Evidence for God from Science

Audie wrote: ↑Sat Aug 11, 2018 12:36 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Sat Aug 11, 2018 11:52 am Audie,

I don't get it. When you were here before, you complained about trying to have a rational discussion about evolution. Now that DBowling wants to have a discussion about specific things regarding evolution, you just attack Behe and Meyer, without actually responding to the points that DBowling brought up.

Here's your chance to have a discussion with someone who is actually knowledgeable about something you are interested in discussing.

I asked if disproving ToE is easy to do...where is the Nobel.

DB said, "I dont have to..Behe and Meyers have already
done the heavy lifting."

Then it was over and over that Behe has shown some
aspect of 19th centuty was wrong.

If there was sense or point in to any of response, I still
dont get it.

Let's try...
one...
more...
time...

How about a yes or no question...
Do you believe that the following statement is factually accurate or inaccurate?

Behe and Meyer have demonstrated that the Darwinian processes of Random Mutation and Natural Selection alone are incapable of explaining what we see in the fossil record (especially the Cambrian Explosion), and they also cannot explain the structure, complexity, and diversity of information that we see in the DNA of life today.

Audie wrote: ↑Sat Aug 11, 2018 12:36 pm I've no intetest in trying to refute or discuss news of the long- and-well known, that certain ideas Darwin had are not valid.

Ah... this wasn't there when I responded earlier.

I take it by your statement
"certain ideas Darwin had are not valid"
that you are agreeing with the evaluation of Behe and Meyer regarding the inadequacy of Random Mutation and Natural Selection alone as a legitimate explanation for the current fossil record or the complexity of information in the DNA of life today.

Why yes, I commented several times that whatever
(redundant) demonstration that Victorian
science is out of date is, well, redundant.

If you ever said what point there is in
bringing it up, I missed it.

Likewise where they did the heavy lifting,
or anything at all toward disproving ToE,
which you indicated they had.

But whatevs, China Airlines to HK is
set to go, I wont be back for a while.

Nice disputationalizing you, even it was
over nothing!

-Min

Audie wrote: ↑Sat Aug 11, 2018 1:33 pm But whatevs, China Airlines to HK is
set to go, I wont be back for a while.

Nice disputationalizing you, even it was
over nothing!

-Min

Have a safe trip!

Typical responses from an atheist/evolutionist. Would rather fling mud than have a decent discussion when put in a corner or faced with a tough debate.

That is because a non-theist MUST have some mechanism that refutes the necessity for God as a cause of all things. The smarter amongst them realizes that SOMETHING had to be eternal and the cause of things. I think such ones also realize that this "something" had to either be unfathomably intelligent or, at a bare minimum, have the potential for such. But this supposed "potential" this first cause has means that it had to always have had attributes that must A) first exist, B) have the ability to recognize and harness the things eternally available to it - things that have always existed. But attributes and variables, even side by side MUST have an ability to both recognize and harness the potential in the things that are available to it. But, as I've said many times to those on the forum, BLIND things can't: Create themselves, don't see, think, recognize advantages, strategize, organize, design, capitalize on things that randomly happen are available to them - as these are all things that requite: A) Astounding intelligence, B) that just the right things happen to exist, in just the right amounts - or be created - with attributes that have incredible assemblage possibilities that it can see and orchestrate, and it must have vast, unimaginable power. It matters not whether this is God or some other intelligence - but make no mistake, a grand eternal, intelligent, and immensely powerful source is necessary MUST have, at the minimum, key, unavoidably necessary, attributes.

But we're led to believe that blind, unintelligent things, given unlimited time, can be eternal and evolve it's potential so as to create a universe. Lastly, let's not forget, the universe and it's early beginning - at the Big Bang's beginning. But lest we forget, the very second before the Big Bang began, no matter or anything physical existed, and a second later a universe roared into physical existence (noted here: viewtopic.php?p=229279#p229279) - NOT randomly and chaotic, but with: untold power, multiple dimensions, and marvelous things and building blocks instantly obeying highly specific, complex laws, with things of amazing design, functionalities, and unfathomably precise and necessary interactions - NOT in millions, billions or trillions of years - but in MINUTES did these foundational things of the universe begin to exist and operate in an orchestration that no known intelligence or scientific analysis can explain how this could happen. THIS is what non-theists / atheists and agnostics must ponder and explain - if they want to insist that only blind, random, non-intelligent things made this possible - eternal though "something" must have existed. WITHOUT the marvelous things that came into existence in the universe's first minutes - there's NO universe, no us - no NOTHING! And even IF evolution occurred, it would have begun nearly 11 billion years after the Big Bang, and likewise, would have been entirely dependent upon what inexplicably appeared and instantly functioned within the Big Bang's first minutes! Explain THAT, and then we can, rather pointlessly, argue the merits of the FAR-later, secondary, and entirely dependent suppositions asserted about evolution (molecules to man)!

