Evidence for God from Science

I have to admit, jlay, I get the same impression as Zoe when I read your response and progression.

That's not an accusation, that's an observation. That doesn't mean I don't think you have some valid points to make or even that I don't agree with your overall assessment. It does seem to me however that you're projecting motives upon evolutionists that are less than noble and go to their character and intelligence instead of simply recognizing that there's room for principled disagreement on many of these issues without escalating it by the assumptions we make about the evidence and how it is to be interpretted.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. If evolutionists make assumptions as to what a fossil record should look like assuming their theory is true (which is a completely valid application of the scientific method) then, as Zoe points out, it's also true that we on the creationist side, both OEC and YEC, do the same thing. Just because an assumption of evolution is claimed to be validated because some expectation is met, doesn't mean the case is proven. As you note, alternative explanations can exist that are exclusive of the major tenets of evolutionism and which explain the evidence better or at least provide as plausible an explanation as the primary one being asserted. That's just normal progression through science. Theories and assumptions are made and over time the ones that best explain all the available evidence are accepted until a better explanation is found or exceptions observed that start the process over again.

If we're going to engage, even vicariously in this field and discuss things with others who don't accept our presuppositions, it will probably go a lot better if for our part we're as willing to own our assumptions and presuppositions as we wish our detractors to do with their. That means dropping the ego and listening to what others are saying and not becoming defensive when we're challenged.

Just my thoughts for what they're worth. You're free of course to take them or leave them, but as someone just chiming in who's read through this thread and noted the progression, that's my impression.

Bart,

One thing I would ammend reading back through the thread was how I described mutations as being 'destructive.' I understand that this is viewed differently based on models and presuppositions.
But my point in this thread, and you can go back through to verify is that I was showing Seraph that there are other models that comply with the evidence. Seraph claimed that the reason he accepted evolution is that the 'evidence' backed it up. I addressed those issues regarding the evidence.

Other than that I pointed out some very common fallacies in Seraph's logic. If there is an error in my ciritique you are welcome to point it out. So, consider the fact that maybe prodding at someone about their 'ego,' could be taken right back in the same way.

I don't think we are going to agree on some of the other things. I certainly do feel that I was unfarily critiqued, yet you mention nothing of that in your repsonse. It just all too often seems that you are willing to write a a book on me, and not be even handed on the other side. Little frustrating. Your entire post is based around me, while not the specific issues brought up in the thread. In fact, much of your response seems as if you are generalizing. Even in my response to Zoe I tried to keep it related to what was being discussed, and to give Zoe a chance to address the specific issues of evidence and interpretatons.

It does seem to me however that you're projecting motives upon evolutionists that are less than noble and go to their character and intelligence instead of simply recognizing that there's room for principled disagreement on many of these issues without escalating it by the assumptions we make about the evidence and how it is to be interpretted.

Another area we probably don't agree. I would be lying if I said I didn't believe that there is a conscious effort within some of the evolutionary community to undermine Christian culture. That we are battling far more than just evidence and facts.

Theories and assumptions are made and over time the ones that best explain all the available evidence are accepted until a better explanation is found or exceptions observed that start the process over again.

Bart, I'm sure that happens. But to think that this is always the case is simply naive. Assumptions are made, on that we agree. However, often assumptions that are wrong are held on to, despite the evidence. If what you say is true, then would we still see so many common fallacies in evolutionary thinking? I think many believe that the lab coat is the priestly robe of objectivity. The fact is that we should never be surprised at what sinful people will do or believe, or encourage others to believe and call fact. Bart, that doesn't mean I don't deny that there is fallacious thinking on both sides. But I was trying to stick to my points as it related to the thread.

So far the only real fallacy that you've accused me of is applying a presupposed philosophy to evidence when I see it. If this was true, I would still be an OEC since I was looking at the evidence with the presuppositions of a creationist. However, somehow I was able to be convinced by the evidence enough to change my worldview. Under your strictly presuppositional-guided model of the mind, this should pretty much never happen and hardly anyone would ever change their beliefs. Other than that, I find myself often being told that I am commiting logical fallacies without being shown what fallacy it is or where I committed it.

