At our stage of evolution probably not,since we are not intelligent enough to understand the very nature of our being.

I bag both ends of the spectrum,ie god bothers and athiests since they both miss the point.Memory is the tenuous link that connects to the present and past reality,but science tells us there are other dimensions of reality beyond the concepts of time,space and matter.

Keep your power dry and your mind open.

underonegod.
perhaps you should take a step back, or preferably out of yourself (this comical [no not "cosmical"] self that you subscribe to). There's nothing like critical distance, if you can achieve it. Science is an attempt at just that. Science has no dogma. Science has a set of tools (method) that it applies to phenomena as it perceives it. I think God would approve. The idea is to test hypotheses, to learn from them and formulate new hypotheses. This is a clumsy way of proceeding, like a groping blind-man (or woman) and we look forward to a breakthrough; but, in all humility, scientists cleave to this empirical method in preference to divine foundationalism.
This is not to say that science is myopic (like you), but that it is devoted to its logical method.
Science is, however, not obdurate (like you) and is even now breaking free of its "self-imposed" constraints. There is a universe of hypotheses out there and the anchor may have to be abandoned. But your "faith" is a mean and despicable thing that an omniscient god would surely wash her hands of.
...But we mustn't spoil you with too much attention.

Oliver, nice metaphor! She is like a bit like a phantom limb :-)

squeer quote<<There's nothing like critical distance,..Science is an attempt at just that...Science has no dogma.>>>mate read dorkins...he postualtes the flat fish...dragged its eye...in the mud...then evolved its eyes to the top...lol...yet..young flatfish ARE CCOMPLETLY NORMAL...he is a fool..only fools could believe

<<Science has a set of tools..(method)..that it applies to phenomena as it perceives it.>>yes its main tool is ...peer revieuw..under the main guidline creationism is not allowable...lol...how close minded yiou want....creation..is not an option[regardless id scieb-nce ever proves god did do it...lol

<<The idea is to test hypotheses,>>ok hypothesis=life comes from life[rebut that...where YOUR first life come from...please check previous rebuttals at previous link before making a further fool of yourself

<<we look forward to a breakthrough;>>first make your first life..then speculate on how it evolved

<<science is devoted to its logical method.>>...ok are you a scientist[or simply a believer having faith in these faulse gods needing[feeding]..you a god free fairy-tale

<<Science is,..breaking free of its "self-imposed" constraints.>>please provide PROOF

<<There is a universe of hypotheses out there>>>no poop shirloc...a hypo-thesis is a theory...not a science proof

<<and the anchor may have to be abandoned.>>>please state this anchor...you may just find out it isnt really anchored to faulsifyable science fact...please put up some proof

<<...But we mustn't spoil you with too much attention...>>.no of course not...lol...i can rebut anything you think you know...please put up facts...and i will rebut every one of them...

you havnt said anything so far...put up your proof...have you ever bred anything?...have you ever checked your science...or simply found a higher..god free belief system...your chosing to put your..faith..into

i suggest you read the previous debates..before looking more foolish...failure to provide proof..will mean i ignore your opinion....opinions are like butttholes..[everyones got at least one]

present your proof...put up..or go away...this is deadly serious stuff...your being decieved..and too stupid to know it

Underonegod (you should try it on top?)
I’m devastated ... but here goes.
As it happens I have read “dorkins” (sic), and S J Gould on the evolution of the eye, and other “impossibilities” that ignorant creationists love to instance. Scientific explanations have the virtue of being plausible. Where is your proof of divine provenance?
Creationism is a demonstrable nonsense and naturally excluded from scientific consideration.
I’m not interested in pursuing chicken and egg games with you. I refer you to my posts in which I made a refrain of the unreliability of human perception, and scientific “theories” and “hypotheses”. You and your miserable ilk are the experts when it comes to spurious “facts”.
I said that I looked forward to a breakthrough that superseded the empirical premises that science was obliged to begin with, and that some form of foundationalism has been so far unavoidable.
I am not a scientist. Though I am well read in some of the sciences, as well as the humanities. How much evolution theory have you actually read? Darwin was deeply troubled by the implications of his revolution btw, but he was an honest man and so accepted the burden of the evidence.

