Evidence for God from Science

hughfarey wrote:Thanks for your reply, abelcainsbrother. If I address it in detail, as I have done before, I hope you will see this as taking your objections to evolution seriously and not simply ignoring you. The evidence you claim to have researched, however, all boils down to your entirely faith-based statement that separate species cannot evolve, and have not evolved. Your entire evidence for this is that it has not been observed - and my explanation for that is that there not been sufficient time, since experiments began, to observe it. You have studiously avoided responding to that point.
As I said, that is your only evidence for the denial of evolution. You have mentioned the fossil record, without explaining why it denies evolution, and cladistics, without explaining why it denies evolution, and fruitflies, but only with reference to the fact that they have not been observed becoming different species. You have admitted variation, but draw the line at speciation entirely on faith, rather than scientific, grounds, simply making statements such as, "there are limits that cannot be crossed" which cannot be justified by the evidence. Just because some arbitrarily limit, which you do not satisfactorily define, has not been shown to be crossed, does not mean that it cannot be crossed, merely that you do not find the evidence that it could be, compelling. And that's OK. I have no doubt whatever that clear and distinct speciation will be observed within the next few decades.

Hugh do you seriously believe that the scientific community doesn't have a materialistic bias ??
I really hope you don't cause I can show you a whole pile of Nde researchers that hardly ever see any media fanfare in the popular scientific community while the totally debunked Nde arguments of the so called main stream scientific community gets reported all over the place .

Sorry but that doesn't wash . The scientific community is a lot more dogmatic today then it ever was when I was taking my college biology courses . Hated anatomy mainly because of histology lol

I agree-- there Are limits in the animal world that Can't be crossed and have the off-spring able to reproduce.
Okay -- the catapillar turns into a beautiful butterfly. But to scientists have a clue as to How it happens? But - does the butterfly continue to change into anything Else? And what was the catapillar Before it was one.

bippy123 wrote:Hugh do you seriously believe that the scientific community doesn't have a materialistic bias ??

You seem to be using the word 'materialistic' to imply 'atheist' as well, and if so, then I don't think the scientific community has such a bias. It most certainly does have a 'rationality' bias, not necessarily because of any prejudice against the supernatural, but because that's what science is. If a bookseller doesn't sell cheese, it's not necessarily because he doesn't like cheese, but because his field is books. The field of science is reason, the process of inferring information from observation, and relating all such inferences into a coherent unity. It cannot investigate deviations from this pattern, even if it thinks there may be some.

The scientific community is a lot more dogmatic today then it ever was when I was taking my college biology courses.

I very much doubt that.

crochet1949 wrote:I agree-- there Are limits in the animal world that Can't be crossed and have the off-spring able to reproduce.

And good for you - no one can deny you. However I disagree entirely, and using your own logic, no one can deny me either. Fair enough?

Okay -- the catapillar turns into a beautiful butterfly. But to scientists have a clue as to How it happens? But - does the butterfly continue to change into anything Else? And what was the catapillar Before it was one.

Well, if you look up "insect metamorphosis" on Google Scholar, you will find 50000 scientific papers showing that scientists know very well exactly how it happens, and why a butterfly does not change into anything else, and what caterpillar was before it was one. Try "http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 4/20130304" for starters!

crochet1949 wrote:I agree-- there Are limits in the animal world that Can't be crossed and have the off-spring able to reproduce.
Okay -- the catapillar turns into a beautiful butterfly. But to scientists have a clue as to How it happens? But - does the butterfly continue to change into anything Else? And what was the catapillar Before it was one.

It is an excellent thing to question authority, what is or is thought to be "dogma".

there Are limits in the animal world that Can't be crossed and have the off-spring able to reproduce.

This is true of course, a virtual truism. Goes for plants too. One cannot cross corn with the oak tree. Nor yet the fish with the turtle.

This, however, while true has nothing to do with how evolution works.

It is often presented that any species has "limits', as in that one can change it so much, and no more.

This is though, simply a statement of facts not in evidence because nobody has ever been able to say what those limits are, why there is a limit, what the limiting mechanism is or how it might work.

Sometimes "evoluionists" are criticized for speculation. This thing about "limits" is speculative in the extreme.

Our friend abe thinks that the entire basis for evoluttion is in "natural variation", which of course, it is not. You, like he, see clearly that a chicken cant have a baby duck and
may feel that simple observation disproves ToE.

While not blindly accepting anything any "authority" may say is very much to the good, one likewise might not want to blindly assume that the world scientific community is so dimly
aware as to overlook something so obvious as above truism.

Abe:
However it is macro-evolution that has never been demonstrated which is one kind of life evolving into a totally new and different kind of life.

Now see here above A demonstrates that he lacks a grasp of the most fundamental principles of evolution. I am not at all sure you can do any better, but lets try-

Do you know what is wrong with the thing "A" said?

Do you know that sexual recombination is not the basis for "micro' or "macro"?

Back to distrusting authority, that is all very well, admirable, betimes.

To distrust and disbelieve on no basis at all, or on the basis of a complete misunderstanding, though, is not at all admirable.