I really don't feel like trying to defend from the ground up why evidence presented in the science fields should be treated with credibility which is pretty much what you're demanding that I do lest I be accused of a fallacy. It seems like according to you, the only way I can have a worldview without logical fallacies is to abandon my own presuppositions and put on yours...

DannyM wrote:Try answering my post to you on page 1, relating to design. What is this "hurdle" facing design?
-
-

The same hurdle that faces consciousness.. It's called information. And here is the problem behind ID.. Consciousness can not exist without information. Consciousness is an emerging property and is slave to require information in order to exist, just like everything else is. Consciousness can not exist without cause. In fact, consciousness requires far more cause to exist than things that are not conscious. Information theory actually collapses the GOD concept, or "Creationism". To put that into context for you, Consciousness can not exist without a system with feedback, or information. The same Complex Adaptive system that drives evolution, natural selection, adaptation, bio chemistry ect. A Chaotic system from which order arises from chaos, or a system with feedback. You can not be conscious or aware as an OBSERVER without a system with feedback. Hence the flow of information..

Thus is correctly stated in information theory that nothing begins with consciousness, and everything begins and ends with information.

Information is thus first cause. So to better understand this, you can go here:

Information: The Material Physical Cause of Causation

This is where energy =/= information. Energy and Mass can neither be created nor destroyed, and are simply considered in science as "cause". Both being two sides of the same coin as both substance and value. Existence is seen as a phenomenal reality of physical self-oscillating, self-organizing energy that makes you, me, the stars, matter, anything with mass, and itself possible. And that is because energy can interfere with itself.. Energy self-oscillates to which can lead to cognitive dynamics, and observer matter relationships to where information can process other pieces of information including itself (energy processing energy).. What this show's is very simple.. Energy =/= information -> Self-Oscillation --> Self-Organization (order from Chaos) ---> to self-direction --> primitive self-cognitive dynamics --> cognitive self-direction --> to awareness --> eventually consciousness. (as a model)(and this can not happen in reverse!)

Example:
Plants for example show what primitive cognitive dynamics looks like before the evolution of the brain.. Hence plants show behaviors that exhibit cognitive dynamics such as the ability to solve problems, avoid obstacles, plant their own seeds, co-evolve to specific species of insects or animals, move in a 3d environment, or communicate ect. Even though these are chemically or sometimes electrically driven, they are none-the-less dynamics associated with intelligence, the basics to awareness, and cognition at the most primitive levels. And those are the base fundamental principles of Complex Adaptive Systems with feedback.. And these are the same basic principles that govern Consciousness. We can explore the primitive dynamics in plants below:

Plant stimuli reactions from wikipedia:

* Auxin - A plant hormone which mediates responses
* Chemotropism - Plant response to chemicals
* Cryptochrome - A light receptor pigment
* Ethylene - A plant hormone which mediates responses
* Gravitropism - Behavior associated with gravitic perception
* Heliotropism - Behavior associated with sunlight perception
* Hormonal sentience - Plant information processing theory
* Hydrotropism - Plant response to moisture
* Hypersensitive response - Local reaction produced in response to infection by microbes
* Kinesis - Movement
* Nastic movements - A type of rapid response to non-directional stimulus
* Osmosis - A means of water transportation on the cellular level
* Phototropin - A light receptor pigment
* Phototropism - A behavior associated with light perception
* Phytochrome - A light receptor pigment
* Phytosemiotics - Analysis of vegetative processes on the basis of semiotic theory
* Plant defense against herbivory - Some plant responses to physical disruption
* Plant hormone - A mediator of response to stimuli
* Plant physiology - The science of plant function
* Rapid plant movement - Description of rapid plant movements
* Sensory receptors - Discussion of organs of perception in organisms
* Statolith - An organ of gravity perception
* Stoma - A plant pore which responds to stimulus and which regulates gas exchange
* Systemic acquired resistance - A "whole-plant" resistance response to microbial pathogens that occurs following an earlier, localized response
* Taxis - A type of response to a directional stimulus seen in motile developmental stages of lower plants
* Thermotropism - Plant response to heat
* Thigmotropism - Plant response to touch
* Tropism - A type of response to a directional stimulus

