Evidence for God from Science

Regarding the basis for calling something a disease…If you have ever witnessed suffering and dying as a result of a genetic disorder, you would understand very clearly why these are called diseases. Please give me an example of a disease in your mind? If you think that all human fate is the will of God and not a disease, then try keeping your dying child away from doctors because you think his or her illness is just the normal course of events as willed by God.

My point was that your argument for saying there are imperfect evolving proteins doesn't cut the mustard. Flaws in genes that make proteins and hemoglobin (it's not a protein I don't recall...if it is, I'm being redundant) are just that-flaws that make a "perfect" protein imperfect. I've been accused of hating doctors before too, it's funny how words are put into my mouth.

Evolution can easily be falsified.

List them, because, as I see it, it's not disprovable. You being the great oz can enlighten me, I'm sure.

Should I list examples of transitional fossils?

Ask August for a definition, he's good at stuff like that, and then, list them with proof they are what you say they are. but, wait, you shouldn't, it's not real science! It can't be disproven....it can just shown the be highly unlikely, improbable, and stupid.

And what in the world makes people accuse me of not trusting doctors and the entire field of medicine?

AttentionKMartShoppers: I realised after I responded to your response regarding the concept of disease that I may have seriously misinterpreted your point. Many apologies… My only point is that that there are many proteins which are not optimally functioning according to very simple but quantitative standards of efficiency. However, what constitutes optimal functionality depends very strongly on the context. For example, many people who have a genetic makeup optimized for survival under conditions of feast-and-famine now find they are dealing with the severely debilitating consequences of diabetes, as a result of an evolutionarily recent access to a ready supply of carbohydrates and other foods. Similarly, people with sickle cell trait are at an advantage where malaria is prevalent, but when they mate with others who also have the trait, produce offspring which have a serious illness. Thus optimization is relative to environment. It is likely not the case that anyone has ever been the beneficiary of a completely optimal set of proteins, since there is a lag between changes in environment and the ability of selection to produce populations which are optimally endowed to deal with these changes. Thus, evidence points to a system which confers global survival capabilities upon enough of the living population to perpetuate life on this planet, but does so at the expense of considerable suffering on the part of those who are not lucky enough to have inherited the right set of genes.

Regarding ToE and the ability to falsify, there are many scientific findings that could have potentially falsified the theory. Remember that when Darwin first proposed the theory there was absolutely no understanding of the mechanisms of inheritance. There was no understanding of microevolution, as the microscopic world was largely unknown. The theory states (with some simplification) that natural selection confers survival advantage on those who have robust enough phenotypic traits as to be able to reproduce (and in some cases see that their young reach the age of reproduction). Since both randomness and selection are essential components to ToE, it is required that a mechanism of inheritance exists that possesses the ability to change randomly as well as pass along these random changes to subsequent generations (assuming they confer enough of a survival advantage that there is a next generation). In the time since ToE was first proposed, such a system has been found. As I mentioned before, if a system which does not possess these capabilities had been found, it would have absolutely contradicted ToE. How could random selection occur if there is no randomness, and there is no means for passing along the result of random changes to the next generation? I am happy to list many other data which support the theory, but let's keep things simple and discuss this point first.

Regarding transitional species, I need your concept for what constitutes such a species. For an (obviously silly) example, a mouse could be considered transitional between fish and humans. Since I know this example will not suffice (understandably), what is it that you see lacking in the fossil record that, if found, might cause you to change your mind regarding ToE? I need specifics.

Lastly, I am still interested in your suggestions for an experiment that could determine whether or not intelligent design is responsible for any observed behavior of nature (other than obviously human creations, such as the cars in my garage). For example, what experiment could we do that would determine that ToE is (or is not) the result of intelligent design?

I've skipped most of the debate, so this may have been addressed. If it has, please kindly ignore my post and ridicule me for not reading the entire thread!

