Evidence for God from Science

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:God and evolution not testable?

Depends on you definition of God really. If someone says "God created the world 6,000 years ago" then we can agree that that's a testable claim about God. If someone says "all species are related to each other by way of a single common ancestor" then that's also testable. Both statements assert something that can be falsified with the right evidence.

Not exactly.. As an an example the creation of life. We can't produce life in a lab by mixing a bunch of chemicals together, nor have we witnessed creation of life in that sense supernaturally. It's not saying that nothing is testable, surely there are some things we can test, but others seem to be on the outside of science.

Fair enough - but your original comment was about the testability of God & evolution, not the origin of life.

touchingcloth wrote: Fair enough - but your original comment was about the testability of God & evolution, not the origin of life.

Oh I'm sure we can add other issues to the pot as well...

touchingcloth wrote:

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:God and evolution not testable?

Depends on you definition of God really. If someone says "God created the world 6,000 years ago" then we can agree that that's a testable claim about God. If someone says "all species are related to each other by way of a single common ancestor" then that's also testable. Both statements assert something that can be falsified with the right evidence.

Not exactly.. As an an example the creation of life. We can't produce life in a lab by mixing a bunch of chemicals together, nor have we witnessed creation of life in that sense supernaturally. It's not saying that nothing is testable, surely there are some things we can test, but others seem to be on the outside of science.

Fair enough - but your original comment was about the testability of God & evolution, not the origin of life.

Exactly how is the origin of life removed from evolution?

August wrote:
Exactly how is the origin of life removed from evolution?

Good question.. The research I've done does show it to be a part of it...

zoegirl wrote:Check out this link

http://books.google.com/books?id=I6xWiV ... q=&f=false

Should get you directly to chapter 7 called Religion and God. It's a short read but very interesting.

Zoe, that was a GREAT little read!

August wrote:Exactly how is the origin of life removed from evolution?

Well Gman's comment that I was responding to concerned the testability of evolution. Clearly evolution is contingent on having life (or, at least, self-replication) begin at some point, but the testability of evolutionary theory doesn't hinge on having a complete or even testable theory of the origins of life, if you follow me.

To give an analogy - a chemist doesn't need an understanding of particle physics to carry out their work; whether or not electrons, protons & neutrons are ultimately made up of more exotic particles doesn't matter - the fact that atoms exist and interact with each other is all you need to do chemistry (and to make testable hypotheses about chemistry).

touchingcloth wrote:

August wrote:Exactly how is the origin of life removed from evolution?

Well Gman's comment that I was responding to concerned the testability of evolution. Clearly evolution is contingent on having life (or, at least, self-replication) begin at some point, but the testability of evolutionary theory doesn't hinge on having a complete or even testable theory of the origins of life, if you follow me.

To give an analogy - a chemist doesn't need an understanding of particle physics to carry out their work; whether or not electrons, protons & neutrons are ultimately made up of more exotic particles doesn't matter - the fact that atoms exist and interact with each other is all you need to do chemistry (and to make testable hypotheses about chemistry).

While I have heard that before, I don't think it is quite that simple. There needs to be very specific assumptions made about the first common ancestor or ancestors, and those assumptions have a significant influence in the theory. For example, the first ancestor needed to have a specific genome size, and that genome size is determined by the origin of life theory that the particular evolutionary school of thought subscribes to. There are also several schools of thought in evolutionary theory that maintain life had to spontaneously arise several times to account for the genetic differences observed in ancestor/descendant relationships, as opposed to a single common ancestor. Quite clearly origin of life assumptions have a significant impact on the theory that follows, and is not just a simple given.

To say that evolution just assumes life and proceeds from there is not accurate any more.

Gman wrote:

August wrote:
Exactly how is the origin of life removed from evolution?

Good question.. The research I've done does show it to be a part of it...

G- Forgive my ignorance, but I'll fire away with a question which I think you'll consider elementary. Evolution (in its "macro" form?) is said to account for life form A to life form B- Is that right? Now I'm aware that there is a little more to the theory than this. But it seems to me that this does nothing to satisfy the mind when we cannot account for how the "first" life form arose ... ? As you know, in spite of all the attempts at replication, and the "scientific" bluster, we can never create the "conditions" necessary to even begin to think this theory can be validated.

I guess what I'm asking is, How can the "sacred" realm of empiricism, couched in the scientific method, allow this presupposition to, not only survive, but prosper and flourish within much of the scientific community?