Now you can ask me why haven't plants evolved consciousness by now? Well, evolution does not state that they would because Chaos theory states that there is only a probability of this occurring in plants..This means they could plausibly do so, and there are examples of plant-like animals such as the Green Sea slug to which produces its own chlorophyll though horizontal gene transfers with algae as an example of the direction to which plant and animal evolution might progress from.

Or we can find them in enzymes:

Strong diffusional mixing and short delivery times typical for micrometer and sub-micrometer reaction volumes lead to a special situations of self oscillation where the turnover times of individual enzyme molecules become the largest characteristic time scale of the chemical kinetics. Under these conditions, populations of cross-regulating allosteric enzymes form molecular networks that exhibit various kinds of self-organized coherent collective dynamics.

So how does this relate to consciousness?:

The Brain is both a Neurocomputer and a Quantum Computer

* Conscious Mechanical Self-Organization



Abstract

The evolution of consciousness is seen in the context of energy driven evolution in general, where energy and information are understood as two sides of the same coin. From this perspective consciousness is viewed as an ecological system in which streams of cognitive, perceptual, and emotional information form a rich complex of interactions, analogous to the interactive metabolism of a living cell. The result is an organic, self-generating, or autopoietic, system, continuously in the act of creating itself. Evidence suggests that this process is chaotic, or at least chaotic-like, and capable of assuming a number of distinct states best understood as chaotic attractors

Canuckster1127 wrote:I have to admit, jlay, I get the same impression as Zoe when I read your response and progression.

That's not an accusation, that's an observation. That doesn't mean I don't think you have some valid points to make or even that I don't agree with your overall assessment. It does seem to me however that you're projecting motives upon evolutionists that are less than noble and go to their character and intelligence instead of simply recognizing that there's room for principled disagreement on many of these issues without escalating it by the assumptions we make about the evidence and how it is to be interpretted.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. If evolutionists make assumptions as to what a fossil record should look like assuming their theory is true (which is a completely valid application of the scientific method) then, as Zoe points out, it's also true that we on the creationist side, both OEC and YEC, do the same thing. Just because an assumption of evolution is claimed to be validated because some expectation is met, doesn't mean the case is proven. As you note, alternative explanations can exist that are exclusive of the major tenets of evolutionism and which explain the evidence better or at least provide as plausible an explanation as the primary one being asserted. That's just normal progression through science. Theories and assumptions are made and over time the ones that best explain all the available evidence are accepted until a better explanation is found or exceptions observed that start the process over again.

If we're going to engage, even vicariously in this field and discuss things with others who don't accept our presuppositions, it will probably go a lot better if for our part we're as willing to own our assumptions and presuppositions as we wish our detractors to do with their. That means dropping the ego and listening to what others are saying and not becoming defensive when we're challenged.

Just my thoughts for what they're worth. You're free of course to take them or leave them, but as someone just chiming in who's read through this thread and noted the progression, that's my impression.

Evolution is not dependent on the fossil record.. You can do me favor and actually define these words for me before I post a reply (the actual definitions):

Evolution
Adaptation
Micro-Evolution
Macro-Evolution
Natural-Selection
Mutation
Horizontal Gene Transfer
Co-Evolution
Complex Adaptive Systems
Gene Duplication

When you can post the definitions of those words, I will gladly respond to your argument, because it seems to me, you don't actually know what evolution is. And it would require you to be ignorant of Dolphin anatomy, or how some Dolphins are found with partial hind legs, and why they still have a pelvis... But I will give you a chance though

TheJackel wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:I have to admit, jlay, I get the same impression as Zoe when I read your response and progression.

