Evidence for God from Science

jlay wrote:Define evolution. Any change can be defined as evolution. The NFL uniform has evolved over the years.

The key to any discussion is making sure that there is some common starting point. Does anyone seriously think the scientific use of "evolved" is the same as occurs with uniforms?

Doesn't evolution simply mean, "change over time"?

Sandy,

You are missing the point entirely. I have spelled out examples of the fallacy of equivocation ad naseaum, and the fact that you and other 'evolutionists' committ them so often that you don't even recognize it. Thus I asked you to define, and am still waiting for you to provide a definition. We might as well start there, as its obvious you are going to ignore much of what I've brought up, and pick on semantic issues instead.

Once you've provided a definition then I'll gladly comply and use the term is such manner. And while you do, do you understand the fallacy of equivocation in regards to the term evolution?

Oh, and is this the topic you were referring to?
http://www.icr.org/article/why-would-pa ... elp-bowel/

Let me give you an example of both problems. That being equivocaiton and begging the question in this case. Now granted its from Wikipedia, and that isn't a peer reviewed, but the info was likely gathered from some scientific publication.

Parasitic worms have been used as a medical treatment for various diseases, particularly those involving an overactive immune response. As humans have evolved with parasitic worms, proponents argue that they are needed for a healthy immune system.

That humans have evolved? And by evolved, what do they really mean? Molecules to man, or changes that don't necessarily imply Darwinism? Well they don't say, but my guess is the later. If so, then it is a question begging fallacy, as it presumes what it seeks to prove. That being this: (and i'll word it blatantly for example) "Evolution is a fact, therefore change confirms....." Don't say prove though, because science doesn't prove anything, not even gravity. Such statements are common when it comes to this topic. So common, that people simply don't realize they are committing them.


Rick, that's a great question. There really isnt' a 'simply' about it.
For example:
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
How does one deal with this definition? For example, natural selaction doesn't result in a more complex form, yet, subjectively speaking it could result in a better form. Better because it is better equipped to survive. So, this definintion, which is one of many, has built in problems. It presumes that complexity is better, but as we know, any 'Evolutionist' considers natural selection to support the Theory of Evolution. In other words loss equals gain.

For example, here is another. Biology definition
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
Again, loss of info is not building complexity. It doesn't get us from goo to you. Yet, this is supposedly all we need to prove (cough, cough) Evolution. (Darwinism)
This definition is an example of moving the goal posts. We need to account for information, and then we need to account for increases. "New" species. New is substituted for increase, and therefore, bingo! Evolution. Isn't this great. This is science. Or is it?

You see, here is the bottom line.
Today, we have complex functioning species. Therefore, since there is no God (religious statement) these changes MUST account for how we end up with complexity and function today. Well, what about ID? Hell No!!!!! It's not science. I mean look at all this question begging, religious ideology, equivocating, wonderful science. As I've said, the lab coat is the papal robe of the 21st century.

jlay wrote:You are missing the point entirely.

Then try to make it a little clearer. I don't know what your point is.

jlay wrote:Thus I asked you to define, and am still waiting for you to provide a definition. We might as well start there, as its obvious you are going to ignore much of what I've brought up, and pick on semantic issues instead.

Define what?

jlay wrote:Once you've provided a definition then I'll gladly comply and use the term is such manner. And while you do, do you understand the fallacy of equivocation in regards to the term evolution?

No.

jlay wrote:

Parasitic worms have been used as a medical treatment for various diseases, particularly those involving an overactive immune response. As humans have evolved with parasitic worms, proponents argue that they are needed for a healthy immune system.

That humans have evolved? And by evolved, what do they really mean? Molecules to man, or changes that don't necessarily imply Darwinism? Well they don't say, but my guess is the later. If so, then it is a question begging fallacy, as it presumes what it seeks to prove. That being this: (and i'll word it blatantly for example) "Evolution is a fact, therefore change confirms....." .

If you want to use "molecules to man" for a definition for evolution for this discussion, that is fine with me.
But I don't get this argument you are making. It seems to be the same one I already replied to. The Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_worm you refer to is on parasitic worms. It is not an article trying to prove the validity of evolution. Evolution is assumed, just as atomic theory is assumed in articles on chemistry. I already wrote this once. Did you not read my earlier response?
[Edit add: And by "assumed" i don't mean axiomatic, i mean "accepted by people in the field of research".]

