Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

. Thank you for your honesty. The need for you to be freed from the notion of a God, that lead you to Darwinism, is moving you one step closer to being the god of your universe that you always wanted to be. Just remember, you are surrounded by an immense universe, and your intelligence has immense power, and with that power comes immense responsibility. But, in the scheme of things you are small. Are you up to the challenge.

Do you think it may lead him into a state of understanding that is less rooted in reality than the God of the old testament?

If he is diligent and honest it will lead him to the truth.

Truth is in the eye of the beholder. It's a mixed bag of confusion.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/about/broader-social-impacts-committee/science-religion-evolution-and-creationism-primer

Truth is not in the eye of the beholder, it is in the mouth and spirit of a person, with good will, proclaiming the truth.

This statement cannot be more false.

The truth gives no fucks about the beholder.

Sure, it does. Why do you think there are so many religions and politics in the world?

Because some people are an opinionated bunch with no concern for the truth, just point scoring.

It's okay to challenge erroneous opinion with facta, not ad Homs.
All my siblings are Christians, and I'm a atheist. Our belief on religion is different, because I see life differently than my siblings.

What, Max facta?

I've not sent any ad homs your way, just pointed out things as I see them. In you'd rather live in denial that's your choice.

I'm not the one living in denial. Go back and read what farmerman wrote about religion. I agree with his opinion.

I'm not trawling through a thread to find a post, if you want someone to read something post a link.

You are in denial, you're denying that your atheism is something you espouse zealously like a religious person.

Saying 'What he said,' doesn't alter that.

“If you wish to see true beauty, look into the left eye of a person holding a bee; Because beauty is in the eye of the bee holder.” ~ The Sayings of I Ching (Funky Winkerbean)

Darwinism is rooted in reality. It just doesn't quite work with reality. It needs to be adjusted. The adjustment is intelligence to fill the gaps. This is pretty major and maybe needs to be called something new, like Neodarwinism. Some people think this mix of religion, philosophy, paleontology, biogentics, quantum mechanics and theology is wrong. I say so what. A bunch of smart people talking to each other, understanding each other's points of view, and reaching some consensus on who or what the intelligence is that makes natural selection work better than it does with random mutations would be a good thing wouldn't it. Maybe this process could lead to the unification of physics. We sure seem to be at a brick wall now.

Or wait. I am asking a bunch of people with doctorates to understand other people with doctorates which are going to blow some holes in some people's life's work, and then find the right combination of pride and humility to form hypothesis' that direct research dollars and efforts where progress can be made. No, wonder we can't come up with complete theories that work. We can't even discuss it on Blogs without calling names, and no money is involved.

the entire problem of what you speak is that theres no way to even propose doing studies or experiments to make a valid point. Saying that theres "gotta be intelligence involved' requires the most proof to even begin. scientists are, first and foremost, reality driven. The reality is that earth's environment through time seems to clearly establish the bounds for the direction that life has taken. We cannot deny that this is very strong evidence that seems to counter any introduction of intelligent design. Instead, it appears that life had several minor attempt at "startups", only to be wiped out by some edaphic factors. Life appeared and mulled around in a state that celebrated Archea and several other kingdomes of cellular life for several billion years. Then with an appearance of photosynthetic plants 'EVENT" consistent with a major "cool down" on the planet, life took a major direction change by introducing "hard parts" which allowed for the adaptation to many changing niches by larger and larger organisms. After that, its several episodes of environmental change and cataclysmic events that further directed lifes structure.(Now, I suppose you could sy that these cataclysms were intelligence driven but still, youre going to need to present some evidence to make simple guys like me buy into the program).
Of my above simple tale of life on erth we can follow a story with a pretty much consistent script. ll admit, we do have introductions of several species of life , like fungii, or bats, or even monotreme mammals, that seemed to have jut "popped up" in the geologic record, but Id counter the intelligence thing by saying that we dont really have a very good stratigraphic record.

The Creationists would deny the facts and evidence for evolution, thats dumb thinking. The modern IDers have tried to subsume all the existing evidence of science and they say "see, just add intelligence and there we are" . I think thats a job that, if you are such a believer, that needs to be done in a big way. The Discovery Institute, shortly after it went "big time",promised all kinds of positive results in its own sponsored research that was directed to discover "intelligence in the Universe" and specially in the development of life on earth.

