Evidence for God from Science

cslewislover wrote: It's amazing how you pick and choose what you want to talk about, taking things out of context.

Hardly. We were talking about one thing, but you started talking about something else. I was sticking to the topic of our discussion. If you find that objectionable, well, that's just strange .

cslewislover wrote:You certainly can't accuse of Christians of doing that, since you yourself do it.

Of course I can. Hypocrisy doesn't change the facts.

cslewislover wrote:There's no point in debating with you since you are not being sincere in trying to understand the points being made.

I've tried my hardest. Let us recap:

Me: Because we have a well-evidenced theory for how DNA molecules formed without an overarching intelligence
You: If this were true, then there wouldn't be so many people with doubts about it.
Me: [M]ost people don't have doubts about it, and the scientific community overwhelmingly supports it.
You: I meant educated people that really look into have doubts. It's popular because it's all there is, and it doesn't appear to be taught in a critical way in schools. If it's all a person's ever taught, and in a way that is uncritical, that's all people are going to think.
Me: I could just as easily say the same thing about Creationism.
You: Now I know you're not thinking about this, since creationism isn't taught in schools (except some private ones).
Me: I was talking about your "I meant educated people that really look into have doubts" comment, since that was what we were originally talking about.

As far as I can tell, your point is that a) people don't question what they're taught (specifically, the atheistic origin of life), and b) those people who DO question it doubt it. My counterpoint is that this is nothing more than opinion: I could say the exact same thing about Creationism for all the good it would do. Indeed, the very nature of peer review ensures that people don't just 'accept what they're taught': it is mercilessly scrutinised, all layers of waffle and pretence removed, leaving the truth for all to see. If the theories of abiogenesis and common descent were as shaky as you make out, they wouldn't have the nigh-on unanimous support of the scientific community.

But again, this is all just unsubstantiated opinion, no better than rumour. Is there anything in particular you can mention that would make an educated person doubt either the theory of abiogenesis or the theory of common descent?

DD_8630 wrote:You misunderstand. While the scientific consensus does indeed hold the most probable theory, this doesn't bely the fact that some theories have failed falsification tests. There are numerous experiments whose outcomes blow Classical Mechanics out of the water (subatomic spin, anyone?). While we can never prove a theory, the very definition of a 'falsifiable theory' ensures that we could, potentially, disprove it

No… You misunderstand… Are you saying that ID can't be falsifiable? ID is actually quite open to falsification.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... esign.html

But let's turn that around, how do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced life? Can evolution be falsifiable also? If a scientist performed that same test using gradual evolutionary standards perhaps it would be even harder to falsify since natural selection requires a much longer time or a greater population base of parts to produce complex organisms. Perhaps it never could, scientists don't really know.

DD_8630 wrote:Perhaps, but that doesn't answer my question. You said: "It is currently illegal to view any other theory accept naturalism based on chance...". Neither the First Amendment to the United State's Constitution ("Separation of Church and State"), nor Edwards v. Aguillard, nor Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, nor any other court ruling that I am aware of, have anything to do with one's viewing of "naturalism based on chance".

Perhaps??? Cut the bull… It does answer your question…. You know very well that it is illegal to teach Intelligent Design in “any” public U.S. classroom. There is ONLY one view taught in schools today.. Anything else is considered a religious viewpoint.. A breach between the separation of church and state.

DD_8630 wrote:More importantly, Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ensures your freedom of thought. You can hold whatever beliefs you want. Indeed, even Jesus noted the futility of any attempt to control another person's thoughts (Matthew 11:16-17).

You are confused.. This has absolutely nothing to do with teaching Intelligent Design in schools… This article is for Human Rights, not the separation of church and state that has already been established by law.

DD_8630 wrote:I never said it doesn't matter. I said that we don't expect it to occur within 150 years.

That is simply not true… You clearly stated they have nothing to do with your beliefs. It doesn't matter if it were 150 years or 2 million years… Now you are saying it does matter and even quote a time frame.

DD_8630 wrote:I call it a fact because the evidence is sufficiently convincing. I say it takes thousands of years because that is what the evidence shows. You're letting your presumptions get in the way.

You can't call it a fact… You already stated that Darwinian evolution can't reveal new body designs, speciation or the appearance of a new biological phyla. You have to accept it on faith..

DD_8630 wrote:Have a closer look at that website. They "provide increased access to data and information on the [USA]'s biological resources." There is no mention of 'biological information' in the sense that you were using the phrase.

Have a closer look at that website… The website clearly states that it is “Your Home for Biological Information on the Web.”

DD_8630 wrote:Again, take a closer look. The 'biological information' is nothing more than a codon sequence, and the cell's expression thereof.

You take a closer look… Biological information is a term used by MANY scientists.. The term can convey various biological structures.