DannyM wrote:G- Forgive my ignorance, but I'll fire away with a question which I think you'll consider elementary. Evolution (in its "macro" form?) is said to account for life form A to life form B- Is that right? Now I'm aware that there is a little more to the theory than this. But it seems to me that this does nothing to satisfy the mind when we cannot account for how the "first" life form arose ... ? As you know, in spite of all the attempts at replication, and the "scientific" bluster, we can never create the "conditions" necessary to even begin to think this theory can be validated.

True.. But the claim is that evolution does not address origins since evolution only deals with a common ancestor, natural selection and the likes.. Or preexisting data. As far as micro and macro evolution goes they are just part of the whole evolutionary scheme.

However, there is evidence that Darwin did address origins in his book "Origin of Species" and in his notes.. Plus, I have a biology book that does address the central question of origins. Another title that was applied to it was called "chemical evolution" but they really don't use that term anymore.

DannyM wrote:I guess what I'm asking is, How can the "sacred" realm of empiricism, couched in the scientific method, allow this presupposition to, not only survive, but prosper and flourish within much of the scientific community?

The fact that their ideas are based on real objects such as amino acids and nucleotides. They have a real hypothesis whereas the creationist don't. Other than that, really nothing.. No one has ever witnessed life occurring from a soup of mud.. It's just the best guess..

Gman wrote:Plus, I have a biology books [here] ... “How Did Life Arise?” It clearly states “observations and experiments that have led scientists to hypothesize that chemical and physical processes on early earth have produced very simple cells through a sequence of 4 main stages:

1. The abiotic (nonliving) synthesis of small organic molecules, such as amino acids and nucleotides
2. The joining of these small molecules into macromolecules including proteins and nucleic acids
3. The packaging of these molecules into "protobionts,” droplets with membranes that maintain an internal chemistry different from that of their surroundings.
4. The origin of self-replicating molecules that eventually made inheritance possible. In the next two modules, we examine some of the evidence for each of these four stages. “ Biology: Concepts and Connections" (copyright 2008) Pg. 294...

Gman, aren't these just postulates which are literally based on assumptions of conditions?

Gman wrote:From the book it also appears that chance does have some creative power as well.. Under the title, "Natural Selection is the only mechanism that consistently leads to adaptive evolution" it states the following about chance..

“Genetic drift, gene flow, and even mutation can cause microevolution. But these are chance events, and only blind luck could result in their improving a population's fit to its environment. Evolution by natural selection, on the other hand, is a blend of chance and "sorting": chance in the random collection of genetic variation packaged in gametes and combined in offspring and sorting in that some alleles are favored over others. Because of this sorting effect, only natural selection consistently leads to adaptive evolution-evolution that results in a better fit between organisms and their environment.” Biology : Concepts and connections — Ch. 13.12, pg 269, 2008

I've seen you quote this before: this is gold! Under such circumstances, given the amount of "chaos" involved, information would NEVER increase and would actually [Edit] destroy information ...?

Re: God Wins!!

Update:

Well He certainly aint losing ...

DannyM wrote:

zoegirl wrote:Check out this link

http://books.google.com/books?id=I6xWiV ... q=&f=false

Should get you directly to chapter 7 called Religion and God. It's a short read but very interesting.

Zoe, that was a GREAT little read!

yep one of my fav's

DannyM wrote:Gman, aren't these just postulates which are literally based on assumptions of conditions?

Oh yes... It's just an idea.. Not factual at all... But yet there it is, in a college science book. Why it's there I have no clue.. But hey, it looks cool... I've got the science.

DannyM wrote:I've seen you quote this before: this is gold! Under such circumstances, given the amount of "chaos" involved, information would NEVER increase and would actually [Edit] destroy information ...?

True.. Chance can't explain everything because chance itself is nothing and produces nothing. Miracles anyone?

“When modern science assigns the origin of the universe and all life in it to pure random chance it does an incalculable disservice to science, because it "reduces scientific investigation not only to chaos but to sheer absurdity. Half of the scientific method is left impaled on the horns of chance." - John Ankerberg

(Responding to quite a few posts within this thread... No direct quotes.)

I agree with Kynaros: "invest in God" is a euphemism for "don't bother using rational thought to figure stuff out, just trust that what the scriptures (and church leaders like the Pope, who is constantly pulling new rules out of thin air) tell you".

Contrary to Gman's claim that "the harder you dig, the more evidence you will find for God", the opposite is continually proving itself to be true: "the harder we dig, the less use we have for God", until, finally, the need is removed completely.

