Evolution. The proof you've been requesting.

reply to post by atlasastro


I thank you,
Yours is actually the first well thought through and on topic post. Evolution threads tend to implode pretty fast around here. It's actually rare to find a post without the usual polemics.
I need to take the time to respond with the consideration your post requires.
Thanks again.

reply to post by atlasastro


To address one of your points about how parts of this research might in fact reenforce the ID or creationist positions.
Scientific research has been around for a long time. It is by nature driven by man's thirst for knowledge. Science has no cultural position or agenda. Some scientists might have those attributes, but true research leads to knowledge and lets the political and social chips land where they may.
Historically, religions have struggled to adjust. People were killed for saying that the earth revolves around the sun. ID and creationism are but the present manifestation of the same dynamic, as religion tries to catch up and incorporate new knowledge into old paradigms.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by atlasastro

 

Scientific research has been around for a long time. It is by nature driven by man's thirst for knowledge. Science has no cultural position or agenda. Some scientists might have those attributes, but true research leads to knowledge and lets the political and social chips land where they may.

I agree, but as this debate revolves around the science of evolution VS ID and creationist dogma, i think it is a little naive to simply say science has no cultural agenda when it has not completely answered the question. Science and technology have had massive cultural impact purely by being present. Science has the agenda of being specific, in this case it strives to describe and explain the origins of life as we know it. Unfortunately it does not tell us how to use this knowledge, how we as a culture interpret this in relation to how we live on a daily basis. In the majority of individuals lives, religion plays this role. I think it is significant to note that Religion strives to answer the very same question, yet it is an agenda because it fails under the scientific method. So as the views are opposing it is safe to say that Religion views science as having an agenda as it still has not adequately answered the questions on the Origin of Life. But i guess Abiogenesis is a whole other thread. LOL.

ID and creationism are but the present manifestation of the same dynamic, as religion tries to catch up and incorporate new knowledge into old paradigms.

I would argue that it is science that is catching up. Religions(various) have been offering the same answers for Creation alot longer than science has. As science is evolving it has been constantly updated as Technology and knowledge grow. Your excellent link on your OP is an example of this, which is why i believe ID/creationist will see the pro side of this scientific research.

BTW....thank you for your kind words in your earlier reply, much appreciated.

Originally posted by atlasastro
So key innovation is not reliant on natural selection. Could not ID argue that this is infact a pro for them. That innovation may be an inbuilt mechanism and not a byproduct of a natural mutation to aid adaptation to ensure survival and reproduction.

It was still reliant on NS. The second mutation produced a citrate variant that was being outselected by the original e. coli variant. That is, it had lower fitness cf. original. However, when it finally picked up the third mutation, it was now fitter than the original. So it was being selected at each step (i.e. its ability to reproduce in its environment altered its 'success' cf competition).

The historical contingency part is essentially showing that the final variants were much more likely following an earlier 'potentiating' mutation. When e. coli samples were taken before that mutation, the citrate variant did not appear. When taken after that mutation event, the citrate variant could appear. However, even then it was a one in a trillion event. Thus, the evolution of the final citrate variant was contingent on an earlier potentiating mutation - which was also very rare and random (i.e., couldn't be reproduced from earlier samples). In other words, the final citrate variant was dependent on earlier history (if mutation x, then mutation y and z possible).

Looks quite 'chancy' to me. In sum, the study suggests that the probability of producing certain traits can be affected by prior genetic history. If you want to say there was an inbuilt issue, it was the presence of an 'inbuilt' prior random mutation which potentiated the final trait.

[edit on 5-7-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin


It was still reliant on NS. The second mutation produced a citrate variant that was being outselected by the original e. coli variant. That is, it had lower fitness cf. original. However, when it finally picked up the third mutation, it was now fitter than the original. So it was being selected at each step (i.e. its ability to reproduce in its environment altered its 'success' cf competition).

That is what i thought, but if it was being outselected due to unfittness, how does the original mutation survive to become stronger through futher mutation? These characteristics only become valuable after further cellular innovation, and so become historically significant. This appears uneconomical within a cells engineering constraints and a conservative developmental framework. This is suggesting that there are two units of variation or selection, normally we would expect NS to promote the survival of a single variant and so fixing it in that state, until the next innovation etc.

