Intelligent Design

[Shoey]

Ah, but there is no natural explanation there, in Genesis which still is not a Science textbook, but merely a "why" for the relevance of God's message.

Provide for me a natural explaination as to WHO created the Earth, Sun, Moon, planets, stars, sky, firmament, galaxies, expanse, waters.

 

[goligoth]

Provide for me a natural explaination as to WHO created the Earth, Sun, Moon, planets, stars, sky, firmament, galaxies, expanse, waters.

I agree that some entity (God) created the cosmos. But this isn't about how it all got started it's about how we brought ourselves up from the primordial sludge to become what we are now. Now God may have helped us out from the sludge but seeing as god didn't send anyone down with that particulair answer we are left to debate it. And Intelligent design is theoretically possible so I say we teach it until it can be disproven.

 

[steen]

You won't find the word dinosaurs in the bible, just like you won't find many names of other animals in the Bible.

So we are relying on your "just because I say so" unsubstantiated postulation for this? So far you have shown yourself less than trustworthy or knowledgeable so that just doesn't get you anywhere.

The Bible clearly says God created all the animals and that is proof enough for me.

For you, yes. You certainly can believe that genesis is not an allegorical explanation for WHY God matters to us, but rather take it literal as a Science textbook in face of all evidence to the contrary.

Yes, you have the right to believe this. And you have the right to claim this as well. But when you claim this on a board that is set up for DEBATE, why do you think that a "just because I say so" postulation is sufficient? It is almost as if you are NOT here to debate, rather to spew out false claims and then irritate those who disagree. In other words, you are a troll, bearing false witness. Is that REALLY how you want to be seen?

Darnuts

Who?

theory of evolution[ is a fairy tale as well

Well, the only theory of Evolution that I know of is the SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF EVOLUTION, so it seems that whatever you are arguing against is something that doesn't even exist.

(origin of man),

Well, this is generally attributed to Charles Darwin. But if that's the case you seem again to be confused and ignorant, because Charles Darwin never had a THEORY of Evolution; rather he had a hypothesis of Common Descend and that this Common Descend led to H. sapiens.

Now, this was a Scientific HYPOTHESIS, not a Scientific THEORY. I trust you understand the difference between the two and are not so ignorant about science that you don't even understand its components?

But if this really is an argument against Charles Darwin's hypothesis, then that's rather irrelevant. Science moved along in the last 150 years after Charles Darwin's hypothesis was proposed and all the data since being applied to the SCIENTIFIC METHOD is what has since led to the Scientific Theory of Evolution.

So you can argue Darwin all you want, but I really don't see the relevance. It would be similar to you trying to criticize the Space Shuttle based on what kind of wiring the Wright Brothers used on their first plane. Now, if you actually want to debate something, could you please make it relevant and factual? So far you have had trouble with both of these points.

and no evolutionists can provide 100% solid scientific proof where man originated from.

Well, I keep seeing creationists make that claim all the time, but it doesn't make sense. Could you explain that a little bit more here, please? What do you mean, exactly, with that claim?

By the way, the #1 selling book of all time is the Bible my friend.

.... ... Yeeesss...? Aaaaannd? Could you please explain what relevance that holds. I have a couple of bibles at home as well and that of course has no relevance whatsoever, unless you sell them and are trying to make a sale here??? This is just WEIRD. Could you clarify the relevance here?

 

[steen]

Provide for me a natural explaination as to WHO created the Earth, Sun, Moon, planets, stars, sky, firmament, galaxies, expanse, waters.

Well, there isn't any evidence that anybody did this, so your "who" seems a bit strange.

Now, it also doesn't seem to have much to do with biology or Evolution, so I wll leave that to somebody whose field this is.

But there are a couple of terms that does not make sense. What do you mean with the "firmament"? I have never seen a firmament, nor seen any scientific reference to it. So where is it?

And what do you mean with "Sky"? That certainly is not a scientific location name, it seem to be a popular "everything above us" kind of claim with no relevance to distance or type and thus is rather vague and useless. Likewise, "expance"? What is that?

You seem to use a lot of words that don't seem meaningfull in any way. Could you clarify?

 

[steen]

I agree that some entity (God) created the cosmos.

Well, you can believe that, yes.

But this isn't about how it all got started it's about how we brought ourselves up from the primordial sludge to become what we are now.

