, and Geological Education, The Paleontological Society Papers, v. 5, p. 135-167.

(ID propaganda movie "unlocking...")

It seems to me they gave some strong evidence for ID.

They were playing to people unfamiliar with the issues and methods of science. Real scientists are not impressed by the claims of creationists.

[

Chemical biology is science, and it's making it really hard for evo to get a start.

Evolution is the glue that holds all of biology together. As I have said before, it is not possible to disprove evolution (origin of species) with arguments about abiogenesis. These are two different subjects.

(Polarized UV light making left handed
chemistry)

So polarized UV light + essoteric soup = sequnced left handed amino acid chains?

(modern abiogenesis issues)
Mighta, coulda but... let's wait and see what they say next week.

(left handed chemistry is biochemistry)
Synthesizing what already works. Left handed amino acids don't just stick together unless it's in a living organism. We can't assume a living organism to give darwin a leg up, that's circular reasoning.

My point with all of this is that the creationist arguments all claim *categorically* that it is impossible for some aspect of abiogenesis or of biological evolution to have happened. Yet, when we examine the claims of creationists closely, we find that either the argument given is utterly false (such as your claims about lefthanded amino acids "not sticking together"), or that the creationist is harping about something that is not well understood by anybody. In short, the arguments of the creationist are either false, or are either arguments from ignorance.

"Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) researchers have discovered that clays may have been the catalysts that spurred the spontaneous assembly of fatty acids into the small sacs that ultimately evolved into the first living cells."

mighta...

Yes. There are encouraging laboratory experiments which indicate this as a possible mechanism. The clays act as catalysts in the lab. Something similar may have been going on in the early Earth's environment.

Actually I just read where a German scientists almost got two left handed amino acids to stick together, unfortunatly they didn't include what the "evironment" was like.

Reference? Basically, I believe you are misunderstanding the issue.

So, now we go from essoteric soup to essoteric sludge. I can't wait to see more research.

Neither can I. At least scientists *do* research. Creationists, do not do research.

The trouble is, there is no research yet describing how all the info to make a brain out of clay got in the RNA.

Sure there is. It is called "evolution". Once you get to the RNA stage, it is all descent with modification and natural selection. The rough sketch is known. It is filling in ever greater precision of details that is the science. No it is not cut and dried, but we do not live in the dark void of ignorance and superstition.

(Brains as electrochemical machines)
I'm sorry, but holding a child in my arms is way more than random fires of a synapse. What a hollow emotionless life evo offers.

I never said it was "random". But yes, your baby is a biochemical machine. In reality an animal.. Just like you.

But let's talk about your baby for a moment. Do you ever wonder why it is you bond to your baby? After all, it is all rather strange. You have this foriegn organism that grows within your body, is ejected painfully, and then demands to be taken care of for decades.

As a baby, it basically is an excrement making machine, made of soft flesh, which in another form, you would happily cook up and server for dinner. Do you ever wonder why you look at it as beautiful? You'd think a person was on drugs or something to see something that looks like a cross between a slug and a miniature sumo wrestler as beautiful. Indeed, there is some powerful biochemistry going on there.

But what else, not only does mother Ninevah look at baby Ninette as being cute and darling. Basically you show her other species babies and she will think those are "cute" too! Think about that kitten or that cute puppy, or the bear cub, or the lion cub. In fact, any mammalian baby evokes a similar reaction.

The same body form that makes your baby cute to you, makes their offspring cute to you as well. Never saw a cute spider, or a cute snake, or a cute lizard though---all corelations of "cuteness" boil down phylogeny. Within the notion of evolution, common descent and the common relatedness of species, it all makes sense.

I don't know of any cultures that ever condoned rape. But anway, you really had to be told raping a kid was wrong?

You should read the Bible some time. All that stuff about having children by your wife's handmaiden (i.e. slave). Somehow that wasn't adultery. Nothing was said by the handmaiden being a willing participant.

(pedophilia)
Even an abuser knows it's wrong. Why else would NAMBLA be having such a hard time getting it's message out?


Actually the "awarness" being "raised" is to the opposite effect. The move is already underway to remove "social stigma" over child rape.

Basically, those pervs in NAMBLA think it's sexy to have sex with a child.They think they are "loving" the kids. So no, they are into it. They know that society doesn't approve of it, but they certainly approve of and enjoy the practice, and don't think that it is wrong, which is what makes them dangerous.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by john2001

The term "bones" are not really representative of what is going on. A large amount of limestone is composed of the "shells" (called "tests", because they are not the same as the shells of shellfish) of a type of protozoan called "foraminifera" see
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/foram/foramintro.html

The shells and other calcareous detritus associated with reefs (not the coral reefs of today) is another source of limestone. See for an example in Kansas:
http://www.kgs.ukans.edu/Extension/cuestas/rocks.html

The third type of limestone is called "oolitic" and derives from pellets called oolites composed of inorganically as well as organically precipitated limestone:

http://csmres.jmu.edu/geollab/Fichter/SedRx/Rocks/oospar1.html

Oolites are indicative of the wave action of shallow water.

