Evidence for God from Science

Sandy,

Are you familar with cosmology? Cosmology is the study of the origin of the universe.

Doctor William Craig puts it this way:

The assumption ever since the ancient Greeks has been that the material world is eternal. Christians just had to say, well, even though the universe appears static, nevertheless it did have a beginning when God created it. So the discovery in the twentieth centruy that the universe is not an unchanging, eternal entity was a complete shock to secular minds. It was utterly unanticipated.

There had to have been a before, though time as we know it according to the theory of relativity did not exist. Einstien was deeply troubled by his own theory because of the religious conotations that come from having a beginning to the universe. Einstein, like the Greeks, thought the universe should be eternal. Unfortunately for Einstein (fortunately for Christians!!) his own brilliant mind showed otherwise. Our universe and everything within it including such things as time and space had a definite beginning, also known as a 'singularity'. Prior to this event, our universe did not exist. There was no time nor space. I can't say whether or not that makes 'logical sense' but it does make scientific sense, and considering that the Bible starts with 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth' it makes Biblical sense...

'What' came before is impossible according to modern scientific theory to speculate on. What is certain however is that there must have been a cause and that cause must by definition transcend the event. So the cause must transcend all natural laws of science and time.

Wall-dog wrote:Are you familar with cosmology?

No.

Wall-dog wrote: There had to have been a before, though time as we know it according to the theory of relativity did not exist. ... Our universe ... including ... time and space had a definite beginning ... Prior to this event, our universe did not exist. There was no time nor space. I can't say whether or not that makes 'logical sense' but it does make scientific sense

It can't make scientific sense if it does not make logical (I mean according to the rules of logic, not common sense or intuition) sense. I obviously am not interepreting the words with the meaning you intended to convey, because they still make no sense. "Prior" and "before" refer to an order in time; if there was no time, then these words have no meaning. Likewise, nothing is presently physically outside of the universe if space, as you say, is a property of the universe. The universe does not expand into empty space, since any such space would be part of the universe. So your argument can just as easily be used to show that the universe is not expanding, which is contradictory to modern science.

Wall-dog wrote:What is certain however is that there must have been a cause and that cause must by definition transcend the event. So the cause must transcend all natural laws of science and time.

Again, this does not follow logically. You say that there must be a cause of the universe. You can say that as a Christian, but not as a scientist. Presumably, your argument is that the universe must have a cause since everything has a cause. But if the cause transcends natural law, then it is not bound by natural law. But you just used the natural law that everything has a cause to show there must be a cause. But you just said you are dealing with an area which transcends natural law. That's a contradiction.

Wall-dog wrote: 'What' came before is impossible according to modern scientific theory to speculate on.

If you had just said "what transcends the physical universe is impossible to know by scientific methods" I would agree with you entirely.

Sandy,

If you look at it in terms of how the discovery was made it might make more sense. Scientists have held since the ancient Greeks that the universe must be eternal and essentially unchanging. The notion that 'matter can neither be created nor destroyed' was once even held as a 'law' of science. Einstien's theory of relativity however changed that. When you plug-in real values for the variables and plot the results on a graph you get a cone-shaped pattern. That really bothered Einstien because Einstien wanted to see a universe that was eternal - just like he had previously beleived should be the case. It didn't matter which variable he left out either. All of the variables created a cone-shape. The only conclusion he could come up with, and it has been verified by countless astronomers and astro-physicists since, is that the universe is expanding outward from a singular point in time and space where the universe began.

Einstein also showed that time as we know it is not an eternal one-way event but rather a dimension we move through. In theory we should be able to travel through it much as we travel through other dimensions.

So the logical question then is, since the universe is not eternal, how did it come to be? What caused it to come into existance?

Wall-dog wrote:Sandy,

If you look at it in terms of how the discovery was made it might make more sense. Scientists have held since the ancient Greeks that the universe must be eternal and essentially unchanging. The notion that 'matter can neither be created nor destroyed' was once even held as a 'law' of science. Einstien's theory of relativity however changed that. When you plug-in real values for the variables and plot the results on a graph you get a cone-shaped pattern. That really bothered Einstien because Einstien wanted to see a universe that was eternal - just like he had previously beleived should be the case. It didn't matter which variable he left out either. All of the variables created a cone-shape. The only conclusion he could come up with, and it has been verified by countless astronomers and astro-physicists since, is that the universe is expanding outward from a singular point in time and space where the universe began.

