Can you define ‘empirical science’? It’s not a term I’m familiar with.

elwed
empirical/based or acting on observation or experiment, not on theory.
All science, in fact THE scientific method relies on empirical practice which itself is dependant on Cartesian dualism of subject and object.
This has and continues to work out fine in general at the macro and microscopic level.Much of the science we depend upon making sure airoplanes fly etc gets by quite happily on Newtonian physics.
So I am quite happy to accept the scientific method in resolving issues on macro and micro
scales.
However issues that revolve around religion and mind do not fall into this category. 
At the Quantum level the dualism of subject and object breaks down and the empirical model no longer applies.
Although we live our lives on the macro level and the Newtonian model suffices to describe and predict events on this level.
The fundemental building blocks that make up our universe,our reality, are quantum in nature.
The behaviour of these quanta are very mysterious
and have led to scientists including Einstien and Hiesenburg to speculate that they may only be understood by applying intuitive as well as rational methods.
You were of course winding me up but I am happy to oblige by going along with you.
n

Thought id never say this but I cant add to anything Elwed just stated.

Wouldn’t do any good either as far as David’s understanding so no reason to bother.

Evolution takes ZERO faith, the evidence of it is just as factual & tangible as science can make it. Its as factual and certain as the sun will rise in the morning.

Faith is when you have ZERO evidence to support your claims, you know all about that since that is all religion is, pure faith and dogma.

Arguing Evolution with a creationist is one of life’s most pointless and futile actions.
I could right now list hundreds of pages of irrefutable evidence of the existence of Evolution all proven beyond a reasonable doubt by 1000s of scientist, all using the latest most accurate methods known, all experts in various fields of research, all the empirical evidence presented between all the various fields, gathered and tested & retested to a point of virtual certainty, all the fields collaborate one another to the final conclusion that Evolution does exist and it is beyond any reasonable doubt 99.999% Fact, and you would deny every syllable.
Refute every word as your Cognitive Dissonance kicks in to save your small mind from any further discomfort by forcing you to deny the belief you are so obsessed with.

I choose to not waste my time on such fruitless venture.
You’re incapable of facing reality, you’re happy as can be in your little dreamworld fairytale, you believe in fables and fairytales & I do not, lets just admit that and move on.

Spacemoney, I’m just trying to make sure that we agree on definitions.

Two questions.

The term ‘empirical science’ seems to imply that there is another kind and where would you put mathematics and logics?

I agree that (by definition) religion is out of scope, even if one takes pains to construct a belief system that is silent about the physical world.

I have no reason to believe that ‘mind’ is anything but electrochemical processes inside of our brains. If you want to explicitely make the case (and I think you do) that ‘mind’ somehow transcends this, I’m extremely sceptic about that point of view, but I’m willing to listen.

The fundemental building blocks that make up our universe,our reality, are quantum in nature.

How do you know?

Heisenberg has disabused us of the notion that in order to get more accurate observations, you simply build a better instrument. If we cannot observe at arbitrary precision, we will never know what, if any, fundamental building blocks there are. Where modern physics is headed is another discussion.

There is one point, however, that I’ll concede. Formulating a scientific theory based on observations does take intuition. And as Gödel has shown, even mathematical logic has its limits.

David, quick question concerning your use of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. What is the system that it applies to, is that system open, closed (adiabatic or rigid?), or isolated, what is that system’s boundary, and what is the system’s environment?

it is that I invited him into the trap of saying that atheism is a belief, making it, in the end, no different from a belief in anything else. I know that if I just started out in that direction on my own, Les would have swooped in with his arguments against that concept, and he’s right, atheism can be just non-belief. However, if Nunyabiz was going to start defending his prior statements about having actually made a positive claim to a belief by saying that advocating atheism was an actual belief, well then, I could not help but to expose the weakness of his arguments against religion in light of that statement

As usual you FAILED didn’t you?
I have never even insinuated such absurdity, you could just take the words “Belief” and “faith” out of the Atheist vocabulary as far as I’m concerned.
Atheism is ANTI-Belief, its diametrically opposed to Faith, Its based entirely as I said earlier on Logic and reasoning supported by empirical evidence. PERIOD, so no matter how you try to squeeze belief or faith into the equation your doing nothing but fooling yourself.

