More pity for the atheists.

[Guest Guest]

I'll repeat myself. The fossil record can't and doesn't indicate I.D. or serendipity. And since science can't prove or disprove either I.D. or seredipity, we can only follow our faith and beliefs. Atheists will of course choose to believe in seredipity, happenstance and Mother Nature. I believe in I.D. I'm waiting for science to prove me wrong.

No, there's another, more intelligent choice. You can admit that you don't have a shred of evidence to support your sky-god. Believing things because you would like them to be true is bad methodology. All it does it get you invested in things that probably aren't true.

Furthermore, if you understood science, you would understand why it does not suggest that a supernatural being just poofed everything into existence.

Before you shake your head and wonder why I don't get your point, think again. I get your point. But your point is coming from a non-scientific worldview. If you understood science, which is the only reliable means we have for discovering things about nature and the origins of things, you probably would have a different worldview. At the very least, you wouldn't say you accept science on the one hand, while sneering at it with your choice of words.

Humor me. Show me that you know something. What is the significance of the Prokaryotes pre-dating the Eukaryotes?

[Guest Guest]

I'll repeat myself. The fossil record can't and doesn't indicate I.D. or serendipity. And since science can't prove or disprove either I.D. or seredipity, we can only follow our faith and beliefs. Atheists will of course choose to believe in seredipity, happenstance and Mother Nature. I believe in I.D. I'm waiting for science to prove me wrong.

Science has been proving people like you wrong for centuries. The claim was, and by some people still is, that the eye is too complex to have evolved. We now know that is false. The eye as we know it is an evolutionary outcome that began when one genetic mutation conveyed an advantage to its host organism because it was light-sensitive. Neil de Grasse Tyson explained this on Cosmos last week, but we've known that for decades.

You've claimed here that scientists have not yet produced a living cell that could survive and reproduce. They haven't cured cancer yet either but in both cases, they have come closer and closer, and as a result survival rates for many cancers are far better than they were a few decades ago, and we now understand the building blocks and processes of life far better than every before. In other words, science has a history of progress, while your way of thinking does not. You are defending and promoting the discredited position known as "God in the gaps."

Saying that you take things on faith means that you choose your beliefs. That's the main difference between you and a scientist. Scientists do not do that, you just think they do because you don't know how to think in any other way. Look at your own words, just above these. You admit that you must rely on faith, yet in your concluding sentence, you're waiting for science to prove you wrong. Prove you wrong about what? If all you have is what you call "faith," there's nothing to prove or disprove.

So I'll repeat myself, too. As a result of your way of thinking and worldview, you don't think clearly, and as a result, you consistently miss the point. It's your fundamental way of thinking that is being called into question.

[Guest Guest]

2dim points out that he can believe whatever he likes. He doesn't realize, that's part of the problem.

It wouldn't be so bad if he and many others kept it to themselves but they don't. When they start making fun of science by snotting off about "serendipity," that's a big problem.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Science has been proving people like you wrong for centuries. The claim was, and by some people still is, that the eye is too complex to have evolved. We now know that is false. The eye as we know it is an evolutionary outcome that began when one genetic mutation conveyed an advantage to its host organism because it was light-sensitive. Neil de Grasse Tyson explained this on Cosmos last week, but we've known that for decades.

You've claimed here that scientists have not yet produced a living cell that could survive and reproduce. They haven't cured cancer yet either but in both cases, they have come closer and closer, and as a result survival rates for many cancers are far better than they were a few decades ago, and we now understand the building blocks and processes of life far better than every before. In other words, science has a history of progress, while your way of thinking does not. You are defending and promoting the discredited position known as "God in the gaps."

Saying that you take things on faith means that you choose your beliefs. That's the main difference between you and a scientist. Scientists do not do that, you just think they do because you don't know how to think in any other way. Look at your own words, just above these. You admit that you must rely on faith, yet in your concluding sentence, you're waiting for science to prove you wrong. Prove you wrong about what? If all you have is what you call "faith," there's nothing to prove or disprove.

