Evidence for God from Science

JLeslie,

I did propose a test. Show a method by which a single cell organism could have occurred without the aid of intelligence. If you can find a method, you will have disproven the need for intelligence in creating a single living cell.

Oh - you meant a test that would prove ID false. My bad. That might not be so easy. I can come up with tests, but I can't come up with anything that would make ID fail. In all this pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo though I seem to have forgotten how this works. If you can't disprove the theory even though legitimate tests exist, does that make the theory stronger or weaker?

I did propose a test. Show a method by which a single cell organism could have occurred without the aid of intelligence. If you can find a method, you will have disproven the need for intelligence in creating a single living cell.

This is not a test of the "irreducible complexity" that ID clings to so dearly in attempting to dispute evolution. This would be a test of the spontaneous origin of life, and thus not directly applicable to evolution. Even the tests (still not based on the scientific method, I should reiterate) of irreducible complexity that exist are flawed, for they simple remove a component of a system and say "hey, it doesn't work now". They are missing the fact that if they really wanted to pull support away from evolution, they shouldn't be removing components of a system but rather changing them slightly, as no one ever hypothesized that evolution results in components of a system simply popping up out of nowhere! The hard part is that it's difficult to theorize what the precursors to each component of modern systems were.

Wall-dog wrote:JLeslie,

I did propose a test. Show a method by which a single cell organism could have occurred without the aid of intelligence. If you can find a method, you will have disproven the need for intelligence in creating a single living cell.

Oh - you meant a test that would prove ID false. My bad. That might not be so easy. I can come up with tests, but I can't come up with anything that would make ID fail. In all this pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo though I seem to have forgotten how this works. If you can't disprove the theory even though legitimate tests exist, does that make the theory stronger or weaker?

NO a test that ID would be true would be appropriate. I already have plenty of examples that ID is false. I have nothing to test that ID is true. Your proposed test with the cell is not a test of ID, but a test of, well I don't know, but it certainly is not a test of Evolution either.

thereal wrote:

I did propose a test. Show a method by which a single cell organism could have occurred without the aid of intelligence. If you can find a method, you will have disproven the need for intelligence in creating a single living cell.

This is not a test of the "irreducible complexity" that ID clings to so dearly in attempting to dispute evolution. This would be a test of the spontaneous origin of life, and thus not directly applicable to evolution. Even the tests (still not based on the scientific method, I should reiterate) of irreducible complexity that exist are flawed, for they simple remove a component of a system and say "hey, it doesn't work now". They are missing the fact that if they really wanted to pull support away from evolution, they shouldn't be removing components of a system but rather changing them slightly, as no one ever hypothesized that evolution results in components of a system simply popping up out of nowhere! The hard part is that it's difficult to theorize what the precursors to each component of modern systems were.

Why don't you guys read up on ID? It's not ID vs evolution-it's ID vs materialism. Many of the proponents have no problem with common descent, among other things. You're misrepresenting ID, and you should get a reality check. And you are oversimplifying how they determine something is IC.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

jleslie48 wrote:

Wall-dog wrote:Hey Everyone!

I'll throw a sample test. Take something that ID says is too complex to have happened through a random process like evolution and explain how it could have happened without intelligence. Take a single cell for example. If you can come up with an unintelligent cause for a single living cell, you will have largely disproven ID. The scientific method would say that you have to create an environment where a single cell is actually created by random chance. That would be hard to do though since even if you succeeded ID proponents would say that you as an intelligent being inherently brought intelligence into the environment you created. But I'm making it easy for you. I'm not asking you to disprove anything. I'm just asking you to come up with an alternative theory. Would everyone agree that this is fair 'test'?

NO.

The topic is "The Scientific Method of ID" show us a test of ID. If it is a science show us a test of ID. Lack of abiility of one theory is not a test of ID.


Why do ID proponents keep missing this ?????

Your not fooling anyone.

It's called inference to the best explanation-genius.

And what would be a test for evolution, genius? You make these demands of ID that not even evolution can give! So what is with you? Love is blind?

You throw around the words 'best explanation' very lightly. Be carefull Vanity is one of those deadly sins.

Testing evolution has been going on since 1834 at least, since Darwin observed slight differences in animals on his trip on the HMS Beagle. The discovery of genetics and DNA also leads to 1000's of tests of change thru succesive generations (aka, evolution) Drug resistant virus' are textbook test cases of evolution. The study of the geological records and extinction of species, and the contrapositive, the lack of current species in the old fossil records, also continually test all aspect of the theory of evolution. And this is all from a simple laymen's position. Imagine the answers you'd get from a Genius. There is no love of evolution, their is simply analysis and conclusions based on evidence.

