Ken Miller's response was more than adequate. The evidence for evolution can be found in numerous journals, books and other scientific sources (including answers to many of your 'evolutionary' questions). Evolution can be observed in the lab and in the field. That is part of the reason that it is not under scientific debate. For other questions in evolution, there are not any answers (yet). For abiogenesis, there are no clear cut answers, but people are thinking and testing ideas of how life got started. Basically, you are faulting science for not answering everything and rejecting out-of-hand the evidence that has been presented for evolution. No one can stop you from closing your eyes, ears and mind to the evidence. No one can stop you from posting this same 'challenge' on every discussion board you can find. Mostly, no one can stop you from pretending your 'challenge' disproves evolution as a science. What we can do, is ask you to study the literature and come back with a scientifically publishable refutation of that evidence. Chat board challenges such as these are limited in their utility (for either side). I'm surprised Ken Miller gave you that long of an answer since I am sure he knew you would reject anything he said anyway!
[QUOTE]Originally posted by degreed: [B]Actually, Jeff, his point has some validity. Most evolutionists that get backed into a corner by someone with a really good scientific background end up going in the direction of naturalism; that is, that true science shouldn't even consider theories that aren't purely naturalistic in nature.[/QUOTE]
JM: Can you give an example of this happening? Actually, the point is moot anyway since science cannot, by definition, call on purely supernatural explanations. If science falls back on this 'supernatural methodology' then it will cease to function since all tough problems can be solved by goddidit and nothing more is needed. However, in a broader philosophical sense, some scientists can an do attribute the original creation to God and, with their philosopher's hats on, their work tells them that if godidit, then he didit using evolution on an old earth.
quote: If an evolutionist is at least open to the possibility of creation, and is willing to let the testable, objective data show us the way, then we don't need to talk about background radiation.
JM: As noted above, many evolutionists do indeed think God didit through evolution. However, notions of God cannot be tested in the lab. How would one falsify God?
quote: If we have to go back further to remind ourselves that current naturalistic explanations provide very poor alternatives to the initial creation event, then phillip's point is timely...
JM: Except the naturalistic explanations have done very well.
"--Relativistic science phenomenon (which ‘appear’ supernatural compared to mere Newtonian ‘laws’) invalidates many dating techniques of ‘the history of the earth’, specifically many radiometric ones."
quote:Originally posted by TrueCreation: "JM: Oh really? How so?" --I think that he is attempting to imply that because of inconsistancies and the mobility of radioisotopes as well as other factors, radiometrics are invalid. Of course however, as I stated earlier, I would disagree with this assertion if it were not expanded on. That is, if a little more specifics and detail were not taken into consideration. Though I would agree as to where this assertion is going.
JM: Could you rephrase that in English and with some specifics to back it up?
Theoretical musings on past unobserved & untestable events are fine and dandy but they don't build bridges, they don't put men on the moon, they don't cure diseases, they don't bring good things to life, and they don't add anything to the advancement of science or mankind.
JM: Oops, JP slips up again during his rants. Let's consider some of these claims:
1. They don't build bridges---they most certainly do! Geologists 'muse' over the best locations to find oil and that oil is used during the construction of brdiges, ditto for the location of other materials.
2. They don't put men on the moon--they most certainly do! See above also please note that some of the materials used to build the Apollo spacecraft were based on geologists musing over the best locations to mine the elements based on past unobservable events.
3.they don't cure diseases---they most certainly do! Musings on the germ theory of illness presented medicine with the opportunity to develop new cures for diseases. Geologists also discovered many of the materials used in the treatment of disease using musings about past events on an old planet. Geologists also muse on how contaminants moved through groundwater and identify regions that could possibly cause disease. So not only do random musings cure disease, they also prevent it!
4. They don't add to the advancement of manking- This is easily one of the most absurd statements I've ever read anywhere. I must say, your hatred of science has completely blinded you and I find it hard to believe that a real engineer would say something so patently absurd and false.