Evidence for God from Science

Morny wrote:
jlay: Remember, NONE of this was observed. So what? Every day all of us, including scientists, juries, doctors, and biologists, make useful (and often life-saving) inferences based on evidence from unobserved events.

The so what, is that the scientific method does not work like that. Are you honestly suggesting that scienctific theories be determined by jury or opinion poll?
I completely understand inference. The problem is exampled in the article and how inference is suggested as evidence itself. The phylogenetic tree is another example of this. The other matter is that the graphs were designed to argue for the fusion event and to support common ancestry. That is question begging, which is starting with a conclusion and then working the evidence to support your hypothesis. It is just like saying, it's obvious there was a fusion event!

Nonsense. Where do Carl Zimmer or I use a circular argument? The chromosome graphics are accurate models from living gorillas, chimps, and humans. The bandings, telomeres, centromeres, codon differences, etc., are consistent with common ancestry with gorillas splitting off before chimps. In addition, Carl Zimmer's excellent overview cites research supporting the likelihood for each of the proposed chromosome transitions, e.g., how telomeres can stick end-to-end to fuse 2 chromosomes.

I've tried to example the circular reasoning, and your last statement also includes another example. You are again assuming common ancestry as a fact and that gorillas split off prior to chimps. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/go ... 57391.html You are appealing to one question begging prosition as a fact to prop up another. The real problem is how this practice has become so common place that it seems to be considered reasonable logic.

jlay and others using philosophy/logic terminology - I think it would be extremely useful for you (as did jlay here) to explain what such terms mean. Many may be unclear on their meaning/insertions in some posts.

jlay wrote:

Morny wrote: jlay: Remember, NONE of this was observed. So what? Every day all of us, including scientists, juries, doctors, and biologists, make useful (and often life-saving) inferences based on evidence from unobserved events.

The so what, is that the scientific method does not work like that.

Please tell scientists about this as soon as you can, because for centuries they've unknowingly been making inferences based on evidence from unobserved events.

jlay wrote:Are you honestly suggesting that scienctific theories be determined by jury or opinion poll?

I'm used to being misunderstood, but never this badly.

___________________

"The aim of science is not to open the door to everlasting wisdom but to set a limit on everlasting error." -- Bertolt Brecht

Philip wrote:jlay and others using philosophy/logic terminology - I think it would be extremely useful for you (as did jlay here) to explain what such terms mean. Many may be unclear on their meaning/insertions in some posts.

Fair criticism. Which terms, which I may have used, aren't trivially found online?

Fair criticism. Which terms, which I may have used, aren't trivially found online?

Morny, my comment wasn't aimed at you or any one person. It's just that sometimes people put a flurry of such terms in a post, and so some may misunderstand how they are being applied. I just liked the way jlay casually explained his terminology.

Morny wrote:Please tell scientists about this as soon as you can, because for centuries they've unknowingly been making inferences based on evidence from unobserved events.

A good many already realize this and make sure that it is duly noted. Let's please spare the rhetoric of trying to pit science against religion. I expect theologians to follow exegetical guidelines. I also expect scientists to follow operational guidelines and methodology as well. Let's face it, there are many (and you might be one) who are ready to hang their hat on these type of claims (chromosome fusion in this case) and declare that Darwinian evolution is a fact. The trend, as has so often been the case, is that this information is pumped as proof (support, cough. since science can't prove anything) only later to be examined and found lacking. Of course, by that time, the damage has already been done. Archeopteryx, Lucy, junk DNA, etc. Although lacking on their own, each are thrown into the pile to give the impression that the evidence is mounting and in fact, overwhelming.
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com ... continues/ The irony alone of quoting Zimmer to support my position was the worth posting today.

I'm used to being misunderstood, but never this badly.

This may be. And perhaps it is me being obtuse, or it could be that your reasoning was not on solid ground to begin with. If fact, it would appear that you covered up one error by presenting another. You said they've been making inferences for centuries, as if the age of a process, justifies the process itself. That of course, is faulty reasoning. Bottom line is that the critiques of the fusion event are out there, and I sincerely wonder how much sincere thought you've given to consider these. Further examination and observation has called into question the claims regarding the interpretation of the evidence. It is unscientific to dig your heals in on a position. To be completely equitable, Stu is making the same type of error when he states, "this evidence is of nothing but a common designer." The evidence is simply evidence and neither side has any more or less claim to the evidence. However, each side has presuppositions and this is where the big difference lies. In fact, one side says that their presuppositions aren't really presuppositions at all, but are fact.

jlay wrote:This may be. And perhaps it is me being obtuse, or it could be that your reasoning was not on solid ground to begin with. If fact, it would appear that you covered up one error by presenting another. You said they've been making inferences for centuries, as if the age of a process, justifies the process itself. That of course, is faulty reasoning. Bottom line is that the critiques of the fusion event are out there, and I sincerely wonder how much sincere thought you've given to consider these. Further examination and observation has called into question the claims regarding the interpretation of the evidence. It is unscientific to dig your heals in on a position. To be completely equitable, Stu is making the same type of error when he states, "this evidence is of nothing but a common designer." The evidence is simply evidence and neither side has any more or less claim to the evidence. However, each side has presuppositions and this is where the big difference lies. In fact, one side says that their presuppositions aren't really presuppositions at all, but are fact.

It was actually said tongue in cheek, to make a point. Evolutionists hold it up as critical evidence, and so I held it up as evidence for design.
I went on to explain that evidence that can be used to support opposing arguments isn't good evidence.

Stu wrote: It was actually said tongue in cheek, to make a point. Evolutionists hold it up as critical evidence, and so I held it up as evidence for design.
I went on to explain that evidence that can be used to support opposing arguments isn't good evidence.

Understood, and well played.