Can science and faith really coexist? Please convince me...

[Seeker79]

The "word of God" is ultimately that which one should live their life by. It would seem to me that the bible (which I think we can agree does make that claim) should give us all we need in terms of understanding our natural world.

Is it really fair to put such conditions on the Bible? "Well if the Bible had a concise definition of molecular biology, I'd beleive it."
Based on your earlier post it also seems you have some misinformed ideas of what the bible is saying about the natural world. Such as the earth being the center.

I never said that the bible specifically claimed that the earth was the center of the universe. I'm just saying that the descriptions of nature in the bible reflect the narrowness in scope that the peoples of the world had at the time absent scientific instruments or complex mathematical calculations. Why would the word of god be restricted to such limited scope?

As far as "the christian life" goes, there's definitely a variety of definitions of what that phrase means, and I shouldn't have used it so flippantly. However, while having a conviction about one specific interpretation of the christian life is necessary for maintaining one's belief system, I don't think making that assumption to a non-believer is very helpful for debate.

The only definition that matters is the correct one. Making the assumption was necessary for one who claimed to be something they were most definately not.

[/quote]

I'm not trying to fight you. You clearly are confident about your definition, which is fine. But please acknowledge that there are varying interpretations of what it means to be leading a christian life, or at least give me your definition. I lived what I thought was a christian life (ie, I prayed to Jesus Christ, read the word regularly, went to bible study and church regularly, worshipped him, and BELIEVED) at least at the time. If you think I was missing the Holy Spirit or whatever else, you're entitled to your opinion, but for you to say I'm claiming to be something I wasn't shows you're not making any attempt to acknowledge that alternate interpretations of a "christian life" are at all legitimate in some capacity, which I think is problematic.

[touchingcloth]

Why? Do labs scare you? You were the one claiming that Darwinian evolution is the most illuminating scientific theories we have. So prove it.. Labs would be a good start.. I want to see this weight of information.

...

Earlier you stated that the sheer weight of evidence from multiple disciplines, elevates evolution to the current status as one of the most remarkable and illuminating scientific theories we have. But now you seem to be backing down from that statement.. Why? Where is this evidence?

...

Now don't panic.. Again, I want you to show me the proof for macroevolution. Show me where it has created something new.. Let's say a new species of animal then. Go for it.. Shock me.

...

So where is the science here? A hypothesis.. Is that all you have?

Let's crack on with the evidence then, seeing as you're still having difficulty with what distinguishes science from religion. If you want to regard evolutionary theory as philosophy, then go nuts. But you have to concede that, for a "philosophy", it has remarkable predictive power.
I said there a multiple different disciplines that provide evidence for common descent, so here's a little bit of that evidence from a few of those disciplines:

• Taxonomics
  Species can be objectively classified into a nested hierarchy. This results in a branching tree, in which certain traits are found only at a certain branch and beyond (e.g. birds have feathers, mammals don't; seeds are found only in certain types of plants). It was known that species could be classified in this manner long before Darwin was writing or even living (Linnaeus was key in the founding of the discipline).
  The fact that there are no known instances in which this hierarchy is violated is strong evidence for common descent, as any violation of the hierarchy would be a huge huge step towards falsifying the theory.
• Molecular Genetics
  There are DNA sequences known as pseudogenes. These are sequences that look very much like ordinary genes, but have some fault in them that stops them from becoming transcribed into protein sequences correctly. Due to gene duplication it is sometimes the case that a duplicated gene mutates into a pseudogene (i.e. non-functional) & in this case it is termed a redundant pseudogene (due to it having a functional counterpart).
  The ψη-globin gene is a redundant haemoglobin gene - it no longer transcribes proteins. This redundant gene is present in primates (including humans) only, in the exact same location on the chromosome.
• Palaeontology
  Many transitional forms have been found in the fossil record. A species such as Tiktaalik represents a transition from fish to tetrapods, having the gills and scales of fish but the lungs and rib structure of a tetrapod. A particularly interesting thing about the discovery of Tiktaalik was that the palaeontologists who found it were digging in a coastal area known to be of around the same age as the hypothesised transition from fish to amphibian.
  A particularly striking find was that of Yanoconodon allini, which shows a jaw strutcure intermediate to the jaw structure of reptiles, and the jaw/inner ear structure of mammals; the ear bones are of a similar scale to those of mammal ears, but like reptiles (and unlike mammals) the bones are attached to those of the jaw.
• Geographic Distribution
  Certain animal types are found only in certain areas of the world. This is probably most evident in Australia where the majority of the mammals are marsupials, and where the majority of the world's marsupials are to be found. In addition the monotremes (egg-laying mammals) are only found in Australia.
• Observed Evolution
  One of the most striking events of evolution in action yet observed is in the Podarcis sicula lizard. In the early 70s 5 pairs of the lizards were moved from the Croation island of Pod Kopiste to neighbouring Pod Mrcaru. The lizard population expanded and was essentially free from human contact as the Croation war of independence raged. The island was revisted in recent years and the Pod Mcraru population was found to have adapted to the island's available food by having a markedly different head morphology. Even more surprising - given the short time span - was the fact that the lizards on Pod MCraru had evolved a structure known as cecal valves in the gut, that alter the way in which food passes through and is broken down in the digestive system

[Gman]

Let's crack on with the evidence then, seeing as you're still having difficulty with what distinguishes science from religion. If you want to regard evolutionary theory as philosophy, then go nuts. But you have to concede that, for a "philosophy", it has remarkable predictive power.
I said there a multiple different disciplines that provide evidence for common descent, so here's a little bit of that evidence from a few of those disciplines:

Again.. Darwinian evolution is NOT science… It's an assumption of how things evolved. Science is also not about believing. If science is about observation and experimentation, then we know what happens when conditions are met.

Belief on the other hand requires faith in things unseen and trust in things hoped for. Science and belief are two different things. Clearly science works to a different standard: testing our ideas vs reality.

Taxonomics
Species can be objectively classified into a nested hierarchy. This results in a branching tree, in which certain traits are found only at a certain branch and beyond (e.g. birds have feathers, mammals don't; seeds are found only in certain types of plants). It was known that species could be classified in this manner long before Darwin was writing or even living (Linnaeus was key in the founding of the discipline).
The fact that there are no known instances in which this hierarchy is violated is strong evidence for common descent, as any violation of the hierarchy would be a huge huge step towards falsifying the theory.

Tree of life? Scientists from "New Scientist Magazine" state in the 2009 article Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life. In it, it states "It is clear that the Darwinian tree is no longer an adequate description of how evolution in general works." p.3. In other words you can't effectively test a disappearing tree....

Molecular Genetics
There are DNA sequences known as pseudogenes. These are sequences that look very much like ordinary genes, but have some fault in them that stops them from becoming transcribed into protein sequences correctly. Due to gene duplication it is sometimes the case that a duplicated gene mutates into a pseudogene (i.e. non-functional) & in this case it is termed a redundant pseudogene (due to it having a functional counterpart).
The ψη-globin gene is a redundant haemoglobin gene - it no longer transcribes proteins. This redundant gene is present in primates (including humans) only, in the exact same location on the chromosome.

To make a long story short.. What is common to all these Pseudogene studies is that the pseudogenes from humans and apes are not identical.

Palaeontology
Many transitional forms have been found in the fossil record. A species such as Tiktaalik represents a transition from fish to tetrapods, having the gills and scales of fish but the lungs and rib structure of a tetrapod. A particularly interesting thing about the discovery of Tiktaalik was that the palaeontologists who found it were digging in a coastal area known to be of around the same age as the hypothesised transition from fish to amphibian.
A particularly striking find was that of Yanoconodon allini, which shows a jaw strutcure intermediate to the jaw structure of reptiles, and the jaw/inner ear structure of mammals; the ear bones are of a similar scale to those of mammal ears, but like reptiles (and unlike mammals) the bones are attached to those of the jaw.