DD_8630 wrote:1) An isolated strain of E. coli evolved the ability to ingest and metabolise the citrus in its environment. Its kin in other, identical environments did no such thing. E. coli didn't evolve into anything: it simply evolved a new ability.[

No one here denies that organisms can adapt to its environment. Just the outrageous claim that it can evolve into something else…

DD_8630 wrote:2) I said that the evolution of a new phylum takes a long time to occur. Phyla are groups like chrodates, molluscs, etc. The E. coli strain has not evolved nearly enough to have its own phylum.

And your point is??

DD_8630 wrote:Because while Darwin's initial ideas are indeed the roots of modern evolutionary theory, the fact remains that the theory we have today is much, much better than anything Darwin could have imagined. He had no idea about cellular anatomy, DNA, ERVs, etc.

You may as well say that Harry Potter is an example of Victorian literature, simply because modern literature has its roots in the latter.

What??? Earlier you stated there is no such thing as Dawinism, any more than there is Einsteinism, Newtonism, Aristotleism, etc... Now you are saying it's the roots of modern evolutionary theory. Go figure...

Gman wrote:No… You misunderstand… Are you saying that ID can't be falsifiable?

No . You said they (classical mechanics and spontaneous generation) weren't refuted, and I was explaining to you that, in fact, they were.

Gman wrote: But let's turn that around, how do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced life?

I think you're mixing your words. Natural selection is the phenomenon whereby organisms whose inheritable mutations better suit them to their environment than their kin have a greater chance of procreation, and thus have a greater chance of seeding the next generation with their better-suited progeny. In other words, nature selects some organisms over others. This has nothing to do with the origin of life, since it clearly requires life to already exist for it to occur.

The theory by which we explain the origin of life is called abiogenesis, and it is falsifiable.

Gman wrote:Can evolution be falsifiable also?

If by that you mean the theory of common descent, then yes: any number of potential experiments or discoveries could overturn it.

Gman wrote:

DD_8630 wrote:Perhaps, but that doesn't answer my question. You said: "It is currently illegal to view any other theory accept naturalism based on chance...". Neither the First Amendment to the United State's Constitution ("Separation of Church and State"), nor Edwards v. Aguillard, nor Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, nor any other court ruling that I am aware of, have anything to do with one's viewing of "naturalism based on chance".

Perhaps??? Cut the bull… It does answer your question…. You know very well that it is illegal to teach Intelligent Design in “any” public U.S. classroom. There is ONLY one view taught in schools today.. Anything else is considered a religious viewpoint.. A breach between the separation of church and state.

I think we are, again, misunderstanding each other. You said "It is currently illegal to view any other theory accept naturalism based on chance...". By that I thought you meant it is illegal to view any other explanation as true; this would be a gross infringement on your most fundamental Freedom of Thought.

However, I think that you instead meant "It is illegal to teach any form of Creationism in the science classroom in any public school in the USA". This would make more sense: several court rulings have established that Creationism is inextricably linked to religion, and as such it would be unconstitutional to teach in public schools (it would, in effect, be the government promoting one particular religion). However, this only applies to public science classrooms. Other classrooms (RE, for example) could quite easily teach it, as can parents or other non-government employees.

Oh, and when I say, "Perhaps, ...", that's just my way of saying "What you just said may or may not be true, but that's a topic for another time". I use it when I don't want to comment just yet.

Gman wrote:

DD_8630 wrote:More importantly, Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ensures your freedom of thought. You can hold whatever beliefs you want. Indeed, even Jesus noted the futility of any attempt to control another person's thoughts (Matthew 11:16-17).

You are confused.. This has absolutely nothing to do with teaching Intelligent Design in schools…

Correct. As I explained above, I think this was just a misunderstanding on my part.

Gman wrote:

DD_8630 wrote:I never said it doesn't matter. I said that we don't expect it to occur within 150 years.

That is simply not true… You clearly stated they have nothing to do with your beliefs. It doesn't matter if it were 150 years or 2 million years… Now you are saying it does matter and even quote a time frame.

DD_8630 wrote:I call it a fact because the evidence is sufficiently convincing. I say it takes thousands of years because that is what the evidence shows. You're letting your presumptions get in the way.

You can't call it a fact… You already stated that Darwinian evolution can't reveal new body designs, speciation or the appearance of a new biological phyla. You have to accept it on faith..

Guh.

1) You asked me to "show us where your science has recently revealed new body designs, speciation or the appearance of a new biological phyla of animals". I pointed out that no one has seen the evolution of new body designs or phyla over the past 150 years, nor do we expect them to: it takes many thousands of years.

2) You then concluded that my beliefs must therefore be based on faith alone. This is demonstrably preposterous: I, nor anyone else, claims that the evolution of new phyla can occur over 150 years. Instead, we claim that it takes many thousands of years. Why ask for something if no one claims to have it? It has nothing to do with my beliefs, since I do not believe that new phyla have evolved (or even can evolve) over 150 years.