And this is not at all what i was referring to with parasites. It is my understanding that parasites were once free living animals but on becoming parasites they have dropped lots of dna and body parts because they do not need them for a parasitic lifestyle. That is what i meant by loss of information. Something which occurs over a long time period resulting in changes.

jlay wrote:You see, here is the bottom line.
Today, we have complex functioning species. Therefore, since there is no God (religious statement) these changes MUST account for how we end up with complexity and function today.

Bottom line: Today, we have complex functioning species. These species have similar DNA and other chemical bits. The fossil record shows a connect the dots progression. Evolution (from "molecules to man" if you will) violates no known physical laws. So, what should we conclude?


N.B. There is no need to mention God. There could be no God, theistic-evolution God, or some God who continually tinkers with creation to mimic the appearance of laws. The only God ruled out by this narrative is the strict YEC variety.

Bottom line: Today, we have complex functioning species. These species have similar DNA and other chemical bits. The fossil record shows a connect the dots progression. Evolution (from "molecules to man" if you will) violates no known physical laws. So, what should we conclude?

No Sandy,
As I think you've shown, you are religiously committed to Darwinian assumptions. So much that you will make a statement like "Evolution is assumed, just as atomic theory is assumed in articles on chemistry." What you infer is that because assumptions are made in other fields, that assuming evolution is valid. That is a fallacy. What is good for goose is not always good for the gander.
You and others are imposing your assumptions (faith) onto the evidence. (Which everybody does, but you just aren't being honest about it, IMO) You can't connect the dots. You try to make it sound that simple, but it isn't. That is not a what is happening. Instead the dots are being positioned to affirm the presumptions they seek to confirm. The one drawing the lines is religously committed to make the connection. Again, your entire worldview is based on a question begging fallacy.
When you say evolution violated no known physical laws, I'd like you to go into more detail. Evolution requires appearance of info (DNA code). Can you give us any examples of code or information arrising from a non-intelligent source?

Define what?

You've got to be kidding. The term EVOLUTION. You do understand that the term evolution has numerous definitions. The fallacy of equivocation is when one definition is used as evidence/support of another definition. The extreme example I've given before. "We have observed NFL jerseys evolving over time, therefore evolution is happening." Now in your practicality, you say, "no one would make that mistake." You are right. Why? Because it is obvious. But that is NOT the point. The point is that the fallacy of equivocation happens in much more subtle examples. And I can promise that because it is so common in your worldview, you likely use the fallacy without even realizing it. Heck, you seem to have already admitted to not understanding it.
Example. "We see evolution (observable change) happening everyday, therefore Evolution (the theory or molecules to man) is an accepted fact."
Yes, we do see changes. Many of which you and I have pointed out, and would even agree on. But are these loss changes (evolutions)evidence for the ultimate gain required to support Darwinism. (Theory of Evolution) That my friend, is the fallacy of equivocaiton. And I'd bet $1,000 that your worldview depends on you dismissing it willfully or ignorantly.

There is no need to mention God. There could be no God, theistic-evolution God, or some God who continually tinkers with creation to mimic the appearance of laws. The only God ruled out by this narrative is the strict YEC variety.

If you want to argue OEC vs. YEC then pick the right thread to do so. Not sure why you felt it necesarry to bring your anti-YEC bias into the thread. Likely your assumptions at work again.

That is what i meant by loss of information. Something which occurs over a long time period resulting in changes.

Well please enlighten us to how loss equals gain. Because that seems to be what your faith is based on.
And, to further drive home the point, I don't really have any issue with this. We can see loss of information resulting in changes. In fact, modern canines are a perfect example. No question a toy poodle is quite a change over time due to loss of information. But how does this account for the original DNA make-up of the canine in the first place. It doesn't.

And this is not at all what i was referring to with parasites. It is my understanding that parasites were once free living animals but on becoming parasites they have dropped lots of dna and body parts because they do not need them for a parasitic lifestyle.

Again, devolution. I am amazed. Is this the logic? "Well, if we add up enough occurences of loss of info, then we can assume massive gains in the past."
Like I said before. Relgious ideology. Cool aid drinking religious ideology.

jlay wrote:

And this is not at all what i was referring to with parasites. It is my understanding that parasites were once free living animals but on becoming parasites they have dropped lots of dna and body parts because they do not need them for a parasitic lifestyle.

