Evidence for God from Science

neo-x wrote: I agree and second Hugh's post.

And Pat, a theory being able to be falsified is a technicality only if we find opposing evidence. You could falsify the theory of gravity given that technical point, but I don't think we will.

The two theories can hardly be compared. Gravity is an ongoing phenomena. There are ways to test it, record its effects on other objects, etc. You cannot test evolution. The years spent testing fruit flies and bacteria have shown that large-scale, or macroevolution is impossible. Even if they had managed to show some way was possible, even likely, there is no way to show that it ever happened in nature.

I have to add to my previous post.... To me it is beyond reason, sense and sensibility going against evolution for the shear brilliance and magnificence that it displays.

The capacity for selecting and kick starting focal 'mutations' increase 'exponentially', perfectly mirroring the rate of population as it declines while maintaining the balance necessary in order to meet the needs of whatever nature has thrown at it..... It's brilliant, it's magnificent!

And somehow there are minds willing to disregard this brilliance which could easily be attributed to a perfectly orchestrated design, for what? A story that contradicts every observable element of the world we live in?

pat34lee wrote:

neo-x wrote: I agree and second Hugh's post.

And Pat, a theory being able to be falsified is a technicality only if we find opposing evidence. You could falsify the theory of gravity given that technical point, but I don't think we will.

The two theories can hardly be compared. Gravity is an ongoing phenomena. There are ways to test it, record its effects on other objects, etc. You cannot test evolution. The years spent testing fruit flies and bacteria have shown that large-scale, or macroevolution is impossible. Even if they had managed to show some way was possible, even likely, there is no way to show that it ever happened in nature.

Years? Your time frame is way off my friend.

Why oh why are you using fruit flies and bacteria in a discussion pertaining to macroevolution?



The methodology of testing is quite different, like tracing two salamanders unable to breed with one another down two separate paths and observing and testing that every successive salamander in it's individual path is able to breed with one another all the way back to a point of divergence.... Both of these salamanders in their furthest reaching form came from that same point of divergence, why can't they breed with one another but can still individually breed with the salamander that represents their common 'ancestor'?
News flash, this has been tested, observed and documented!!!

Hi Revolutionary

Welcome to the board, do you have a link to the salamander article as I would love to read it.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Hi Revolutionary

Welcome to the board, do you have a link to the salamander article as I would love to read it.

I don't, sure you can find it though.... There's all sorts of stuff floating around in my mind, it's just something I plucked out for the response.

Sorry..... I do believe it was conducted in Berkley, if memory serves.... This is years and years ago, not something new here!

Revolutionary wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Hi Revolutionary

Welcome to the board, do you have a link to the salamander article as I would love to read it.

I don't, sure you can find it though.... There's all sorts of stuff floating around in my mind, it's just something I plucked out for the response.

Sorry..... I do believe it was conducted in Berkley, if memory serves.... This is years and years ago, not something new here!

Found it, ahh google you never fail me.

Very interesting stuff, evolution at work and being able to see it in action.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_01

hughfarey wrote: Quite so. Fossil DNA is unlikely to be the way to disprove Evolution. There are plenty of other ways. Finding a dinosaur fossil in pre-cambrian rocks would be a good one.

Have you ever heard of OOPARTS (out of place artifacts)? These are found constantly.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/cienc ... vel08c.htm
http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.com/forbidden.html

hughfarey wrote:No, it was't; failure to find soft tissue was indeed a fact, explained by the idea that conditions were unsuitable for its preservation. It was not a fact that no conditions existed whereby it could be preserved, and it was precisely by predicting the circumstances in which it might be preserved that it was eventually found. That's Science.

There are no conditions that would preserve cartilage from breaking down totally in no more than 30k years.
http://www.icr.org/article/5704/

hughfarey wrote:No. In the case of fossil DNA the established Scientific worldview was entirely able to assimilate its discovery. You may be thinking about the idea that the Earth was round, the Heliocentric view of the Solar System, Evolution, or even Relativity. These ideas took a very short time to gain acceptance by the Scientific community, as soon as the evidence for them became more compelling than the evidence for the previous 'worldview.' They were all, in your words, "ridiculed or ignored by those who control the institutions," but the particular institutions to which you refer were religious rather than scientific.

Almost all scientific institutions from the late middle ages until the 20th century were religious. This includes most hospitals, colleges and universities.