3) After I pointed out that speciation is a well documented phenomenon, you then asked for an instance of new phyla evolving. I repeated myself, pointing out that no one has seen this, nor do we expect anyone to: it takes many thousands of years, and we have only been looking for 150.

Everything thereafter is, I think, a misunderstanding on your part: you claimed that I said it didn't matter, when in fact I said nothing of the sort. You said I was defending the evolution of new phyla, which, while true, has nothing to do with what we're talking about. You claimed that "adding thousands of years" is an ad hoc adjustment, when in fact it is not.

What's amusing is the latest exchange:

Me: I never said it doesn't matter. I said that we don't expect it to occur within 150 years.
You: That is simply not true… You clearly stated they have nothing to do with your beliefs. It doesn't matter if it were 150 years or 2 million years… Now you are saying it does matter and even quote a time frame.

Neither I nor anyone else claims that the evolution of new phyla can occur over 150 years. Such a claim has nothing to do with my beliefs since I do not believe it. What I do believe, however, is that just evolution can occur over many thousands of years: that does have something to do with my beliefs.

When I said "I never said it doesn't matter", I meant just that: I never stated "It doesn't matter". I was pointing out that you were putting words in my mouth, since I said nothing about whether it 'matters' or not (I'm not even sure what that means).

I hope that clears things up.

Gman wrote:

DD_8630 wrote:Have a closer look at that website. They "provide increased access to data and information on the [USA]'s biological resources." There is no mention of 'biological information' in the sense that you were using the phrase.

Have a closer look at that website… The website clearly states that it is “Your Home for Biological Information on the Web.”

Correct. And as I said, they are not using the phrase 'biological information' in the same way as you. To them, 'biological information' is simply information pertaining to biology (textbooks, etc).

You, however, stated: "It seems that the evidence has revealed the subtraction of information but no "new" information given."

This is something else altogether, and does not exist within biology.

Gman wrote:

DD_8630 wrote:1) An isolated strain of E. coli evolved the ability to ingest and metabolise the citrus in its environment. Its kin in other, identical environments did no such thing. E. coli didn't evolve into anything: it simply evolved a new ability.

No one here denies that organisms can adapt to its environment. Just the outrageous claim that it can evolve into something else…

Indeed. Fortunately, no one claims that either. The descendants of E. coli will always be E. coli. The descendants of fruit flies will always be fruit flies. The descendants of the original mammalian species will always be mammals. The descendants of the original vertebrates will always be vertebrates.

What does happen, however, if that the single population of mammals splits into two distinct species: both are mammals, but they can no long interbreed. The E. coli in the experiment are all descended from a single E. coli bacterium: the population was bred, then split into several isolated environments. One of these strains evolved the ability to ingest and metabolise citrus.

The point of this experiment was to show that complex and specified traits can indeed evolve, much to the chagrin of ID proponents.

Gman wrote:

DD_8630 wrote:2) I said that the evolution of a new phylum takes a long time to occur. Phyla are groups like chrodates, molluscs, etc. The E. coli strain has not evolved nearly enough to have its own phylum.

And your point is??

You are asking for new phyla. I am pointing out, yet again, that this is an absurd request: it takes many thousands of years, and we have only been looking for 150.

Gman wrote:

DD_8630 wrote:Because while Darwin's initial ideas are indeed the roots of modern evolutionary theory, the fact remains that the theory we have today is much, much better than anything Darwin could have imagined. He had no idea about cellular anatomy, DNA, ERVs, etc.

You may as well say that Harry Potter is an example of Victorian literature, simply because modern literature has its roots in the latter.

What??? Earlier you stated there is no such thing as Dawinism, any more than there is Einsteinism, Newtonism, Aristotleism, etc... Now you are saying it's the roots of modern evolutionary theory. Go figure...

No. Notice that, in my previous post, I never once mentioned 'Darwinism'. I mentioned Darwin's initial ideas, but not 'Darwinism'.

DD_8630 wrote:Is there anything in particular you can mention that would make an educated person doubt either the theory of abiogenesis or the theory of common descent?

Well to qualify for the "educated" part, I graduated from Stevens Institute of Technology with a B.E. in computer engineering and I currently work as a programmer making drivers for wildly expensive scientific cameras.

Anyway, about a year ago, I strongly believed in evolution due to strong scientific evidence and my education, and that creation was merely a story told in the begin of the Bible. Back then I was a church-going Catholic for the greater part of my 30 years. But about a year ago, I started truly learning the Bible and about Jesus. And strangely enough, I began to have strong doubts about the validity of natural evolution. A literal interpretation of the Genesis story began to make more sense to me. What I'm getting at here is that when you truly understand who Jesus is and the stories of the Bible, it seriously makes perfect sense that there had to have been a designer for our world. While I remain open minded to many ideas to the origins of life, I have basically thrown nature-only evolution out the window.