I “KNOW” the evidence supporting Evolution is overwhelming, its entirely logical, no sane mind could reason it any differently.
The evidence is tangible, it comes from many many sources not just one, ALL the sources collaborate one another, be it Biology/Paleontology/Archeology, and so on, they ALL come to the same conclusions & each makes the others case stronger.
The evidence is ALL Falsifiable, therefore it is “Verifiable” in over 150 years 1000s and 1000s of Scientist performing millions of experiments   yet not 1 has ever proven Evolution to be anything other than True, which even further supports Evolution.

Creationism on the other hand is based entirely on religious dogma, is supported ONLY by Faith & Belief, has not one single shred of empirical “Falsifiable” evidence, comes entirely from one single source, and that source can be proven through scientific evidence to be nothing but pure Mythology.
The Bible is chock full of contradictions from cover to cover, the Christian religion is clearly nothing but bastardized plagiarized older Pagan religions & rituals piecemealed together, no one believes any of these older Pagan religions as any remote source of truth and Christianity is an exact duplicate of these older pagan religions. DOH!

Christianity even refutes itself, non of the 4 Gospels all agree on much of anything, many of the other 52 Gospels (Which were the only ones not burned & are still in existence today) that Christians mostly just refuse to acknowledge the existence of refute the 4 that Christians believe so fervently to be the absolute truth & 100% fact.

Paul, the single man that pushed Christianity into favor 2000 years ago and whom most Christian “Fundamentalist” firmly adhere their entire life which view his writings as “Words to live by” are adhering to the thoughts of a man that quite likely had his “Vision” on the road to Damascus because he suffered from Temporal Lobe Epilepsy, then from this seizure he converted and became obsessed all the while thinking the world was going to end at any moment.
His words he spoke were the exact opposite of “Words to live by” they in fact were “Words to DIE by” he was firmly convinced that each day was his last day on Earth.

Yet this is your “evidence” your proof.

The ramblings & babblings of a madman.

Words that to this day are so misinterpreted, interpreted, by even the followers of such absurdity that there are how many 1000s of different religious/Christian sects? ALL claiming they are the one and only true religion, each adherent to those various sects all claiming like poor David here to be “True Christians”.

Its all utter lunacy.

Unless you say otherwise, I’ll assume that you agree with the non-creationist understanding of the DNA’s role and that molecular and cellular biology doesn’t induce any discomfort.

I wasn’t aware that there is a creation vs. non-creation understanding of any of the facts. It’s the interpretation of the facts that is different.

You seemed to express some scorn about the effect gamma radation can have on DNA. Do we agree that certain chemicals and types of radiation can introduce random changes to the DNA, i.e. mutations?

I did not scorn gamma radiation as a method of altering DNA, I merely pointed out that among the many natural possibilities, radiation seems to be the evolutionists favorite.  However, while the changes could be random, that does not mean that anything is possible. There are a VERY limited number of possible permutations that would result in a functional organism.

David, quick question concerning your use of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. What is the system that it applies to, is that system open, closed (adiabatic or rigid?), or isolated, what is that system’s boundary, and what is the system’s environment?

I’m not sure what you’re after here. You want to define certain laws of physics as only pertaining to certain types of systems? The second law of thermodynamics applies as broadly as gravity. If you can come up with a system that it does not apply to, it’s an artificial one, and therefore not relevant to the discussion. If you prefer to interpret it as Chaos theory or Brownian motion because you want to say the laws of thermodynamics can only apply to physics, then fine.

Let me save you some time: My education is in biochemistry, My wife is the director of biochemistry at a major pharmaceutical. There is very likely more knowledge concerning this topic available in this house right now that you have been exposed to in the entirety of your life. So stop patronizing me, and answer the flaws in your argument that I have pointed out, or just plain admit defeat.

