Creation vs. Evolution

[Hedshaker]

Religion at it's core is the pursuit of values. many non religious people can have values that are just as unprovable in the math lab. Consciousness is a transcendent reality. Love, morality and other types of values are super-material.

Religion is not required for the pursuit of values nor does it require any lab testing. The idea of values vary between people. We don't all value the same things.

"Consciousness is a transcendent" is a pretty vague term. Transcendent to what, exactly? And does the transcendent have a transcendent? If not why not. And how could anyone know since we don't even know what a transcendent is?

Love, morality and other types of values are exactly what they are. You can hang "super-material" in there as your own personal description if you want but it doesn't change any thing, does it?

Why not just start with what we have and go from there. What we have is especially fascinating, not because it was designed, but exactly because it very clearly wasn't designed. The mystery is what drives science. From that perspective we can study it and learn more about how it works. We cannot study how a God may have done it but we can make unsubstantiated claims that, what is learned through science, is the way the creator did it. That view is a personal belief that one can leave or take, but it doesn't change anything about the data itself, nor is it included as part of the evidence. In fact, I believe the study of the natural world, to be infinitely more interesting without it. The gaps grow ever smaller, IMO. And that's not a bad thing.

The faith part of our brain develops concept frames in which to think. It's our story of the meaning of life, our philosophy. Some people crave security so they are willing to suspend what seems like common sense to another person.

Even common sense can be deceptive. Many times what stares us in the face turns out to be totally wrong. There's nothing wrong with a little faith within reason but it's a bit like alcohol. Ok when kept in check but too much..... and, well..... just read these boards. QED

 

[Lon]

I've done that a number of times on this thread. Here are a few posts you can read through...

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4602609&postcount=16465

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4606148&postcount=16505

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4601637&postcount=16459



You're dodging. Again, where in any published scientific paper do they write "Evolution did it"?



Then explain how you would know which genomes to compare, what to look for in the genomes, and how to make sense of what you find with absolutely no understanding of the relative evolutionary relatedness of different taxa, or evolutionary mechanisms.

"Prior" "developed from" "similar/same" And yes, simply saying "evolution" certainly is "evolution-did-it."

You're not making the slightest bit of sense.

From thread to thread, you trade off seriousness for mockery. It often makes any discussion with you pointless because I never know which will rear its head. It most often reminds me I waste my time. I'm not always looking for response any more with you. Think of them more as in thread commentary in your case, we can largely ignore each other.

Honestly, no one cares.

Overstated trash talk. Most anybody can do science. They may not work for NASA. You don't strike me as the NASA type.

And the scientists who actually do the work say the opposite. So why do you think anyone would ever take your baseless say-so over the evidence-based work of actual geneticists?

Unlike you, I'm not trash talking: I don't care what you do. If science would like to get away from arguments with Creationists, they 'could' follow this simple advice. If they don't care, I don't either. It isn't huge on my list. You frequent these threads, I don't.

Your cluelessness is noted.

Oh, I knew it was a faux pas, but I thought perhaps the leopard would change spots if I gave you benefit. Forgive me for thinking you might be humane enough to accept a laurel. That you are graceless? Not really questioned on this side over the matter.
Your sig, your demeanor, your own inept but strangely high opinion of your arrogant self? Yeah, you are a horrible specimen of a kind human being.
Love lost? Yep, you could have taken it. I regret talking to you most times.

See ya later Jose

-Lon

 

[6days]

In several recent posts you have spoken of the “great universities” that we now have. Of the top-rated universities in the field of biology, which ones would side with you in the claim you just made?

Context... someone implied that belief in the Creator had not made any contributions to our world.
I said that great music, art, hospitals, universities and even modern science were the result of Christianity and people who believed in tbe Biblical Creator.

 

[6days]

Perhaps studying things from the past is not science to you, but that just means you are defining science differently than any scientist I know of.

We agree that studying things from the past is science. An atheist and a Biblical creationist can both perform emperical science examining a fossil. However their conclusions are based on apriori beliefs.

*it is not only reasonable but very likely that no donkey or snake has ever conversed in human speech.

We agree. Although I don't know for certain, I don't think it was the donkey or the snake doing the "conversing".

But yes the evidence does support a supernatural creation.

If we focus on creation in three levels – first, science has a pretty good handle on what we think the universe was like few seconds after the big bang.*

The big bang itself is such a unique event that there is still a lot of work to be done to be comfortable that science has an accurate understanding.

