evolution is unproven,” the problem with calling evolution “a theory” is that scientists use the word differently from laymen.

A “theory” in science//means a well-substantiated explanation of data...The evolution conjecture should not be called a..“theory,” because this gives it unwarranted respectability..by association

with the Theory of Relativity,..Newton’s Theory of Gravity,..the Debye-Hückel theory of electrolytes,..etc.

All these theories have strong experimental support ..although Newton’s theory has been augmented by Einstein’s)...

In contrast,..evolution of life..from non-living matter..and from one basic type of organism..to a different type..has not the slightest experimental/observational support.


The genetic code is not a universal cosmic code...The problem with any theory that claims extraterrestrial genetic input,..is that life on Earth is a closed genetic system...

you havnt replied..<<question,..‘Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process..which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?>>

<<Histone-4 has a chain of 102 amino acids>>>your a mathi-magition...give the odds of evolving just this 102 amino acids chain...

mathimatrix-sic-ly...if any one is wrong..you got dead...not evolution//...just via math..more die than evolve...yet where is the proof of the math..that evolves...lol...

the odds simply dont stack up/..neither the math

ANSWER THE DAMM QUESTION
,..‘Can you give an example of a genetic mutation..or an evolutionary process..which can be seen to increase the information..in the genome?

OR please..confirm the evidence of a single genus..that changed its genus..[evolutions proofs is micro[intra species..into same species..intra genus...macro evolution into new[neo] genus...even via m,athimatricks..genious...they simply dont egsist

Histones are necessary..for chromosome condensation during cell division...The traditional neo-Darwinian step-by-step method must fail claims..because it implies 100 non-functional steps.

The alternative:..a jump of 100 mutations of exactly the right kind would be highly improbable....but your a math-magition weave your proof...the math alone..[probability]..proves evolution is fraud..

or at a minimum..some affect..[intelligence]..intelli-gent designer..that amasingly flukes it...naturally..lol..this natural selector is god..by any other name

George,

<<There is a difference between proving something, and offering an argument in support of something.>>

I agree, and I have used a similar analogy here before.

But I said “Many Christians (even those who accept evolution) try to prove...”, because “proof” is what I always seem to hear it referred to as. Unfortunately though, from the arguments I’ve heard, they don’t even offer support.

<<Not only that, as a mathematician I am probably also in a small minority when it comes to mathematics.>>

Just to be clear, when I said that you were in a small minority, I didn’t mean that as a bad thing (A good thing if anything). That’s just from my own observation of having been a Christian once before, and having many friends and relatives who are regular church goers.

<<Speaking of arguments, what can you offer to support your belief that I “don’t go very deep into what I believe God to be”?>>

Again, that’s just my own observation, I can’t quote something that I personally can’t recall you ever having done. I know what you believe God not to be, but I don’t yet understand what you actually believe God to be. Saying that you believe that he is “benign” has probably been the biggest clue so far.

As It appears that few of the posters here have actually read much of Dawkins' work, I can give a brief summary of my perceptions here:

1: He shows comprehensively that any scientific concepts flowing from the bible have no basis in reality.
2: He then questions the moral authority of the church from a logical, modern perspective and finds it wanting.

Considering that since the Gallileo debacle, the Church has prefered to take the back seat on scientific issues, and instead has focused on being the world's conscience, Dawkins' teachings are stripping the church and religion of the last vestiges of relevance to modern society.

This is why Christians attack his work with so much vitriol (especially those ignoramuses that haven't read his work like Trav), because Dawkins is the most serious threat to the credibility of the church since Gallileo.

the dorkins is talking to the ayhiest...here is a guy setting out to disprove an thing,...NOT OFFER PROOF..OF A SCIENCE ALTERNATIVE...any nutter can note simply by your quote

NOTE<<..a brief summary of my perceptions here:

1: He shows comprehensively...lol..that any scientific concepts flowing from the bible..have no basis in reality.>>talk about extreem...imagine..not one..valid science concept...lol

ok present your rebuttal...dont hide behind the dorrk..present your proof of evolution..dont think rebutting one prooves the other...lol

<<He then questions>>>.lol about anything to do with bible/religion/god....certainly he dosnt question his science...nor set out to validate it...he certasinly constantly refuse to explain THE QUESTION,...you lot keep ignoring

ANSWER THE DAMM QUESTION
,..‘Can you give an example of a genetic mutation..or an evolutionary process..which can be seen to increase the information..in the genome?

OR please..confirm the evidence of a single genus..that changed its genus..

instead of science we get the new athiest god head questioning ...lol..<<..the moral authority of the church from a logical,....[laugh]..modern ...[god free]..perspective and finds it wanting....wow

so when is he going to validate or reply the science..

ANSWER THE DAMM QUESTION

,..‘..give an example of a genetic mutation..or an evolutionary process..which can be seen to increase the information..in the genome?

OR please..confirm the evidence of a single genus..that changed its genus..

ignorance is no proof...validate/replicate..or wake up you been decieved by a dorkk with an agenda,,,his godless adgenda...

in lue of science fact...attack the belief..of the other camps believers...its the same ignorant beliefs..in opinion..presented...in lue of faulsifyable/science/fact

Let's suppose that none of your 'tricky' questions can be answered by evolutionary biology using current knowledge. Then how does your God hypothesis help matters? What does your God actually do?

And if you cannot at least outline what your God actually does, then I would suggest that your God hypothesis is effectively useless. You are better off discarding it.

George
I encourage you to read Dawkins. Much of the criticism has bee selective, taking passages out of context. You might be surprised. Not that I am implying you will change your mind, far from it, merely to be able to read him for yourself and judge how relevant the writings of his detractors.

I am an Atheist/Agnostic (never quite comfortable with the distinction) and still get much from some religious writings. Religion has played a mammoth role in shaping society and as such it is interesting and relevant.

socratease, AJ you might beat me to the Hart book. I will get to it as soon as I can inbetween other projects.

Peace to all.