Revolutionary wrote:

pat34lee wrote: The two theories can hardly be compared. Gravity is an ongoing phenomena. There are ways to test it, record its effects on other objects, etc. You cannot test evolution. The years spent testing fruit flies and bacteria have shown that large-scale, or macroevolution is impossible. Even if they had managed to show some way was possible, even likely, there is no way to show that it ever happened in nature.

Years? Your time frame is way off my friend.

Why oh why are you using fruit flies and bacteria in a discussion pertaining to macroevolution?



The methodology of testing is quite different, like tracing two salamanders unable to breed with one another down two separate paths and observing and testing that every successive salamander in it's individual path is able to breed with one another all the way back to a point of divergence.... Both of these salamanders in their furthest reaching form came from that same point of divergence, why can't they breed with one another but can still individually breed with the salamander that represents their common 'ancestor'?
News flash, this has been tested, observed and documented!!!

Actually, decades have been spent trying to force fruit flies and bacterium to evolve using drugs, radiation and whatever else they could think to try. They chose these because they could be easily grown in a lab under controlled conditions, and the short life spans meant that they could observe many generations in a short time. All they got for their trouble was dead or mutated flies and bacteria that either became sterile or reverted to normal after a few generations. Think: If they could get nothing out of hundreds of generations of fruit flies, why would hundreds of generations of larger animals, or man be different?

Ring species, like drug-resistant bacteria, only prove devolution (loss of information), not evolution. Take dogs for example. Start with a small group of healthy mongrels and inbreed them for whatever characteristic you desire. Each time the dogs are inbred, they lose some of the original genetic variability of the parent group. Eventually, they will only be able to breed with each other. Going the other way in time, back toward the days of Noah, the same thing happened. There were probably only a few 'dog' types on the ark. These would become all of the wolves and dogs and similar breeds around the world.

pat34lee wrote:

hughfarey wrote: Quite so. Fossil DNA is unlikely to be the way to disprove Evolution. There are plenty of other ways. Finding a dinosaur fossil in pre-cambrian rocks would be a good one.

Have you ever heard of OOPARTS (out of place artifacts)? These are found constantly.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/cienc ... vel08c.htm

I've been through this first link of yours, and almost to an item the list it contains is either poorly or inconclusively documented. The items with comparatively better documentation fall into two main categories, with the exception of the Venus of Willendorf (which is a little incongruous on the list - I'm not sure what the author is trying to demonstrate). I'd like to be charitable and chalk the fact that 9 out of 10 items on that list are discoveries of the Victorian era up to coincidence, but I don't think that it is.

Anyway, here are the categories my reading shows that the items on the list belong to. I've colour-coded anything which fits more than one category.

Later artifacts buried in earlier strata or mixed with earlier objects/artifacts (either by natural processes or by human intervention, not necessarily deliberate)
Copper Coin from Illinois, over 200,000 years old^*
Modern Human Skeleton from Tanzania, over 800,000 years old
Modern Human Skull in Buenos Aires, over 1,000,000 years old^*
Figurines from Nampa, Idaho, about 2 million years old^*
Modern Human Skull found in Italy, over 3 - 4 million years old
Carved Shell from the Red Crag, England, between 2.0 and 2.5 million years old
Mortar and Pestle in California, up to 55 million years old
Gold Thread in England, between 320 - 360 million years old
Gold Chain from Morrisonville, Illinois, 260 - 320 million years old
Iron Cup from Oklahoma Coal Mine, 312 million years old
Nail in Devonian Sandstone, between 360 and 408 million years old
Metallic Vase from Pre-Cambrian Rock, over 600 Million Years Old

Mis-identification of natural objects
Carved Shell from the Red Crag, England, between 2.0 and 2.5 million years old^**
Chalk Ball near Laon, France, 45 - 55 million years old
Sling Stone from Bramford, England, 5 - 50 million years old
Shoe Sole from Nevada, dated at 213 - 248 million years ago
Metallic Tube at Saint-Jean de Livet, France over 65 million years old^**
Grooved Sphere from South Africa, 2.8 Billion Years Old
Shoe Print in Utah Shale, 505 to 590 Million Years Old
Artifacts From AIX En Provence, France
Letter-like Shapes in Marble, Philadelphia

