Evidence for God from Science

Audie wrote:It is your fault that you think something lame like your "equally supports" does anything but illuminate and elucidate your lack of logic.

You are found guilty of GIN, Gross Intellectual Negligence. Fine to be set at a later date; and you are, further, enjoined from the use of the plagiarized use of the term "limp" except as rightly applied.

Do you even know what you're talking about?

Welcome back Audie.

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:No, you're entirely loosing me now. Sounds like you're trying to get away from specific issues I raised.

As I said in the post above, the issues that you mention, e.g., evolution (general), mechanisms, information theory, ultimate origins, natural selection, abiogenesis, are not the simplest forums for building a common basis for discussion.

My last posts lay out a simple but concrete common framework for discussion, viz., what evidence and hypothesis testing for common descent even means. If we cannot have a common understanding about that, I guarantee we won't on any of the items you mentioned. But if we can, we'll be able to productively discuss your somewhat more complicated topics.

I cannot emphasize enough how important building that common frame of reference is. For example, I presume that you might witness to someone by starting with something like the basics about the nature of God/Christ, before diving into the details about the Trinity.

Ok, I'm understanding you better.
I'll have to re-read your previous posts.

BUT, I don't think "common descent" is the basis to form discussion of evolution around.
For the sole reason that "common descent" is not "evolution" -- it is just common descent.
It is evidence for natural evolution just as much as a creative designer who gets really involved in creating.
As I previously discussed with you elsewhere -- the kind that makes use of existing life, adds to and creates something new.

Then we see a lot of symbiotic relationships, mutual symbiosis, tightly knit ecosystems, "convergences", bursts of life, timing issues, and the like...
Which makes a creative designer mixing up creation, like an artist does their paint, start seeming to me like a better explanation for "common descent".

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I'm not sure that I'm following... we seem to be talking about different things.

Correct!

I'm talking about a straightforward, but non-trivial, example relating to this topic of how evidence can support a hypothesis, a.k.a. the scientific method.

A trivial example is someone tells you, "All ravens are black." (the hypothesis)
So you hike into a bird-rich forest with your binoculars. You see a black cowbird. (evidence) Does that evidence support the hypothesis? No, but doesn't falsify the hypothesis either.

Then you spot a black raven. (more evidence) Does that evidence support the hypothesis? Yes. Do you stop looking? No, of course not. You spot another black raven. The hypothesis is looking even better. Then you spot a red raven. (even more evidence) Do you stop? Yes, because you've falsified the hypothesis. (Ahh, science in action! Gives me goosebumps!)

Are you with me so far?

Yes, I'm with you now.

I was talking something else but I get what train of thought you were on here.

Applying it to the discussion that I had in mind...
"Common descent" for me is like a "black raven". It doesn't disprove one way or another, but does falsify some creation views -- right?
And the additional evidences that I provided for why I believe a creator is more likely (in my previous post) are like my "red ravens".

Only, in science, often there's no smoking gun. It is often a matter of what is more or less supported and probable.
And who knows... perhaps some smart alec painted a black raven red.

Kurieuo wrote:Yes, I'm with you now.

Awesome.

Kurieuo wrote:"Common descent" for me is like a "black raven". It doesn't disprove one way or another, but does falsify some creation views -- right?

Common descent would not falsify some creation views, evidence would. Common descent is a hypothesis, e.g., "all ravens are black". Evidence, e.g., "a red (or black) raven", falsifies (or supports) hypotheses.

Believe me, I'm not trying to nitpick here -- these concepts are crucial to describing how science works.

Kurieuo wrote:And the additional evidences that I provided for why I believe a creator is more likely (in my previous post) are like my "red ravens".

Yes, I understood that, and I look forward to investigating that. But we still have another step for the common descent hypothesis, viz., whether the evidence of organism groupings by traits forms a single objective nested hierarchy. If the answer is yes, then common descent is supported. If the answer is no, then common descent is falsified.

If you don't already agree that the traits form the nested hierarchy, I can write up another post.

We may be getting ahead of ourselves here (and I've posted this before), but common descent, if supported, "creates" combinations of traits in a way that intelligent designers don't normally do.

