Evidence for God from Science

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote: No one knows exactly how it happened. To claim otherwise is disingenuous. There are plenty of good hypothesis though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

That is a topic for another thread though. Let's keep this one about evolution.

Call it a hypothesis, call it a theory, or call it chicken noodle soup.. The fact here is that no one has 100 percent proof. What am I saying here? You are going to have to take what you project here by faith or miracles....

I'll call it what it is. It's not a theory because it's not an explanation supported by facts, it's not chicken noodle soup because that's ridiculous. I never said it was a fact, or that I accept any of the hypotheses as fact. Nothing is taken on faith or miracles. I simply state "I don't know, but here are some good ideas."

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:Maybe we are getting confused with "against" and "deny." Plenty of people here deny evolutionary fact.

No... Micro evolution is a fact, macro evolution is NOT a fact. It is "assumed" via micro evolution.

This again... Last time we discussed this, apparently there was some confusion on what you meant by the word. Before we go any further, please (either you or Bippy or both) define what you mean by "macro evolution."

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:I haven't seen anybody make the claim that science "oppresses the belief in God." I have said before it may be in conflict with some individual's creationism stories (if we have a common ancestor with apes, how does that explain Adam/Eve, etc...). I know this is a simple example and doesn't apply to everyone, but I think you get the idea. This creates bias and a "hidden agenda."

No... But when someone says evolution does this and evolution does that (especially around origins) and leaves out God, what do you think that implies? A "hidden agenda?

I actually found this looking into Plantiga's argument further down the thread...

A guiding intelligence isn’t (thus far) needed to account for the origin of species. There isn’t any independent evidence for such a being, there’s no specification of its characteristics, and its mode of action is obscure, to put it politely. So God plays no useful role in scientific accounts of evolution. Of course you can always add God in as an initiator – a remote controller, in some sense. But this adds nothing transparent or predictive to our understanding of speciation, so doesn’t appear in the theory.

We leave out God in germ theory. You think there is a hidden agenda there? God was the explanation for disease for a very long time. "God" has been used as an explanation for the unknown throughout the ages. When we discover what is actually going on, the "God" explanation is thrown out. You can easily look through Greek mythology and find many examples. We know what causes lightning and leave out Zeus. Hidden agenda? We now know the Earth revolves around the sun and can leave out Helios with his fiery chariot. We know the moon reflects the light given off by the sun and can leave out Selena to light it. I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous reasoning. Evolution as a scientific fact (like most scientific facts) is accepted by the religious and non-religious alike. From what I have seen, ID is always linked back to people with a religious agenda (e.g. The Discovery Institute).

The very nature of the scientific method is to eliminate biases and "hidden agendas." Is the method perfect? No. But it is the best method we currently have for deciphering what is true and what is not. If you have a better method, let's hear it.

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:I would disagree. Science is a method. It's not a set of beliefs, it's not a denial of any beliefs. Science is comparable to a set of instructions on how you should tie your shoes, but is instead applied to observations.

If science is a god, so is the tag on my shirt that says to dry clean it.

No.. You totally missed my point. Science is a method, but people will always interject their philosophy into their science. Always... Whether you are a creationist, evolutionist, an atheist, or an alien from mars. Philosophy and science must conflict. Science and philosophy deal with the same thing. Human life. But they try to understand it under different types of considerations. One physical or natural and the other philosophical. And that is why they conflict because that are trying to come to an understanding of the same thing, human life, from two different points of view. People try to divide them where they don’t interfere, but you can’t do that. Don't forget, you brought up pragmatic evolution. What we have here is philosophy vs philosophy or religion vs religion and very very little actual science..

Again, the very nature of the scientific method is to eliminate bias, etc... It doesn't matter what your philosophy is. The scientific community is made up of people with many different philosophies and the evidence converges to the most likely explanation. If you have a better method, blah blah blah.

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:I still see a lot of false dichotomies here. Again, I don't care if you don't accept the vast amounts (see page 1) of evidence for evolution. You are adults and can believe whatever the heck you want. The same can be said for HIV, Holocaust and mental illness deniers. What I care about is the alternative that is being pushed to be taught in colleges and schools. Do the work, convince the scientific community and it will be taught in public schools and universities. Let's see the evidence!

Again... Evolution itself does not interfere with the existence of God. People's philosophy interferes with God, not the science itself. So do your own work...

Let's see the evidence! without your philosophy...

I would agree. Evolution doesn't interfere with the existence of God, for most people. For others, it most certainly does. I gave you a pretty clear cut example (Adam/Eve). If the scientific evidence conflicts with individual's creation story, then they choose to not accept it. This is why we have people who claim the Earth is only 6000 years old, despite vasts amounts of converging scientific evidence.

I have given you multiple individual lines of converging evidence. My "philosophy" has nothing to do with it. The evidence is examined by scientists from multiple backgrounds, and they come to the same conclusion.

bippy123 wrote:As a former theistic evolutionist, I never saw a problem with believing In God and believing in Evolution. Heck even staunch evolutionists like Ken Miller never did.

My switch to ID came when I finally saw that Macroevolution was being tauted as a fact, instead of an assumption and there really wasnt and isnt any good evidence to make it a fact. Even in tests like the fruit fly tests and the bacteria tests as I have shown a few pages back, if anything they put a serious dink into the armor of macroevolution.

I allready know all the evidences that believers in macroevolution use since I was one myself and used to argue for them.
What I finally found disturbing is how fanaticial believers in macroevolution pushed their ideology as if it were a religion.

Pierson, how are you doing with Joe Nickell, its good that you dont use him as evidence for your stance against the shroud of turin. That wasnt too successfull for you was it lol

My main problem with this your the second statement. You are convinced "macroevolution" is false which leads you to believe that ID is true. This goes back to my main point on page 1. This is a false dichotomy. If evolution is false, that says NOTHING about the validity of ID. We would be left with a bunch of organisms that appeared to evolve, but didn't. We would be left with a mystery. That doesn't make ID true. This is not how the scientific method works. I have given plenty of evidence for evolution, covering multiple pages. The only one who bothered to address my main point was Reactionary, and the "evidence" provided wasn't very convincing. Definitely not more so than the pages of evidence for evolution I provided.

You never addressed my last point regarding the shroud and the discussion ended when you refused to address it. This has nothing to do with the current topic and is a red herring argument. If you really want to talk to me about the shroud, send me a PM asking to address the arguments in your thread. I'll try and get to it when I have time. We don't need to get off topic here.

narnia4 wrote:Its not that our faculties never fail us, its that they're generally truth-seeking. It might be true that certain animals are dangerous or plants could kill us, but lower animals can develop defense tactics or inherit traits aiding in survival without caring one iota whether there is some "truth" involved or not and without developing truth-seeking faculties. So while truth could be helpful in evolution, there must be countless ways in which we could have evolved that could aid in survival without coming to good conclusions about the nature of things.

I think the argument could be stronger than it is, I think the point is strongest when it relates to metaphysical truths (as you may have indicated). Knowing that you shouldn't poke a dog with a stick might aid in survival, knowing that naturalism is true certainly doesn't.

The naturalism and super naturalism arguments are still relatively new to me (although VERY interesting). I wouldn't consider myself knowledgeable enough on the subject to articulately argue one way or another. Reading into it, I did find this, to which I would agree with most of what the author writes:

http://www.naturalism.org/plantinga.htm

This is getting slightly off topic though. Not everyone who accepts evolution as fact is a naturalist, obviously.

Yeah I won't pursue that particular subject any further on this thread, frankly I don't know too much more about it anyway. I only skimmed the article, but the one thing I'll mention that the EAAN isn't an argument for God but a "defeater of N&E" (not either one of those, the combination of those).

Pierson5 wrote:
I'll call it what it is. It's not a theory because it's not an explanation supported by facts, it's not chicken noodle soup because that's ridiculous. I never said it was a fact, or that I accept any of the hypotheses as fact. Nothing is taken on faith or miracles. I simply state "I don't know, but here are some good ideas."

Right... If we don't have all the answers then we are going to have to fill in the blanks... With our philosophy. I'm going to copy this from my other posts...

"Many say that ID is just an argument from ignorance, you can’t prove that it’s not true so it must be true. This is the classic God of the gaps argument. We don’t know how it works yet so we say God did it. But we see this true with Darwinism all the time also with the origin of life, the origin of the phyla, the decent of man, in other words we don’t know how it works yet, but we are going to say that evolution did it. So there is no difference between God of the gaps and evolution of the gaps. We say it’s not testable; clearly you can’t take bunch of non-living chemicals, expose it to the right conditions and get a cell to come out. It’s something that took place in the past, we can’t test this. We can’t take a reptile, and expose it to radiation or gama rays, and get it to grow feathers. Basically ID and Darwinian evolution are not technically testable."

So, we are going to have to take some of our decisions.... On faith. Everyone does.

Pierson5 wrote:This again... Last time we discussed this, apparently there was some confusion on what you meant by the word. Before we go any further, please (either you or Bippy or both) define what you mean by "macro evolution."