Basically most of the geologic record is totally inconsistent with the notion of a "worldwide flood lasting for months", which is why geologists don't believe in it.

I just found this page at AiG. It's a listing of information by geologists who believe there was a global flood.

As to Austin's claims about coal, these issues have been addressed (and disposed of) by geologist Robert Gastaldo in:

Gastaldo, R.A. 1999. Debates on Autochthonous and Allochthonous Origin of Coal: Empirical Science versus the Diluvialists. In Manger, W.L., ed., The Evolution-Creation Controversy II: Perspectives on Science, Religion, and Geological Education, The Paleontological Society Papers, v. 5, p. 135-167.

I wonder what his argument is?

They were playing to people unfamiliar with the issues and methods of science. Real scientists are not impressed by the claims of creationists.

"Real".

It seems to me a scientist who takes the time to put science back into the hands of "laymen" should be commended. The list of "real" scientists who have lost faith in evolution is quite long.

[

Evolution is the glue that holds all of biology together. As I have said before, it is not possible to disprove evolution (origin of species) with arguments about abiogenesis. These are two different subjects.

Even Darwin had to have a beginning. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. Evo is the glue that holds a scientific explanation for the pagan origins of the universe together, but that's about it. Science was practiced long before Darwin wrote his book.

My point with all of this is that the creationist arguments all claim *categorically* that it is impossible for some aspect of abiogenesis or of biological evolution to have happened. Yet, when we examine the claims of creationists closely, we find that either the argument given is utterly false (such as your claims about lefthanded amino acids "not sticking together"), or that the creationist is harping about something that is not well understood by anybody. In short, the arguments of the creationist are either false, or are either arguments from ignorance.

Um, well, besides the fact they can't make it happen in a lab yet...

Yes. There are encouraging laboratory experiments which indicate this as a possible mechanism. The clays act as catalysts in the lab. Something similar may have been going on in the early Earth's environment.

For how many amino acids? You see, that sort of environment only works for those. Some Germans found a different environment for a few others. But that is one really bizaar environment just for those few. What about the rest?

Reference? Basically, I believe you are misunderstanding the issue.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/109082709/HTMLSTART

Neither can I. At least scientists *do* research. Creationists, do not do research.

Tell that to that list of people at AiG.

Sure there is. It is called "evolution". Once you get to the RNA stage, it is all descent with modification and natural selection. The rough sketch is known. It is filling in ever greater precision of details that is the science. No it is not cut and dried, but we do not live in the dark void of ignorance and superstition.

"Once you get..." past the problem of RNA being in the right order to do anything ....

I never said it was "random". But yes, your baby is a biochemical machine. In reality an animal.. Just like you.

It must be really sad to see no more in life than that.

But let's talk about your baby for a moment...

Have you ever held your child in your arms?

You should read the Bible some time. All that stuff about having children by your wife's handmaiden (i.e. slave). Somehow that wasn't adultery. Nothing was said by the handmaiden being a willing participant.

Would you like to move this ... uh... part of your scientific debate to the theology forum?

Basically, those pervs in NAMBLA think it's sexy to have sex with a child.They think they are "loving" the kids. So no, they are into it. They know that society doesn't approve of it, but they certainly approve of and enjoy the practice, and don't think that it is wrong, which is what makes them dangerous.

But wait... if we are all just animals, you are pretty judgemental about adult animals that rape young animals. Why is that? Because somebody told you?

 

[Stratnerd]

I just found this page at AiG. It's a listing of information by geologists who believe there was a global flood.

believe because they believe the Bible to be inerrant or because evidence points this way?

It seems to me a scientist who takes the time to put science back into the hands of "laymen" should be commended.

and those that distort science along the way should be beaten.

The list of "real" scientists who have lost faith in evolution is quite long.

last I heard it was < 5% of professional scientists

Even Darwin had to have a beginning. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away.

nobody claims it does and science doesn't ignore it! But evolution does a much better job at explaining what it should - characteristics of orgranisms and biodiversity.

Evo is the glue that holds a scientific explanation for the pagan origins of the universe together, but that's about it. Science was practiced long before Darwin wrote his book.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of the universe.. why are you mixing all this stuff together?

