Evidence for God from Science

hughfarey wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I think he's wrong in this case ...

Would you care to say where?

About all things in our world/universe having a cause.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

hughfarey wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I think he's wrong in this case ...

Would you care to say where?

About all things in our world/universe having a cause.

I think you missed how having a cause for free will be just determinism, since causes have determined effects in such a way as you are trying to push here.

The fact that something exists to make the choice is irrelevant to the point I was making and that you objected to. I said, and I will said it again: it is not true that everything has a cause. We should not say that everything that exists has a cause. That is incorrect. Among things that exist that don't have a cause would be our free choices.

And I'm saying your whole point is about SUBSEQUENT things that first require creation and existence of prior things. A being must exist before their are choices made. Options must exist. That being must be able to make and understand choices. Of course the choices themselves are not caused, but they are made possible by previously existing things put into place by God. And that is truly all I care about related to this topic, for the purposes of those here - particularly unbelievers, as to what they might think could self exist without evidence for that - in fact, with massive evidences to the contrary. Yes, the points of philosophy have their place. But that is not my focus. And no, it was not determined what color socks I should put on this morning - I went commando!

And I'm saying your whole point is about SUBSEQUENT things that first require creation and existence of prior things.

Which is why you are incorrect for reasons I've already stated. That is not what my point is about, and if you can't see that, then there's nothing else to say, because I can't make myself any clearer. The point you are understanding me to make is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Jac, I do understand your point.

Then why, Phil, are you saying my point is about "subsequent things" when it isn't?

Jac, I think I may have been talking past your point, to my own. I understand and agree with parts you assert.

I would like to get into the evidence used for evidence in evolution science for evidence life evolves to show how weak it is. So if you accept evolution provide evidence that convinces you life evolves and let's discuss it. There is no reason I can see based on the evidence I've seen that would convince somebody life evolves so to me it is not about evidence in evolution science but just accepting it by faith and because so many scientists accept it. I want to know what convinces you life evolves if you accept evolution based on the evidence.

abelcainsbrother wrote:I would like to get into the evidence used for evidence in evolution science for evidence life evolves to show how weak it is. So if you accept evolution provide evidence that convinces you life evolves and let's discuss it. There is no reason I can see based on the evidence I've seen that would convince somebody life evolves so to me it is not about evidence in evolution science but just accepting it by faith and because so many scientists accept it. I want to know what convinces you life evolves if you accept evolution based on the evidence.

My evidence for evolution is twofold:

1) Donald Trump

2) The Gap Theory

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I would like to get into the evidence used for evidence in evolution science for evidence life evolves to show how weak it is. So if you accept evolution provide evidence that convinces you life evolves and let's discuss it. There is no reason I can see based on the evidence I've seen that would convince somebody life evolves so to me it is not about evidence in evolution science but just accepting it by faith and because so many scientists accept it. I want to know what convinces you life evolves if you accept evolution based on the evidence.

My evidence for evolution is twofold:

1) Donald Trump

2) The Gap Theory

I would become a theistic evolutionist if there was evidence life evolves but I haven't been able to find evidence to believe life evolves,so maybe we can get better science with Trump and The Gap Theory will become a much more believable theory based on the evidence in the earth than evolution.Perhaps I'll be proven right The Gap Theory is a much better theory than the ToE and is the only creation interpretation that can actually defeat the ToE unlike the other creation interpretations that have had no effect on evolution.

abelcainsbrother wrote:I would like to get into the evidence used for evidence in evolution science for evidence life evolves to show how weak it is.

Well, that's a start. Perhaps you should have admitted earlier that you haven't looked into the evidence for evolution before, and that your airy announcements that there is no evidence were nothing more than wishful thinking, but never mind.

So if you accept evolution provide evidence that convinces you life evolves and let's discuss it.

Right! It's on its way...

There is no reason I can see based on the evidence I've seen that would convince somebody life evolves

But you've just said you've never 'got into' the evidence at all! No wonder you didn't find it convincing. However, you surely admit that lots of people do find it convincing. Has it occurred to you that maybe it's because they have 'got into' the evidence rather than dismissing it out of hand without reading it?

so to me it is not about evidence in evolution science but just accepting it by faith and because so many scientists accept it.