So do you, or does A for that matter, know why "A" is simply savaging a strawman?

bippy123 wrote:

hughfarey wrote:Thanks for your reply, abelcainsbrother. If I address it in detail, as I have done before, I hope you will see this as taking your objections to evolution seriously and not simply ignoring you. The evidence you claim to have researched, however, all boils down to your entirely faith-based statement that separate species cannot evolve, and have not evolved. Your entire evidence for this is that it has not been observed - and my explanation for that is that there not been sufficient time, since experiments began, to observe it. You have studiously avoided responding to that point.
As I said, that is your only evidence for the denial of evolution. You have mentioned the fossil record, without explaining why it denies evolution, and cladistics, without explaining why it denies evolution, and fruitflies, but only with reference to the fact that they have not been observed becoming different species. You have admitted variation, but draw the line at speciation entirely on faith, rather than scientific, grounds, simply making statements such as, "there are limits that cannot be crossed" which cannot be justified by the evidence. Just because some arbitrarily limit, which you do not satisfactorily define, has not been shown to be crossed, does not mean that it cannot be crossed, merely that you do not find the evidence that it could be, compelling. And that's OK. I have no doubt whatever that clear and distinct speciation will be observed within the next few decades.

Hugh do you seriously believe that the scientific community doesn't have a materialistic bias ??
I really hope you don't cause I can show you a whole pile of Nde researchers that hardly ever see any media fanfare in the popular scientific community while the totally debunked Nde arguments of the so called main stream scientific community gets reported all over the place .

Sorry but that doesn't wash . The scientific community is a lot more dogmatic today then it ever was when I was taking my college biology courses . Hated anatomy mainly because of histology lol

You cannot expect such a statement, supported only by your perception ( of one course?) to be taken seriously.

I never much liked micro either.

In response to what Hugh wrote

""You seem to be using the word 'materialistic' to imply 'atheist' as well, and if so, then I don't think the scientific community has such a bias. It most certainly does have a 'rationality' bias, not necessarily because of any prejudice against the supernatural, but because that's what science is. If a bookseller doesn't sell cheese, it's not necessarily because he doesn't like cheese, but because his field is books. The field of science is reason, the process of inferring information from observation, and relating all such inferences into a coherent unity. It cannot investigate deviations from this pattern, even if it thinks there may be some.""

I'm sorry Hugh this is complete hogwash .
The scientific community is still spreading debunked information such as anoxia , late brain surge etc etc .
All of these studies are given massive press even though they have already been refuted .
An example is the 30 second late brain surge in cardiac arrest rats . The neuroscientist community hailed it as proof that ndes are caused by the brain even though the 3 mi use veridical Nde in the aware study obliterated it a year later . Neuroscientists barely thought twice about it and are still pushing the late brain surge .
They are not doing this only because it pushes hard against their materialistic paradigm but it also pushed against their religion of atheism dogmatic views because then they will be forced to look at the bent if ought seen by a majority of Nde experiencers across the globe that dr Jeff long found in his Nde research .

""I very much doubt that.""
Look above to what I just wrote .
People like Oxford educated professor Patricia church land are held in high regard even though she was thoroughly recited and humiliated in her interview on skeptiko by Alex

Now Hugh just walk into any university campus and find any neuroscience major student and ask them if they ever heard of dr Bruce Greyson or dr pim can lommel
And I'll expect you to get back to me and admit that I'm right .
Ready Hugh ?

I fully expect you won't try it

* ahem* Food pyramid BS...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/3 ... 35554.html

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php ... d-pyramid/

Audie wrote:

bippy wrote:Sorry but that doesn't wash . The scientific community is a lot more dogmatic today then it ever was when I was taking my college biology courses . Hated anatomy mainly because of histology lol

You cannot expect such a statement, supported only by your perception ( of one course?) to be taken seriously.

I never much liked micro either.

Bippy is right, matters are a lot more dogmatic today with Materialism.

Watched some Cities of Gold episodes with my kids some months back, and they do their little education talk at the end. Discussed Darwin, in when doing so said, "some believe that we evolved... blah blah..." It was actually refreshing how this show explained Darwinian Evolution in non-dogmatic terms. And we're talking what 30-40 years later?

Today, rather that being a possibility, it is an open-shut case that all life has a common ancestor which we all share in common and evolved from over Earth's history. Like a Christian Evangelical in the Bible Belt who might say there is no possibility that Scripture is wrong, today many are equally dogmatic in their assertions regarding the theory/ies of evolution.

I stand with with Bippy on that one.

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

bippy wrote:Sorry but that doesn't wash . The scientific community is a lot more dogmatic today then it ever was when I was taking my college biology courses . Hated anatomy mainly because of histology lol

You cannot expect such a statement, supported only by your perception ( of one course?) to be taken seriously.

I never much liked micro either.

Bippy is right.

I stand with with Bippy on that one.

Who'd have thought.

Miracles do happen

My friend recently took me to the la brea tar pits and I just went geek crazy .
I knew all the animals , saber tooth cat , short faced beat , giant sloth besides the Carboniferous period this was my second favorite period . Where else could you find giant carnivorous land birds that could run 50 miles an hour and could crush your spine with one peck from
Their beak .