Special creation is also such a unique event. Since we don't have a time machiine to observe Big Bang, or special creation, we need to rely on logic to see which belief system better fits the evidence.*


It appears that the universe is designed....the result of intelligence. You deny that truth. Like Carl Sagan said, "Better by far to embrace the hard truth than a reassuring fable".

Second, we have a much better handle on the major processes in star and planet formation. Oodles and oodles of technical papers and astrophysical studies dealing with that subject.

What you have is a belief system that tries to deny our universe appears designed. Carl Sagan demonstrates how he interpreted evidence of the universe through his religion... not through science and logic. He said "The cosmos is all there is, or was, or ever will be". Not only doea it show atheism is a religion...but his statement is factually wrong.

*And thirdly, the formation of life itself? Again that probably occurred on earth is some localized region that likely has been destroyed by tectonic activity billions of years ago, and would leave almost no trace in the geology in its earliest phases. Lots of studies working on how the jump from raw elements to the first reproducing life form might have happened.

Those studies you refer to demonstrate the sophistication and complexity required for life. Science is revealing design, purpose and functionality... evidence of our Creator. (I highlighlighted the blind faith words in your comments)

 

[6days]

We have talked earlier in this thread about the fact that in the Western world several centuries back much of science was patterned on the Genesis story, simply because science was still very much in its infancy.

Nope.... I think what was said is that modern science was largely founded by Bible believing Christians. Many did accept Geneais as literal history...but science modern science was founded on the belief that God created an orderly universe and discoveries could be made because of that. They believed that if God's Word was true, then our universe had a beginning, and that time was finite. (An absolute beginning, and finite time as told in the Bible is far different than other ancient literature)

Etc...

 

[Jose Fly]

"Prior" "developed from" "similar/same" And yes, simply saying "evolution" certainly is "evolution-did-it."

If that's all you took from the research, I'll let it speak for itself.

From thread to thread, you trade off seriousness for mockery. It often makes any discussion with you pointless because I never know which will rear its head.

Here's a tip...if you take the discussion seriously, I will too. And the above, "saying "evolution" certainly "is evolution-did-it"" is hardly an indication that you take this at all seriously.

If you want a serious discussion of this area of research, then let's do it. First thing you need to do is read the work closely, understand it, and come back with something more substantive than mindless hand-waving, like you did above.

Unlike you, I'm not trash talking: I don't care what you do. If science would like to get away from arguments with Creationists, they 'could' follow this simple advice. If they don't care, I don't either. It isn't huge on my list. You frequent these threads, I don't.

You dodged the question. Again, why should anyone take your baseless say-so about genetic research over the evidence-based statements from the geneticists who actually did the work?

 

[6days]

Would Galileo likewise turn his back on (scripture) if he lived today? I don’t know...

We don't know. But like Biblical creationist scientists today, he had intense pressure to compromise and he didn't

 

[Caino]

Religion is not required for the pursuit of values nor does it require any lab testing. The idea of values vary between people. We don't all value the same things.

"Consciousness is a transcendent" is a pretty vague term. Transcendent to what, exactly? And does the transcendent have a transcendent? If not why not. And how could anyone know since we don't even know what a transcendent is?

Love, morality and other types of values are exactly what they are. You can hang "super-material" in there as your own personal description if you want but it doesn't change any thing, does it?

Why not just start with what we have and go from there. What we have is especially fascinating, not because it was designed, but exactly because it very clearly wasn't designed. The mystery is what drives science. From that perspective we can study it and learn more about how it works. We cannot study how a God may have done it but we can make unsubstantiated claims that, what is learned through science, is the way the creator did it. That view is a personal belief that one can leave or take, but it doesn't change anything about the data itself, nor is it included as part of the evidence. In fact, I believe the study of the natural world, to be infinitely more interesting without it. The gaps grow ever smaller, IMO. And that's not a bad thing.




Even common sense can be deceptive. Many times what stares us in the face turns out to be totally wrong. There's nothing wrong with a little faith within reason but it's a bit like alcohol. Ok when kept in check but too much..... and, well..... just read these boards. QED

Values and morals are trancendant realities perceivable by mind. They are more than material, carbon mind. Consciousness is more than mind, personality is more than mind.

 

[DavisBJ]

6days, did you know that Joshua Lederburg collaborated with Carl Sagan?

6days, did you know that Joshua Lederburg collaborated with Carl Sagan?