Unfortunately, I probably won't have time to make another post for a while, because I'm leaving soon to spend a week skiing moguls in the Rockies. While I'm away, I'm putting Audie in charge - so may God have mercy on all your souls.

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:And the additional evidences that I provided for why I believe a creator is more likely (in my previous post) are like my "red ravens".

Yes, I understood that, and I look forward to investigating that. But we still have another step for the common descent hypothesis, viz., whether the evidence of organism groupings by traits forms a single objective nested hierarchy. If the answer is yes, then common descent is supported. If the answer is no, then common descent is falsified.

You do know, I actually have no issue accepting common descent?

So I don't intend to argue against such hierarchies, but there are difficulties with grouping organisms by traits.
E.g., some butterflies that appeared to have similar traits = classified as same species.
DNA analysis shows that some of these butterflies in fact has very different traits in their make-up = different species.

Humans love to box and label things.
Similarities could just be a matter of what "similar traits" we decide to focus upon.
However, I don't want to debate the matter... just saying it's not always clear.
As such the resulting nested hierarchies may not be correct.
Does this disprove common descent? No. It's not a "red raven" to me.

Morny wrote:We may be getting ahead of ourselves here (and I've posted this before), but common descent, if supported, "creates" combinations of traits in a way that intelligent designers don't normally do.

I'd be interested to have you unpack your reasons here.
Really, this is a crucial point of difference between us as I see things.

Kurieuo wrote:

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:And the additional evidences that I provided for why I believe a creator is more likely (in my previous post) are like my "red ravens".

Yes, I understood that, and I look forward to investigating that. But we still have another step for the common descent hypothesis, viz., whether the evidence of organism groupings by traits forms a single objective nested hierarchy. If the answer is yes, then common descent is supported. If the answer is no, then common descent is falsified.

You do know, I actually have no issue accepting common descent?

So I don't intend to argue against such hierarchies, but there are difficulties with grouping organisms by traits.
E.g., some butterflies that appeared to have similar traits = classified as same species.
DNA analysis shows that some of these butterflies in fact has very different traits in their make-up = different species.

Humans love to box and label things.
Similarities could just be a matter of what "similar traits" we decide to focus upon.
However, I don't want to debate the matter... just saying it's not always clear.
As such the resulting nested hierarchies may not be correct.
Does this disprove common descent? No. It's not a "red raven" to me.

Morny wrote:We may be getting ahead of ourselves here (and I've posted this before), but common descent, if supported, "creates" combinations of traits in a way that intelligent designers don't normally do.

I'd be interested to have you unpack your reasons here.
Really, this is a crucial point of difference between us as I see things.

I would like you to debate the issue as I might learn something new.

To be clear, the issue is whether "common descent" is by direct intervention or via natural processes unfolding alone.

Morny claims that common descent displays traits in a way that an intelligent designer would not normally do.
I'd argue the opposite, believing that common descent and other factors:

• point to direct intervention by the Creator during the creation of new life (Progressive Creation)
• steer us away from believing common descent unfolded naturally (Theistic/Naturalistic Evolution).

Common descent is therefore being accepted as a given.
So to be clear, the issue is not about the evidence for/against common descent.
Rather what "common descent" and other factors or traits such points to (progressive creation or a natural evolutionary process).

Kurieuo wrote:To be clear, the issue is whether "common descent" is by direct intervention or via natural processes unfolding alone.

Morny claims that common descent displays traits in a way that an intelligent designer would not normally do.
I'd argue the opposite, believing that common descent and other factors:

• point to direct intervention by the Creator during the creation of new life (Progressive Creation)
• steer us away from believing common descent unfolded naturally (Theistic/Naturalistic Evolution).

Common descent is therefore being accepted as a given.
So to be clear, the issue is not about the evidence for/against common descent.
Rather what "common descent" and other factors or traits such points to (progressive creation or a natural evolutionary process).

Why does it suit you to think your god has to tinker and meddle and go poof to get his invention to work?
Serious question.

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:To be clear, the issue is whether "common descent" is by direct intervention or via natural processes unfolding alone.

Morny claims that common descent displays traits in a way that an intelligent designer would not normally do.
I'd argue the opposite, believing that common descent and other factors:

• point to direct intervention by the Creator during the creation of new life (Progressive Creation)
• steer us away from believing common descent unfolded naturally (Theistic/Naturalistic Evolution).