Einstein also showed that time as we know it is not an eternal one-way event but rather a dimension we move through. In theory we should be able to travel through it much as we travel through other dimensions.

So the logical question then is, since the universe is not eternal, how did it come to be? What caused it to come into existance?

Why do you accept one scientific theory as absolute truth and regard another as only a theory? Puzzling.

Anyhow, in both cases they are but paradigms from which one can understand creation. Neither is absolute truth. Both are frameworks on which to conduct experiments and make observations.

In Einstein's universe time is a dimention governed by entropy. As entropy increases we perceive time. Entropy increasing can also be seen as a directional dimention, but seeing as we cannot violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics we cannot but travel one way.

So in summary time (the spacial aspect of it) has always existed(conceptually).
Time the experience of it began with this universe.

A good analogy is a well, toss a coin down the well, as it tumbles gravity pulls it inexorably towards the bottom. The verticle dimention is the spacial aspect of time. The loss of potential energy into kinetic energy is liken to the perception of time.

Think about it you cannot actually perceive time, all you are really perceiving is entropy(change). In Einsteins Universe using currently accepted geometry, nothing existed before the singularity, as existance is defined by what followed, including the spacial dimentions themselves!
Anything before this is speculation and cannot be considered science under this paradigm.

Of course this leads to the question of what was before? That's when mathmatics and its absurdities posit multiple universes, this is why math is not a science.


It is ok to personally turn to God as an explanation, for everthing that has happened and everything which occurs at this instant. The Universe is an awesome place, especially more so the more you learn about it. There is a beauty I wish everyone else could see, how the universe is really a symphony of lights we cannot perceive and a flowing of a great ocean of life. We are like waves passing through crashing into the shores of creation.

But science can only detect the outcome. Don't make science into a church or institution, it is a tool to gather knowledge objectively, that is all.

BeGood,

What is science but an extension of philosophy? We use logic to form hypothesis and then science to try to prove or disprove what we find to be logical.

You are correct that science cannot predict what came before the singularity. You are also correct that the theory of relativity is still only a theory. A new theory could be developed tomorrow that would say that the universe is eternal. But nothing like that is even on the horizon so at least based on what Mankind knows today the theory of relativity is pretty solid.

Evolution on the other hand has a perfectly viable alternative - ID. When I look at the evidence for both, having grown up in a Unitarian Universalist household where they taught that the closest thing to a god in existence is mankind, Darwin was trumped up like the Unitarian equivalent of Jesus. I never really questioned Darwin, though I grew up thinking of evolution as a methodology rather than an unintelligent process. That's the thing really. If evolution were proven 100% tomorrow it wouldn't really 'prove' anything as far as theism goes because religious people could easily say that Evolution is one of God's processes too. Cosmology points so clearly toward a divine creator that what else does one really need? I don't have a problem with evolution except that when I read the evidence from both sides I see what looks to me like a lack of logic on one side (proteins fold in a sponge and BAM here's a crocodile!!) and tremendous logic on the other (intelligence must have been a part of the process).

Think about the impact of macro evolution on ID. Why do they really have to be at odds? Couldn't I just as easily argue that God guided evolution into macro-levels too? All macro evolution would do is create a possible natural explanation. It would still be just as logical to read design in as it would be to read design out.

That said, evolution is in real trouble. It's inability to explain the start of life (which you can't really divorce from the overall theory even though understandably you'd like to) and it's inability to reconcile itself with the fossil record are just too much for a rational person to accept unless they for whatever reason do not want God or some form of god-entity to exist.

