OUG writes.

"darwin clearly wrote..evolution/species
...he could have wrote/genus..but didnt.."

He could have wrote [sic] uxewig...but didn't either.

Now why do you think that could be?

"evolution..is only/science/faulsifyable/fact..at species level...not into genus/family..etc"

I know evolution has been explained to you many times and you ignore its truths in order to be true to your faith. Therefore your statement is wilfully false.

"i/am...
trying..to/love you all/"

While you denigrate and prevaricate about concepts that the unreligious hold fondly to, it becomes clear that your trying falls woefully short in sincerity.

Dear Extropian1,

I read Davies’ article.

Science deals with the ‘how’ questions. How does matter and energy interact with other matter and energy? It does not deal with the ‘why’ questions which are not answerable by the scientific method.

Paul Davies in his essay demands that science answer why questions. In so doing he has made his own implicit assumptions.

Believers in God as a creator implicitly or explicitly believe that the universe has a creator. They answer the question, “Why is anything here at all?” by appealing to a God of the gaps who must have made matter. That leaves us with another question. “Why should there be a Creator? Who or what created the Creator?” That is the beginning of an infinite regression.

Davies implicitly seems to believe that the laws of physics must somehow have a law giver. That leaves us with the question of who or what created the law-giver? That is the beginning of an another infinite regression.

Davies asks a non-scientific question and then wants science to give an answer. He exhibits the unreasonableness he complains about.

Davies asks another unscientific question. Do the laws of physics vary from place to place? Scientific questions deal with the evidence of our natural world or with anomalies that cause us to question the evidence.

Einstein’s tremendous insights in the year 1905 were prompted by the discovery that the speed of light did not depend on the velocity of the source. Einstein was answering a scientific question based on the evidence of an observed anomaly.

Davies’ question as to the universality of our physical laws is prompted by no physical evidence – just Davies’ thought experiment.
Davies has asked two non-scientific questions to which he wants scientific answers.

Isaac Newton’s non-scientific speculations resulted in a chest of papers denying the Trinity.

Paul Davies’ non-scientific speculations resulted in the Templeton Prize.

Moral: Rich or poor, it’s nice to have money.

.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

.

Somebody suggested, earlier on, that the tree of knowledge was out of bounds.

We were created ignorant and supposed to remain that way.

Some stupid bitch took a bite at the apple and brought us all down.

That's ignorance for you ! If she had known, you can bet your boots she would never have taken a swipe at that apple - even if it fell on her head.

The germ of knowledge turned out to be contageous and infected us all, even the eskimos and aborigines and several other savages who had never seen an apple in their lives.

Happily we were all in the same boat with Noah at the helm and managed to survive.

Knowledge, they say, is like sand in an oyster, a little produces a pearl, too much kills the animal.

The intelligent designer and manufacturer down-loaded some religious software in our brains to sift out the knowledge so that we never get an overdose.

That's the love that "One above god" has been bending over backwards to try to explain.

Get it ?

.

David f,

"Science deals with the ‘how’ questions. How does matter and energy interact with other matter and energy? It does not deal with the ‘why’ questions which are not answerable by the scientific method."

I can't see why science or the scientific method should not be dealing with the "why" questions (eg. "Why should someone be eating vegetables and not junk food")

Not dealing with the why questions is an easy out for science, particularly now that the species of homo sapiens is about to start developing synthethic life forms (and perhaps playing at a god).

eve has bee wronged...in so many ways..to call her a bitch...[quoting the out of tune''banjo pattering on'..is going that step too far

let me correct your ignorance...under the law..[the mosaic laws of mosus]...a husband can forgive a wifes foolishness...so too can a father..forgive a daughters foolishness...so too a brother...[lest wee forget.adam was all three

adam gave his dna,,,[via the rib]...thus is brother..of eve by a teqnicality...but legal;ly he is al;so husband and father...incestious indeed...but there is more

that he didnt forgive the wifes foolishness...[it was only a fruit/after-all]..is yet further compounded by the fact of the law...

the serphant...no doudt a lawyer...asked of eve,,,'didst god forbid''...the point being no...[for eve was only a rib...at that time]..god did not...adam may have...but this legally/lawfully..is heresay evidence

thus eve..[our great ALPHA-grand-mother...mankinds lucy]..has been wronged through out time..but there is more

the bible has the tree of knowledge...and the tree of good V evil...and the evolutionists have their tree of life...[which when carefully egsamined...has no single root...the 'science'...cant definitivly state..the first living...the first life

it has never mutated...witnessed...nor initiated..an out of genus..evolution...it only has mutations...ALL WITHIN the species level..[quadrillions of fruitfly mutations...have only bred fruit flies]

thus if sciebnce can be honest...as the bible reveal;s..
like produces like
life comes from life...live with it

banjo...and many others/so fixated...in ignorance
..have blind faith in the science of evolution..
but reveals..he hasnt a clue about science..

thus reveals his faith/belief...in evolving...not his wisdom

david reveals science explains the how?

ok davidian...how is it you cant give the first evolution
how did the paddy/mel..dna...arose...10 million years ago...from what?

how?

how does natural/selection..claim the non-science of natural?
how does a species..diverge..into new genus..[at what micro evolutionary-stage..did it become a new genus]?

HOW?

how does survival of fittest...work...when there is only mineral
which fittest/mineral survived...to make life?

how is it those with so much faith in science/theory
yet cant explain the basics of the science...?
they claim their faith in/by

how can one so wise..
choose to remain so ignorant?

Hey, david f,
I would have thought science's 'how' questions were almost invariably prompted by 'why' questions.
"Why do apples always fall down from trees?"
"Why does the speed of light not appear to vary, with the speed of the source?"
"Why does our universe appear to be explicable to us in so many ways, but not in others?"
Why do we regard the question: "why are we here?" as qualitatively different?
For me, this prompts the most important question: if there is a God, what is it's motive in creating us? Or to put it into more human terms: what would such a God want/need us for?
What do we have, that a singular being doesn't have?