No confusion here, maybe it's on your side... Microevolution deals with changes in the gene pool of a single population. Macroevoution simply “considers” broad patterns of evolutionary change over long periods of time and includes the origin of new groups.

Again, macro evolution is assumed via micro evolution. It is NOT factual... And even if it were true, it STILL does not interfere with the existence of God.

Pierson5 wrote:We leave out God in germ theory. You think there is a hidden agenda there?

Perhaps not consciously, but whenever people hear that evolution does this and evolution creates that.. What need is there for G-d? He has been unemployed.

Pierson5 wrote: God was the explanation for disease for a very long time. "God" has been used as an explanation for the unknown throughout the ages. When we discover what is actually going on, the "God" explanation is thrown out. You can easily look through Greek mythology and find many examples. We know what causes lightning and leave out Zeus. Hidden agenda? We now know the Earth revolves around the sun and can leave out Helios with his fiery chariot. We know the moon reflects the light given off by the sun and can leave out Selena to light it. I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous reasoning.

Religion is relevant to science in that it can furnish a conceptual framework in which science can exist. Christianity did furnish the conceptual framework in which modern science was born. Science can verify and falsify the claim of religion. When religions make claims about the natural world, they intersect the domain of science and are in affect making predictions in which scientific investigations can either verify or falsify.

Example, science can certainly be used to falsify religion. Consider ancient Greek and Indian religions that the heavens or the world rested upon the shoulders of atlas, or on the back of a turtle were easily falsified.

Science can also verify religious claims, such as God creating the universe out of nothing a finite time ago. The Bible also teaches that the universe had a beginning. This teaching was reputed by Greeks philosophy and also by modern atheism. Then in 1929 the discovery of the expansion of the universe this doctrine was dramatically verified by the big bang theory. An entire universe created out of nothing (Ex nihilo) just like what the Bible foretold. Science can thus verify this religious prediction.

Pierson5 wrote:Evolution as a scientific fact (like most scientific facts) is accepted by the religious and non-religious alike.

Now you are contradicting yourself... You stated at the beginning of this post.. "I never said it was a fact, or that I accept any of the hypotheses as fact."

Pierson5 wrote: From what I have seen, ID is always linked back to people with a religious agenda (e.g. The Discovery Institute).

Perhaps, but it also claims that life could also have been created via Aliens and not a supernatural deity. But for a strict evolutionist to claim that their science doesn't evolve any philosophy is not being honest...

Pierson5 wrote:The very nature of the scientific method is to eliminate biases and "hidden agendas." Is the method perfect? No. But it is the best method we currently have for deciphering what is true and what is not. If you have a better method, let's hear it.

To that I say baloney.. It will always involve some philosophy. You want evidence? Then try to create life in a lab via using inorganic matter...

Pierson5 wrote:Again, the very nature of the scientific method is to eliminate bias, etc... It doesn't matter what your philosophy is. The scientific community is made up of people with many different philosophies and the evidence converges to the most likely explanation. If you have a better method, blah blah blah.

Strictly speaking ID is not religion or Christianity, and strictly speaking Darwinism is not atheism either. But a lot of this appears to be the argument that is going on between the two. There are two opposing worldviews, two opposing explanations, two opposing interpretations of reality. Simply put, one says that God created everything we know and see, plants and animals, humans, etc., after their own kind. The other view states in the beginning there was nothing but particles, and then somehow the particles and the impersonal laws of physics came into existence, the particles somehow became complex living stuff, and the stuff imagined God, but then discovered evolution. So these are the two truth claims.. Science is about knowing reality.

Pierson5 wrote:I would agree. Evolution doesn't interfere with the existence of God, for most people. For others, it most certainly does. I gave you a pretty clear cut example (Adam/Eve). If the scientific evidence conflicts with individual's creation story, then they choose to not accept it. This is why we have people who claim the Earth is only 6000 years old, despite vasts amounts of converging scientific evidence.

I have given you multiple individual lines of converging evidence. My "philosophy" has nothing to do with it. The evidence is examined by scientists from multiple backgrounds, and they come to the same conclusion.

No... Your philosophy has something to do with it if you don't mention G-d in there somewhere.... And give credence to another god...

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:
I'll call it what it is. It's not a theory because it's not an explanation supported by facts, it's not chicken noodle soup because that's ridiculous. I never said it was a fact, or that I accept any of the hypotheses as fact. Nothing is taken on faith or miracles. I simply state "I don't know, but here are some good ideas."

Right... If we don't have all the answers then we are going to have to fill in the blanks... With our philosophy. I'm going to copy this from my other posts...

"Many say that ID is just an argument from ignorance, you can’t prove that it’s not true so it must be true. This is the classic God of the gaps argument. We don’t know how it works yet so we say God did it. But we see this true with Darwinism all the time also with the origin of life, the origin of the phyla, the decent of man, in other words we don’t know how it works yet, but we are going to say that evolution did it. So there is no difference between God of the gaps and evolution of the gaps. We say it’s not testable; clearly you can’t take bunch of non-living chemicals, expose it to the right conditions and get a cell to come out. It’s something that took place in the past, we can’t test this. We can’t take a reptile, and expose it to radiation or gama rays, and get it to grow feathers. Basically ID and Darwinian evolution are not technically testable."

So, we are going to have to take some of our decisions.... On faith. Everyone does.

I'm not filling anything in with my "philosophy." I'm still trying to figure out how saying "I don't know" is filling in a gap... Again you go back to the origin of life. Evolution says NOTHING about abiogenesis/origin of life research. They are two completely different fields. This isn't a hard concept to grasp...

You are using the same line of reasoning used by HIV deniers. "You can't explain how this happens, you can't reproduce this in the lab, etc..." therefore this well accepted scientific fact is false. This is flawed reasoning. As I've said before, we don't need to know/understand every piece of information to see what's going on here. We don't need to know "why" to see what has happened. There is plenty of evidence to go off of. Here is a simple metaphor for you:




We don't need every piece of the evolution puzzle to see what is going on. We have plenty of the pieces (see my first post for a small sample). Show me the pieces for Intelligent Design. If you guys have such a high standard for evidence, I'm assuming there should be many more pieces for ID than for evolution. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Why aren't you guys posting it?

Also, you are using the word "faith" as sort of a blanket statement. I think you can agree there are different degrees of faith. It doesn't take a lot of faith to believe the sun will "rise" tomorrow morning. However, it takes much more faith to believe the president is actually part of a reptilian sub-race in disguise. Sure we have "faith" for all types of things. Some require more than others and are less likely to be true. We can distinguish between which requires more based upon the evidence.

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:This again... Last time we discussed this, apparently there was some confusion on what you meant by the word. Before we go any further, please (either you or Bippy or both) define what you mean by "macro evolution."

No confusion here, maybe it's on your side... Microevolution deals with changes in the gene pool of a single population. Macroevoution simply “considers” broad patterns of evolutionary change over long periods of time and includes the origin of new groups.

Again, macro evolution is assumed via micro evolution. It is NOT factual... And even if it were true, it STILL does not interfere with the existence of God.

Excellent. Thanks for the definition. I think we can agree "macroevolution" is referring to evolutionary change over long periods of time. Can you give me a specific example of where you have a problem with this? Do you agree that speciation occurs within the realms of "microevolution"? Do you agree that we can get another organism that looks very different from its ancestor within the realms of microevolution? (wolves to chihuahuas for example)

I don't see the need for the last sentence. I never said evolution disproved God. This goes back to my main point on page 1 as well. If evolution was proven false, that does not prove ID (and/or God) to be true.

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote: God was the explanation for disease for a very long time. "God" has been used as an explanation for the unknown throughout the ages. When we discover what is actually going on, the "God" explanation is thrown out. You can easily look through Greek mythology and find many examples. We know what causes lightning and leave out Zeus. Hidden agenda? We now know the Earth revolves around the sun and can leave out Helios with his fiery chariot. We know the moon reflects the light given off by the sun and can leave out Selena to light it. I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous reasoning.

Science can verify and falsify the claim of religion. When religions make claims about the natural world, they intersect the domain of science and are in affect making predictions in which scientific investigations can either verify or falsify.

Example, science can certainly be used to falsify religion. Consider ancient Greek and Indian religions that the heavens or the world rested upon the shoulders of atlas, or on the back of a turtle were easily falsified.

Bolded emphasis was my addition. I 100% agree with that statement. And just like we verified the world did not rest upon the shoulders of atlas, we verified evolution as a scientific fact and there is no need for a designer (i.e. God). I will stress this point again though, this says NOTHING about the origin of life. We don't know how life originally arose. You could technically still have a "designer" there. But, until it's proven otherwise, we still don't know.

