Evidence for God from Science

KBC, the media is just as bad as the textbooks as far as protecting their sacred cow of evolution.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellig ... antartica/

In this article it is reported that a basilasaurus fossil is found dating back to 49 million years swimming the oceans at the same time period as ambulocetas, which punches a devastating hole right through the evolution of whales. I saw one or 2 articles on this and then nothing. This is a huge find but the evolutionary establishment thought it best to remain silent on this. I bet you won't see this in the evolutionary textbooks a any time soon

bippy123 wrote:KBC, the media is just as bad as the textbooks as far as protecting their sacred cow of evolution.

It's like a virus. Maybe it's an intellectual disease. It is getting to the point where I feel like i'm arguing with flat earthers on these subjects.

bippy123 wrote:I bet you won't see this in the evolutionary textbooks a any time soon

Theres a textbook bet it gettin pretty thin with all the 'supposed' lines of evidence dropping left and right. I wonder if the geocentric theory went through this same process as it 'evolved'? lololol

KBCid wrote:yup the textbooks were wrong and not one evolutionary scientist made any effort to have them corrected.

That's disingenuous at best and a pretty low blow in my opinion. The earlier reference to Gould (from 1996 (http://bill.srnr.arizona.edu/classes/18 ... -Illus.pdf and he within references a similar misconception from about 1988) addresses this idea. So real scientists have pointed this out. I notice that no response was made to my Feynman comment on textbooks. If people want to assume that high school textbooks represent the epitome of scientific thinking, they are certainly free to do so. But interested parties could certainly look up the recent textbook politics in Texas, for example, to realize how little correlation exists between high school textbooks and scholars in the same field.

Sandy it's very convenient as to how you skimmed over the whale evolution problem, but then again when you can't directly observe macroevolution happening you get to play with the imaginary goalposts and stretch or shorten them out any way you want to make evolution true.

Of course high school biology books don't carry this information there. How else are darwinists going to indoctrinate and brain wash high school students to believe that evolution is the truth and the only game in town?

All we need now is to add the Dover trial and viola , a court rules evolution is truth therefore it is truth.
Wait a minute, isn't that an ideology? Opps it is

I can hear this faint noise in the distance. Hey it's ambulocetas "guys I am not a whaleeeeeee, and whose the Einstein that claims I have webbed feet, must be an evolutionary artist"

The court never ruled that evolution is truth, it ruled that ID is garbage, not science, and religious creationism packaged with flowery words. Which based on what the brilliant lawyers placed in front of a highly conservative Christian judge, it is.

So a court judge ruled that ID is garbage and that is good enough for you?
Wow, now I'm convinced that ID is garbage because, as you believe science is based on court rulings:)
Ivellious it's nice to know that science is decided by judges

I wonder what that same judge would say if we showed him a chart displaying the TRUE evolution ( or should I say the fairy tale evolution of the whale). Since they won't ever place this info (along with the fruit fly experiment) on trial we can all feel safe and secure that the religion of Darwinian evolution is safe in the hands of the theologians (opps I meant judges), opps I meant scientists.

I sure am getting confused.

I say we fire all the scientists and let the courts rule on what is science;)

I never said that I believe that ID is garbage because of the court ruling. I was simply pointing out your error when you said that a court ruled that evolution was truth. I repeat: all that the judge ruled was that ID was not science and that it and its proponents intended to use it to bring creationism into the classroom. No ruling was made on evolution except that it was science, and ID was not.

Not sure I understand your complaint against what the judge saw in the trial. The prosecution presented what evolution was and what it was based on, and identified for the judge what "science" is to the scientific community. Now, after that, a brilliant group of lawyers and ID experts had every opportunity to present ID as a science and why it was better or even equal to evolution. And what they did bring to the trial, and the answers they gave the judge, were crap, and even a judge slanted toward their cause recognized that.

Also, I find it ironic that you say fire all the scientists and let the courts decide...Because since about 1960 the vast majority of scientists AND every US court has ruled the same ay on this issue...so clearly either way, the result is exactly the same.

bippy123 wrote:Sandy it's very convenient as to how you skimmed over the whale evolution problem,

I didn't skim over it; i skipped it. I am not a biologist. I don't know enough to comment.
I however do try to back up what statements i do make.

sandy_mcd wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Sandy it's very convenient as to how you skimmed over the whale evolution problem,

I didn't skim over it; i skipped it. I am not a biologist. I don't know enough to comment.
I however do try to back up what statements i do make.

Ok fair enough. That means that there is a door open for you to study this a bit more, if your truely open minded to it:)
We will leave it at that

Ivellious wrote:I never said that I believe that ID is garbage because of the court ruling. I was simply pointing out your error when you said that a court ruled that evolution was truth. I repeat: all that the judge ruled was that ID was not science and that it and its proponents intended to use it to bring creationism into the classroom. No ruling was made on evolution except that it was science, and ID was not.

Not sure I understand your complaint against what the judge saw in the trial. The prosecution presented what evolution was and what it was based on, and identified for the judge what "science" is to the scientific community. Now, after that, a brilliant group of lawyers and ID experts had every opportunity to present ID as a science and why it was better or even equal to evolution. And what they did bring to the trial, and the answers they gave the judge, were crap, and even a judge slanted toward their cause recognized that.

Also, I find it ironic that you say fire all the scientists and let the courts decide...Because since about 1960 the vast majority of scientists AND every US court has ruled the same ay on this issue...so clearly either way, the result is exactly the same.