It was pure geekdom without all the dogmatic materialism/atheism involved and I loved it .

All these things may or may not be true about evolution but what about wolly mammoths?Which are extinct but the elephant sure does look a lot like them. Is the elephant just a mixed breed of some other animal as well? Everything comes from somewhere rather man-made or through "God". Everything has a purpose scientifically speaking or religiously speaking.

bippy123 wrote:The scientific community is still spreading debunked information such as anoxia , late brain surge etc etc . All of these studies are given massive press even though they have already been refuted .An example is the 30 second late brain surge in cardiac arrest rats . The neuroscientist community hailed it as proof that ndes are caused by the brain even though the 3 mi use veridical Nde in the aware study obliterated it a year later . Neuroscientists barely thought twice about it and are still pushing the late brain surge .

Is any of this true? I think "the scientific community" and its intransigence is often unjustly raised as a bogeyman to explain why para-scientific ideas have not gained more credence. In search of some "massive press", I Googled "late brain surge", only to receive the message that my search "did not match any documents." Massive press indeed. Then, tracking down the 'debunked' acceptance of anoxia, I find that it has never been supported as the only cause of NDEs, and that a variety of other causes have also been investigated. And who has investigated them? The very "scientific community" bippy is convinced is so hostile!
They are not doing this only because it pushes hard against their materialistic paradigm but it also pushed against their religion of atheism dogmatic views because then they will be forced to look at the bent if ought seen by a majority of Nde experiencers across the globe that dr Jeff long found in his Nde research.

People like Oxford educated professor Patricia church land are held in high regard even though she was thoroughly recited and humiliated in her interview on skeptiko by Alex.

The interview you cite certainly petered out in a way which appeared to embarrass Patricia Churchland, but it hardly discredited her. For a more complete idea of her views try her interview with Susan Blackmore.

Now Hugh just walk into any university campus and find any neuroscience major student and ask them if they ever heard of dr Bruce Greyson or dr pim can lommel. And I'll expect you to get back to me and admit that I'm right .
Ready Hugh ? I fully expect you won't try it

Sadly, I'm not in a position to "walk into any university campus" just at present, but perhaps your experience of neuroscience courses has been unfortunate. I took a Physiological Psychology course in the UK in the late 1970s, where NDEs were extensively discussed. I don't think "the scientific community" has become more dogmatic at all, although people coming new to some aspects of it, unaware of previous research and presenting what they think are fresh and exciting discoveries, only to be dismissed as out of date, may feel that their ideas haven't received appropriate consideration. Abelcainsbrother and crotchet1949 fall into this category I think. I'm sorry about that; which is why I attempt to rectify the matter on this site.

kurieou wrote:Today, rather that being a possibility, it is an open-shut case that all life has a common ancestor which we all share in common and evolved from over Earth's history. Like a Christian Evangelical in the Bible Belt who might say there is no possibility that Scripture is wrong, today many are equally dogmatic in their assertions regarding the theory/ies of evolution.

This illustrates what I was saying above. The evidence for evolution continues to mount up and becomes more and more compelling. Discussions about "irreducible complexity" and the paucity of transitional fossils were held as these topics emerged, and convincingly settled. Evolutionists have moved on, to new interesting things like epigenetic inheritance; if creationists re-iterate out of date concepts, it is hardly surprising that scientists have better things to do than go back over old ground. New creationist ideas, as they arrive, are given as much consideration as they ever were.

MellyJae61595 wrote:All these things may or may not be true about evolution but what about wolly mammoths?Which are extinct but the elephant sure does look a lot like them. Is the elephant just a mixed breed of some other animal as well? Everything comes from somewhere rather man-made or through "God". Everything has a purpose scientifically speaking or religiously speaking.

What about them? You might look up something about the fossil proboscidians. Four tusk,
long lower jaw with short flat tusks, etc. Mammoth and mastadons. All genrra and species are now extinct, except the African and Indian species.

They are not mixed breed.

Before anyone asks vaguely: "what about such-and-such?" it would be good for them to at least put the question into Google or wikipedia, for some kind of direction in which to direct their inquiry. If they are a little more scientifically trained, they could look up their inquiry on scholar.google and find some scientific papers. MellyJae1595 asks 'what about mammoths', to which the only sensible response is Audie's, 'what about them?" Is the question a general inquiry as to the current scientific thinking about the evolution of elephants, or a hopeful attack on evolution in the off-chance that scientists haven't thought about elephant evolution before, or a hopeful attack on creationism in the hope that creationists won't be able to formulate a sensible reply? Does MellyJae actually want to know anything abut mammoths?

MellyJae61595 wrote:All these things may or may not be true about evolution but what about wolly mammoths?Which are extinct but the elephant sure does look a lot like them. Is the elephant just a mixed breed of some other animal as well? Everything comes from somewhere rather man-made or through "God". Everything has a purpose scientifically speaking or religiously speaking.

Did you know man designed both a fork and spork?
Though I've heard that a spork is a mixed breed of fork and spoon.