I could right now list hundreds of pages of irrefutable evidence of the existence of Evolution all proven beyond a reasonable doubt by 1000s of scientist, all using the latest most accurate methods known, all experts in various fields of research, all the empirical evidence presented between all the various fields, gathered and tested & retested to a point of virtual certainty, all the fields collaborate one another to the final conclusion that Evolution does exist and it is beyond any reasonable doubt 99.999% Fact, and you would deny every syllable.

Quite simply, Nunyabiz, you lie.
a) there are not 1000’s of scientist that have used the latest or most accurate methods known. By definition this statement cannot be true.
b) Not all the data agree, as I have pointed out in only a few examples.

Your gross exaggerations do not help your argument. Rather, they give you the appearance of a lunatic. Oddly, that’s what you keep claiming I must be.

Faith is when you have ZERO evidence to support your claims, you know all about that since that is all religion is, pure faith and dogma.

Not at all. We are looking at the same facts, we are just coming away with different interpretations. I have all the same evidence you do. I’m willing to accept that it has everything to do with the ideas we had before we looked at the facts. You’re the only one insisting that only your interpretation could be correct. Of course, somehow that makes me the narrow-minded loon. Uh huh.

[quote[I have no reason to believe that ‘mind’ is anything but electrochemical processes inside of our brains. If you want to explicitely make the case (and I think you do) that ‘mind’ somehow transcends this, I’m extremely sceptic about that point of view, but I’m willing to listen.

Have you ever read “Miracles” by CS Lewis? Give the first couple of chapters a spin, it’d be a good place to start this conversation.

Brandi: Still thinking about it. Maybe we could start a poll in the forums for a new name. How about: A symbol for “the Christian formerly known as David”?

elwed
Thanks for helping shape my wooly thinking.
The fundemental building blocks that make up our universe,our reality, are quantum in nature.
Should perhaps read, our current understanding of the fundamental building blocks etc.
“We have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning” Heisenburg.
Staring at me from my wall and my starting point in attempting to find another method of questioning.
Empirical science uses the languange of maths and logic to define it’s terms.
But intuition has no language it springs from the side of the brain that does’nt do language,which makes it very difficult for me convey my meaning.
I need to think about this a little harder and get back to you.

David,

so we have established that when we talk about DNA, the same textbook definitions apply.

I’m a bit worried by

I merely pointed out that among the many natural possibilities, radiation seems to be the evolutionists favorite. However, while the changes could be random

On the one hand, you seem to accept that there mutagenic environmental influences, on the other hand you seem to imply that these mutations are not (necessarily) random.

If you believe mutations to be divinely inspired, then we are done.

Random mutations of the genome that is responsible for offspring has only a limited number of outcomes. The offspring may not be viable, in which case that particular mutation cannot be perpetuated. The mutation may not be expressed at all, which means it will potentially be passed on to further generations, where it may or may not interact with future mutations. Finally, the mutation may be expressed.

Do you agree up to this point?

I’m not sure what you’re after here. You want to define certain laws of physics as only pertaining to certain types of systems?

I’m glad you asked. If you apply a scientific principle like the Second Law of Thermodynamics, you must be prepared to defend that your use of that principle is applicable.

Paraphrasing from a dictionary, thermodynamics divides the world into systems which are delimited by boundaries. Systems that are not considered relevant to the problem at hand (i.e. the exchange and/or conversion of energy) are lumped into “the environment.

If you apply the Second Law of Thermodynamics to biological evolution, you must first define the systems, boundaries, and environment your statement is based on.

So, your choice is either to offer that definition or to retract the argument. Come to think of it, you did retract, didn’t you?

Maybe I’m patronizing, but you have to realize that you are much more so. Not only am I unsaved and don’t have the intellectual capacity to follow your arguments, no, I even ignore fact as you see it and willfully refuse to bow to your and your wife’s authority on the subject matter. Have you tried that on for size? And by the way, what do you know about my background in biochemistry?

