Evidence for God from Science

Pierson5 wrote:
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, 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.

LOL.. That is just an assumption.. Look at the record again. There are NO complete transitions. There is absolutely nothing in the fossil record that shows a reptile morphing into a modern bird. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'.

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”.

Nice word salad... But again hypothetical. You have produced nothing solid by this. How does this information negate ID? Actually I think it seems to favor ID more or a common designer.

Pierson5 wrote: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.

I'll respond your way.. So what? Again do retroviruses negate a common designer? It should also be noted that some endogenous retroviruses are indispensable to a species' life or reproduction. If the retrovirus is advantageous in some way by ID, that would explain how the retrovirus spread to the entire species. It also presents the possibility that retroviruses were used as part of the creative process in species, as retroviruses are often used in genetic engineering today, to introduce new genetic material to cells.

Gman, do you accept paternity tests as being fairly reliable for determining the unknown parent/s of a child?

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've often found that an inability to explain something results from an incomplete comprehension of the subject.

sandy_mcd 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've often found that an inability to explain something results from an incomplete comprehension of the subject.

That's right... That's why you have an incomplete comprehension of the subject.

Pierson5 wrote:Gman, do you accept paternity tests as being fairly reliable for determining the unknown parent/s of a child?

As it relates to your evolutionary belief? No....

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:Gman, do you accept paternity tests as being fairly reliable for determining the unknown parent/s of a child?

As it relates to your evolutionary belief? No....

I'm just talking paternity testing. Yes or no.

Pierson5 wrote:
I'm just talking paternity testing. Yes or no.

So am I... Yes or no to a common designer.

Answer the question.

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:
I'm just talking paternity testing. Yes or no.

So am I... Yes or no to a common designer.

Answer the question.

Not sure. Based on the lack of evidence, probably not.

So, you accept paternity testing as a legitimate scientific method to determine relatedness. What is it about using the exact same process to determine relatedness between other animals/species you do not accept?

Pierson5 wrote: Not sure. Based on the evidence, probably not.

What evidence??? You have no evidence.. Remember? Just a belief. Those are your own words..

Pierson5 wrote:So, you accept paternity testing as a legitimate scientific method to determine relatedness. What is it about using the exact same process to determine relatedness between other animals/species you do not accept?

What about paternity testing? Again, how does it negate the belief in a common designer? Answer the question...

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote: Not sure. Based on the evidence, probably not.

What evidence??? You have no evidence.. Remember? Just a belief. Those are your own words..

Heh, you quoted me before I could get my edit in there. Yes, lack of evidence is the reason I don't see ID as being a likely hypothesis. If you have evidence that says otherwise, post it please.

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:So, you accept paternity testing as a legitimate scientific method to determine relatedness. What is it about using the exact same process to determine relatedness between other animals/species you do not accept?

What about paternity testing? Again, how does it negate the belief in a common designer? Answer the question...

Here is a photo of a mother with her daughter.

Shared genetic sequences between offspring and parents (used for paternity testing) is evidence for common design? Do you see where I'm going with this? Using the logic of your argument, we can't say these 2 are related because you can't rule out a common designer... Good luck with that

What is it about using the exact same process to determine relatedness between other animals/species you do not accept?

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.

look closely at what you just said Pierson "taught as purely hypothetical" and then without fail you included "There are experiments showing it's possible". Most everyone here is saying in various ways that there is no evidence provided by any experiment has shown that life can evolve from nonlife.

You have exactly ZERO experimental evidence that a self-replicating system with spatiotemporal control of matter has even a chance at arising by natural cause and by stating your 'belief' that there are "experiments showing it's possible" You are in effect stating that we don't need to know the exact way it happened as long as we know it has a chance in some way.
What this has to do with evolution is this, scientists are asserting a contiguous concept of evolving from molecules to man. Cosmic evolution to chemical evolution to biological evolution and each of their principle mechanisms has yet to be proven.

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.

The fact that you don't accept the "evidence for an alternate hypothesis to evolution" does not eliminate the alternate hypothesis to evolution in fact one does not need to have evidence for any alternative at all in order to pick apart an existing hypothesis. wrong can be determined to be wrong without knowing what is right.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Pierson5 wrote:I never said the origin of life couldn't be poofed into existence by a designer.

Right, you didn't. other evolutionary scientists do. Chemical evolution is part of the rationale for molecules to man and it is all termed evolution. Chemical, biological.... evolution. Your acceptance of evolution to explain the origin of species shows your acceptance for the naturalist concept that everything came about as a consequence of natural action.

Pierson5 wrote: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.