I understand why that is. We all feel an urge to lead. We all want to be class president, President of the company we work for, and even President of the United States. If Jesus ran for office as King of Kings, I'll bet there would be no shortage of other candidates. So isn't it only natural that man doesn't want God? We don't want to worship another. We want to be God. Or at least that is a natural impulse. Milton put it best when he posed the question: "Is it better to serve in Heaven or to rule in Hell?"

But then I think of the job God has and ask myself rationally if, assuming of course His existence, I'd really want that job. I wouldn't be able to design the universe and I wouldn't be able to keep it running. That and I wouldn't have wanted to rip down the walls of Jericho or do any of the other judgmental things God had to do for justice to exist. I'm really happy that God is willing to do those things because they needed to get done but if it had been up to me it wouldn't have happened. Necessary or not, I just wouldn't have been up to the task.

And Jesus has the job according to scripture of deciding who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell. My parents are atheists. You really think I'd want to judge them? No thank you! I don't want to judge anyone. And while we are all happy that Jesus was willing to take our sins upon himself and pay the price for our failings, who would really want to join him on the cross? I wish I were worthy to do so, but even if I was it wouldn't be my idea of an ideal vacation.

So rationally while I'm happy to have God and Jesus, I wouldn't want to be God and/or Jesus. I'd rather spend eternity basking in their glory and waiting for my beloved Lions to go to the Super Bowl.

So why don't I believe in evolution? Because it doesn't make sense.

Personally I think someone smarter than me may well one day find some problems with relativity too. I can see the physical universe going back to a singularity but not the actual universe. Logic says that in the absence of all things you have empty space so logically space should be eternal even if it is an empty void. And while I can see relativity being used to describe our perception of time (which is all anyone has really proven) I have a hard time with the idea that time is 'just' a dimension that can be traversed. Logically time should be a constant and only our perception should change. Perhaps that will be the answer when a smarter man figures it out - perhaps Einstien's variables are better explained as measurements of the perception of time and space rather than the actualities of time and space.

And Biblically that would work fine. The physical (ie matter) universe being finite is plenty to suggest a need for God.

At the end of the day science is but a blanket to keep us warm. Our minds are what really matter. Science is a process for proving what seems logical and as such it is just an extension of philosophy.

Math is the ultimate tool of philosophy because it is almost an absolute form of logic but even math fails. Take the following:

Three men go into a hotel and order a room. The manager tells them the room will cost $30. Each man pays $10 (10*3=30) and get their keys.

A little later the manager realizes that he made a mistake. The room was on special. It should only have cost $25. He gives a bellhop $5 and tells him to give the men their change (25+5=30).

On the way up to the room the bellhop realizes that he can't break the $5 evenly. He doesn't have any change. No matter, he figures. He rates a tip anyway. He gives each man $1 (1*3=3) and keeps the other two himself (3+2=5).

So to recap, each man paid $9 for the room (10-1=9) and the bellhop kept the other $2.

The only problem is that 9*3=27 (what the men paid for the room after getting their change) and adding the bellhop's $2 in only brings the total to $29. So where did the other dollar go?

That's not a riddle. There is no solution. There is nothing wrong with that synopsis. You could take three men and a hotel and re-create it in their respective expense reports. Logically the math should work yet it does not.

Math isn't perfect either.

Wall-dog wrote:BeGood,
What is science but an extension of philosophy? We use logic to form hypothesis and then science to try to prove or disprove what we find to be logical.

That's the vital step, going back and testing it.

Wall-dog wrote:You are correct that science cannot predict what came before the singularity. You are also correct that the theory of relativity is still only a theory. A new theory could be developed tomorrow that would say that the universe is eternal. But nothing like that is even on the horizon so at least based on what Mankind knows today the theory of relativity is pretty solid.

Of course new theories rarely overturn old ones, they only encompass them, everything is based on empirical observation after all.

Wall-dog wrote:Evolution on the other hand has a perfectly viable alternative - ID. ... If evolution were proven 100% tomorrow it wouldn't really 'prove' anything as far as theism goes because religious people could easily say that Evolution is one of God's processes too. Cosmology points so clearly toward a divine creator that what else does one really need? I don't have a problem with evolution except that when I read the evidence from both sides I see what looks to me like a lack of logic on one side (proteins fold in a sponge and BAM here's a crocodile!!)