So there's your answer. A true understanding of Jesus made me doubt evolution.

DD_8630 wrote:Is there anything in particular you can mention that would make an educated person doubt either the theory of abiogenesis or the theory of common descent?

It seems you are quite misguided if you believe life's origins are neatly worked out. Paul Davies wrote in his book The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life:

When I set out to write this book, I was convinced that science was close to wrapping up the mystery of life's origins… Having spent a year or two researching the field, I am now of the opinion that there remains a huge gulf in our understanding… This gulf in understanding is not merely ignorance about certain technical details, it is a major conceptual lacuna.

There are many problems with a chemical origins of life scenario.

Regarding the theory of common descent, show me agreed mechanism/s amongst scientists for macroevolution and you will have something. Without a mechanism, there is really nothing to believe in except a nice sounding story to support your worldview. Much like how you probably think Genesis is a nice sounding story for many Christians, Jews, and Muslims.

I think Gould and Eldredge unwittingly put a spanner in the works for 'common descent' in their paper where they propose 'punctuated equilibrium' (PDF 6.2 MB). There are gaps in the fossil record. In fact what we see is more like a lawn than a tree. We have many species coming into and going out of existence throughout Earth's history. Many do not appear to have evolved gradually at all. If this is the case, then where does that leave common descent? Untraceable, unprovable and simply a nice sounding story for those who persist in disbelieving that a being such as God really did create life (or those who have yielded to the dominating philosophies in our age).

DD_8630 wrote:No . You said they (classical mechanics and spontaneous generation) weren't refuted, and I was explaining to you that, in fact, they were.

I NEVER said classical mechanics and spontaneous generation has been refuted… Naturalism has been refuted… By you!

DD_8630 wrote:I think you're mixing your words. Natural selection is the phenomenon whereby organisms whose inheritable mutations better suit them to their environment than their kin have a greater chance of procreation, and thus have a greater chance of seeding the next generation with their better-suited progeny. In other words, nature selects some organisms over others. This has nothing to do with the origin of life, since it clearly requires life to already exist for it to occur.

The theory by which we explain the origin of life is called abiogenesis, and it is falsifiable.

We haven't even addressed abiogenesis. Why are you bringing this up now?? That is even more of a nightmare for natural selection to work. What exactly is it going to select to get started?

DD_8630 wrote:If by that you mean the theory of common descent, then yes: any number of potential experiments or discoveries could overturn it.

That is not what you said earlier. You said it would take years for the process to occur..

DD_8630 wrote:I think we are, again, misunderstanding each other. You said "It is currently illegal to view any other theory accept naturalism based on chance...". By that I thought you meant it is illegal to view any other explanation as true; this would be a gross infringement on your most fundamental Freedom of Thought.

However, I think that you instead meant "It is illegal to teach any form of Creationism in the science classroom in any public school in the USA". This would make more sense: several court rulings have established that Creationism is inextricably linked to religion, and as such it would be unconstitutional to teach in public schools (it would, in effect, be the government promoting one particular religion). However, this only applies to public science classrooms. Other classrooms (RE, for example) could quite easily teach it, as can parents or other non-government employees.

Oh, and when I say, "Perhaps, ...", that's just my way of saying "What you just said may or may not be true, but that's a topic for another time". I use it when I don't want to comment just yet.

I don't know.. I don't buy it… I think you knew very well what I was talking about. Now you are admitting I was right… After all that?

DD_8630 wrote:Correct. As I explained above, I think this was just a misunderstanding on my part.

Right... I thought you said that I misunderstood...

DD_8630 wrote:1) You asked me to "show us where your science has recently revealed new body designs, speciation or the appearance of a new biological phyla of animals". I pointed out that no one has seen the evolution of new body designs or phyla over the past 150 years, nor do we expect them to: it takes many thousands of years.

2) You then concluded that my beliefs must therefore be based on faith alone. This is demonstrably preposterous: I, nor anyone else, claims that the evolution of new phyla can occur over 150 years. Instead, we claim that it takes many thousands of years. Why ask for something if no one claims to have it? It has nothing to do with my beliefs, since I do not believe that new phyla have evolved (or even can evolve) over 150 years.

3) After I pointed out that speciation is a well documented phenomenon, you then asked for an instance of new phyla evolving. I repeated myself, pointing out that no one has seen this, nor do we expect anyone to: it takes many thousands of years, and we have only been looking for 150.

Everything thereafter is, I think, a misunderstanding on your part: you claimed that I said it didn't matter, when in fact I said nothing of the sort. You said I was defending the evolution of new phyla, which, while true, has nothing to do with what we're talking about. You claimed that "adding thousands of years" is an ad hoc adjustment, when in fact it is not.