It is not my intent to argue the merits or demerits of evolution with you, I simply want to pin-point where our accceptance of the theory of evolution diverges. If you are so well-educated in biochemistry, maybe we can cut to the chase and you can quote chapter and verse of which parts of evolution you are uncomfortable with? Or exactly what you interpret differently, and why?

I suspect that it boils down to several factors.

a) You assume that there is a purpose to the universe.

b) Complexity requires a creator.

c) Since the world is only 6000-something years old, we should be able to directly observe one species evolve into another.

d) ...?

We have a few books of C.S. Lewis on some dusty bookshelf, but I don’t recall Miracles.

Quite simply, Nunyabiz, you lie. a) there are not 1000’s of scientist that have used the latest or most accurate methods known. By definition this statement cannot be true. b) Not all the data agree, as I have pointed out in only a few examples.

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

Hmmm last I checked *although this figure is from a 1987 poll little has changed* there were approx. 480,000 scientist JUST in the USA alone currently that subscribe to and believe in Evolution. (Less than 700 currently believe “any” or all parts of Creationism, 0.14%) That’s not counting the many many 1000s that have left their bodies of work in the last 150 years to be further evaluated.
So all these scientist ignore the latest developments in technology? Some how I find that hard to imagine, since by its very nature science evolves and is itself responsible for that very technology, so to say scientist don’t use the latest methods available just doesn’t hold water I’m afraid. Unless that latest method has proven unreliable they may resort to the older more solid methods that are more proven, either way I’m sure the BEST method would be used or you’re self defeating your own experiments.

If anything im being quite conservative, certainly not “grossly exaggerating” anything.

You have pointed out nothing pertaining to any Falsifiable evidence that gives any credence to your argument at all. You have listed only hearsay, Dogma, and a few sites from “Scientific Creationist” LOL which have become no less than a laughing stock amongst the scientific community as everything they try to claim has all been soundly rebuked by those that actually know what the hell they are talking about.

Your are quite simply a very confused individual that has no clue what you’re saying.

This goes to the debate over complexity and the 2nd Law.

The June Scientific American contained an article refuting “scientific” (their quotes) arguments against evolution put forth by the Creationists. Topics eight, nine, and possibly seven pertain to the discussion in this thread. Well actually all of them do.

VernR, thanks for that link.

Without further comment, an April Fool’s letter I stumbled over:

Evolutionary Link Found Between Humans, Creationists

Thanks to a recent discovery by scientists at MIT’s biology
laboratory, scientists now know that humans and creationists share a
common evolutionary ancestor, and may even be the same species.

Biologist and human Mary Jenner announced the findings at a press
conference held in MIT’s biology research laboratory. The key to the
discovery was the fact that, despite behavioral and cognitive
differences, both humans and creationists have 46 chromosomes, and are
able to interbreed to produce viable offspring. There are also a
number of pieces of fossil evidence to back up the findings.

Before the discovery, most scientists had thought the two groups were
unrelated, and probably different species. Scientists had based this
belief on certain behaviors found in creationists but not in humans:
creationists tend to congregate in stone building where they perform
strange rituals involving pleasing a mythical super-creationist who
lives in the sky, and also tend to not use modern scientific
methodology to validate knowledge.

But the new results show these differences may be merely learned
behavior, and not indicative of a deeper genetic difference.

Creationists and some humans have spoken out against the report. Even
the report’s author is disappointed by the results, “I don’t like to
think I’m related to creationists,“ says Jenner, “but if that’s what
the facts show, that’s what the facts show.“

Marvelous.

I read a few of the points in that article. It’s sad how low scientific american has sunk. Not because I disagree, but because it treats the arguments so shallowly. They miss the mark completely in answering the points against them. Which is so similar to what seems to be happening in our discussion. I’m trying hard to give the benefit of the doubt, and not question either your intelligence, or your motives, but I find it difficult.

If you believe mutations to be divinely inspired, then we are done.

Yes, I’ve stated before that I’m not fixed as far as my view on evolution. Certainly it could be a mechanism, just like all the other mechanisms of nature, that was created and used by the creator as a tool. In any event, it can only explain the method and not the cause of our being. But if you are only interested in debating evolution as a means to disproving God, then your motives for belief in evolution become more than questionable. Is it truth or not? Or is it just the best explanation you have that does not involve God, so you cling to it with all your might?