Gman wrote:Science can also verify religious claims, such as God creating the universe out of nothing a finite time ago. The Bible also teaches that the universe had a beginning. This teaching was reputed by Greeks philosophy and also by modern atheism. Then in 1929 the discovery of the expansion of the universe this doctrine was dramatically verified by the big bang theory. An entire universe created out of nothing (Ex nihilo) just like what the Bible foretold. Science can thus verify this religious prediction.

That's debatable, but we should save it for a different thread.

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:Evolution as a scientific fact (like most scientific facts) is accepted by the religious and non-religious alike.

Now you are contradicting yourself... You stated at the beginning of this post.. "I never said it was a fact, or that I accept any of the hypotheses as fact.

This is a fine example on why it is important to stay on topic. You are quoting out of context. When I was referring to the hypotheses, it was on the topic of abiogenesis, NOT evolution. Evolution isn't a hypothesis, like gravity, it's a theory/fact.

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote: From what I have seen, ID is always linked back to people with a religious agenda (e.g. The Discovery Institute).

Perhaps, but it also claims that life could also have been created via Aliens and not a supernatural deity. But for a strict evolutionist to claim that their science doesn't evolve any philosophy is not being honest...

Excellent point. Aliens could have been the "designer." Unfortunately, the people pushing ID do NOT consider that a legitimate hypothesis. This is found under the Design vs. Evolution link on this websites main page for example:

//godandscience.org/apologetics/ufo.html

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that it's very unlikely that UFOs/extraterrestrials have visited Earth. But, I also extend this type of skepticism to the "God" hypothesis with ID.

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:The very nature of the scientific method is to eliminate biases and "hidden agendas." Is the method perfect? No. But it is the best method we currently have for deciphering what is true and what is not. If you have a better method, let's hear it.

To that I say baloney.. It will always involve some philosophy. You want evidence? Then try to create life in a lab via using inorganic matter...

How is looking into alternate hypotheses equate to having some sort of bias or philosophy? What does that have to do with anything? We find the building blocks of proteins in space and test a few ideas using that information and others. I don't see anything wrong with that. Just like I don't see anything wrong with testing the Intelligent Design hypothesis. What I DO have a problem with, is people claiming "God did it" and therefore testing life origins is unnecessary.

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:Again, the very nature of the scientific method is to eliminate bias, etc... It doesn't matter what your philosophy is. The scientific community is made up of people with many different philosophies and the evidence converges to the most likely explanation. If you have a better method, blah blah blah.

Strictly speaking ID is not religion or Christianity, and strictly speaking Darwinism is not atheism either. But a lot of this appears to be the argument that is going on between the two. There are two opposing worldviews, two opposing explanations, two opposing interpretations of reality. Simply put, one says that God created everything we know and see, plants and animals, humans, etc., after their own kind. The other view states in the beginning there was nothing but particles, and then somehow the particles and the impersonal laws of physics came into existence, the particles somehow became complex living stuff, and the stuff imagined God, but then discovered evolution. So these are the two truth claims.. Science is about knowing reality.

Sure. And how do we decipher between the two "truths"? What is the best method we have? The scientific method. We follow the evidence. I have asked several times for the evidence for ID and have gotten very little. I have presented plenty for Evolution.

Your assessment of the two "truths" is a little off I might add. Evolution doesn't equate atheism or naturalism for that matter (as you said in your first sentence). All 3 are exclusive from each other. Therefore I don't see what you are trying to say in the middle of your paragraph. Let me clean it up for you though. In the beginning we there was "We don't know", and then, somehow the particles and laws of physics came into existence. Then possibly the particles became complex living stuff (maybe, we don't know). Simplest organisms evolved (we know this). Imagined God (possible, I have yet to see any evidence for God, but I could be wrong). Then we discovered evolution. The opposing viewpoint. A magic invisible man in the sky did it. (We know this)

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:I would agree. Evolution doesn't interfere with the existence of God, for most people. For others, it most certainly does. I gave you a pretty clear cut example (Adam/Eve). If the scientific evidence conflicts with individual's creation story, then they choose to not accept it. This is why we have people who claim the Earth is only 6000 years old, despite vasts amounts of converging scientific evidence.

I have given you multiple individual lines of converging evidence. My "philosophy" has nothing to do with it. The evidence is examined by scientists from multiple backgrounds, and they come to the same conclusion.

No... Your philosophy has something to do with it if you don't mention G-d in there somewhere.... And give credence to another god...

I covered this already. We can go back to Helios, Zeus and Selena if you want...

Pierson5 wrote: I'm not filling anything in with my "philosophy." I'm still trying to figure out how saying "I don't know" is filling in a gap... Again you go back to the origin of life. Evolution says NOTHING about abiogenesis/origin of life research. They are two completely different fields. This isn't a hard concept to grasp...

Evolution is the concept that Darwin proposed to answer how species originate. In order for a specie to become other species then by default it must arrive at a specie level first. If the concept of evolution cannot provide the answer for how the first specie arose then of what value is it in determining how subsequent species came to be?. Darwin in fact touched on the origin of the first specie which by the way is considered by most evolutionists to be the common ancestor of all species and he suggested the warm little pond as an idea of what one should look for as a possibility. Essentially a chance occurance to explain this first specie.

Pierson5 wrote: Show me the pieces for Intelligent Design. If you guys have such a high standard for evidence, I'm assuming there should be many more pieces for ID than for evolution. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Why aren't you guys posting it?.

Every design for ever complex interactive mechanism in recorded history came about by intelligent design.... This is evidence for intelligences ability to form matter into functional mechanisms. In fact, intelligence is the only force that one can see evidence of which has achieved the formation of complex interactive structures. With this as empirical observable and testable evidence for a cause which can proveable shape matter into such forms then it is quite logical to infer its use when we encounter mechanisms that are not only complex and interactive but are also beyond our current ability to reverse engineer.
If you wish to posit Evolutions mechanisms as a possible cause then you need to provide the evidence for its ability to perform such an act. Asserting that changes occur to alleles over time cannot logically construe that changes = the ability to form no more than one can assume that the same forces that change the structure of my car over time are responible for its formation.

Pierson5 wrote: Do you agree that we can get another organism that looks very different from its ancestor within the realms of microevolution? (wolves to chihuahuas for example)

Every organism in existence is different than every other one. Are they all different species? If so then my wife and I have caused several species to arise.

Pierson5 wrote: And just like we verified the world did not rest upon the shoulders of atlas, we verified evolution as a scientific fact and there is no need for a designer (i.e. God).

The only thing about evolution that is a fact is that alleles change over time. How and why those changes occur is what needs proof that no evolutionist has, since it would require a complete understanding of how DNA and the organism that contains it operate. Until you can prove the how and why then you can't arbitrarily eliminate ID as part of the cause.
God is asserted by religious people to be the first cause of unique living organisms which subsequently became other unique living organisms which points to ID as the cause of the uniqueness observed in living forms. Thus, unique living organisms can be considered unique by design and allele changes are not simply unlimited random chance mutational occurances as evolution infers its to be. Just as dice are intelligently designed to provide a defined range of variability, so apparently is lifes variability limited according to the scientific evidence so far.

Creatism, creationism, oophs - i was too lazy to change it. Does it matter - since you got the drift? Maybe it was my take on cretinism, who knows - that was over a week ago. & - I can do sins good, cause i know what they are - why only go 1/2 way - go all the way when you're sinning - lest, where's the fun?
- Any way. Thank you anyone for actually thinking my thoughts should be responded too. It's nice to know that some people still take their beliefs seriously -and maybe, that's the problem.
Let's say a million people believe the earth is flat. Does that make it so? Hmmm, back there in the 13th century, I guess so - but in reality - whether mankind wanted to believe it or not, the earth was round and just an itsy, bitsy speck of water/dirt flying around governed by the laws [whether we humans know it or acknowledge it so or not] of what we call physics. People, some of them almost put to death because of their wonderment, started back then to question really if the earth was flat - since actual reality got in the way of beliefs. From those beginnings came the great science of physics. They backed their claim by testing, analyzing, statistical probability mapping and then re-testing again. Of course all the "laws" and "theories" are still only that - no one can guarantee that the sun will rise tomorrow - but most likely it will from what we have learned beforehand {somehow an indirect quote from Bertrand Russell}.
And the same goes for the "science" of evolution (which goes hand in hand with geology). People had always seen fossils and remnants of things no longer in existence and they wondered about their relevance. The idea of life's "evolution" was finally brought into focus by Darwin - and similar to plants and animals evolving - our thoughts also evolved out of the darkness of "beliefs" into the light of science. Since then "religion" (& i'm limiting this to christian/jewish belief right now) has been losing ground and authority over people because all it has to offer is the "Bible" and/or a story of Jesus, a god-made-man.
There can be no "testing" of the beliefs of "Intelligent Design" - because they are BELIEFS. Evolution is a science because the theories it represents can be backed up by scientific evidence. The sometimes claim that when God made the world he purposely left things like fossils or made it look like the universe is in the middle of it's expansion are made up explanations to appease those persons who still believe in the Bible as the "Word". I'm not saying that the Bible is bad or wrong - but to try to make it into a scientific explanation for life on earth is taking it out of context and is a mistaken belief.
The Bible was a really big Aesop Fable - used to promote allegiance and, of course, it was an illustrated history of the Jewish saga. Morality, ethics, 10 commandments, all that, are all tribally, man-made, cultural teachings all developed and handed down so people won't go killing each other. Has that worked well? - obviously not if you listen to the nightly news.
Take care everyone - i really like this {whole} site.