That is not what evolution posits. Perhaps that is the problem there.

Wall-dog wrote:Think about the impact of macro evolution on ID. Why do they really have to be at odds? Couldn't I just as easily argue that God guided evolution into macro-levels too? All macro evolution would do is create a possible natural explanation. It would still be just as logical to read design in as it would be to read design out.

Sure but can you prove it scientifically? There could be a greater force acting actively right now, but if it can't be tested than science is blind to it. Simple.

Wall-dog wrote:That said, evolution is in real trouble. It's inability to explain the start of life (which you can't really divorce from the overall theory even though understandably you'd like to) and it's inability to reconcile itself with the fossil record are just too much for a rational person to accept unless they for whatever reason do not want God or some form of god-entity to exist.

It's not because I want it to be separate, it's simply because one can still study change with out knowing about origins. Why do you insist on adding more that there really is?

Wall-dog wrote:I understand why that is. We all feel an urge to lead. We all want to be class president,... Or at least that is a natural impulse. Milton put it best when he posed the question: "Is it better to serve in Heaven or to rule in Hell?"

This doesn't apply. I am not trying to replace God.

Wall-dog wrote:So rationally while I'm happy to have God and Jesus, I wouldn't want to be God and/or Jesus. I'd rather spend eternity basking in their glory and waiting for my beloved Lions to go to the Super Bowl.

So why don't I believe in evolution? Because it doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make sence that improvements come about peicemeal and not all at once? I suppose the cell phone never evolved from a primitive hand set into the super sleek models one can find today.

Wall-dog wrote:Personally I think someone smarter than me may well one day find some problems with relativity too. I can see the physical universe going back to a singularity but not the actual universe. Logic says that in the absence of all things you have empty space so logically space should be eternal even if it is an empty void.

No that's not logic thats your sence of reality. Imagine the spacial dimentions like a reference. If a catepillar travels down a stick it cannot travel sideways, this world is two dimentional. Under the current theory the dimentions unfolded like leaves of a lettuce. Giving us the spacial dimentions with which we are so familiar and with which would seem bizzaar.

Wall-dog wrote:And while I can see relativity being used to describe our perception of time (which is all anyone has really proven) I have a hard time with the idea that time is 'just' a dimension that can be traversed. Logically time should be a constant and only our perception should change.

No, we can discuss this in a separate thhread if you would like.

Wall-dog wrote:Perhaps that will be the answer when a smarter man figures it out - perhaps Einstien's variables are better explained as measurements of the perception of time and space rather than the actualities of time and space.

Hmm, perhaps you would like to create a new thread on relativity.

Wall-dog wrote:And Biblically that would work fine. The physical (ie matter) universe being finite is plenty to suggest a need for God.

It does work fine.

Wall-dog wrote:At the end of the day science is but a blanket to keep us warm.

No science is not a blanket, the more one delves into science the less assured we are of what reality is.

Wall-dog wrote:Our minds are what really matter. Science is a process for proving what seems logical and as such it is just an extension of philosophy.

No science is a way for us to discover things even those we thought were illogical.

Wall-dog wrote:Math is the ultimate tool of philosophy because it is almost an absolute form of logic but even math fails. Take the following:

Three men go into a hotel and order a room. The manager tells them the room will cost $30. Each man pays $10 (10*3=30) and get their keys.

A little later the manager realizes that he made a mistake. The room was on special. It should only have cost $25. He gives a bellhop $5 and tells him to give the men their change (25+5=30).

On the way up to the room the bellhop realizes that he can't break the $5 evenly. He doesn't have any change. No matter, he figures. He rates a tip anyway. He gives each man $1 (1*3=3) and keeps the other two himself (3+2=5).

So to recap, each man paid $9 for the room (10-1=9) and the bellhop kept the other $2.

The only problem is that 9*3=27 (what the men paid for the room after getting their change) and adding the bellhop's $2 in only brings the total to $29. So where did the other dollar go?

