Evidence for God from Science

KBCid wrote:Has anyone performed an empirical test to see if the alledged 2 ends of the ring cannot produce offspring?.

Did you read the reference i provided? Hint: your answer is in there.
Are polar bears and brown bears different species? Are lions and tigers? Both pairs can interbreed and produce offspring.

KBCid wrote:The herring gull complex is not a ring species
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... 255043.pdf

1) Have the authors denounced evolution?
2) Is it possible to accept the conclusion that the herring gull complex is not a ring species based on the evolutionary evidence provided in the paper and yet still deny evolution?
How does design explain the figures on pages 897 and 898?

KBCid, I have a proposition for you, and I just want your honest opinion. If I were to say that I believe it is entirely possible that the first, very simple life-form on Earth did not occur spontaneously, but was in fact created by an intelligent being, and came complete with your spatial regulation mechanism, what would that say about evolution? It simply seems to me that your argument of an irreducibly complex system has less to do with evolution and more to do with the origin of life. It seems to me that if we place this under the category of "we don't know exactly how life came to be on Earth", that your example has no effect on the Theory of Evolution itself. That is, if life began with this basic function intact, that evolution taking place afterward would no longer be an issue.

I bring it up because you seem set on the issue that this system has to be in place before evolution takes its course. A fair point, but if that is the case your problem is with abiogenesis, not with the evolution of species after the origin of life. Because of this your example is not like Behe's three major examples. He referenced the bacterial flagellum, the system of blood clotting, and the immune system/antibody system as his examples. All three were nonexistent in early life on Earth and came into place in later species. So, his concerns came after life beginning. Now, his examples were all proven to be false in time, but again, his examples were not in the sense of "without this system there is no life", like yours is.

In short, I guess what I'm trying to say is that, barring me totally misunderstanding your example, I don't think your example is valid because evolutionary scientists make no claims about the origins of life. In essence, I don't think most of them would oppose the idea that the first life could have come into place with this system. You continue to push this concept of chemical evolution creating life (a generally unsupported hypothesis) being the exact same thing as biological evolution (which is completely separate). Your thoughts?

Macroevolution is the on theory that isn't falsifiable because everytime a new fossil that comes along that completely obliterates macroevolution biologists throw their hands up in the air and say "gosh evolution must have speeded" up and viola a theory that you can't falsify. This is the ultimate in pseudo-science, but then again Ivellious will find a way to defend it, it's interesting that he never tackles the basilasauras problem. A whale of a problem that not one pro evolution supporter here has yet to address.Hmmm gee, I wonder why

Not really. Find me two fossils in the same place in different rock layers that are out of evolutionary order. Find me two species that appear to be evolutionarily related but lack genetic homology.

In the case of the whale, if that fossil was found to be older than its ancestral amphibian horses, that would falsify the currently held hypothesis of how whales evolved (not evolution as a whole, but at least that instance). so this discovery could mess with the previously-held timeline a bit. Evolutionary timelines are changing in varying increments all the time with new fossil discoveries. The uncommon descent article makes a crucial error in presuming that the whale's amphibian ancestors would have to be all gone by the time the first fully aquatic whales existed...It is entirely plausible to say that fully aquatic whales may have existed before the amphibian ancestors died out.

so in that case, to actually denounce the whale evolution hypothesis, we could: Find whales that predate their believed-to-be ancestors by a significant amount. You could also find an early whale that is dramatically different in physiological terms than their believed-to-be ancestors. Neither of those instances have happened. so...your problem?

Once again, individual changes in timelines, or findings that force new timelines to be drawn are not enough to falsify the whole of evolution. They simply help clarify the timelines we have. New information, updated theory. Now, if you find a modern day bunny rabbit fossil among a T-Rex, we can talk about falsifying evolution.

What you are saying is that every time a discovery or an observation contradicts a hypothesis within a theory, the theory must be immediately rejected. That's an idiotic assertion. If, say, in physics we found a particle that acted outside the rules of quantum mechanics, is the theory of quantum mechanics falsified? Of course not! It might mean that the theory must be adjusted because of a new discovery, but it hardly justifies scrapping an integral part of physics on a whim.

Ivellious wrote:What you are saying is that every time a discovery or an observation contradicts a hypothesis within a theory, the theory must be immediately rejected. That's an idiotic assertion.