So what is with you? FEAR of what you don't know??? I envy Genius' I don't tear them down, to make myself fell less stupid.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:
Why don't you guys read up on ID? It's not ID vs evolution-it's ID vs materialism.

save us some time, I've been asking for the science of ID for months now. give us a link or two.

jleslie48 wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

jleslie48 wrote:

Wall-dog wrote:Hey Everyone!

I'll throw a sample test. Take something that ID says is too complex to have happened through a random process like evolution and explain how it could have happened without intelligence. Take a single cell for example. If you can come up with an unintelligent cause for a single living cell, you will have largely disproven ID. The scientific method would say that you have to create an environment where a single cell is actually created by random chance. That would be hard to do though since even if you succeeded ID proponents would say that you as an intelligent being inherently brought intelligence into the environment you created. But I'm making it easy for you. I'm not asking you to disprove anything. I'm just asking you to come up with an alternative theory. Would everyone agree that this is fair 'test'?

NO.

The topic is "The Scientific Method of ID" show us a test of ID. If it is a science show us a test of ID. Lack of abiility of one theory is not a test of ID.


Why do ID proponents keep missing this ?????

Your not fooling anyone.

It's called inference to the best explanation-genius.

And what would be a test for evolution, genius? You make these demands of ID that not even evolution can give! So what is with you? Love is blind?

You throw around the words 'best explanation' very lightly. Be carefull Vanity is one of those deadly sins.

Testing evolution has been going on since 1834 at least, since Darwin observed slight differences in animals on his trip on the HMS Beagle. The discovery of genetics and DNA also leads to 1000's of tests of change thru succesive generations (aka, evolution) Drug resistant virus' are textbook test cases of evolution. The study of the geological records and extinction of species, and the contrapositive, the lack of current species in the old fossil records, also continually test all aspect of the theory of evolution. And this is all from a simple laymen's position. Imagine the answers you'd get from a Genius. There is no love of evolution, their is simply analysis and conclusions based on evidence.

So what is with you? FEAR of what you don't know??? I envy Genius' I don't tear them down, to make myself fell less stupid.

You can't test to see if evolution occurred in the first place. If something happens in a beaker in the year 2006, it doesn't mean it happenned in a beaker in the year 1.4 billion BC.

Second, you are extremely oversimplifying how Darwin came to his conclusion. He came to that conclusion, partly because of the current belief in special creation-that is, everything that lived at the time had been created like that.

Drug resistent bacteria (not viruses) are only an example of microevolution. So by what avenue of logic can you come to the conclusion that natural selection can do that which no other force in the universe CAN do-break the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

And then you end up attacking possible motives.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote: You can't test to see if evolution occurred in the first place. If something happens in a beaker in the year 2006, it doesn't mean it happenned in a beaker in the year 1.4 billion BC.

Second, you are extremely oversimplifying how Darwin came to his conclusion. He came to that conclusion, partly because of the current belief in special creation-that is, everything that lived at the time had been created like that.

Drug resistent bacteria (not viruses) are only an example of microevolution. So by what avenue of logic can you come to the conclusion that natural selection can do that which no other force in the universe CAN do-break the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

And then you end up attacking possible motives.

" If something happens in a beaker in the year 2006, it doesn't mean it happenned in a beaker in the year 1.4 billion BC. "
That is a ridiculous position to take. If we are to debate and you question whether the laws of physics and nature have changed, then we don't have a platform even to stand on. With a similiar argument to yours I can dismiss the entire bible as being incorrect based on the logic "what is read in the bible in the year 2006 doesn't mean it was read that way 2000 years ago"

"you are extremely oversimplifying how Darwin came to his conclusion. "
Quite on the contrary. You are over-complicating Darwin's conclusions. Darwin came to his conclusion's based quite directly on his observations while exploring the world. And he was not happy about it at all. He was studying to be a clergyman, and was most disturbed by his findings. His theory sat unpublished for 20 years as he searched for any logical explanation to counter his findings.

"Drug resistent bacteria (not viruses) are only an example of microevolution. "
Microevolution is exactly the building block of species evolving. Once you have accepted it, as you have, the diversity of life on this planet is enevitable. Just as the anscestor of the Horse, the Zebra, and the Donkey were one; the Lion and the Tiger; the ape and the orangatan; and yes man and primates; as each generation gets further away from the starting point, and each generation "Microevolves" It becomes harder and harder to recognize the starting point.

"break the 2nd law of thermodynamics?" PRATT


"And then you end up attacking possible motives."
Your side drew first blood. I was just using Irony.