Common descent is therefore being accepted as a given.
So to be clear, the issue is not about the evidence for/against common descent.
Rather what "common descent" and other factors or traits such points to (progressive creation or a natural evolutionary process).

Why does it suit you to think your god has to tinker and meddle and go poof to get his invention to work?
Serious question.

God didn't need to tinker and meddle. It delighted God to work as He did.
Consider the creativity of an artist who delights in mixing different colours of paint on their palette.

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:To be clear, the issue is whether "common descent" is by direct intervention or via natural processes unfolding alone.

Morny claims that common descent displays traits in a way that an intelligent designer would not normally do.
I'd argue the opposite, believing that common descent and other factors:

• point to direct intervention by the Creator during the creation of new life (Progressive Creation)
• steer us away from believing common descent unfolded naturally (Theistic/Naturalistic Evolution).

Common descent is therefore being accepted as a given.
So to be clear, the issue is not about the evidence for/against common descent.
Rather what "common descent" and other factors or traits such points to (progressive creation or a natural evolutionary process).

Why does it suit you to think your god has to tinker and meddle and go poof to get his invention to work?
Serious question.

God didn't need to tinker and meddle. It delighted God to work as He did.
Consider the creativity of an artist who delights in mixing different colours of paint on their palette.

First: you dont know that, you are assuming motives.
Making it up, really.

Second, you may want to review your parasitology for a bit and consider
what sort of sick creep would take delight in designing those.

Audie wrote:First: you dont know that, you are assuming motives.
Making it up, really.

First: you asked a question which assumed what God's motives wouldn't be.
Given God's existence, you don't know that God would necessarily create everything brand new from nothing.

If we're talking Christianity, then we have examples of God creating life from something pre-existing and then adding to it.
Adam is created from clay, and Eve formed from Adam's side.

To dismiss the possibility I'm advocating because you don't believe God would do it that way is rather subjective.
It is similar to some YECs who might say why did God need to create over millions of years rather than in six 24-hour days.

BUT, God need not do create this way or that way.
So it is more important to debate the evidence for/against such ought to be debated, not the motivation.

Second: you are right in that I'm assuming (just like you do in assuming otherwise).
But, that's what everyone does when they first come up with an idea about something.
There is nothing wrong with theorizing. It's done in science, and then one looks at the evidence for and against.
What is more important are the tests and evidence that would help prove/disprove it -- right?
Which is what I hope to do with Morny once he's back.

That said, it does make sense to me that if God is the ultimate source of creativity, that God would be very creative in how He created life.
And I can even think of other reasons based upon other Christian beliefs I hold to about why God would create new life from previous life, but such reasons aren't really relevant to whether God did/didn't create in such a manner.

Audie wrote:Second, you may want to review your parasitology for a bit and consider
what sort of sick creep would take delight in designing those.

Maybe I'm being dense, but what is wrong with parasitic relationships?
I don't have any moral issue with such design.

Parasites play an important ecological role in the world.
This role wreaks of purpose and design to me, even if some are repulsed.
I'm personally marveled by it all and think in the total scheme of things (the fuller ecology) such creation in its entirety is still beautiful and good.

Further, there is no need to even talk of parasites.
I mean, what kind of "sick creep" would design a world wherein creatures die?
Where sickness and diseases debilitates us in the most horrible ways?
(but, equally there is much beauty and goodness to behold....)

HOWEVER, what we are doing here again is questioning God's motivations and not whether some God actually created new life from prior life.
And if you think all of creation points to God being cruel, well then that's a very different line of argument to do with God's goodness.
Perhaps God does exist, and did do it that way and is very "sick creep" (despite my also seeing much good in the world).

While these questions are irrelevant to the discussion that I wish to take up with Morny, I'd encourage you to explore some theodicies.
We can start a new thread to discuss such. They're still important questions for Christians to answer, and I'm sure others would love to give their own takes.
But, for me, I'll just say I have no issues with God and such things.
Maybe I'm a sick creep too though.

Maybe 2moro. Too tired now.

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Yes, I'm with you now.

Awesome.

Kurieuo wrote:"Common descent" for me is like a "black raven". It doesn't disprove one way or another, but does falsify some creation views -- right?