Kynaros said, "The fun in religion is having all the answers." I agree, entirely. Scientists know they don't have all the answers! Unlike theists, however, this doesn't scare them -- they're not afraid to admit it -- and they strive to fill in the gaps with theories backed up with experimental proofs.

As for theistic scientists, nobody is saying that theists can't do science. (In history, this would have been impossible, as just about everyone was a theist. Darwin was a theist, before he figured stuff out for himself.) However, things start to get a bit ridiculous when such "scientists" discover evidence that contradicts the scriptures -- and then decide the scriptures take priority -- the evidence must be wrong. (I heard this in a serious interview recently. I don't remember the guy's name, but I rolled my eyes hard.)

Re: atheistic openness to the existence of God. The thing that differentiates (most) atheists from (most) theists is that atheists are open to the possibility of there being a creator. If the slightest bit of supportable evidence presented itself, I would be ready to change my status to "believer" tomorrow! (This is also why the argument that "atheists are fundamentalists, too!" is completely wrong.)

Nothing is "outside the realm of science". If, by that, you mean that some things have yet to be answered by science, then fair enough. But science can, theoretically, explain every aspect of this universe in which we live.

Take, for example, the assertion that we are unable to create life in a laboratory. True, we might not quite have done that yet -- but it certainly doesn't mean we won't, or that it's "outside the realm of science"!

As for evolution, if you can't see how it can lead, over time, to more complex lifeforms better suited to their environment, then you simply haven't understood the concept yet.

P.S. Kynaros: Don't let DannyM get to you. He tried the same BS tactics to start a flame war with me some time ago, so I put him on my enemies list.

ManOfScience wrote:(Responding to quite a few posts within this thread... No direct quotes.)

I agree with Kynaros: "invest in God" is a euphemism for "don't bother using rational thought to figure stuff out, just trust that what the scriptures (and church leaders like the Pope, who is constantly pulling new rules out of thin air) tell you".

Contrary to Gman's claim that "the harder you dig, the more evidence you will find for God", the opposite is continually proving itself to be true: "the harder we dig, the less use we have for God", until, finally, the need is removed completely.

Unfortunately it was asked of Kynaros (about 4 times) to provide the evidence that disproves the existence of God. He couldn't provide it... Perhaps you and your knowledge could provide this overwhelming evidence. So by all means... Please reveal it....

ManOfScience wrote:Kynaros said, "The fun in religion is having all the answers." I agree, entirely. Scientists know they don't have all the answers! Unlike theists, however, this doesn't scare them -- they're not afraid to admit it -- and they strive to fill in the gaps with theories backed up with experimental proofs.

No one here is claiming to have all the answers... And no one has 100% proof that there is a God or not a God.. However we can often make 100% commitments with less than 100% proof, such as flying on an airplane and believing it will be safe.. etc..

ManOfScience wrote:As for theistic scientists, nobody is saying that theists can't do science. (In history, this would have been impossible, as just about everyone was a theist. Darwin was a theist, before he figured stuff out for himself.) However, things start to get a bit ridiculous when such "scientists" discover evidence that contradicts the scriptures -- and then decide the scriptures take priority -- the evidence must be wrong. (I heard this in a serious interview recently. I don't remember the guy's name, but I rolled my eyes hard.)

And what is the science that contradicts the scriptures?

ManOfScience wrote:Re: atheistic openness to the existence of God. The thing that differentiates (most) atheists from (most) theists is that atheists are open to the possibility of there being a creator. If the slightest bit of supportable evidence presented itself, I would be ready to change my status to "believer" tomorrow! (This is also why the argument that "atheists are fundamentalists, too!" is completely wrong.)

Nothing is "outside the realm of science". If, by that, you mean that some things have yet to be answered by science, then fair enough. But science can, theoretically, explain every aspect of this universe in which we live.

Take, for example, the assertion that we are unable to create life in a laboratory. True, we might not quite have done that yet -- but it certainly doesn't mean we won't, or that it's "outside the realm of science"!

In a lab with intelligent designers (scientists) manipulating inorganic structures?

ManOfScience wrote:As for evolution, if you can't see how it can lead, over time, to more complex lifeforms better suited to their environment, then you simply haven't understood the concept yet.

P.S. Kynaros: Don't let DannyM get to you. He tried the same BS tactics to start a flame war with me some time ago, so I put him on my enemies list.

How does evolution rule out the concept of a creator? Where is this overwhelming evidence?