Evidence for God from Science

Gman:

Pierson, you said earlier you would identify yourself as a naturalist. I'd like to maybe have a discussion with you to oppose this view, as I think naturalism is an incomplete ontological view. Clearly, much of the Universe operates naturally, but certain aspects are unaccountable by naturalism, making the idea fall short of both soundness AND completeness. I think it's perfectly acceptable to operate under naturalism with respect to science, which tests and understands the natural world (and accounts for almost everything in it), but it isn't fully complete. Thus, asking for evidence of supernatural or non-physical can sometimes lead to conflicts that aren't resolvable with such differing ontological views. Although most of what we classify as knowledge epistemically appeals to us through evidence and reason, there is a class of seeming nonphysical 'sensation' that poses an unanswerable question for naturalism, something that isn't explainable in physical terms. This isn't entirely relevant to this thread, though (in which you are doing a very good job), so send a PM if you want to discuss further.

Beanybag wrote:Gman:

Pierson, you said earlier you would identify yourself as a naturalist. I'd like to maybe have a discussion with you to oppose this view, as I think naturalism is an incomplete ontological view. Clearly, much of the Universe operates naturally, but certain aspects are unaccountable by naturalism, making the idea fall short of both soundness AND completeness. I think it's perfectly acceptable to operate under naturalism with respect to science, which tests and understands the natural world (and accounts for almost everything in it), but it isn't fully complete. Thus, asking for evidence of supernatural or non-physical can sometimes lead to conflicts that aren't resolvable with such differing ontological views. Although most of what we classify as knowledge epistemically appeals to us through evidence and reason, there is a class of seeming nonphysical 'sensation' that poses an unanswerable question for naturalism, something that isn't explainable in physical terms. This isn't entirely relevant to this thread, though (in which you are doing a very good job), so send a PM if you want to discuss further.

I'll be sure to send you a PM at a later time. Thank you for the comment, this is exactly the type of criticism and discussion I invite. I will admit, I have only briefly touched on naturlism/naturalists, but from what I have read, I found very convincing.

Pierson5 wrote:=
By your line of logic:

Evolution = origin of life
Evolution = subatomic particles
Evolution = covalent bonds
etc....

Just because these things are covered in the same biology text book does not mean they are the same thing. They may be related (which is why they are covered in an intro biology text book), but they are not the same. I will state again, as you seem to not have noticed:

If a designer magically poofed the first organism into existence and everything evolved from there, it would NOT disprove evolution! These are two separate things. I never claimed to know the answer to the origin of life. Please, look through the thread and quote me where I say otherwise. You can't.

Pierson.... Are you that DENSE??? Where on earth did I EVER say that abiogensis (origin of life) is evolution??? I have ALWAYS said that they are taught together in science... But there is another study in origins called "chemical evolution" but that never get's talked about because many know they have nothing on it.

You have nothing but a pile of confusion when it comes to science...

Gman wrote: Evolution IS being used by scientists to explain the origins of life.. Plain and simple.

Gman wrote:That's right origin of life has everything to do with the evolutionary theory.

I am obviously not the only one who doesn't understand what is going on here. It is one thing to have different opinions on a matter, it is quite another to have no idea what point someone is trying to make.
My guess is that Gman is saying that it is not possible to study recent evolution unless one first fully comprehends the origin of life. How close is this to the truth?

That would be like saying no one could study the behavior of rivers or mountains unless one knew every detail of the origin of the earth. I just don't get how this makes sense.

If they are taught together, SO WHAT!? The origin of life is taught as purely hypothetical (I have given you a quote from the text book before, stating just that). There are experiments showing it's possible, but we don't know exactly how and I never claimed otherwise. What does this have to do with evolution? Nothing.

You're spouting irrelevancies. Look back to page one, again, and look at the point of this thread. If you don't have evidence for an alternate hypothesis to evolution, take your rants elsewhere.

Pierson5 wrote:If they are taught together, SO WHAT!? The origin of life is taught as purely hypothetical (I have given you a quote from the text book before, stating just that). There are experiments showing it's possible, but we don't know exactly how and I never claimed otherwise. What does this have to do with evolution? Nothing.

Yes... AND that is philosophical... In a science book. You have to mix in philosophy that mindless matter (naturalism) can create everything even though it can't.. You don't know, but for some reason it can't have anything to do with ID.

Pierson5 wrote:You're spouting irrelevancies. Look back to page one, again, and look at the point of this thread. If you don't have evidence for an alternate hypothesis to evolution, take your rants elsewhere.

Again you have proven nothing.... And you have shown that all you have here is philosophy.

sandy_mcd wrote: My guess is that Gman is saying that it is not possible to study recent evolution unless one first fully comprehends the origin of life. How close is this to the truth?

That would be like saying no one could study the behavior of rivers or mountains unless one knew every detail of the origin of the earth. I just don't get how this makes sense.

?? No sense in explaining it to you....

Gman wrote:

sandy_mcd wrote: My guess is that Gman is saying that it is not possible to study recent evolution unless one first fully comprehends the origin of life. How close is this to the truth?

That would be like saying no one could study the behavior of rivers or mountains unless one knew every detail of the origin of the earth. I just don't get how this makes sense.

?? No sense in explaining it to you....

I understand you point Gman and it makes sense to me, I don't understand how they miss it but they do.


Dan

I think this whole thread is a clear case of how presuppositions shape the way we view evidence and apply knowledge.

There is no right or wrong here, just opposing world views.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Gman wrote:

sandy_mcd wrote: My guess is that Gman is saying that it is not possible to study recent evolution unless one first fully comprehends the origin of life. How close is this to the truth?

That would be like saying no one could study the behavior of rivers or mountains unless one knew every detail of the origin of the earth. I just don't get how this makes sense.

