Evidence for God from Science

Our lack of knowledge of what happened in the first 10^-43 seconds of the universe however is a gap in our knowledge - there is nothing unknowable about it in principle. We just haven't got there yet.

This is a much better statement. If we don't know (since we weren't there and can't see that far back in time), then we also don't know that a break-down did infact happen before .000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 of second. This does not mean anything we wish to speculate is possible, and I see it as much simpler and so better, to postulate no break down happened.

Kurieuo

Kurieuo wrote:This postulating a "break down" is only one side of the coin. Others believe there is no need for break down since it has been shown mathematically that within at least 10 dimensions, physics (and general relativity) can hold back right to the beginning.
...
If we don't know (since we weren't there and can't see that far back in time), then we also don't know that a break-down did infact happen before .000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 of second. This does not mean anything we wish to speculate is possible, and I see it as much simpler and so better, to postulate no break down happened.

I would like to clarify that by "break down" I mean our current explanations break down - not the early universe itself!

But let us say a break down in physics is a given. It still would allow someone to postulate anything they like. The fact a universe so significant such as ours essentially came out of chaos perhaps begs for something (or someone) directing everything more so than if it didn't.

We have a gap in our knowledge and yes it does allow people to postulate anything they like - e.g. you, Kurieuo, postulate a combination of "chaos" and a "directing something/someone", yet neither of those postulations has any grounds whatsoever. Unlike theoretical physics speculations, however, I would suspect you are absolutely certain in your own postulation with little room for doubt.

Personally I suspend judgment and acknowledge that no one, including me, including you, knows. I'm all for further research into the issue unlike, say, David, who seems to think research is a financial scam.

Thus, I think non-Theists are perhaps on better grounds to steer clear from this path, but then I suppose either way one looks at it, an explanation of some form appears to be required.

Firstly that would assume non-theism is something I wish to cling to no matter what. But I am sincerely more interested in questioning what I know and how I know it in a hope of holding the truest possible opinion.

Secondly, you seem to suggest a non-theist should avoid raising gaps in our knowledge. But a gap is not a god, even though the latter is often suggested for the former. Gaps are what drives science - yesterday's gods and gaps are todays explanations.

Thirdly, you are correct, an explanation is required and this is kind of my whole point.

KMart wrote:As I said, if the general theory is correct, there must be a beginning to the universe-thus the Big Bang...

The ability to validate the theory is lacking by less than a second...the theory itself is not in crisis.

The very model that attempts to explain how our universe came to be says nothing about the first moments of our universe. It may only be 10^-43 seconds but it is a colossal, yawning gap because of its implications.

KMart wrote: I heard William Craig say recently that has changed.

Who's William Craig? Could you post a link. If some progress has been made I am unaware of I'd be delighted to investigate it.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:The Big Bang inflationary model may not account for baryon concentrations found today, nor the concentrations of actual matter vs anti-matter, nor the expected concentrations derived from nucelosynthesis. To answer these questions we need the Big Bang Theory to go back a little further. This leaves alternative theories, or modifications of the original theory to explain these observations.

The Big Bang theory is still debated scientifically and does not always form the basis for scientific experimentation in the field of theoretical physics. Other problems with the theory include the reintroduction of the cosmological constant, dark mater, dark energy and different interpretations of background radiation.

This sounds uncommonly like what Christian 'Young Earth Creationists' say when confronted with the evidence for evolution, and the proof that it has made successful predictions.

It's ironic to see the same desparate arguments being used by the other side, in another arena.

Fortigurn wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:The Big Bang inflationary model may not account for baryon concentrations found today, nor the concentrations of actual matter vs anti-matter, nor the expected concentrations derived from nucelosynthesis. To answer these questions we need the Big Bang Theory to go back a little further. This leaves alternative theories, or modifications of the original theory to explain these observations.

The Big Bang theory is still debated scientifically and does not always form the basis for scientific experimentation in the field of theoretical physics. Other problems with the theory include the reintroduction of the cosmological constant, dark mater, dark energy and different interpretations of background radiation.