No, it hasn't occurred to you.

I want to know what convinces you life evolves if you accept evolution based on the evidence.

OK. From the top then:

1) Every organism is a manifestation of its DNA, that remarkable strand of genetic information that dictates the growth and operation of the organism. And we find that DNA varies between organisms, in such a way that we can use it to discover when two organisms last had common ancestors. My brother and I have DNA so similar that it seems our last common ancestors (our parents) were born only about 80 years ago, whereas my fourth cousins shared common ancestors born about 200 years ago, and so on. This is a matter of historical record, but it is not unreasonable, I hope you’ll agree, within the constraints of our cultural miscegenation, to say that the less similar any two people’s DNA, the further back in time they shared common ancestors.

2) The difference between my and my brother’s DNA takes two forms. One is that although we both have half our mother’s, and half our father’s genes, we differ in exactly which genes occur in each of us. Among a species, it seems as if there is a vast ‘pool’ of genes appropriate to that species, of which any individual has an individual selection, which in turns makes him or her the individuals they are. The other is that even taking those genes we share exactly, slight mistranscriptions and even slighter mutations make them slightly different. So another way of determining how closely related I am to somebody else is to compare the number of tiny - usually insignificant - alterations there are in genes that ought to be identical in both of us.

3) This means that the picture of a vast ‘pool’ of genes particular to any particular species needs to be refined. Over the years some of these genes altered, often more than once, and the point in time when this happened can be calculated according to the observed rate of mutation in living organisms, and extrapolation into the past.

4) Genetic mutations may have no effect at all on the living organism, or be deleterious, such as the gene for cystic fibrosis, or be beneficial, such as the gene for lactose tolerance. Very rarely does the mutation affect reproductive success, but where it does, it prevents organisms with such a mutation from mating successfully with other organisms of the same species, even if they are closely related. Should that happen, then the group of organisms with the mutation must either become extinct, or only interbreed among themselves, in which case, for convenience, we call them a new species.

5) So far, of course, my ‘evidence’ has not delved further back into the past than historical record. However, from the particular - that the genetic differences between two organisms of the same species can be related to the passage of time - it is not unreasonable to speculate that the same might apply to the genetic differences between any two organisms; between me and my brother, me and a chimpanzee, me and a crocodile, or even me and a banana tree, who, by popular report, share up to 50% of our DNA.

6) Such a thing, of course, has never been observed. I cannot observe that I and George Washington ever had a common ancestor, let alone I and a chimpanzee. However, if it is true that any two organisms share a common ancestor, and if it is true that the difference between those two organisms reflects the time since that ancestor lived, then we might hope to support our argument by looking for evidence that, at about the time of the common ancestor, an organism existed that had some resemblance to both current organisms, and also that neither of the current organisms then existed. Furthermore, we might hypothesise that the further back in time the common ancestor existed, the less it would have in common with its descendants.

7) From a zoological and botanical point of view, our only evidence for long-dead organsisms is the fossil record. Fortunately, fossils not only give us some idea of what an organism looked like, but crucially, the time at which they fossilised. So if, for example, differences between my DNA and that of a chimpanzee suggested a common ancestor ten million years ago, then we would hope to find fossils of an animal with some of the characteristics of both, but no fossils of either. Which of course we do. The same applies to any two organisms at all, as far as we can discover. If I really am related to a crocodile, the differences between our DNAs suggest that we shared a common ancestor a hundred million years ago, when organisms existed with some of the charcterisitics of both of us, but neither of us existed. And that’s exactly what we do find.

I think this is enough to be going on with, but I hope it shows you that although none of it ‘proves’ evolution, it is a reasonable scientific train of thought. From observation comes a hypothesis. The hypothesis makes predictions, and the veracity of the predictions strengthens the hypothesis. If any of the predictions is falsified, the hypothesis is weakened, but this does not appear to be the case.