What's amusing is the latest exchange:

Me: I never said it doesn't matter. I said that we don't expect it to occur within 150 years.
You: That is simply not true… You clearly stated they have nothing to do with your beliefs. It doesn't matter if it were 150 years or 2 million years… Now you are saying it does matter and even quote a time frame.

Neither I nor anyone else claims that the evolution of new phyla can occur over 150 years. Such a claim has nothing to do with my beliefs since I do not believe it. What I do believe, however, is that just evolution can occur over many thousands of years: that does have something to do with my beliefs.

When I said "I never said it doesn't matter", I meant just that: I never stated "It doesn't matter". I was pointing out that you were putting words in my mouth, since I said nothing about whether it 'matters' or not (I'm not even sure what that means).

I hope that clears things up.

No it does NOT… The fact is you CANNOT produce life nor reproduce the evolution of new phyla in a lab… That is the TRUTH. So what do you do? Well you say it takes thousands of years.. To what I say BULL…. This is not testable evidence for Darwin's theory..

DD_8630 wrote:Correct. And as I said, they are not using the phrase 'biological information' in the same way as you. To them, 'biological information' is simply information pertaining to biology (textbooks, etc).

You, however, stated: "It seems that the evidence has revealed the subtraction of information but no "new" information given."

This is something else altogether, and does not exist within biology.

Information doesn't exist in your biology? Ok, then you have no information… Thanks again for the confirmation.

DD_8630 wrote:Indeed. Fortunately, no one claims that either.

No one claims that microevolution exists? You will have to battle your other Darwinist friends over this one…

DD_8630 wrote:The descendants of E. coli will always be E. coli. The descendants of fruit flies will always be fruit flies. The descendants of the original mammalian species will always be mammals. The descendants of the original vertebrates will always be vertebrates.

What does happen, however, if that the single population of mammals splits into two distinct species: both are mammals, but they can no long interbreed. The E. coli in the experiment are all descended from a single E. coli bacterium: the population was bred, then split into several isolated environments. One of these strains evolved the ability to ingest and metabolise citrus.

The point of this experiment was to show that complex and specified traits can indeed evolve, much to the chagrin of ID proponents.

So this is the earth shattering evidence? In E.coli? Who knows, what if this is the activation of a latent function in the E. coli itself?

DD_8630 wrote:You are asking for new phyla. I am pointing out, yet again, that this is an absurd request: it takes many thousands of years, and we have only been looking for 150.

150 years and you still can't make it happen huh? Maybe because you have the wrong presupposition.

DD_8630 wrote:No. Notice that, in my previous post, I never once mentioned 'Darwinism'. I mentioned Darwin's initial ideas, but not 'Darwinism'.

Wrong.. Now you are just shifting your words.. Everyone knows what Darwinism is… Even Stanford University…

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/darwinism/

Gman wrote:

DD_8630 wrote:No . You said they (classical mechanics and spontaneous generation) weren't refuted, and I was explaining to you that, in fact, they were.

I NEVER said classical mechanics and spontaneous generation has been refuted… Naturalism has been refuted… By you!

I've refuted Naturalism? Where?

Gman wrote:

DD_8630 wrote:I think you're mixing your words. Natural selection is the phenomenon whereby organisms whose inheritable mutations better suit them to their environment than their kin have a greater chance of procreation, and thus have a greater chance of seeding the next generation with their better-suited progeny. In other words, nature selects some organisms over others. This has nothing to do with the origin of life, since it clearly requires life to already exist for it to occur.

The theory by which we explain the origin of life is called abiogenesis, and it is falsifiable.

We haven't even addressed abiogenesis. Why are you bringing this up now??

Because you did. You asked, "how do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced life?" (emphasis mine). "Produced life" is abiogenesis, and has nothing to do with natural selection.

Gman wrote:That is even more of a nightmare for natural selection to work. What exactly is it going to select to get started?

That's where the theory of abiogenesis comes in. Simple self-replicating molecules in rudimentary phospholipid membranes. This video is a brilliant summary of abiogenesis.

Gman wrote:

DD_8630 wrote:If by that you mean the theory of common descent, then yes: any number of potential experiments or discoveries could overturn it.

That is not what you said earlier. You said it would take years for the process to occur..

Once again, you're generalising what I actually said. I said that the evolution of new phyla takes many thousands of years. That's it. No more, no less. The evolution of new species has been observed many times over: it does not take nearly as long as the evolution of new phyla, so it is no surprise that we have seen it.

And the fact remains that the theory of common descent is falsifiable. The discovery of fossil bunnies in the Pre-Cambrian, for instance, would deal a heavy blow to it.

Gman wrote:

DD_8630 wrote:I think we are, again, misunderstanding each other. You said "It is currently illegal to view any other theory accept naturalism based on chance...". By that I thought you meant it is illegal to view any other explanation as true; this would be a gross infringement on your most fundamental Freedom of Thought.