Random mutations of the genome that is responsible for offspring has only a limited number of outcomes. The offspring may not be viable, in which case that particular mutation cannot be perpetuated. The mutation may not be expressed at all, which means it will potentially be passed on to further generations, where it may or may not interact with future mutations. Finally, the mutation may be expressed.

Agreed.

Not only am I unsaved and don’t have the intellectual capacity to follow your arguments, no, I even ignore fact as you see it and willfully refuse to bow to your and your wife’s authority on the subject matter. Have you tried that on for size? And by the way, what do you know about my background in biochemistry?

I apologize if you took that as my intent. What I stated, if you’ll take that chip off your shoulder, was that you’re biased before you look at the evidence, just like me. I don’t accuse you of not looking at or being knowledgeable concerning the facts, something both you and Nunyabiz have accused me of incessantly since the beginning of our interactions. I am merely pointing out that we both have biases. However, I am aware of mine, and you both seem blinded to yours. As a result, you both come across as supremely arrogant, condescending and patronizing. You like to accuse me of all that, but I think if you go back and read my actual statement concerning you inability to see it the way I do , I specifically write that

Note that I’m not trying to say you’re mentally deficient (as much as I am tempted to do so :- ))

It was not a smear of your intellect, merely once again pointing out that your way of thinking is opposed to the axioms of the topic, so how could you hope to give the topic a fair shake?

Secondly, I don’t expect you to bow, and never asked you to, I expect you not to patronize me. I do not point out my education to say that you should accept my authority or my wife’s, but that I have plenty of knowledge concerning the topic and your insults amount to trolling. Although, in reality, my wife IS an authority, just ask the many groups of scientists, including the FDA, that frequently ask her to speak. I don’t know your background, please share. From the way you come across, I’m guessing you have taken some hard science (bio, chem, physics, math) at the college level, specifically, I’d guess you majored in math. You do seem to enjoy expressing things as functions.

a) You assume that there is a purpose to the universe.

Yup. And this is exactly what I’m trying to tell you. Our bias before we look at the facts is the issue. Unfortunately for both of us the facts themselves are not conclusive.

b) Complexity requires a creator.

Close, but no. Complexity on the scale of random complexity (the snowflake) does not require one, but it might give one pause to consider the possibility. Interdependent systems that could not possibly evolve separately, yes, that is pretty good proof that there is an outside influence to the process. Maybe not conclusive in itself, but certainly positive evidence, of the existence of God.

c) Since the world is only 6000-something years old, we should be able to directly observe one species evolve into another.

No. I do not believe this. I’m not convinced in a young or old world. I think both sides have excellent arguments. But, since you bring it up, Why haven’t we seen it? I mean, with all the millions of species being observed, why don’t we see some evidence first hand in the thousands of years we’ve been looking? If you’re going to argue that all of them did billions of years ago, that they went through thousands of developments, then why has it stopped completely?

Nunyabiz, as I write this, a group of maybe 3 scientists are developing and using “the latest technology” in biochemistry for analyzing a particular method of making a vaccine. Only those 3 know about it in any detail. Within a year, maybe 10 or 15 more will know about the method, in a couple of years it will be used by 100’s. In 5 years, it will be old hat. Never, will 1000’s use it in millions of experiments until it is truly old news. It’s altogether likely that 100’s will never even understand the science needed to apply the method, let alone 1000’s. It’s altogether likely that the method itself will NEVER get published and only 50 or so scientists will ever be aware of it. So there is simply no way that “1000s and 1000s of Scientist performing millions of experiments” are using the LATEST methods. You really have no idea what you are talking about.

I used one website, one time, not to introduce an argument, but to refute your statement that NO scientists believe in creation, to show a list of 100’s from a creationists website. You, on the other hand are frequently using links to show arguments that you yourself (as I have shown) don’t even understand. And while you claim there are thousands and thousands, you’ve never named more than 2 or 3. You are making the broad assumption that, unless they publicly announce otherwise, they believe in evolution. That is a false assumption. I know many scientists, the majority think, like myself, that evolution is a possibility, but not a proven fact.