The historical contingency part is essentially showing that the final variants were much more likely following an earlier 'potentiating' mutation. When e. coli samples were taken before that mutation, the citrate variant did not appear. When taken after that mutation event, the citrate variant could appear. However, even then it was a one in a trillion event. Thus, the evolution of the final citrate variant was contingent on an earlier potentiating mutation - which was also very rare and random (i.e., couldn't be reproduced from earlier samples). In other words, the final citrate variant was dependent on earlier history (if mutation x, then mutation y and z possible).

This is why i think it is pro-ID. Is it inbuilt to potentiate, to promote or strengthen biochemical responses, that NS appears to have no effect on this trait, yet on moving further up the historical timeline of mutations sees the trait influencing future generations. This is almost suggesting a database of mutations with potential for future cellular innovation.

Looks quite 'chancy' to me. In sum, the study suggests that the probability of producing certain traits can be affected by prior genetic history. If you want to say there was an inbuilt issue, it was the presence of an 'inbuilt' prior random mutation which potentiated the final trait.

I agree with the chancy part. But what i think this study is suggesting is that these cells display cellular innovation outside of the NS model. If a trait can appear after historically being deemed unfit, why should it then appear in the future, is this not speculation on potential.
Thanks for your reply. Some good thoughts for food, cheers.



[edit on 5-7-2008 by atlasastro]

Originally posted by atlasastro
That is what i thought, but if it was being outselected due to unfittness, how does the original mutation survive to become stronger through futher mutation?

The very first potentiating mutation?

That is considered a neutral mutation. It has no observable effect on fitness. Thus, it can be readily affected by further mutation. Perhaps in many individuals it is lost all together before the citrate mutations. Of course, in others it remains in place open to mutations that confer some alteration in fitness.

The second mutation variants which were less fit only just survived. They hit about 20% of the population at maximum, then almost disappeared with the original variants becoming much more dominant. However, with the final mutation, the balance reversed and the citrates became dominant.

This is why i think it is pro-ID. Is it inbuilt to potentiate, to promote or strengthen biochemical responses, that NS appears to have no effect on this trait, yet on moving further up the historical timeline of mutations sees the trait influencing future generations. This is almost suggesting a database of mutations with potential for future cellular innovation.

It is far from any support for ID. In fact, it is counter to various claims from ID 'theorists'.

Mutations can be positive (beneficial), negative (detrimental), or neutral (no fitness effects). So, again, it is also counter to many typical creationist claims of mutations only being detrimental. In this case we have a neutral mutation that potentiates, then a somewhat negative mutation that reduces fitness cf. original, then a final mutation that increases fitness cf. original.

Not really a database. It just shows that sometimes certain rare neutral mutations are required to enable further mutations that have major effects. Even in humans we each have 100 or so mutations at birth, so every individual is playing the evolution lottery. Some win, some lose, some don't matter. Indeed, most detrimental would be selected out before birth.

I agree with the chancy part. But what i think this study is suggesting is that these cells display cellular innovation outside of the NS model. If a trait can appear after historically being deemed unfit, why should it then appear in the future, is this not speculation on potential.
Thanks for your reply. Some good thoughts for food, cheers.

But the mutations are separate from selection anyway. Mutations provide the 'meat' for selection (i.e. variation). That's why they are random. Mutations are not correlated to the fitness needs of the organism. If we expected some form of ID frontloading, we would expect mutations to appear on demand when required.

But even when potentiated by prior mutations, we are still talking trillions to one chances in this case. And when not potentiated, even worse odds (in fact, the neutral mutation couldn't be reproduced in earlier samples).

I don't see anything for IDers or creationists to be satisfied with here, and their response suggests this is the case (apparently Schlafly of conservapaedia is going to take Lenski to court, heh). However, I do understand IDers can see stuff to support their own beliefs in the most innocuous of phenomena.

[edit on 5-7-2008 by melatonin]

I don't know about that mel, alasatro has a good point and how do YOU know this wasn't the intention of mutation? neutral? what is that exactly?

also I see many are upset with lenski for not being forthcoming with ALL his data. Personally I think this is NOT random mutation but encouraged mutation but that's just me. The thing is even INTELLIGENTLY designed things man has made may make no intellgent sense at all to the casual obeserver not in the same field or simply for not having the intelligence to know what it is or why it is there.

Until someone (the inventor) shows us WHY something does what it does or the reason something WE may think doesn't make sense but makes sense once it is revealed to us. I see you guys doing the same thing shrodlinger does everytime the opportunist in him imparts his opinions about religion having something to do with ID.