However, I think that you instead meant "It is illegal to teach any form of Creationism in the science classroom in any public school in the USA". This would make more sense: several court rulings have established that Creationism is inextricably linked to religion, and as such it would be unconstitutional to teach in public schools (it would, in effect, be the government promoting one particular religion). However, this only applies to public science classrooms. Other classrooms (RE, for example) could quite easily teach it, as can parents or other non-government employees.

Oh, and when I say, "Perhaps, ...", that's just my way of saying "What you just said may or may not be true, but that's a topic for another time". I use it when I don't want to comment just yet.

I don't know.. I don't buy it… I think you knew very well what I was talking about. Now you are admitting I was right… After all that?

You thought wrong. What I thought you were talking about appears to be wrong: when you said "It is currently illegal to view any other theory accept naturalism based on chance..." if appears you in fact meant "It is illegal to teach any form of Creationism in the science classroom in any public school in the USA". The latter claim I agree with: it is indeed illegal to teach Creationism as science in public classrooms.

Gman wrote:

DD_8630 wrote:Correct. As I explained above, I think this was just a misunderstanding on my part.

Right... I thought you said that I misunderstood...

You do, occasionally. But I am just as human as you.

Gman wrote: No it does NOT… The fact is you CANNOT produce life nor reproduce the evolution of new phyla in a lab… That is the TRUTH.

Correct. But neither I nor any scientist on Earth claims to be able to do so. The theories which you so vhemently oppose are quite explicit in their time dependancy: it took 4.5 billion years to get the biodiversity we have today, and you're demanding we replicate that in a lab?

Gman wrote:Information doesn't exist in your biology? Ok, then you have no information… Thanks again for the confirmation.

Insofar as your little semantic wordplay is concerned, sure.

Gman wrote:

DD_8630 wrote:Indeed. Fortunately, no one claims that either.

No one claims that microevolution exists?

No: no one claims "that [E.coli] can evolve into something else…".

DD_8630 wrote:The descendants of E. coli will always be E. coli. The descendants of fruit flies will always be fruit flies. The descendants of the original mammalian species will always be mammals. The descendants of the original vertebrates will always be vertebrates.

What does happen, however, if that the single population of mammals splits into two distinct species: both are mammals, but they can no long interbreed. The E. coli in the experiment are all descended from a single E. coli bacterium: the population was bred, then split into several isolated environments. One of these strains evolved the ability to ingest and metabolise citrus.

The point of this experiment was to show that complex and specified traits can indeed evolve, much to the chagrin of ID proponents.

So this is the earth shattering evidence? In E.coli? Who knows, what if this is the activation of a latent function in the E. coli itself?[/quote]
They addressed that and other concerns. Read the paper yourself.

Gman wrote:

DD_8630 wrote:You are asking for new phyla. I am pointing out, yet again, that this is an absurd request: it takes many thousands of years, and we have only been looking for 150.

150 years and you still can't make it happen huh? Maybe because you have the wrong presupposition.

Or because we never once claimed we could do it in a paltry 150 years. You're attacking strawmen, Gman.

Kurieuo wrote: Regarding the theory of common descent, show me agreed mechanism/s amongst scientists for macroevolution and you will have something.

Reproduction with variation in environmental niches leads to evolution by natural selection. Split a population into two, and such reproductive variation in one half cannot spread to the other: the groups are genetically isolated. These novel variations accumulate over time, causing the two groups to become more and more genetically diverse. Eventually, they're so different that their gametes no long recognise one another: they cannot interbreed. Once this has occurred, the initial species is said to have speciated into two species.

That is the basic mechanism behind speciation. It is how the descendants of an initial population can, over billions of years, evolve into an extraordinarily diverse ecosystem.

Kurieuo wrote: I think Gould and Eldredge unwittingly put a spanner in the works for 'common descent' in their paper where they propose 'punctuated equilibrium' (PDF 6.2 MB).

Puncuated equilibrium is hardly a problem for evolutionary theory: it simply posits that, instead of species evolving at a roughly constant rate, they evolve in fits and starts. They evolve to fit their ecological niche, and then cease to evolve much thereafter: since their as good as they can get, any mutation is going to be deleterious. However, if their ecology shifts, these detrimental variations suddenly become useful: the species evolves much faster as each successive generation is more suited to the new environment than the last.

Punctuated equilibrium is a refinement of the 'constant evolution' model.

Kurieuo wrote:There are gaps in the fossil record.

Well of course there are. What, you expect every single organism to leave behind a perfect fossil?

harth1026 wrote:

DD_8630 wrote:Is there anything in particular you can mention that would make an educated person doubt either the theory of abiogenesis or the theory of common descent?

Well to qualify for the "educated" part, I graduated from Stevens Institute of Technology with a B.E. in computer engineering and I currently work as a programmer making drivers for wildly expensive scientific cameras.