Well, to me, it seems like you are trying to lump abiogenesis and Evolution together. I hope you have an inkling by now that this will be perceived as dishonest?

Now God may have helped us out from the sludge but seeing as god didn't send anyone down with that particulair answer we are left to debate it. And Intelligent design is theoretically possible

How?

Oh, you mean "theoretical" as in there is absolutely no evidence, but you believe it could have happened? That of course means that EVERY creation myth from anywhere is "theoretically possible."

so I say we teach it until it can be disproven.

So you are saying that we have to teach them all, right? We have to teach that a raven plucked humans out of a shell on the beach, and that the Earth rests on the back of a giant turtle and.....

 

[Mikkel]

I think you are getting things mixed up here. Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY (meaning it was explored through the Scientific Method. ID and creationism are claims that the science is wrong, nothign else. Creation is not the same as Creationism. Creation in its allegorical form is compatible with Evolution. Creationism, on the other hand, is a process of deception, misdirection and outright lies. That is not compatible with anything.

Well, I bet many creationists would disagree with you that creationism is "claims that the science is wrong, nothing else." Creationism is an alternate theory of the development of the earth, which is completely speculative as you said, but most ID-ers aren't saying we should teach it instead of evolution, but rather alongside it. Granted, most of those people would very much like to debunk evolution, and every other sentence out of their mouths contains the words 'only a theory'. However, this does not mean that someone can't believe in both creationism and evolution at the same time.

I understand what a scientific theory is, thank you, and I'm not trying to tell you that creationism is one. At best it is a philosophical theory, but mostly it's a theological one. When I was in high school, they had us read parts of the old testament in our humanities classes because the bible is a very philosophical text. Nobody was going home at night confused about the fact that in one class they were being told the earth and life was created in 7 days by god and in another they were being told that life stared in a primordial soup. That's all I'm trying to say.

The main issue of this conflict is that people are worried that science will debunk their religion, so they try to defend it by changing the direction of science. That's wrong. I bet if you asked most people 10 years ago if they thought the theory of evolution threatened their religious views, the number would be significantly smaller than it is today, because people on both sides are so fervently attacking one another. The issue has become so polarized nowadays that it has become a full blown battle between religion and science. It wasn't that long ago that people understood the difference between the two and accepted it. Neither side is going to win this battle either. It's not going to end until people understand that the thoery of evolution can't debunk religion in the theological world, and creationism will never debunk evolution in the scientific world.

 

[steen]

Well, I bet many creationists would disagree with you that creationism is "claims that the science is wrong, nothing else."

As that is nearly the ONLY argument or "evidence" seen from them, they would be wrong.

Creationism is an alternate theory of the development of the earth,

What do you mean with "alternate theory"? You are not implying that it is develioped through the stringent application of the Scientific Method, are you? You are not implying that the word "theory" applied to creationism is valid in comparison to the term "theory" applied to a Scientific theory, are you?

Nah, because that would be dishonest, so I am sure that wasn't what you meant. Just felt I should calrify for you.


Now, lets get back to what you claimed. Creationism is not an "alternate" to anything, it is a purely speculative argument based on many outright lies, arguments against made up straw men and promoted thorugh outright deception. So when you say "alternate," are you in any way suggesting "valid"?

which is completely speculative as you said,

Well, more than that. The justification for creationism is based on lies and misrepresentations.
[quotye]but most ID-ers[/quote]Wait a moment!!!!!!
Are you saying that ID is the same as creationism? Are you admitting that the claimed differentiation carefully designed to possibly have ID put in the school room, thatseparation is outright fraud? Are you saying they are lying?

aren't saying we should teach it instead of evolution, but rather alongside it.

And why alongside? In Science Class, we are teaching about Scientific Theories. ID is no more a Scientific Theory than is the-earth-is-flat. Speculations are not taught alongside Scientific Theories. Why should we start NOW in so degrading the teachings relating to the Scientific Method?

Granted, most of those people would very much like to debunk evolution, and every other sentence out of their mouths contains the words 'only a theory'. However, this does not mean that someone can't believe in both creationism and evolution at the same time.

Actually one can believe in "creation" and accept Evolution at the same time. However, "vreation" is not the same as creationism. Creationism has developed to solely claiming evolution to be wrong. And, as the ID crowd insists, ID is very different from creationism. Maybe you missed that part in how you seem to use them interchangeably?

I understand what a scientific theory is, thank you, and I'm not trying to tell you that creationism is one.