Um, well, besides the fact they can't make it happen in a lab yet...

and we may never.. I know I've brought this up too many times but if we look at life on this planet it is obvious that there was a single origin of life - this suggests that the conditions that produced life are very rare indeed. But I fail to see why we need to then invoke supernatural agents - particularly using a scenario that has no support (massing poofing event ~ 6000 years ago).

Tell that to that list of people at AiG.

and what would they do? they may do science as their occupation - say, as a microbiologists but creationists CANNOT approach origin questions scientifically.

 

[The Barbarian]

Most of the folks who wrote those AIG articles are not geologists. Many of them aren't even scientists.

One of the zanier arguments is that the Coconino Sandstone really formed underwater, when "The Flood" brought all that sand into place in a few days. It's a little over 300 feet thick, and has about 10,000 cubic miles of sand. Obviously, if it took a week, sand would be settling out at about two feet an hour. And yet we find burrows animals dug out in it.

The sand, according to AIG came in on ocean currents, at about 5 miles per hour, from hundreds of miles away, in a few days.

That would be like, as one critic put it,

"What they are proposing is similar to this...take the top 315 feet of the entire state of New Mexico, run water over it, and in a week, it will be in Texas!"

Oh, and the sand grains in the cross-bedded sandstone? They are polished, something that happens when wind-blown deposits form, but not when water does it.

And if that's not enough for you, explain how this:

Can form in a year, or even 10,000 years. We know exactly how they form, and it won't happen they way AIG claims.

There rest of the claims on that page are similar deceptions and misunderstandings. If you like, we can go on...

 

[Nineveh]

Barb,
Did you bother to look? I did.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

believe because they believe the Bible to be inerrant or because evidence points this way?

I believe there are scientists in their fields who no longer have faith in evo because of the evidence.

and those that distort science along the way should be beaten.

Does that include Lucy?

But on the topic of discussion, which part of Unlocking was distorted?

nobody claims it does and science doesn't ignore it! But evolution does a much better job at explaining what it should - characteristics of orgranisms and biodiversity.

From john:

"Evolution is the glue that holds all of biology together. As I have said before, it is not possible to disprove evolution (origin of species) with arguments about abiogenesis. These are two different subjects."

Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of the universe.. why are you mixing all this stuff together?

I wasn't. We are talking about origins. Darwin needs the big bang to even get to abiogenesis. The natural expalination of things needs to have nature all the way through, doesn't it?

and we may never.. I know I've brought this up too many times but if we look at life on this planet it is obvious that there was a single origin of life - this suggests that the conditions that produced life are very rare indeed. But I fail to see why we need to then invoke supernatural agents - particularly using a scenario that has no support (massing poofing event ~ 6000 years ago).

Either "mother nature" poofed it or God created it all through His Word and His Power with intelligence.

and what would they do? they may do science as their occupation - say, as a microbiologists but creationists CANNOT approach origin questions scientifically.

Why not read some of the articles at that link.

 

[Stratnerd]

I believe there are scientists in their fields who no longer have faith in evo because of the evidence.

Niv, the only reason to think that the earth is ~ 6000 is if you take geneologies from the Bible. If the earth was 6000 years old the evidence should be overwhelming and creationists wouldn't need to make up so many ad hoc stories about superspeciation, supertectonic plate movement (Walt Brown - hydroplate story), super nuclear decay, super mutation rates, etc etc.

Does that include Lucy?

It's stupid to think scientist would defend anything untruthful - as I've said over and over and over: look at who uncovers these things - who uncovered A'raptor? who uncovered Piltdown Man?

But on the topic of discussion, which part of Unlocking was distorted?

never seen it - care to send me a copy?

quote:
nobody claims it does and science doesn't ignore it! But evolution does a much better job at explaining what it should - characteristics of orgranisms and biodiversity.

From john:

"Evolution is the glue that holds all of biology together. As I have said before, it is not possible to disprove evolution (origin of species) with arguments about abiogenesis. These are two different subjects."

and... so???

I wasn't. We are talking about origins. Darwin needs the big bang to even get to abiogenesis. The natural expalination of things needs to have nature all the way through, doesn't it?

Darwin only needs reproducing organisms... all the other stuff are different explanations. Darwin invoked natural selection as his causitive agent - how does that help us explain the expanding universe? It doesn't does it. Different things different explanations.

Either "mother nature" poofed it or God created it all through His Word and His Power with intelligence.

of course, but we're attempting to decide which it was - your episteme banks on revelation - science banks on something else.

Why not read some of the articles at that link.

despite the fact that I have, it's irrelevent - creationists BY DEFINITION cannot do origins scientifically.