KBCid wrote:

Pierson5 wrote: I'm not filling anything in with my "philosophy." I'm still trying to figure out how saying "I don't know" is filling in a gap... Again you go back to the origin of life. Evolution says NOTHING about abiogenesis/origin of life research. They are two completely different fields. This isn't a hard concept to grasp...

Evolution is the concept that Darwin proposed to answer how species originate. In order for a specie to become other species then by default it must arrive at a specie level first. If the concept of evolution cannot provide the answer for how the first specie arose then of what value is it in determining how subsequent species came to be?. Darwin in fact touched on the origin of the first specie which by the way is considered by most evolutionists to be the common ancestor of all species and he suggested the warm little pond as an idea of what one should look for as a possibility. Essentially a chance occurance to explain this first specie.

Evolution explains the diversity of life, not the origin. True, Darwin proposed an idea about the origin of life. It's a good hypothesis, but we don't accept it as fact, as we don't have the evidence for it. We don't just blindly accept what Darwin said as fact. Darwin was wrong about his hypothetical mechanism for heredity (Pangenesis) for example. We go where the evidence leads. We throw out what is wrong, and keep what is correct. It's not evolutionary biologist's job to figure out the origin of life. As Adocus said earlier, that's a job for biochemists and microbiologists. Don't confuse evolution with abiogenesis. This is a common creationist mistake. I now realize I should have addressed this on page 1.

KBCid wrote:

Pierson5 wrote: Show me the pieces for Intelligent Design. If you guys have such a high standard for evidence, I'm assuming there should be many more pieces for ID than for evolution. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Why aren't you guys posting it?.

Every design for ever complex interactive mechanism in recorded history came about by intelligent design.... This is evidence for intelligences ability to form matter into functional mechanisms. In fact, intelligence is the only force that one can see evidence of which has achieved the formation of complex interactive structures. With this as empirical observable and testable evidence for a cause which can proveable shape matter into such forms then it is quite logical to infer its use when we encounter mechanisms that are not only complex and interactive but are also beyond our current ability to reverse engineer.
If you wish to posit Evolutions mechanisms as a possible cause then you need to provide the evidence for its ability to perform such an act. Asserting that changes occur to alleles over time cannot logically construe that changes = the ability to form no more than one can assume that the same forces that change the structure of my car over time are responible for its formation.

This is just a rehashed "watchmaker" argument. It is the common argument by analogy. Life is like man made objects in containing machines, therefore it is like man made objects in having an intelligent cause. You are ignoring dissimilarities between life and design, and the similarity has questionable relevance to intelligence. If this argument were valid, could it not equally be argued that, in every case where a machine's origin can be determined, the machine is made by humans, and therefore all life is man made? Molecular bonds are complex and interactive. They function as springs and can distribute/transmit forces through materials.

Your car analogy has been brought up before and is extremely flawed. This goes back to the previous paragraph. Cars do not reproduce, they do not mutate, they are not subject to natural selection and the components of cars do not have natural affinities for each other like cells (carbs, proteins, lipids) do.

KBCid wrote:

Pierson5 wrote: Do you agree that we can get another organism that looks very different from its ancestor within the realms of microevolution? (wolves to chihuahuas for example)

Every organism in existence is different than every other one. Are they all different species? If so then my wife and I have caused several species to arise.

This question was specifically addressing phenotype. The question before was addressing speciation. They are separate questions and were meant to be mutually exclusive.

KBCid wrote:

Pierson5 wrote: And just like we verified the world did not rest upon the shoulders of atlas, we verified evolution as a scientific fact and there is no need for a designer (i.e. God).

The only thing about evolution that is a fact is that alleles change over time. How and why those changes occur is what needs proof that no evolutionist has, since it would require a complete understanding of how DNA and the organism that contains it operate. Until you can prove the how and why then you can't arbitrarily eliminate ID as part of the cause.
God is asserted by religious people to be the first cause of unique living organisms which subsequently became other unique living organisms which points to ID as the cause of the uniqueness observed in living forms. Thus, unique living organisms can be considered unique by design and allele changes are not simply unlimited random chance mutational occurances as evolution infers its to be. Just as dice are intelligently designed to provide a defined range of variability, so apparently is lifes variability limited according to the scientific evidence so far.

Fair enough. I may have jumped the gun on that one. True, an intelligent designer could be "guiding" evolution along. We don't know all the mechanisms, but so far we don't have any evidence for anything supernatural. Remember, every mystery ever solved in the history of mankind never had "magic" as an explanation. I think my previous point covers your last segment.

I have yet to see any evidence for ID. Just assumptions. Here, I'll make it easy for you. This challenge was proposed to the Discover Institute a few years ago and has yet to be completed. Find a gene without an evolutionary heritage.

Here is a lovely video summing up the challenge: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkED8cWR ... re=related
And a followup here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnjWQqtU ... plpp_video

If you feel the test isn't fair. Then provide some other set of evidence.

Pierson5 wrote:I'm not filling anything in with my "philosophy." I'm still trying to figure out how saying "I don't know" is filling in a gap... Again you go back to the origin of life. Evolution says NOTHING about abiogenesis/origin of life research. They are two completely different fields. This isn't a hard concept to grasp...

Again... We have been over this many many times.... They ARE connected. How? As you stated... Pragmatism which is a tool used to embrace Darwinain evolution. Human reason is just a tool for controlling our environment and pursuing the ends that we value. Truth is that which is effective in bringing us control of our experiences and thus more satisfaction. This is NOT science... This is philosophy..

Also, concepts of abiogenesis are clearly taught in Biology books and is clearly taught in biology classes along with evolutionary theory. Darwinian evolution is the philosophical glue that holds it all together (supposedly). It is NOT science… This Biology book below called "Biology: Concepts and Connections" (copyright 2008) explains very clearly the origin and evolution of microbial life through prokaryotes and protists. I want you to purchase this book then read the various sections on "The Origin of Species" and the "The Origin and Evolution of Microbial Life: Prokaryotes and Protists."

1. Biology: Exploring Life

I. THE LIFE OF THE CELL
2. The Chemical Basis of Life
3. The Molecules of Cells
4. A Tour of the Cell
5. The Working Cell
6. How Cells Harvest Chemical Energy
7. Photosynthesis: Using Light to Make Food

II. CELLULAR REPRODUCTION AND GENETICS
8. The Cellular Basis of Reproduction and Inheritance
9. Patterns of Inheritance
10. Molecular Biology of the Gene
11. How Genes Are Controlled
12. DNA Technology and Genomics

III. CONCEPTS OF EVOLUTION
13. How Populations Evolve
14. The Origin of Species
15. Tracing Evolutionary History

IV. THE EVOLUTION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
16. The Origin and Evolution of Microbial Life: Prokaryotes and Protists
17. Plants, Fungi, and the Colonization of Land
18. The Evolution of Invertebrate Diversity
19. The Evolution of Vertebrate Diversity

Go to chapter 15 under the subject “Tracing evolutionary History” and you will see the conditions on early earth which made the origin of life possible (according to evolutionary beliefs). Under the topic, “How Did Life Arise?” It clearly states “observations and experiments that have led scientists to believe that chemical and physical processes on early earth have produced very simple cells through a sequence of 4 main stages:

1. The abiotic (nonliving) synthesis of small organic molecules, such as amino acids and nucleotides

2. The joining of these small molecules into macromolecules including proteins and nucleic acids

3. The packaging of these molecules into "protobionts,” droplets with membranes that maintain an internal chemistry different from that of their surroundings.

4. The origin of self-replicating molecules that eventually made inheritance possible. In the next two modules, we examine some of the evidence for each of these four stages. “ Biology: Concepts and Connections" (copyright 2008) Pg. 294.

First and foremost, abiogeneis has nothing to do biology. Molecules don’t evolve, they react. Before life begins there is only chemistry (and some physics). Chemistry is repeatable and testable. The book, however, is clearly using the mechanisms of abiogenesis to promote it's view for, in this case, macroevolution. See below..

"In this chapter we consider macroevolution, the major changes (such as the evolution of flight in three different vertebrate lineages) recorded in the history of life over vast tracts of time. We will trace this history and consider some of the major mechanisms of macroevolution. And we will explore how scientists organize the amazing diversity of life by attempting to discover the evolutionary relationships among living and extinct groups, tracing backwards to the first living organisms on Earth. To approach these wide-ranging topics, we begin with the most basic of questions: How did life arise on planet?" - Biology: Concepts and Connections pg 293.