But you are trying to say that ID is kind of one, right?

At best it is a philosophical theory, but mostly it's a theological one.

Ah, so it shoudl NOT be taught in science class, not ALONG WITH Scientific theories? Then why did you suggest this up above?

When I was in high school, they had us read parts of the old testament in our humanities classes because the bible is a very philosophical text. Nobody was going home at night confused about the fact that in one class they were being told the earth and life was created in 7 days by god and in another they were being told that life stared in a primordial soup. That's all I'm trying to say.

So perhaps you should be careful about your vocabulary, such as when you suggest ID (but apparently not creationism? or both?) being taught ALONG the Scientific Theory of Evolution.

The main issue of this conflict is that people are worried that science will debunk their religion, so they try to defend it by changing the direction of science. That's wrong. I bet if you asked most people 10 years ago if they thought the theory of evolution threatened their religious views, the number would be significantly smaller than it is today, because people on both sides are so fervently attacking one another. The issue has become so polarized nowadays that it has become a full blown battle between religion and science. It wasn't that long ago that people understood the difference between the two and accepted it. Neither side is going to win this battle either. It's not going to end until people understand that the thoery of evolution can't debunk religion in the theological world, and creationism will never debunk evolution in the scientific world.

Ah, but YOU are the one who claim there is a battle. Science is NOT trying to debunk religion, so your analogy is false. Science is doing its thing, providing evidence of observable phenomena. When fundies stop attacking science through their lies and deceptions, the battle stops. Science is not doing the fighting, it merely fights back at when it is being lied about. So reign in the lying, deceptive creationsits and IDers, and the battle stops. It is that simple.

 

[goligoth]

Well, you can believe that, yes.
Well, to me, it seems like you are trying to lump abiogenesis and Evolution together. I hope you have an inkling by now that this will be perceived as dishonest?
How?

Oh, you mean "theoretical" as in there is absolutely no evidence, but you believe it could have happened? That of course means that EVERY creation myth from anywhere is "theoretically possible."
So you are saying that we have to teach them all, right? We have to teach that a raven plucked humans out of a shell on the beach, and that the Earth rests on the back of a giant turtle and.....

In the second clump of words you are obviously either extremely biased towards the teaching of all theories or extremely biased against the teaching of all theories. I was wondering which it was.
And your second point about having to teach all if we teach one is well taken. But I was wondering is there any difference between old mythology and new theories other than the time that they originated or the train of thought used in their creation?

 

[steen]

In the second clump of words you are obviously either extremely biased towards the teaching of all theories or extremely biased against the teaching of all theories. I was wondering which it was.

Neither. I am biased against misrepresenting any theory as a Scientific theory, which is something specific and different than "only a theory" as it is the end product of the Scientific Method. I am FOR teaching Scientific Theories and AGAINST teaching other speculative things as 'theory" along with Scientific Theories in the misrepresentation that these alternatives somehow have scientific evidence and legitimacy associated with them.

And your second point about having to teach all if we teach one is well taken. But I was wondering is there any difference between old mythology and new theories other than the time that they originated or the train of thought used in their creation?

There is a difference between ALL of them and the SCIENTIFIC THEOPRIES. This has to do with the Scientific method. You REALLY need to know what that is to have this discussion, as you seem to see the Scientific Theory as just another form of theory

 

[Mikkel]

Ah, so it shoudl NOT be taught in science class, not ALONG WITH Scientific theories? Then why did you suggest this up above?
So perhaps you should be careful about your vocabulary, such as when you suggest ID (but apparently not creationism? or both?) being taught ALONG the Scientific Theory of Evolution.
Ah, but YOU are the one who claim there is a battle. Science is NOT trying to debunk religion, so your analogy is false. Science is doing its thing, providing evidence of observable phenomena. When fundies stop attacking science through their lies and deceptions, the battle stops. Science is not doing the fighting, it merely fights back at when it is being lied about. So reign in the lying, deceptive creationsits and IDers, and the battle stops. It is that simple.

You seem to not read closely enough to understand someone's argument before you start tearing it apart. If you had read any of my posts closely enough to understand my position you would know that I am strongly against teaching ID or creationism in any type of scientific setting, and am appaled at the idea of teaching faith as science. I have never once said that I supported that. I was merely trying to help you understand where many people supporting ID being taught in the classroom are coming from. I suggest you go back and read some of my earlier posts on this thread and try to get a better understanding of what I'm talking about, otherwise this discussion isn't worth having any longer.