That's not a riddle. There is no solution. There is nothing wrong with that synopsis. You could take three men and a hotel and re-create it in their respective expense reports. Logically the math should work yet it does not.

Math isn't perfect either.

The solution is simple. You are simply looking at the wrong variables.

Each man has 1 dolar, the hotel has 25 and the bell hop has 2.

$25 + $3 + $2 = surprisingly $30.

I always liked that one. Interesting post. There is no answer to that question, because it isn't a pertinent question. The actual cost and the erroneus amount charged are not related.

Science involves both induction and deduction. The hypothesis is induced from the logical and reasoning processes of the mind, and the test is deduced from the hypothesis.

Jbuza wrote:I always liked that one. Interesting post. There is no answer to that question, because it isn't a pertinent question. The actual cost and the erroneus amount charged are not related.

Hey welcome back!

=)

Actually cost and erroneous cost are related.

The difference between cost and erroneous charge equals the money the bell hop and the three men share.

30 - 25 = 2+ 1 + 1

The amount the men paid is equal to the actual cost plus the money kept by the bell hop.

9 x 3 = 25 + 2

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:I always liked that one. Interesting post. There is no answer to that question, because it isn't a pertinent question. The actual cost and the erroneus amount charged are not related.

Hey welcome back!

=)

Hey Bgood never left just been lurking.

Thanks

That's right BeGood - cost and erroneous cost are related. It should work even though it does not. Really the term 'erroneous cost' was created largely to address quandaries like this one.

Wall-dog wrote:That's right BeGood - cost and erroneous cost are related. It should work even though it does not. Really the term 'erroneous cost' was created largely to address quandaries like this one.

No it does work.

The total cost is 25 + the tip = 27
Each man paid 9
9x3 = 27

It does work out.
It's not a quandry at all.

That's the vital step, going back and testing it.

The vital step is to remain open to trying to test it rather than using a cop-out like 'untestable.' We should never give up on a theory becoming testable and we should not throw out a theory that is testable in part just because an element of it may not be unequivicably testable. Must we be able to measure the amount of intelligence in a process to posit that intelligence must have been involved?

Of course new theories rarely overturn old ones, they only encompass them, everything is based on empirical observation after all.

The irony here is that evolution is looking more and more like flat-earth theory, retreating into absurdity. The flat-earth theory is still out there too. Theories don't die even when maybe they should! Or at the very least they should open themselves up to the possibility that they may be wrong.

That is not what evolution posits. Perhaps that is the problem there.

I'll stand by it actually. I'll grant only that I'm exaggerating a little. The Cambrian explosion isn't just a leap for evolution. It's the Grand Canyon. You can't bridge the gulf. You can posit into absurdity but you can't make the gulf go away. The protein folding theory is just as absurd as the flat-earth theory that ships sailing over the horizon is an optical illusion caused by the ship sailing through the atmosphere. The evolutionary model does not fit the Cambrian explosion. You call God a leap of faith and then you ask us to believe in folding proteins making evolution occur overnight. Even Darwin wouldn't have bought that.

Sure but can you prove it scientifically? There could be a greater force acting actively right now, but if it can't be tested than science is blind to it. Simple.

ID CAN be tested. It has been tested. Dembski's math can be applied to things that are known to have been created such as lamps or TVs. It can be applied to components thereof. It's really best to apply it to as simple of objects as possible because reduction adds a degree of variance. The less reducible the item the better the test. But it can be applied and the math holds up. Nobody disputes that. Where people dispute it is when you take the same math and apply it to other things such as a single living cell or a portion thereof. How is that different than applying Einstien's theory of relativity.

It's not because I want it to be separate, it's simply because one can still study change with out knowing about origins. Why do you insist on adding more that there really is?

But they are NOT separate theories. It wasn't until people began to really look at the Miller Experiment and apply it to realistic atmospheric conditions that people even wanted to divorce the two. And why? Because the only proteins with a realistic chance to 'evolve' that way were cyanide and formaldehyde. When life tries to evolve from non-life what do you get? Embalming fluid.

This doesn't apply. I am not trying to replace God.