You're prejudice is showing like a mofo here in that you can not allow a divine foot in the door NOR anything and I mean any hint of any intelligence or intent thereof.

I was pretty impressed not so much for the content of astro's post but the way he thinks seems more open to possibilities and not the dogmatic direction of darwinian discrimination towards any idea, any HINT what so what so ever their may be intelligent intent being expressed as designed to have been what you say is neutral.

I can't say shrod isn't correct about religion playing catchup and is one of the things I don't agree with either. I think Christians ought not try to harmonize genesis with Science especially evolution but for a different reason. I tend to stick to Gods word and if Science says something different than Science is looking in the wrong direction.

Even the example shrod gives about the universe is the result NOT of the scriptures being wrong about the earth being flat and all that crap Atheists in there haste to disparage religion say. If they knew what the hell they were talking about they'd know that the Bible had it right all along waaay before aristotle did. There is so much being done in Science where no method exists that can test for instance the date of rock without index dates and the like. So many things we have built legends of science folklore where the original framework is built on the speculation of Biased minds in the begining where again no scientific method existed or still exists to know facts from fallacy and as shrod proves my point with his bias makinig similar statments against religion as if Science isn't guilty of doing the exact same thing just as often with just as much religious fervor and just as much dogmatic arrogance.

The thing is astro doesn't seem to be talking about religion, he seems to have an opened mind looking for a dialogue with one of you and seems to be bumping into to the same close minded end of discussion arrogance as shrod say I am about.

I think astro is on to something and I think we can all take a lesson from it not to agree with it perse but in the interest of self examination this may have nothing to do with a christian God but it might have something do with an intent placed upon the DNA we have no idea about and in fact may even pre judge as too imperfect to be intelligence as the method behind the madness.

I know he got my attention reading his post

Good stuff there astro

- Con

Originally posted by Conspiriology
I don't know about that mel, alasatro has a good point and how do YOU know this wasn't the intention of mutation? neutral? what is that exactly?

Heh, so mutations now have intentions? A DNA mind?

A neutral mutation is one that has no effect on fitness - not beneficial, not detrimental.

also I see many are upset with lenski for not being forthcoming with ALL his data.

Schlafly is a dope, sorry, he is. What does he want from Lenski? The e. coli samples? He wants Lenski to send him gut rotting bacteria? Send them to some dope who can't even read the original article correctly, who has no biochemistry training, no equipment to keep the samples, no ability to assess or use the data?

You're joking, no?

You do know that such samples require all kinds of documentation for safety reasons? And you think they should go to some random conservative theocrat?

Personally I think this is NOT random mutation but encouraged mutation but that's just me. The thing is even INTELLIGENTLY designed things man has made may make no intellgent sense at all to the casual obeserver not in the same field or simply for not having the intelligence to know what it is or why it is there.

Well, that's the beauty of such magical thinking, you can apply it to anything and everything. I guess the magical think n' poof of the designer caused the mutation, lol. But he only did it once, and refused to repeat it. In the later mutations, he did in once in a trillion.

As I said, con, you could apply this to absolutely anything. It is magical thinking at its worst.

However, if it gives you a fuzzy feeling, nice.

[edit on 5-7-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by Conspiriology


C, you seem a little more mellow today, I hope it lasts.
Let me say this: I have always found science beautiful in its inherent ability to be detached from cultural capriciousness. And I have always been suspect when cultures and religions trying to incorporate discovery into ancient beliefs.
I do have to concede that many scientists today are doing exactly the same thing that they accuse creationists of doing. They are approaching their studies trying to prove an ideological stance.
The main difference however between science and religion, especially when it comes to evolution, is that science is willing to say "I don't know" when it doesn't know. Whereas religion always inserts God when it doesn't know.
Make sense?

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Thing is, what con wants me to do is accept that these mutations could be caused by some supernatural event. And if I don't, I'm showing my bias like a mofo.

Mutations are just changes in chemistry. And so if we want to induce supernatural causation here, we'd ave to apply it just as much to NaOH + HCl ---> NaCl + H20.

Indeed, it would mean that everything considered natural would be actually evidence of supernatural. Crazy situation. I suppose it is just as likely as last-thursdayism, so I'll concede that.

It's very similar to the hole that IDers get themselves into. If the universe is designed, if species are designed. How can we tell design from non-design? As essentially everything is designed. For example, when Paley saw the watch on the ground, how was he able to tell the designed from the designed, heh. As both were grass and watch were supposedly designed.

