gray wolf

I agree wholeheartedly. And I think there is many a good scientist that would echo that sentiment.

I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details. -Albert Einstein

Excellent grist for the mill!

I don't think God is irrelevant to many scientists, even in assessment of evidence. They are investigating the universe to discover mechanisms and explanations that are not supernatural, but that does not mean they are not cognizant of His reality and do not harbor a sense of awe. You need look no further than the case of Francis Collins.

Jerry, did you look at Dr. Tour's essay? What did you think of it?

I agree as well. There are voices out there that are not full fledged creationists who harbor doubts about evolution. People will probably disagree with me, but I think we should all get up to speed about science, even evolution. Then we can pinpoint better WHY we dissent from these ideas.

You are quite right about proof actually, as in Peter's case. And the Israelites had all the proof they needed during the Exodus and look what happened. As for evidence, IMHO it doesn't necessarily lead to proof. The evolutionists cite all the evidence too, yet despite their insistences, it is not proof. You can marvel about the human eye, but in fact we were not there when the first one was created, nor are there witnesses to the origin of many things. When we look to a wondrously crafted timepiece, we can say there is a creator because we can see it done. We can collectively gather these entities and infer that they were designed and make a compelling case, but I wouldn't go as far as to say I have absolute proof. Do you agree?

I am not one to deny that an agent is behind the Cosmos (that being God), but it is all magnificently mysterious. I think the rationale behind this is in keeping with God's nature and His intentions. If we were to observe God in the creative process, what faith would there be required in that? It is not that easy, but it seems to me that God demands faith and doesn't expect us to believe following proof. Because there is none. I think it is just the way it should be. Of course we can look at the majesty of it all and be led in the right direction, but it is faith ultimately that leads to saving grace.

No I don't think it's the end by any means. I think we are still beginning to understand and we should not be so quick to write off good research. God's universe is more wonderful and mysterious that we can imagine. You can have the last word.

do you disagree that he posed some good objections/concerns? Maybe criticism is too strong a term. Why do you want me to post a summary? Better straight from the source. http://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/the-scientist-and-his-“theory”-and-the-christian-creationist-and-his-“science”/ It doesn't make a difference if your mind is made up before reading the material.

I would encourage you to visit Dr. Tour's website and read for yourself. Then we can discuss if you like. He's a very likable and honest guy.

I did some further reading on Dr. Tour's views on jmtour.com and found it to be quite eye opening. He offers some constructive criticism to not only evolutionists, but creationists as well. Thanks Shiloh for this post bringing my attention to this remarkable, fellow chemist.

I don't disbelieve that God can do it, I just have no experience with it.

Has anyone seen a miracle lately? Other than wondrous events like human birth, I am curious to know if there are events where the laws of nature are suspended?

Actually Scripture does describe one instance of communication with a dead person, but it was quite singular. 1 Samuel 28

I don't think any Catholics worship saints. They ask them to pray for them, similar in the way you would ask another Christian. Although I consider myself a Catholic, I do not practice this as I consider it communicating with the dead.

I think one of the main problems is when the discussions get to personal and heated.

Lol there you go again. Non sequitur. I made no inference, I was just trying to see things from your point of view.

As an aside here, why always the diatribes when someone differs with you on fine points? I mean just because I do not buy into all the ID ideas, for example, does not mean I do not accept belief in a Creator. You must perceive a credible threat. Is that threat to Truth as you believe it? Or is it something different?

Yes, that's Right....it's not science, by definition. Any Hypothesis'-----which then leads to Theories, that can not be TESTED via Experiment because it's in the Unobservable Past or any other reason are "Just So" Stories. Empirical: Observable, Measurable, Repeatable, Falsifiable....is the Bedrock Foundation of Actual Science. Can you tell us "specifically" how to satisfy this criteria in relation to a past event without a Time Machine? I think this one has been beaten to death in some other threads with references to forensic science. I'm not interested in resurrecting it. Define Specifically "Creationist Thinking"....then can you connect it coherently to your assertion? It is an MO on a certain position of the spectrum of creationism which can be evidenced by the style of arguments posted on several popular websites and in literature. It is quite exclusionary and disses those with more "moderate" views similar to what militant evolutionists do to those who question the status quo. For an interesting experience in this type of deliberation, see the Evolutionary Fairy Tales website: evolutionfairytale.com/forum/ I do not mean that all creationists are like this-- hey I believe in creation as well. The distinction is based on Definition, Common Sense, and Junior High School General Science. Once you get past the Equivocation (Fallacy), it's readily apparent. So Google has the answers, eh? lol No equivocation here that I'm aware of. Google coupled with a discerning mind comes up with many things-- often things we don't want to deal with. "The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics) What do you suppose Dr. Feynman would say to "theories" that are untestable?? As noted above. I have no idea what the good doctor would say, but I would venture a guess. That's why in "science" we have definitions and strict protocols/standards to eliminate Subjective Opinions. This should be the first clue that you're well off the "Science Reservation" and into Politics/Cake Decorating/ favorite sports team et al Genre's. Let's ask Professor Gerald Kerkut PhD Zoologist, Physiologist, Biochemist (evolutionist).... ‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’ Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960. This quote was made shortly after the identification of DNA as well as the Miller Urey experiment and in no way reflects what is accepted today. Oddly enough, I found this selfsame quote in the dialog of Creation Ministries International along with some rebuttals by other thinkers.

============================================================================= This is my thinking.... "The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories." http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html Any questions? So there we go. You seem to be saying (as you have in the past) that a theory which primarily deals with past events does not pass muster. I have to say (as a believer in creation as well) that this distinction between "operational" and "historic" science seems to be a product of creationist thinking. Just do a general google search for historical science and you'll see what I mean. Baloney.... ‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’ Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960. evolution without abiogenesis is tantamount to describing repairs to the Hubble Telescope before Space Flight. That depends on a great extent, to whom you ask the question. btw, what do you think of my new hat I got in California?

Jerry, i am not sure what you are trying to accomplish here. If you need a primer on evolution, it might be better to look at the National Center for Science Education or something similar. Enoch: Quote: It doesn't matter what anyone "thinks" . As an "alleged" Scientific Theory, it must be defined specifically to then be Validated or Falsified. What is your thinking about a scientific theory? Are you saying that a theory becomes fact after adequate evidence? I think you mean something else, but I want to make sure. Quote: You have Zero "Scientific Evidence"....See: Definition Above. Unless you can show Life from Non-Life.....?? You can't even show "One" DNA/RNA/Functional Protein spontaneously form "Naturally" from the "Building Blocks". Non life to life is outside evolutionary theory.

Hey it wasn't me. It was another physicist commenting on the implications of the anthropic principle.

The universe is such that it was almost waiting for us. Not my quote

It's been wonderful to discuss with you all, but I've got to refocus on real life relationships. Till then.