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Nineveh (my emphasis)

We are talking about origins. Darwin needs the big bang to even get to abiogenesis. The natural expalination of things needs to have nature all the way through, doesn't it?

Nineveh, think about this for a second. In the sentence I emphasized above, aren't you saying, exactly, "The only way anything can have a natural explanation is if we know there is a natural explanation for everything?" In which case, you've pretty much eliminated any natural cause for anything, not just "descent with modification."

And I think that in the perspective you're advocating above, the corrolary also has to be true: "The supernatural explanation of things needs to be supernatural all the way through." If not, then you've allowed that a natural process (i.e., evolution) could actually occur in a supernaturally created universe, and you've lost your justification for claiming that for evolutionary theory to work we need to be able to explain the origin of life, much less the origin of the universe.

 

[john2001]

Originally posted by Nineveh

(The flood is not believed by most earth scientists)
I just found this page at AiG. It's a listing of information by geologists who believe there was a global flood.

Basically AIG is a sham site. Many of the individuals whose articles appear there are not scientists, or are writing out of their field. None of the materials posted there have any relevance to science. The whole point of the site is to hoodwink people who are not familiar with science.

The people who believe in the flood, do so out of purely religious reasoning. The alleged "scientific" arguments do not hold water.

(Gastaldo's paper)
I wonder what his argument is?

Basically, Gastaldo points out that every claim that Austin has made is false, and puts up hard scientific evidence showing why these arguements are false.

(real scientists don't believe in the flood)
"Real".

It seems to me a scientist who takes the time to put science back into the hands of "laymen" should be commended. The list of "real" scientists who have lost faith in evolution is quite long.

Just because somebody is telling you what you want to hear and says they are a scientist doesn't mean that they are. The vast majority of so-called "creation scientists" are not scientists. Those who are scientists are doing very poor science when they publish on matters that would seem to support the flood or "disprove evolution".

Even Darwin had to have a beginning. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. Evo is the glue that holds a scientific explanation for the pagan origins of the universe together, but that's about it. Science was practiced long before Darwin wrote his book.

This simply isn't the case. There is nothing pagan (or any other religion for that matter) about evolution. The basic ideas are scientific. You don't like the answer, that's for sure, but basically what you would like to be true in science simply is not.

(creation scientists do not do research)
Tell that to that list of people at AiG.

There is not one bit of scientific research on the AIG site. It is a total propaganda mill.

(Bible cool on sex slavery)
Would you like to move this ... uh... part of your scientific debate to the theology forum?

No. I was not making a point about theology. You asked about a culture that was ok with rape and I gave you one. I could just as easily have directed you to the slavery days of the United States. American slave owners justified their activities by quoting those parts of the Bible that are about the maintenance of slaves.

But wait... if we are all just animals, you are pretty judgemental about adult animals that rape young animals. Why is that? Because somebody told you?

In part, yes, because I live in a culture that is not ok with that. If we were living in ancient greece, the story would be different.

However, why should such notions of morality exist? The answer: morality benefits human survival, so, here again morality makes sense when we consider our existence from an evolutionary perspective.

 

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by aharvey

And I think that in the perspective you're advocating above, the corrolary also has to be true: "The supernatural explanation of things needs to be supernatural all the way through."

Hmmm...

Kinda sounds like Berkeley's idealism.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

Niv, the only reason to think that the earth is ~ 6000 is if you take geneologies from the Bible. If the earth was 6000 years old the evidence should be overwhelming and creationists wouldn't need to make up so many ad hoc stories about superspeciation, supertectonic plate movement (Walt Brown - hydroplate story), super nuclear decay, super mutation rates, etc etc.

Except there are scientists who look at the evidence and draw a different conclusion. When it comes to story telling, evo has a greater lead in the race.

It's stupid to think scientist would defend anything untruthful - as I've said over and over and over: look at who uncovers these things - who uncovered A'raptor? who uncovered Piltdown Man?

And look who has Lucy on display.

never seen it - care to send me a copy?

Let me see what I can do

and... so???

And so.... darwin needs a beginning.

Darwin only needs reproducing organisms... all the other stuff are different explanations. Darwin invoked natural selection as his causitive agent - how does that help us explain the expanding universe? It doesn't does it. Different things different explanations.

Alrighty then, where did the building blocks for darwin come from?

of course, but we're attempting to decide which it was - your episteme banks on revelation - science banks on something else.

Or rather evo banks on something else.

despite the fact that I have, it's irrelevent - creationists BY DEFINITION cannot do origins scientifically.

