Evidence for God from Science

sandy_mcd wrote: Perhaps some of the confusion results from the use of the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution".

It may be wise to elucidate what is perceived as micro and macro.
Man has been intelligently controlling envirnmental forces to change the form of many living things for a long time... a very long time. Wolves to dogs is a decent reference here. Now what have we 'observed'? Well we have a lot of breeds of dogs but they always remain a form of wolf in a very wide range of variability. We have also found when you try to force a trait to keep going futher we hit a brick wall and the breed starts to lose viability.
This means we are empirically observing that there are limits we cannot force life to vary beyond.

Macro evolution posits that this barrier (that anyone can see) doesn't really exist. Evolutionists insist that given enough time that any barrier we observe can be crossed. The problem with their theory is that there is no observable testable evidence to back it. Strangely there are more variations of life than ever before in existence right now and logically they are all in some stage of macro evolution so why can't we see some of them perform this barrier crossing point where new information is added to a life form and it is able to better survive?

The concept that minor changes over time can add up to a new specie in a macro way is intelligently imagined not empirically proven. If you want to believe it is true then this is a choice that one makes not based on repeatable experiment... it is a belief awaiting evidence to make it scientific.

Byblos wrote:What you've provided are similarities, commonalities, and artists' renderings based on a priori assumptions. To prove these assertions beyond any reasonable doubt all you have to do is to provide the exact biological pathways by which one species transitioned into the other and that were verified by the scientific method.

OMG you referred to the "scientific method". I may love you. And you asked for some "exact" information.... I do love you. <3


I am not alone << >>
and we are even almost homies!
<--- born in Plattsburgh, NY

KBCid wrote:Man has been intelligently controlling envirnmental forces to change the form of many living things for a long time... a very long time. .

Millions of years?

KBCid wrote: Take a look at videos of this site and try and form a conclusion on whether it is a naturally evolved formation or a natural formation intelligently modified or a completely man made artifact. Then consider what evidence you based a conclusion on.

Could be man made; as was pointed out, not everything designed has to be complex. But given age, appearance, no reason to believe it anything but natural. How about this old "paving stone road"?

KBCid wrote:The simplicity here is that at any point where an IDer (who has identified themselves as such) who does assert a specific designer, should be asked where the ID theory posits a specific designer.

It depends on what elements are described as designed. Anyone who claims the universe is designed is obviously ruling out any human type designer.

KBCid wrote:4) Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence.

A necessary but not sufficient condition.

KBCid wrote: I am quite well versed in evolutionary theory ... we have already pulled a Coelacanth out of the Late Cretaceous. Same rationale applies here... a current living form existed 65 million years ago and did not vary to any great extent nor did it evolve and grow legs. ...the coelacanth was thought to be a direct ancestor of tetrapods, or four-limbed land animals.

Evolutionary theory does not require every species to change dramatically. It does not mean that two descendants of a common ancestor, one similar to the ancestor and one vastly different, cannot both exist today. I'm a bit puzzled that someone well versed would think this.

KBCid wrote: Here is a reply to population genetics by Professor Maciej Giertych, M.A.(Oxford), Ph.D.(Toronto), D.Sc.(Poznan)
...being also an academic teacher in population genetics, I found it necessary to play down the evolutionary explanations given in textbooks, for the simple reason that I find no evidence to support them...

Let's look at some other beliefs of Dr. Giertych as expressed in a letter he wrote to Nature http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 265d.html/:

I believe that, as a result of media bias, there seems to be total ignorance of new scientific evidence against the theory of evolution. ... It also includes formation of geological strata sideways rather than vertically, archaeological and palaeontological evidence that dinosaurs coexisted with humans, a major worldwide catastrophe in historical times, and so on.

KBCid wrote: The test for the necessity of ID is the identification of ...the types of information produced when intelligent agents act... To falsify this necessity you simply need to show that there is no observable information requiring it.

The test for the necessity of ID is the identification of ...the types of information produced ONLY when intelligent agents act.

KBCid wrote: Keep in mind here that if something has no positive affect on an organism then its loss would have no effect. Thus, it would be a cost savings to eliminate it. So rationally speaking the fact that it is always persisting in the male structure means it has positive value in its continued existence and this question should never arise as a question of why a designer applied them in this instance. ... I would also point out that this is entirely dependant on there being a switch available.

How much of a cost savings? If it is a 3 cent savings on a $1000 product, it's not going to make much difference one way or the other. And who is making this decision? And why couldn't the designer (assuming there is one) have added such a switch?