This seems to be a very common misconception about science. Scientists observe the physical world, construct a model, compare the model to more observations, and discard or adjust the model as necessary.
This adjust the model as necessary causes a lot of problems. Many seem to view it as cheating because changes are made after the initial model is proposed and want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It seems to be an either/or situation. Either the model is totally correct and should be kept, or there is some problem, no matter how small, and everything should be rejected. But science resembles pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. You can't have a comprehensive theory before you make any observations. But that is what people seem to expect; that any valid theory must be complete and accurate from the initial conception.
Minor discrepancies require tweaks to a model. But if there are no major discrepancies, the theory should not be rejected. And there has to be some way to have major discrepancies; the theory must be falsifiable or it does not explain anything. As Ivellious and Pierson5 have demonstrated, evolution meets these criteria.

And I too would like to see KBCid's response:

Ivellious wrote:If I were to say that I believe it is entirely possible that the first, very simple life-form on Earth did not occur spontaneously, but was in fact created by an intelligent being, and came complete with your spatial regulation mechanism, what would that say about evolution?

sandy_mcd wrote:

Byblos wrote:Please show me a real time natural phenomenon (preferably backed up by scientific experiments) of a species transitioning into another (that could not also be explained by common design). THAT, in a nutshell, is where the real disagreement is.

It can't be done.

Thank you at least for being honest enough to admit it.

sandy_mcd wrote:And the same reasoning can be applied, as pointed out often before, to plate tectonics, non-volcanic mountain formation, existence of atoms, stellar processes, sub-atomic particles, etc including much or most of what mainstream scientists have no trouble believing they have explanations for. Why single out species?
And again, as pointed out before, consider ring species, where space and not time is the variable:
Why is this not a credible counter-argument? [And/or, describe some scenario for which "that's the way the designer did it" isn't a potential explanation. I know this is considered flogging a dead horse, but to my knowledge there has never been any response. "That's the way the designer did it" adds nothing; any scientific explanation (if there is one) which reduces the description is preferable.[/u ]

First, preferable to who? And second, this is yet another false assertion you and Pierson keep making, which is if ID is asserted then all scientific discovery must stop becaue 'God must've done it'. That is the most asinine and downright insulting assertion if I've ever seen any. Do you really see KBC backing down from his research because his conclusion is ID? Do you see any Christian scientist stop their scientific studies because they believe in God? How about Christian astrophysicists? Perhaps they should all go home, maybe the Vatican should just close up shop and send everyone home from their astronomical observatory, (which happens to be one of the leading research institutes in astrophysics in the world) simply because they assert God as the first cause.

For the last time, I am asking you both to quit doing that. It is demeaning, insulting, and you know damn well it is untrue.

sandy_mcd wrote:And I too would like to see KBCid's response:

Ivellious wrote:If I were to say that I believe it is entirely possible that the first, very simple life-form on Earth did not occur spontaneously, but was in fact created by an intelligent being, and came complete with your spatial regulation mechanism, what would that say about evolution?

Quite simple actually.
Life was designed to replicate and vary.What you call evolution by the mechanism of random mutation and natural selection which are both conceptually wrong in how you apply them is missing the most important part. Mutations (variations) can't be realized unless there is a system to allow them to come into existence (replication). Natural selection can't be observed unless two 3 dimensional formations of matter are generated to allow for a choice to be made.
Any form of Evolutionary theory is dead in the water from the beginning without the inclusion of the spatiotemporal control system as part of the theory to explain how a specie forms.
Evolutionary theory at its best... right now... can only attempt to explain how an existing system which you don't comprehend fully may possibly be varying as it continues its observable function of persistence. So even though you think there is no need to explain how the spatiotemporal control system came into existence (biogenesis), you are still stuck with explaining how the system functions in order to explain how living forms persist and are capable of passing on heritable characteristics of 3 dimensional form. If you can't explain how inheritance occurs then what good is your theory?
Once it becomes clear that your theoretical explanation of change is entirely dependant on the existence and persistence of an irreducibly complex spatiotemporal control system then your foundational philosophy that it can simply arise and change by natural causes is eliminated.

Byblos wrote:this is yet another false assertion you and Pierson keep making, which is if ID is asserted then all scientific discovery must stop becaue 'God must've done it'. That is the most asinine and downright insulting assertion if I've ever seen any.