This is clearly an evolutionary process from the books perspective. The whole chapter devotes itself to evolution and how life arose from nonliving matter… Evolution IS being used by scientists to explain the origins of life.. Plain and simple.

Pierson5 wrote:You are using the same line of reasoning used by HIV deniers. "You can't explain how this happens, you can't reproduce this in the lab, etc..." therefore this well accepted scientific fact is false. This is flawed reasoning. As I've said before, we don't need to know/understand every piece of information to see what's going on here. We don't need to know "why" to see what has happened. There is plenty of evidence to go off of. Here is a simple metaphor for you:

Again.... You yourself said that evolution is not completely factual... Therefore you WILL have to fill in the blanks with your philosophy. You will HAVE TO.

Pierson5 wrote:We don't need every piece of the evolution puzzle to see what is going on. We have plenty of the pieces (see my first post for a small sample). Show me the pieces for Intelligent Design. If you guys have such a high standard for evidence, I'm assuming there should be many more pieces for ID than for evolution. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Why aren't you guys posting it?

Again... No one has all the answers... No one. I don't defend ID itself, but I have to laugh we I see so "called scientists" write it off as faith based religion when their own science can ALSO be faith based..

Pierson5 wrote:Also, you are using the word "faith" as sort of a blanket statement. I think you can agree there are different degrees of faith. It doesn't take a lot of faith to believe the sun will "rise" tomorrow morning. However, it takes much more faith to believe the president is actually part of a reptilian sub-race in disguise. Sure we have "faith" for all types of things. Some require more than others and are less likely to be true. We can distinguish between which requires more based upon the evidence.

It takes way more faith to believe in macro evolution than belief in G-d.. Way more.

There is a fundamental difference between believing and understanding evolution:

“believe”: to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.
“understand”: to perceive the meaning of: grasp the idea of: comprehend.

If teachers of science would realize their job to teach students, to know and understand evolutionary theory, but not require them to believe it, then much of this ID conflict would go away.. Sound education rests on conveying knowledge and understanding, not beliefs… Basically Darwinian evolution is not part of our reality. It’s a belief system.. DE might make assumptions, that is true, but it is hardly factual. Science does not exclude God. Neither does it include God.

Pierson5 wrote:Excellent. Thanks for the definition. I think we can agree "macroevolution" is referring to evolutionary change over long periods of time. Can you give me a specific example of where you have a problem with this? Do you agree that speciation occurs within the realms of "microevolution"? Do you agree that we can get another organism that looks very different from its ancestor within the realms of microevolution? (wolves to chihuahuas for example)

I don't see the need for the last sentence. I never said evolution disproved God. This goes back to my main point on page 1 as well. If evolution was proven false, that does not prove ID (and/or God) to be true.

The only problem I see is that macroevolution is assumed... It is not exactly factual like certain concepts in ID as well.

Pierson5 wrote: Bolded emphasis was my addition. I 100% agree with that statement. And just like we verified the world did not rest upon the shoulders of atlas, we verified evolution as a scientific fact and there is no need for a designer (i.e. God). I will stress this point again though, this says NOTHING about the origin of life. We don't know how life originally arose. You could technically still have a "designer" there. But, until it's proven otherwise, we still don't know.

Yes, but I disagree that macroevolution is factual.. The pragmatists squarely faced this implication of Darwinism. Basically the truth is made rather than found. Thus we have philosophy...

Pierson5 wrote: That's debatable, but we should save it for a different thread.

The Big Bang is debatable but it also accepted among the scientific communities. Not as fact but in weight of the evidence. Also the Big Bang theory came from a creationist.

Pierson5 wrote: This is a fine example on why it is important to stay on topic. You are quoting out of context. When I was referring to the hypotheses, it was on the topic of abiogenesis, NOT evolution. Evolution isn't a hypothesis, like gravity, it's a theory/fact.

No I'm not... Micro-evolution is more fact than theory. Macro evolution is assumed.. Abiogeneis (not called that anymore) or chemical evolution is also taught in biology classes as I have shown along with evolutionary theory. Why? As philosophical glue.

Pierson5 wrote: Excellent point. Aliens could have been the "designer." Unfortunately, the people pushing ID do NOT consider that a legitimate hypothesis. This is found under the Design vs. Evolution link on this websites main page for example:

http://godandscience.org/apologetics/ufo.html

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that it's very unlikely that UFOs/extraterrestrials have visited Earth. But, I also extend this type of skepticism to the "God" hypothesis with ID.

Actually a growing number of people accept aliens as a possible creator as well.. Again, scientifically it shouldn't really matter who the creator is...

Pierson5 wrote:How is looking into alternate hypotheses equate to having some sort of bias or philosophy?

Because at some point we as humans are going to inject our philosophy into our science. It doesn't matter if you are a creationist or an atheists.

Pierson5 wrote: What does that have to do with anything? We find the building blocks of proteins in space and test a few ideas using that information and others. I don't see anything wrong with that. Just like I don't see anything wrong with testing the Intelligent Design hypothesis. What I DO have a problem with, is people claiming "God did it" and therefore testing life origins is unnecessary.

No one says that it is wrong to test... Only when someone says that science disproves the existence of God or the "possible" answer for it. Natural facts cannot explain everything.. Period.

Pierson5 wrote:Sure. And how do we decipher between the two "truths"? What is the best method we have? The scientific method. We follow the evidence. I have asked several times for the evidence for ID and have gotten very little. I have presented plenty for Evolution.

Likewise, I have asked for the evidence for things in the evolutionary theory and have gotten nothing. I have asked to watch inorganic matter to create life or watch macro evolution create a new species. It cannot be done, it is assumed via time and chance the god of evolution.

Pierson5 wrote:Your assessment of the two "truths" is a little off I might add. Evolution doesn't equate atheism or naturalism for that matter (as you said in your first sentence). All 3 are exclusive from each other. Therefore I don't see what you are trying to say in the middle of your paragraph. Let me clean it up for you though. In the beginning we there was "We don't know", and then, somehow the particles and laws of physics came into existence. Then possibly the particles became complex living stuff (maybe, we don't know). Simplest organisms evolved (we know this). Imagined God (possible, I have yet to see any evidence for God, but I could be wrong). Then we discovered evolution. The opposing viewpoint. A magic invisible man in the sky did it. (We know this).

Philosophy.. At it's finest..

Pierson5 wrote: I covered this already. We can go back to Helios, Zeus and Selena if you want...

The Bible is still there... Science hasn't disproved it yet.

Pierson5 wrote:Evolution explains the diversity of life, not the origin. True, Darwin proposed an idea about the origin of life. It's a good hypothesis, but we don't accepts it as fact, as we don't have the evidence for it. We don't just blindly accept what Darwin said as fact. Darwin was wrong about his hypothetical mechanism for heredity (Pangenesis) for example. We go where the evidence leads. We throw out what is wrong, and keep what is correct. It's not evolutionary biologist's job to figure out the origin of life. As Adocus said earlier, that's a job for biochemists and microbiologists. Don't confusing evolution with abiogenesis. This is a common creationist mistake. I now realize I should have addressed this on page 1.

Evolution is an 'attempt' to explain diversity. Diversity involves the origin of each distinct form of life therefore, it does indeed delve into the origin of life forms. This is understood from the evolutionary belief that one form of microscopic life could become all the forms we see. Of note here is that religion posits that there were a multitude of distinct and unique original life forms at the creation and this is one of the reasons why the promotion of a single common ancestor is such an endearing evolutionary arguement. So if evolutionist could prove that all species share a common ancestor then it would eliminate any stories of a god as originator. So far all they have proven is that mechanism sets and substrates involved in the self-manufacture of life forms can appear very similar between them.
Of course intelligent designers are observed to reuse creative mediums and form interactive systems that have been found to be quite similar in functionality to living systems. Its amazing actually how many systems are involved in one living form that exhibit much of the same types of functions only previously observed in designed mechanisms.
The fact is that so many things that we do understand as originating from intelligence are found within these systems that we are actively assuming that we as engineers can speed boost our own design capability by attempts at reverse engineering what appears to function in ways that we desire.

Pierson5 wrote: This is just a rehashed "watchmaker" argument. It is the common argument by analogy. Life is like man made objects in containing machines, therefore it is like man made objects in having an intelligent cause. You are ignoring dissimilarities between life and design, and the similarity has questionable relevance to intelligence. If this argument were valid, could it not equally be argued that, in every case where a machine's origin can be determined, the machine is made by humans, and therefore all life is man made? Molecular bonds are complex and interactive. They function as springs and can distribute/transmit forces through materials.