As and add on; when I say 'theory' I'm not necessarily talking about a scientific theory. So when I say creationism is an alternate theory of the development of the earth, I'm not implying it is backed by empirical evidence.

 

[steen]

You seem to not read closely enough to understand someone's argument before you start tearing it apart. If you had read any of my posts closely enough to understand my position you would know that I am strongly against teaching ID or creationism in any type of scientific setting, and am appaled at the idea of teaching faith as science. I have never once said that I supported that.

OK. Sorry. Guess I got mislead by your "along with" remark.

I was merely trying to help you understand where many people supporting ID being taught in the classroom are coming from.

Oh, I already know where they come from. Wishful thinking, proselytising, and a desire to get creationism into the class room despite the law having kicked it out. yes, I know exactly where it comes from.

I suggest you go back and read some of my earlier posts on this thread and try to get a better understanding of what I'm talking about,

Well, your posts are a rather confusing mishmash.

As and add on; when I say 'theory' I'm not necessarily talking about a scientific theory. So when I say creationism is an alternate theory of the development of the earth, I'm not implying it is backed by empirical evidence.

Ah, but when it is an "alternate" theory, that implies that it is just as much a "theory" as the SCIENTIFIC THEORY. It places the level of "theory" that it holds on the same level as a SCIENTIFIC Theory. The words you use do matter here.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

No evidence, how did dinosaur bones get there? Let's even include the supernatural (religion) in our discussion. If we are going to include the supernatural in our discussion of how our natural world is, then

If God did make dinosaurs, why did He do it? 1) For practice (He's an evolutionist himself)? 2) For fun (those T-rex vs. Triceratops battles were cool to watch for a while)? 3) For man to ponder and think maybe he evolved because God doesn't want too many believers (heaven is getting overcrowded)?

If God didn't make dinosaurs, then why did God make dinosaur bones? 1) Because he knew man would invent cars and need oil? 3) Dinosaurs are fun for little boys to make believe about? 3) For man to ponder and think maybe he evolved because God doesn't want too many believers (heaven is getting overcrowded)?

Or is it just ... one of those mysteries man was not meant to know?

Teacher: OK class, today we are going to study dinosaurs. We know dinosaurs were created by God. And that is all there is to it because there is no evidence to believe anything else.

Johnny: Why did God make dinosaurs only to have them all die out?

Teacher: We are not meant to know that. Next question?

There is no evidence that God created dinosaurs, or anything else for that matter.

The reason intelligent design shouldn't be tought in the classroom is because it isn't grounded in science, and therefore cannot be qualified as an accepted scientific theory.

It isn't any kind of science at all, it's a line of speculative reasoning.

So is the "theory" of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monsterism).

Evolution and creationism are completely incompatible. One is an attempt to explain by natural causes natural phenonema. The other is uses the supernatural to explain natural pheonema. The former we call sciene. The latter we call religion. How can you compare them?

In terms of science.

When you are talking about teaching something in a Science class then you have to compare them (the theory of evolution and the idea of Intelligent Design) using science, for which ID has no evidence what so ever.

I would say to you that the majority of Christians in the country, who don't believe that god really created the world in seven days, but do believe He exists would agree with me that evolution could easily be a part of God's plan.

I would have to agree, except that those who beleive that the earth was created in 7 days can easily except the Theory of Evolution too. If the earth and life was created in 7 days, and it's only been like 7,000 years since then, there is no logical reason to think that they couldn't have evolved from then (an reason that wouldn't be used by an old-earth creationist).

Theoretical science is how we advance as a technological race. If no theories were ever taught then everyone would be ignorant to most of physics and lots of other sciences.

1) ID is not a theory.

2) ID has not evidence or supporting data what so ever.

3) Teaching speculative ideas in science is frowned upon by those who actually study science.

You won't find the word dinosaurs in the bible, just like you won't find many names of other animals in the Bible. The Bible clearly says God created all the animals and that is proof enough for me. ...

But not for a biologist.

Please understand what science is, the study of empirical data, not philosophical discussions of what might have been.

Darnuts theory of evolution is a fairy tale as well(origin of man), and no evolutionists can provide 100% solid scientific proof where man originated from.

1) There isn't 100% scientific proof that we event truly exist.

