“LOL, so this is your idea of science?”

Are you really that dense? It was a sarcastic reply.

Two points. Me and many atheists and scients know this. However here you are showing a problem that I see a lot of folks make. You confuse reality and truth. I prefer to talk about reality. Is evolution real? Is there evidence that it is directed? These are yes/no questions for which there is only one answer. To find the answer there is no alternative to discussing evidence. When you talk about truth you run into problems like “Is choclate the best icecream?” which has more than one answer depending on the person. Reality yes, truth no.

“It’s is a bit poignant that since the Enlightenment … scientific experiment or to the finite mind is derisory.”

Same issue. Issues of truth may not be as good for science true, it is after all a tool for determining REALITY to the best that current technology is capable. Science is not the ultimate truth, it is the best tool for determining reality that we have discovered. It may one day be replaced, but evidence must be the factor that leads to it’s replacement. Also many athiests/scientists reject the notion of proof. I believe that absolute proof is impossible so I rely on convincing accumulations of evidence. If you were to ovserve the interactions between my wife and I you would see behaviors that strongly suggest that I loved her. This is the best that we all have for such things.

“In the end we all are searching for the truth, not necessarily science. Sure, many tend to become myopic and interchange the two, but science fails and fails often. That is within the nature of science.”

Again, I am searching for REALITY. Science does fail, but self correction is a feature of the system. We get closer and closer to an accurate picture of reality. Unlike all examples of religion that I have seen so far, which resists correction at every turn.

@ Horatiio 52

What are you even talking about?

Yes, this would be an experiment. You go after a momma bear’s cubs. If the mother bear attacks this proves love in the mother.

I think you like coming back because you enjoy being thumped and stumped by arguments you just can’t understand or counter. Glutton for punishment?

Mitch can ignore my post if he wants – I understand that it raises some very difficult questions for him to answer. I know you’ve already capitulated on pretty much all of those points, as you simply can’t argue against them.

Speaking of enlightenment, did you catch on to Collins idea yet? There’s no god guiding evolution, no HD motorcycles washing up on beaches for him.

And on the topic of enlightenment, perhaps you should look into what the Kepler program is finding @ http://kepler.nasa.gov/ . Looks like Hawking may be be closer to the truth than either of us. Do some research.

It is indeed a rare opportunity that one gets to see such a science challenged individual as yourself (HD washing up on a beach, how funny was that?) That said, don’t you even think of quitting with your hilarious posts here. Eventually we may get to see what your grande idea actually is. Hoping it’s not just to keep Jayzus alive on the lips of the masses, but you never know.

“What many cannot wrap their hands around is that a majority consider that evolution was directed by an intelligent being, most likely God.”

There’s no basis in fact for this claim. Furthermore, what the majority believe does not determine what is true. In my opinion, what the majority believe is most probably NOT true.

“Prove to me you love your wife, children or mother?”

I cannot prove a state of my mind; something that is simply a matter of biochemical reactions happening in my brain. Similarly, it can’t be proven that God exists. God is simply a matter of biochemical reactions that occur in a human brain.

There is, however, evidence that I love my mother. Similarly, there is only evidence that you believe in God, not that God exits.

“To think God could be boxed into to some narrow scientific experiment or to the finite mind is derisory.”

Right, one would think God would simply make himself known to his “children” rather than have them wage war against and kill each other over whether or not he exits. THAT is “derisory.”

Not only the Enlightenment but I would argue the Industrial Revolution as well. But other than that, great insights there. Just skip over TGHO’s post. His freshmen biology students fired him for incoherent yammering and cluelessness. He is one of those help-desk guys who tells you to reboot.LOL

Now for this classic scientific study:

“I suggest that you get between a mamma grizzly bear and her cub. You will quickly find out how love works.”

LOL, so this is your idea of science? Wow, you guys who claim to be so savvy in the sciences really have some screwball ideas. I wonder what the pit bull was in love with when he tore half the face of a little 6 year old boy.

Now this is why I keep coming back!

“Origins & Darwinism does not follow the typical scientific model”

– incorrect. This is a blatently false statement.

“a majority consider that evolution was directed by an intelligent being, most likely God”

– majority of christians/theists I think you meant to say here. Amongst scientists and other intelligent people, the majority are atheists.

“This in no way impedes data, facts, hypothesis and theories or even laws.”

– incorrect. Postulating the existence of an intelligent force “guiding” evolution most certainly does change the way everything is viewed. Simply look at how creationists interpret the data supporting evolution.

You whole second paragraph is simply rubbish. All it proves to me is that you’ve never actually sat in a formal science class past about Year 10. And probably didn’t bother with history either.

“In the end we all are searching for the truth”

– incorrect. If this was a fact, then there wouldn’t be any theists at all. What theists are “searching” for is comfort. A father figure to guide and control them. Someone to tell them what to do. The simple truth is that there is no need to believe in the supernatural now that we have the tools to explain why phenomena happen.

“but science fails and fails often. That is within the nature of science.”

– incorrect. Science is *self-correcting*. This is different to failing, as science will continually improve, go back over older theories and ideas, and bring them into line with new data. As I have previously mentioned, data is the core of science.

Mitch, you’re failing absymally in your arguments here. I feel like I should go back in time and slap any teacher you actually had from the time you were four years old upwards. Did you actually learn anything at school, or did your parents let you opt out because it was too hard?