Evidence for God from Science

Now there is the question of the day.

Its a pretty easy one to answer.

When you say evolution, you are talking a word with a broad meaning. I agree, we have tons a lot of evidence for "evolution." I'd say that the majority of those here who aren't Darwinists agree with most of the what is encompassed under the term "evolution."
I could post about 1,000 or more quotes from evolutionists on the problems with Darwinism, and show you that many scientists don't agree with themselves. I think Gman and others have laid this out in great length. There is no point beating a horse fossil.

Evolution has a pretty clear meaning. We aren't talking about the evolution in design changes of the Corvette since the 50s. We are talking about biological evolution leading the speciation.

Darwin isn't the expert on evolution, only the pioneer. Evolutionists agree that Darwin's instincts and ideas were mostly correct....but not completely. Scientists don't argue over whether or not Evolution occurs (as described above). They only argue over the mechanisms that drive it and which has more or less influence. Just because you and I can't agree on the directions to Hollywood doesn't mean that Hollywood doesn't exist.

People still haven't given me an alternative answer. I don't expect to receive one. I never do.

So I should accept that man and chimp have a common ancestor because "everybody is doing it." In other words, peer pressure.

No, but you should challenge your own beliefs if out of ignorance they contradict what the knowledgable have come to a consensus on. If anything it should be a sign that maybe there is something there that you don't understand.

If anything it should be a sign that maybe there is something there that you don't understand.

Ditto

We are talking about biological evolution leading the speciation.

Sure, and we know how clear science is on the term, "species."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/

In everything you've stated I see nothing that proves anything. Wait I'm sorry, I said proof. Science doesn't prove.
Sp we have observed that if we breed flies long enough we will get more flies. Brilliant.
Your mantra seems to be. Just give us a few million years......And those flies will become.....well I'm not sure what they'll become. Some type of fly probably.
That aint proof. Darn, there I go again.
The fossil record if anything demonstrates extinction over adaptation.

That aint proof

Is this where the circular arguing begins. You can't prove a scientific theory. If you could, it wouldn't be a theory.

You also can't prove God exists.


Again I ask, why one standard for one belief and an entirely different standard for the other?


While we're at it, lets go through the whole list of questions that have gone unanswered:

1) Why 1 standard for one belief yet a different stadard for the other?
2) What do you propose is the reason scientists don't understand science?
3) By what mechanism do you propose that mutations occur to create change, but inly up to a point? What is it that blocks speciation?
4) What biolgical and/or geological reasons do you propose some animals fosilized at wone point in time while other animals were unable to yet fosilized at a different point in time?
5) What is your rationale to explain why all the dating techniques are wrong?
6) Can you provide an alternative answer to evolution? Once you have done so can you tell me what evidence you have that "proves" your hypothesis?

Please don't respond unless you can answer these questions.

Barabus wrote:

If anything claims to be scientific, it must be testable and observable, for that is the nature of the scientific method

Then how did evoultion get accepted as a scientific theory if it is so clearly not science?

That's a dodge, thus the argument stands. If you can't refute it, you concede your error.

In any case, if you are going to ignore an entire post that shows the fundamental error in your thinking, it would be something of a waste of time for me to give you anything like a response.

Again I ask, why one standard for one belief and an entirely different standard for the other?

Though directed at jlay, I already answered this question in my post your broadly ignored. If you aren't going to interact with the arguments presented, why do you bother posting?

edit: besides that, barabus, you do understand that even IF I didn't refute your argument to jlay, it is still invalid in the first place. You are committing a logical fallacy called tu quoque. Fallacies make an argument invalid. Fallacious argument are, then, irrational. Thus, even if I didn't bother answering your question, your entire argument here is irrational.

So, you have three problems:

1. You've not interacted with my answer to your question;
2. The argument I presented shows that jlay's point about observation and testability is valid; if you don't answer his argument, then, you must concede the point; and
3. The counter argument you tried to give (which I answered, and you ignored) is irrational in the first place. You must then reformulate your argument or concede your error.

1) Why 1 standard for one belief yet a different stadard for the other?

Why not? You yourself are saying that "proof" is not a standard in science. But that won't fly in math class. So, there is an example of different standards. Why single me out. But I'll say this. I'm not indoctranating 2nd graders in the public school system with cartoonish pamphlets that say, "millions of years ago, our ancestors.........,"

2) What do you propose is the reason scientists don't understand science?

My sister is a phd in Forrestry. She will admit there are lots of research mistakes made and taught in textbooks even after they are discovered. She also admits that scientists are not beyond working for motives other than the pure cause of science. She also admits she knows a lot about one field, but very little in other areas.