" If something happens in a beaker in the year 2006, it doesn't mean it happenned in a beaker in the year 1.4 billion BC. "
That is a ridiculous position to take. If we are to debate and you question whether the laws of physics and nature have changed, then we don't have a platform even to stand on. With a similiar argument to yours I can dismiss the entire bible as being incorrect based on the logic "what is read in the bible in the year 2006 doesn't mean it was read that way 2000 years ago"

I'm not claiming the laws of physics change. What I mean is, if we can make something happen in a laboratory, it doesn't mean it happenned in the past. A big 10 mile hammer could have hit the earth to cause the extinction of the dionsaurs, and vaporized upon impact-but the possibility of such an event doesn't mean it did.

"you are extremely oversimplifying how Darwin came to his conclusion. "
Quite on the contrary. You are over-complicating Darwin's conclusions. Darwin came to his conclusion's based quite directly on his observations while exploring the world. And he was not happy about it at all. He was studying to be a clergyman, and was most disturbed by his findings. His theory sat unpublished for 20 years as he searched for any logical explanation to counter his findings.

Really? That's funny. Before he cooked up his theory, his daughter died, which destroyed his faith in God-because the current belief in hell was the literal "fire and brimstone" version.

"Drug resistent bacteria (not viruses) are only an example of microevolution. "
Microevolution is exactly the building block of species evolving. Once you have accepted it, as you have, the diversity of life on this planet is enevitable. Just as the anscestor of the Horse, the Zebra, and the Donkey were one; the Lion and the Tiger; the ape and the orangatan; and yes man and primates; as each generation gets further away from the starting point, and each generation "Microevolves" It becomes harder and harder to recognize the starting point.

August has brought this up before...too bad he couldn't have a program that notices familiar strings of text and previous responses...thus causing an instant post by his computer quoting him from previous posts.

I don't care to spend time on this-it's a long list of non-sequitor and assertions.

"break the 2nd law of thermodynamics?" PRATT

Pratt? OK.

Your side drew first blood. I was just using Irony.

When?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

" If something happens in a beaker in the year 2006, it doesn't mean it happenned in a beaker in the year 1.4 billion BC. "
That is a ridiculous position to take. If we are to debate and you question whether the laws of physics and nature have changed, then we don't have a platform even to stand on. With a similiar argument to yours I can dismiss the entire bible as being incorrect based on the logic "what is read in the bible in the year 2006 doesn't mean it was read that way 2000 years ago"

I'm not claiming the laws of physics change. What I mean is, if we can make something happen in a laboratory, it doesn't mean it happenned in the past. A big 10 mile hammer could have hit the earth to cause the extinction of the dionsaurs, and vaporized upon impact-but the possibility of such an event doesn't mean it did.

"you are extremely oversimplifying how Darwin came to his conclusion. "
Quite on the contrary. You are over-complicating Darwin's conclusions. Darwin came to his conclusion's based quite directly on his observations while exploring the world. And he was not happy about it at all. He was studying to be a clergyman, and was most disturbed by his findings. His theory sat unpublished for 20 years as he searched for any logical explanation to counter his findings.

Really? That's funny. Before he cooked up his theory, his daughter died, which destroyed his faith in God-because the current belief in hell was the literal "fire and brimstone" version.

"Drug resistent bacteria (not viruses) are only an example of microevolution. "
Microevolution is exactly the building block of species evolving. Once you have accepted it, as you have, the diversity of life on this planet is enevitable. Just as the anscestor of the Horse, the Zebra, and the Donkey were one; the Lion and the Tiger; the ape and the orangatan; and yes man and primates; as each generation gets further away from the starting point, and each generation "Microevolves" It becomes harder and harder to recognize the starting point.

August has brought this up before...too bad he couldn't have a program that notices familiar strings of text and previous responses...thus causing an instant post by his computer quoting him from previous posts.

I don't care to spend time on this-it's a long list of non-sequitor and assertions.

"break the 2nd law of thermodynamics?" PRATT

Pratt? OK.

Your side drew first blood. I was just using Irony.

When?

not only is it your side, but your the one who posted it:
"
AttentionKMartShoppers



Joined: 16 Feb 2005
Posts: 1923
Location: Texas

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 3:54 am Post subject: Reply with quote
...
And what would be a test for evolution, genius?...
So what is with you? Love is blind?
"

You have a lot to be ashamed of in this thread. I don't think God would approve of your behavior.


and onto whatever you have not dismissed,

"Really? That's funny. Before he cooked up his theory, his daughter died, which destroyed his faith..."

completely wrong. his theory was formuated while on the HMS Beagle and penned in 1837. His daughter died in 1851. She was not even born when the theory was written down, in fact he was not even married.

