Evidence for God from Science

*Cough* Neo's calling it 'Facts' because they are pretty much posting nothing but...*Cough*

Byblos wrote:

neo-x wrote:Look fellas, I am not requesting anything now. I still think what you are saying is not entirely what happened here. I have made no judgment against anyone or faith or idea or theory. Evolution in this thread is not being argued against anything , only resources are given. Frankly I see intolerance but leave my feelings aside. You guys can't accept a simple fact that there are Christians like me and you have shown me no courtesy in this regard. You don't want to debate or discuss this, you want to give it no space, more precisely some of you can't tolerate it, not even as resource links. That hurts me nothing but it shows how much space can be allowed for someone who disagrees with you. And ita not a lot. And I agree with rick on this, being in the minority certainly feels wronged. I am not going to ask you anything more, since this is a moment where 'do unto others as you want others to do unto you.' fits for me.

I am going to keep posting links when I find more, you want to trash, critique, discuss, call it lies, beleif, weak, whatever. No ones stopping you at all, my readers will decide whether its true or false, you can post your opinions, and hope you can convince them, I hope they learn about evolution.

Neo, from an objective point of view (objective in the sense that I haven't contributed much in this thread), while I understand what you're saying and sympathize a great deal, considering I lean towards TE myself, I also can see Rick's point of view that by calling the evidence you're presenting as 'fact' is what is bothering PCers. I think if you tone down the 'factual' posts and stick with evidenciary ones things will go a lot more smoothly.

Just an old-timer's 2 cents (and that's about as much as they're worth ).

Like button. At least someone understands me.

PaulSacramento wrote:It should be made clear that there are certain things in evolution that are facts, they have been observed and even replicated ( mutation and what can cause it for example) BUT that does NOT mean that ALL of the theory of evolution has been proven to be a fact.

That exactly is my argument. And from a TE nonetheless.

Neo, if you took this approach from the beginning, none of this would've been an issue with me.

Thadeyus wrote:*Cough* Neo's calling it 'Facts' because they are pretty much posting nothing but...*Cough*

How is this helping the situation? I'm sure Neo thinks everything he's posting is facts too. But until they're posted as beliefs, we're going to have issues.

I tell you what, if anyone here can't look at evolution, and all it entails, objectively enough to realize that all of it isn't proven, then please don't post here.

RickD wrote:....... realize that all of it isn't proven.......

Um...would perhaps you wish to step over to the 'Complexity' thread? Or the "Double think' thread?

I'm interested to see these 'Unproven'/'Dis-proven' aspects of which you speak.

:Thumbs up: Neo-x

Much cheers to all.

It would simply take realizing once and for all that science is not in the business of producing 'facts'. Therefore, any stated scientific 'fact' is not only a misnomer but also contradictory to science.

Byblos wrote:It would simply take realizing once and for all that science is not in the business of producing 'facts'. Therefore, any stated scientific 'fact' is not only a misnomer but also contradictory to science.

Could you elaborate please? It may be helpful.

Look what you are asking me to do, You are asking me to say something I don't find truthful. You are demanding I do this or else I won't have a good time?

Just look at your words here...have I asked you Rick, Byblos, Gman and others that whenever you post about PC or ID, you have to write its not a fact just a belief? have I asked a T.E to do that, or YEC to do that...can't you see the double standard?

Of Course everyone thinks they are correct in their position because they find something tangible in it. What you are doing here is acting as belief police. You are not proving to me that evolution is false, you are saying "don't call it a fact because according to some of us it isn't." And you are a minority on that front. Lots of people, biologists, even christian biologists like collins don't agree with you, he absolutely holds evolution is a fact. This should not be an issue for you because I haven't asked anyone to endorse it. Why what I find true, is any business of yours to correct? Am I correcting you, am I saying PC is a weak belief system or YEC SUCKS...all I have done is present evidence for my stance, PROPER EVIDENCE. I didn't write a one liner like gman, "evolution is a very weak belief system, its a lie", I have given you research papers. Unless I can prove you wrong I have no right to say you should not call true whatever you hold as truth. No, if you want me to say that evolution is not a fact, you have to show me how its wrong. But you guys are not doing that, I ask you, honestly tell me which one of you has properly read even 3 papers I posted out of tens and twenties, which one? Instead of showing me why what I find true is not true, you have reverted to just ask me not to say it as true because no one has bothered to critique the papers. No one has showed me, look here the evidence you posted is wrong. Not one of you and now want me to say hey guys its a "belief" or else you have issues, else I don't get treated right.