Finally, abelcainsbrother, it is still OK for you to say that you do not find this evidence sufficiently convincing. It is OK for you to present objections to my conclusions. It is OK for you to point out perceived weaknesses in the argument. That’s what scientists do. What it is absolutely not OK for you do is to claim that there isn’t any evidence. That’s very wrong, and the angels will weep for you.

hughfarey wrote:
Finally, abelcainsbrother, it is still OK for you to say that you do not find this evidence sufficiently convincing. It is OK for you to present objections to my conclusions. It is OK for you to point out perceived weaknesses in the argument. That’s what scientists do. What it is absolutely not OK for you do is to claim that there isn’t any evidence. That’s very wrong, and the angels will weep for you.

I get the impression that the commitment to "gap" is way too strong for any "evidence" to affect.

I dont much agree with the idea of "becoming a" like "becoming a theistic evolutionist". Or adopting a creation position.

Like "becoming a" communist, one must be committed to the whole ideology. I suppose a "theistic evolutionist' is committed to an entire ideological package of beliefs and assumptions.

I dont do anyone's package of ideas, it is anathema to me.

One can "become a" chemist but it is not like committing to any ideology.
Everything in chemistry is open to challenge and revision.

One can study biology without "becoming an evolutionist". I understand and accept it that ToE is valid. Show me it isnt, and I wont think so any more.
Everything is open to challenge and revision.

So many think that "evolutionism' is an ideology, tho I dont know why unless it is that they are themselves ideologs, and cannot see that someone else might not be. Like, "everyone has an ideology." Not so. You dont. I dont.

There is a profound and fundamental problem for someone committed to
"the 6 day poof", "gap", "flood", etc which is just that; commitment.
Science makes no commitments except to sincere curiosity and the maximum good faith effort at pure objectivity. * You HAVE to be open to new understanding, open to discarding the old, or you are not a scientist in any way.

It is not enough to say "if I saw the evidence I would change" and then, when
shown evidence, slither about like a fresh caught octopus seeking any way to get out of what has just happened. The thing ab came up with about glaciers being "stuck down" like an ice cube in a tray put in the water is a typical example of what happens when a person renders himself incapable of any objective thought.

Until a person understands that it is simply and literally impossible for them to talk about their scientific understanding of anything. They are incapable of it.

For all that I get annoyed with ab, I do feel kind of sorry for him. As in, "the angels weep for". I hope you can get thru to him on this.


* this is recognized as an ideal and as such, impossible to fully achieve.

Commitment to any idea / ideology, though, is the polar opposite of objectivity, it is anti science in the deepest sort of way.

Audie: I dont do anyone's package of ideas, it is anathema to me.

So your thinking is so original that no one ever thinks about things much the way you do? No, what is original is you, Audie, is that no one else is exactly like you. But your VIEWS you've long expressed here are prolifically represented by non-theists around the planet. Anyone here think she's brought up any unique views - that aren't common to all manner of non-theists?

Audie: There is a profound and fundamental problem for someone committed to "the 6 day poof", "gap", "flood", etc which is just that; commitment.

Ah, but Audie, the gap you insist to be possible is FAR larger. Because all of those with theist/creationist views, as for evidence, are an issue of examining and searching physical evidences and causes AFTER the fact of creation, and yet they insist had an intelligent origin. WHY - because of what came into existence that before did not previously exist, as well as their instant attributes at the very beginning of all physical things. But your gap - in which JUST the right non-physical things became physical, IMMEDIATELY, in which a mere moment before these things did not even exist, instantly obeying STILL-observable laws, and having mind-blowing characteristics of design and function, YET WITHOUT AN INTELLIGENT CAUSE - WOW!!! And, to be sure, the cause was not physical, because the PHYSICAL did not previously exist. Talk about a problem GAP of evidence... but much more so of LOGIC! Hey, there are bad haircuts, and then there's the Grand Canyon. Your Gap has the Colorado River running right down its center! And you might as well quit talking science babble about it, because science doesn't measure the METAphysical - which is clearly where the answer and Source to YOUR gap lies.