Anyway, about a year ago, I strongly believed in evolution due to strong scientific evidence and my education, and that creation was merely a story told in the begin of the Bible. Back then I was a church-going Catholic for the greater part of my 30 years. But about a year ago, I started truly learning the Bible and about Jesus. And strangely enough, I began to have strong doubts about the validity of natural evolution. A literal interpretation of the Genesis story began to make more sense to me. What I'm getting at here is that when you truly understand who Jesus is and the stories of the Bible, it seriously makes perfect sense that there had to have been a designer for our world. While I remain open minded to many ideas to the origins of life, I have basically thrown nature-only evolution out the window.

So there's your answer. A true understanding of Jesus made me doubt evolution.

Yes, but why? What is it about a "true understanding of Jesus" that made you doubt evolution? Why didn't it make you doubt, say, Kirchhoff's circuit laws?

DD_8630 wrote:Yes, but why? What is it about a "true understanding of Jesus" that made you doubt evolution? Why didn't it make you doubt, say, Kirchhoff's circuit laws?

Well, when you do understand who Jesus is and why he was sent to our world, you would also understand the need for our world to have a designer. This world is a test to see if we would turn to God or if we would turn away from him. If you were to test the sense of smell of mice, would you not carefully design a maze with food in the middle for an effective test?

As for Kirchhoff's circuit laws, believing in God doesn't make me disbelieve in the ideas of science. Instead it made me understand the need for a designer.

DD_8630 wrote:I've refuted Naturalism? Where?

You have stated numerous times that you CANNOT produce life nor reproduce the evolution of new phyla in a lab. Again…. There is no testable evidence for Darwin's theory.. As you said it takes millions of years to reproduce it.. You cannot say that it is factual… It is simply a belief system based upon a set of presuppositions...

DD_8630 wrote:That's where the theory of abiogenesis comes in. Simple self-replicating molecules in rudimentary phospholipid membranes. This video is a brilliant summary of abiogenesis.

This video is a horrible summary of abiogenesis…

1. First off it contradicts what you stated earlier.. You stated earlier that spontaneous generation, etc., has nothing to do with the existence of God. This video, however, states that there is NO NEED for God to produce life or in this case amino acids.. It's clearly anti-God…

2. The narrator in the video CLEARLY states that scientists “think” they know how the phosphate group formed and how the (sugar) ribose attached itself. Thinking is totally different than knowing… This is pure speculation. NOT factual. Also In the absence of enzymes, there is no chemical reaction that produces the sugar ribose (1), the "backbone" of RNA and DNA.

3. The narrator states that RNA became more complex and became DNA, however, Neither RNA nor DNA can be synthesized in the absence of enzymes. In theory, an RNA replicase could exist and code for its own replication. The first synthesized RNA replicase was four times longer than any RNA that could form spontaneously (4). In addition, it was able to replicate only 16 based pairs at most, so it couldn't even replicate itself (5).

4. In the formation of amino acids the narrator fails to mention that amino acids cannot form in the presence of oxygen, which is now known to have been present on the earth for at least four billion years (6), although life arose at least ~3.5 billion years ago (7). On theoretical grounds, however, it [mineral clay synthesis] seems implausible. Structural irregularities in clay that were complicated enough to set the stage for the emergence of RNA probably would not be amenable to accurate self-replication."

5. The narrator CLEARLY states that they still have a lot to learn about this process. There are many steps that they haven't discovered yet. In fact he states that scientists probably never will understand how life got stated… This is HARDLY factual information. Guess work at best.. A belief system.. Your religion..

DD_8630 wrote:And the fact remains that the theory of common descent is falsifiable. The discovery of fossil bunnies in the Pre-Cambrian, for instance, would deal a heavy blow to it.

Not quite.... An analysis of the tree of life at its most basic level (kingdoms) indicates that organisms do not share common descent (38). A few dozen microbial genomes have been fully sequenced and the results indicate that there is no clear pattern of descent. Certain species of Archea ("ancient bacteria that are best known for living in extreme environments) are more closely related to species of eubacteria ("common" bacteria) than they are to members of their own kingdom. In fact, many microbial species share genes found in eukaryotes (non-microbial organisms characterized by the presence of a nucleus in the cell). Many evolutionists are now suggesting that gene transfers were so common in the past (a convenient non-provable hypothesis) that a tree of life for microbial species can never be discerned from existing species. Such proposals remove evolutionary theory from being tested, and remove it from scientific criticism.

DD_8630 wrote:You thought wrong. What I thought you were talking about appears to be wrong: when you said "It is currently illegal to view any other theory accept naturalism based on chance..." if appears you in fact meant "It is illegal to teach any form of Creationism in the science classroom in any public school in the USA". The latter claim I agree with: it is indeed illegal to teach Creationism as science in public classrooms.