Actually it is not.
Even though living systems and mechanical systems are distinctly different, the truth is that they at times exhibit the same forms of functionality only observed as the result of ID in any non-living form. This is in fact one of the most interesting things about intelligent designers... even as materials and technology advance designers have simply found ways to recreate the same types of functions as older designs with totally different organisations. Abacus vs. calculator is a good reference here. So it is not the materials or formation method that we make association between replicating life forms and designed mechanisms it is the types of functions that are derived from a set of substrates that we have previously only observed as the result of intelligence that demands the comparison. Rotary motors come to mind, cargo transportation systems is another, error correction, Data storage, data readers... the list does go on.
The watch arguement was simply an arguement about complexity. ID has moved far beyond that simplistic notion and is now pointing out all the system function similarities that have only ever been observed as the result of intellectual organisation. The focus has moved to functional similarities being expressed within a complex interactive form. Nature has no reasoning ability to mimic the types of functions intelligence typically arranges.

So to continue where Paley left off with his limited understanding arguement that ended with simple watch complexity... If we come upon an arrangement of matter that exhibits the complexity of a watch and production lines and data storage and error correction and cargo transportation and rotary motors and repair systems and 3D optical recievers and temperature adjustment sytems and electrical systems and waste disposal systems and plumbing systems and filtering systems and communications systems and sound receivers and sound emmiters and defence systems and redundancy systems and pumps and valves and isolated chemical mixing systems and and and.... (this could go on for quite awhile) Then it is logical to infer that intelligence is its most logical cause since intelligence has been the 'ONLY' cause that keeps recreating those same types of functions in every substrate it has ever used in recorded history.

Pierson5 wrote: Fair enough. I may have jumped the gun on that one. True, an intelligent designer could be "guiding" evolution along. We don't know all the mechanisms, but so far we don't have any evidence for anything supernatural. Remember, every mystery ever solved in the history of mankind never had "magic" as an explanation. I think my previous point covers your last segment.

Note that I did not say 'guiding'. Intelligence designs systems that run as automated as their arrangement allows. The God of Christianity is asserted to have formed not only unique forms but a systematic replication method eliminating the need for creator supervision. This in the engineering world is a holy grail of design to eliminate the need for a system to require outside assistance in order to persist. This includes designed in variability to allow for environmental variables as a standard mechanism of persistence.

Really guys? I've gone over this thread, and I can see nothing but posts that call each other stupid, ignore points and attack each other's arguments without giving them much thought. We can do better than this! Why don't we try actually coming to agreements every now and then, and even supporting the people with whom we have discussions instead of only bashing our "opponents"... over and over.... What does that accomplish but push people further away?

Now, this post is about Evolution and Intelligent Design, right?

I assume that the argument is concerning whether evolution or ID is the "correct" explanation for why we are here. Now, I will pose a couple questions to fuel thought:

- Can elements of both evolution and ID be true together?

- And another, is it scientifically reasonable to include ID as a possible influence in the course of our history?

- Finally, if science can show what kinds of events have taken place in history, when does the line blur between science and theology/philosophy in explaining how these events took place?

KMR, do you have any examples for how our history has been affected by life being intelligently designed before our eyes? I can't really think of one. I mean, if you think anyone can scientifically demonstrate Genesis, then I think you will be disappointed. The only evidence for that is the Bible, and that wasn't even written by an eyewitness.

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:I'm not filling anything in with my "philosophy." I'm still trying to figure out how saying "I don't know" is filling in a gap... Again you go back to the origin of life. Evolution says NOTHING about abiogenesis/origin of life research. They are two completely different fields. This isn't a hard concept to grasp...

Again... We have been over this many many times.... They ARE connected. How? As you stated... Pragmatism which is a tool used to embrace Darwinain evolution. Human reason is just a tool for controlling our environment and pursuing the ends that we value. Truth is that which is effective in bringing us control of our experiences and thus more satisfaction. This is NOT science... This is philosophy..

I never said they weren't connected. Merely they are separate fields. Evolution is connected with many different fields, such as paleontology/archeology/genetics, etc.... But, these are still different fields. I really don't see the point you are trying to make. They are connected, so what?

Gman wrote:Also, concepts of abiogenesis are clearly taught in Biology books and is clearly taught in biology classes along with evolutionary theory. Darwinian evolution is the philosophical glue that holds it all together (supposedly). It is NOT science… This Biology book below called "Biology: Concepts and Connections" (copyright 2008) explains very clearly the origin and evolution of microbial life through prokaryotes and protists. I want you to purchase this book then read the various sections on "The Origin of Species" and the "The Origin and Evolution of Microbial Life: Prokaryotes and Protists."

1. Biology: Exploring Life

I. THE LIFE OF THE CELL
2. The Chemical Basis of Life ......

This is clearly an evolutionary process from the books perspective. The whole chapter devotes itself to evolution and how life arose from nonliving matter… Evolution IS being used by scientists to explain the origins of life.. Plain and simple.

Thanks, but I have a biology text book.

Observations and experiments in chemistry, geology, and physics have led scientists to propose one scenario that we'll examine here. They hypothesize that chemical and physical processes on early Earth, aided by the emerging force of natural selection, could have produced very simple cells through a sequence of four main stages:

(four stages are identical to the ones you cited)

Though speculative, this scenario leads to predictions that can be tested in the laboratory. In this section we will examine some of the evidence for each stage.

Again, we don't accept it as fact, but as a likely possibility. I don't see anywhere in the text that evolutionary biologists are the ones who are doing this research, do you? They are different fields. Connected sure. I don't see what you are trying to prove here...

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:You are using the same line of reasoning used by HIV deniers. "You can't explain how this happens, you can't reproduce this in the lab, etc..." therefore this well accepted scientific fact is false. This is flawed reasoning. As I've said before, we don't need to know/understand every piece of information to see what's going on here. We don't need to know "why" to see what has happened. There is plenty of evidence to go off of. Here is a simple metaphor for you:

Again.... You yourself said that evolution is not completely factual... Therefore you WILL have to fill in the blanks with your philosophy. You will HAVE TO.

Not sure if you are taking my quote out of context again. Please read what I wrote above. If you are referring to areas of evolutionary research we are still unsure about, I never said it wasn't factual, but unknown. The blanks aren't filled in with "philosophy," it's filled in with "I don't know."

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:We don't need every piece of the evolution puzzle to see what is going on. We have plenty of the pieces (see my first post for a small sample). Show me the pieces for Intelligent Design. If you guys have such a high standard for evidence, I'm assuming there should be many more pieces for ID than for evolution. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Why aren't you guys posting it?

Again... No one has all the answers... No one. I don't defend ID itself, but I have to laugh we I see so "called scientists" write it off as faith based religion when their own science can ALSO be faith based..

I never said anyone has all the answers. I totally agree with you on that point. But some do have more answers than others. I went over degrees of faith. One requires more faith than the other. Look through this thread and compare the evidence provided for evolution vs. that provided for ID (none?). Which do you think requires more faith?

I'll make this point again. I don't care if you don't accept the evidence for evolution, you can believe whatever you want. I care about the alternative being pushed to be taught to school children. If you aren't defending ID, and are just saying evolution is false and you don't know how these organisms came about (clearly appearing to have evolved), we have nothing to talk about.

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:Also, you are using the word "faith" as sort of a blanket statement. I think you can agree there are different degrees of faith. It doesn't take a lot of faith to believe the sun will "rise" tomorrow morning. However, it takes much more faith to believe the president is actually part of a reptilian sub-race in disguise. Sure we have "faith" for all types of things. Some require more than others and are less likely to be true. We can distinguish between which requires more based upon the evidence.

It takes way more faith to believe in macro evolution than belief in G-d.. Way more.

Why do you bring God into the equation? (see above) We are comparing evolution with ID. You said yourself ID doesn't necessarily mean God did it. Look at the evidence again, and this time compare evolution with ID. If you think ID has more evidence and requires less faith, post the evidence.

Gman wrote:If teachers of science would realize their job to teach students, to know and understand evolutionary theory, but not require them to believe it, then much of this ID conflict would go away.. Sound education rests on conveying knowledge and understanding, not beliefs… Basically Darwinian evolution is not part of our reality. It’s a belief system.. DE might make assumptions, that is true, but it is hardly factual. Science does not exclude God. Neither does it include God.

I totally agree with the bolded statement. We get the knowledge and understanding from the evidence. Again, look through the thread and compare the evidence for the two. Which one is more of a "belief"? This is why ID isn't taught in schools.

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:Excellent. Thanks for the definition. I think we can agree "macroevolution" is referring to evolutionary change over long periods of time. Can you give me a specific example of where you have a problem with this? Do you agree that speciation occurs within the realms of "microevolution"? Do you agree that we can get another organism that looks very different from its ancestor within the realms of microevolution? (wolves to chihuahuas for example)

I don't see the need for the last sentence. I never said evolution disproved God. This goes back to my main point on page 1 as well. If evolution was proven false, that does not prove ID (and/or God) to be true.

The only problem I see is that macroevolution is assumed... It is not exactly factual like certain concepts in ID as well.

Give me physical examples please. Where macroevolution is assumed and certain concepts of ID are fact. This should be easy.

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote: That's debatable, but we should save it for a different thread.

The Big Bang is debatable but it also accepted among the scientific communities. Not as fact but in weight of the evidence. Also the Big Bang theory came from a creationist.