That's not an accusation, that's an observation. That doesn't mean I don't think you have some valid points to make or even that I don't agree with your overall assessment. It does seem to me however that you're projecting motives upon evolutionists that are less than noble and go to their character and intelligence instead of simply recognizing that there's room for principled disagreement on many of these issues without escalating it by the assumptions we make about the evidence and how it is to be interpretted.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. If evolutionists make assumptions as to what a fossil record should look like assuming their theory is true (which is a completely valid application of the scientific method) then, as Zoe points out, it's also true that we on the creationist side, both OEC and YEC, do the same thing. Just because an assumption of evolution is claimed to be validated because some expectation is met, doesn't mean the case is proven. As you note, alternative explanations can exist that are exclusive of the major tenets of evolutionism and which explain the evidence better or at least provide as plausible an explanation as the primary one being asserted. That's just normal progression through science. Theories and assumptions are made and over time the ones that best explain all the available evidence are accepted until a better explanation is found or exceptions observed that start the process over again.

If we're going to engage, even vicariously in this field and discuss things with others who don't accept our presuppositions, it will probably go a lot better if for our part we're as willing to own our assumptions and presuppositions as we wish our detractors to do with their. That means dropping the ego and listening to what others are saying and not becoming defensive when we're challenged.

Just my thoughts for what they're worth. You're free of course to take them or leave them, but as someone just chiming in who's read through this thread and noted the progression, that's my impression.

Evolution is not dependent on the fossil record.. You can do me favor and actually define these words for me before I post a reply (the actual definitions):

Evolution
Adaptation
Micro-Evolution
Macro-Evolution
Natural-Selection
Mutation
Horizontal Gene Transfer
Co-Evolution
Complex Adaptive Systems
Gene Duplication

When you can post the definitions of those words, I will gladly respond to your argument, because it seems to me, you don't actually know what evolution is. And it would require you to be ignorant of Dolphin anatomy, or how some Dolphins are found with partial hind legs, and why they still have a pelvis... But I will give you a chance though

Thanks for the response and welcome to the board TheJackel. I don't feel the need to jump through your hoops as I didn't use most of these terms nor was the point of my post directed to scientific definitions. Many of these terms I can define generally and I'm as capable of googling them as are you or anyone else. So the tone and introduction to our board in this manner indicates enough to me that you're attempting to assume a position of instruction, which you may indeed be capable of, I don't know. Given that you're doing this without introduction and without any reason given as to why I need to establish my ability to discuss these issues says enough for me at the present time to not need to play that game.

Seraph, specifically on page three I showed how you had committed the very common fallacy of equivocation. Also, pointed out how you were confusing operational and forensic science. I also challenged you to back up some claims you made by providing actual observable and testable examples. You couldn't.

Obviously having the right presuppositions is the only sure way to arrive at the truth. No one is objective. Let me repeat, no one. If one starts with the presuppositions that evolution is true, then obviously that will lead to their assumptions, affect their hypotheses, etc. I am not claiming presuppositions are bad. Having faulty presuppositions is bad. (This is very common in YEC thinking as well. There are many I can't have a discussion with because they are so dogmatic that they are even unwilling to examine evidential claims.)
Question: How many of the recent archeological digs, where supposed human ancestors were discovered, were funded with the intent to find human ancestors? A question we ought to ask.
If you dig up a bone, or a fossil, I promise you, it doesn't 'say' anything. Evidence doesn't speak. People who interpret the evidence do. So, one must be careful when they say they are trusting the 'evidence.' So, when you make a statement like, "evidence presented in the science fields should be treated with credibility," I really wonder how many people really understand what is being said here. Have they actually examined the evidence? Or, are they placing their faith in select interpretations of that evidence? I'm willing to bet a weeks pay on the later. Should the evidence be treated with credibility? There is nothing to assume that raw data should be given the status of an innate 'credibility.' How do justify that? It should be treated as evidence. Evidence never speaks for itself.

As far as logical fallacies. We all committ them. I've had them pointed out to myself on this very board. Iron sharpens iron.

