Evidence for God from Science

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

jbuza wrote: Well if you are happy leaving it at that than so be it. Gravity tells us something about the physical world does it not? It tells us there is a force that holds things together. You can describe it as gravity if you wish. God claims to be the force whereby things consist. So then is science just chatter about the world around us with no aim at discovering truth? It is not for me.

Glad you discovered that. Science is just about the knowledge period.

I failed to communicate I meant that wasn't enough for me. I disagree science is the collection of knowledge to try and discover the actual truth of things.

bgood wrote: SCIENCE IS A TOOL. Nothing more, no matter what you want it to be.

Right Science is a tool to try and discover the truth. I can see we disagree.

bgood wrote: Then why are there only primitave mammals along with the dinosaurs?
WHY?

Formations that contain dinos are dated to a paticular era and formations that contain horses and camels are dated to another era. Based on assumptions about evolution having actually occoured. Since we know it is so . . . Sorry but your interpretations of bones is trash

bgood wrote:Ergo science is a waste of time to you. My point all along, why bother studying the natural world when you already have all the answers?

Curiosity. My point was science has already taken me to my destination. Truth.

bgood wrote:Are you attempting to falsify your beleifs? I doubt it.

Your point?

bgood wrote:*buzzer* wrong!!! Science is about making sence of observations.

That is also correct. What makes observations sensical in total is the truth

bgood wrote:It's not about being smart, its about the systematic discovery of the universe.

Right and the discovery of the universe. Whcih is simply heaping observations up, must lead you to some conclusions, hopelfully it will lead you to true conclusions

bgood wrote: Science is only a collection of observations and the theories associated with them. There are no agenda's here.

Yes the agends is the discovery of truth. The theories are attempts at denoting truth based on observations.

Jbuza wrote:

sandy_mcd wrote: The segment you refer to above is now the majority.

Oh! The majority believe that now. How could I have been so foolish.

We are referring to the meanings of words, used to communicate ideas. There is no absolute "true" or "false" meaning of a string of characters. You are of course free to attach whatever meaning you wish to a particular grouping of letters. However, if you use non-standard meanings (such as telling a repairman that an appliance is "unplugged" when you mean the plug is connected to a live socket), you make it difficult to communicate. If you accept that the majority of people now use the string of characters "science" to mean one thing, why would you use another meaning? Do you not eschew obfuscation?

sandy_mcd wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

sandy_mcd wrote: The segment you refer to above is now the majority.

Oh! The majority believe that now. How could I have been so foolish.

We are referring to the meanings of words, used to communicate ideas. There is no absolute "true" or "false" meaning of a string of characters. You are of course free to attach whatever meaning you wish to a particular grouping of letters. However, if you use non-standard meanings (such as telling a repairman that an appliance is "unplugged" when you mean the plug is connected to a live socket), you make it difficult to communicate. If you accept that the majority of people now use the string of characters "science" to mean one thing, why would you use another meaning? Do you not eschew obfuscation?

Ahh! I see what you mean now. Disenters should be shot. BEcause the majority has taken science and twisted it into a pitiful reflection of itself I must give it up and call science gobbeltigook.

Why do so many people here want to have such a broad definition of the word "science"? Does the usage here truly reflect the way in which you use it in your everyday lives? When I first started school, among the classes I took were Arithmetic, English, Religion, and Science. What about the you? Are there any people here who went off every morning to the Scientorium, where the classes were Mathematical Science, Language Science, Theological Science, and Natural Science? If so, why is "science" then used by the same people to sometimes mean "natural science"?

Jbuza wrote:Ahh! I see what you mean now. Disenters should be shot. BEcause the majority has taken science and twisted it into a pitiful reflection of itself I must give it up and call science gobbeltigook.

Ahh! I see what you mean now. Thank you very much JB! At first I didn't understand since I was using the commonly accepted meanings of words, but now I realize you are complimenting me on a truly wonderful and enlightening post! And the same to you!

sandy_mcd wrote:

Jbuza wrote:Ahh! I see what you mean now. Disenters should be shot. BEcause the majority has taken science and twisted it into a pitiful reflection of itself I must give it up and call science gobbeltigook.

Ahh! I see what you mean now. Thank you very much JB! At first I didn't understand since I was using the commonly accepted meanings of words, but now I realize you are complimenting me on a truly wonderful and enlightening post! And the same to you!

What is wrong with my definition of science, than great one?

IT is the systematic discovery of truth through the careful application of logic and reason.