So I'll repeat myself, too. As a result of your way of thinking and worldview, you don't think clearly, and as a result, you consistently miss the point. It's your fundamental way of thinking that is being called into question.

Once again, when science can prove that evolution occurs as a result of I.D. or trial an error, serendipity and happenstance,, I'll listen.

[Guest Guest]

Once again, when science can prove that evolution occurs as a result of I.D. or trial an error, serendipity and happenstance,, I'll listen.

You're an idiot. The natural process speaks for itself. You'll never listen because it's not what you want to hear.

[Guest Guest]

Once again, when science can prove that evolution occurs as a result of I.D. or trial an error, serendipity and happenstance,, I'll listen.

That isn't even coherent, and the parts of it that are understandable completely distort what science is.

[Guest 2smart4u]

That isn't even coherent, and the parts of it that are understandable completely distort what science is.

Sorry you weren't able to understand, I'll try to dumb it down. When science can prove how evolution occurs, I'll listen.

[Guest Guest]

Once again, when science can prove that evolution occurs as a result of I.D. or trial an error, serendipity and happenstance,, I'll listen.

How exactly is natural selection serendipity and/or happenstance?

[Guest Guest]

When science can prove how evolution occurs, I'll listen.

No you won't. They've already done that, and you're still not listening. You don't know that they have because you limit your database to Bill O'Reilly.

Start by reading some of the leading works in the field. Ernst Mayr and Niles Eldridge are two excellent writers on the subject, and there are quite a few peer-reviewed scientific journals on evolution, including the International Journal of Organic Evolution, Journal of Evolutionary Biology, International Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Journal of Human Evolution, Genome Biology and Evolution and others. Or just follow Science Daily on evolution. The information is there, and widely available if you truly seek to know.

[Guest Guest]

Sorry you weren't able to understand, I'll try to dumb it down. When science can prove how evolution occurs, I'll listen.

That isn't how science works. The Uncertainty Principle states that nothing is 100% certain until all of the possible evidence has been gathered, which is logically impossible. Science is a process by which the best possible explanation is determined. Occam's Razor states that the simplest explanation that fits the facts is the most likely done true. There are absolutely no facts supporting ID. If you can think of one, you should share with the world and become rich. All of the facts support that evolution by natural selection is the logical explanation.

As far as your current challenge, evolution occurs through the process if natural selection. How I that even a challenge? As far as your idiotic eye assertion, watch last week's Cosmos. There is a reason more intelligent creationists no longer bring up the eye we have found creatures who do, in fact, function with 'Half an eye.'

Finally, as far as you 'listening'-who cares? Do you really think we want to change your mind? You show no ability to learn whatsoever. We answer you because people like you are harmful to both reasoned discourse and science itself. We cannot let such idiocy stand.

[Guest 2smart4u]

That isn't how science works. The Uncertainty Principle states that nothing is 100% certain until all of the possible evidence has been gathered, which is logically impossible. Science is a process by which the best possible explanation is determined. Occam's Razor states that the simplest explanation that fits the facts is the most likely done true. There are absolutely no facts supporting ID. If you can think of one, you should share with the world and become rich. All of the facts support that evolution by natural selection is the logical explanation.

As far as your current challenge, evolution occurs through the process if natural selection. How I that even a challenge? As far as your idiotic eye assertion, watch last week's Cosmos. There is a reason more intelligent creationists no longer bring up the eye we have found creatures who do, in fact, function with 'Half an eye.'

Finally, as far as you 'listening'-who cares? Do you really think we want to change your mind? You show no ability to learn whatsoever. We answer you because people like you are harmful to both reasoned discourse and science itself. We cannot let such idiocy stand.

"natural selection is the logical explanation" ??. Coming from an atheist that means nothing.

[Guest Guest]

Sorry you weren't able to understand, I'll try to dumb it down.

You're going to dumb down the stuff you write? That's not possible.