ID is part of what we are discussing. ID considers the origin of species including the first specie to be significant in the understanding of how the complex interactve system of biological life became the multitude of species we observe thus ID opposes evolution in every context it is being pushed.

Evolution is based on the philosphy of naturalism. Chemistry is based on empirical testing. Gravity is a universal law.

KBCid wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:I never said the origin of life couldn't be poofed into existence by a designer.

Right, you didn't. other evolutionary scientists do. Chemical evolution is part of the rationale for molecules to man and it is all termed evolution. Chemical, biological.... evolution. Your acceptance of evolution to explain the origin of species shows your acceptance for the naturalist concept that everything came about as a consequence of natural action.

Pierson5 wrote: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.

ID is part of what we are discussing. ID considers the origin of species including the first specie to be significant in the understanding of how the complex interactve system of biological life became the multitude of species we observe thus ID opposes evolution in every context it is being pushed.

Evolution is based on the philosphy of naturalism. Chemistry is based on empirical testing. Gravity is a universal law.

Wow, I wish I could just make stuff up and present it as truth. It would make arguments a lot easier.

KBCid wrote:Evolution is based on the philosphy of naturalism. Chemistry is based on empirical testing.

Chemistry is clearly Designed and has been co-opted by atheistic philosophers of naturalism. What is marriage? One man and one woman. What does the Pauli Exclusion Principle say? Only two electrons which must be of opposite spin in an orbital. That's the way it was designed. And then the filthy secularists got involved. Now we have degenerate orbitals and HOMOs. Truly a perversion of nature.

Beanybag wrote:Wow, I wish I could just make stuff up and present it as truth.

KBCid wrote:

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.

look closely at what you just said Pierson "taught as purely hypothetical" and then without fail you included "There are experiments showing it's possible". Most everyone here is saying in various ways that there is no evidence provided by any experiment has shown that life can evolve from nonlife.
....
What this has to do with evolution is this, scientists are asserting a contiguous concept of evolving from molecules to man. Cosmic evolution to chemical evolution to biological evolution and each of their principle mechanisms has yet to be proven.

I may have been sloppy with my wording in the first statement. I wasn't trying to claim we have experiments showing life from non-life. I was referring to experiments where we go from inorganic to organic building blocks of life. I never claimed this was proof of anything, but it seems far from impossible. I don't know why you keep saying "molecules to man," that's not what the theory of evolution is about. It doesn't deal with the "molecules" part. The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution.

KBCid wrote:

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.

The fact that you don't accept the "evidence for an alternate hypothesis to evolution" does not eliminate the alternate hypothesis to evolution in fact one does not need to have evidence for any alternative at all in order to pick apart an existing hypothesis. wrong can be determined to be wrong without knowing what is right.

Of course, but that is not the purpose of this thread. A common theme I saw before I created this thread was "Evolution is false, therefore ID is true." Proving evolution false does not make the time traveling cell biologist hypothesis true.

Pierson5 wrote:Again, as I have stated many, many times. I don't care if you do not accept the evidence for evolution. It is good enough for the many thousands of professionals in the scientific community. You can believe whatever you want to believe. We aren't getting into this again. What I care about are the ones who say "Evolution is false, but Intelligent Design is true." Many of these people think it's necessary to skip the whole scientific process and go directly to court to get their idea taught in school.

KBCid wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:I never said the origin of life couldn't be poofed into existence by a designer.

Right, you didn't. other evolutionary scientists do. Chemical evolution is part of the rationale for molecules to man and it is all termed evolution. Chemical, biological.... evolution. Your acceptance of evolution to explain the origin of species shows your acceptance for the naturalist concept that everything came about as a consequence of natural action.

I've never heard of any biologist claiming that, some may, but I doubt it's the majority, and I certainly wouldn't agree with that statement... You are using evolution as a blanket term for change. We are specifically talking about the theory of evolution (biological). "Chemical evolution" and the theory of evolution are not the same thing. This thread is not about the origin of life.

Also, remember, the scientific community is not just made up of a bunch of naturalists. My acceptance of evolution is based on evidence and says NOTHING about any of my personal beliefs. Keep in mind, one of the most outspoken biologists (Kenneth Miller) against ID is a devout catholic, not a naturalist.

Pierson5 wrote:You mentioned you had students earlier. May I ask what is your profession? It sounds like you hold a position in academia, is that correct?

KBCid wrote:look closely at what you just said Pierson "taught as purely hypothetical" and then without fail you included "There are experiments showing it's possible". Most everyone here is saying in various ways that there is no evidence provided by any experiment has shown that life can evolve from nonlife.