One observes the world about them, than through induction proposes a plausible explanation. Than one deduces from that explanation what sort of problems could be, and uses a variety of expermiental methods to determine weather their hypothestical explantion is truth or not.

I think you are being a bit silly, it is not as if I was saying science is learning how to write or reviewing the actions of people in history.

Materialisitic monism does not own science.

Be disengenous if you like, but it isn't productive.

Jbuza wrote: I failed to communicate I meant that wasn't enough for me. I disagree science is the collection of knowledge to try and discover the actual truth of things.

No matter what this truth is right?

Jbuza wrote:

bgood wrote: SCIENCE IS A TOOL. Nothing more, no matter what you want it to be.

Right Science is a tool to try and discover the truth. I can see we disagree.

You want to make sure that science discovers your truth, no?

Otherwise all of a sudden it's not science.

Jbuza wrote:

bgood wrote: Then why are there only primitave mammals along with the dinosaurs?
WHY?

Formations that contain dinos are dated to a paticular era and formations that contain horses and camels are dated to another era. Based on assumptions about evolution having actually occoured. Since we know it is so . . . Sorry but your interpretations of bones is trash

Sorry but you didn't even begin to explain why there are only primative mammals along with dinosaurs. I asked you to explain not attack.
SO PLEASE EXPLAIN.
=)

Jbuza wrote:

bgood wrote:Ergo science is a waste of time to you. My point all along, why bother studying the natural world when you already have all the answers?

Curiosity. My point was science has already taken me to my destination. Truth.

So you beleive that science is no longer needed?

Jbuza wrote:

bgood wrote:Are you attempting to falsify your beleifs? I doubt it.

Your point?

That's the scientific method. Science uses a methodology to sort through our observations, we make hypotheses and then try to disprove them by devising experiments aimed at just this purpose. That's what makes something a science. That's my point.

Jbuza wrote:

bgood wrote:*buzzer* wrong!!! Science is about making sence of observations.

That is also correct. What makes observations sensical in total is the truth.

Sorry truth and making sense of observations does not always equate. Simply because theories can only consist of elements which have been supported by observation.
So simply the truth may be that spirits cause this force we describe as gravity. But the observation is only the actions of the force itself. So we name this force gobletygook(gravity) and describe it as best we can. We cannot ascribe it to spirits simply because the observations do not allow us to within the rigid rules of science.

Jbuza wrote:

bgood wrote:It's not about being smart, its about the systematic discovery of the universe.

Right and the discovery of the universe. Whcih is simply heaping observations up, must lead you to some conclusions, hopelfully it will lead you to true conclusions

Most likely it will lead to more questions, if the history of science is any indication. And along the way many applications, because it is a discovery of the physical universe and how it works.

Jbuza wrote:

bgood wrote: Science is only a collection of observations and the theories associated with them. There are no agenda's here.

Yes the agends is the discovery of truth. The theories are attempts at denoting truth based on observations.

Again what sort of truth's do I discover when I detail an equation of wave motion?

The truth of God's existance or the truth that particles can behave as waves and that we are able to describe them mathematically?

Get real here, science is not the be all, end all of human intelligence and achievement.

Jbuza wrote:

sandy_mcd wrote:

Jbuza wrote:Ahh! I see what you mean now. Disenters should be shot. BEcause the majority has taken science and twisted it into a pitiful reflection of itself I must give it up and call science gobbeltigook.

Ahh! I see what you mean now. Thank you very much JB! At first I didn't understand since I was using the commonly accepted meanings of words, but now I realize you are complimenting me on a truly wonderful and enlightening post! And the same to you!

What is wrong with my definition of science, than great one?

IT is the systematic discovery of truth through the careful application of logic and reason.

So philosophy is now a science?

Jbuza wrote:One observes the world about them, than through induction proposes a plausible explanation. Than one deduces from that explanation what sort of problems could be, and uses a variety of expermiental methods to determine weather their hypothestical explantion is truth or not.

And what experiments are we talking about here? Can you give us an example?

Jbuza wrote:I think you are being a bit silly, it is not as if I was saying science is learning how to write or reviewing the actions of people in history.

Materialisitic monism does not own science.

Be disengenous if you like, but it isn't productive.

All you have done is take a series of observations along with your personal beleifs and gone.

"Hey! This and this means this and that!"
This is fine and dandy, however you used your own logic to reach this conclusion.
What makes your logic so flawless?
What you need to do now, is devise an experiment based on your idea and go perform it. THATS SCIENCE!