This sounds uncommonly like what Christian 'Young Earth Creationists' say when confronted with the evidence for evolution, and the proof that it has made successful predictions.

It's ironic to see the same desparate arguments being used by the other side, in another arena.

With only one minor difference science is open to suggestions and new evidence. These aren't desparate arguments but rather areas of disagreement. As the ultimate authority is nature itself, men can argue and reinterpret the data over and over, however there may always be unanswered questions in the subject of physics.

As has been said, not knowing everything doesn't put a theory in crisis. If it were true, then the theory of evolution would be in crisis-but, in your mind at least, it isn't-even though you can't explain how the first life got started, you can't explain irreducibly complex machines, you can't explain the Cambrian explosion, you can't explain the lack of transition fossils, you can't explain a myriad of problems. So stop saying the Big Bang is in crisis because we don't know everything, unless you're also going to say evolution is in an even more dire situation. Sheesh. If it has theological implications, it must be in crisis-is that a correct idea I should draw from what you're saying?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:As has been said, not knowing everything doesn't put a theory in crisis. If it were true, then the theory of evolution would be in crisis-but, in your mind at least, it isn't-even though you can't explain how the first life got started, you can't explain irreducibly complex machines, you can't explain the Cambrian explosion, you can't explain the lack of transition fossils, you can't explain a myriad of problems. So stop saying the Big Bang is in crisis because we don't know everything, unless you're also going to say evolution is in an even more dire situation. Sheesh. If it has theological implications, it must be in crisis-is that a correct idea I should draw from what you're saying?

No, in physics new observations have led to the re-introduction of the cosmological constant. Or new forms of matter and energy being postulated, dark matter and dark energy.

They are in some peoples minds fudge factors to make theories match observation .

Either they are right and
~95% of the universe is invisible and made of something entirely new and different, or there is something fundamentally wrong with our understanding of the universe.

As for not being able to explain things, there are threads in which those subjects were discussed. There are plenty of interesting discussions contained in them. I leave it for others to judge the evidence for themselves.

you can't explain irreducibly complex machines

Natural selection is not intended to explain man-made constructions such as machines.

you can't explain the Cambrian explosion

The Cambrian explosion took several million years, which more than adequate time for changes in organisms to occur.

you can't explain the lack of transition fossils

Fossilisation is a relatively rare occurance, yet despite this many extinct organisms are evidenced including precursors of organisms found alive today.

The difference between the Big Bang and evolution is that the known processes of physics demonstrably breakdown regarding the former, but the known processes of biology do not break down regarding the latter.

If it has theological implications, it must be in crisis-is that a correct idea I should draw from what you're saying?

Neither physics nor biology comments on the possible existance of a god. This is why we see plenty of theistic and atheistic practitioners in both fields.

Natural selection is not intended to explain man-made constructions such as machines.

I was talking about microscopic biological machines.

The Cambrian explosion took several million years, which more than adequate time for changes in organisms to occur.

Not true. When the leading evolutionists have to make up a new theory to explain the Cambrian explosion away...it's obvious that you're wrong. (and it took place over 5 million years).

Fossilisation is a relatively rare occurance, yet despite this many extinct organisms are evidenced including precursors of organisms found alive today.

This does not explain the lack of transitional fossils, and no.

The difference between the Big Bang and evolution is that the known processes of physics demonstrably breakdown regarding the former, but the known processes of biology do not break down regarding the latter.

I don't see your point.

Neither physics nor biology comments on the possible existance of a god. This is why we see plenty of theistic and atheistic practitioners in both fields.

Fields of science don't say much-scientists do.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

Natural selection is not intended to explain man-made constructions such as machines.

I was talking about microscopic biological machines.

Please review the irreducible complexity thread and notice that you had no responce other than dismissal and name calling.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

The Cambrian explosion took several million years, which more than adequate time for changes in organisms to occur.

