Discussing "29 evidences..."

JohnPaul:

quote:

---

I don't know how many times I have to 'splain this to you- I cite Behe because, as he says, there is no substantiating evidence that some systems (and I add life itself) is the product of purely natural processes.

---

No conclusion can be made, and no assertion is supported, from a *lack* of evidence, and several people have tried to explain this to you already.You need to provide POSITIVE, CONFIRMING EVIDENCE to make a conclusion, and Behe doesn't do this, and neither do you.All Behe has done is point to gaps in our knowledge and said, "See? we don't understand the specifics this, and that means that it couldn't have come about by natural means. It is impossible to come about by natural means."All it takes to refute the argument is science showing that such systems could have come about by natural means. It is *possible*, therefore it is no longer *IMpossible*.

Why don't you tell me, my dear, dear John Paul, what you would accept as confirming evidence for common descent and the ToE?You ask for evidence.It is supplied to you, often complete with full bibliographic citations to the actual experiments.You eiter do not respond at all, change the topic of discussion, produce something brilliant like "That doesn't happen." or say something like "Oh yeah, well why don't trees evolve into anything else but trees?", as if that is some kind of valid criticism of the ToE, which it isn't.So, please, tell us what would qualify as positive evidence for you.Remember, you must stay within the Theory of Evolution, unless you have positive evidence for this as-of-yet unseen "Scientific Theory of Creation, or Scientific Theory of ID.Lack of evidence for the ToE doesn NOT constitute positive evoidence for any other theory or notion, including Creation "science".

I need to go to bed, so I will only respond to one point.

quote:

---

JP: But the amount of evidence lacking to substantiate today's ToE relegates it to a 'belief' system- ie a religion.

---

So what? Even if the ToE didn't even exist, it still would not constitute positive evidence for the Biblical version of things.The ToE could be completely falsified tomorrow, and it wouldn't make Creationism correct. Not even a little bit. That's because creationism isn't science.You are operating under this strange idea that the logical alternative to the ToE is your particular stripe of Creationism.

I would also like to point out, John Paul, that you have just demonstrated the classic Creationist tactic of playing both sides of the fence.You attempt to use a lot of science, (Biology, Geology) to support your claims, but then you turn right around and say that Biology is religion anyway and not science at all!You can't have it both ways, you know. You can't try to use science that you do like to validate your religious views, and then say that the science you don't like isn't science at all, but religion.

quote:

---

A real test would be to show that a single-celled organism can evolve into something other than a single-celled organism. Or how about a reptile evolving into a mammal?

---

Evidence for reptile to mammal evolution? Sure, here you go.The fossil evidence of gradual modification of the reptilian jaw bones to mammalian ear bones is quite good, for just one line of evidence.http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htmThe fossil evidence is just one major line of converging evidence. Another is genetic- phylogenetic trees derived from genetics methods match the trees derived from fossil evidence. The patterns of inheritance inferred from the fossils is seen in the genes. Evolution explains this. Creationism - which denies genetic relation between, for example, mammals and reptiles - has no explanation for this whatsoever.