Patchy, lost or questionable evidence
Copper Coin from Illinois, over 200,000 years old
Modern Human Skull in Buenos Aires, over 1,000,000 years old
Modern Human Skull found in Italy, over 3 - 4 million years old
Carved Shell from the Red Crag, England, between 2.0 and 2.5 million years old
Mortar and Pestle in California, up to 55 million years old
Shoe Sole from Nevada, dated at 213 - 248 million years ago
Metallic Tube at Saint-Jean de Livet, France over 65 million years old
Gold Thread in England, between 320 - 360 million years old
Gold Chain from Morrisonville, Illinois, 260 - 320 million years old
Iron Cup from Oklahoma Coal Mine, 312 million years old
Nail in Devonian Sandstone, between 360 and 408 million years old
Metallic Vase from Pre-Cambrian Rock, over 600 Million Years Old
Carved Stone near Webster, Iowa, 260 - 320 million years old
Block Wall in an Oklahoma Mine, at least 286 million years old
Hieroglyphics in Ohio Coal Mine, 260 million year old

Non-sequiturs
Willendorf Venus Statue, over 30,000 years old

* I've marked with an asterisk any items for which there is no satisfactory evidence that they definitely fall into the given category (and also no satisfactory evidence that they definitely don't fit the category)

pat34lee wrote:

Revolutionary wrote:

pat34lee wrote: The two theories can hardly be compared. Gravity is an ongoing phenomena. There are ways to test it, record its effects on other objects, etc. You cannot test evolution. The years spent testing fruit flies and bacteria have shown that large-scale, or macroevolution is impossible. Even if they had managed to show some way was possible, even likely, there is no way to show that it ever happened in nature.

Years? Your time frame is way off my friend.

Why oh why are you using fruit flies and bacteria in a discussion pertaining to macroevolution?



The methodology of testing is quite different, like tracing two salamanders unable to breed with one another down two separate paths and observing and testing that every successive salamander in it's individual path is able to breed with one another all the way back to a point of divergence.... Both of these salamanders in their furthest reaching form came from that same point of divergence, why can't they breed with one another but can still individually breed with the salamander that represents their common 'ancestor'?
News flash, this has been tested, observed and documented!!!

Actually, decades have been spent trying to force fruit flies and bacterium to evolve using drugs, radiation and whatever else they could think to try. They chose these because they could be easily grown in a lab under controlled conditions, and the short life spans meant that they could observe many generations in a short time. All they got for their trouble was dead or mutated flies and bacteria that either became sterile or reverted to normal after a few generations. Think: If they could get nothing out of hundreds of generations of fruit flies, why would hundreds of generations of larger animals, or man be different?

Ring species, like drug-resistant bacteria, only prove devolution (loss of information), not evolution. Take dogs for example. Start with a small group of healthy mongrels and inbreed them for whatever characteristic you desire. Each time the dogs are inbred, they lose some of the original genetic variability of the parent group. Eventually, they will only be able to breed with each other. Going the other way in time, back toward the days of Noah, the same thing happened. There were probably only a few 'dog' types on the ark. These would become all of the wolves and dogs and similar breeds around the world.

Decades don't even scratch upon a discussion concerning speciation, even then there is a reason that fruit flies have a short life span, it is balanced by a huge population..... You can't take a fraction of that population, expose it to a stressor for a short amount of time, have a few mutations and expect it to evolve.... Where exactly did you find this study, because it's not intelligent in the least. You need long exposure to a stressor posed upon a large population giving a wide scope of characteristics to begin 'refining' what is propagated within a dwindling population.
There is a brilliance within gross mutation, a strengthening of a form over millions of years doesn't just up and jump ship.... Mutation demonstrates devolution as you have stated, this isn't the catalyst towards speciation, nor the model; gross mutations like the one you are pointing too don't have any sort of longevity in that model, thankfully! We'd have some serious problems if it did!
I don't know how you say ring species demonstrates devolution, you compare a 'convergence' over and over such as inbreeding and compare it to a divergence where environment, predator and prey influence a species to become so different that they can no longer breed with one another when you compare the two.
They individually evolved into their own form, they didn't lose information, each one is able to breed successively down their individual path to the common ancestor.
Your lack of understanding isn't proof of something else, sorry!