Let me repeat it and then we will see how well it does in supporting or debunking your idea. The results of the experiment are outside of our minds and there is no refutation to its results.

Bgood
No matter what this truth is right?

Correct
------------
You want to make sure that science discovers your truth, no?

What do you mean my truth, I don't own truth. There is no such thing as my truth or your truth. There is only truth as truth is.
-----------
Sorry but you didn't even begin to explain why there are only primative mammals along with dinosaurs. I asked you to explain not attack.
SO PLEASE EXPLAIN.

Are you trying to prove a negative again? Also man is not a primitive primate and there is ample evidence to show that he existed with dinos.
------------
So you beleive that science is no longer needed?

Nope, I do not believe that. I did not say there was something wrong with gathering knowledge did I?
------------
That's the scientific method. Science uses a methodology to sort through our observations, we make hypotheses and then try to disprove them by devising experiments aimed at just this purpose. That's what makes something a science. That's my point.

Really why don't you spend your life trying to disprove gravity? At some point one can be reasonably sure that a theory is true.
------------
Sorry truth and making sense of observations is does not always equate. Simply because theories can only consist of elements which have been supported by observation.

That is right some theories are not truth I can name one if you would like.
-------------
Most likely it will lead to more questions, if the history of science is any indication. And along the way many applications, because it is a discovery of the physical universe and how it works.

IT is discovery through a systematic process, it is not limited to the physical universe, it is limited to observations and the process of logic and reason that take one through what is commonly called the scientific process.
------------
Again what sort of truth's do I discover when I detail an equation of wave motion?

That is an observation. You are simply through mathematics trying to observe the motion of a wave. You could perhaps hypothesize that the world is ordered and not random chaos based on your mathematical observation of wave behavior. You could armed with this hypothesis deduce several tests to see if in fact the world is ordered
---------------
The truth of God's existance or the truth that particles can behave as waves and that we are able to describe them mathematically?

Yes it is true we can observe the observations. IF you want to leave the observations in a big heap, and not try to theorize about truth, that is your business
----------------
Get real here, science is not the be all, end all of human intelligence and achievement.

I agree, it is a process to make sense out of our existence. Since often science cannot concretely prove a truth, more is needed. Science can only guide discovery and suggest truths to you. IT us certainly up to you whether to believe them or not.
------------

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: So philosophy is now a science?

Nope. Philosophy doesn't use the same system as science.

Bgood wrote: And what experiments are we talking about here? Can you give us an example?

I am talking about the experimens that one uses to see if their is any evidence hor their hypothetical interpretation. These are usually either quantitative or qualitative. IT is not possible to experiment about the past, because the variables are not known. IT is possible to experiment about morality. One could put a nice porterhouse cooked up right and a beer in a public place and see how many humans would steal it and eat it. One could repeat the experiment in a dog kennel and see how many dogs eat it.

I guess I am not real sure what you are looking fro here.

All you have done is take a series of observations along with your personal beleifs and gone.

"Hey! This and this means this and that!"
This is fine and dandy, however you used your own logic to reach this conclusion.
What makes your logic so flawless?

Really is that what I have done? I guess then I would have formulated a hypothesis.

What you need to do now, is devise an experiment based on your idea and go perform it. THATS SCIENCE!
Let me repeat it and then we will see how well it does in supporting or debunking your idea. The results of the experiment are outside of our minds and there is no refutation to its results.

I agree that is what would need to be done to get it accepted. The process is the same whether I share it with you, or design and observe for my own personal edification. The same process of systematic application of logic and reason is employed.

Jbuza wrote:Are you trying to prove a negative again? Also man is not a primitive primate and there is ample evidence to show that he existed with dinos.

All I can say at this point is...Wow....can you provide some citations to the studies you're referring to that suggest humans and dinos coexisted?

Jbuza wrote:Really why don't you spend your life trying to disprove gravity? At some point one can be reasonably sure that a theory is true.

And that is the exact reason why evolution is firmly established in the natural sciences, despite what those outside the field of biology continue to claim. It is the best explanation we have and it is supported through empirical study time and again. However, I've noticed many people on this site claiming that evolution must be treated as though it were false and must be disproven prior to every study of it...seems like a double standard to me. You can assume a theory to be true if it is supported repeatedly, but only if it doesn't conflict with your personal (untested) beliefs.

