Evidence for God from Science

Ok, Dr. Rana has recorded a response to this issue. Listen to the 1/25/12 episode of "Science News Flash." SNF takes a while to open.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/radio- ... d-podcasts

Zoegirl: Right. This experiment isn't truly groundbreaking...it's just the potential to open the door for more and more important/groundbreaking experiments. It's just a matter of getting the ball rolling, so to speak, but it has the chance to be that spark.

dayage wrote:Ok, Dr. Rana has recorded a response to this issue. Listen to the 1/25/12 episode of "Science News Flash." SNF takes a while to open.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/radio- ... d-podcasts

http://c450913.r13.cf2.rackcdn.com/snf20120125fr.mp3? direct link
I'm quitting at 7+ minutes - nothing addressing the research yet, just background

MarcusOfLycia wrote:If this doesn't prove macro-evolution, will any of you change your minds?

What? This is the same sort of unrelated argument seen in the tubercle thread. This one little experiment by itself is not going to prove or disprove evolution. I just ate a candy bar. Does that prove or disprove evolution? The experiment shows that in some cases a unicellular organism can clump together. There may or may not be significantly different roles for different cells. So how can this experiment disprove evolution?

Ivellious wrote:Zoegirl: Right. This experiment isn't truly groundbreaking...it's just the potential to open the door for more and more important/groundbreaking experiments. It's just a matter of getting the ball rolling, so to speak, but it has the chance to be that spark.

Perhaps due to science textbooks or tv shows, there seems to be an impression in the general public that scientists do a lot of earth-shattering experiments, proving, disproving, or discovering major results routinely.

lol, that was the impression from the media reports and the scientists...so we are judging using their excitement level

sandy_mcd wrote:

dayage wrote:Ok, Dr. Rana has recorded a response to this issue. Listen to the 1/25/12 episode of "Science News Flash." SNF takes a while to open.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/radio- ... d-podcasts

http://c450913.r13.cf2.rackcdn.com/snf20120125fr.mp3? direct link
I'm quitting at 7+ minutes - nothing addressing the research yet, just background

Its a 50 minute clip and you quit after 7 minutes because they are still discussing the background? Seriously?

MarcusOfLycia wrote:Its a 50 minute clip and you quit after 7 minutes because they are still discussing the background? Seriously?

Yep, seriously. I really dislike lectures. The stuff I know is hard to skip and then I stop paying attention and miss something i don't know about. I'd much rather read something where I can go at my own pace. It's a lot easier to skip around and pay as much attention as i want to what i want. Also for me it's easier to grasp things that are written than spoken.

i've just read alittle bit of this and I'm VERY nervous about this. Would this prove darwinian evolution?

sandy_mcd wrote:

MarcusOfLycia wrote:Its a 50 minute clip and you quit after 7 minutes because they are still discussing the background? Seriously?

Yep, seriously. I really dislike lectures. The stuff I know is hard to skip and then I stop paying attention and miss something i don't know about. I'd much rather read something where I can go at my own pace. It's a lot easier to skip around and pay as much attention as i want to what i want. Also for me it's easier to grasp things that are written than spoken.

Seems a bit unfair to reject what someone has to say because of the format it is in.

Cubeus...As has been stated before, this doesn't "prove" or even come close to solidifying everything. If the genetic testing and follow up tests/experiments are successful, however, then it would provide significant evidence for Darwinian Evolution.

Besides, I wouldn't be too nervous. On one hand, even if this turns out to be a breakthrough in evolutionary study, that could take years to solidify what is going on, how it works, to test and re-test everything for reproducibility, etc. On the other hand, if it's legit, why be nervous? I'm not trying to be mean here, but if it's true, why should anyone be worried about it? Some extreme anti evolution groups would have less ammo to through at evolution, and the Theory of Evolution would be even stronger. Science will have advanced. That doesn't stop you from believing what you want at all (and if you follow my creed, evolution and a metaphorical reading on Genesis aren't mutually exclusive...).

MarcusOfLycia wrote:Seems a bit unfair to reject what someone has to say because of the format it is in.

Yes, it is. That's why some people will make an emotional appeal, knowing they can convince some people with emotion whereas more logical people will ignore (but be annoyed by) the emotion and look at the facts. But what does this statement have to do with anything?

sandy_mcd wrote:

MarcusOfLycia wrote:Seems a bit unfair to reject what someone has to say because of the format it is in.

Yes, it is. That's why some people will make an emotional appeal, knowing they can convince some people with emotion whereas more logical people will ignore (but be annoyed by) the emotion and look at the facts. But what does this statement have to do with anything?

Well, we are having a discussion here about a news story. People are presenting views from different perspectives. You are rejecting a viewpoint you disagree with because of it's format. That seems to violate the spirit of people discussing the issue. That's what it has to 'do with anything'.

I'm not making an emotional appeal. What is the point in having a discussion at all if one side is going to reject information they don't like because of the packaging? I guess I feel like it defeats the purpose.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:You are rejecting a viewpoint you disagree with because of it's format. What is the point in having a discussion at all if one side is going to reject information they don't like because of the packaging?

I'm not rejecting anything. I am ignoring it because I don't want to spend at least 50 minutes listening to it. [How many people here have listened to the entire presentation?]

MarcusOfLycia wrote:I'm not making an emotional appeal.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were. I was just giving that as an example where someone logical would not reject an argument due to the presentation.

OK so nothing is proven or unproven till we get multiple experiments with the same results. My next question would be what would Happen to ID/creationism if this was true? Would they lose any credibility?