3) By what mechanism do you propose that mutations occur to create change, but inly up to a point? What is it that blocks speciation?

Like I pointed out. Science can't quite agree on what constitutes a "species." You are saying that because we can observe diversity within species, that eventually given enough time speciation will occur. That is presumption, and faith if I might say so. If you consider what happened with the flies then sure, I'll conceed. But that is a very weak model, and one that is infiltrated with intelligent design.

4) What biolgical and/or geological reasons do you propose some animals fosilized at wone point in time while other animals were unable to yet fosilized at a different point in time?

Fossils of extinct creatures are not evidence of evolution. They are evidence of extinction. You or I can not go back in time an analyze every condition and event that led to some creatures being fossilized and some not.

5) What is your rationale to explain why all the dating techniques are wrong?

Dating techniques do not demonstrate evolution. Never have, never will.

6) Can you provide an alternative answer to evolution? Once you have done so can you tell me what evidence you have that "proves" your hypothesis?

Like I said, most of us here will probably agree with most of what is under the umbrella of evolution. There are billions of case studies that prove humans produce humans. Dogs produce dogs. Cats produce cats. etc. We can test and observe the diversity through out those kinds.

jlay wrote:There are billions of case studies that prove humans produce humans. Dogs produce dogs. Cats produce cats. etc. We can test and observe the diversity through out those kinds.

Have you considered where mules come from?

waynepii wrote:

jlay wrote:There are billions of case studies that prove humans produce humans. Dogs produce dogs. Cats produce cats. etc. We can test and observe the diversity through out those kinds.

Have you considered where mules come from?

haha...are they both different species?
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:

waynepii wrote:

jlay wrote:There are billions of case studies that prove humans produce humans. Dogs produce dogs. Cats produce cats. etc. We can test and observe the diversity through out those kinds.

Have you considered where mules come from?

haha...are they both different species?
.
.

E. ferus vs E. africanus

Mules come from intelligent design. Hah.

That is another area of that clear as mud species thing.

jlay wrote:Mules come from intelligent design. Hah.

You're right!

That is another area of that clear as mud species thing.

Not really, but that's beside the point.

I was just wondering about your "take" on hybrids?

waynepii wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:

waynepii wrote:

jlay wrote:There are billions of case studies that prove humans produce humans. Dogs produce dogs. Cats produce cats. etc. We can test and observe the diversity through out those kinds.

Have you considered where mules come from?

haha...are they both different species?
.
.

E. ferus vs E. africanus

Which is mule and which is horse?

Talk to me more when an E. ferus or E. africanus mates with an E. dolphinus and we get a working dolphin that pulls oil tankers across the oceans.
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote: Which is mule and which is horse?

A mule is a hybrid - a male donkey and a female horse.

Talk to me more when an E. ferus or E. africanus mates with an E. dolphinus and we get a working dolphin that pulls oil tankers across the oceans.
.
.

waynepii wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote: Which is mule and which is horse?

A mule is a hybrid - a male donkey and a female horse.

So it's still a "horse" of sorts...yes? Similar to a Liger...but why don't we have Liobeasts...crossing a lion and a "will-de-beast" (sp?..I have never seen that word written! come to think of it.)

BavarianWheels wrote:

waynepii wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote: Which is mule and which is horse?

A mule is a hybrid - a male donkey and a female horse.

So it's still a "horse" of sorts...yes? Similar to a Liger...but why don't we have Liobeasts...crossing a lion and a "will-de-beast" (sp?..I have never seen that word written! come to think of it.)

Both parents are of genus "Equus", but a donkey and a horse are different species. I doubt many people would mistake one for the other so the speciation isn't some subtlety.

BTW I think a Wildebeest with a lion would be spelled 'L', 'U', 'N', 'C', 'H'.

waynepii wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:

waynepii wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote: Which is mule and which is horse?

A mule is a hybrid - a male donkey and a female horse.

So it's still a "horse" of sorts...yes? Similar to a Liger...but why don't we have Liobeasts...crossing a lion and a "will-de-beast" (sp?..I have never seen that word written! come to think of it.)

Both parents are of genus "Equus", but a donkey and a horse are different species. I doubt many people would mistake one for the other so the speciation isn't some subtlety.

BTW I think a Wildebeest with a lion would be spelled 'L', 'U', 'N', 'C', 'H'.

You haven't seen the Discovery documentary where a lioness, confused apparently, lives with and "protects" a calf of some sort for 2 or 3 days?
.
.