I was accused of having an agenda, I was locked out of the thread, I personally apologized to Rick, because I love him and I don't want to fight over this, he is a dear brother and so are you guys. And what more do you want? Here is how much your behaviour towards me is important to me, I told Rick that HE CAN DELETE THIS ENTIRE THREAD if it bothers him, is that not fair enough of me? To put my passion down for you guys? And you have my love as brothers still even if you decide to delete this thread right now because honestly you have made it into a fight whereas it wasn't. But I can't say something that goes against my intellect, and I won't. I can't go against evidence unless its proven false. Show me and I will revert. I have no church of evolution and I wasn't convinced of evolution because I heard a man on the tv, praise it. I studied whatever I could for one year. I have taken my time to get here. Now you ask me, don't call it a fact, why not? You can say we don't call PC a fact just a belief or we don't call ID a fact just a belief and some won't even concede that, but what you find true or false IS NO BUSINESS OF MINE, and the same goes for you. My issue should be only concerned with whether I can falsify it with effective reasoning and evidence. If you can show me its wrong, I welcome it; if you don't or can't I encourage you to read but what you are now asking me to do is a low and below me, and its below you as well but perhaps you are not seeing it right now.

What pains me is that where I am willing to even have you guys delete this false, lie belief of mine, you are not willing to allow me some courtesy in return. Just look at Gman's post, he came out guns aimed and primed. Say, its a lie or else I will post more so that you really feel the pinch of it. That is how I saw that message and he is a mod!

So here is the crux guys, either you can tolerate me or you can't. I can't say evolution is a belief because it is not, and I won't say its not a fact because I must be shown why it isn't. You guys are free to say what you find fact or not, are you not free to choose this or say this? Of course you are and so am I.

Gman you asked for observable demonstrable proof, here is my question to you and anyone who is not an evolutionist and asking me for demonstrated proof.You show me observable proof of God, not an implication, not a thought, no belief and I will answer your question. Look into your own answer. Either God is a fact (and since according to you all facts must be observed and demonstrated, provable) and God has has proof, demonstrable, observable proof - which you must show me; or God is not a fact and we worship a lie, weak belief. Unless you find yourself with an honest answer that you can tell me without feeling that you are guilty of the same, don't ever say or hold again that God is a fact, just say god is a belief, we don't know for sure. Because you are not allowed to say that lest it falls upon double standards. So go ahead, show me first the evidence of the same caliber that you have required of me for God, that is only fair.

RickD » Fri Oct 18, 2013 8:01 pm

neo wrote:
You don't want to debate or discuss this, you want to give it no space, more precisely some of you can't tolerate it, not even as resource links.
How in God's green earth you ever got this, I'll never know. You were the one demanding that there be no debate in this thread.

Rick, philip in a previous thread actually said that he laughs when he sees evolutionists saying what they say. What does that tell you, and keep Gman's post in mind. And because ITS A RESOURCE THREAD, I AM DISCUSSING NOTHING IN THIS THREAD. I said plenty of time, you want to discuss/debate an aspect or a paper please start a new thread. I am glad you took time to study some things I posted. I can't say the same for everyone.

Neo, I have no agenda against TE and I agree with most of the conclusions drawn from most of the articles you posted ( I admit, I didn't read all of them but I did read a representative sample and have no problem with any of them so I have no reason to want to continue reading). But since science, in and of itself, does not attempt to prove or disprove anything, should we perpetuate the myth that it does anyway and proclaim evidences (albeit very solid ones) as fact? I understand your passion but honestly I don'y understand your hard-line stance with respect to calling TE a 'fact'. It is a very, very well corroborated theory that best fits our observations, granted. It is the only theory that fits the fossil record, absolutely. It is the only prevailing scientific theory that no other theory can touch, without a doubt. But to call it a 'fact' goes contrary to everything science stands for whether that's coming from you or Francis Collins or Miller or me or whoever.

And that should apply to any another 'theory', including PC, YEC, whatever. I don't believe TE is being singled out.