You are quite correct sir. If I remember my history right, Newton began to define scientific testing so that he could learn more about how God arranged the wonders that he could see.
Curiosity is one of the many things about our intelligence that makes us want to explore and understand the reality around us. For Newton it was no show stopper to believe that the world was the result of a creative act. For him it was a great unknown that he felt could be known if he found a rational method to examine it.
Science continues his conceptual method even though the foundational assumption of origination has changed and they do it for the same reason. We all want to know how it functions. We desire to understand causes and effects that make up our environment.
Even when we come to the point where God makes the new earth and only his children continue on, they will still be learning and 'desiring' to understand things. This is a part of our intellectual nature which he imbued us with. We were created as a shadowy image of God himself.

So for anyone to assert that scientific inquiry would stop if the foundational assumption of original cause were an intelligent designer then they deny their own intellect and insult everyone elses.

Pierson5 wrote:
It doesn't matter about the evidence.

It does. When the designer (supernatural or not) interacts with the physical world, you can test for it. I gave you a test for ID that would support this. Why don't intelligent design proponents just do the research? If the hypothesis is solid, the evidence should fall into place.

No.. Again, you are missing my point. My point is is doesn't matter what evidence is brought forth by the ID advocates because by default it is already deemed to be unscientific. Why? Because of the premise that everything revolves around naturalism, therefore the belief in ID will never be accepted in these "so called" scientific communities since it is believed it cannot be measured in naturalistic terms of their science.

bippy123 wrote:Macroevolution is the on theory that isn't falsifiable because everytime a new fossil that comes along that completely obliterates macroevolution biologists throw their hands up in the air and say "gosh evolution must have speeded" up and viola a theory that you can't falsify. This is the ultimate in pseudo-science, but then again Ivellious will find a way to defend it, it's interesting that he never tackles the basilasauras problem. A whale of a problem that not one pro evolution supporter here has yet to address.Hmmm gee, I wonder why

Bippy you are quite right here. Ivellious wants to infer that making changes to conceptual ideas is a normal thing buuuut.

Here is the reality if evolution is such a fact then they can define the evolutionary rate. How fast do things evolve? if they can't define the mechanisms operational characteristics then they haven't defined the mechanism. In real science like mechanical engineering we can define mathematically how a cause makes an effect. In the pseudo-science of evoution they feel confident that they can change the mechanisms operational charactristics at will to keep the theoretical mechanism as a standard.
We have to remember here the difference between theory and hypothesis as the evo's push it. A theory has enough lines of evidence to back it and the foundational concepts have never been disproven. In mechanical engineering we have a theoretical concept of how the internal combustion engine is supposed to cause a specific effect and if the conceptual mechanism were to change as many times and as far as the mechanism of evolution has we would be back to the hypothetical stage.
So you are quite right to question this point of the supposed theory. As scientist they should relegate the theory to a hypothesis since they can't define the mechanism correctly. This actually ties in with my last answer about the spatiotemporal system. You see in order to be able to define the hypothetical evolutionary mechanism they would also have to have an understanding about how the entire process functions. The fact is they can't define how a change in the structure of an allele translates into 3 dimensional structure so it is quite obvious why they can't define evolutionary rates and this is also beyond the scientific method to test these rates in real time, thus it's beyond the scientific method of inquiry which provides confirmational testing to back it. aka pseudo-science. you can't eliminate something that you can't test and we all know hat they think of things which can't be tested... "it's unscientific"
All life has a single common ancestor
random mutations causes all the variance we observe
natural selection keeps sucessful forms forming and eliminates unsucessfull forms from forming

Of course, they are coming to the realisation of an observable and undeniable fact. All of lifes 3 dimensional form depends on there being a irreducible and highly complex spatiotemporal control system in order to persist in the generation of living 3 dimensional formations of matter.

Here is the reality if evolution is such a fact then they can define the evolutionary rate.

lol, what total bulls*** is this? Honestly, how do you even come up with such an absurd requirement? "Rate of evolution" is not a scientific constant, and absolutely no scientist will tell you it is. The rate that natural selection affects populations is contingent on hundreds if not thousands of factors, so no, you can't just slap a label on evolution saying that it occurs at a constant rate. You would have to take into account environmental factors, competition factors, mutation rates/factors, availability of resources, and any number of other outstanding factors, and you still wouldn't be able to perfectly predict a rate of anything. Especially in the case of ancient whales, where all we have to go off of to give us a timeline is the fossils themselves.