Hypothesised transition? Well my hypothesis is that Tiktaalik doesn't represent a transition from fish to tetrapods. Characteristics but not transitions.. Again the ancient species Tiktaalik is guesswork. Paleontologists suggest that it was an intermediate form between fish such as Panderichthys. It's just another example of someone exerting their philosophy into their science. Also in looking at the bone structure "essentially all fish (including Tiktaalik) have small pelvic fins relative to their pectoral fins. The legs of tetrapods are just the opposite: the hind limbs attached to the pelvic girdle are almost always more robust than the fore limbs attached to the pectoral girdle."

No one was there to see it transition into tetrapods... There are no clear links from fish to amphibians to land mammals. It's a belief..

Geographic Distribution
Certain animal types are found only in certain areas of the world. This is probably most evident in Australia where the majority of the mammals are marsupials, and where the majority of the world's marsupials are to be found. In addition the monotremes (egg-laying mammals) are only found in Australia.

Actually monotremes pose a problem for evolutionists. What could they have evolved from? Of course there are "possible" ideas how they "may" have evolved. But again guesswork...

Observed Evolution
One of the most striking events of evolution in action yet observed is in the Podarcis sicula lizard. In the early 70s 5 pairs of the lizards were moved from the Croation island of Pod Kopiste to neighbouring Pod Mrcaru. The lizard population expanded and was essentially free from human contact as the Croation war of independence raged. The island was revisted in recent years and the Pod Mcraru population was found to have adapted to the island's available food by having a markedly different head morphology. Even more surprising - given the short time span - was the fact that the lizards on Pod MCraru had evolved a structure known as cecal valves in the gut, that alter the way in which food passes through and is broken down in the digestive system

Adaptation? Oh, well sure we know that things can adapt to their environment.. Nothing new here. Here is another belief.. I asked you specifically to give me factual information for macro-evolution and you have provided nothing of the sort.. Just possibilities, assumptions and the like. A philosophy.. Sorry.

[touchingcloth]

Tree of life? Scientists from "New Scientist Magazine" state in the 2009 article Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life.

Did you read the whole article? It was about later gene transfer and the fact that the branching areas of the tree are necessarily fuzzy when you have 2 or more populations that are not yet totally distinct.

To make a long story short.. What is common to all these Pseudogene studies is that the pseudogenes from humans and apes are not identical.

I'm glad you brought that up. Pseudogenes and other bits of junk DNA cannot be selected for seeing as they never manifest themselves in the phenotype. The pseudogenes shared by primates differ at the background rate mutation, by the amount that would be expected based on the evolutionary distance between any 2 primates.

No one was there to see it transition into tetrapods...

lol wut

Actually monotremes pose a problem for evolutionists. What could they have evolved from? Of course there are "possible" ideas how they "may" have evolved. But again guesswork...

I agree - because it happened before the invention of the video camera we must accept the fact that it never happened.

Adaptation? Oh, well sure we know that things can adapt to their environment.. Nothing new here. Here is another belief.. I asked you specifically to give me factual information for macro-evolution and you have provided nothing of the sort.. Just possibilities, assumptions and the like. A philosophy.. Sorry.

Are you doing this deliberately now? The lizards evolved new organs.

[derrick09]

Hey Gman, I like your response and I don't mean to put words in our skeptic's mouth but I have a feeling he's going to say that you didn't respond to the Yanoconodon allini and that you only responded to the popular tiktaalik fossil. Also, he's going to probably mention the fact that the Pod Mrcaru evolved cecal valves shows that it is slowly but surely trying to turn into a different kind of animal.

[touchingcloth]

..the fact that the Pod Mrcaru evolved cecal valves shows that it is slowly but surely trying to turn into a different kind of animal.