Not true. When the leading evolutionists have to make up a new theory to explain the Cambrian explosion away...it's obvious that you're wrong. (and it took place over 5 million years).

The theory that species originated from common ancestry is not threatened by the Cambrian explosion. Review the thread on the cambrian explosion and notice you had no rebuttal but dismissal and name calling.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

Fossilisation is a relatively rare occurance, yet despite this many extinct organisms are evidenced including precursors of organisms found alive today.

This does not explain the lack of transitional fossils, and no.

You ignore the statement "rare occurance" and conveniently point out an incomplete record as proof? That is not science. You can't use lack of knowledge as evidence.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

The difference between the Big Bang and evolution is that the known processes of physics demonstrably breakdown regarding the former, but the known processes of biology do not break down regarding the latter.

I don't see your point.

The observations do not support the theory completely.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

Neither physics nor biology comments on the possible existance of a god. This is why we see plenty of theistic and atheistic practitioners in both fields.

Fields of science don't say much-scientists do.

No it is the masses which cannot distinguish between the science and the man who delivers the message. Critical thinking leads one to understand this distinction.

Please review the irreducible complexity thread and notice that you had no responce other than dismissal and name calling.

And you never bothered to talk about irreducible complexity, but stuck to the strawmen, what's your point.

The theory that species originated from common ancestry is not threatened by the Cambrian explosion. Review the thread on the cambrian explosion and notice you had no rebuttal but dismissal and name calling.

Yes it is a threat-the evidence doesn't support the belief in common descent.

You ignore the statement "rare occurance" and conveniently point out an incomplete record as proof? That is not science. You can't use lack of knowledge as evidence.

I did not ignore the statement rare occurence. But you can believe in something when no evidence points to it, that's still somehow science.

The observations do not support the theory completely.

How?

No it is the masses which cannot distinguish between the science and the man who delivers the message. Critical thinking leads one to understand this distinction.

lol

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

Please review the irreducible complexity thread and notice that you had no responce other than dismissal and name calling.

And you never bothered to talk about irreducible complexity, but stuck to the strawmen, what's your point.

I am always willing to go into more detail but you had no responce to the discussion at all. There was no straw man, I was discussing the issue at hand. Please be specific because all you do is make general accusations without any context.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

The theory that species originated from common ancestry is not threatened by the Cambrian explosion. Review the thread on the cambrian explosion and notice you had no rebuttal but dismissal and name calling.

Yes it is a threat-the evidence doesn't support the belief in common descent.

Again abiogenesis and creation events have never been observed. Is it illogical to assume that life comes from life? The discovery of DNA and the growing field of genetics only confirmed that all life is related in some way.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

You ignore the statement "rare occurance" and conveniently point out an incomplete record as proof? That is not science. You can't use lack of knowledge as evidence.

I did not ignore the statement rare occurence. But you can believe in something when no evidence points to it, that's still somehow science.

Can you give me an example of a scientific theory which is based on a lack of evidence?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

The observations do not support the theory completely.

How?

If the universe began as a great expansion, how did the galaxies form. What forces caused them to coalesce. What is causing the seeming acceleration of the expansion. What is keeping the galaxies together.
Don't just answer gravity.
There are specific equations based on observations on Earth which one can use to calculate the gravitaional effects of stellar objects such as galaxies. The computations do not work. Galaxies are far too large. The accelerated expansion of the universe does not make sence without some force causing it.
Its basic physics an object cannot accelerate without a force acting upon it.

I am always willing to go into more detail but you had no responce to the discussion at all. There was no straw man, I was discussing the issue at hand. Please be specific because all you do is make general accusations without any context.

You never touched on irreducible complexity. You presented a few strawmen, talked a lot..bout it.

Again abiogenesis and creation events have never been observed. Is it illogical to assume that life comes from life? The discovery of DNA and the growing field of genetics only confirmed that all life is related in some way.