To wit, if you think ID is such a fact, give me a perfect constant rate of creation of new species. And if it is wrong even once, let me tell you that I will hold your own logic against you and say that ID is falsified immediately.

if they can't define the mechanisms operational characteristics then they haven't defined the mechanism. In real science like mechanical engineering we can define mathematically how a cause makes an effect. In the pseudo-science of evoution they feel confident that they can change the mechanisms operational charactristics at will to keep the theoretical mechanism as a standard.

Really? Mechanical engineering is identical to all sciences? Please define the precise mathematical constants involved in archaeology or the development of human societies. And if ID is a "real" science, hold yourself to your own standards for once and define the mechanism of creation in mathematical terms. And once again, if in a year that formula changes even a little, remember that ID is just wrong, end of story.

I also have no idea how you continue to get off saying that the theory must be right at its outset and never once be altered, or else it will be false. What kind of nonsense is that?

We have to remember here the difference between theory and hypothesis as the evo's push it. A theory has enough lines of evidence to back it and the foundational concepts have never been disproven. In mechanical engineering we have a theoretical concept of how the internal combustion engine is supposed to cause a specific effect and if the conceptual mechanism were to change as many times and as far as the mechanism of evolution has we would be back to the hypothetical stage.

Not true. Your combustion engine is a single example that exists within several theories. There is no "Theory of the modern combustion engine." Instead, the combustion engine is simply an aspect of scientific discovery. Discovering a flaw in our knowledge of the combustion engine would not automatically refute all of mechanical engineering on a moment's notice. Nor would it falsify the theories in physics and physical chemistry that it employs.

Your combustion engine is the equivalent of the ancient whale example within evolution. They are examples of scientific theories at work. Just like the very first concept of a combustion engine was likely not correct, our timeline for the ancient whale evolutionary line was not correct. As researchers and inventors discovered new methods and scientific understanding, their blueprints of the combustion engine became better and better, until there was actually a solid product. Even then, the system has been updated in light of greater understanding of the overlying theories used in making it. Just like how our understanding of the combustion engine has grown in the light of new evidence and knowledge, the evolutionary timeline for whales has had to be adjusted before the timeline is correct. So, unless you plan on telling me that the very first concept of a combustion engine was perfect in every way and never once altered to this day, your point is moot.

The whale timeline and the engine are examples that have taken years of work and discovery to refine, and they themselves are not theories, but examples of how theories can work.

KBC,

Would you mind elaborating on the answer you gave Ivellious when he asked how the necessity of of spatiotemporal control system impacts the theory of evolution? I don't understand how requiring a designer to institute the 3D control system means that macroevolution of species did not still occur over time. Or are you saying that speciation still could have occurred, but it requires a designer?

Thanks,

E

Byblos wrote:First, preferable to who?

Preferable to scientists. Science observes and models the real world; a number of observations can be reduced to a theory or formulae. "A designer did it" cannot be reduced. Astronomy explains why the earth rotates and predicts the future rate of rotation. A designer did it means that perhaps tomorrow the earth will momentarily cease rotating because the designer wishes it. Evolution explains why early lifeforms were simple. A designer did it could have mastodons appearing at the same time as single cell life forms.

Byblos wrote:And second, this is yet another false assertion you and Pierson keep making, which is if ID is asserted then all scientific discovery must stop becaue 'God must've done it'.

No, the assertion is that ID stops once design is concluded. A real scientist would view that as a starting point for many questions - is the designer supernatural or natural; did the designer build one life form which could adapt and evolve into everything else or are there multiple continuing instances of designed life appearing; how is the design implemented; what are the limits of adaptability; etc. ID literature as referenced in an earlier post does not address these issues.

Byblos wrote: That is the most asinine and downright insulting assertion if I've ever seen any.

Wow!

Byblos wrote: Do you really see KBC backing down from his research because his conclusion is ID?

He stops on the conclusion of design. In an earlier post i quoted he goes from design to God did it in one sentence and has nothing to say about the other questions partially listed above.

Byblos wrote: Do you see any Christian scientist stop their scientific studies because they believe in God? How about Christian astrophysicists? Perhaps they should all go home, maybe the Vatican should just close up shop and send everyone home from their astronomical observatory, (which happens to be one of the leading research institutes in astrophysics in the world) simply because they assert God as the first cause.

I'm not sure what these comments follow from. I have not read anyone proposing this course of action.

Byblos wrote:For the last time, I am asking you both to quit doing that. It is demeaning, insulting, and you know damn well it is untrue.

I hope i have cleared up some of your misconceptions about what earlier comments stated.