KBCid wrote:Man has been intelligently controlling envirnmental forces to change the form of many living things for a long time... a very long time. .

sandy_mcd wrote: Millions of years?

Hmm... do you think it would take that long for intelligent agents to force such occurance? Or are you assuming that because it takes the evolutionary mechanism an imagined long time scale to occur that intelligence can't speed things up?

I admit you are free to make such a hypothesis. I'm curious though... by what empirical experiment have you shown that evolution requires millions of years lead time from the time we began to make observations in order to be observed?
This is just a bit of logic here but isn't evolution an ongoing event? That we are now observing intently?. I would assert that I don't need to wait millions of years on the sidelines simply watching to experience such an event since the process is asserted to have been in action upon the first occurance of replication.
The earth teams with life so vast that we are still counting the forms that exist. All of these uncountable billions that make up all the species existing are changing by the nanosecond. Every birth... every cell division... occurring in the untold billions of tons of biomatter all have a chance of being the one that shows an evolutionary change that encodes new information that allows an offspring to survive and replicate better.

So no I don't logically accept a long lead time necessity when intelligent agency is involved.

KBCid wrote:do you think it would take that long for intelligent agents to force such occurance? Or are you assuming that because it takes the evolutionary mechanism an imagined long time scale to occur that intelligence can't speed things up?
...
So no I don't logically accept a long lead time necessity when intelligent agency is involved.

I am saying that billions of years were available for nature. Of course "intelligent agents" (aka "people" because that is the only example we have) can speed things up.

At what rate (mm's per year) are the Appalachians eroding naturally? At what rate can man strip a mountaintop (to get at coal for example)? Who would argue that people can't speed up natural processes?

But to turn your question back on you. If you want to assume that an outside intelligent agent (not people) is directing evolution at a fast clip, why don't we see it happening now in real time?

it is impossible for evolution to bring material brain and immaterial mind into a joint relationship - twinc

sandy_mcd wrote:I am saying that billions of years were available for nature. Of course "intelligent agents" (aka "people" because that is the only example we have) can speed things up.

You apparently aren't aware of non human designers then.

sandy_mcd wrote:At what rate (mm's per year) are the Appalachians eroding naturally? At what rate can man strip a mountaintop (to get at coal for example)? Who would argue that people can't speed up natural processes?

Not I which is why if evolution is adding information to the genome it should be observable.

sandy_mcd wrote:But to turn your question back on you. If you want to assume that an outside intelligent agent (not people) is directing evolution at a fast clip, why don't we see it happening now in real time?

No one said or implied that an outside intelligent agent is directing anything. This is what is called a strawman arguement. Unless of course you can point out where I implied such was the case.

sandy_mcd wrote: Could be man made; as was pointed out, not everything designed has to be complex.

Just as life could have been intelligently designed.

sandy_mcd wrote:But given age, appearance, no reason to believe it anything but natural.

You see absolutely no reason for the possibility of design. nice.

sandy_mcd wrote: How about this old "paving stone road"?

How about it? Does it exhibit the types of information that only intelligent agency leaves behind?

KBCid wrote:The simplicity here is that at any point where an IDer (who has identified themselves as such) who does assert a specific designer, should be asked where the ID theory posits a specific designer.

sandy_mcd wrote:It depends on what elements are described as designed. Anyone who claims the universe is designed is obviously ruling out any human type designer.

ID has no position on the designer. It holds a position on intelligent agency.

KBCid wrote:4) Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence.

sandy_mcd wrote:A necessary but not sufficient condition.

For you maybe. For many others it is.

sandy_mcd wrote:Evolutionary theory does not require every species to change dramatically. It does not mean that two descendants of a common ancestor, one similar to the ancestor and one vastly different, cannot both exist today. I'm a bit puzzled that someone well versed would think this.

Of course it don't which is why finding something like a rabbit in the cambrian would not falsify evolutionary theory. The fact is we see no species getting new information added to the genome at any time.

KBCid wrote: Here is a reply to population genetics by Professor Maciej Giertych, M.A.(Oxford), Ph.D.(Toronto), D.Sc.(Poznan)
...being also an academic teacher in population genetics, I found it necessary to play down the evolutionary explanations given in textbooks, for the simple reason that I find no evidence to support them...

sandy_mcd wrote:Let's look at some other beliefs of Dr. Giertych as expressed in a letter he wrote to Nature http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 265d.html/:
I believe that, as a result of media bias, there seems to be total ignorance of new scientific evidence against the theory of evolution. ... It also includes formation of geological strata sideways rather than vertically, archaeological and palaeontological evidence that dinosaurs coexisted with humans, a major worldwide catastrophe in historical times, and so on.

