Evidence for God from Science

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:This guy is a complete....idiot. That's all I can say. That such people are allowed to publish nonsense is beyond me.
... the final bastion of defense is the ad hominem attack?

Hey, can someone help me out here? My Latin is pretty rusty and I was never much on all these logical terms. What does "ad hominem" mean?

sandy_mcd wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:This guy is a complete....idiot. That's all I can say. That such people are allowed to publish nonsense is beyond me.
... the final bastion of defense is the ad hominem attack?

Hey, can someone help me out here? My Latin is pretty rusty and I was never much on all these logical terms. What does "ad hominem" mean?[/quote

Ad Hominem, means literally "toward the man" or attacking the person instead of staying on topic.

On the main topic, I suspect there is some movement in the direction of Intelligent design. It's really, overall, a pretty minor move. Theistic evolution is a really a subset of Intelligent design when you consider it. Apparantly, under John-Paul II Coyne was pretty outspoken and in many ways went beyond Theistic Evolution into Methodological Naturalism. It would appear there is reigning in taking place. That's not so much a change in direction as it is defining some boundaries.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Theistic evolution is a really a subset of Intelligent design when you consider it.

What are the definitions of these two terms to make this statement true? To me the crux is:
1) ID - scientific methods can be used to show the existence of a designer
2) TE - God inspired evolution
In these senses, TE is not necessarily a subset of ID; it is not essential to TE that scientific proof of God's handiwork be present. Since the whole point of ID is scientific proof of a designer, Canuckster must be using a different definition of TE than I am. How would my definition be altered?

sandy_mcd wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Theistic evolution is a really a subset of Intelligent design when you consider it.

What are the definitions of these two terms to make this statement true? To me the crux is:
1) ID - scientific methods can be used to show the existence of a designer
2) TE - God inspired evolution
In these senses, TE is not necessarily a subset of ID; it is not essential to TE that scientific proof of God's handiwork be present. Since the whole point of ID is scientific proof of a designer, Canuckster must be using a different definition of TE than I am. How would my definition be altered?

I'm probably not being all that technical. In the context of evolution in the catholic communit, Theistic evolution allows for God as the designer, therefore I see it as a subset of ID.

ID is frankly, broader than creationism Old or Young. I may have used the term more loosely than others.

sandy_mcd wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:This guy is a complete....idiot. That's all I can say. That such people are allowed to publish nonsense is beyond me.
... the final bastion of defense is the ad hominem attack?

Hey, can someone help me out here? My Latin is pretty rusty and I was never much on all these logical terms. What does "ad hominem" mean?

LOL

Ad hominem means Kmart is a big fat hypocrite.

Sorry Gman. I was away.

Angel, what exactly is your position?
Are you saying that God did not help in the creation of our world?

I don't see any tiny evidence that it did move one single atom during the last 14 BY.
Did it help, you ask?
Well we are all in its hands... maybe he arranged the physical laws so that everything became possible
or did something I'm not smart enough to imagine.

But that was not my point here.

What upsets me is that ID is as far as I understand completely empty of any meaning.
It just uses names such as IC or CSI for undefined notions which are just a tool
to argue what they wished to prove.

Whenever I tried (and I tried a number of times) to see what actually was behind those names
I obtained an absolute and complete emptiness full of void.

Of course ID is justified because it shows all the lacks of evolutions, they say.

Then I ask about these lacks and I always get answers like
"chance cannot create anything" or "There is no benefit from a quasi wing".

Well forgive me if I ask:
could not be that evolutions is not understood by critics?

BTW: Coyne and the pope declared that his removal was not connected to any scientific issue. Coyne had health problems which are to be considered the main motivations for the change of position, they both said.
If it true or not, I (and we) don't know. Maybe one should wait to see how the new guy behaves. As far as I know he has a firm astronomical knowledge (he studied galaxies formation) and I found no comment by him on evolution.

angel wrote:Sorry Gman. I was away.

Angel, what exactly is your position?
Are you saying that God did not help in the creation of our world?

I don't see any tiny evidence that it did move one single atom during the last 14 BY.
Did it help, you ask?
Well we are all in its hands... maybe he arranged the physical laws so that everything became possible
or did something I'm not smart enough to imagine.

But that was not my point here.

What upsets me is that ID is as far as I understand completely empty of any meaning.
It just uses names such as IC or CSI for undefined notions which are just a tool
to argue what they wished to prove.

Whenever I tried (and I tried a number of times) to see what actually was behind those names
I obtained an absolute and complete emptiness full of void.

Of course ID is justified because it shows all the lacks of evolutions, they say.

Then I ask about these lacks and I always get answers like
"chance cannot create anything" or "There is no benefit from a quasi wing".

Well forgive me if I ask:
could not be that evolutions is not understood by critics?

BTW: Coyne and the pope declared that his removal was not connected to any scientific issue. Coyne had health problems which are to be considered the main motivations for the change of position, they both said.
If it true or not, I (and we) don't know. Maybe one should wait to see how the new guy behaves. As far as I know he has a firm astronomical knowledge (he studied galaxies formation) and I found no comment by him on evolution.

Angel,

This is not true.

You were engaged in this arena and your questions and number patterns interacted and responded to at the time.

You're welcome to your conclusions, which reflect your own presuppositions and evaluations of what you would consider to be convincing.

If you are not convinced based upon your statement that no evidence exists, then neither have you, nor, I would argue, can you, demonstrate to your own level of satisfaction demanded for ID, posit an equally substantiated and proven case that explains the origin of matter, the true nature of the universe and a clearly defined explanation for spontaneous generation and subsequent evolution to common forms.

Please refer to the board discussion guidelines and purpose.

Thanks,

Bart

I beg your pardon Bart.
I was there expressing MY view.
It was not my intention to claim that there is no evidence whatsoever.
I meant the evidences provided was meaningless "to me".

After all I was asked about MY position so I thought it was implicit.
I was writing fast and I probably was not clear on that.
Anyhow, now I stated it explicitly.

If you are not convinced based upon your statement that no evidence exists, then neither have you, nor, I would argue, can you, demonstrate to your own level of satisfaction demanded for ID, posit an equally substantiated and proven case that explains the origin of matter, the true nature of the universe and a clearly defined explanation for spontaneous generation and subsequent evolution to common forms.

I never claimed to know where or how matter comes from.
I did not claimed it because I am perfectly aware that I could not provide evidences to my standards.

On the contrary I claimed that there are strong evidences (always to my standards) that I share a common ancestor with gorillas, bonobos or chimps.

Please refer to the board discussion guidelines and purpose.

I stress that I was there ANSWERING a question I was asked.
I know you agree that there cannot be an interesting discussion without
all of us tries to be precise on his views.

If I offended anyone with my views I apologize.