Except all the stuff at AiG.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by aharvey

Nineveh, think about this for a second. In the sentence I emphasized above, aren't you saying, exactly, "The only way anything can have a natural explanation is if we know there is a natural explanation for everything?" In which case, you've pretty much eliminated any natural cause for anything, not just "descent with modification."

Either God set it up to work or nature accidentally by chance did it all and it works. I see two lines of reasoning here, do you have a 3rd?

And I think that in the perspective you're advocating above, the corrolary also has to be true: "The supernatural explanation of things needs to be supernatural all the way through." If not, then you've allowed that a natural process (i.e., evolution) could actually occur in a supernaturally created universe, and you've lost your justification for claiming that for evolutionary theory to work we need to be able to explain the origin of life, much less the origin of the universe.

Huh?

God set it ( nature ) up to work right in the beginning and now He has to micromanage everything?

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by john2001

Basically AIG is a sham site. Many of the individuals whose articles appear there are not scientists, or are writing out of their field. None of the materials posted there have any relevance to science. The whole point of the site is to hoodwink people who are not familiar with science.

mmhm. We've already been over that one about 10 times already. It's a simple thing to pick an article and hit the link for the person's info.

The people who believe in the flood, do so out of purely religious reasoning. The alleged "scientific" arguments do not hold water.

Except they have arguments right there at AiG.

Basically, Gastaldo points out that every claim that Austin has made is false, and puts up hard scientific evidence showing why these arguements are false.

oh.

Just because somebody is telling you what you want to hear and says they are a scientist doesn't mean that they are. The vast majority of so-called "creation scientists" are not scientists. Those who are scientists are doing very poor science when they publish on matters that would seem to support the flood or "disprove evolution".

-OR-

Just because somebody is telling you what you want to hear and says they are a scientist doesn't mean that they are. The vast majority of so-called " scientists" are not scientists. Those who are scientists are doing very poor science when they publish on matters that would seem to support evolution "disprove creation."

This simply isn't the case. There is nothing pagan (or any other religion for that matter) about evolution. The basic ideas are scientific. You don't like the answer, that's for sure, but basically what you would like to be true in science simply is not.

The basic scientific idea darwin had has been falsified by his own requirement about "irreducible complexity". For a dino to become a bird takes faith.

There is not one bit of scientific research on the AIG site. It is a total propaganda mill.

Whatever.

No. I was not making a point about theology. You asked about a culture that was ok with rape and I gave you one. I could just as easily have directed you to the slavery days of the United States. American slave owners justified their activities by quoting those parts of the Bible that are about the maintenance of slaves.

What you seem to have done is missed my question about your baby.

In part, yes, because I live in a culture that is not ok with that. If we were living in ancient greece, the story would be different.

So you would be a child rapist and/or think it ok to rape kids if you lived in ancient Greece?

However, why should such notions of morality exist? The answer: morality benefits human survival, so, here again morality makes sense when we consider our existence from an evolutionary perspective.

If it truly does benefit human society, why do we see so little of it? And what did it evolve from?

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Nineveh

Either God set it up to work or nature accidentally by chance did it all and it works. I see two lines of reasoning here, do you have a 3rd?



Huh?

God set it ( nature ) up to work right in the beginning and now He has to micromanage everything?

So you do think that is ridiculous. Good! The supernatural and natural can coexist! But that means that God creating the universe (in your words, "God set it up to work") doesn't really say anything about whether the diversity of life is a result of evolutionary processes! A supernatural origin of the universe does not preclude natural processes operating as well, as you seem to agree.

So unless you're gearing up to disagree with yourself, please stop claiming that evolution could not have occurred unless the Big Bang theory is correct! (Same thing with abiogenesis, of course) Evolutionary theory does not assume there is no God, it makes no assumption about God (not the same, as I've mentioned repeatedly). Likewise, evolutionary theory works just fine regardless of how the universe came into being, and regardless of how the very first life form came into being.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by aharvey

So you do think that is ridiculous. Good! The supernatural and natural can coexist! But that means that God creating the universe (in your words, "God set it up to work") doesn't really say anything about whether the diversity of life is a result of evolutionary processes! A supernatural origin of the universe does not preclude natural processes operating as well, as you seem to agree.

So unless you're gearing up to disagree with yourself, please stop claiming that evolution could not have occurred unless the Big Bang theory is correct! (Same thing with abiogenesis, of course) Evolutionary theory does not assume there is no God, it makes no assumption about God (not the same, as I've mentioned repeatedly). Likewise, evolutionary theory works just fine regardless of how the universe came into being, and regardless of how the very first life form came into being.

I'd be very interested in hearing how you believe darwin got his start.