Jbuza wrote:I agree, it (science) is a process to make sense out of our existence. Since often science cannot concretely prove a truth, more is needed. Science can only guide discovery and suggest truths to you. IT us certainly up to you whether to believe them or not.

What is your definition of truth...it appears to be dangerously close to the words "personal belief" by the way you describe it. What is your definition of "truth" as it relates to scientific inquiry?

thereal wrote: All I can say at this point is...Wow....can you provide some citations to the studies you're referring to that suggest humans and dinos coexisted?

No. You won't ebelieve the evidences anyway. If you are interested do your own investigation

And that is the exact reason why evolution is firmly established in the natural sciences, despite what those outside the field of biology continue to claim. It is the best explanation we have and it is supported through empirical study time and again. However, I've noticed many people on this site claiming that evolution must be treated as though it were false and must be disproven prior to every study of it...seems like a double standard to me. You can assume a theory to be true if it is supported repeatedly, but only if it doesn't conflict with your personal (untested) beliefs.

All I can say is Wow! Can you please show this evidence that live evolved from common decent back to a very simple lifeforms?

What is your definition of truth...it appears to be dangerously close to the words "personal belief" by the way you describe it. What is your definition of "truth" as it relates to scientific inquiry?

Truth is indepednat of my personal beleifs, and science. Science can anly suggest what the truth might be.

Jbuza wrote:Bgood
No matter what this truth is right?

Correct
------------
You want to make sure that science discovers your truth, no?

What do you mean my truth, I don't own truth. There is no such thing as my truth or your truth. There is only truth as truth is.
-----------
Sorry but you didn't even begin to explain why there are only primative mammals along with dinosaurs. I asked you to explain not attack.
SO PLEASE EXPLAIN.

Are you trying to prove a negative again?

No you are, you say that dinosaurs did not predate mammals without the evidence to support it.

Jbuza wrote:Also man is not a primitive primate and there is ample evidence to show that he existed with dinos.

You are only rationalizing. Shame on you. The question was explain why dinosaurs and mammals don't appear together. What's the mechanism and why?

Jbuza wrote:------------
So you beleive that science is no longer needed?
Nope, I do not believe that. I did not say there was something wrong with gathering knowledge did I?

So science is about gathering knowledge, I am glad you now accept the definition.

Jbuza wrote:------------
That's the scientific method. Science uses a methodology to sort through our observations, we make hypotheses and then try to disprove them by devising experiments aimed at just this purpose. That's what makes something a science. That's my point.
Really why don't you spend your life trying to disprove gravity?

Because I already explained to you gravity is only the word used to describe the phenomenon. The theory is in the description of this phenomenon. And we do spend our time disproving it. Any experiment we perform regarding gravity can disprove the accepted theory if the results come out a certain way. For instance measuring the Speed of a satellite one can see if the measurements agree with the predicted motion of the satellite due to the force of goblytygook(gravity).

Jbuza wrote:At some point one can be reasonably sure that a theory is true.
------------
Sorry truth and making sense of observations is does not always equate. Simply because theories can only consist of elements which have been supported by observation.
That is right some theories are not truth I can name one if you would like.

And what empirical evidence do you reach this conclusion with? This is what I meant by your truth. You want science to reach the same conclusions you have reached in your musings in your bedroom.

Jbuza wrote:-------------
Most likely it will lead to more questions, if the history of science is any indication. And along the way many applications, because it is a discovery of the physical universe and how it works.
IT is discovery through a systematic process, it is not limited to the physical universe, it is limited to observations and the process of logic and reason that take one through what is commonly called the scientific process.

So experimentation is not a main part of science?

Jbuza wrote:------------
Again what sort of truth's do I discover when I detail an equation of wave motion?
That is an observation. You are simply through mathematics trying to observe the motion of a wave. You could perhaps hypothesize that the world is ordered and not random chaos based on your mathematical observation of wave behavior. You could armed with this hypothesis deduce several tests to see if in fact the world is ordered

To see if the world is ordered? Don't you think this is a broad idea. It would take many independent studies to support this. That would make this a scientific theory. We can then say, well the random motion of molecules doesn't seem to be ordered? Does this mean the theory is wrong? Or is there a hidden order?

Jbuza wrote:---------------
The truth of God's existance or the truth that particles can behave as waves and that we are able to describe them mathematically?

Yes it is true we can observe the observations. IF you want to leave the observations in a big heap, and not try to theorize about truth, that is your business

Again how much can one say about the properties of waves beyond what is observable? Give me an example.

