Evidence for God from Science

However someone who thinks that ID is a scientific theory is not a scientist.

So Michael Behe is not a scientist?

No because it has been shown that gene pools do change over time.Now you need to show that there is some physical limitation otherwise the idea that changes will accumulate is sound.

Well as I didn't find my next link to post for you in my box of Frosted Flakes this morning at breakfast (and I had two bowls mind you), so it seems I'll just have to be smart on my own. Why am I on the offensive, and you get to sit back and watch? Gene pools change. OK, agreed, we both believe in microevolution. Well, before I proceed-when you talk about accumulate-what do you mean exactly. Are you saying new and novel features accumulate, and eventually we'll get a new species, or what exactly. Words are tricky and I'm not good with them.

No the gene pool changes naturally, genetic manipulation only shows that limitations do not exist.

Since when is not finding something clear evidence that it does not exist. Especially with such a feat as putting someone else's ear on a rat? How does that show no limitations exist.

Canuckster1127 wrote:

However someone who thinks that ID is a scientific theory is not a scientist.

So Michael Behe is not a scientist?

Ok, I'm wrong. But he does lose credibility, describing a personal belief or philosophical approach as a scientific theory.

It would be like string theorists demanding that string theory be taught in school as an alternative to newtonion physics.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote: Well as I didn't find my next link to post for you in my box of Frosted Flakes this morning at breakfast (and I had two bowls mind you), so it seems I'll just have to be smart on my own. Why am I on the offensive, and you get to sit back and watch? Gene pools change. OK, agreed, we both believe in microevolution. Well, before I proceed-when you talk about accumulate-what do you mean exactly. Are you saying new and novel features accumulate, and eventually we'll get a new species, or what exactly. Words are tricky and I'm not good with them.

No the gene pool changes naturally, genetic manipulation only shows that limitations do not exist.

Since when is not finding something clear evidence that it does not exist. Especially with such a feat as putting someone else's ear on a rat? How does that show no limitations exist.

Well lets think about it, what you see as novel changes might just as well be accumulations of mutations. Lets take the hoof as an example. Is the hoof a novel mutation as compared to a rats paw?

If so what changes in genes do you think had to have occurred? You'd be surprised that very little had to change, it's basically a reorganization of existing traits, the only changes were in the development of the animal. Is this what you mean by novel traits?

If a rat can be made to have an ear grow on its back through a change in its genetic sequence, what's to stop a rat from naturally accumulating traits which cause it to be larger longer and have canine teeth? What are the novel traits?

bgood wrote:Lets not go through this again, isolated populations have clearly shown divertion from main populations.

Yes but not to an unlimited extent. While it may be a sound idea, there is no evidence to show that evolution has not got very strict limiters on it. I think this may be a difference between Intelligent design/ theistic evolution and materialisitc naturalism. There is in fact observable evidence that suggests that intelligent manipulation is able to change things in a less limited way than natural processes.

so if I devise an experiment in which I force erosion by placing a rock under running water, I have proven that intelligence is required for erosion? Give me a break. Intelligence may be behind it but I certainly haven't proven it by manipulating genetic information.

It demonstrates that intelligent manipulation is less limited than anything we see for variation within a population. I think that while intelligent design and theistic evolution is similar to naturalistic materialism, that it differs in that it is far more probable.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:However someone who thinks that ID is a scientific theory is not a scientist.

Well I'm glad that has been cleared up. IS there some kind of mechanism in place whereby those who do feel that ID is a valid scientific theory are cleansed from the harmonious fools that rule on high?

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:However someone who thinks that ID is a scientific theory is not a scientist.

Well I'm glad that has been cleared up. IS there some kind of mechanism in place whereby those who do feel that ID is a valid scientific theory are cleansed from the harmonious fools that rule on high?

No I erred when I made this statement, as Canuckster has clearly shown I am plainly wrong.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:However someone who thinks that ID is a scientific theory is not a scientist.

Well I'm glad that has been cleared up. IS there some kind of mechanism in place whereby those who do feel that ID is a valid scientific theory are cleansed from the harmonious fools that rule on high?

No I erred when I made this statement, as Canuckster has clearly shown I am plainly wrong.

It's only fair. You've rightly corrected me many times, for which I am grateful and open to, as I want to be accurate in my thinking and communicating.

What I think it does show, is that there is a lot of emotion on both sides and that we'd probably do well to remove as much of it from the arguments as possible.

Canuckster1127 wrote: What I think it does show, is that there is a lot of emotion on both sides and that we'd probably do well to remove as much of it from the arguments as possible.

Agreed.
=)

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:However someone who thinks that ID is a scientific theory is not a scientist.

Well I'm glad that has been cleared up. IS there some kind of mechanism in place whereby those who do feel that ID is a valid scientific theory are cleansed from the harmonious fools that rule on high?

No I erred when I made this statement, as Canuckster has clearly shown I am plainly wrong.

I wasn't reacting to the statement really from a right wrong perspective, but it is common to hear that type of statement. No one that believes . . . is a real scientist. There is a political pressure wihtin the scientific community IMHO.