Evidence for God from Science

DannyM wrote:Look, I mean no offence but I find you a little boring. This thread is a nod to Perry Marshall's work, that's all. If you do not like it then great! You have said so. Yet you're a bit empty on presenting an argument. I still haven't had an explanation from you for your assertion that it was "highly unlikely" that God exists. On what basis, what empirical tests were conducted etc. I asked if is this was just based on your own philosophy...? Now, personally speaking, unless you can become interesting to me and give me some thing, just a bone to chew at least, then I guess I'll have to just carry on having fun exchanging nonsense to each other.

Apparently, you only think it's nonsense because you haven't bothered to read it. Very little of what you've written actually addresses my own posts. If you went back and read some of them, perhaps then we could have a meaningful discussion.

hatsoff wrote:Apparently, you only think it's nonsense because you haven't bothered to read it. Very little of what you've written actually addresses my own posts. If you went back and read some of them, perhaps then we could have a meaningful discussion.

Apparently you selective memory issues. I'm still waiting patiently for you to explain your statement that God's existence was highly unlikely. Well, for the third or fourth time of asking, *how* unlikely? And on what basis is this determined? On the basis of what evidence is this unlikelihood determined? I've been asking you this question right from the tip top; you have simply avoided answering. The sooner you stop playing games, and participate in a discussion, the better all round.

DannyM wrote:Apparently you selective memory issues. I'm still waiting patiently for you to explain your statement that God's existence was highly unlikely. Well, for the third or fourth time of asking, *how* unlikely? And on what basis is this determined? On the basis of what evidence is this unlikelihood determined? I've been asking you this question right from the tip top; you have simply avoided answering. The sooner you stop playing games, and participate in a discussion, the better all round.

See, this is what I'm talking about. You're not reading my posts. Either that, or you've got some memory issues, yourself. I never uttered a "statement that God's existence was highly unlikely." Instead, I wrote, addressing Proinsias,

hatsoff wrote:Is it not true that you regard God's existence as unlikely?

(source)

You misinterpreted this as a claim that God's existence is unlikely, responding:

DannyM wrote:Here we go with asserted claims with no rational basis. How "unlikely" is God's existence? On what do you base such a claim? Can you show me an empirical model from which you derive this claim?

(source)

I responded by clarifying:

hatsoff wrote:I was asking questions, not asserting claims. But it so happens that I do regard God's existence as highly unlikely... Likelihood is, among other things, a measure of expectation. We can gauge our own expectation and assign a value we deem appropriate. No "empirical model" is required for us to do so.

(source)

In other words, I'm talking about my own level of expectation that God exists, not some universal probabilistic model.

Now, I'm going to leave it at that. If you do not understand what I mean by the above, then you're just going to have to think more about it on your own. You've accused me of "playing games," and I cannot deal with you so long as you believe that.

hatsoff wrote:

DannyM wrote:Apparently you selective memory issues. I'm still waiting patiently for you to explain your statement that God's existence was highly unlikely. Well, for the third or fourth time of asking, *how* unlikely? And on what basis is this determined? On the basis of what evidence is this unlikelihood determined? I've been asking you this question right from the tip top; you have simply avoided answering. The sooner you stop playing games, and participate in a discussion, the better all round.

See, this is what I'm talking about. You're not reading my posts. Either that, or you've got some memory issues, yourself. I never uttered a "statement that God's existence was highly unlikely." Instead, I wrote, addressing Proinsias,

hatsoff wrote:Is it not true that you regard God's existence as unlikely?

(source)

You misinterpreted this as a claim that God's existence is unlikely, responding:

DannyM wrote:Here we go with asserted claims with no rational basis. How "unlikely" is God's existence? On what do you base such a claim? Can you show me an empirical model from which you derive this claim?

(source)

I responded by clarifying:

hatsoff wrote:I was asking questions, not asserting claims. But it so happens that I do regard God's existence as highly unlikely... Likelihood is, among other things, a measure of expectation. We can gauge our own expectation and assign a value we deem appropriate. No "empirical model" is required for us to do so.