Reread what I stated before.. I said “public” science… I never said private.. Know you know. It's against the law to teach anything but Darwin's theory of evolution in public schools.. Science was meant to be debated and when the debate is taken away from it, people may learn about evolutionary theory but in the end they don't always believe in it because they were never allowed to debate it..

DD_8630 wrote:Correct. But neither I nor any scientist on Earth claims to be able to do so. The theories which you so vhemently oppose are quite explicit in their time dependancy: it took 4.5 billion years to get the biodiversity we have today, and you're demanding we replicate that in a lab?

Ok then why are scientists trying to replicate life in a lab?? Why did you present a video on abiogenesis??

DD_8630 wrote:No: no one claims "that [E.coli] can evolve into something else…".

Then it's hardly evidence for Darwin's theory..

DD_8630 wrote:They addressed that and other concerns. Read the paper yourself.

Where? Point it out then…

DD_8630 wrote:Or because we never once claimed we could do it in a paltry 150 years. You're attacking strawmen, Gman.

No I'm attacking your invisible man with no information…

DD_8630 wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:There are gaps in the fossil record.

Well of course there are. What, you expect every single organism to leave behind a perfect fossil?

I don't know what perfect fossils has to do with it?

If you read the Gould and Eldredge paper there are known gaps in the fossil record that are real. The idea that we just have not dug up the complete fossil record (if that is what you were getting at... although I don't really know what you were getting at with your rhetorical question) is therefore unsound.

DD_8630 wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: I think Gould and Eldredge unwittingly put a spanner in the works for 'common descent' in their paper where they propose 'punctuated equilibrium' (PDF 6.2 MB).

Puncuated equilibrium is hardly a problem for evolutionary theory: it simply posits that, instead of species evolving at a roughly constant rate, they evolve in fits and starts. They evolve to fit their ecological niche, and then cease to evolve much thereafter: since their as good as they can get, any mutation is going to be deleterious. However, if their ecology shifts, these detrimental variations suddenly become useful: the species evolves much faster as each successive generation is more suited to the new environment than the last.

Punctuated equilibrium is a refinement of the 'constant evolution' model.

Let's forget the words of Darwin shall we: "The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."

harth1026 wrote:

DD_8630 wrote:Yes, but why? What is it about a "true understanding of Jesus" that made you doubt evolution? Why didn't it make you doubt, say, Kirchhoff's circuit laws?

Well, when you do understand who Jesus is and why he was sent to our world, you would also understand the need for our world to have a designer. This world is a test to see if we would turn to God or if we would turn away from him. If you were to test the sense of smell of mice, would you not carefully design a maze with food in the middle for an effective test?

Not if I was omnipotent . But anyway... what makes you think this world is a test by God? A behaviourologist would experiment on mice because his knowledge about the is incomplete: he doesn't know what they'll do next. A computer programmer, however, has 'complete' knowledge of his program, and thus knows exactly what it will do (barring catastrophic failure, of course).

harth1026 wrote: As for Kirchhoff's circuit laws, believing in God doesn't make me disbelieve in the ideas of science. Instead it made me understand the need for a designer.

Fair enough.

Kurieuo wrote:

DD_8630 wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:There are gaps in the fossil record.

Well of course there are. What, you expect every single organism to leave behind a perfect fossil?

I don't know what perfect fossils has to do with it?

I was being facetious. It is perfectly reasonable that there should be gaps in the fossil record for the same reason there are gaps in a person's photographic history: only a tiny fraction of my life has been captured on camera, and there are countless intermediary moments that are left uncaptured. Does this invalidate the hypothesis that the boy in one photo is the same boy as in the next? Of course not.

Kurieuo wrote:

DD_8630 wrote: Puncuated equilibrium is hardly a problem for evolutionary theory: it simply posits that, instead of species evolving at a roughly constant rate, they evolve in fits and starts. They evolve to fit their ecological niche, and then cease to evolve much thereafter: since their as good as they can get, any mutation is going to be deleterious. However, if their ecology shifts, these detrimental variations suddenly become useful: the species evolves much faster as each successive generation is more suited to the new environment than the last.

Punctuated equilibrium is a refinement of the 'constant evolution' model.

Let's forget the words of Darwin shall we: "The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."

Indeed, let's: Darwin is not the final authority. His original theory, while ground breaking, has been greatly refined since then. The reason science is so good at what it does is because it gladly rejects old theories in favour of better ones, refining what was once held to accommodate new data. Darwin's explanation for why there is not constant and gradual change in species' morphology was the imperfection of the geological record (an imperfection we freely acknowledge today). However, subsequent investigation have yielded a more plausable explanation: punctuated equilibrium.

With regards to the above evolutionary phenomenon, Darwin was wrong. His proposed explanation has been superseded by a better one in the intervening 150 years.