Common descent would not falsify some creation views, evidence would. Common descent is a hypothesis, e.g., "all ravens are black". Evidence, e.g., "a red (or black) raven", falsifies (or supports) hypotheses.

Believe me, I'm not trying to nitpick here -- these concepts are crucial to describing how science works.

Kurieuo wrote:And the additional evidences that I provided for why I believe a creator is more likely (in my previous post) are like my "red ravens".

Yes, I understood that, and I look forward to investigating that. But we still have another step for the common descent hypothesis, viz., whether the evidence of organism groupings by traits forms a single objective nested hierarchy. If the answer is yes, then common descent is supported. If the answer is no, then common descent is falsified.

If you don't already agree that the traits form the nested hierarchy, I can write up another post.

We may be getting ahead of ourselves here (and I've posted this before), but common descent, if supported, "creates" combinations of traits in a way that intelligent designers don't normally do.

Unfortunately, I probably won't have time to make another post for a while, because I'm leaving soon to spend a week skiing moguls in the Rockies. While I'm away, I'm putting Audie in charge - so may God have mercy on all your souls.

Well I would like to ask right from the start how are you looking at the evidence in the earth? Are you looking at it from an evolution perspective? The answer would be yes but see there is no evidence that life evolves in the first place and yet you are ignoring it,yet still looking at and interpreting the evidence from this perspective jumping over the fact there is no evidence life evolves and yet you think up common descent and go around the problem this is why science has a flawed view of what the evidence in the earth reveals because it reveals there was a former world on this earth that perished,this world was full life and had different kind of life in it than the life we have in this world.

But because they are looking at the evidence from an evolution perspective they think the life in the former world evolved into the life in this world,but it didn't God made the life in this world after their kind the bible tells us in Genesis 1 and so because it can be similar to the life in this world they think it evolved.You may scoff at my theory but the evidence in the earth bears this out and you have no evidence life evolves.

We also know that roaches and silverfish have not evolved for millions of years and yet this is ignored yet to still look at other life and say it evolved,no roaches and silverfish were living in the former world also.God made them again for this world.

Scientists better get to work and prove scientifically life evolves or the Gap theory is going to give them serious problems unless they accept the truth,which is what I hope for,but doubt.

The Gap theory is more credible without evidence life evolves.

Not that anyone cares, but I'm back from knocking down every mogul in the Rockies.

Kurieuo wrote:You do know, I actually have no issue accepting common descent?

You accept the evidence that supports the conclusion that we share a common ancestor with salmon via biological procreation?

Kurieuo wrote:So I don't intend to argue against such hierarchies, but there are difficulties with grouping organisms by traits.

A couple things ...

Persistent difficulties with grouping organisms by traits would invalidate the hypothesis of common descent.

The one objective nested hierarchy, not hierarchies, supports the hypothesis. Multiple valid nested hierarchies would invalidate common descent.

Kurieuo wrote:E.g., some butterflies that appeared to have similar traits = classified as same species.
DNA analysis shows that some of these butterflies in fact has very different traits in their make-up = different species.
[...]
Similarities could just be a matter of what "similar traits" we decide to focus upon.

You bring up an extremely important point. All traits go into the nested hierarchy analysis, which does not cherry-pick traits to give a biased result.

In that analysis, some traits, e.g., exterior color, convergently appear over widely differing organisms. So in the overall analysis, those traits appear as noise, as you might expect from a trait like exterior color. However, a huge set of other traits do show the unmistakable pattern of one nested hierarchy, e.g., 2-chambered heart, vertebrae, jaw.

Kurieuo wrote:To be clear, the issue is whether "common descent" is by direct intervention or via natural processes unfolding alone.

Not for me.

I don't care what is the ultimate cause for the evidence that supports the hypothesis of common descent. BTW, common descent says, for example, that humans and snails seem to share a common ancestor via biological procreation, which almost all people here seem to categorically reject. Do you still accept common descent?

In any event, the evidential support for common descent doesn't care about, or rely on, a model of underlying ultimate causes. As I've said before, an intelligent designer could have created each species independently, last Tuesday. And that would be cool. But if so, that designer is following a clear pattern of evidence that supports a hypothesis that is indistinguishable from humans and snails sharing a common ancestor via biological procreation.