Crazy thinking. It would mean there is no way to objectively differentiate design from non-design and potentially kills ID as having any chance as a scientific enterprise.


[edit on 5-7-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin


Heh, so mutations now have intentions? A DNA mind?

A neutral mutation is one that has no effect on fitness - not beneficial, not detrimental.

Who said they were mutations? That's what I am talking about mel and how do you know they were neutral? Who are WE to decide what is beneficial and what is detrimental when we have'nt really got a clue?

I'm not saying the DNA has a mind, and I am not going to say it doesn't while it might sound silly to you and far fetched to me the only thing I DO know is that the more we think we know something the slower we find out anything new just taking the breaks of dogmatic thinking off the wheels spinning in our brains.

Schlafly is a dope, sorry, he is. What does he want from Lenski? The e. coli samples? He wants Lenski to send him gut rotting bacteria? Send them to some dope who can't even read the original article correctly, who has no biochemistry training, no equipment to keep the samples, no ability to assess or use the data?

You're joking, no?

You do know that such samples require all kinds of documentation for safety reasons? And you think they should go to some random conservative theocrat?
.

Ha ha you got me mel,, damn you must read everything out there eh.
I was going to say "who said anything about shlafly?" but you got the credit coming where the credit is due.

I sort of expect the harsh criticism about him too,, you do that kind of thing with critics of your position too often to say it hasn't affected your objectivity but you DO surprise me from time to time.

Well, that's the beauty of such magical thinking, you can apply it to anything and everything. I guess the magical think n' poof of the designer caused the mutation, lol. But he only did it once, and refused to repeat it. In the later mutations, he did in once in a trillion.

As I said, con, you could apply this to absolutely anything. It is magical thinking at its worst.

Oh C'mon! Mel! You don't think Science does that every damn time a fake icon of evolution gets discovered or when the fossil record comes up short? Jeeziz man you don't think that is exactly what I am talking about having to listen to new explanations or to be more specific and drop dead cynical, PUNTUATED EQUILIBRIUM?

Ya know at least I admit this stuff about religion the least you could do is hold your sanctimonious toungue. Hell explaining the workings of a one celled amoeba back when Darwin was alive using our current information would have him saying Magic if not for the Magic of an open mind.

Spare me any Dawkins crap about brains falling out if you are going to be cynical from a position of someone who has cob webs in there own.

WE SIMPLY DON'T KNOW and you of all people

should know that

- Con



[edit on 5-7-2008 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by melatonin


I know, and that brings us back to the whole "God of the gaps" thing.
The odd thing is, science has never attempted to disprove the existence of god.
What happened before the big bang? Science has no answer for that, ad it's ok to say I don't know cause we really don't know. A christian might believe in his heart that the big bang was the moment of god's creation, but he doesn't know that.
So much of this evolution/creation argument is incidental. It is more of an internal battle within christian identity trying to reconcile knowledge with faith. The scientist is just the messenger.

[edit on 7/5/2008 by schrodingers dog]

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

I know, and that brings us back to the whole "God of the gaps" thing.
The odd thing is, science has never attempted to disprove the existence of god.

Wrong Shrod and I have seen far too much in the last few years to have my opinion changed just because you think Science is without prejudice, without an agenda and impervious to the corruption they have so often been busted for fudging data to fit theory.

You got a new kind of mind bent on removing GOD and religion from the face of the earth with extreme prejudice and if YOU can't see that then you are either locked up in a dungeon somewhere or you haven't been here very long.

Wasn't the Big Bang Science idea? Ask them what happened to it.

What happened before the big bang? Science has no answer for that, ad it's ok to say I don't know cause we really don't know. A christian might believe in his heart that the big bang was the moment of god's creation, but he doesn't know that.

I think the Big Bang was adopted by Christians at a time when Christians were to naive to think Science was actually on there side and trying to substantiate not WHO God is but merely HOW God makes things happen.

Then when Science changed is ever lying mind and used their angst agression against Christians with the neo atheist in your face anger movement WE WOKE UP!

Once we saw Atheism had an thing to prove then THAT'S when WE started thinking we better get our butts in there and see what the hell they are trying to do. Then we read Hitchens, Dawkins Harris and all the atheists using science NOT to find God, we were'nt even asking them to admit one prove one existed none of that, but the last thing we will do is have anyone saying without a shred of proof and ill repeat that so you GET IT REAL DEEP.