Now, this is the last time I’m posting on this thread till one of you makes at least a vague attempt at refuting on of the now 4 points I made. You both have made a lot of noise, but can’t seem to actually defend your point of view. I’m not reading anymore 1000 word diatribes on what an idiot I must be, when you are the ones that cannot refute the very simple problems I’ve pointed out with evolution. VernR did more for your argument in less than 50 words, than the two of you have managed in 1,000’s! (see my answer to that in b) above).

...why don’t we see some evidence first hand in the thousands of years we’ve been looking.{/quote]

Because we haven’t been looking for thousands of years, we have been looking for evolution for about 150 years.

David, one problem right now is that you blend posts from Nunyabiz and myself.

While Nunyabiz tries to debate creationism versus evolution with you, I have repeatedly stated that this is not my intent; it is an exercise in futility and we both know it. To say it one last time, I am trying to determine where your acceptance of prevailing scientific theory ends. No more, no less. If you consider this patronizing, let’s have it on record that you resent questions about the ramifications of your creationist beliefs.

There is no denying that both of us are biased. From my agnostic world view, the creationist ‘theory’ is at best a circular argument based on axiomatic statements and propositions that can neither be proven or disproven. For example:

Interdependent systems that could not possibly evolve separately, yes, that is pretty good proof that there is an outside influence to the process. Maybe not conclusive in itself, but certainly positive evidence, of the existence of God.

You start with an axiomatic statement (“Interdependent systems that could not possibly evolve separately”) that supports your bias (“there is an outside influence to the process”), followed by a non-sequitur (“but certainly positive evidence, of the existence of God”). I reject this line of reasoning not because of my personal bias, but for its intrinsic logic fallacies. Shit, did you just sucker me into debating creationism after all?

Concerning my background, all that I’m willing to share is that I suck at math.

Actually, there is a wonderful article in “Science” November 14, 2003 on the evolution of corn (maize) from teosinte.  The article examines the influences that primitive humans had on it’s development.  A good read, but somewhat heavy-duty on the genetics side.

OK, elwedriddsche,

I am trying to determine where your acceptance of prevailing scientific theory ends.

I don’t see which theory is “prevailing”. Perhaps we could chose “popular” instead, and we could reach what I think is your goal more quickly. I believe that breeding takes place (see science goddesses post). But it’s still corn if it’ll still cross pollinate (breed) with corn (or maize). A poodle is still a dog, not a separate species. But I have seen no convicting evidence that any species has developed from another. There are many leaps evolution must yet make in order to be convincing.

But I must repeat: I am not dead set against evolution. I don’t have any evidence to show that is false. I certainly have some questions that it fails to answer. Nor can I produce any evidence that says pure 7 day creation is false. But I also have less than a complete understanding of it either.  I just do not accept it as a dead lock as Nunyabiz has.

Have you ever read “Of Starlight and Time”? Basically, it concludes that the precepts you have before you look at the evidence (concerning the question “If God created the universe only 6,000 years ago, how could light from stars millions of light-years away be seen?”) it changes what math you’ll use to determine the answers. When all is said and done, the evidence, the facts are the same, it’s just the interpretation that is different. So what we are left with is that either could be true, but neither are conclusively true. But we can’t go around using science to win the argument, when it does not have the facts. The main reason I got in this debate was that Nunyabiz seems to feel that just because I disagree with his interpretation of the facts, I must be psychotic. I have tried to point out, that him taking that stance says more about his lack of mental health than mine.

I apologize if I’ve been lumping your arguments together with Nunyabiz’s. It was more an effort to save space and be succinct, than a slight against either of you. The soul of wit being brevity, or as my HS English teacher used to say “Make the length of your writing like a woman’s skirt, long enough to cover the subject, but short enough to keep it interesting”. I find the current crop of trash being taught in Public schools as fact rather depressing: Evolution, Global warming, “Nutrition” science, and a great deal of what is taught as History, is just plain trash. You’ve no idea how grateful I am that I can send my kids to a school that doesn’t teach those theories as fact, but instead teaches them as they are and point out the weakness in their thinking. In short: they teach critical thinking skills instead of mass memorization. Talk about brainwashing!