… As biologist Joshua Lederburg said in Science magazine "What is incontrovertable is that a religious impulse guides our motives in sustaining scientific inquiry" (Article- Science and God: a warming trend. Aug 97)

I agree with that statement, and it’s especially true when talking about origins.

Hmm, “when talking about origins”, huh? I wonder if you actually read that article, or if someone made you aware of that quote, and so you used it. I have the article. I read it. Carefully. If indeed you read it carefully, then extracting that quote while ignoring the point of the full article is a classic demonstration of intellectual dishonesty. Every time that article mentions creationism, it does so in the context of creationism being a major contributor to the conflict between science and religion. Most of the article is discussing efforts towards conciliation between science and religion, but nowhere does it even hint that Genesis is to be read literally.

Here are a few extracts from the article pertaining to core concepts in mainstream science:

*** mainstream Protestant denominations and most of Judaism and Islam long ago stopped making claims such as Earth was only recently created
*** some theologians are warming to the big-bang theory
*** “flood” creationism, which attempts to deny both evolution and the basic findings of geology, is preached only by a few subsets of the monotheist denominations
*** Evolutionary biology can explain adaptation and descent
*** I am unaware of any irreconcilable conflict between scientific knowledge about evolution and the idea of a creator God
*** the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life—such as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-lived stars​

Here are a few extracts from the article pertaining to creationism:

*** Catholicism … is today conservative but not creationist
*** Creationism is an incredible pain in the neck, neither honest nor useful
*** the people who advocate (creationism) have no idea how much damage they are doing to the credibility of belief
*** the political wing of American creationism generates noise well out of proportion to its numbers
*** creationists … attempts to force their doctrine upon schools
*** (creationism’s) most damaging effect may be to make belief in higher purpose appear antirational
*** because of the creationists the standard assumption is that anyone who has faith has gone soft in the head​

So, you picked one narrow quote that you liked out of the middle of a mass of ideas that are diametrically opposed to your creationist views. Not surprising, since you are an advocate of creationism, which as the article said, is “neither honest nor useful.”

 

[Hedshaker]

Values and morals are trancendant realities perceivable by mind. They are more than material, carbon mind. Consciousness is more than mind, personality is more than mind.

If making bald assertions somehow enhances your faith then good for you, but remember, assertions made without evidence can just as easily be dismissed without evidence.

The idea that folks should believe everything you say just because you say it is sadly mistaken. I don't buy it any more than I buy into internet scams, and I reckon I'm far from alone. But I ask again, does this transcendent also have a transcendent? I guess you can have as many transcendents as you want. Why not?

 

[DavisBJ]

The cancer called "creationism"

The cancer called "creationism"

Context... someone implied that belief in the Creator had not made any contributions to our world.
I said that great music, art, hospitals, universities and even modern science were the result of Christianity and people who believed in tbe Biblical Creator.

I focused in on one exact direct quote from what you said. I understand if you want to dodge answering my question, since your refusal to stand behind what you said is a clear demonstration of why creationism is an ugly disease within Christianity.

Once more, here is exactly what you said, followed by the question I asked that you refuse to face:

The "idea" of common descent is not emperical, testable observable science. It’s a religious "idea" - a belief about the past. …

In several recent posts you have spoken of the “great universities” that we now have. Of the top-rated universities in the field of biology, which ones would side with you in the claim you just made?

 

[6days]

..a classic demonstration of intellectual dishonesty....nowhere does it even hint that Genesis is to be read literally.

I suppose we can both accuse each other of dishonesty and not reading carefully. I didn't even come close to implying the article (from an evolutionist) suggested reading Genesis literally.*

 

[Jose Fly]

Hmm, “when talking about origins”, huh? I wonder if you actually read that article, or if someone made you aware of that quote, and so you used it. I have the article. I read it. Carefully. If indeed you read it carefully, then extracting that quote while ignoring the point of the full article is a classic demonstration of intellectual dishonesty. Every time that article mentions creationism, it does so in the context of creationism being a major contributor to the conflict between science and religion. Most of the article is discussing efforts towards conciliation between science and religion, but nowhere does it even hint that Genesis is to be read literally.