Stu wrote: ↑Sun Aug 12, 2018 12:14 am Typical responses from an atheist/evolutionist. Would rather fling mud than have a decent discussion when put in a corner or faced with a tough debate.

You are missing entirely what I said, and that DB
and I essentially agreed; that certain aspects of
so-called "Darwian evolution" are long since
shown to be incorrect.

No "tough debate" was evdn on the horizon

Like any 19th century science, Darwin's theory
is not up to date. I mentioned that
Newton too has proved to be wrong about
some things.

I offered the opinion that it is a bit churlish
to trumpet something now, that shows one
of the great pioneers of old made some- gasp-
Mistakes!

Further, that whatever Behe contributed
to disproving a long dead hypothesis is no
more wonderful than savaging a long dead
horse.

Now, DB somewhat confusingly said,
intentionally or otherwise that Behe had
done the heavy lifting of disproving ToE.

He has done nothing of the sort.

We in no way dispute that Behe can do,
has done good work.

What I do dispute is that he has done anything at all
to disprove ToE. No realistic claim can be
made that he did.

Behe himself has accepted that much of
his earlier work on "ID" was worthless,
and has abandoned his work there.

Anyone who called his work unfalsifiable
and therefore not science-ie crackpot-
was justified in that.

Now he is off on something else, similarly
unevidenced and unfalsifiable..

Research journals will not publish anything
that does not meet professional standards,
though Discovery Indtitute will.

The unuversity where he is tenured, his
peers want nothing to do with his work,
despite his claim- that he was forced under
penalty of perjury to retract- that his
book had been peer reviewed.

He and his ( creationist, not scientists)
plainly do not care for the "crackpot"
label, but it is not a baseless bit of
mudslinging to say his work in ID or
"irreducible complexity" is just what
I said. Crackpot.

To return to what started it, I said proof
(said by DB to be easy) that ToE is false
will get attention from the Nobel community.

DB erroniously claimed Behe et all had already
done the heavy lifting. False false false!

I pointed out that not only was that not so,
but Behe is a crackot-as his dept at LU
agrees. The work cited-showing Darwin's
ideas were incomplete, does not in any
way even pretend to disprove ToE.


DB for his part made no effort at all to
debate / defend his false claim re disproving
ToE.

What debate?

RickD wrote: ↑Sat Aug 11, 2018 11:52 am Audie,

I don't get it. When you were here before, you complained about trying to have a rational discussion about evolution. Now that DBowling wants to have a discussion about specific things regarding evolution, you just attack Behe and Meyer, without actually responding to the points that DBowling brought up.

Here's your chance to have a discussion with someone who is actually knowledgeable about something you are interested in discussing.

You are right RD. You dont get it. But then you did not
even try, did you?

I dont usually expect you to be so shallow and ready to
jump to senseless conclusions.

DB said ToE is easily disproved, and cited work from a,
yes, crackpot that does not even pretend to, still less
succeed in, disproving ToE.

Did you understand that? A discussion with a knowledgeable
prrson does not usually start with a phony calim that
ToE has been disproved. Nor does it proceed wel when onel veers into pointless devense of someonewoowoo fringy
or not, who did no more than figuratively throw a rock
at a dead horse.


But you would know that if you did read before post,
still less jump in with funny-hat man to get on my case
over your mistake.

Like I care, but it is a shabby show, I thought I could
expect better, at least from you.

....................................................

Middle of the night, too wired to sleep.

I will now let Godscience have a good long rest
from my attention.

The obvious question from me to Audie, is that if she agrees that random mutation and natural selection alone, do not explain the fossil record, what does?

audie wrote:
DB said ToE is easily disproved, and cited work from a,
yes, crackpot that does not even pretend to, still less
succeed in, disproving ToE.

No he didn't. I suggest you go back and reread what he actually said!

Your entire insulting post is based on YOUR ERROR!

You misread, or misunderstood what DBowling actually said, and went off and started insulting people.

I'd normally expect an apology, but I won't hold my breath.

Despite his impeccable professional credentials and personal character, as one of the founders of the Intelligent Design movement, Michael Behe has found himself the target of baseless personal attacks from some quarters.

Here is a video on Michael Behe that explains his groundbreaking work on irreducible complexity and the role he played in the founding of the intelligent design movement.
http://www.yousubtitles.com/Revolutiona ... id-1190847

It’s true - a cell cannot evolve!

RickD wrote: ↑Sun Aug 12, 2018 12:48 pm

audie wrote:
DB said ToE is easily disproved, and cited work from a,
yes, crackpot that does not even pretend to, still less
succeed in, disproving ToE.

No he didn't. I suggest you go back and reread what he actually said!