Perhaps I chose my wording poorly in my argument concerning irreducibly complex systems. But please do not let my poor use of grammar detract from the point. The argument is not circular, but I made it somewhat that way because I was too busy driving the point. How about: If systems are interdependent, requiring each other to have existed before they could exist independently, one would have to accept the notion of outside influence. While this is not a proof in itself of the God of Israel, it certainly is positive evidence (yet not conclusive) of a creator/designer. Because systems that depend on one another cannot evolve separately, it “raises the bar” on the idea of these things occurring randomly.

Not that we want to debate this topic… And BTW, I suck at math too, but that didn’t stop me from wanting to major in it for 3 years, so your statement tells us nothing. Which was sure to be the intent.

Valhalla, Millions of species for 150 years. And nothing? But we’re expected to believe that billions of species went through millions of changes in millions of years. So wouldn’t we expect, just playing the odds, to see one change in millions over 150 years?

Science Goddess,
I’ll see if I can get the library copy from my wife’s company. Although, I think they may have discontinued their subscription. I know no one in her department reads it anymore, except possibly for entertainment. Sort of like some folks read “Inquirer Magazine”. “Science” isn’t the magazine it once was, and I’ve feeling that when I read this article I’m going to be reminded why.

David, I think you may have confused “Science” with some other magazine.  The one to which I refer is a weekly science journal put out by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and you have to be a member to get it.  It’s a real, peer-reviewed science journal.
SG

Actually I gave up the notion of proving Evolution to David long time ago.
I see no reason to bother as you can see just like ALL Hard line Christians or Creationist he will NEVER acknowledge even the most tangible, most positively overwhelming evidence presented.

So the point is what exactly?

Debating against someone that believes in Creationism is a lost cause as it is impossible for them to acknowledge empirical Falsifiable evidence that is contrary to their religious dogma & fictitious God that they are obsessed with, Cognitive Dissonance will always kick in as the brains protective mechanism to hold that obsession in tact and in many cases strengthen their resolve even more.
David quite clearly does this in spades.

Elwed has made many good points, David has and will continue to deny them all, he HAS to.
His obsession which he bases his entire life on is at stake.
In his mind like most all people obsessed with some religion/God they feel that life would not be worth living without this “absolute” that they have placed all their faith into.

An Atheist that believes in evolution is fully able and willing to except any good solid Falsifiable evidence anyone wants to throw into the ring, we don’t have some false god to defend and could careless all we ask is don’t try and feed us a pack of blatant lies supported only by hearsay & dogma and expect us to swallow it hook line and proverb like they have, then have the gall to say we are not looking at the evidence objectively,
“"But if you are only interested in debating evolution as a means to disproving God, then your motives for belief in evolution become more than questionable. Is it truth or not? Or is it just the best explanation you have that does not involve God, so you cling to it with all your might?“”

I could careless, truth is truth to me, evidence is evidence, you show even the remotest evidence that “God Exist” and id be fine with it.
Fact is I don’t debate evolution “as a means to disproving God”
Nobody can disprove something that doesn’t exist so that’s of no concern to me, I’m satisfied with the fact that there just isn’t any proof at all that he/it exist except in the minds of many poor scared humans that choose to not accept reality.

I accept evolution because it is logical, there are mountains of empirical Falsifiable evidence to support it.
I believe in UFOs more than and God/religion because there is MUCH more evidence that UFOs exist than God.
There is no more evidence for the existence of any god of your choosing than there is of Unicorns & Zeus.

One comment:

If systems are interdependent, requiring each other to have existed before they could exist independently, one would have to accept the notion of outside influence.

There’s a hidden assumption in there, David:  that systems that are currently interdependent were always that way.  Systems can evolve separately and then interact over time, creating benefits that perpetuate that interdependence and strengthen it.