TheJackel wrote:or how some Dolphins are found with partial hind legs

Dolphins have been found with appendages. They've never been found with legs. This is exactly what you run into with 'evidence' in Darwinist's circles. Dolphins do not have legs. There is nothing evidentiary to claim these are legs. Unless!!!! you address the evidence with Darwinian presuppositions, and impose your philosophy onto the evidence. Thank you Jackel. I couldn't have given an better example of prejuducial presuppositional interpretations if someone had put it in a box and wrapped it up with a bow. It's akin to a person being born with a deformed leg, and saying it was born with a partial fin.

TheJackel wrote:Information theory actually collapses the GOD concept, or "Creationism".

Hi TheJackel!

Welcome to the forum, I look forward to future discussions.

But your quote above is not true nor does your argument/theory do anything to disprove God or Creationism.

Premise 1-Everything that exist and has rejected various elements of information concerning it's creator/creators (one who holds it’s creation accountable for the unjust acts performed by the creation),resulting in the belief that it’s creator does not exist, would believe it is free of any bias or judgment from a creator.

Premise 2-Everything that exist under the conditions contained in premise 1, would believe it has no more of an obligation to accept that which is suggestive than anything else that exist and can possess information.

Therefore, everything that exist under premise 1 can perceive based off of it’s perspective of the information it possesses (by any means) or it’s ability to understand the information it possesses.

It is simply your perspective of the information you possess or your (in this case) inability to obtain information that I have obtained, due to the information I have received and put into use. Thus, giving me abilities, information and attributes you neither have or are capable of understanding.

TheJackel wrote:Thus is correctly stated in information theory that nothing begins with consciousness, and everything begins and ends with information.

From the link you provided...

TheJackel wrote:A self-awareness requires knowledge! An intelligence Must have knowledge to apply!, A Self identity must have knowledge to know of itself!

Only if we can not reject your information (which is based on your perspective of the information you possess) and conclusion (that is not the case). You are not the being I call Jesus/God. Therefore, you are different and lack the ability to understand in the way my God does. You speak as a human, using your own perspective of the information you possess, God possesses information that you do not have.

Your theory is extremely flawed and until you have all the information that exist everywhere (all realms, dimensions, contained within all beings etc) you will never be able to say that your understanding of the information you possess is not flawed compared to one who possesses all information in existence (God).

TheJackel wrote:Example:

Plants for example show what primitive cognitive dynamics looks like before the evolution of the brain.. Hence plants show behaviors that exhibit cognitive dynamics such as the ability to solve problems, avoid obstacles, plant their own seeds, co-evolve to specific species of insects or animals, move in a 3d environment, or communicate ect. Even though these are chemically or sometimes electrically driven, they are none-the-less dynamics associated with intelligence, the basics to awareness, and cognition at the most primitive levels. And those are the base fundamental principles of Complex Adaptive Systems with feedback.. And these are the same basic principles that govern Consciousness. We can explore the primitive dynamics in plants below:

Can you prove that the plant is not being influenced by forces from a dimension you have no knowledge of or access to, thus distorting your perspective of the information you obtain concerning the plant? Can you prove that humans can understand everything about the plants behavior and no other being will have information that nullifies the (various elements of) the information humans have obtained or that other beings will not have a different perspective of the information that is more consistent with all the information in existence, concerning what is true about the plant? Maybe the plant knows more about the universe than all humans but we are simply incapable of receiving the information from the plant.

That list of Plant stimuli reactions you provided is from a human perspective, God may see things differently?

Information can be interpreted differently by those who exist and possess information that is not possessed by another who possesses information. Therefore, one’s reality can be defined by their perspective of the information they possess/defined by their beliefs.

And as I said..All that exist, having rejected various elements of information concerning it's creator (one who holds it’s creation accountable for the unjust acts performed by the creation), resulting in the belief that it’s creator does not exist, would believe it has no more of an obligation to accept that which is suggestive than anything else that exist and can possess information.

Therefore, the information one does not reject (for whatever reason) defines one’s reality.