Your entire insulting post is based on YOUR ERROR!

You misread, or misunderstood what DBowling actually said, and went off and started insulting people.

I'd normally expect an apology, but I won't hold my breath.

DBowling

It's much easier to prove that a theory (like YEC, Gap, and Darwinistic Evolution) contradicts Scripture and/or Science than it is to find a theory that is consistent with all the known facts.

Now watch how I ask if he means "disrovoe evolution"

y Audie »
Easy to disprove evolution? Prease do so right away.
The Noble people are awaiting.

And he someone what ambiguously says that Behe has
disproved Darwinism, which I then say is not too impressive,
its old news.


DBowling

I don't have to... Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer have already done all the heavy lifting.
Behe and Meyer have done an excellent job documenting how the Darwinistic processes of random mutation and natural selection alone are incapable of explaining what we see in the fossil record..

y Audie »
Finding a flaw here and there in a Victorian
theory is like beating up on Newton. Unseemly
and, withal, rather churlish.

Citing pop pseudoscience from a crackpot
( Behe) just makes it more distasteful.


I've agreed with DB that Darwinism is obsolete, but
made the mistake of saying that Behe is a crackpot.

Then, watch who introduces being personal and insulting.

DBowling
And your baseless statements about Behe reveal more about your knowledge and credibility than it does about Behe's professional credentials.

So I say that neither DB or I is a credentialed expert, but
Behe, for all his credentials, dabbles in pseudoscience
and in that, for that, he is rightly seen as a crackpot.

y Audie »
Far from baseless. Name -calling, no. His status in the
science community is crackpot.

I am far from what one would call "skilled in the art" with only
a BS in biology / geology, and a long term interest.

Your resort to pop / fringe,unpublished -in- respectable
journals is a clear demontration of agenda, and of course,
of one unschooled in the art. Easy for even a semieducated
amateur such as myself to smoke you out. Any legit work
that shows Darwin made mistakes is deeply redundant.

That the mechanisms he proposed
are partly but not entirely the drivers of
evolution is so well and so long known
that to bring it up as if it were fresh,
and try to credit "Behe" with some significance
in this,............

Then stu jumps in with insults and lies.

by Stu »
Audie, brilliant dodge and saying a whole lot of nothing.

And a big lol at crackpot - ANYONE who challenges the ToE is a crackpot in the eyes of Darwinists so essentially it means nothing coming from the likes of the "scientists" you no doubt are speaking of.

We get a thin admission from DB that Behe has tarnished his
otherwise good reputation with pseudoscience, but the immediately cancels it, saying the assertion is false; itself a false (which is itself a falsehood.)

DBowling
It is true that some of his detractors refer to Behe as a 'crackpot'.
But ignorant statements from Behe detractors does not make false assertions somehow true.

Then you jump in, having totally missed what I said. I asked about
ToE being disproved; DB said he does not need to and cited irrelevant work from Behe. I agreed that Darwins ideas are out
of date, many times.

What is the debate? Whether Behe is a crackpot? I was not
looking for, did not invite a discussion of evolution.
DB (appeared to) say evoluiton is easily disproved.

I merely asked if TOE IS EASILY DISPROVED. He then cited a, yes,
crackpot, who had done nothing of the sort.

And never did say if he meant TOE or, just some aspect of
Darwin. Maybe my error was not badgering him even harder
to say what he actually meant?

Here is your non-contribution.

RickD
I don't get it. When you were here before, you complained about trying to have a rational discussion about evolution. Now that DBowling wants to have a discussion about specific things regarding evolution, you just attack Behe and Meyer, without actually responding to the points that DBowling brought up.

And Good ol STU jumps in again with lies and bigotry.

y Stu
Typical responses from an atheist/evolutionist. Would rather fling mud than have a decent discussion when put in a corner or faced with a tough debate.

And Phil...? What are you doing Phil?
This is as baloney as what "stu" makes up, if it is about me.

If it is "in general" it is not a whole lot better.
Sorry to see you go down that road.



by Philip » Sun Aug 12, 2018 10:44 am
That is because a non-theist MUST have some mechanism that refutes the necessity for God as a cause of all things.





Overall, I would agree RD that the insults flew thick and
fast.

First from DB, then you and stu jumped in with your own.

For any / all insults I can be found to have directed at anyone,
I do apologize.


So RD you claim I made an error. You've not shown I
made any other than to be here.


I will agree that was an error.

Audie, so is it your opinion that anyone who subscribes to Intelligent Design is a crackpot or what are you saying exactly?

Because SETI uses ID to search for "intelligent" signals in space.
Even Dawkins says the human race might have been seeded here by Aliens, in which case we could then find evidence of design in say DNA, or the origins of life.
Archaeologists use ID to determine if something is man-made or natural.