Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.

How does a lack of a known natural mechanism indicate that the supernatural was responsible?

Well if there is no natural mechanism and something exists, can one not consider a supernatural?I see on this board a resistance to think about philsophy or any other discplines other than natural science. There are other ways to solve problems and reach conclusions besides science.

Any evidence for this?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

No, one cannot.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

No known mechanism. How do you distinguish between a situation where there really is no natural mechanism and a situation where there is a natural mechanism, but you simply don't know of it?How do we tell between when we have reached the limits of what is possible and when we have merely reached the limits of our understanding? That's because science works. What do you suggest we put in its place? Armchair philosophising? Having a really hard think about something? Reaching for answers from tomes of myth? Inserting comforting fictions into the gaps in our knowledge?Forgive us if the rest of us stick with science.Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

That is really a silly answer. I have presented what I believe are problems with Darwinian & neo-Darwinian theory that were raised by scientists, and you just want to say, produce proof of God. I have already stated I can't produce God.By the way Anthony Flew was probaobly the first spokesman for atheism, adored and glorfied by Dawkins and Dennett. When he follows the evidence he is just an old man.
Philosophy is, if you didn't know, a very respected and productive discpline that has enriched many men and womens lives.
Take a little time to read some Philosophy, broaden your horizons.

Democracy comes to mind.

Do you have proof for that statement?

The problem is you belileve science is the answer to everything. There are other ways to solve problems. I know some on this board rely on Psychology.

LOLAs if I have not read philosophy, and yes, philosophy is often fun; so is fantasy.The issue is evolution though, and we are dealing with science. That has absolutely nothing to do with God or Christianity. To introduce religious beliefs is simply irrelevant,

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Of course and you have even explained why we cannot speculate on the supernatural; it is simply a waste of time and and end to learning. You have said you cannot produce God and that you have no model of how the supernatural intervenes in the process.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I'll be the judge of what I believe thank you! In fact, I don't believe that. What I do believe is that in trying to find answers to questions about matters of objective reality, there exists only one discipline with a proven track record of success; science. To answer questions about the real world we need to empirical observations. We need a rigorous logical approach to understanding those observations. That's what science is. It's simply the most effective way of answering questions about the real world. Yes, but not every way of reaching answers is appropriate for every question.Do you prefer the Beatles, shadow, or the Rolling Stones? Now that is a question of aesthetic merit, an entirely subjective question. You can appropriately reach an answer by just mulling it over and deciding upon whichever conclusion most pleases you. No-one can say you are wrong.But the question of the origins of Eukaryotes is not a subjective question. It is not a matter of personal taste, nor democracy, nor psychology. It is a matter of objective fact.All we can do is to try, as best we can, to reach an answer that approximates the truth as closely as possible. Sometimes we may be fortunate enough to hit upon exactly the right answer. Other times, the answers may be obscure. What we should never be willing to do though, is to give up looking.I believe that in resorting to a comforting supernatural explanation (in your case, the Christian God), you have stopped honestly seeking answers. You are allowing yourself to engage in a from of self-deception, one that seems like it is providing you with answers but in reality, is just an exercise in fantasy. You are never going to arrive at an answer by surrendering to ignorance with God-of-the-gaps arguments.Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

The discussion is about evolution not politics. Also, democracy is a subset of political science. Your comment was an implication that something counter to science could be used to solve problem and reach conclusions.Science and Democracy are not similar things. You do not seem to be too confident in your arguments if this is the best you can come up with.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Point of order: Psychology is a science. One of the mandatory courses in a psycholgy degree is the philosophy and practice of the scientific method. How else donyou think we do our experiments?It's science all the way.

No disrepect meant Larni. That was an inside joke. On another message post Granny diagnosed me with cognitive dissonance.