Maybe not. But you are trying to make him unnecessary, and you are trying to do so on a board where people go to strengthen their faith. Luckily, science for the past 50 or so years has been making it steadily easier to build a strong scientific case for God! This board exists to show how God and Science do co-exist and how they overlap and point to each other. You try to divorce the two. You try to say that Science has no place and no need for God. This is why cosmology is so important - because cosmology shows that the rules of science are finite. What caused the big bang??? Science cannot exist without God!

It doesn't make sence that improvements come about peicemeal and not all at once? I suppose the cell phone never evolved from a primitive hand set into the super sleek models one can find today.

That's the point. The cell phone did NOT evolve from a primitive handset into a cell phone. Designers at Bell Labs and Motorola sat down and said 'how can we improve this?' It was a product of design built on design rather than mutation on mutation. You can't divorce man's intelligence from that process anymore than you can successfully divorce God from the origin of species. Well - in fairness, you can't prove God was involved. Only that intelligence was. But your example of the phone shows not that evolution can occur without intelligence but how design is a necessary component of any process that makes large leaps!

No that's not logic thats your sence of reality. Imagine the spacial dimentions like a reference. If a catepillar travels down a stick it cannot travel sideways, this world is two dimentional. Under the current theory the dimentions unfolded like leaves of a lettuce. Giving us the spacial dimentions with which we are so familiar and with which would seem bizzaar.

This is where true scientific progress is made - when we go back to philosophy to try and make sense of what we have learned. We rationalize and then try to build experiments to further refine. But how would you experiment with perception? What variables would you use to differentiate between perception and reality? Perception is not a naturalist term either...

No, we can discuss this in a separate thhread if you would like.

Not necessary. This is a side issue. I was using it to illustrate a point and I think I've done so.

No science is not a blanket, the more one delves into science the less assured we are of what reality is.

I would suggest that your statement is only true for the atheist. As a Christian I can tell you that science over the past 50 years has been a very warm blanket!

$25 + $3 + $2 = surprisingly $30.

You answer this in your next post. Really what should work is the following:

(10*3)=(9*3)+(2)

or

(What each man paid initially)=(What each man paid after getting reimbursed)+(What the bellhop kept)

I'm not going to say that it does work. Obviously it doesn't. But it is still logical when you walk through it. If those three guys were business men they would each write down '$9' on their expense reports. They really did each pay $9. It should work. Scroll up and read it again. Show me a break in logic. The best you can do is tell me I can't substitute back in $9 for $10-$1 when they get their money back - but the only reason I can't do it is because if I do the math fails. 10-1 is 9. Logically It should work.

That said, I'll grant that it doesn't.

The total cost is 25 + the tip = 27
Each man paid 9
9x3 = 27

Yes - the total cost is 9*3=27-2(tip)=25. But the total of 9*3 (what was paid)+2(tip) is still only 29. It doesn't work. And you know it doesn't. You're trying to confuse a perfectly good riddle!!

Find an error in logic in the original riddle. The substitution may not be 'legal' but it is logical. The logic creates 29=30. It's not the logic that fails. It's the math.

My eighth grade advanced algebra book had two pages of erroneous math statements that were mathmatically sound but that didn't work. There are a number of well known ones. That one stands out because it's a riddle but there are a number of them.

Wall-dog wrote:

That's the vital step, going back and testing it.

The vital step is to remain open to trying to test it rather than using a cop-out like 'untestable.'

No in science if we can't test it we can't prove it either way. That's how science works.

Wall-dog wrote:We should never give up on a theory becomming testable and we should not be afraid to throw out a theory that is testable in part just because an element of it may not be unequivicably testable.

Once it becomes testable it can become a part of science.
=)

It's a tool and it works because it is testable, not everything is testable so science is not an umbrella of human experience.

Wall-dog wrote:Must we be able to measure the amount of intelligence in a process to posit that intelligence must have been involved?

No but we must be able to show proof of it other than the artifact. For example if you have no knowledge of water chemistry how can you say that a stalagtite formed from mineral deposition?