Here are a few extracts from the article pertaining to core concepts in mainstream science:

*** mainstream Protestant denominations and most of Judaism and Islam long ago stopped making claims such as Earth was only recently created
*** some theologians are warming to the big-bang theory
*** “flood” creationism, which attempts to deny both evolution and the basic findings of geology, is preached only by a few subsets of the monotheist denominations
*** Evolutionary biology can explain adaptation and descent
*** I am unaware of any irreconcilable conflict between scientific knowledge about evolution and the idea of a creator God
*** the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life—such as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-lived stars​

Here are a few extracts from the article pertaining to creationism:

*** Catholicism … is today conservative but not creationist
*** Creationism is an incredible pain in the neck, neither honest nor useful
*** the people who advocate (creationism) have no idea how much damage they are doing to the credibility of belief
*** the political wing of American creationism generates noise well out of proportion to its numbers
*** creationists … attempts to force their doctrine upon schools
*** (creationism’s) most damaging effect may be to make belief in higher purpose appear antirational
*** because of the creationists the standard assumption is that anyone who has faith has gone soft in the head​

So, you picked one narrow quote that you liked out of the middle of a mass of ideas that are diametrically opposed to your creationist views. Not surprising, since you are an advocate of creationism, which as the article said, is “neither honest nor useful.”

6days busted again. Add it to the list I guess. :chuckle:

 

[6days]

Once more, here is exactly what you said, followed by the question I asked that you refuse to face:.....

In several recent posts you have spoken of the “great universities” that we now have. Of the top-rated universities in the field of biology, which ones would side with you in the claim you just made?

Oh NOooooo. You are turning into Jose. He sometimes thinks he has a great 'gotcha' question, then gets upset if you don't answer him the way he expects.
IOW.... Your question was answered Davis, and more than once.

Ex. 16571 "Not dodged...it was off topic. We were discussing contributions to our world that have resulted from a belief in the biblical Creator.*I don't necessarily agree with all decisions that are made in modern hospitals. I don't necessarily agree with all that is taught in modern universities."

Post 16644 "Context... someone implied that belief in the Creator had not made any contributions to our world.
I said that great music, art, hospitals, universities and even modern science were the result of Christianity and people who believed in tbe Biblical Creator"

I don't have to like the music, art, hospital,university etc to acknowledge that it is considered great. Oxford is a great university even though many of the professors now push a religious agenda of atheism.

What those hospitals practice now..... or universities teach has no bearing on the fact that the reason they exist is because of people who believed in the Biblical Creator. What they teach now, has no bearing on the argument that Christianity and a belief in the Biblical Creator helped usher in modern science and benefitted the world in many ways.

Also from post 16565 "The question was something about what a belief in creation has done for our world. My answer was that a belief in the Biblical Creator has given us modern science, as well as great universities, art, music, hospitals etc.

"Had it not been for the rise of the literal interpretation of the Bible and the subsequent appropriation of biblical narratives by early modern scientists, modern science may not have arisen at all. In sum, the Bible and its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science.” From Australasian Science "The Bible and the rise of science" Prof. Harrison.

"Science was not the work of western secularists or even deists; it was entirely the work of devout believers in an active, conscious, creator God.” From book "For the Glory of God: How monotheism led to reformations, science, witch-hunts and the end of slavery" Rodney Stark.

Or from Wiki "Christianity had a significant impact on education and science and medicine as the church created the bases of the Western system of education, and was the sponsor of founding universities in the Western world as the university is generally regarded as an institution that has its origin in the Medieval Christian setting."

Post 16583 "My statement is correct. It seems like the truth is a bitter pill for you.
And..... you are still trying to move the goalposts. The argument I made was that a belief in the Biblical Creator has made huge contributions to our world. This belief helped usher in modern science... universities....art....music...hospitals, etc."

 

[Yorzhik]

OK, now as a general rule of thumb would you say a large protein (i.e. lots of amino acids) contains more information than a small one (i.e. less amino acids)?

In general, yes.

And that according to what you say here the DNA sequence for each would have comparable information to the proteins (either same or slightly larger than the protein)?

According to Shannon, yes

I'd do the math myself but I can't find a good cheat sheet for such calculations and I haven't touched math of this type in 10 years, so the time and effort required is a bit much for me to bother with at the moment. Especially if you can tell me with your "expert" opinion on the application Shannon information

I've put my neck out there. Go ahead and take a swing.

No, no you really haven't. You consistently at the start of the discussion referred to DNA as the transmission while now it is the start/source (and mRNA is the transmission to the ribosome). I never wanted to start at mRNA I kept wanting you to understand when you were (seemingly unintentionally) talking about it.

