> > All-Seeing-I wrote:

> > > 1) Not using science. What compels you to believe the ToE?

> *
> Not using mathematics, what compels you to believe
> that 2 + 2 = 4?

> earle
> *
> PS:  Actually, 2 + 2 = 5 (for large values of 2.)

> I could not reply directly to "All-Seeing-I" because I had killfiled
>  him.  I can only reply secondarily once someone else has already
> replied to him.

> So here goes:

>>> 1) Not using science. What compels you to believe the ToE?

> My observation, gathered over my entire lifetime, that nothing is
> constant in my life except change.

>>> 2) Please give an opinion (not a scientific definition) for why
>>> you think one species can give rise to one or more other species
>>> that are clearly no longer like the original.

> A poodle, a Great Dane, and a chihuahua look more different from each
>  other anatomically than some creatures that biologists have
> identified as different species.

> None of us looks exactly like our parents.  And they don't look
> exactly like their own parents (= our grandparents). And so on.
> Differences can build up dramatically, over many generations.

> The existence of ring species.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

>>> 3a) If God worked a genuine miracle in your life (and there could
>>> be no other reasonable explanation other then He did), would you
>>> tell others about it?

> No.  I prefer to keep my advantages secret.

> If I won the state lottery, I wouldn't tell others about it either.

>> All-Seeing-I schreef:

>>> 5) Does the ToE bring you any personal comfort knowing that you are
>>> simply the result of unguided processes and a freak coincidence that
>>> caused spontaneous life?

>> Yes.
>> A lot.
>> Not in the beginning, but now I 'matured' a little I think it is a
>> great thing that the universe produced life that is now contemplating
>> that very universe.
>> I also firmly hope there is more intelligent life out there besides us
>> because I would hate to see us kill of this planet like we are doing now.

> My dad (who was and still is very religious) was convinced that even if
> the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. began to nuke each other in nuclear war, God
> Almighty would intervene and stop all those missiles.  Because God made
> a covenant with Noah not to allow any more worldwide catastrophes.

> That's a comforting thought--we don't have to fear global thermonuclear
> war because God will stop it in its tracks.

> If that's not the case, and if there are no advanced aliens from whom we
> can learn either, then it's all up to us.  We gotta put this planet
> Earth right ourselves.

> But just think:  If there are no intelligent aliens out there, then the
> entire Universe is ours for the taking!  We might have moral qualms
> about conquering alien civilizations.  But if they don't exist, then all
> those planets--quadrillions of them--will belong to us someday!  The
> possibilities are awesome!

> [snip to a few specific points]

> > It's far, far more demoralizing to me that people are unkind to
> > each other than it is that we're the product of evolution.

> How we treat others seems to be the central theme of Jesus' ministry.
> So kudos to you for sorting that one out.

> > But then there's the other emotional problem of deciding along the way
> > that God apparently isn't really there, and then thinking later that I
> > might be wrong about that.  It may be just as hard to go back as it
> > was to leave.

> I can understand this. Without tangible evidence for God it is
> difficult to believe He even exists at times. Back then God seemed to
> be more active in the world via true prophets and other supernatural
> events. But today he seems almost nonexistent to those without keen
> perception.

> What I discovered was, religion is what I was most unhappy with but, I
> was not unhappy  with the existence of God or what God stood for.
> Religion was not offering answers. The answers are there. However,
> organized religions are just not teaching the answers. Jesus addressed
> this even in his day..

> OTOH science offers answers but the answers are untrustworthy because
> mankind is untrustworthy. Mankind has inherent flaws therefore
> mankind's science will have flaws.

> BTW, thanks for your replies.