Went I was in college, there were several Jesuit preists professors who advocated that there is no conflict because the term "Day" is merely a metaphor for the period of time that it took to create the Universe. In essence, these priests argued that both theories were right and the apparent conflict advocated on both sides between the two theories was really no conflict at all.

My only point is that that there are many proteins which are not optimally functioning according to very simple but quantitative standards of efficiency.

If the explanation doesn't sound like a foreign language, would you mind explaining how you determine efficiency? Never heard of this before.

For example, many people who have a genetic makeup optimized for survival under conditions of feast-and-famine now find they are dealing with the severely debilitating consequences of diabetes, as a result of an evolutionarily recent access to a ready supply of carbohydrates and other foods.

I think people have no self control.

Regarding transitional species, I need your concept for what constitutes such a species.

It is best you have august do that, he enjoys defining things. My definition would be lacking.

Lastly, I am still interested in your suggestions for an experiment that could determine whether or not intelligent design is responsible for any observed behavior of nature (other than obviously human creations, such as the cars in my garage). For example, what experiment could we do that would determine that ToE is (or is not) the result of intelligent design?

I don't know if this would necessarily destroy ID...because many things that should have destroyed (naturalistic) evolution have not (Big Bang, 2nd law of thermodynams, just two examples). So, some things that would punch gaping holes through ID: a natural process that can create information (which is non-materia), natural processes that make order, a way for the building blocks of a cell not to become useless on the way to becoming a cell through oxidization and bonding with other chemicals, a process that would make all L hand amino acids, a process through which DNA can come about without proteins, and another process for proteins to come about without DNA.

AttentionKMartShoppers: I am happy to discuss efficiency regarding enzymes, though intellectual honesty compels me to start with the caveat that this definition holds only for enzymes in isolation, not necessarily in vivo. In the latter case, things are more complex. However, it is certainly the case that enzymatic deficiencies are the cause of many health-related problems, from lactose intolerance to diabetes to early death as a result of metabolic disorders. In these cases, if we were able to improve the performance of the specific enzyme at fault, we could cure the disease. This is a major goal of gene therapy.

An enzyme is a molecule that catalyzes a biochemical reaction—breakdown of sugar, for example—but is not a product of the reaction. In essence, it aids in a biochemical pathway without being a product of that pathway. A perfectly efficient enzyme would cause reactant A to become product B every time it met reactant A. No enzyme does this, though some come very close. Most enzymes require multiple collisions with the reactant before catalyzing it into the product. Since life only requires that product B be formed from product A, it is possible to overcome this limitation by simply producing more of the enzyme, but this is done at some expense. A good example is an enzyme that breaks down a toxic substance into a non-toxic substance. (The liver is chock-full of these enzymes, known as transaminases.) An organism that has a robust enzymatic capability to do this is at a significant advantage over an organism that does not.

Regarding contradictions to ToE, I am aware of none. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is often cited, but this is an incorrect application of the law. The argument is that the 2nd law requires systems to go from higher ordered states to lower ordered states. However, this is only true in a global sense. For a good example of how this is not true in a local sense, consider snow: it is the transition from highly disordered water vapour to highly ordered crystalline snowflakes. According to the flawed application of the 2nd law, this is unphysical and therefore evidence that God exists. (I think snow is great evidence that God exists, but not because of the 2nd law!)

Thus, ToE is consistent with all currently known laws of physics. Its exact mechanisms are nevertheless profound mysteries, which make many of us humble in the face of God.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote: I don't know if this would necessarily destroy ID...because many things that should have destroyed (naturalistic) evolution have not (Big Bang, 2nd law of thermodynams, just two examples).

How the hell do the big bang and your version of the 2nd law of thermodynamics destroy naturalistic evolution?

Mastermind wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote: I don't know if this would necessarily destroy ID...because many things that should have destroyed (naturalistic) evolution have not (Big Bang, 2nd law of thermodynams, just two examples).