Jbuza wrote:----------------
Get real here, science is not the be all, end all of human intelligence and achievement.

I agree, it is a process to make sense out of our existence. Since often science cannot concretely prove a truth, more is needed. Science can only guide discovery and suggest truths to you. IT us certainly up to you whether to believe them or not.
------------

So what is your point then?

Just say you don't agree, don't try to change the definition of science.

Jbuza wrote:

thereal wrote: All I can say at this point is...Wow....can you provide some citations to the studies you're referring to that suggest humans and dinos coexisted?

No. You won't ebelieve the evidences anyway. If you are interested do your own investigation

Hmm the only proof you have is some questionable fossil remains described on some questionable websites? Why don't you stand behind them? Why are you so certain we won't beleive? Tell me why are the fossils apparently segregated?
WHY?

Jbuza wrote:

And that is the exact reason why evolution is firmly established in the natural sciences, despite what those outside the field of biology continue to claim. It is the best explanation we have and it is supported through empirical study time and again. However, I've noticed many people on this site claiming that evolution must be treated as though it were false and must be disproven prior to every study of it...seems like a double standard to me. You can assume a theory to be true if it is supported repeatedly, but only if it doesn't conflict with your personal (untested) beliefs.

All I can say is Wow! Can you please show this evidence that live evolved from common decent back to a very simple lifeforms?

Here.
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultran ... iosis.html
Eukaryotic life is thought to have been formed by endosymbiosis.
The various organelles are beleived to have once been independant life forms.

How do we know?

Both mitochondria and chloroplasts can arise only from preexisting mitochondria and chloroplasts. They cannot be formed in a cell that lacks them because nuclear genes encode only some of the proteins of which they are made.
Both mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own genome and it resembles that of prokaryotes not that of the nuclear genome.
Both genomes consist of a single circular molecule of DNA.
There are no histones associated with the DNA.
Both mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own protein-synthesizing machinery, and it more closely resembles that of prokaryotes than that found in the cytoplasm of eukaryotes.
The first amino acid of their transcripts is always fMet as it is in bacteria (not methionine [Met] that is the first amino acid in eukaryotic proteins).
A number of antibiotics (e.g., streptomycin) that act by blocking protein synthesis in bacteria also block protein synthesis within mitochondria and chloroplasts. They do not interfere with protein synthesis in the cytoplasm of the eukaryotes.
Conversely, inhibitors (e.g., diphtheria toxin) of protein synthesis by eukaryotic ribosomes do not — sensibly enough — have any effect on bacterial protein synthesis nor on protein synthesis within mitochondria and chloroplasts.
The antibiotic rifampicin, which inhibits the RNA polymerase of bacteria, also inhibits the RNA polymerase within mitochondria. It has no such effect on the RNA polymerase within the eukaryotic nucleus.

Read the full entry and see what you make of it.

Jbuza wrote:

What is your definition of truth...it appears to be dangerously close to the words "personal belief" by the way you describe it. What is your definition of "truth" as it relates to scientific inquiry?

Truth is indepednat of my personal beleifs, and science. Science can anly suggest what the truth might be.

Yes but there is also truth in the observations. In otherwords the observations have been made and repeated and therefore represent an objective truth.

For instance trees require sunlight to grow.

Jbuza wrote:No. You won't ebelieve the evidences anyway. If you are interested do your own investigation

I have done the research, that's why I need you to provide evidence for what you're claiming. It's not in any of the scientific journals I've searched. I definitely be willing to address credible evidence supporting your claim, provided it's not from someone's mere speculation on a website.

Jbuza wrote:All I can say is Wow! Can you please show this evidence that live evolved from common decent back to a very simple lifeforms?

Freeman, S. and J.C. Herron. 2001. Evolutionary Analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.

That should get you started for sources to find exactly what you're looking for, but I doubt you'll read it anyway because it's a science book, not a religious book on science. It discusses case examples of evolution studies and the intrinsic patterns and processes observed. If you're serious about learning about evolution as opposed to simply finding a way to refute it without having a firm grasp of the subject you're refuting, I'd recommend this or any introductory evolution text.

Jbuza wrote:Truth is indepednat of my personal beleifs, and science. Science can anly suggest what the truth might be.

So back to my actual question...what is truth? You've given me characteristics of what you think truth is, but that's like telling me a dog pants in hot weather when I ask you what a dog is.