We see life coming from life-we see a human coming from a human, whale coming from a whale, horse coming from a horse....

DNA and the growing field of genetics has no confirmed that all life is related in some way-it shows that life is made on the same building blocks.

Can you give me an example of a scientific theory which is based on a lack of evidence?

Evolution, multiverse theory...

If the universe began as a great expansion, how did the galaxies form. What forces caused them to coalesce. What is causing the seeming acceleration of the expansion. What is keeping the galaxies together.
Don't just answer gravity.
There are specific equations based on observations on Earth which one can use to calculate the gravitaional effects of stellar objects such as galaxies. The computations do not work. Galaxies are far too large. The accelerated expansion of the universe does not make sence without some force causing it.
Its basic physics an object cannot accelerate without a force acting upon it.

Cosmological constant explains the acceleration I believe. And I have no problem with the problem that galaxies are too large...

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

I am always willing to go into more detail but you had no responce to the discussion at all. There was no straw man, I was discussing the issue at hand. Please be specific because all you do is make general accusations without any context.

You never touched on irreducible complexity. You presented a few strawmen, talked a lot..bout it.

Again just a general statement without anything to back it up, why don't you go back into the thread and tell me how I did not touch on irreducible complexity.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

Again abiogenesis and creation events have never been observed. Is it illogical to assume that life comes from life? The discovery of DNA and the growing field of genetics only confirmed that all life is related in some way.

We see life coming from life-we see a human coming from a human, whale coming from a whale, horse coming from a horse....

We see microevolution, we see erosion, we see radiation, we see atomic fusion.

We can extrapolate, macroevolution, the grand canyon, radiation degredation, and the creation of heavy elements.

Why do you accept physics and the fact that everything is made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons. That chemical properties are based on electron configuration. That the universe is expanding.
Have you seen the Universe expand? Have you seen a nuetron? Have you seen carbon hydrogen bonds? The same deductive reasoning which lead to these ideas lead us to evolution.

Have you seen a white foal emerge from a brown horse?
Have you seen a six toed kitten emerge from a normal cat?
Have you seen baby fruit flies born with mutations neither of its parents had?

Nothing remains constant. I can assure you that the same principal which causes each and every one of us to be unique can also drive the genetic pool in the direction of constant change.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:DNA and the growing field of genetics has no confirmed that all life is related in some way-it shows that life is made on the same building blocks.

So same building blocks means completely unrelated. ok...

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

Can you give me an example of a scientific theory which is based on a lack of evidence?

Evolution, multiverse theory...

Lack of evidence and not acknowledging evidence are two entirly different animals. It is of course your right to disagree on the interpretation of the evidence but, I doubt you can successfully argue that evolution is based on a lack of evidence.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

If the universe began as a great expansion, how did the galaxies form. What forces caused them to coalesce. What is causing the seeming acceleration of the expansion. What is keeping the galaxies together.
Don't just answer gravity.
There are specific equations based on observations on Earth which one can use to calculate the gravitaional effects of stellar objects such as galaxies. The computations do not work. Galaxies are far too large. The accelerated expansion of the universe does not make sence without some force causing it.
Its basic physics an object cannot accelerate without a force acting upon it.

Cosmological constant explains the acceleration I believe.

This concept had to be reintroduced. New constants are not what physicists like to see.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:And I have no problem with the problem that galaxies are too large...

Yes but scientists do.

Again just a general statement without anything to back it up, why don't you go back into the thread and tell me how I did not touch on irreducible complexity.

Well, as I can't prove a negative, how about showing when and how you did in fact touch on irreducible complexity and attempt to refute it.

We see microevolution, we see erosion, we see radiation, we see atomic fusion.

We can extrapolate, macroevolution, the grand canyon, radiation degredation, and the creation of heavy elements.

But macroevolution is an extrapolation in the opposite direction. With microevolution, you see genes being shuffled around or being lost. Macroevolution goes the other way.