How the hell do the big bang and your version of the 2nd law of thermodynamics destroy naturalistic evolution?

Oh poor Mastermind. The Big Bang, of course, is the explanation for how the universe began...and this is as far as I need to go on this. TOE (a la naturalistic I said, so don't tell me "GOD DID IT!")

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is often cited, but this is an incorrect application of the law.

I almost swear I put in parenthesis naturalistic, and then evolution (because of certain Masterminds running around ). But, anyways, how is this a poor usage of the law? Your snow example sounds fishy.... And I think I've found it. It did result in a loss of usable energy (maybe more problems with your snow story, but I don't see it yet, but don't worry, over time, I will). The heat (what was left of it) in the water vapor had to disperse into the surrounding atmosphere so the water vapor could be cool enough to crystalize.

Oh poor Mastermind. The Big Bang, of course, is the explanation for how the universe began...and this is as far as I need to go on this. TOE (a la naturalistic I said, so don't tell me "GOD DID IT!")

What does the TOE have to do with the big bang?

Mastermind wrote:

Oh poor Mastermind. The Big Bang, of course, is the explanation for how the universe began...and this is as far as I need to go on this. TOE (a la naturalistic I said, so don't tell me "GOD DID IT!")

What does the TOE have to do with the big bang?

Oh my, if you're that blind, I can't help you.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

Mastermind wrote:

Oh poor Mastermind. The Big Bang, of course, is the explanation for how the universe began...and this is as far as I need to go on this. TOE (a la naturalistic I said, so don't tell me "GOD DID IT!")

What does the TOE have to do with the big bang?

Oh my, if you're that blind, I can't help you.

I'm asking because it sounds like the idiotic drivel I hear some YECs say about there being no difference between the Big Bang and Evolution. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt but you're really testing my patience.

AttentionKMartShoppers: You may be reading too much into my snow example. There is no violation of the 2nd law in this example, largely for the reasons you described. However, it is an example of a local decrease in entropy with which most people should be familiar. On a more global scale, of course, entropy is increasing, again essentially for the reasons you stated. Likewise, the appearance of life on this planet does not violate the 2nd law, any more than putting water in your freezer and getting ice does.

Regarding the Big Bang and creation: This is also frequently misused. We have no idea what the universe was like before the big bang; we don't even know what it was like at the moment of the big bang; and we don't know what the ultimate fate of the universe is, or indeed if the concept of an ultimate fate is even applicable. (There are a lot of hypotheses, however!) In fact, we have never witnessed the actual creation of anything; only the transformation of one form of matter/energy to another. (I am using the equivalence principle E=mc^2, and the conservation law related thereto.)

Think you can pull my leg just because you know more? I stayed awake in science!

Likewise, the appearance of life on this planet does not violate the 2nd law, any more than putting water in your freezer and getting ice does.

This, too, is wrong. Order is made through converting naturally destructive energy (electricity) into a usable form, which requires a mind (man in this case). If you just take electricity to the water, you'll just cause the molecules to split. I think I could tweak my word use, but I can't, it's late.

I was referring to natural evolution (in other words, God didn't do it) because I thought that's what you were referring to. Evolution can't happen without planets to do it on, and a natural BIG BANG won't give you planets, stars, or anything else. It'll give you something that expands for less than a second and comes all back together

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote: and a natural BIG BANG won't give you planets, stars, or anything else. It'll give you something that expands for less than a second and comes all back together

So it was YEC drivel. I shall now gracefully excuse myself from this topic.

Mastermind wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote: and a natural BIG BANG won't give you planets, stars, or anything else. It'll give you something that expands for less than a second and comes all back together

So it was YEC drivel. I shall now gracefully excuse myself from this topic.

You can go and kiss a barnyard animal! It wasn't "YEC dribel." A Big Bang without God, 1) won't happen (where did the matter come from? and 2) order won't come naturally out of that mess.