Revolutionary wrote: Decades don't even scratch upon a discussion concerning speciation, even then there is a reason that fruit flies have a short life span, it is balanced by a huge population..... You can't take a fraction of that population, expose it to a stressor for a short amount of time, have a few mutations and expect it to evolve.... Where exactly did you find this study, because it's not intelligent in the least. You need long exposure to a stressor posed upon a large population giving a wide scope of characteristics to begin 'refining' what is propagated within a dwindling population.
There is a brilliance within gross mutation, a strengthening of a form over millions of years doesn't just up and jump ship.... Mutation demonstrates devolution as you have stated, this isn't the catalyst towards speciation, nor the model; gross mutations like the one you are pointing too don't have any sort of longevity in that model, thankfully! We'd have some serious problems if it did!
I don't know how you say ring species demonstrates devolution, you compare a 'convergence' over and over such as inbreeding and compare it to a divergence where environment, predator and prey influence a species to become so different that they can no longer breed with one another when you compare the two.
They individually evolved into their own form, they didn't lose information, each one is able to breed successively down their individual path to the common ancestor.
Your lack of understanding isn't proof of something else, sorry!

I understand what I'm saying. Whether or not I'm expressing it well is another matter, as many times I am posting from memory of old articles, and trying to keep posts short to save time. I'll post a few links and let someone else explain in more detail.

Fruit Flies:
http://www.icr.org/article/5532/

Ring Species:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/04/so ... 58261.html
http://evofantasy.blogspot.com/2009/11/ ... ecies.html

PerciFlage wrote: I've been through this first link of yours, and almost to an item the list it contains is either poorly or inconclusively documented. The items with comparatively better documentation fall into two main categories, with the exception of the Venus of Willendorf (which is a little incongruous on the list - I'm not sure what the author is trying to demonstrate). I'd like to be charitable and chalk the fact that 9 out of 10 items on that list are discoveries of the Victorian era up to coincidence, but I don't think that it is.

The Venus artifact is supposedly 3 times older than human civilization. Nobody should have been advanced enough to make it 30k years ago. They may even believe man was too primitive to conceptualize idols at that time.

The problem is that this wasn't just one or two people finding these anomalies. They have been found all over the world, by amateurs and professionals alike. Some can be explained away, but many cannot.

pat34lee wrote:

PerciFlage wrote: I've been through this first link of yours, and almost to an item the list it contains is either poorly or inconclusively documented. The items with comparatively better documentation fall into two main categories, with the exception of the Venus of Willendorf (which is a little incongruous on the list - I'm not sure what the author is trying to demonstrate). I'd like to be charitable and chalk the fact that 9 out of 10 items on that list are discoveries of the Victorian era up to coincidence, but I don't think that it is.

The Venus artifact is supposedly 3 times older than human civilization. Nobody should have been advanced enough to make it 30k years ago. They may even believe man was too primitive to conceptualize idols at that time.

The problem is that this wasn't just one or two people finding these anomalies. They have been found all over the world, by amateurs and professionals alike. Some can be explained away, but many cannot.

At 30k years old the Venus is older than human civilization, but it isn't older than humans, not by a long shot. It dates fell the most recent 10% of human history - not hominid history, but h. Sapiens history - which is why it's incongruous on that list.

The problem with that list is that there are a couple of items where there is pretty compelling evidence for them definitely not supporting an alternative timeline, but none with compelling evidence that they definitely do support an alternative. Quite a few that are inconclusive either way, but not a one that is even close to a slam dunk for that site's thesis.

pat34lee wrote: Fruit Flies:
http://www.icr.org/article/5532/

The tests performed mean absolutely nothing nada if they have failed to understand how flawed and unrelated the tests are. They in no way demonstrate the scope and scale needed to evolve something, they are essentially performing meaningless rather ignorant tests..... AND?

The scientific community would literally laugh these joes out of the room and shut the door behind them, sorry!

PerciFlage wrote: At 30k years old the Venus is older than human civilization, but it isn't older than humans, not by a long shot. It dates fell the most recent 10% of human history - not hominid history, but h. Sapiens history - which is why it's incongruous on that list.

The problem with that list is that there are a couple of items where there is pretty compelling evidence for them definitely not supporting an alternative timeline, but none with compelling evidence that they definitely do support an alternative. Quite a few that are inconclusive either way, but not a one that is even close to a slam dunk for that site's thesis.

Most OOPARTS sites are not out to create an alternate timeline, just to show that there are many things that the current scientific theories cannot explain. That could be architecture that seems much older than possible, or bones or artifacts being found that are far older or younger than evolution can account for.