I don’t see which theory is “prevailing”.

Poor choice of words. You’re right, ‘popular’ or ‘widely accepted’ would have been better.

There are some recurring points I’d like to address, even though I don’t really want to go there.

It is my impression that the definition of a species is hotly debated amongst biologists, but in this context it’s not necessary to nitpick definitions. For the sake of argument, let’s stick to species that reproduce sexually and ignore all the weird things procaryots do.

The relationship between breeding and evolution is a subtle one. By definition, breeding is the application of externally imposed selection criteria. Ignoring random mutations, breeding removes variety from the gene pool rather than introduce something new. After some number of generations, the trait you were aiming for will breed true, i.e. you create a subspecies.

I can readily accept that e.g. geographically isolated populations of a common species will eventually lose the capability to interbreed. Over time, environmental pressures and random mutations will change the morphology and mating habits to a point where the populations remain genetically compatible, but will not interbreed by choice or without, um, a helping hand. As long as this glacial drift apart continues, these populations will eventually cease to be able to produce viable offspring no matter what. By that point, one common ancestor changed into two new species.

It’s not likely that we can directly observe speciation because of the time frames involved.

Evolution cannot claim to have all the answers, but on the other hand the theory does not contradict observable fact. The creationist’s arguments sooner or later return to a variation of “but this is too complex to have happened by chance, so there has to be a creator.“ Disbelief in complexity through chance and change and gaps in the theory are not contradictory fact, so the creationist point of view does not persuade me the least.

Creationism doesn’t contribute to my enlightenment about the natural world and worse yet, it actively dimishes it by its dependence on a potentially capricious man behind the curtain. I can live with the universe just being itself; others can’t.

I think I just got a bit carried away…

GM answered another point, so I’ll remain silent on that one.

No contest about the quality of public education, even though we may disagree about the specific suckage. I’m disheartened by the nosedive public education has taken in Germany.

on scientific proof
“Although science tries to distance itself from any kind of metaphysical speculation it still cannot avoid the fact it’s theory,at the most fundamental level,is actually embedded in metaphysics.Certain metaphysical assumptions have necessarily to be made before science can proceed in the first place.One of these for example,is the assumption that local rules can be applied globally,the assumption that what is discovered in the laboratory,at atomic scales,at one particular moment in time,can be applied to the whole universe,across all scales and across all epochs.
There can be no proof that this assumption is valid.Like all such beliefs it simply has to be laid down as a metaphysical postulate.
The two most important of these a priori postulates are the closely related Principles of Objectivity and Reductionism -both a direct legacy of Cartesian dualism.
The Principle of Objectivity is the axiomatic belief that the external world is external,that it can be reduced to an object of study existing independantly of the human mind.It assumes an objective reality of seperate,countable objects which can be quantified and described by a mysteriously detached human consciousness.
The Principle of Reductionism is the axiomatic belief that the whole is identically equal to its atomistic parts,that every aspect of reality can be reduced exclusivelly to the soulless logic of the mathematical laws which govern these parts”
The mind as epiphenomana Is something i find hard to digest and impossible to prove.
Science also makes its own leap of faith.

We can question the axioms of physics, but that path ultimately leads us to solipsism.

Certain metaphysical assumptions have necessarily to be made before science can proceed in the first place.One of these for example,is the assumption that local rules can be applied globally…

In math, you can add, remove, or change axioms of a formal system. Sometimes the new formal system is interesting, sometimes it’s plain boring - if it doesn’t result in a semantic breakdown in the first place.

Science predicts that if you stand on the surface of an arbitrary planet and drop an apple, it will fall to the ground (ignoring major storms or whatever). This is not something that can be exhaustively verified.

However, you are invited to assume that local rules do not apply globally and see where it takes you. Travel around the world, drop apples and then formulate a theory that explains your observations. Will that theory correctly predict the outcome of apple droppings on planets we haven’t visited yet?

Solipsism or sophistry some choice.
thanks for the input
“Vanishes in a puff of logic”