Paul Davies is one of many physicists hypothesising outside empirical constraints, and testing theories of anthropocentrism.

Science hypothesises. If it did offer “proof” or assert “facts” I would be extremely sceptical, as my earlier contributions make clear, since this would require “faith” in the premises. Science humbly looks at the evidence and offers tentative explanations; the peer reviewing process then tests, refines or ditches the explanation. It’s a way of analysing data that hopefully counteracts human bias. “Faith”, on the other hand is non-thinking; it’s “mental starch”; embracing one’s ignorance. Darwin’s theory is one of the most successful in scientific history; 150 years and yet to be "fundamentally" discredited!
Creationism is a joke, even to most Christians.
Take the opportunity to examine your ravings objectively. If that doesn’t work, take a pill.

the above posts show that the created is certainly without any wisdom compared to the Creator.

sqeer rote<<Where is your proof of divine provenance?>>..all arround us...life/the universe/love/logic/light

<<Creationism is a demonstrable nonsense>>..demon-straight then..[dont make mindless..blanket declarations..[either present science proof..[or present creation/..rebuttal]..talk is cheap

<<and naturally excluded>>..yes naturally..[via the science of natural..lol..[as in..'natural/selection...lol...a natural buzzword..definivly stating chance..[placebo/..de-fact-o-theory/lol..science..lol..underpinning sciences deception...yet not a valid''..science'..teqnique...lol

<<from scientific consideration>>...consideration is a process,..give me...YOUR s-CIENCE...lol

<<I said...a breakthrough that superseded the empirical premises>>...words not science...SUBMIT..proof..not words

<<that science was obliged to begin with,>>>..yes obliged to prove its theories..into science fact...by the ability to repliucate scientificly...not just speculate/decieve..on how species did mutate../out of one..genus..into another genus...

ie explain how chicken became snake..[or visa versa...explain how natural...lol..selection....is science/method...lol

<<that some form of foundationalism has been so far unavoidable.>>>..yeah..loll...religions..founded science/education/reading/writing/math/economics...and many other things...the roots of science lay in religious study...by monks like gregor-mendel..studying wrinkled seeds/..making smooth seeds..VIA..mendelism/mendelic inheritance/.,[THAT developed into..the science..of genetical inheritance..[..NOT evolution]..[that isnt now..[nor ever has been]..a true../science]


<<,I am not a scientist.>>..gee couldnt tell...lol...but clearly your an english literary major...skill-fully using word skills..in lue of any fausifyable/science fact

<<..''Though I am well read''>>...lol...in theory...not science...lol..''in some of the sciences''...lol,>>...great you will have read.../darwin's evolution of..THE..SPECIES...

noting its not evolution of..genus...lol..get it genious?..probably not...you dont know the differance do you...lol..

<< Science..looks at the evidence..and offers tentative explanations;>>>lol...science..'LOOKS'..llol..its supposed to actually/test and replicate...if thus..it COULD..be called science...

but it cant replicate MACRO/evolution..[of../genus]...thus sells us micro evolution of/species...which is the equivent to saying..birds fly..[they come from eggs/..thus snakes[from egggs]can fly...naturally../pure nonsense...

but as equal..as to..be saying..species evolution/equates to genus/evolving...lol..insane

<<..“Faith”,..on the other hand is..non-thinking;..it’s “mental starch”;..embracing one’s ignorance.>>..completly agree...any fool can believe mindleesly in either faux science/religion[equally]...thus YOU>MUST<validate/prove..your theory..with facts..[not just..clever use../of words]

<<Darwin’..s..yet to be.."fundamentally" discredited!..>>>..of course darwin's[evolution...of SPECIES]..is beyond theory...IT IS..science/FACT...

species/..do evolve their formwithin/species...BUT NEVER EVOLVE GENUS...as i previously said.."links..[i proved darwin is amasing..[see last debate's...

but..darwins thesus...IS LIMITED TO SPECIE's...not genus..LEARN THE DIFFERENCE

<<Creationism is a joke,...even to most Christians.>>...many/..xtians are simple believing anything...but..just because they../are gullable..[WHAT PROOF IS THAT?]

you..sir are a fool...believing without ability/skill of actual/validation..gullable children believe...your..without even the ability/will/inclination..to test/...or..validate...your own beliefs