Wall-dog wrote:

Of course new theories rarely overturn old ones, they only encompass them, everything is based on empirical observation after all.

The irony here is that evolution is looking more and more like flat-earth theory, retreating into absurdity. The flat-earth theory is still out there too. Theories don't die even when maybe they should! Or at the very least they should open themselves up to the possibility that they may be wrong.

Again experiments have shown that the mechanisms of evolution occur.

Wall-dog wrote:

That is not what evolution posits. Perhaps that is the problem there.

I'll stand by it actually. I'll grant only that I'm exaggerating a little. The Cambrian explosion isn't just a leap for evolution. It's the Grand Canyon. You can't bridge the gulf. You can posit into absurdity but you can't make the gulf go away.

Have you actually examined the data, or are you just repeating what you ave been told? I can reopen the cambrian thread if you would like.

Wall-dog wrote:The protien folding theory is just as absurd as the flat-earth theory that ships sailing over the horizon is an optical illusion caused by the ship sailing through the atmosphere. The evolutionary model does not fit the Cambrian explosion.

I don't follow. Have you ever examined the organisms from the Cambrian?

Wall-dog wrote:You call God a leap of faith and then you ask us to believe in folding proteins making evolution occur overnight. Even Darwin wouldn't have bought that.

Perhaps you didn't grasp the meaning of proteins which fold by themselves according to the natural laws of the Universe. Would you like me to go into more detail on proteins protein structure and how it relates to DNA?

Wall-dog wrote:

Sure but can you prove it scientifically? There could be a greater force acting actively right now, but if it can't be tested than science is blind to it. Simple.

ID CAN be tested. It has been tested. Dembski's math can be applied to things that are known to have been created such as lamps or TVs. It can be applied to components thereof. It's really best to apply it to as simple of objects as possible because reduction adds a degree of variance. The less reducible the item the better the test. But it can be applied and the math holds up. Nobody disputes that. Where people dispute it is when you take the same math and apply it to other things such as a single living cell or a portion thereof. How is that different than applying Einstien's theory of relativity.

His theories were given credence when an eclipse allowed scientists to measure stars behind the sun actually appearing to be closer to the sun than they actually are. Gravitational lensing was shown experimentally to be plausable.
http://library.thinkquest.org/25886/yproverel.htm
The idea that time is not constant is also a practical tool as signals which go out into space need to be recalibrated before being sent back to Earth due to the time dialation.
http://techrepublic.com.com/5102-10878-5727092.html

Wall-dog wrote:

It's not because I want it to be separate, it's simply because one can still study change with out knowing about origins. Why do you insist on adding more that there really is?

But they are NOT seperate theories.

Again the experiments can still be conducted whether or not we have an answer for the origin of life.

Wall-dog wrote:It wasn't until people began to really look at the Miller Experiment and apply it to realistic atmospheric conditions that people even wanted to divorce the two. And why? Because the only proteins with a realistic chance to 'evolve' that way were cyanide and phormaldahyde. When life tries to evolve from non-life what do you get? Embalming fluid.

=) That might work on the uninitiated but embalming fluid is not harmful to all life. Plus the result was not exactly embalming fluid. There was a much greater and more valid reason why the results of the experiment were rejected by the scientific community.
http://www.grisda.org/origins/16040.pdf
But that's besides the point the theory existed before the experiments, and it still stands today. No matter that the experiment was flawed and a dead end. This experiment did not discount othr experiments.

Wall-dog wrote:

This doesn't apply. I am not trying to replace God.

Maybe not. But you are trying to make him unnecessary,

No I am not. Tell me how can we test God? You're making an illogical conclusion.
The whole point of science is to do the experiment and go from there. How can you reject that idea?
The results don't point away from God they just don't address him.
For example a chemiststudies how various compound form and interact. The results don't address God, does that mean chemists are precluding the existence of God? What of a lawyer or a computer scientist? Why target biologists?

Wall-dog wrote:and you are trying to do so on a board where people go to strengthen their faith. Luckily, science for the past 50 or so years has been making it steadily easier to build a strong scientific case for God! This board exists to show how God and Science do co-exist and how they overlap and point to each other. You try to divorce the two. You try to say that Science has no place and no need for God.