That was like 2003 and so far, all theyve done has been to try to discount research results of major evo/devo science organizations (sorta just like the Creationists no?).
Qith the mapping of "fossil genes" in various organisms, (Like the fossil gene compliment in plants like "Dawn Evergreens" and Ginkgo trees, or even gallenaceous birds and reptiles weve been able to see large lines of (What used to be called JUNK DNA) is now better understood to be fossil genes that have just been " replaced and turned off and placed in storage".

Whatever happened to these "hunts for intelligence" that were promised as major peer reviewed papers

There are a couple of points which arise from FM's remarks. The first is that the earliest known extinction event is called the Great Oxygenation Event (and other similar names). Basically, new life forms were creating free oxygen in the atmosphere faster than natural processes could remove it, which resulted in an atmosphere poisonous to as much as 90% of organism then living, including the original archaea which had been the dominant life form for two billion years. There's little reason to believe in an intelligently directly (in other words, someone's imaginary friend) process which accomplishes its goal through the extinction of that much of the then existing biota. It is, in fact, a wonderful example of the power of random event.

The other thing which I would like to point to is the god-botherers obsession with abiogenesis. Henry Bastian had come up with the term biogenesis, but Thomas Huxley, who published first (Bastian had been discussing origins of life in private correspondence), used the terms biogenesis (roughly, life from existing life), and abiogenesis (life arising independently of existing life, or the rise of life from organic chemicals). Effectively, with a good deal of circumlocution, Huxley was pointing out that all theories of the rise of living organisms effectively refer to the rise of life where there was no life before. So whether one alleges the agency of one's imaginary friend or not, all theories of the rise of life effectively have abiogenesis as a starting point.

Carry on, and I'm sure you will.

I've long since given up trying to get people to 'buy in' but it is enjoyable batting the ball around.
Not trying to lead the witness and I think I've said this before, but would you agree that evolution, whether by mutation & natural selection or intelligent design, would be indistinguishable from each other? I mean, how could we possibly know unless one or the other could be disproven?

Switching gears, Set's observation of the totally random events (including the right climate change at the right times) adds even more factors to the 'fine tuning' needed for life as we know it. Makes me wonder why people are so sure intelligent life elsewhere is 'inevitable'. And if it truly is, why couldn't that life have been 'God', born in some Big Bang particle storm in this or some other universe?

to make the ID POV even more improbable is the papers by Planavsky et al (2010,11,). after Jauvanaux (2008) who said:

Planavsky states that the deglaciation at the end of the Sturtian (second,Cryogenian,[ "Snowball Earth"] period in the proterozoic) generated a blooming super excess of Phosphates which ed to the finding of adensoine phosphate salts in the marine pre Cambrian stratigraphy of the Sturt river seds in Australia. This led to a kind of "pollution bloom" and maximized the free dissolved oxygen (I know it feels counter intuitive). Thus followed the development of "Hard parts" on multicellular animals as predation increased.
Thus the "Cambrian Explosion" seems to hive roots all the way back to the nd of the Cryogenian and start of the Ediacara.

Yes but then, that's precisely why ID is not a scientific proposition: because it cannot be tested by facts. ID can only be a scientific hypothesis to the extent that it can be subjected to some empirical test that would make a difference with random darwinism. If ID and Darwinism predict the same things, if they are undistinguishable by evidence, then there's no significant difference between them.

I could add "creation by panspermia"
or a giant turtle. Its just that, there is no way that you can do any work in the subject because anything that defaults to some Intelligence as a cause makes one bound by a Biblical-like foundation story.
Therefore, in my opinion, youd make your point at a conference, and youd be met with a chorus of"Wheres any evidence"??

ID seems to want to"feed off" science as if it thought of the same things. When you know that ID's been a- scurrying around to even come up with its own road map . Its been holding us in the throes of impending delivery of an idea about "Universal Intelligence"

I really dont GAF about where ID goes. So long as it freely admits that its a religion, not a scientific discipline.

K?