(source)

In other words, I'm talking about my own level of expectation that God exists, not some universal probabilistic model.

Now, I'm going to leave it at that. If you do not understand what I mean by the above, then you're just going to have to think more about it on your own. You've accused me of "playing games," and I cannot deal with you so long as you believe that.

You see, this is where all the ducking and weaving in the world will not wash. Your assumption was there, all comfortable and snug, in the question to Proinsias. We can confirm this by looking at Proinsias's response - "I don't regard God's existence as unlikely, I find the existence of God more an issue of definition. Many human constructs around the notion of God or something similar, none perfect." So again, you'll have to answer your own assumption; either that or just admit it is your own personal philosophy... Your attempt to sully this interchange with backtracking, bobbing and weaving is nothing short of unnecessary time-wasting.

Oh, and if you cannot deal with me then I have strong reservations about whether or not your could deal a three-card brag hand. But you're right, this is definitely fun.

Is Darwinism on its way out?

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/ironcurtain/

DannyM wrote:Is Darwinism on its way out?

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/ironcurtain/

Very interesting article Danny. Lot's of interesting concepts here..

Thanks..

Gman wrote:

DannyM wrote:Is Darwinism on its way out?

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/ironcurtain/

Very interesting article Danny. Lot's of interesting concepts here..

Thanks..

I know it's good stuff isn't it? Did you read the post by 'smax' in the comments? I like this Perry fellow, he's a good egg.

Gman wrote:

DannyM wrote:Is Darwinism on its way out?

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/ironcurtain/

Very interesting article Danny. Lot's of interesting concepts here..

Thanks..

Gman, am I an ID person if I believe in much of what Mr. Marshall says? I don't really see anything incompatible with day/age, do you?

DannyM wrote:I know it's good stuff isn't it? Did you read the post by 'smax' in the comments? I like this Perry fellow, he's a good egg.

Well I certainly bookmarked it.. I found this statement by him very interesting...

"I have conducted cancer research for the past 25 years and have taught graduate courses in genetics, biochemistry, and molecular & biology. Years ago I was an atheist but the recent revelations in science including the fine-tuning of many cosmological constants and fine-tuned conditions for life on earth, and in particular the digital code of DNA and molecular machines in the cell, have brought me to the belief that a higher intelligence is behind the origin of life. Like other noted ex-atheists (Flew and Collins), the science that converted me to atheism in my youth has now brought me to a belief in God."

It is interesting how people can come to faith.. Sometimes I need evidence too..

DannyM wrote: Gman, am I an ID person if I believe in much of what Mr. Marshall says? I don't really see anything incompatible with day/age, do you?

Well, I haven't seen anything that relates to YEC. I would be surprised if he was..

Gman wrote:

DannyM wrote:I know it's good stuff isn't it? Did you read the post by 'smax' in the comments? I like this Perry fellow, he's a good egg.

Well I certainly bookmarked it.. I found this statement by him very interesting...

"I have conducted cancer research for the past 25 years and have taught graduate courses in genetics, biochemistry, and molecular & biology. Years ago I was an atheist but the recent revelations in science including the fine-tuning of many cosmological constants and fine-tuned conditions for life on earth, and in particular the digital code of DNA and molecular machines in the cell, have brought me to the belief that a higher intelligence is behind the origin of life. Like other noted ex-atheists (Flew and Collins), the science that converted me to atheism in my youth has now brought me to a belief in God."

It is interesting how people can come to faith.. Sometimes I need evidence too..

I know, I found that interesting too. And this also...

"About ten years ago while splicing cDNA into the reading frame of an expression vector to produce a recombinant tagged protein, I noticed a similarity in organization of the genetic code with binary computer code. The genetic code appears to be a quaternary (A,G, C, T) bit code that is organized into bytes of three bits. Computer code is binary bit organized into the language of bytes each consisting of eight bits.