We can all believe and/or have the ability not to believe…

God has said that He created all things, and knows all things, I know that God exist, He has shared many things with me that I would have never known without Him, He changed me so that I could understand more about spiritual things.

Therefore, a creator exist,I have the information in me...I know God created all things...And I gladly (most of the time anyway...LOL!) accept His will. I can see that you love knowledge, why limit yourself to human information?

You just have not accepted God yet, but God made it so you can reject the knowledge of Him if you choose to.

Jesus desires for you to learn the things of God, consider it.. I would not trade my relationship with Him for anything.

Enjoy the forum TheJackel!

So, you consider information to be the First Cause of the universe? How do you store information in nothingness?

Also, I read your posts multiple times and I still can't quite figure out what's going on, or where science enters in and philosophy takes a back seat. I consider myself fairly well-read and intelligent (at least that's my goal), and all I got out of that is that:

1. You have some strange views on information and consciousness.
2. You like to quote yourself as a source (or Wikipedia).
3. You use a lot of big words where much simpler words would do much better.
4. You seem to expect everyone here to have a degree in plant biology in order to begin talking to you (or was your request to look things up facetious?)
5. You don't seem to want to discuss - you seem to want to tell us how things are.


"Evolution is not dependent on the fossil record..."

Just like our trust in gravity isn't based on watching things fall to the ground? Or that history isn't based on old books? Or that geology isn't based studying the earth?

Perhaps you'd also be willing to 'look things up' before responding to us about things. Look up Christian views on Cosmology. In your first post, you talk about how consciousness can only develop over time from something simpler. Do you understand how that only holds true to our closed-system universe? If you want to impose that physical restriction on God (why this 'GOD concept' garbage? Why not at least 'god' if you don't believe, like normal atheists), why not impose gravity t? And how about restrictions on the creation of matter and energy? At that point, you've actually removed the traits that would make Him God (being actually able to create the world, for instance). However, you've also removed any chance of any first cause happening if you apply those physical laws fairly to any First Cause.

Interesting to read these posts... It all proves again that there is no science that can disprove God. There is absolutely NOTHING....

TheJackel wrote:

DannyM wrote:Try answering my post to you on page 1, relating to design. What is this "hurdle" facing design?
-
-

The same hurdle that faces consciousness.. It's called information.

Just spotted this. Are you still about, Jackel? Information is one of the key hurdles to evolution, not design. The rest of your post looked like it was just rolled off from a pre-prepared script; not to be insulting, just an observation.

Also that there is no science that can prove God. There is absolutely NOTHING....

by waynepii » Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:40 am

Also that there is no science that can prove God. There is absolutely NOTHING....

Yup, one just needs to believe. By the way there is no science that can dis-prove God either.

neo-x wrote:

by waynepii » Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:40 am

Also that there is no science that can prove God. There is absolutely NOTHING....

Yup, one just needs to believe. By the way there is no science that can dis-prove God either.

Agreed. My post was simply a take-off on Gman's prior post to that effect ...

Interesting to read these posts... It all proves again that there is no science that can disprove God. There is absolutely NOTHING....

Of course, it's impossible to dis-prove the existence of pretty much anything.

Seraph wrote:Well I'm a theistic evolutionist so I have no problem with the science being presented by Ken Miller. Rather than say that Design is evidence that evolution is false, I'm more of the position that even with natural selection and macroevolution at play, evidence for God can still be seen in the direction our evolution went. Even with genertic mutations, natural selection, and billions of years, we could have ended up far worse than we did if the process was purely blind. Obviously I'm not going to be able to prove that in a laboratory, but it just seems pretty compelling to me.

My main point with Ken Miller was sort of just to say that one can accept evolution and God at the same time, and that they aren't mutually exclusive. I guess thats not really relevant to this thread though, now that I think about it...

The direction evolution went?

The only creatures able to ask that question would be intelligent creatures and so they would inevitably conclude that tevolution must have been guided as they are intelligent. It is a backwards argument. If dolphins had become the most intelligent creatures they probably would have said the same thing.