ID is a theory, just as evolution is a theory, didnt we have that conversation before Ivellious? Didnt I show you that macro evolution has never been observed, just asserted. That there is almost no evidence of it from the fossil records. The experiments trying to show it all failed and that is a fact. Our experience tells us that specified complexity is never created randomly without a mind to it. This doesnt sound like garbage to me. What sounds like garbage to me is the darwinian community continually saying that they have the evidence of the transitional fossils and the evidence of macroevolution. Sorry, but appealing to popular opinion doesnt equate to evidence my friend, and this is why I keep falling farther away from evolution each day. ID intuitively makes more sense and is making mroe sense each day to me.

KBCid wrote:yup the textbooks were wrong and not one evolutionary scientist made any effort to have them corrected.

sandy_mcd wrote:That's disingenuous at best and a pretty low blow in my opinion. The earlier reference to Gould (from 1996 (http://bill.srnr.arizona.edu/classes/18 ... -Illus.pdf and he within references a similar misconception from about 1988) addresses this idea. So real scientists have pointed this out. I notice that no response was made to my Feynman comment on textbooks. If people want to assume that high school textbooks represent the epitome of scientific thinking, they are certainly free to do so. But interested parties could certainly look up the recent textbook politics in Texas, for example, to realize how little correlation exists between high school textbooks and scholars in the same field.

Saying that someone made an attempt from 96 may be the truth... but how about all the rest of the years before that? and really what mattered is how it got into the texts at all.
How many headlines do we see that say something like "Missing link found" and then later its determined to not be a missing link? This is how things get into textbooks. A scientist says loud enough that the giraffe is an example of evolution and the listening media is ready to proclaim the latest truth from science. The problem is that if no one refutes it in a timely fashion then for all intensive purposes it is the truth. My kids still have the giraffe in their textbooks to support the evolutionary fairytale and it is absolutely false. I have gone to their school and confronted the teacher on this and she still backs this point even after I produced several reference papers by real scientists stating that it didn't. Thus and therefore it is not the textbook makers fault for putting it in there. It is the scientists who made the initial proclomation without testing it that are at fault.
If you are a scientist and you have a concept that needs testing to validate it then perform the test first and once validated you can proclaim to the world this truth and show the backing that allowed you to make the proclomation.

bippy123 wrote: ID is a theory, just as evolution is a theory, didnt we have that conversation before Ivellious? Didnt I show you that macro evolution has never been observed, just asserted. That there is almost no evidence of it from the fossil records. The experiments trying to show it all failed and that is a fact.

Ya know whats funny here Bippy? The philosophy of naturalism was conceived to refute the original concept of intelligent design by God proposed from a time long past and the fact is that it has not performed the specific task it was supposed to. Is there any evidence that natural causes can generate life? nope
The law of biogenesis is still valid. Abiogenesis has never been shown to even come close to having validation so the fact was and still is that life only comes from life. If anyone believes otherwise I am open to review the evidence and until the evidence appears the onus is on them to show why intelligence is not required to explain the apparent design in life.

Dawkins has argued against creationist explanations of life in his previous works on evolution. The theme of The Blind Watchmaker, published in 1986, is that evolution can explain the apparent design in nature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion

Ok Dawkins, provide the evidence that would allow evolution to explain the apparent design in life.

KBCid wrote:How many headlines do we see that say something like "Missing link found" and then later its determined to not be a missing link? This is how things get into textbooks.

So scientists are now responsible for media sensationalism?

ID is a theory, just as evolution is a theory, didnt we have that conversation before Ivellious?

Actually, no. Not even close. If you were a scientist, or had scientific training, this statement would be absurd to you. A theory in science is not a hunch, or a hypothesis, or a random thought, as "theory" means in general everyday use. A theory in science is literally the highest order of scientific explanations. Typically, a theory is a collection of hypotheses and the evidence that supports them that explains or defines a broad concept or question in scientific terms. However, just having the idea doesn't make it a theory. Here are some definitions, courtesy of the National Academy of Sciences:

Terms Used in Describing the Nature of Science*
Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, it becomes more probable that the hypothesis is correct. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis can be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.

Another definition of a scientific theory:

a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

Just look up the wikipedia page "scientific theory". It will do you a lot of good, and save you from making the "just a theory" mistake again.

Theory
A scientific theory is a series of statements about the causal elements for observed phenomena. A critical component of a scientific theory is that it provides explanations and predictions that can in fact be tested.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Evolution
Evolution is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations.
Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Mutation

Evolution if left to the first simple definition is an observable fact even though there is no tested explanation for how the changes in inherited characteristics occurs. This is essentially the observation that things change. It has no power to explain the how or why they change but just the simple observation that it does.
Now the second assertion of the 'hypothesis' of evolution is untestable and in fact has never been observed in any evidence procured so far.
Think about it what test can be performed to show that "Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago."... none. this part of the evolution hypothesis is beyond the scientific method so what business does it have in a scientific endeavor parading around as a theory?

This is the age old mixing of a small truth with a huge lie in the hopes that the foolish will accept it all as truth.

Evolution is 'only a theory' if it only posits "change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations."
Evolution is 'only a hypothesis if it posits that random mutation and natural selection are the cause of species since they are untested.
Evolution is not even a hypothesis when it posits that "Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago." since it is beyond the scientific method to test