Not at all infact I think science points to a God. Where do you think all these natural laws came from?

Wall-dog wrote:This is why cosmology is so important - because cosmology shows that the rules of science are finite. What caused the big bang??? Science cannot exist without God!

It doesn't make sence that improvements come about peicemeal and not all at once? I suppose the cell phone never evolved from a primitive hand set into the super sleek models one can find today.

That's the point. The cell phone did NOT evolve from a primitive handset into a cell phone. Designers at Bell Labs and Motorolla sat down and said 'how can we improve this?'

They could only see where improvements were necessary by building the innitial phones in the first place. I see that you still are having trouble separating factors which are just a byproduct of the example.

Wall-dog wrote:It was a product of design built on design rather than mutation on mutation. You can't divorce man's intelligence from that process anymore than you can successfully divorce God from the origin of species. Well - in fairness, you can't prove God was involved. Only that intelligence was. But your example of the phone shows not that evolution can occur without intelligence but how design is a necessary component of any process that makes large leaps!

Testing and modification is the common denominator here. For example for a new motorola antannae they only had the specifications for the new array. How did they design it? They did computer models of every varient they could think of and tested each one! The ones which worked best were used to test actual varients built in the lab. Does this process sound familiar? the only intelligence involved was in the measurement and the innitial specifications. The actual design was developed through brute force testing.

Wall-dog wrote:

No that's not logic thats your sence of reality. Imagine the spacial dimentions like a reference. If a catepillar travels down a stick it cannot travel sideways, this world is two dimentional. Under the current theory the dimentions unfolded like leaves of a lettuce. Giving us the spacial dimentions with which we are so familiar and with which would seem bizzaar.

This is where true scientific progress is made - when we go back to philosophy to try and make sense of what we have learned. We rationalize and then try to build experiments to further refine. But how would you experiment with perception? What variables would you use to differentiate between perception and reality?

Our perception of time is based on entropy. If we build two atomic clocks and set one on Earth and one in orbit the one in orbit will tick slower.

Wall-dog wrote:Perception is not a naturalist term either...

No, we can discuss this in a separate thhread if you would like.

Not necessary. This is a side issue. I was using it to illustrate a point and I think I've done so.

No you still think time exists outside of perception. You're logic is based on experiences here on Earth, you have not made your point.

Wall-dog wrote:

$25 + $3 + $2 = surprisingly $30.

You answer this in your next post. Really what should work is the following:

(10*3)=(9*3)+(2)

or

(What each man paid initially)=(What each man paid after getting reimbursed)+(What the bellhop kept)

Each man paid innitially $10 they were reinbursed $1 each. The bell hop kept 2$

So how much did the men pay?
$9 x 3 = $27
The bellhop kept $2 and the hotel took the rest.

How many times do I need to explain this?

Wall-dog wrote:I'm not going to say that it does work. Obviously it doesn't.

It does work. Your logic is flawed.

Wall-dog wrote:But it is still logical when you walk through it. If those three guys were business men they would each write down '$9' on their expense reports. They really did each pay $9. It should work. Scroll up and read it again. Show me a break in logic. The best you can do is tell me I can't substitute back in $9 for $10-$1 when they get their money back - but the only reason I can't do it is because if I do the math fails. 10-1 is 9. Logically It should work.

That said, I'll grant that it doesn't.

Look each man will report $9 in their expence reports right?
The bell hop kept $2, the Hotel takes $25, it all works out!

The other $3 dollars is in the posession of the three men.

Wall-dog wrote:Find an error in logic in the original riddle. The substitution may not be 'legal' but it is logical. The logic creates 29=30. It's not the logic that fails. It's the math.

My eighth grade advanced algebra book had two pages of erroneous math statements that were mathmatically sound but that didn't work. There are a number of well known ones. That one stands out because it's a riddle but there are a number of them.

Please, please, please tell me you are not serious in thinking that the math fails.
If you are, go back and replace the values with named variables and show why you think there is a problem with mathematics.