How can Biologists believe in the ToE?

I've seen this argument before.Only then it was intended as a parody of creationism, produced by the reDiscovery Institute.Poe's Law strikes again.

Why would you say that? Your claim of "not over 65%" seems to be untrue, so where did you get your figures from? Again, I should like to know what you are basing this claim on.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Because you can't be both without compromise. Then you are not really an IDist, because your creationist views will always limit and corrupt your ID views. You will fail to take ID to it's logical conclusions.For instance an IDesigner that creates the universe 13.7 billion ago and leaves it to operate based on set universal laws does not invalidate cosmology, astronomy, physics, geology, paleontology, or evolution, but it conflicts with creationism.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

quote:

---

I think real science is done on both sides

---

As others have said, I'd like to see some.

While at the same being the catalyst for such fun ideas as Communism. After all, Hitler was only helping Evolution along by destroying the weaker sub classes of human beings.

---

If those WMD that don't exist were easier to identify and handled properly, then this would not have occurred.

That's pretty good, Tal. You should put that in your signature.-Anyway, there are three problems with your statement:(1) It's not true.(2) It's not the topic of the thread.(3) And even if it were true, it would have nothing to do with whether evolution is the correct description of the history of life on earth, which can only be determined by the physical evidence in geology and biology, not the ideologies of particular movements in history.

---

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

I hereby invoke Godwin's law and declare Tal the loser of debate on this thread.Excellent work all around.

I would have to say he was simply invoking rule #5 of "how to win any argument" Compare your opponent to Adolf Hitler. Clearly tal is the winner.

So, Tal, are you going to address the OP, or are you going to continue to proclaim that evolution is false while sidestepping the problem of all those incompetent scientists and all those "impossible" successful predictions and that worldwide conspiracy to deceive the public?Just to reiterate the issue you should address, this is from the OP: Edited by nator, : No reason given.

You know that Stalin banned the ToE, right?And that in the real world, as opposed to the Planet of Creationist Fantasy, the Communist Manifesto was published 11 years before the Origin of Species? Ah, the Hitler-evolution lie. I don't think the creationists realise how much they're cutting their own throats with this one --- it's so easy to prove that they're lying, and it's such a dirty lie --- so it's easy to show them up for what they are."The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator." - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)"For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x"From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today." - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)"The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. xi"Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of God among His creatures would sin against the bountiful Creator of this marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol ii, ch. i"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them." - Adolf Hitler, speech, April 12 1922, published in My New OrderEdited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Is that no such thing exists - actually. It's greatness lies in mankind's will and innovation to fathom the hidden. Here, evolution is an intelligent means to jump the inexplicable and form a bridge to a new desired point, where the unfathomable hidden does not impact or inhibit. There are no options here than what is pursued - mankind is following what is blatantly dangling before it - and its rejecters are not satisfied with what is placed on the table, because it lacks the fathomless hidden source points.Evolution is an improvised 'process' - which starts post-source point; it is not an answer to the universe origins, and thus not a confrontation with Creationism. The source points are elusive to all equally.Belief in ToE is limited to belief in a process. The problem here is, when the process is measured by pointing it backwards - towards an origin point - a brick wall is confronted - or worse, namely the contrived non-science of Randomity is proposed. This escapism is also not a choice factor - because there is no leaping possible over the brick wall treshold. The issue is far more holistic than science or religion can deal with.IMHO, before venturing any explanations about evolution or creationism, which one is believable or more evidenced, one has to establish a preamble: this is the only way one can agree or disagree with certain provisions. And here, science, maths and religion are of no impact whatsoever. The preamble has to say, at least, whether the discussion relies on the universe being:1. INFINITE OR FINITE.The above is a far impacting issue, and either validates or invalidates many of sciences' fundamental premises in expounding anything about the universe structures. My choice is the universe is FINITE - meaning this includes any notion of pre-universe scenarios, and that all the universe components are likewise finite. I say it is finite because this is the only legitimate conclusion when it is correctly considered: the uni is expanding - which denotes a 'change', which in turn denotes the antithesis if infinity.2. RANDOM OR COMPLEX.One can either see the universe as emerging from a stray particle impacted by certain forces, and going BOOM! This is fine, but it is far less scientific than Creationism. I select the non-random preference because of the factor of INTERGRATION. If one holds that the universal works are intergrated - it assumes a transcendent control factor over the subservent works, making the random factor non plausable. Whether a random origin is conducive to infinity or finity is an enlightening debate, but hardly seen in most discussions!3. CAUSE AND EFFECT.The issue here is, whether this understanding ceases when referring to an ultimate source point - or that it remains a pivotal operative factor. It does not depend on the identification of a cause, which may be beyond humanity's ability to fathom; only the sound premise applies here.4. Judgement Criteria.I would not select science, math or history in determining the universe origins, but logic - namely a philosophical thought as the guiding factor here. Science and maths is limited to our current state of knowledge, and may be only applicable for post-origin components of the universe. A ruler needs an appropriate ruling entity to rule upon - and we have no idea what applies pre-universe or at an origin point. Here, based on time being finite subsequent to finite universe, it cannot be the instrument which can measure a scenario before the universe, where matter, maths, gravity, energy, forces, science, religions - or anything which is post universe, would not apply. This is based on (1) of the preamble: namely in a finite universe, all its components are finite.What's YOUR preamble?Edited by IamJoseph, : spell

Now that you've had your little rant, how about addressing the topic? (see Message 1)Enjoy.

Do you really think that the hundreds of thousands of scientists who have been advancing our understanding Biology over the last 150 years at the most astonishing pace have all just been deluded? Since several of the main occupations of scientists are critically examining theory and trying to falsify hypotheses, are you also accusing all of those Biologists of being so poor at doing science that they have, to a person, missed the fact that the overarching, foundational theory that underpins all Biology is completely false?

No, I did'nt say that. But if one does not state the criteria they are alligning with and to (the preamble), they risk their conclusion being directed by their findings (which is back to front), and look for bytes that fit. The issue of a biologist alligning ToE with a finite universe - is at polar extremities of the determinations derived of a infinite one. Two different animals here.IOW, is your evolution the same when based on a finite universe? - do all the component pieces fit the big pic? Negative! That is my point. If the preamble says pigs don't fly - you can take me to task if I say I saw a pig flying.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

and lacks evidence. Good point, but you need to talk to the other side. No, the problem is when people try to say that evolution is about 'origins' when it is nothing of the sort. ToE is not about the origin of life or the universe. Is that an adequate place to start?The Universe according to ToE:1- Infinite or Finite - Does not matter, may have an impact on the future of evolution if its finite and drawing to a close.2- Random or Complex - Impacts the origins of the universe: not part of the Theory of Evolution. Odd idea, but I have heard worse. I prefer Big Bang, no stray particles nessesary.3- Cause and Effect - You are once again talking about the origin of the universe and not covered by ToE.4- Judgement Criteria - From what I understand about T=0 philosophical ideas are all that applies. I agree with you but still maintain that ToE does not cover this topic. I agree based on what I understand of the topic. My preliminary statement to your post would be - you do not understand what the Theory of Evolution is about. If you wanted to talk about pre-Big Bang I think you just made a pretty good case.Edited by Vacate, : Formatting