It isn't trying to do anything. To suggest that would be to show a profound misunderstanding about evolutionary theory.

[Gman]

Did you read the whole article? It was about later gene transfer and the fact that the branching areas of the tree are necessarily fuzzy when you have 2 or more populations that are not yet totally distinct.

Fuzzy? Fuzzy is not factual...

Yes I did read the article including the part that says, "The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that," he says. "What's less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change." "Biology is vastly more complex than we thought," he says, "and facing up to this complexity will be as scary as the conceptual upheavals physicists had to take on board in the early 20th century."

I'm glad you brought that up. Pseudogenes and other bits of junk DNA cannot be selected for seeing as they never manifest themselves in the phenotype. The pseudogenes shared by primates differ at the background rate mutation, by the amount that would be expected based on the evolutionary distance between any 2 primates.

And how does this assertion back up macro-evolution? Plus "recent studies have shown that some pseudogenes are actually required an organism's survival. A survey of the human genome has shown that 19% of pseudogenes are transcribed, implying that they are functional."

Are you doing this deliberately now? The lizards evolved new organs.

New organs such as cecal valves? How does this prove macro-evolution and not micro-evolution? They are still lizards.. Again, a belief...

[Gman]

Hey Gman, I like your response and I don't mean to put words in our skeptic's mouth but I have a feeling he's going to say that you didn't respond to the Yanoconodon allini and that you only responded to the popular tiktaalik fossil. Also, he's going to probably mention the fact that the Pod Mrcaru evolved cecal valves shows that it is slowly but surely trying to turn into a different kind of animal.

Good point derrick.. Yes I believe that is what he is trying to do. I'll just let science do the talking without his belief system...

[derrick09]

..the fact that the Pod Mrcaru evolved cecal valves shows that it is slowly but surely trying to turn into a different kind of animal.

It isn't trying to do anything. To suggest that would be to show a profound misunderstanding about evolutionary theory.

So, do you (and most evolutionists) believe that when ape like creatures evolved into modern humans they were not in the process of becomming something else? Taking your logic then, we shouldn't list animals into groups or even give them different names, we should just call all animals, plants, and matter "the big it" or something since according to what you are stating nothing is distinctively different form something else in this universe. And since us humans are at or near the top of evolutionary development, we should not only have ape in us but bits and pieces of bird, fish, reptile and the like. So far these cecal valves to me, isn't enough to demonstrate macro evolution. But something that would convince me of macro evolution is examples of major growths and formations on animals such as humans suddently sprouted wings, or dogs developing a voice box and try to talk, or fish growing feathers or birds growing gills Or obscene looking normal features (that may improve survival) like humans devloping a third or fourth eye on their cheek or forehead for example. Not to mention something that would convince me of macro evolution would be animal groups developing new methods of reproduction or other forms developing other existing ways of reproduction like humans devloping the ability to lay solid eggs like a bird or kitty cats devloping asexually. I mean, we need to observe huge changes in species to be fully sure that macro evolution happened. Not this stuff with finch beak size, peppered moth color, or this situation with the cecal valves. Can you provide anything more dramatic or not? Also just curious, do you believe in darwinain gradualism or punctuated equalibrium?

[godslanguage]

