Biffa wrote:

"Chris Dalland" <cdalland@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:rOh1e.1406$vd.237@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...

All he was saying was that the scientific evidence shows that creating
the building blocks of life from sheer nothingness (to create the first
lifeform, a single-celled organism) that would later evolve into all of
the diverse life we have today, has been showed to require thousands of
variables coming together perfectly. So science can gather evidence that
the process of evolution happens, but how it began is still somewhat of a
mystery. In a nutshell, it is VERY improbably that those variables would
come together, which leaves science a little befuddled, and, more
importantly, requires the scientist, himself, to have FAITH (of a sort;
not so much in the religious sense as in the "believing in something
without real proof" sense) in order to believe that these variables
really did come together that precisely.

As a scientist, myself, who is also a religious person, I can say only
this: science is the way we look at and explain nature, and everything
science has found, based on logic, can eventually be boiled down to a
question that we cannot answer. At this point, the religious person says
"God did it", an answer that the non-religious person does not have.
There truly is room for both scientific proof and religious belief. In
fact, IMHO, it is preferrable to take solace in BOTH: the scientist
would go nuts trying to prove something without the comfort of deferring
to something religious when you get to that unanswerable question.

The belief in god is not a religion, it's a superstition.

Only if you believe that God doesn't exist.

There is absolutely no proof whatsoever of the existence of God.

That's why they call it BELIEF and FAITH.

God is the LEAST believable theory of the reason for our existence. It is
truly pathetic that millions of morons have such blind faith is this
pathetic theory without once asking for any proof of the existence of god

Faith without proof is EXACTLY what religion is all about.

Biffa wrote:

"Chris Dalland" <cdalland@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:rOh1e.1406$vd.237@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...

All he was saying was that the scientific evidence shows that
creating the building blocks of life from sheer nothingness (to
create the first lifeform, a single-celled organism) that would later
evolve into all of the diverse life we have today, has been showed to
require thousands of variables coming together perfectly. So science
can gather evidence that the process of evolution happens, but how it
began is still somewhat of a mystery. In a nutshell, it is VERY
improbably that those variables would come together, which leaves
science a little befuddled, and, more importantly, requires the
scientist, himself, to have FAITH (of a sort; not so much in the
religious sense as in the "believing in something without real proof"
sense) in order to believe that these variables really did come
together that precisely.

As a scientist, myself, who is also a religious person, I can say
only this: science is the way we look at and explain nature, and
everything science has found, based on logic, can eventually be
boiled down to a question that we cannot answer. At this point, the
religious person says "God did it", an answer that the non-religious
person does not have. There truly is room for both scientific proof
and religious belief. In fact, IMHO, it is preferrable to take
solace in BOTH: the scientist would go nuts trying to prove
something without the comfort of deferring to something religious
when you get to that unanswerable question.

The belief in god is not a religion, it's a superstition.

Only if you believe that God doesn't exist.

There is absolutely no proof whatsoever of the existence of God.

That's why they call it BELIEF and FAITH.

God is the LEAST believable theory of the reason for our existence. It
is truly pathetic that millions of morons have such blind faith is
this pathetic theory without once asking for any proof of the
existence of god

Faith without proof is EXACTLY what religion is all about.

Faith without proof is EXACTLY what religion is all about.

Wow, there's so much to say. I will try to be brief:

They can gather evidence that microevolution occurs.
There is zero evidence that macroevolution occurs.

Not true. There are multiple broad areas of evidence for macroevolution
that should not be ignored, as a scientist. You were right to adjust my
phraseology; science is more a method than a subject, and as a method,
these items of evidence (fossil record, homologous structures,
adaptation) must be discounted before evolution as a whole can be
discounted, but that is not the same as saying there is no evidence.

As a scientist, myself, who is also a religious person, I can say only
this: science is the way we look at and explain nature, and everything
science has found, based on logic, can eventually be boiled down to a
question that we cannot answer.

To have an all natural, a priori commitment, is not an
expression of science, but rather, an expression
against science. Science does not conclude "natural".
It simply demands that starting approach. Science
however, demands no certain type of conclusion.

Wrong. Science is the process, not just the approach. Science can be
applied to things both natural and manmade, but the process is still the
same.

It is not, "science and religion". You are buying into
the atheistic view of science and allowing for their
claim that science is natural, without any other
possibility. That is what you have been taught and
what they want you to believe.

Actually, this point was what I was JUST saying: that there can be room
for both (which, by the way, you're saying this directly contradicts
your long diatribe below, that I have more to say about). I am not
buying into anything; and frankly, I am in the beginning stages of anger
over being talked down to as though I learn by absorbing rather than
thinking for myself. Please watch that as you talk to people, you will
be received much better.

The scientist should seek to explain a phenomenon
naturally. However, as you said, when the scientist is
left without an answer, the answer may still be natural
and as yet, undiscovered. However, neither science,
nor a scientific approach, rules out the possibility of
a supernatural reason. It is a closed mind that rules
a supernatural reason out. And if the possibility of
the supernatural exists (no natural answer seems to
explain it and to apply naturalism would defy certain
laws), then you do not "leave science and enter
religion". You simply continue in science, seeking
what that answer may be (whether it ends up being
natural, or supernatural).

My point was NOT that when you reach that unanswered question, you
"leave" science and "enter" religion, but rather that you run out of
testable hypotheses (sometimes) and, though you can still approach the
problem scientifically, you may be limited in your findings of evidence
or hypotheses, and may therefore have to rely on faith, or at the very
least realize that the fact that there is no more evidence is not a
failing of "nature"

However, the reality of the closed minded atheist,
which is the controlling force in this issue and has
also fooled Christians into thinking they have proved
macroevolution, when that is not true, is as follows...

"...we have a prior commitment, a commitment to
materialism. It is not that the methods and
institutions of science somehow compel us to accept
a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but,
on the contrary, that we are forced by our 'a priori'
adherence to material causes to create a set of
concepts that produce material explanations, no matter
how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the
uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an
absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the
door." - Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions
of Demons, The New York Review of Books,
January 9, 1997, p. 31

First of all, just because you can quote someone doesn't make you (or
him) right, it is just another support for your opinion. Not that I
think you are very wrong, I actually think Lewontin makes a lot of
sense, it just seems that you are taking this quote as law. So, you are
saying that we are locked into "materialism" (which I guess some would
mistakenly call science as a subject) so much that we automatically turn
to that for all answers, leaving no room for spiritualism or faith. I
do think this makes some sense in today's world, but I hope you can see
that you are contradicting your whole idea up to this point.

Your whole
point so far has been that science is a process and therefore does not
exclude religion, now you're using a quote to support that science has
become a material catch-all that forces consideration of religion and
supernatural reasons away.

Now as for theistic evolutionists, they are the worse
of all. If one claims to be a Christian, one cannot
claim that the Bible is true and that macroevolution is
what God used to get man here. The Bible does not
allow for it, period. In fact, it directly contradicts
and conflicts with macroevolution.

Well, that really depends on your outlook of religion. The Bible is
written by man, and as such is prone to symbolism and patterns. When
the Bible says the earth was created in 7 days, for example, I believe
that to be more symbolic than literate, and leaves room for much.
Personally, IMHO, I don't believe that God creating man by creating life
from nothing, then allowing or forcing many forms of life to all diverge
over time from that original life form, so that man is therefore
inextricably tied to all other life on the planet makes God any less
awesome.

Theistic evolutionists are out to please men,
rather than God.

Since God is in all man (as well as many commandments being directed
towards other men, themselves), pleasing man does please God.