I have come to appreciate the improbability of such a complex DNA programming algorithm arising de novo in a pool of random chemicals. I am well aware of the abiogenesis experiments that have so far failed to randomly generate by chemical association anything resembling a code that is required for the expression of even a small 100 amino acid protein containing a function that could then be acted on by natural selection. The organism with the smallest genome is mycoplasma, which contains 482 genes made up of 0.58 million bases. This most simple of organisms requires a host cell to provide many necessary nutrients that it can't make for itself. Darwinism begs of us to believe that a minimal self-replicating organism like a mycoplasma could arise de novo without a more complex system. Others have attempted to calculate the bare minimum of a self-replicating cell as being around 256 genes. Darwinism requires self-replicating systems to be acted on by natural selection, so how could such self-replicating systems be acted on by Darwinism to give rise to self-replicating organisms?"

I like this suff.

DannyM wrote: Darwinism requires self-replicating systems to be acted on by natural selection, so how could such self-replicating systems be acted on by Darwinism to give rise to self-replicating organisms?"

I like this suff.

Good point... Kind of a chicken before the egg approach. And what is natural selection going to select to get self-replicating systems started?

And you will always hear that Darwinism has the weight of the scientific evidence. Not exclusive but the best plausible answer... Compared to what? When everything else is considered unscientific or a form of theism.. Might as well stand up and declare victory.

Gman wrote:

DannyM wrote: Darwinism requires self-replicating systems to be acted on by natural selection, so how could such self-replicating systems be acted on by Darwinism to give rise to self-replicating organisms?"

I like this suff.

Good point... Kind of a chicken before the egg approach. And what is natural selection going to select to get self-replicating systems started?

And you will always hear that Darwinism has the weight of the scientific evidence. Not exclusive but the best plausible answer... Compared to what? When everything else is considered unscientific or a form of theism.. Might as well stand up and declare victory.

Hey man, don't ask me! I've had a thought. I know, it hurt. In that quote from 'smax,' he says that the science which had originally turned him away from God ended up leading him back to God. I sometimes wonder whether such vocal atheists like Dawkins may actually harbour some fear that He really does exist. If you look at Francis Collins and Alister McGrath, ex-atheists and accomplished scientists, they matured away from their rebellious atheism and seem to suddenly have seen things differently. I just don't see how one can hold to the philosophy of blind and abitrary chance, with a bit of selection thrown in, when one grows into adult age.

Here's a good article pretty much rebutting all of these "probability" arguments: http://www.dhbailey.com/papers/dhb-probability.pdf

Darwinism requires self-replicating systems to be acted on by natural selection, so how could such self-replicating systems be acted on by Darwinism to give rise to self-replicating organisms?"

That's like asking how it's possible to create factories when the metal parts used to make factories are created at other factories. It's a wonder that Britain or the US ever got industrialized, right? This is basically an argument from incredulity. Nobody is saying that the origin of life, or the origin of industrialization is a trivial process.

This idea that "random molecules -> life" is not how actual theories of abiogenesis work. There are a bunch of steps in between. The first self-replicating molecules could have been exceedingly simple, containing only a few polypeptide chains. These molecules have already been created in the lab, but they could have arose in veins of ice or silica-rich indentations, which would basically act like their own test tube.

Kynaros wrote:Here's a good article pretty much rebutting all of these "probability" arguments: http://www.dhbailey.com/papers/dhb-probability.pdf

Darwinism requires self-replicating systems to be acted on by natural selection, so how could such self-replicating systems be acted on by Darwinism to give rise to self-replicating organisms?"

That's like asking how it's possible to create factories when the metal parts used to make factories are created at other factories. It's a wonder that Britain or the US ever got industrialized, right? This is basically an argument from incredulity. Nobody is saying that the origin of life, or the origin of industrialization is a trivial process.

This idea that "random molecules -> life" is not how actual theories of abiogenesis work. There are a bunch of steps in between. The first self-replicating molecules could have been exceedingly simple, containing only a few polypeptide chains. These molecules have already been created in the lab, but they could have arose in veins of ice or silica-rich indentations, which would basically act like their own test tube.

Yeah, I'm not quite sure how "Darwinism requires self-replicating systems to be acted on by natural selection" - Darwinism is natural selection.