* Taxonomics
Species can be objectively classified into a nested hierarchy. This results in a branching tree, in which certain traits are found only at a certain branch and beyond (e.g. birds have feathers, mammals don't; seeds are found only in certain types of plants). It was known that species could be classified in this manner long before Darwin was writing or even living (Linnaeus was key in the founding of the discipline).
The fact that there are no known instances in which this hierarchy is violated is strong evidence for common descent, as any violation of the hierarchy would be a huge huge step towards falsifying the theory.
* Molecular Genetics
There are DNA sequences known as pseudogenes. These are sequences that look very much like ordinary genes, but have some fault in them that stops them from becoming transcribed into protein sequences correctly. Due to gene duplication it is sometimes the case that a duplicated gene mutates into a pseudogene (i.e. non-functional) & in this case it is termed a redundant pseudogene (due to it having a functional counterpart).
The ψη-globin gene is a redundant haemoglobin gene - it no longer transcribes proteins. This redundant gene is present in primates (including humans) only, in the exact same location on the chromosome.
* Palaeontology
Many transitional forms have been found in the fossil record. A species such as Tiktaalik represents a transition from fish to tetrapods, having the gills and scales of fish but the lungs and rib structure of a tetrapod. A particularly interesting thing about the discovery of Tiktaalik was that the palaeontologists who found it were digging in a coastal area known to be of around the same age as the hypothesised transition from fish to amphibian.
A particularly striking find was that of Yanoconodon allini, which shows a jaw strutcure intermediate to the jaw structure of reptiles, and the jaw/inner ear structure of mammals; the ear bones are of a similar scale to those of mammal ears, but like reptiles (and unlike mammals) the bones are attached to those of the jaw.
* Geographic Distribution
Certain animal types are found only in certain areas of the world. This is probably most evident in Australia where the majority of the mammals are marsupials, and where the majority of the world's marsupials are to be found. In addition the monotremes (egg-laying mammals) are only found in Australia.
* Observed Evolution
One of the most striking events of evolution in action yet observed is in the Podarcis sicula lizard. In the early 70s 5 pairs of the lizards were moved from the Croation island of Pod Kopiste to neighbouring Pod Mrcaru. The lizard population expanded and was essentially free from human contact as the Croation war of independence raged. The island was revisted in recent years and the Pod Mcraru population was found to have adapted to the island's available food by having a markedly different head morphology. Even more surprising - given the short time span - was the fact that the lizards on Pod MCraru had evolved a structure known as cecal valves in the gut, that alter the way in which food passes through and is broken down in the digestive system

Sorry, but the only evidence for Darwinian Evolution is micro-evolution. Ya see, macro-evolution being based on micro-evolution is a complete delusion, its sort of like stacking a deck of cards to the sun, it'll never get there. This stack-up mechanism is the result of a completely flawed mindset, one that is unacceptable to 20th and 21st century Engineering and Logic, a complete experimental failure, basically a delusion - a Darwin Delusion to be more precise. As for the fossil record, its discrete and not continuous, its what we'd expect if evolution (another word for creation or unfolding of existing information) was a planned, programmed and determined event. Accumulation of random mutations (micro-evolution) had nothing to do with evolution except produce either deterioration or at most trivial changes within a species that are completely reversible. Irreversibility is in fact evolution, and the mechanism behind it is not random mutations and natural selection. Time is not the answer for Evolution, its the mechanics running the clock. The mechanism is not:

start loop:
1) Mutate current offspring (generated from parent offspring)
2) check fitness of offspring against existing population (survival of the fittest being the primary fitness test)
(next current offspring is the winner of fitness test and goes on to the next generation)
goto 1)

Time, natural selection (survival of the fittest aka the fitness test) and random mutations had nothing to do with creation of life. Its all B.S. nonsense.

Junk science.

[touchingcloth]

I'd like you all to try a little thought experiment...bear with me:

Accept, temporarily, the proposition that evolution is true and that every living thing shares a common ancestor. Now take an example such as the Pod mcraru lizards and assume we have the ability to monitor one of them and its offspring, and that offsrping's offspring, and so on for many times longer than a human lifetime. So assume that as the generations go by we see a flattening of the head, an addition of a cecal valve, a lengthening of the gut, the loss of some other digestive organs, teeth that shorten and flatten, legs that get longer and skinnier, claws that shorten, vertebrae that start to become prominent resulting in a crest along the back, the loss of the ability to breed with other lizard populations, and so on for a seemingly infinite number of tiny changes with every generation.
Assume that all this happens and we have the means to examine every single generation of a single lineage for as many years as we like. At which point would you hold aloft a newly born creature and proclaim that we have found a new species? Which generation-to-generation change would have to occur to make you say this individual is a different species to his parent rather than this individual differs from his parent by an imperceptible amount?