I first said it like this:

A simple example: DNA is not a protein, but it is encoded with what proteins are. Somehow, when a protein is needed, the cell gets the encoded information and decodes it to make a protein. Sometimes the protein isn't made right even if the information from the DNA is correct because of errors that enter the transmission of the information from DNA to protein.

Not the prettiest prose, but to say that DNA is the encoded information it will do.

 

[Yorzhik]

If an intelligent and sincere young person has a strong desire to become a good scientist, what university that has a good science department would you recommend they apply to?

No doubt common descent has consensus on its side. That doesn't add to the small amount of evidence there is for deep time, and doesn't take away from the vast evidence that from the solar system to life on earth it hasn't been very long.

Kenneth Sembach is the director of STScI. His e-mail address is:

director@stsci.edu​

As director, he naturally is a pretty busy guy, but he has a substantial staff he can call on. Within his organization they often deal with schools and the general public, so he will probably refer your request for information down to one of those people. How about sharing with us what it is you ask him about what you term “awkward information that gets glossed over”, and the response you get back (with their permission)?

Don't work too hard getting the public email of the director.

First, you introduce me to whoever you want me to talk with. Send an email to the director (copy me in) and we can start a conversation based on your desire to see how the director or his staff can honestly answer the question of tagging each object with its light year.

All of the ones that I know of. Nature doesn’t ask whether you believe in a young earth or old earth, so as long as you follow the scientific method, then no meter readings are going to change, no measurements should differ, no data should be affected.

That's how it should be. So when Dr. Sternberg was drummed out of his position for not giving the proper obeisance to common descent, you were outraged, right?

Maybe your experience with religion really has been ugly enough that you like to use religious customs to denigrate the science you disagree with. When I was a Christian, and even now, I have enough respect for what religious rites mean to people that I would be disappointed in myself if I used them as you choose to.

I never denigrate science I disagree with. I disagree with conclusions that are based on nonsense. That's why I give points to your side for science in your favor. For example, you have consensus on your side. You also have the starlight problem against our side. You have a very weak point with homology.

I know I've asked you this before, but did you ever give an answer on what good scientific points YEC have?

 

[Yorzhik]

OK, thanks.

Do you believe that all 'noise' in this process is by necessity harmful or neutral, and that it cannot be beneficial?

Or, to put it another way: Shannon entropy describes the changes from a starting point of a perfect 'message', defining all noise as potentially damaging. Do you believe that all DNA mutations are by definition taking it further away from perfection as in Shannon communications theory?

Potentially damaging. That's the point.

So according to Shannon even if you could get the perfection of a message back (for example, an error was in a message, but then another error put it back to the way it was by chance), there would be no way to keep up that kind of correction. So, technically, not all DNA mutations take it further away from perfection, but likewise as long as the communication continues it will eventually be taken further away from perfection. So, yes, Shannon still applies to every communication in the cell even when that technicality is applied.

And to add to the confidence we can have, there is no real-world example otherwise.

 

[Yorzhik]

I don’t deny science, but you do.
Here are a few questions about science on which I think we differ.

---Is it good science to believe that snakes and donkeys sometimes converse using human speech?
---Is it good science to believe a guy can live inside a fish for several days?
---Is it good science to believe that a river turns to blood?
---Is it good science to believe that wooden sticks can turn into snakes?
---Is it good science to claim that a human body that has been dead long enough to smell as it is decomposing suddenly comes back to life?
---Is it good science to claim that a person with a physical body can walk through a closed door?
---Is it good science to claim that the simple act of looking back at a scene will result in the person turning from flesh, blood, and bone into a pillar of salt?
---Is it good science to say that a person can walk on water?
---Is it good science to say the sun and moon remained in position in the sky for a whole day?
---Is it good science to think a human can go 40 days without either food or water?
---Is it good science to say that all carnivores were docile vegetarians a few thousand years ago?
---Is it good science to say Maxwell’s equations governing electrodynamics were not in effect until after the flood of Noah?

So yeah, I am not inclined to abandon logic to embrace blatant nonsense.

You have it backwards. If God exists, then miracles can exist. If God does not exist, then nature cannot produce miracles. You are the one that has to explain miracles with only natural processes. Are you sure you want to bring this topic up?

 

[DavisBJ]

6days still slithering through the grass

6days still slithering through the grass

Oh NOooooo. You are turning into Jose. He sometimes thinks he has a great 'gotcha' question, then gets upset if you don't answer him the way he expects….