Again, devolution. I am amazed. Is this the logic? "Well, if we add up enough occurences of loss of info, then we can assume massive gains in the past."
Like I said before. Relgious ideology. Cool aid drinking religious ideology.

As wild as this theory (of devolution) is, it is by far more plausible and supportable than its counterpart.

It's been said that England and America are two countries separated by a common tongue. The situation is even worse here; jlay and Byblos are using words i recognize but i can not understand what they are saying; the converse is also manifestly true.

jlay wrote:As I think you've shown, you are religiously committed to Darwinian assumptions. So much that you will make a statement like "Evolution is assumed, just as atomic theory is assumed in articles on chemistry."

True or false: The vast majority of practicing biologists accept evolution as true, therefore they do no attempt to re-prove it in every single paper they write.
Whether you believe in evolution or not, you cannot deny that it is the theory currently used by 99.999% of biologists.
So how does this have any bearing on my religious commitments?

jlay wrote:When you say evolution violated no known physical laws, I'd like you to go into more detail. Evolution requires appearance of info (DNA code). Can you give us any examples of code or information arrising from a non-intelligent source?

What? Evolution violates no known physical laws. Here is a list of laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laws_in_science. Evolution violates none of them. If you feel that it does, it is up to you to explain why. You can't seriously expect me to dispute some argument you won't even make. So please tell me what law(s) of science information arising on its own violates? Biot-Savart? Snell's? Stoke's?

jlay wrote: I'd bet $1,000 that your worldview depends on you dismissing it willfully or ignorantly.

I would say you're on (and propose that Canuckster hold the money) but I can't even understand what you are saying.

jlay wrote:Well please enlighten us to how loss equals gain.

Well, i have concluded that from the time lost in attempting to carry on a discussion i have gained the realization that it is pointless to continue as you repeatedly attribute to me statements I never made.

Ah, come one sandy, there nothing to be offended off of here, the thing is, you yourself admit that evolution is assumed and then the last thing you say to backup your view is this:

True or false: The vast majority of practicing biologists accept evolution as true, therefore they do no attempt to re-prove it in every single paper they write.
Whether you believe in evolution or not, you cannot deny that it is the theory currently used by 99.999% of biologists.
So how does this have any bearing on my religious commitments?

Its fine if you wanna believe what 99.99% biologists ASSUME, that's totally fine. J, made a good point earlier, the thing is to be honest about it. If macro-evolution is assumed, why treat it as a fact? Why say its a fact when you also say that its assumed? What you are saying is that there is a very very good chance that you think "macro evolution" happened. Even if you reached this statement following the scientific method on the micro-evolution model, that does not validate macro-evolution. Its a hypothesis, sure. A fact? well not so true, it can not be a fact unless you prove it and not assume it.

That's the double speak that you, and even Pierson in the start, are using (perhaps unintentionally) but that's the problem. What all biologists assume to be true, can not be true unless it is proved to be true. How many people believe in what many things, does not automatically validate those things, right? If that be true, you can be a christian right away since the most number of people on Earth believe it to be the path to God.

I would suggest that you get back to the discussion and answer the questions raised to you.

P.S on a side note, when you say "macro-evolution is assumed", you just shot your argument squarely in the head, point blank.

neo-x wrote:Ah, come one sandy, there nothing to be offended off of here, the thing is, you yourself admit that evolution is assumed and then the last thing you say to backup your view is this:
I would suggest that you get back to the discussion and answer the questions raised to you.
...

P.S on a side note, when you say "macro-evolution is assumed", you just shot your argument squarely in the head, point blank.

As i explained in an edit, evolution is not assumed.
What is assumed is something else entirely.
When a biologist writes a paper the biologist assumes his audience accepts evolution just as a chemist assumes his audience accepts atomic theory.
It is not the theory that is assumed, but the audience's acceptance of it.
This was in response to jlay's complaint that biology articles on some aspect of evolution did not attempt to prove evolution.

Hey, can we be serious for a minute? Am I really not making myself clear or are you guys just yanking my chain?
I don't see how i can be much more explicit than that.
[Well, ok, i can, but it would result in my getting banned.]

ps - and jlay accuses me of pedantic semantics? How can i get back to the discussion when it isn't clear what the discussion even is?
[seriously, that's my last word on this thread.]