"Not as fact but in weight of evidence." This statement is confusing to me. Can you think of something that is in weight of the evidence but is not a fact?

Mendel was also religious, that has nothing to do with anything.

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote: This is a fine example on why it is important to stay on topic. You are quoting out of context. When I was referring to the hypotheses, it was on the topic of abiogenesis, NOT evolution. Evolution isn't a hypothesis, like gravity, it's a theory/fact.

No I'm not... Micro-evolution is more fact than theory. Macro evolution is assumed.. Abiogeneis (not called that anymore) or chemical evolution is also taught in biology classes as I have shown along with evolutionary theory. Why? As philosophical glue.

Theories are explanations of the facts. Evolution is both. I have shown you what college text books say about the origin of life. Purely speculative, but offers experiments done in the lab to show why it's a likely possibility. Why is it taught? Because it's a common question and is currently being studied. We don't have the answer, but the hypotheses and experiments are brought to the students attention. What's wrong with that? Are you proposing we shouldn't teach any hypotheses in classrooms?

Gman wrote:Actually a growing number of people accept aliens as a possible creator as well.. Again, scientifically it shouldn't really matter who the creator is...

It doesn't matter. What matters is the evidence. We don't have any evidence that it was God, aliens or a time traveling cell biologist. I'm still waiting for someone to provide evidence in this thread for ID.

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:How is looking into alternate hypotheses equate to having some sort of bias or philosophy?

Because at some point we as humans are going to inject our philosophy into our science. It doesn't matter if you are a creationist or an atheists.

So, because humans are going to inject their philosophies into science, we can't look to alternate hypotheses? That's crazy! No scientific research would ever get done. It doesn't matter if philosophies get injected by individuals. As I said, we all have different philosophies. The scientific method is the best method to discover truth, REGARDLESS of your philosophy. This is why we have the peer review process.

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote: What does that have to do with anything? We find the building blocks of proteins in space and test a few ideas using that information and others. I don't see anything wrong with that. Just like I don't see anything wrong with testing the Intelligent Design hypothesis. What I DO have a problem with, is people claiming "God did it" and therefore testing life origins is unnecessary.

No one says that it is wrong to test... Only when someone says that science disproves the existence of God or the "possible" answer for it. Natural facts cannot explain everything.. Period.

I never said science disproves the existence of God. We aren't talking about that. We are talking about Intelligent Design and Evolution. Why do you keep going back to God?

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:Sure. And how do we decipher between the two "truths"? What is the best method we have? The scientific method. We follow the evidence. I have asked several times for the evidence for ID and have gotten very little. I have presented plenty for Evolution.

Likewise, I have asked for the evidence for things in the evolutionary theory and have gotten nothing. I have asked to watch inorganic matter to create life or watch macro evolution create a new species. It cannot be done, it is assumed via time and chance the god of evolution.

Did you not see my very first post? How can you sit there and say you have gotten no evidence for evolutionary theory. Inorganic matter to life is still a mystery, but says nothing about evolution. I could just as easily ask you for evidence of magic creating life. If you want "macro evolution" creating a new species, look back to the first page and click the link to go back to my response to Jlay. (the one with the whale fossils).

To sit there and say you have gotten no evidence is being disingenuous. The people who are claiming the scientific consensus has examined the evidence and gotten it WRONG are the ones who need to provide some evidence. I'm still waiting.

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:Your assessment of the two "truths" is a little off I might add. Evolution doesn't equate atheism or naturalism for that matter (as you said in your first sentence). All 3 are exclusive from each other. Therefore I don't see what you are trying to say in the middle of your paragraph. Let me clean it up for you though. In the beginning we there was "We don't know", and then, somehow the particles and laws of physics came into existence. Then possibly the particles became complex living stuff (maybe, we don't know). Simplest organisms evolved (we know this). Imagined God (possible, I have yet to see any evidence for God, but I could be wrong). Then we discovered evolution. The opposing viewpoint. A magic invisible man in the sky did it. (We know this).

Philosophy.. At it's finest..

I could have said the same thing to your first post. I was merely responding in the same manner you began with.

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote: I covered this already. We can go back to Helios, Zeus and Selena if you want...

The Bible is still there... Science hasn't disproved it yet.

It's not science's job to disprove the Bible. The Bible is making the extravagant claims, the burden of proof is on you. I'll create another thread regarding questions I have about the Bible later.

KBCid wrote:Of note here is that religion posits that there were a multitude of distinct and unique original life forms at the creation

That is a claim we can test. See the link I provided for the "Challenge to the Discovery Institute." If this claim is true, it is easily tested for.

KBCid wrote:So if evolutionist could prove that all species share a common ancestor then it would eliminate any stories of a god as originator. So far all they have proven is that mechanism sets and substrates involved in the self-manufacture of life forms can appear very similar between them.

Are you familiar with protein sequences, genetics, etc... All point to a common ancestor.




Taken from the HomoloGene database at //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
Type in the name of the protein to get specific sequences for a large number of organisms.
Plug into //www.ebi.ac.uk/Tools/msa/clustalw2/ to create the cladograms.

I may get to another point later, but I'm short on time.

KBCid wrote:Of course intelligent designers are observed to reuse creative mediums and form interactive systems that have been found to be quite similar in functionality to living systems. Its amazing actually how many systems are involved in one living form that exhibit much of the same types of functions only previously observed in designed mechanisms.
The fact is that so many things that we do understand as originating from intelligence are found within these systems that we are actively assuming that we as engineers can speed boost our own design capability by attempts at reverse engineering what appears to function in ways that we desire.

We can also speed boost our design capabilities by applying evolutionary algorithms. I remember seeing a video, but can't seem to find it. Here is the PDF for Aerodynamic Wing Optimization:

//www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s ... YBbkTfNKPw

KBCid wrote: The watch arguement was simply an arguement about complexity. ID has moved far beyond that simplistic notion and is now pointing out all the system function similarities that have only ever been observed as the result of intellectual organisation. The focus has moved to functional similarities being expressed within a complex interactive form. Nature has no reasoning ability to mimic the types of functions intelligence typically arranges.

KBCid wrote:So to continue where Paley left off with his limited understanding arguement that ended with simple watch complexity... If we come upon an arrangement of matter that exhibits the complexity of a watch and production lines and data storage and error correction and cargo transportation and rotary motors and repair systems and 3D optical recievers and temperature adjustment sytems and electrical systems and waste disposal systems and plumbing systems and filtering systems and communications systems and sound receivers and sound emmiters and defence systems and redundancy systems and pumps and valves and isolated chemical mixing systems and and and.... (this could go on for quite awhile) Then it is logical to infer that intelligence is its most logical cause since intelligence has been the 'ONLY' cause that keeps recreating those same types of functions in every substrate it has ever used in recorded history.

This still sounds like an argument from complexity/analogy. Regardless, the evolutionary hypothesis provides an alternative explanation of how living things might have come to have the property of displaying these abilities. In addition, we have excellent reason to reject the initial claim that all of these complex interactive functions must have a designer. We only need to be licensed to claim with respect to one of these functions that it was not designed. Correct? Behe use the bacterial flagellum as an example of irreducible complexity. I think it provides a pretty good example of a rotary motor mentioned in your statement. Intelligence has NOT been the only cause that creates these types of functions. This theory is derived from a wealth of data regarding protein homologies. It shows that a fully functional flagellum could evolve through multiple functional intermediates. Each step involves the modification of only a single protein.

//www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

My point here is, if we have something that falls into your criteria that is not designed, your basis for non-design vs. design is flawed.

KBCid wrote:Note that I did not say 'guiding'. Intelligence designs systems that run as automated as their arrangement allows. The God of Christianity is asserted to have formed not only unique forms but a systematic replication method eliminating the need for creator supervision. This in the engineering world is a holy grail of design to eliminate the need for a system to require outside assistance in order to persist. This includes designed in variability to allow for environmental variables as a standard mechanism of persistence.

What are you proposing exactly? From your last statement it sounds like God could have created complex organisms with the ability to evolve. If you are saying God could have created the common ancestor and gave it the ability to evolve (and did), then I have no problem with that. It's hard to see where you are coming from. Either way, all I have seen is some "logical" inferences and analogies. Do you have any evidence for what you support?

KBCid wrote: Of note here is that religion posits that there were a multitude of distinct and unique original life forms at the creation

Pierson5 wrote:That is a claim we can test. See the link I provided for the "Challenge to the Discovery Institute." If this claim is true, it is easily tested for.

Actually it cannot yet be tested for. If a multitude of life forms were created that function based on the same materials and tool sets for their formational organization then there is no method whereby one could empirically prove or disprove it as historical truth since like things react the same under like conditions. So a change that may occur because of a specific environmental variable to one organism is logically probable to occur to any other form of organism that uses the same basis of materials and tool sets as the first.

Pierson5 wrote:...protein sequences, genetics, etc... All point to a common ancestor.