Perhaps the most enormous logic I see you assert is even the mere possibility that blind, random things of no intelligence or cognition, have the ability - given enough time - to develop abilities to A) make things from a non-physical dimension become physical, and B) that these things of such blind, hard parameters can produce brilliant things beyond our capacity to understand them - that is, beyond the fact that we clearly see phenomenal design and functionality that is unquestionable. That is a HUGE gap of logic. And it is entirely unscientific and metaphysical! I could more appreciate an atheist asserting, at the very least, that the ULTIMATE origin of physical things was eternal, intelligent, and all-powerful - EVEN IF they also insist this is not the God of the Bible. Because at least that is recognizing parameters and logic.

Ladies and gentlemen, introducing, the Audie Do!



Also commonly known as the "Reverse Mohawk."

OK, I'm preparing myself for the kisses and witty, irrelevant comeback.

Unfortunately, I cannot put phil on ig. I wont respond to this or anything
else he writes, ever.

If he wishes to continue to dishonour himself with insults and falsehoods,
that is on him.

Audie: If he wishes to continue to dishonour himself with insults

NO! Audie, I'm using rhetorical sarcasm and humor to attack the irony of you continually making fun of and attacking people over a gap of physical evidences, when you, yourself have a FAR greater gap to explain - that is obvious! If I've misrepresented your beliefs about that gap, then DETAIL those. Criticize it with logic, sarcasm, whatever you wish. Really, what are the options for the unavoidable characteristics of what you assert? You've failed to answer that question repeatedly, and yet your here going on and on make fun of the "God of the Gaps." You endlessly use scientific SPECULATION as to how you can explain the instant and astonishing characteristics of an instant physical universe coming in to existence, but there is a huge, yes gap, between what can be explained by physical scientific analysis and what had to be non-physical and metaphysical. You laugh at Christians over their supernatural beliefs, but refuse to see that what happened at the Big Bang was supernatural - it followed no known physical explanation, and in fact the cause had to be beyond and before the resulting physical things that came into being.

So, where exactly have I stated a falsehood? That you don't believe a God explains or is necessary for the Creation? That you apparently believe that astonishing things showing every possible indication of great intelligence can come immediately into existence without an intelligent cause? That SOMETHING had to be eternal? That your contentions are not original and are pretty much the same as a whole lot of other non-theists? That you've not prolifically revealed the logic of your thinking, as to what you entertain might be possible without a SuperIntelligence of great power? All of these I've criticized ARE taken from things your prolifically written about!

As well, you have relentlessly made fun of and attacked Christian beliefs related to Creation and the miraculous, almost since the day you arrived here. So, when someone makes rhetorical fun of YOUR positions - things you have prolifically said - then you can't take it? It's all funny when you're being sarcastic about the beliefs of others, but you can't take it when your positions come under the same? It's always, "poor little Min is being attacked or lied about." NO! It is what you have prolifically said that I am holding scrutiny to, showing you your inconsistencies over. You can dish it out, day in and day out, but you can't take it if YOUR beliefs are made rhetorical fun of. You just can't seem to see the difference between attackes upon your assertions and attacks upon YOU. If everyone else here had that way of thinking, they would have all been after you, at some point. You have ruthlessly made fun of ACB, almost on a weekly basis. And we've all had fun with his Gap stuff. But we care about him, as we tremendously do about you. And he and everyone here who has received various withering criticisms aimed at some statement or belief one of us has held realizes it's usually not PERSONAL. But if you come to this forum, you have to put your big boy or girl pants on and not have such a thin skin. I'm sorry that you tend to think what we say here is because we don't care about YOU - as it is MUCH the opposite!

So, instead of being passive aggressive and "taking your toys home to not play with me anymore," why won't you please clarify where I've mischaracterized your assertions - or clarify them for us - in the second paragraph up ("So, where exactly have I stated a falsehood?"). Because, again, you accuse one of lying about your positions or beliefs, but you fail to address exactly where and what. That is called a DODGE, and you could easily clarify exactly where and how what I wrote in that paragraph is incorrect or slanderous. Otherwise, it holds no credibility to make such a charge. And that has been your response, time and again. Do you really think I want to lie about some aspect of what you've indicated you believe?