2) Creationism or ID have yet to find .00000...1% evidence for the origin of man. If a theory has any evidence at all then it should be the prevailing theory.

3) It is extremely hypocritical for you to need no evidence at all for creationism, but need 100% proof for evolution.

Provide for me a natural explanation as to WHO created the Earth, Sun, Moon, planets, stars, sky, firmament, galaxies, expanse, waters.

This has absolutely nothing to do what evolution, or even biology, that is cosmology.

And Intelligent design is theoretically possible so I say we teach it until it can be disproven.

What? I refuse to beleive that you even just said that.

Disprove this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monsterism
:spin:
Now according to your logic we should teach Flying Spaghetti Monsterism until it can be disproven.

Gidi-up.

When I was in high school, they had us read parts of the old testament in our humanities classes because the bible is a very philosophical text.

The Bible is an important part of human history, and philosophy. There's no reason that it shouldn't be taught in those contexts, but principals that have no evidence should not be taught as science.

 

[goligoth]

Yes, yes, yes I have already been scolded for that post and I apologize. According to the logic I originally used yes all theories are plausible and should be taught but I have retracked that belief and I now believe that Intelligent design should be taught on the same level as mythology is.

 

[steen]

I now believe that Intelligent design should be taught on the same level as mythology is.

Here is a very inetersting real-life situation regarding this. It has been going on for more than one year in Dover, PA:
http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology

And then, of course, there is the silly "Scopes Trial II" per the Kansas School Board that has been going on, a show trial by conservative loons who somehow got back in after they once embarassed kansas in the past with similar claptrap.
http://www.refuseandresist.org/culture/art.php?aid=1960

But this one is a must-read as mythology goes:
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/local/12497453.htm

The deceptions and lies of ID are pushed all over the country.

 

[goligoth]

That doverbiology site is pretty good. I am not as confused as I once was on this subject. I was under the belief that ID was pretty close to the theory of evolution such is not the case. Now that I think about it ID isn't even on the same level as mythology. Mythology is 100% religion whereas this is just...a guess from nothing?! All it says is that we as animals are so cool that we couldn't have possibly just evolved.
I always wondered about that. A whole bunch of atoms just keep connencting to one another until after several million years the atoms start to create things that can live and can die...:shrug: This idea-theory-thing is just religious...huh :unsure13: . Well yeah it should be taught but with the discalimer: made by religious zealots; believe at one's own discrecsion, keep out of reach of small children.

 

[MrFungus420]

You won't find the word dinosaurs in the bible, just like you won't find many names of other animals in the Bible. The Bible clearly says God created all the animals and that is proof enough for me.

Once again, the only proof of the Bible being the Bible.

Darnuts theory of evolution is a fairy tale as well(origin of man), and no evolutionists can provide 100% solid scientific proof where man originated from.

And, no creationist can give any proof other than circular one of using the Bible as proof of itself.

By the way, the #1 selling book of all time is the Bible my friend. :lol:

So? The number 2 selling book of all time is "Quotations from Chairman Mao". And the number 10 is "Valley of the Dolls". Is that supposed to have any real significance? Is it any real suprise that the top selling book of all time is a book that been in publication for over 650 years, and forced down peoples' throats under threat of eternal damnation?

Or, are you tryiing to make the argument that popularity=truth?

 

[MrFungus420]

Provide for me a natural explaination as to WHO created the Earth, Sun, Moon, planets, stars, sky, firmament, galaxies, expanse, waters.

A nonsensical question. You're making the assumption that there was some sort of being that created everything, and, by definition, such a being is supernatural. Therefore, you're question has no answer, because you are asking for a natural answer that tells who the supernatural being is that created everything.

 

[robin]

There is no intelligent design in evolution. Nature is a blind watchmaker. However if the God botherers wish to argue the existence of God on the grounds that.. Life can't possibly be accidental, they simply need to introduce the idea of intelligent design at an earlier stage in the universe by arguing.. the universe must have been designed intelligently for the physical constants to be precisely at the right value for life to have started & evolved.