And? is it beyond reason for people to hold beliefs? check out this belief;

Naturalism commonly refers to the viewpoint that laws of nature (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe, and that nothing exists beyond the natural universe or, if it does, it does not affect the natural universe.[1] Followers of naturalism (naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the universe is a product of these laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

It's amazing how many intelligent being hold beliefs without any evidence for their truth.

KBCid wrote: The test for the necessity of ID is the identification of ...the types of information produced when intelligent agents act... To falsify this necessity you simply need to show that there is no observable information requiring it.

sandy_mcd wrote:The test for the necessity of ID is the identification of ...the types of information produced ONLY when intelligent agents act.

Yup. just as naturalism noted above only looks for evidence directly attributable to forces of nature. No intelligence allowed.

KBCid wrote: Keep in mind here that if something has no positive affect on an organism then its loss would have no effect. Thus, it would be a cost savings to eliminate it. So rationally speaking the fact that it is always persisting in the male structure means it has positive value in its continued existence and this question should never arise as a question of why a designer applied them in this instance. ... I would also point out that this is entirely dependant on there being a switch available.

sandy_mcd wrote:How much of a cost savings? If it is a 3 cent savings on a $1000 product, it's not going to make much difference one way or the other. And who is making this decision? And why couldn't the designer (assuming there is one) have added such a switch?

How much doesn't matter. The fact that something isn't necessary means nothing hinges on its existence. Thus, mutation could totally corrupt it into non existence. The rest are good questions that flow beyond the ID question. You do understand that ID posits no specific designer and thus could not speculate on motives right?.

KBCid wrote:

KBCid wrote:4) Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence.

sandy_mcd wrote:A necessary but not sufficient condition.

For you maybe. For many others it is.

Aye, and there's the rub.
Consider an examination of some object for design.
Obviously(?) it is necessary that the object show some property which we know come from intelligence. A pile of sand could be designed but there is usually no way of telling.
However, I believe it is also required that this property be only possible through design; KBCid disagrees. But if the property can arise from some other means than design, how can we be sure it was designed?
I really don't see how it is sufficient to say that it could have been designed because it looks like some things that are designed.

sandy_mcd wrote: Could be man made; as was pointed out, not everything designed has to be complex. But given age, appearance, no reason to believe it anything but natural. How about this old "paving stone road"?

How does this prove that there is no G-d or no designer? Also why are you using intellect to see patterns in nature? Who is this a pattern to?

Gman, the point of the example was to demonstrate that finding "design" in nature is purely objective, and not scientific or definite. This has nothing to do with disproving God, it is pointing out a fatal flaw in ID, which is the failure to define "design."

Gman wrote:How does this prove that there is no G-d or no designer? Also why are you using intellect to see patterns in nature? Who is this a pattern to?

It is a pattern of smooth hexagonal blocks all lined up. How does one determine if it was an old road designed by an intelligent agent? They certainly aren't crystals.
I see aspects of design. KBCid says that is sufficient to prove the work of an intelligent agent. I contend it is necessary but not sufficient.
[edit - expanded]

Pierson5 wrote:
Yep, I guess I just have to keep rephrasing everything i say a bunch of times.

All you have provided is mindless dribble.. Very sad... I can't believe how easy it is to debate this stuff.

Pierson5 wrote: Again, as I have stated many, many times. I don't care if you do not accept the evidence for evolution. It is good enough for the many thousands of professionals in the scientific community. You can believe whatever you want to believe. We aren't getting into this again. What I care about are the ones who say "Evolution is false, but Intelligent Design is true." Many of these people think it's necessary to skip the whole scientific process and go directly to court to get their idea taught in school. If you fall into that ballpark, post the evidence for ID. If you can't, we don't have anything to talk about.

"I don't care" are not scientific terms... Just because a "so called" scientific community" accepts it doesn't mean anything if they can't cop to their scientific bias. Frankly don't I think they are very professional about it. Having a PHD or a MCD in something doesn't mean that they have all the answers either. Many times they are handicapped in their thinking. Also I never said that evolution was false nor did I ever say that ID was true. As far as I'm concerned both are "faith" based.

sandy_mcd wrote:

Gman wrote:How does this prove that there is no G-d or no designer? Also why are you using intellect to see patterns in nature? Who is this a pattern to?

It is a pattern of smooth hexagonal blocks all lined up. How does one determine if it was an old road designed by an intelligent agent? They certainly aren't crystals.

It doesn't matter what the pattern is.... How are you deciphering that there is a pattern?