PART 4

An afterthought: I suppose it is possible that OUG is as he says, looking for answers to questions that trouble him. If it doesnt trouble him then he is not after answers, he is after a fight with someone willing to join combat on his own terms (remember its a call for 'Evolutionists' - assumed to be people who believe in evolution in the same way some believe in creation.).
So if you really want answers, I would suggest:
1. restate the central question clearly
2. define contentious terminology as it is to be used in the discussion (as an example: "belief", the meaning and usage ascribed to this word is subtly but decisively different between the fields of science and religion)
3. post this somewhere the user-base has more knowledge. It is unlikely many people reading this thread completed their Masters in Biogenesis, so the references you are likely to get are unlikely to be much different to your own Googling (try their literature search).
4. take pains to avoid sheltering in dogmas that reinforce the perception of you being "so blind as those who will not see" - It really saps the motivation of those who would like to answer you, when it appears you aren't listening anyway. I appreciate you have continued posting on this, but please address the responses that do have merit instead of crowing about the attacks and counter-dogmas that are really second-rate targets.
5. Be aware that there are plenty of ideas out there that are not easily explained to a 5-year old. An example would be expecting the 5yo to have the math ability to see (or work out on paper?) that the observed microevolutionary changes (that you concede exist) when combined with changing environments, geography and time, will lead to evolution of lifeforms. Lets face it many adults don't get that one.

What is the more likely answer to the question "Where did all this come from?"

a) My imaginary friend thunk it up, or
b) "Stuff" happens (and sometimes the stuff sticks together, and sometimes it makes more interesting stuff).

To find evidence for proposition (a), hands up all those who have proof of an imaginary friend?

To find evidence for proposition (b), hands up all those who have ever come across stuff just happening?

I'm thinking you could find a few more examples of (b).

I love this random collection of things that we call the universe, I love that we carbon based bipeds have a drive to figure stuff out, and I love that the journey of discovery is never ending.

I feel no need to invent an imaginary friend to explain it all. Life is far more exciting without one.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"Religion is a failure of the imagination"
Me (and probably quite a few other smart people)

Religion is not a failure of the imagination.
It in fact is evidence we have an active imagination.
We however fall for threads like this every time.
Posts exceed numbers in threads about nearly every thing else.
And if you look at the front line troops for God you will see we are not heard.
Unlikely ever to be.
We let religion control far too much of human life and maybe far too much of the forum.
Is OUG a troll? I do not know but he needs to live of his life its the only one he has.

UOG,

p64 is the 2nd link
judge not lawyer
there is a difference

I dont watch tv drama

Read the quote in full,
he agrees with some of IDs arguments
but takes no position,
as it was not within the case

'should ID be taught in science class'

answer no
and for good reason (see quote...)

however, the point of the case is also
my point, ID is not within sci domain

* your orig question took jurisdiction over science
on matters of specific science
That is my objection *

I take no position on matters of eternal soul
of revelation of bible on matters of spirit
within this debate

- criticise as you will... I do not take that
position lightly as you believe

that is not within the domain of science
and should not be taught in science

This goes to topic as per my first post...

do I believe in evolution - yes

same as you believe in god - not required
to hold evolution as valid discourse on life

does evolution invalidate an intelligent designer?
not necessarily....but

it does invalidate many Creationist arguments
as they were put forward over the years

this is why they lost that specific case

is it possible that CS & ID can make
scientific pronouncements with the same
authority as science?

I am sceptical with regard to that...
however prove me wrong

ps - how did you like my bedtime story?

did you notice my 5yr old still believed in
christmas at the end? (those materialists!!)

that goes to belief, but of a different kind
not incompatible with the mechanisms of
science

I wouldn't teach atheism to a child...
I also wouldnt teach fundamentalism
and refuse medical care ( as a minority
actually believe)

you claim genetic knowledge granted.
that knowledge is a slice of total sci knowledge
that is part of concordance argument
for evolution as a valid -explanation-
of life

not to be confused with -cause-

that's your area...

ps - aside from AV jos recent post
I find many posts insulting to this debate...

_DB*R

Interesting point Belly and Amjay – is religion a failure of the imagination or a product of an overactive imagination?

I reckon it is both; an active imagination in the first instance and then a failure of imagination by those who blithely just go along with it.

It is a pity that threads with religious themes generally get much more response than just about any other subject. But having said that, I’m intrigued about the imagination – religion connection.

So I reckon I’ll start a new thread! ( :>)

lest my admission
here
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2317&page=0

validating spiritual evolution
be admitted as any proof
[that i believe materiaL EVOLUTION]

I RESTATE

PROVE IT [with fact]

NOT BY USING MY WORDS

to reply to some off topic responses
would be responding to the flame of trolls[i refuse to go there]

i will not restate the boundry of THIS topic

it is still clearly that evolution isnt a science
[it is a belief][based on 'believable fact'
[OR 'more likely',that is null science]

if science please DEFINE it clearly here on these pages
via link or words

and re that first life[abiogensis]
prove it happend NOT by gods hand

it is interesting to note the NUMBER of the troll's
[off topic responses],
and attempt's to rephrase the question
with other questions,that i got here

but no attempt to validate the topic with faulsifiable[verified ]science fact thus is revealed as it's SCI-trance[not science]


compared to the [much]fewer number of off topic trolling at
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2317&page=0

where i note even unbelievers
have some ideas about what god[the root of all]is

but many clearly have no idea re evolutions roots
nor what evolution[or abgensis is]

thus clearly religions teach their
[right AND wrong messages]more affectivly

than science teaches its right [and WRONG]ones
via selective exclusion of any debate
[cause its a sealed science deal]

closed minds cannot debate
[closed ears cannot hear, closed eyes cannot see

the PRESENT debate is hurt by the bad frauds of times gone past

someone said
am i open to chamge my belief
[NO]

but you guys claim to believe BASED ON FACT
[mine is faith;remember?]

well much called fact isnt science fact
verify[replicate]proove[if science it be]

but it also
via adulating its faulse gods
has many wrong'uns

thankfully neither side got it ALL right
but then god is THE ONLY perfect

if its not VERIFIABLE science
it's SCI-trance