Byblos wrote:Neo, I have no agenda against TE and I agree with most of the conclusions drawn from most of the articles you posted ( I admit, I didn't read all of them but I did read a representative sample and have no problem with any of them so I have no reason to want to continue reading). But since science, in and of itself, does not attempt to prove or disprove anything, should we perpetuate the myth that it does anyway and proclaim evidences (albeit very solid ones) as fact? I understand your passion but honestly I don'y understand your hard-line stance with respect to calling TE a 'fact'. It is a very, very well corroborated theory that best fits our observations, granted. It is the only theory that fits the fossil record, absolutely. It is the only prevailing scientific theory that no other theory can touch, without a doubt. But to call it a 'fact' goes contrary to everything science stands for whether that's coming from you or Francis Collins or Miller or me or whoever.

And that should apply to any another 'theory', including PC, YEC, whatever. I don't believe TE is being singled out.

Byb, I appreciate your stance. Gravity is a fact but its a scientific theory too. In principle you or i can also argue that since its a theory it might change. I agree it can. Though very hard that it might happen that is why I call gravity a fact. Does me calling it a fact goes against science? No. That's how I see evolution, sure there is a technical clause that future science is open, it is but its not likely that this one may be called false, base mechanism of evolution is proven, all that is missing is a complete unified record. Most of it is easily provable.

As I posted elsewhere:
Just an FYI:

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

© PhotoDisc In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.

neo-x wrote:

Byblos wrote:Neo, I have no agenda against TE and I agree with most of the conclusions drawn from most of the articles you posted ( I admit, I didn't read all of them but I did read a representative sample and have no problem with any of them so I have no reason to want to continue reading). But since science, in and of itself, does not attempt to prove or disprove anything, should we perpetuate the myth that it does anyway and proclaim evidences (albeit very solid ones) as fact? I understand your passion but honestly I don'y understand your hard-line stance with respect to calling TE a 'fact'. It is a very, very well corroborated theory that best fits our observations, granted. It is the only theory that fits the fossil record, absolutely. It is the only prevailing scientific theory that no other theory can touch, without a doubt. But to call it a 'fact' goes contrary to everything science stands for whether that's coming from you or Francis Collins or Miller or me or whoever.

And that should apply to any another 'theory', including PC, YEC, whatever. I don't believe TE is being singled out.

Byb, I appreciate your stance. Gravity is a fact but its a scientific theory too. In principle you or i can also argue that since its a theory it might change. I agree it can. Though very hard that it might happen that is why I call gravity a fact. Does me calling it a fact goes against science? No. That's how I see evolution, sure there is a technical clause that future science is open, it is but its not likely that this one may be called false, base mechanism of evolution is proven, all that is missing is a complete unified record. Most of it is easily provable.

Just play the game, brother, that's all .

Neo wrote:
Look what you are asking me to do, You are asking me to say something I don't find truthful. You are demanding I do this or else I won't have a good time?

Just look at your words here...have I asked you Rick, Byblos, Gman and others that whenever you post about PC or ID, you have to write its not a fact just a belief? have I asked a T.E to do that, or YEC to do that...can't you see the double standard?

Neo, first off, I can only speak for myself.

Next,
You have your belief about evolution. Present it as your belief. Your presenting evolution as 'fact' is not the way to present your beliefs as open for discussion. Present your beliefs as beliefs. That's all I'm asking. It's really a simple request.

Of Course everyone thinks they are correct in their position because they find something tangible in it. What you are doing here is acting as belief police. You are not proving to me that evolution is false, you are saying "don't call it a fact because according to some of us it isn't."

Neo, as I have said before, I believe PC is the best model for the evidence at hand. I don't dogmatically call PC a fact. There may be future discoveries that lead me in a different direction. And let me make this crystal clear, because apparently I'm not clear enough: I HAVE NO DESIRE TO TRY TO PROVE EVOLUTION WRONG!!!!
I can objectively look at the evidence, and see where it leads. Can you honestly say the same?

When I can just as easily make a case from the evidence, for design, that means all that evolution posits is not a 'fact'.

And you are a minority on that front. Lots of people, biologists, even christian biologists like collins don't agree with you, he absolutely holds evolution is a fact.