I am not Jose, and the answer I seek is nothing more than the name of a prominent university with a well-recognized program in biology, or a statement saying “none of them”. Is that is too advanced for you?

Your question was answered Davis, and more than once.

Then humor me, what was the name of the university again, and in which post did you provide that name?

Ex. 16571 "Not dodged...it was off topic.

The name of a specific University is exactly the topic I am asking about. That question can stand quite independently of other topics.

We were discussing contributions to our world …

And that discussion led me to ask the question that I did.

Post 16644 "Context... someone implied that belief in the Creator had not made any contributions to our world.

I didn’t ask what someone implied, I asked for what university agreed with you.

I said that great music, art, hospitals, universities and even modern science were the result of Christianity and people who believed in tbe Biblical Creator"

But what you didn’t say, even though pointedly asked multiple times, is what university would agree with your claim.

I don't have to like the music, art, hospital, university etc to acknowledge that it is considered great. Oxford is a great university even though many of the professors now push a religious agenda of atheism.

Are you suggesting that if evolution is taught at Oxford, it is only condoned by a few professors with an agenda – and that evolution is not presented to the biology students as a standard approved part of the biology curriculum?

What those hospitals practice now..... or universities teach has no bearing on the fact that the reason they exist is because of people who believed in the Biblical Creator. What they teach now, has no bearing on the argument that Christianity and a belief in the Biblical Creator helped usher in modern science and benefitted the world in many ways.

I am not asking about the reason they exist. I am asking if they agree with your claim.

Also from post 16565 "The question was something about what a belief in creation has done for our world. My answer was that a belief in the Biblical Creator has given us modern science, as well as great universities, art, music, hospitals etc.

I am not asking what a belief in creation has done for our world. I am asking what major university agrees with your claim.

"Had it not been for the rise of the literal interpretation of the Bible and the subsequent appropriation of biblical narratives by early modern scientists, modern science may not have arisen at all. In sum, the Bible and its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science.” From Australasian Science "The Bible and the rise of science" Prof. Harrison.

I am not asking how modern science arose. I am asking what major university agrees with your claim.

"Science was not the work of western secularists or even deists; it was entirely the work of devout believers in an active, conscious, creator God.” From book "For the Glory of God: How monotheism led to reformations, science, witch-hunts and the end of slavery" Rodney Stark.

I am not asking what part devout believers have in the development of science, I am asking what major university agrees with your claim.

Or from Wiki "Christianity had a significant impact on education and science and medicine as the church created the bases of the Western system of education, and was the sponsor of founding universities in the Western world as the university is generally regarded as an institution that has its origin in the Medieval Christian setting."

I am not asking what impact Christianity had on education and science, I am asking what major university agrees with your claim.

Post 16583 "My statement is correct. It seems like the truth is a bitter pill for you.

I didn’t see the name of a university in that post. What was the name?

And..... you are still trying to move the goalposts. The argument I made was that a belief in the Biblical Creator has made huge contributions to our world. This belief helped usher in modern science... universities....art....music...hospitals, etc."

How is asking the same question about what university agrees with you “moving the goalposts”?

Wow, more than 10 paragraphs from 6days, and still no direct answer. Amazing, when the answer is as simple as the name of a prominent university, or simply saying “none of them”. Since the question is yet lacking a forthright answer, here it is again, supplemented by the university list I came up with:

The great universities in the field of biology include: Harvard, MIT, Stanford, UC Berkeley, Caltech, Johns Hopkins, UC San Francisco, Yale, Princeton, Scripps Research, Cambridge (UK), Oxford (UK), National University of Singapore, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Imperial College London (UK)

6days claimed:

The "idea" of common descent is not emperical, testable observable science. It’s a religious "idea" - a belief about the past. …

In several recent posts you have spoken of the “great universities” that we now have. Of the top-rated universities in the field of biology, which ones would side with you in the claim you just made?

 

[DavisBJ]

You have it backwards. If God exists, then miracles can exist. If God does not exist, then nature cannot produce miracles. You are the one that has to explain miracles with only natural processes. Are you sure you want to bring this topic up?

Absolutely. I have been begging for the opportunity of having some Christian perform a miracle under conditions that I can verify it is genuine. If I am right, then there are only natural processes, and thus no miracles. Let me know when and where, and enough of an idea of what is going to occur that I can get together the equipment needed to verify it and record it for posterity.