[jlay]

I'd like you all to try a little thought experiment...bear with me:

Accept, temporarily, the proposition that evolution is true and that every living thing shares a common ancestor. Now take an example such as the Pod mcraru lizards and assume we have the ability to monitor one of them and its offspring, and that offsrping's offspring, and so on for many times longer than a human lifetime. So assume that as the generations go by we see a flattening of the head, an addition of a cecal valve, a lengthening of the gut, the loss of some other digestive organs, teeth that shorten and flatten, legs that get longer and skinnier, claws that shorten, vertebrae that start to become prominent resulting in a crest along the back, the loss of the ability to breed with other lizard populations, and so on for a seemingly infinite number of tiny changes with every generation.
Assume that all this happens and we have the means to examine every single generation of a single lineage for as many years as we like. At which point would you hold aloft a newly born creature and proclaim that we have found a new species? Which generation-to-generation change would have to occur to make you say this individual is a different species to his parent rather than this individual differs from his parent by an imperceptible amount?

Do you mean, have faith?
Does a German Shephard's head look like a bulldogs? No. We can test and observe variation within a species. This isn't proof of anything, other than variation. What proof would I need. Rock solid proof of brand NEW genetic information.

No one has tested and observed anything withTiktaalik. Well, other than it died.

Regarding the taxonomy tree. It is funny that all the necessary info needed to make Darwinism work is simply filled in as a branch. I guess the branch is the genetic ancestor to everything. if you can't make the peices fit, just draw a branch and say, "see, there's the proof."

The lizard population expanded and was essentially free from human contact as the Croation war of independence raged.

If it was free from contact it was also free from observation.

[Byblos]

What proof would I need. Rock solid proof of brand NEW genetic information.

Some time ago I saw a youtube clip of Richard Dawkins being asked the same thing, proof of new genetic information and he seemingly was stomped. I'm sure it was a doctored video as Dawkins never shied away from providing an answer to any question, regardless of how little sense it makes but that's not the point I want to make. The point is that there was a follow-up clip from someone defending Dawkins' inability to answer the question by providing proof positive of new genetic information. And what did they offer as proof? Well, none other than Downs Syndrome (the extra chromosome). This'd be laughable if it weren't just sad. I guess they missed the implication that the proof needs to be beneficial, not detrimental. I will look for the clips and post the links.

[touchingcloth]

Do you mean, have faith?
Does a German Shephard's head look like a bulldogs? No. We can test and observe variation within a species. This isn't proof of anything, other than variation. What proof would I need. Rock solid proof of brand NEW genetic information.

Well you've seen the new genetic information; the lizards had no cecal valve, after a time spent in a new environment subject to new food sources they developed cecal valves out of nothing but natural processes.
Anyway, disregarding the fact that you've confused "species" with "breed", indulge me. At what point would you declare a new species, assuming that evolution really were true?

Regarding the taxonomy tree. It is funny that all the necessary info needed to make Darwinism work is simply filled in as a branch. I guess the branch is the genetic ancestor to everything. if you can't make the peices fit, just draw a branch and say, "see, there's the proof."

That tree was "filled in" before Darwin's time (see my earlier post mentioning Linnaeus). The fact is that the taxonomy can be objectively created - that's something you can't do for objects like, say, cars...there is no taxonomy that can be objectively derived.

[jlay]

when science comes up with a clear, consistent, and concise definition of "species" get back with me.

are you saying that these are not different breeds of the same species? Is a breed not an example of variation within a species. Please explain how I am confused.

regarding the valves being new info. I would say, prove it. We have documented proof of traits that can change without any new information being created. What genetic proof do you have of new information?