?? No sense in explaining it to you....

I understand you point Gman and it makes sense to me, I don't understand how they miss it but they do.


Dan

Thanks Dan... Yes a waste of time... "So called" science... But not philosophy.. No never..

We have no clue about the origins of life, but it isn't ID.. We know that... Duh.

Gman wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Gman wrote:

sandy_mcd wrote: My guess is that Gman is saying that it is not possible to study recent evolution unless one first fully comprehends the origin of life. How close is this to the truth?

That would be like saying no one could study the behavior of rivers or mountains unless one knew every detail of the origin of the earth. I just don't get how this makes sense.

?? No sense in explaining it to you....

I understand you point Gman and it makes sense to me, I don't understand how they miss it but they do.


Dan

Thanks Dan... Yes a waste of time... "So called" science... But not philosophy.. No never..

We have no clue about the origins of life, but it isn't ID.. We know that... Duh.

I never said the origin of life couldn't be poofed into existence by a designer. That's not what we are discussing. You can believe whatever you want about the origin of life, what we are discussing is evolution and the hypotheses opposing it. Evolution is as much a "philosophy" as chemistry and gravity.

Pierson5 wrote:

I never said the origin of life couldn't be poofed into existence by a designer. That's not what we are discussing. You can believe whatever you want about the origin of life, what we are discussing is evolution and the hypotheses opposing it. Evolution is as much a "philosophy" as chemistry and gravity.

Actually it does... Whenever you mix philosophy into you science, you are entering the realm of hypothetical questions... Beliefs...

Darwin made observations but no real mathematical calculations for it. In regards to gravity, I don’t think you can compare Darwinian evolution to gravity. When you look at the scientific methods of Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton they made observations plus predictions that anyone could observe… Darwinian evolution is not like that. DE is a different kind of science, it’s a historical science that claims what happened in the past, it’s not like gravity at all… There is a categorical difference between evolutionary science and gravity.. Gravity can make simple predictions like the gravitational force between the earth and the moon. It’s something that can be measured.. You can’t take Darwinism and formulate it to an equation like F=MA the force of gravity. Dawinism is NOT a law, you can’t measure it.. It’s all just speculation… And if you believed that life arose by chance processes, you have to believe that millions of years ago life arouse from non-life, from matter, and this violates the law of biogeneis. No scientist has ever showed this law could ever be violated.

Gman wrote:And if you believed that life arose by chance processes, you have to believe that millions of years ago life arouse from non-life, from matter, and this violates the law of biogeneis.

No you don't.

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:

I never said the origin of life couldn't be poofed into existence by a designer. That's not what we are discussing. You can believe whatever you want about the origin of life, what we are discussing is evolution and the hypotheses opposing it. Evolution is as much a "philosophy" as chemistry and gravity.

Actually it does... Whenever you mix philosophy into you science, you are entering the realm of hypothetical questions... Beliefs...

Darwin made observations but no real mathematical calculations for it. In regards to gravity, I don’t think you can compare Darwinian evolution to gravity. When you look at the scientific methods of Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton they made observations plus predictions that anyone could observe… Darwinian evolution is not like that. DE is a different kind of science, it’s a historical science that claims what happened in the past, it’s not like gravity at all… There is a categorical difference between evolutionary science and gravity.. Gravity can make simple predictions like the gravitational force between the earth and the moon. It’s something that can be measured.. You can’t take Darwinism and formulate it to an equation like F=MA the force of gravity. Dawinism is NOT a law, you can’t measure it.. It’s all just speculation… And if you believed that life arose by chance processes, you have to believe that millions of years ago life arouse from non-life, from matter, and this violates the law of biogeneis. No scientist has ever showed this law could ever be violated.

Evolution IS like that! Here is an example (look back to the fossil record a page or 2 back if you have to). We dig up fossils an find a clear transition from reptile to birds. Hmm, strange. So, if evolution is true, and the fossil record is accurate, we would predict to find molecular evidence for such. Well, what a coincidence, the molecular evidence shows modern birds' closest relative is not mammals or fish, but reptiles. Hmm, but that's just one test, surely we could do better? Lets try transposons.

There are sections of an organism’s genome, called transposons, that have no other function except to insert copies of themselves elsewhere on the genome. And there are many very well known sequences that do this. Two such sequences are SINE’s or “Short Interspersed Transposable Elements” and LINE’s or “Long Interspersed Transposable Elements”. There are about 850,000 LINE’s and 1,500,000 SINE’s scattered throughout your genome… accounting for nearly 30 percent of the entire sequence. While they are useless to the genome and sometimes cause significant damage, they are useful to our investigation since essentially the only way for them to go from one organism to another is through direct DNA duplication and inheritance. Your LINE’s, SINE’s are given to your children. The parts of your DNA that make up your genes are relatively small sections scattered among the other useful parts of your genome as well as your LINE’s and SINE’s. Like fingerprints, the patterns recognizable in these non-gene sections are unique to individuals. They are similar in relatives, and less-similar in distant relatives. This is the basis of DNA “fingerprinting”.

Well, what a coincidence, AGAIN these match up perfectly with our predictions. Hmm, any more? Maybe the designer just built these organisms that way, can you rule that out? Well, what about retroviruses?

Retroviruses like HTLV1 (which causes a type of leukemia) and AIDS make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens inside of sperm cells or egg cells the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. And these copies of virus DNA are called endogenous retroviruses.

These certainly aren't from a designer. What do they point to? My! Another coincidence! The ERV evidence show modern birds share a common ancestor with reptiles!

Do I really need to continue... Saying that evolution makes no testable scientific predictions is ludicrous.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Gman wrote:I understand you point Gman and it makes sense to me, I don't understand how they miss it but they do.

Then what is it? How about rephrasing rather than just cut-and-pasting the same quotes?