Have you seen a white foal emerge from a brown horse?
Have you seen a six toed kitten emerge from a normal cat?
Have you seen baby fruit flies born with mutations neither of its parents had?

Nothing remains constant. I can assure you that the same principal which causes each and every one of us to be unique drives the genetic pool in the direction of constant change.

This is nothing to do with macroevolution. A white foal is easily explained-female had one white, one brown allelle...stallion had at least one white allelle (assuming white is the recessive trait)..so, foal got both white allelles. With the cat-toes already exist, all that happenned is an accident added another one.

So I really don't see how this fits in with our discussion.

So same builkding blocks means completely unrelated. ok...

No...it just doesn't point to common ancestry. Common designer explains the evidence as well. And it'd be stupid to make animals and plants out of completely different building blocks...because, 1) are there other building blocks that can hold as much information as the current system? No. And how would animals get nutrients? A wolf eats a rabbit, which is made out of completely different building blocks...so the wolf gets no nutrients because it can't use any of the nutrients in the rabbit, even assuming the wolf has enzymes that can break down the rabbit.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

Again just a general statement without anything to back it up, why don't you go back into the thread and tell me how I did not touch on irreducible complexity.

Well, as I can't prove a negative, how about showing when and how you did in fact touch on irreducible complexity and attempt to refute it.

The entire thread is a laying down of basic facts and building upon them. A simple example is shown and the end result is an irreducibly complex system. You never showed how the final result was not irreducibly complex. Which is what I requested in the aforementioned thread.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

We see microevolution, we see erosion, we see radiation, we see atomic fusion.
We can extrapolate, macroevolution, the grand canyon, radiation degredation, and the creation of heavy elements.

But macroevolution is an extrapolation in the opposite direction. With microevolution, you see genes being shuffled around or being lost. Macroevolution goes the other way.

You conveniently leave out gene duplication. If a gene is duplicated it can then be shuffled or modified. It is not the opposite direction. If the H5N1 influenza virus develops the ability to jump from human host to human host is this subtraction?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

Have you seen a white foal emerge from a brown horse?
Have you seen a six toed kitten emerge from a normal cat?
Have you seen baby fruit flies born with mutations neither of its parents had?

Nothing remains constant. I can assure you that the same principal which causes each and every one of us to be unique drives the genetic pool in the direction of constant change.

This is nothing to do with macroevolution. A white foal is easily explained-female had one white, one brown allelle...stallion had at least one white allelle (assuming white is the recessive trait)..so, foal got both white allelles. With the cat-toes already exist, all that happenned is an accident added another one.

So I really don't see how this fits in with our discussion.

Be a little more imaginative, I show you the simple examples because more advanced studies tend to be harder to grasp.
If you can have variability and you can also have mutations it will cause the gene pool to change as a function of time. Given enough time many changes can take place.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

So same builkding blocks means completely unrelated. ok...

No...it just doesn't point to common ancestry. Common designer explains the evidence as well.

So you admit that evolution explains the evidence as well.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:And it'd be stupid to make animals and plants out of completely different building blocks...because, 1) are there other building blocks that can hold as much information as the current system? No. And how would animals get nutrients? A wolf eats a rabbit, which is made out of completely different building blocks...so the wolf gets no nutrients because it can't use any of the nutrients in the rabbit, even assuming the wolf has enzymes that can break down the rabbit.

But why have animals eat each other in the first place? Why have the same principals of energy govern the Sun, geothermal processes, radiation, weather, and organic chemistry.

Why would the rabbit even try to escape from the wolf? What of rabbits who get washed to an island with no wolves. Will their decendants retain an ability to evade capture? Will the reintroduction of wolves cause the gentic pool of this new rabbit population to shift? Think about it some and tell me what you come up with.

The intense heat and pressure in the sun causes simple hydrogen to squeeze together and form helium. Helium fuses and becomes carbon. There is a trend towards the more complex as entropy increases towards chaos. Is it falacy to assume the same with organic chemistry?