 

[yellowcake]

i truly believe in the connectedness of everything - the things that are organic in this universe share a life force; and i truly believe that our greater responsibility is towards each other than to a christian faith based idealology of god.

man himself is an animal; with the capacity for higher thought… we are just hairless apes that have achieved through evolution, the ability to understand that one day we will die; a thought all other animals on this planet are spared of. our own mortality becomes quite a problem for us; knowing that one day, it will all end.. that we will die. people become so paralyzed by the fear of death, that they have conjured up a god — one that they can place all of their faith in, in hopes that when the one day pass; all will be well… although i firmly believe in core balances in the universe; ie, you can’t know pleasure without pain… you can’t know dark without light, you can’t know good without evil… i do not believe that we will all be burning in a sea of fire for simply being the animals that we are…

it is more along the lines of karma… what you put into the pot of our mutual life force; as far as negativity or positivity, will come back at you 10 fold…

don’t look to the bible as much as looking deeply into yourself for the answers…

they are there.

 

[yellowcake]

and p.s.....

your "god" cannot be found in a microscope... please refrain from spending billions of dollars on a concept that cannot be proven; and feed and clothe some people in this world with the money instead...

 

[Shoey]

A nonsensical question. You're making the assumption that there was some sort of being that created everything, and, by definition, such a being is supernatural. Therefore, you're question has no answer, because you are asking for a natural answer that tells who the supernatural being is that created everything.

My question does have a answer but you can't answer it. Nobody here thats believes in evolution when it comes to the origin of man can find its beginning, or WHO created man. You don't believe Adam existed but yet in the book of Genesis God mentions the Tigris and Euphrates river, which still exists today. Evolution is naturalistic effort to account for the origin and development of the universe. That view begins with the ASSUMPTION that there is no personal, Divine creator who made and fashioned the world, rather, everything came into existence by a series of chance happenings that occured billions of years ago. "Chance" is NOT 100% scientific proof!!!

 

[Shoey]

and p.s.....

your "god" cannot be found in a microscope... please refrain from spending billions of dollars on a concept that cannot be proven; and feed and clothe some people in this world with the money instead...

And you can't provide 100% scientific proof where man originated from. Go spend more money updating your polluted evolution text books. I not need to update the Bible.

 

[Shoey]

Once again, the only proof of the Bible being the Bible.



And, no creationist can give any proof other than circular one of using the Bible as proof of itself.



So? The number 2 selling book of all time is "Quotations from Chairman Mao". And the number 10 is "Valley of the Dolls". Is that supposed to have any real significance? Is it any real suprise that the top selling book of all time is a book that been in publication for over 650 years, and forced down peoples' throats under threat of eternal damnation?

Or, are you tryiing to make the argument that popularity=truth?

Find the words dog, cat, horse, elephant in the book of Genesis. Oh, according to you the Bible has been forced down peoples throats but the polluted teachings of evolution haven't??????

 

[tecoyah]

My question does have a answer but you can't answer it. Nobody here thats believes in evolution when it comes to the origin of man can find its beginning, or WHO created man. You don't believe Adam existed but yet in the book of Genesis God mentions the Tigris and Euphrates river, which still exists today. Evolution is naturalistic effort to account for the origin and development of the universe. That view begins with the ASSUMPTION that there is no personal, Divine creator who made and fashioned the world, rather, everything came into existence by a series of chance happenings that occured billions of years ago. "Chance" is NOT 100% scientific proof!!!

OK...I simply cant resist anymore. You are asking for "100% scientific proof", and continuously argue the ignorance of others by quoting a book that has no chance whatsoever of meeting the criteria you place on others. I will now requst YOUR PROOFS
, knowing full well it is impossible for you to provide them.
At the same time I will throw you the perverbial Bone......science cannot provide 100% proof of the origin of Humankind, nor has it EVER claimed to have said proof. It does however, have a couple working theories that hold up pretty well under the microscope, in fact, I believe we have attempted (in several threads) to provide a small portion of it for you....only to be ignored.

Now....Show us the indisputable proof of Gods hand in this......and please meet your own defined criteria:

100% Scientific Proof

 

[yellowcake]

Darwinian Theory of natural selection and evolution is being proven every day. You CAN hold the remains of cro magnon and neandertal man in your hands.. measure.. evaluate and speculate on concrete evidence. there are methods of studying culture, weaponry, and rituals that show levels of evolution, once man became self aware.. get a book; read. it is a science that is still evolving itself; but the evidence is irrefutable. the bible is a story.. with no evidence that can be quantified in any way shape or form.
you are trying to provide evidence of something that is purely an idea.. one born of man's inadequacies and need to be without blame for his shortcomings... know what you are.. accept it. and you will thrive.