What to believe, crisis of faith

And which of these rely in the least on ToE to exist. None as far as I can tell.What is specific to population genetics which cannot be explained by microevolution. Please don't mention lab based speciation....

---

"Jesus wept" John 11:35. It's the shortest verse in the Bible. What caused him to weep? Anothers death....

To exist? No, of course not. These things would exist regardless of whether we knew about evolution.But they could not be studied without evolution. There could be no coherent model of population genetics absent the theory of evolution. If you're allowing "microevolution", you've already lost. You've opened the door to all of evolution, because there's no difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution.And what in population genetics cannot be explained without evolution? All of it. The whole thing. There's no coherent way to model population genetics without evolution.There's a reason why evolution is accepted by more than 99% of the world's biological scientists, and creationism is a fringe distraction. Scientists do not turn their backs on theories with significant explaintory and predictive value; especially when there's no superior alternative to turn to.If you're not interested in the factual basis of evolution, well, that's on you. But don't adopt the insulting premise that it doesn't exist. I say insulting because your position asserts that the people who work day after day plumbing the depths of the living world - people close to me, like my wife - are wasting their time. And that's not something I'm inclined to be polite about at 7 in the morning.

God's word is not science. Its a starting point. Gods word cannot be jeopardized for someone who knows him. The discussion can only be (to me) about how he did it. Is the earth young? I don't know. Is the earth old? I don't know. Evolution? I don't know - although I am deeply suspicious of it and argue on the basis of that.God is about knowing God not about getting every aspect of his word spot on. Know God...everything else is a relative side show (albeit a fascinating and deeply rewarding side show)Thanks for the article. Will print and read over a pint when I get a chance for one

---

"Jesus wept" John 11:35. It's the shortest verse in the Bible. What caused him to weep? Anothers death....

http://www.torinfo.com/illusion/illus-1.htmlYour probably familiar with this illusion. Can every data point be explained by "the theory of a beautiful woman"Can the same data be seen in another light.Which is true if both can't be true

---

"Jesus wept" John 11:35. It's the shortest verse in the Bible. What caused him to weep? Anothers death....

Yeah. It's not. Reading problems?If you bear children and abandon them, are they supposed to be grateful to you for the favor? Yeah, I do. But I also balk at human cruelty. And if your god exists, that's what he's abandonded us to - the terror of other people. If you did that with your creations - your children - you'd go to jail. Why is the standard different for God? It's not like right and wrong are different for God; the Bible tells us that we get to judge right and wrong the same way he does. In fact that's almost the first thing the BIble tells us. It's important enough that they put it at the beginning. Marvelous, and a horror.

Oh dear, it seems as though you ignored most of my post to you.Perhaps you wouldn't mind responding to it in full?

quote:

---

Common descent all the way back to........what precisely? Isn't it curious that ToE stops short and assumes a self-replicating life form from which it all cascades. In doing so, does ToE resort to a magical and unknown entity itself?

---

quote:

---

A book of evidence isn't a case Schraf, it's a book of evidence. Don't let a bucketful of assertion fool you into thinking otherwise....

---

And now I will comment on the single question you decided to respond to.

quote:

---

Man wasn't made to die.

---

But people don't always die from brain injury.Their brains are damaged, thus they are impaired.What, did Adam and Eve never trip and fall?Was occasional clumsiness also a result of The Fall?

quote:

---

How exactly that would have worked in practice I've no idea (other design, divine providence?), but sharp ridges on the skull wouln't have mattered.

---

Why not?

quote:

---

Someone capable of instigating life is not going to have their plan thwarted by a sharp ridge.

---

It's God's plan to give people brain damage, then?

quote:

---

When man fell, death came in.

---

Well, no, it didn't.God warned Adam and Eve in Genesis that if they ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and they would die that very day.They didn't (the serpent told the truth).

quote:

---

Man was subject to death and ways to die were necessary too. Did the ridge come in then I don't know. Did divine providence get stayed which would prevent injury, I don't know.