Argumentum ad populum?
****edit****
I just found this. It is a list of scientists that are skeptical of evolution. It's not an argument against evolution. It just shows that there are a lot of scientists that don't believe it's quite the fact that you believe it is
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... oad&id=660

This should not be an issue for you because I haven't asked anyone to endorse it. Why what I find true, is any business of yours to correct? Am I correcting you, am I saying PC is a weak belief system or YEC SUCKS...all I have done is present evidence for my stance, PROPER EVIDENCE.

Neo, YOU STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND MY POINT!!
I have no problem with you presenting your evidence, as long as you let that evidence speak for itself. Saying things like "evolution is a fact", and "get your science from evidence, not your favorite pastor", and "the reason people disagree with evolution, is because they don't understand it", makes you come across as above anyone who disagrees with you, and dogmatic.

Let me ask you a question. Do you think there's any possibility that evolution may NOT be true?

Unless I can prove you wrong I have no right to say you should not call true whatever you hold as truth.

And I think you can believe evolution if you want to believe it.

No, if you want me to say that evolution is not a fact, you have to show me how its wrong.

No I don't Neo. All I have to do is show you that the evidence points just as easily to design, as it does to evolution. Then you can't claim certain things about evolution are fact. That's pretty simple logic.

What pains me is that where I am willing to even have you guys delete this false, lie belief of mine, you are not willing to allow me some courtesy in return. Just look at Gman's post, he came out guns aimed and primed. Say, its a lie or else I will post more so that you really feel the pinch of it. That is how I saw that message and he is a mod!

Again, I can only speak for myself. I'm not going as far as calling evolution a 'lie'. I have said it before, that I leave open the possibility that evolution may be true.

So here is the crux guys, either you can tolerate me or you can't. I can't say evolution is a belief because it is not, and I won't say its not a fact because I must be shown why it isn't. You guys are free to say what you find fact or not, are you not free to choose this or say this? Of course you are and so am I.

And you're correct. This is the crux of this whole issue. You don't want to understand that you won't be given a special privilege on this forum, that nobody else has. No YEC can come on here claiming YEC as a fact, and not get the same responses you are given. If you can't understand that evolution is a belief, just like YEC is a belief, and OEC is a belief, then this whole topic is going to go nowhere.
If you want to present your beliefs present them. If you don't want to stick to the same standard we would hold any other creation belief to, then you will continue to get the same responses you have gotten.

Neo,
I'm giving you the opportunity to continue. Do you want to play by the rules? Or do you want to take your ball and go home?

neo-x wrote:
Gman you asked for observable demonstrable proof, here is my question to you and anyone who is not an evolutionist and asking me for demonstrated proof.You show me observable proof of God, not an implication, not a thought, no belief and I will answer your question. Look into your own answer. Either God is a fact (and since according to you all facts must be observed and demonstrated, provable) and God has has proof, demonstrable, observable proof - which you must show me; or God is not a fact and we worship a lie, weak belief. Unless you find yourself with an honest answer that you can tell me without feeling that you are guilty of the same, don't ever say or hold again that God is a fact, just say god is a belief, we don't know for sure. Because you are not allowed to say that lest it falls upon double standards. So go ahead, show me first the evidence of the same caliber that you have required of me for God, that is only fair.

Again.. You are confused... I'll let you on a little secret. You will never find science devoid of someone's philosophy. Science MUST conflict with philosophy at some point. Not you, me or anyone else here will ever display our science devoid of our bias. Science is not in the business of ultimate explanations. That’s not what it does.. It works on specific things, it advances theories, but it never makes a claim about everything. Science does not exclude G-d. Neither does it include G-d. That is what people do.

So even if you claim that your science is purely scientific with no bias.. Prove it. Show it to us on paper.. That is what the claim here is. You say that macro evolution is a fact? Prove it.

While you are at that show us where consciousnesses came from. Show us how we know right from wrong and how your evolutionary belief constructed it..

neo-x wrote: What pains me is that where I am willing to even have you guys delete this false, lie belief of mine, you are not willing to allow me some courtesy in return. Just look at Gman's post, he came out guns aimed and primed. Say, its a lie or else I will post more so that you really feel the pinch of it. That is how I saw that message and he is a mod!

Again.. Instead of having a panic attack show us your evidence that your evolutionary belief is a fact. You are the one claiming you have all the facts. Not me or anyone else here. The burden of proof is put forth on the person with the hypothesis. Where is the empirical evidence for your hypothesis?