NOT AN IOTA OF PROOF MACRO not MICRO Molecules to an atheist named Tyson or Dick Dawkins has ever come even close to being proven unequivocally. The phylotype bacteria is still the same it is e-coli that apparently isn't as citrate intolerant as you are lactose.

I don't care whether you or anyone else believes in God or not but when you try to come off like science behaves any better than the religious??

That's hilarious

- Con

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Who said they were mutations? That's what I am talking about mel and how do you know they were neutral? Who are WE to decide what is beneficial and what is detrimental when we have'nt really got a clue?

Changes in DNA are called mutations. The DNA changed.

They first was deemed neutral becuase it had minimal effect on fitness. The decision as far as fitness goes is determined by reproductive success. Thus a mutation that reduces ability to reproduce decreases fitness, and vice versa. In the end, the citrates were outcompeting the original e. coli, so therefore the final mutation increased fitness.

Ha ha you got me mel,, damn you must read everything out there eh.
I was going to say "who said anything about shlafly?" but you got the credit coming where the credit is due.

I sort of expect the harsh criticism about him too,, you do that kind of thing with critics of your position too often to say it hasn't affected your objectivity but you DO surprise me from time to time.

Thing is, con, there's no problem people questionning the veracity of these findings. We should do, it's a new study with new data. But I don't think Schlafly is capable of doing so in the way it needs to be done. Lenski was very nice to him to start off with, but Schlafly just couldn't help himself.

Oh C'mon! Mel! You don't think Science does that every damn time a fake icon of evolution gets discovered or when the fossil record comes up short? Jeeziz man you don't think that is exactly what I am talking about having to listen to new explanations or to be more specific and drop dead cynical, PUNTUATED EQUILIBRIUM?

I think it's well-accepted that science is fallible. That it is ongoing work. Lets take a 'fake icon' - Piltdown (only an icon for creationists, of course). Some non-science dude makes a fake. Some poor scientists takes the fossil honestly, thinks he has the next big thing. Other scientists show him to be pushing a fake. There is nothing good for creationists there. It's all scientists doing what they do - checking the veracity of each others claims.

But if you want to claim these mutations are supernaturally caused, you'd need to go further than just the assertion. How? By what mechanism? For what reason?

Why only once? Why not repeat it when the post-doc attempted with the earlier samples? Is the supernatural force just acting random? If so, how do we tell natural random from supernatural random? Are all mutations supernatural? When babies are born with two heads is that supernatural as well?

You can't just make the claim. Substantiate it. We know that mutations are not correlated to the needs of the organism, that's where the random comes in. So why is the supernatural force doing such random mutation, to what end? As I said, it's just chemistry. So is all chemistry supernatural intervention? If not, why not? Why just biochemistry?

It's a can of worms that is useless and vacuous. You can apply to anything, and indeed, people of faith tend to. As one crawls out of a earthquake and thanks god for saving them, whilst thousands have just died and been forsaken by the very same force.

you could do is hold your sanctimonious toungue.

Errm, OK.

WE SIMPLY DON'T KNOW and you of all people

should know that

- Con

Just don't know what? That a supernatural dude is playing with DNA? Intervening in science experiments to allow e. coli to process citrate?

Wouldn't he be better actually trying to bring rain to areas of africa to feed all those hungry bellies? Maybe save another random person from thousands in a natural disaster? Or just grow one leg in an amputee? Or does he prefer to play with science experiments like some Loki.

It's just another empty faith-based assertion. But, again, if it floats ya boat, con. I'm cool with that.

Originally posted by Conspiriology

I don't care whether you or anyone else believes in God or not but when you try to come off like science behaves any better than the religious??

That's hilarious

- Con

It's like you don't even read the post before you start typing. Just a couple of posts ago I said this: "I do have to concede that many scientists today are doing exactly the same thing that they accuse creationists of doing. They are approaching their studies trying to prove an ideological stance."

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
So much of this evolution/creation argument is incidental. It is more of an internal battle within christian identity trying to reconcile knowledge with faith. The scientist is just the messenger.

I think that is generally true. But I fear it is not just christians, but also extends into the political arena for science as a whole, although the overlap is there in the US. 'The republican war on science' is worth a read. However, it can also apply to leftish politics (e.g., communism and Lysencko)

Given that many christians have no issue with evolution at all, I think it is just certain groups. Hopefully they'll catch us all up eventually, but they'll need to lay off the wilfull ignorance.

reply to post by melatonin


Hey, God has a white beard, Darwin has a white beard.
Coinkidinkie?