Correction. They are assumed to point to a common ancestral form, not the single common ancestor of life. First, In order to posit a common ancestor of life you need evidence that that only one in fact existed. Second, it is common knowlege that intelligent designers create a variety of different things based on the same materials and construction methods. Life exhibits the same specific methods as seen performed by ID.
A single common ancestor for life is an imaginary concept and you can't determine the truth about the relevance of a conceptual construct until it can be tested. Science has as its basis the foundation of empirical testing and repeatability. So for you what this means is that you hold a belief in an imaginary construct of intelligence that is beyond scientific testability.

KBCid wrote: Of course intelligent designers are observed to reuse creative mediums and form interactive systems that have been found to be quite similar in functionality to living systems. Its amazing actually how many systems are involved in one living form that exhibit much of the same types of functions only previously observed in designed mechanisms.
The fact is that so many things that we do understand as originating from intelligence are found within these systems that we are actively assuming that we as engineers can speed boost our own design capability by attempts at reverse engineering what appears to function in ways that we desire.

Pierson5 wrote:We can also speed boost our design capabilities by applying evolutionary algorithms.

Are you refering to intelligently designed algorithms that are "designed" to mimic the intelligently formed concept of evolution? I would ask how it could show anything other than what its design was intended to do?

KBCid wrote:So to continue where Paley left off with his limited understanding arguement that ended with simple watch complexity... If we come upon an arrangement of matter that exhibits the complexity of a watch and production lines and data storage and error correction and cargo transportation and rotary motors and repair systems and 3D optical recievers and temperature adjustment sytems and electrical systems and waste disposal systems and plumbing systems and filtering systems and communications systems and sound receivers and sound emmiters and defence systems and redundancy systems and pumps and valves and isolated chemical mixing systems and and and.... (this could go on for quite awhile) Then it is logical to infer that intelligence is its most logical cause since intelligence has been the 'ONLY' cause that keeps recreating those same types of functions in every substrate it has ever used in recorded history.

Pierson5 wrote:This still sounds like an argument from complexity/analogy.

It can only sound like a complexity arguement if you avoid the specific point I wrote about functions and the multitude of referencial functions that make up the majority of that paragraph. Here is the difference between complexity and function;

Complexity
1. the state or quality of being intricate or complex
2. something intricate or complex; complication

Function
1. The action for which a person or thing is particularly fitted or employed.
2. a. Assigned duty or activity.
b. A specific occupation or role
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/

as can be determined without much controversy complexity and function are two entirely different things.

Pierson5 wrote:Regardless, the evolutionary hypothesis provides an alternative explanation of how living things might have come to have the property of displaying these abilities.

The hypothesis provides an "alternative concept" of how living things "might" have come to have the property of displaying these abilities. The geocentric hypothesis was an "alternative concept" of how planetary bodies "might" all revolve around the earth and it had enough evidence to keep it as the best explanation for nearly 15 centuries. So, we have evidence that conceptual constructs aren't all they are touted to be.

Pierson5 wrote:In addition, we have excellent reason to reject the initial claim that all of these complex interactive functions must have a designer.

"we" do? hmmm strangely I notice that you have switched over to a discussion about function which you seemed to bypass just previously.

Pierson5 wrote:We only need to be licensed to claim with respect to one of these functions that it was not designed. Correct?

ummmm nope incorrect. I used to have a car hood that initially functioned quite well as a hood which when repurposed (another unique property of intelligence) worked exceedingly well as a snow sled. Its change of use never affected the fact that it was designed.

Pierson5 wrote:Behe use the bacterial flagellum as an example of irreducible complexity. I think it provides a pretty good example of a rotary motor mentioned in your statement.

a flagellum is an example of both complexity and function and it is irreducible as a rotary motor. It has around 40 different protein components arranged in specific 3 dimensional formations which perform interactively as part of a function. However, It is not formed autonomously nor does it 'function' autonomously. thus it is only part of a much greater irreducible system.
I have a really nice rotary motor hanging off the back of my boat and I know it didn't arrive there on its own (autonomously) and every weekend when I go check on it, it is still right where I left it. It never seems to take off on its own (autonomously). My motor functions quite similarly to a flagellum.

Pierson5 wrote:Intelligence has NOT been the only cause that creates these types of functions.

Ok then what else performs the function that a bacterial flagellum performs and can be proven to arise without intelligent cause?

Pierson5 wrote:This theory is derived from a wealth of data regarding protein homologies. It shows that a fully functional flagellum could evolve through multiple functional intermediates. Each step involves the modification of only a single protein.

How many single proteins can be modified within a controlled closed system before its pre-existing functionality is compromised? And of course the usual arguement of how does the existing mechanical flagellum function without a compatable controller? Which came first the flagelum, or the controller that makes it operate? You do know that it can rotate forward and reverse and its rotational velocity is variable as well. It is also used in conjunction with a steering function. Hmmmm multiple functions all being applied in conjunction with each another for a goal. You know my boat can go forward and backwards at variable speeds too and it also uses an intelligently designed steering function in conjunction with being propelled. It still amazes me how closely lifes functions appear to be exactly the same as intelligently designed ones and yet for all that evidence people still have full faith that intelligence is absolutely not a possible cause.

Pierson5 wrote:My point here is, if we have something that falls into your criteria that is not designed, your basis for non-design vs. design is flawed.

Problem here is that there is nothing that you have noted that falls into 'my' criteria.

Pierson5 wrote:What are you proposing exactly? From your last statement it sounds like God could have created complex organisms with the ability to evolve. If you are saying God could have created the common ancestor and gave it the ability to evolve (and did), then I have no problem with that. It's hard to see where you are coming from.

Designed in variability sounds fairly straight forward. A water car http://www.watercar.com/ is a very simple example of designed in variability but as with any design it has limitations for how far it can vary. Evolution posits essentially no limitations from molecules to man.

Pierson5 wrote:Either way, all I have seen is some "logical" inferences and analogies.

Of course when you are trying to see something through a veil it all looks like something you already understand

Pierson5 wrote:Do you have any evidence for what you support?

Of course I do. Complex interactive functioning systems require spatiotemporal encoding in order to be formed and life being such a system requires a predetermined design to exist. Intelligence is the only cause that can form a predetermined design along with the method to implement it.
Life requires 3 dimensional specifications to form non-repetetive 3D structures that are complex, interactive and functional systems. These specifications require a reference from a starting point and separate references to each of the three axis points relative to that start point as part of the instruction set to form 3D structures and since timing is a requirement within lving systems the instruction set must be able initiate its issuance of the instructions based on real time triggering.
I don't expect you to understand the meaning of this as it is most likely gibberish to you. However, this area of understanding is what is missing from the realm of evolutionary consideration since they have little to no idea how life forms from the DNA coding. They prefer to focus on the 2-3 % of the genome that they think really matters... the coding regions. The other 97 or so % is assumed to have very limited functionality in regards to 3 dimensional formation. An analogy here would be for you to see the machinery in a construction yard and assume that those machines are all thats needed to form the structures that come from the yard.

There is some hope that evolutionary scientists will at some point begin to recognise that there is more to living structures than simply the construction yard machinery;

Development of the tetrapod limb
Pattern formation is the process by which embryonic cells form ordered spatial arrangements of differentiated tissues. The ability to carry out this process is one of the most dramatic properties of developing organisms, and one that has provoked a sense of awe in scientists and laypeople alike. How is it that the embryo is able not only to generate all the different cell types of the body, but also to produce them in a way that forms functional tissues and organs? It is one thing to differentiate the chondrocytes and osteocytes that synthesize the cartilage and bone matrices, respectively; it is another thing to produce those cells in a temporal-spatial orientation that generates a functional bone. It is still another thing to make that bone a humerus and not a pelvis or a femur. The ability of limb cells to sense their relative positions and to differentiate with regard to those positions has been the subject of intense debate and experimentation.
...The positions of each of the bones and muscles in the limb are precisely organized...
...In some manner, the three-dimensional pattern of the forelimb is routinely produced. The fundamental problem of morphogenesis—how specific structures arise in particular places—is exemplified in limb development. How is it that one part of the lateral plate mesoderm develops limb-forming capacities? How is it that the fingers form at one end of the limb and nowhere else? How is it that the little finger develops at one edge of the limb and the thumb at the other?
...The positional information needed to construct a limb has to function in a three-dimensional coordinate system.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9975/

Excellent post, now we're getting somewhere. First off, thanks for taking the time to respond to such a lengthy post, but before we go any further, I need to ask a couple quick questions.

KBCid wrote: Actually it cannot yet be tested for. If a multitude of life forms were created that function based on the same materials and tool sets for their formational organization then there is no method whereby one could empirically prove or disprove it as historical truth since like things react the same under like conditions. So a change that may occur because of a specific environmental variable to one organism is logically probable to occur to any other form of organism that uses the same basis of materials and tool sets as the first.

Do you think ID is a legitimate scientific hypothesis? If so, is it falsifiable? (from this comment it sounds like it is not).