---

Lots of pointless speculation about issues for which you can never provide any evidence.It must be convenient to base your world view upon stuff you basically make up as you go along.Anyway, do you admit that science does, in fact, have evidence-based explanations for all of the items on your list regarding how humans are completely different from animals?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-28-2005 08:43 AM

quote:

---

Never 'eard of it mate

---

Well, then, perhaps you should do some research and learn a thing or three about that which you claim isn't useful nor correct.Bluntly, just who do you think you are, criticizing an entire field of science without having even the basic, rudimentary understanding of it?Stop wallowing in willful ignorance and learn something about the subject, OR do not attempt to criticize that which you know nothing about.

quote:

---

Does it do anything other than support mechanisms and assumptions of ToE - which couldn't been seen as a "practical benefit" of ToE?

---

Um, no, it applies the mechanisms and observations of the Theory of Evolution to make predictions and then test them in order to learn more about how genetics affects populations. wikipedia entryThis message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-28-2005 09:03 AM

iano,In message 206 you said: I pointed out that 1/ actually it does, but 2/ ID, if true, provides us with no information that is practically useful.In message 233 you then say: If discovering that ID is true is "very practical indeed" (despite having no practical use), then evolution must also be "very practical indeed", because according to you it has no practical use.As I have said, you can't have it both ways. But as has been pointed out, evolution does have practical & predictive uses, & ID doesn't. The reality is the opposite of your original notion.Message 244 (your last) was a complete non sequitur as regards the point I made.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 09-28-2005 09:13 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

quote:

---

discussion can only be (to me) about how he did it. Is the earth young? I don't know. Is the earth old? I don't know. Evolution? I don't know - although I am deeply suspicious of it and argue on the basis of that.

---

Instead of arguing upon the basis of your personal gut feelings, why not try arguing upon the basis of evidence?"Gee, this sounds wrong to me, even though I don't have any idea of what I'm talking about" is not a very firm base to be standing upon when discussing the validity of scientific theories.But why are you doubtful and suspicious?Why do you mistrust some established, extremely well-supported science at the same time you completely trust other science, even though the former used the very same method of inquiry as the latter to reach it's current findings and conclusions?Do you "not know" if the sun is at the center of our solar system?Do you "not know" if matter is made up of atoms?Do you "not know" that disease can be caused by germs?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-28-2005 09:28 AM

Care to explain how this is so? White-man-to-yellow-man is not different than ant-to-antelope? Care to back this up? A good number of your peers say it is incorrect to say evolution is fact. I agree. It is not fact. It is a theory. Consider the "theory of a beautiful woman" below. All the factual data supports the theory. But the hag shows that the theory isn't fact.http://www.torinfo.com/illusion/illus-1.html

---

"Jesus wept" John 11:35. It's the shortest verse in the Bible. What caused him to weep? Anothers death....

I would say evolution is a FACT. The Theory of Evolution, the mechanics of how it happened, are Theory.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Nobody seriously suggests that ants evolved into antelopes. The claim is that there was an early species that was ancestor to ants, and that was also ancestor to antelopes. This early ancestor was likely a species of single-celled creatures. Biologists will sometimes talk about "the fact of evolution" and "the theory of evolution". These are two different things. That there is a theory of evolution, does not contradict that there are facts.A better distinction for you to make would be between directly observed facts, and inferred facts. The major disagreement is over the inferred facts, with YECs not accepting the inference.

You would say it, but saying something doesn't make it fact. In order to demonstrate it as being fact as opposed to asserting it you would in no short order return to ToE. You would point to demonstrable facts eg: fossils which in and of themselves say nothing about evolution without the theory to arrange them in an evolutionary fashion.

---

"Jesus wept" John 11:35. It's the shortest verse in the Bible. What caused him to weep? Anothers death....

Figure of speech "ants to antelopes". Point being that microevolution and macroevolution are not the same thing. not least Microevolution can be seen to happen - objective. Macroevolution can't - Theory. I'm aware of the distinction. I was pointing out the difference to crashfrog who said evolution is fact. If he had said "evolution is an inferred fact (which may be wrong) instead of facts (which are usually not) then there would be no issue with me.Still wondering about Population Genetics. Is there any practical use other than internally to ToE (ie: to explain ToE) and if so can it be explained using microevolution which is obeservable and thus is not being contended here as being ToEThis message has been edited by iano, 29-Sep-2005 03:07 PM

---

"Jesus wept" John 11:35. It's the shortest verse in the Bible. What caused him to weep? Anothers death....