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Hey, God has a white beard, Darwin has a white beard.
Coinkidinkie?

And so does your avatar. And as some people always tell me, there is no such thing as a coinkidink.

When do I pray? Is Galapagos our mecca? Can I eat Bacon?

Originally posted by melatonin


Thing is, con, there's no problem people questionning the veracity of these findings. We should do, it's a new study with new data. But I don't think Schlafly is capable of doing so in the way it needs to be done. Lenski was very nice to him to start off with, but Schlafly just couldn't help himself.?

Yeah I think you are right about that I kinda got that feeling too reading it. I just don't know the outcome of the letter he wrote to lenski I read it and it seemd very nice but never heard what it was he thought wasn't presented as I am not a Scientist and don't know if there is something missing they would only know about.

But if you want to claim these mutations are supernaturally caused, you'd need to go further than just the assertion. How? By what mechanism? For what reason?

Why only once? Why not repeat it when the post-doc attempted with the earlier samples? Is the supernatural force just acting random? If so, how do we tell natural random from supernatural random? Are all mutations supernatural? When babies are born with two heads is that supernatural as well?

Whoa there Mel I never said anything about supernatural, why is it you have to think I am talking about that? I'm just thinking there seems to be a directive here where "life finds a way" and that is all I'm saying. does there not have to be an intention there and if not then why does it continue ? This isn't to say I agree with the idea this e-coli will evolve into something eventually looking nothing like e-coli but just that e-coli as a life force finds a way to survive.

To suggest that my asking or looking for what is possible isn't saying I am suggesting a supernatural component to the argument, conversely why is it you would think an intelligence aspect of creation, one greater than ours has always got to be supernatural? Seriously, I haven't the foggiest idea what supernatural is other than to say it is what we haven't figured out yet.

It seems everytime we DO figure out many of lifes mystery there are those that think this disproves God ie; "we know how this or that works so it wasn't supernatural after all so God didn't do it nyaa nyaaa".

I wonder sometimes if we are not doing the same thing with this too. We saw it mutate so that means no creator?

The whole idea is out the window just because we can't see life in the grand scheme of things to know why anything lives at all much less know how life tries to survive using methods we discern as mutations.

the whole process can be seen as life trying to solve a problem attempting differen't methods of survival reshuffling DNA till it works and for us to judge that by how it benefitted with you thinking it is just silly to suggest anything super natural is the same as I might think you are silly for thinking the whole process is part of happenstance.

Life seems to know what it's doing by hook or crook, trial and error it seems to have a method of being and somewhere along the way a command given for it to figure out how to survive and it understands the the importance of that. If anything this just demonstrates how resourceful life forms can be but you want me to think this is all unguided but it seems to me it is more un experienced is all, once it has experience it seems to pass that on as a lesson learned.

You can't just make the claim. Substantiate it.

It's a can of worms that is useless and vacuous. You can apply to anything, and indeed, people of faith tend to. As one crawls out of a earthquake and thanks god for saving them, whilst thousands have just died and been forsaken by the very same force.

I see, God isn't being fair there is he lol I mean certainly if God shares his chewing gum with one he has to share it with everyone else he isn't being fair lol. Mel I sure hope you live to know a miracle but more than that, I hope you are humble enough to know it when it happens that a miracle is just what it is and not dismiss it just because it isn't fair or that it can't be explained. God isn't under any obligation to explain to us what we don't understand.

It's just another empty faith-based assertion. But, again, if it floats ya boat, con. I'm cool with that.

Well empty is what you call it when you don't have the capacity to think outside of your finite existence and that is enough to float your boat, as long as we're both afloat,,

I'm cool with that too

- Con

Originally posted by schrodingers dog


It's like you don't even read the post before you start typing. Just a couple of posts ago I said this: "I do have to concede that many scientists today are doing exactly the same thing that they accuse creationists of doing. They are approaching their studies trying to prove an ideological stance."

Oh I read em all right but rather than read mine and see how you contradict yourself, I guess it's easier to just say I missed something when I didn't. YOU said science doesn't try to disprove God when I disagree. Now does that mean I am saying I missed a post or that you missed one of the areas where Science is guilty of doing the same thing creationists are doing in the post made before.

- Con