Why is it that you must resort to falsehoods, actually lying, to attempt to discredit the theory of evolution? Do you have any idea how much you destroy any credibility you might have otherwise had by doing so?

If your position is based on the truth, why would you need to resort to such tactics? Why would you use such blately biased and insulting words as "cooked up" when any legitamite argument can be done without such triteness?

I'm begining to think I'm dealing with a spoiled child throwing a temper tantrum.

jleslie48 wrote:

Wall-dog wrote:JLeslie,

I did propose a test. Show a method by which a single cell organism could have occurred without the aid of intelligence. If you can find a method, you will have disproven the need for intelligence in creating a single living cell.

Oh - you meant a test that would prove ID false. My bad. That might not be so easy. I can come up with tests, but I can't come up with anything that would make ID fail. In all this pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo though I seem to have forgotten how this works. If you can't disprove the theory even though legitimate tests exist, does that make the theory stronger or weaker?

NO a test that ID would be true would be appropriate. I already have plenty of examples that ID is false. I have nothing to test that ID is true. Your proposed test with the cell is not a test of ID, but a test of, well I don't know, but it certainly is not a test of Evolution either.

still waiting for a test of ID.

Poking holes/fun at xxx[evolution|origin of life|thermodynamics] don't count. Don't ask me to come up with one, or a test to prove it false. I don't think it's defined well enough in the realms of science to even come up with any test.


.

Our sources seem to be in conflict...I have Alister McGrath on my side-who do you have (someone who can google...correct us please)..

I have not lied. This is like saying President Bush lied when he said something based on the information he had at hand...I have done the same thing. And I'm not attacking Darwin's motives-I'm just saying the issue is not as simple as you like to put it.

still waiting for a test of ID.

I'm waiting for a test for evolution too!

http://www.darwincountry.org/explore/001555.html

6th Oct, 1842: Charles Darwin's daughter, Mary Eleanor, died.

Sorry for taking from such a biased source...but it's easier that way.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Our sources seem to be in conflict...I have Alister McGrath on my side-who do you have (someone who can google...correct us please)..

I have not lied. This is like saying President Bush lied when he said something based on the information he had at hand...I have done the same thing. And I'm not attacking Darwin's motives-I'm just saying the issue is not as simple as you like to put it.

still waiting for a test of ID.

I'm waiting for a test for evolution too!

"I have Alister McGrath on my side-who do you have (someone who can google...correct us please).."

I have Darwin's HMS Beagle Journal, Notebook B, dated 1837. Gravestone on daughter 1851. These were not very hard to find. So now you have passed the blame onto Alister McGrath for the greiveous mis-statement. Yet without verification you pass them along. That is not very scientific, not to check your sources. At this juncture there are two logical conclusions, Alister McGrath is deceptive and not to be trusted, and now her entire body of work is suspect, and two, your ability to research information is also in doubt, taking blatent lies as facts without verifying them.


"I'm waiting for a test for evolution too!"

1) irrelevant. My entire point has been from the start, trying to keep within the context of this thread, "The Scientific Method of ID". You are required to establish A scientific method of ID. You continually avoid this.

2) I have supplied various scientific methods for testing, analyzing, and validating evolution. While you have dismissed them all for various reasons that you feel make them invalid, , you have still to even propose even a single instance of ID at all, worthy of even being reviewed. That in and of itself is enough to validate Evolution of worthy of study and to dismiss ID as insignificant.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:http://www.darwincountry.org/explore/001555.html

6th Oct, 1842: Charles Darwin's daughter, Mary Eleanor, died.

Sorry for taking from such a biased source...but it's easier that way.

Now who's being non sequitur

1) when people discuss the death of darwins children as being significant, they are referring to the 10 year old daughter, not the ones that died in infancy.

2) non sequitur, still after the date that the theory of evolution was penned.

3) Really now, this is stupid. All of my points with respect to Darwin's publishing, Alister McGrath, your inability to check your referenences, are completely valid. Your inabilty to admit you are wrong is further destroying your credibility.

and don't think we have forgotten your other disgressions:

"
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 3:54 am Post subject: Reply with quote
...
And what would be a test for evolution, genius?...
So what is with you? Love is blind?
"

You actually had the audacity for chastiing me for responding to this, yet you fail to take responsibilty for your own misdeeds. Your really not worthy of consideration. A fact that I'm quite sure God will be able to see as well.

.