True or false: The vast majority of practicing biologists accept evolution as true, therefore they do no attempt to re-prove it in every single paper they write.
Whether you believe in evolution or not, you cannot deny that it is the theory currently used by 99.999% of biologists.
So how does this have any bearing on my religious commitments?

Sandy, you are only measuring the rope that strangles your own argument. Let's suppose for a moment that your stats are correct. How does that justify the position? It doesn't That is an ad populum fallacy built on top of a question begging fallacy. So, are you saying that two fallacies make a right? Or, are you saying that since nearly all biologists make the fallacy that we should accept it and move on?

2ndly, please provide a link that says that 99.99% of biologist accept the THEORY of evolution as true. Notice here the terms. I am not asking which one's accept evolution, because as I've already PROVEN, that term can mean many things to different people. I accept evolution, DEPENDING on how the term is being defined. If you define NS, vestigiality, and mutation as evolution, then I agree. If you define Evolution as, throwing your connect the dot fossil record, NS, gene shift, vestigiality, etc. in one big pot, stir it up for millions, and concluding that gets us from molecules to man, then I disagree. Vehemently. But who the heck knows if all biologists do? You certainly don't. For someone so 'scientific' you sure play fast and lose with popularity polls, and statements that can not be defended scientifically. It is a fact that one does NOT have to assume Darwinism to be a biologist. And it seems that you are trying to use popular opinion to say it does, which is a lie.

There are evolution assumptions that I have no problem with, and of course, violate no laws of physics. Such as natural selection, mututation and probably many others. This is why terms and definitions matter. This is why I have asked you to define the term EVOLUTION. Why do you refuse to do so, and then complain that you don't understand? Define the term, and then we can all use it the same way and be on the same page.

Evolution violates no known physical laws. Here is a list of laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laws_in_science. Evolution violates none of them. If you feel that it does, it is up to you to explain why. You can't seriously expect me to dispute some argument you won't even make. So please tell me what law(s) of science information arising on its own violates? Biot-Savart? Snell's? Stoke's?

Hey, if you don't think information having aseity violates a law, then why don't you apply that thinking consistently. If you do, then you have no reason to exclude ID, which gets us back to square one. If not, then you my friend are being a hypocrite and applying a double standard. Next, define evolution as you are using it here. Still waiting.

I would say you're on (and propose that Canuckster hold the money) but I can't even understand what you are saying.

You are obviously smart enough to google "fallacy of equivocation." This is logic 101. If you can't understand basic rules of logic, then yes, we are in for a fruitless discussion.
I don't see how you can deny using the fallacy when you claim you can't understand it, despite multiple examples and explanations.

Further, I haven't, to my knowledge, attributed any statement to you. I've simply said that I am convinced that your worldview is undergirded by two common fallacies that are prevelant among Evolutionary theorists. And I am CONVINCED that you are religiously committed to Darwinism. I can be convinced of those things without falsely attribruting any statement to you.

This was in response to jlay's complaint that biology articles on some aspect of evolution did not attempt to prove evolution.

my problem with the articles is that they evidenced two common fallacies. I was simply pointing out how common the fallacies are. You made an assumption and started speaking about other content in the article.
- In fact one time in this thread, an evolutionist, (Pierson I think) referred to the law of succession. I addressed his post and mentioned the law of succession since he had brought it up. You then tried to correct me regarding the law of succession, when you clearly didn't realize in what context it was being referenced. I can only assume that you didn't realize a fellow evolutionist had already brought it up. http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... n+#p120190

1over137 wrote:

Pierson5 wrote: I proposed the idea (let me talk to the pastors and choose the church) to my girlfriend. She said she wanted to choose, so I didn't really get anywhere.

Hi Pierson5. May I know why she did not let you choose? You seem to be a friendly guy. I think you together should choose the pastor. That's my humble opinion.

She mentioned being attracted to her church specifically due to it being the same one she went to as a child. This whole situation started out with me not wanting the kids to go at all, unless they were old enough to understand what was going on and wanted to go. I'm trying to come to a compromise, but it's not really getting too far. I like the idea of choosing together, and it looks like this might be the way it's going to turn out. All in all, the conversations I've had here gave me a lot of time to think about it and I'm slowly becoming convinced I may be overly worried about it.