Hello

Hello.Why don't you describe yourself and position to us?The typical stuff... atheist/theist, creationist/evolutionist?What are you most and least knowledgeable about?

Me too I know more physics and chemistry than biology. I've got a good grasp of the Theory of Evolution. I like the cosmology stuff too, Big Bang, Inflation, etc.I've been through Genesis a lot. The Flood. The Synoptic Gospels. Some of Leviticus. I'm lacking on the history.How's your Bible knowledge? Where do you lack knowledge the most, in general? I have a BS in Materials Science & Engineering. Pretty much. Thanks!Are you Christian? Which denomination?Where are you lacking?

We have a theoretical physicist that posts here as cavediver, he's posted some really helpful explanations. Check him out. You should come in handy in the Bible debates. Makes sense. No reason to argue that here, although, how many Catholics do you think hold "much stock" From Message 11: Ooh... Sounds like somebody's been reading too much creationist literature That's not a position you'll arrive at from reading the biology.There's nothing preventing a bunch of micros from resulting in a macro. Its pretty much a fact that one species can evolve into another.I wrote up a post near that subject, Theropods and Birds showing a change in kinds, take a look and reply there. All of science is based on methodological naturalism. Evolutionary Theory isn't based on a philosophy of naturalism and more than, say, chemistry acid/base titrations. We don't look for God in the test tube, so why look for him behind the genes?I'm not sure of any threads discussing that one that I can refer you to. Maybe somewhat in some places, but not in general. I doubt anything with a consensus has gone outside the boudaries. Evolution certainly hasn't. Supernatural... by science's nature of being methodological naturalism, everything it can study is by definition natural. Something truely supernatural must be excluded from science and if it ain't, then it ain't supernatural. If something you hold as supernatural does end up being studied by science, then that would mean that it really was natural the whole time.I think the word paranormal works better when discussing the things that I think you are referring to. To which the philisophical naturalist would find no use in studying. But oh well, its his loss. Perhaps. That diversity of life on Earth has certainly been answered. Outside of that, the Theory of Evolution doesn't apply. I think you'll find that the misleading isn't really by the scientists, but by the creationists in saying that the scientists are misleading.You can always just propose a new topic on any one of these issues and you'll probably have plenty of people chiming in to straighten you out.Have fun.

A lot? Like what, in general in your own words? Just one. Its always a good ideo to provide links when you quote outside material. I found the article here:The mutation matrix and the evolution of evolvability - PubMed I didn't quite get that from the article. Can you explain in your own words how the article says that? What is the limit? How is it based on genetic information available? Well I'm not going to go through all those here. Some of them can be explained, some of them I don't know about.But a currently unexplained phenomenon doesn't falsify the theory, nor is any of those showing how a bunch of micros are prevented from being a macro. Like what? Sure, but even the Theory of Evolution does not say that god has nothing to do with it. How so? Well I haven't seen any of it. Supernatural implies that there can never be a scientific explanation while paranormal allows for one to be discovered in the future. Philisophical Naturalism is an idea. It deals with ontology, what exists and what doesn't. Methodological Naturalism is a process. It deals with epistemology, how can we acquire knowledge about the world. They are not the same thing.Applying Methodological Naturalism is not assuming Philisophical Naturalism. That's why I can perform chemistry expirements without considering whether god is in the test tube or not all the while taking no position on god's existence. The same goes with the Theory of Evolution... seeking a natural explanation for the diversity of life on Earth is not saying that god had no role whatsoever. Give me just one example of something that falsifies the Theory of Evolution. Please.

He's under no obligation to reply. I'm just trying to get a better idea where he stands. Just curious.

Oh... yeah, I didn't get that either.But, c'mon... Its Moose!