Pierson5 wrote:I may have been sloppy with my wording in the first statement. I wasn't trying to claim we have experiments showing life from non-life. I was referring to experiments where we go from inorganic to organic building blocks of life. I never claimed this was proof of anything, but it seems far from impossible.

We all make errors in expression. I won't hold it against you.
As for the inorganic to organic point, yes intelligent designers have produced some organic building blocks. We know we can make it happen and scientists know that if a specific set of conditions were to occur 'on its own' then it could happen without intelligent help.
This doesn't change the fact that those evolutionary scientists 'believe' that life formed naturally. you do understand this right?
They hold an a priori 'belief' in naturalism that predacates what they are willing to find. Anything that does not fit within that belief system is not allowed.
I would like to point out to you where you keep making the same error in judgement about the subject of the origin of life since you have displayed the same sloppy wording again. You point to the experiments and then say "I never claimed this was proof of anything" but then say "it seems far from impossible". What you are doing by wording things this way is saying we can't prove it for a fact but we have proven it is possible. The fact is that it has not been proven possible in the historic earth. There is zero confirmable evidence of a historic nature that can back any of the theoretical approaches applied. No experiment on organic building blocks has provided any historical backing therefore it cannot be considered 'possible' on this earth in its past. Every time you allude to an acceptance for such a possibility being true you are confirming the evidence of your 'belief'.

KBCid wrote:What this has to do with evolution is this, scientists are asserting a contiguous concept of evolving from molecules to man. Cosmic evolution to chemical evolution to biological evolution and each of their principle mechanisms has yet to be proven.

Pierson5 wrote:I don't know why you keep saying "molecules to man," that's not what the theory of evolution is about. It doesn't deal with the "molecules" part. The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution.

Pierson5 wrote:I've never heard of any biologist claiming that... You are using evolution as a blanket term for change. We are specifically talking about the theory of evolution (biological). "Chemical evolution" and the theory of evolution are not the same thing. This thread is not about the origin of life.

So the TOE is not about the origin of species being a natural occurance? It doesn't deal with the molecules part? and it is not relevant to evolution?

Let us explore shall we? Let us consider the observable evidences;

From Soup to Cells—the Origin of Life
Evolution encompasses a wide range of phenomena: from the emergence of major lineages, to mass extinctions, to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals today. However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from.
Many lines of evidence help illuminate the origin of life...
...It's important to keep in mind that changes to these hypotheses are a normal part of the process of science and that they do not represent a change in the basis of evolutionary theory.

When did life originate?
Evidence suggests that life first evolved around 3.5 billion years ago.

Where did life originate?
...scientists have narrowed in on the hypothesis that life originated near a deep sea hydrothermal vent. The chemicals found in these vents and the energy they provide could have fueled many of the chemical reactions necessary for the evolution of life.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... life.shtml

Let us explore further shall we? lets see just how much evolution has no part in pre-biological organisms;

How did life originate?
Replicating molecules EVOLVED and began to undergo NATURAL SELECTION.
All living things reproduce, copying their genetic material and passing it on to their offspring. Thus, the ability to copy the molecules that encode genetic information is a key step in the origin of life — without it, life could not exist. This ability probably first evolved in the form of an RNA self-replicator...

...Replicating molecules became enclosed within a cell membrane.
The evolution of a membrane surrounding the genetic material provided two huge advantages...
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... igin.shtml

It would appear that molecules evolved and were subject to natural selection according to this obviously theistic site. Are you still going to promote that evolution isn't involved with molecules (to man)? maybe a bit more exploring is in order then;

Evolutionary Biology/Early History of Life on Planet Earth
...The study of evolution is incomplete without first a consideration for the origin of life itself. Any theory of biology would be incomplete without a finite and irreducible origin. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Evolutiona ... anet_Earth

Do tell...
I would say that you are telling a lie based on the observable evidences so far.

KBCid wrote:The fact that you don't accept the "evidence for an alternate hypothesis to evolution" does not eliminate the alternate hypothesis to evolution in fact one does not need to have evidence for any alternative at all in order to pick apart an existing hypothesis. wrong can be determined to be wrong without knowing what is right.

Pierson5 wrote:Of course, but that is not the purpose of this thread. A common theme I saw before I created this thread was "Evolution is false, therefore ID is true." Proving evolution false does not make the time traveling cell biologist hypothesis true.

I have not seen anyone here make an assertion that ID is true because evolution is false. That is easily recognised as a fallacy of logic.

Pierson5 wrote:You mentioned you had students earlier. May I ask what is your profession? It sounds like you hold a position in academia, is that correct?

Mechanical engineer / Bioengineer. I taught Mechanical engineering for a period of time then went back to school for bioengineering.