Evidence for God from Science

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

No, I am sure I was being clear. You can't use a gap in knowledge to further a claim.

Evidence for ID isn't the lack of evidence for ID...it is the fact that irreducibly complex machines are in principle unevolvable, for one thing...

But you haven't shown anything to be irreducibly complex. And neither have you proven that it is a fact that it is unevolveable.

That's because you don't read. I quoted an entire chapter from Behe's book.

If there is no validity to evolution what is one to make of the distribution of organisms around the world? Why kangaroos only in Australia?
And why do embryo's of human babies have gills? These are the more obvious examples. But the paradigm has bolstered much thought and many hypotheses which have lead to many discoveries.

What does this have to do with ANYTHING.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:BGood-you're saying we're supposed to know everything before coming to conclusions-but how are we supposed to know everything first?

No, I am sure I was being clear. You can't use a gap in knowledge to further a claim.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:LOL You are like a man who falls into a hole, and finding he can't get out, goes and gets a ladder.

I suppose you'd just make a nice little home for yourself then?
I choose to climb out of the hole and into the light.

As I said, ID is not exploiting a gap in knowledge. Yes, ID, like all theories should, shows how other theories fail miserably-but ID is not founded on just negative evidence, but positive evidence as well. Pay attention


And you didn't get the hole story-I said you were begging the question. What to I don't remember.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote: Uh, no, the ridges in the human embryo have nothing to do with gills. Parts of the ridges become parts of the ear...there is no relationship dippy.

Pharyngl Pouch or something like that-can't spell.

Learn to spell dippy. Do some more research too. The rudimentary gill slits in mammals never do become gills, however in amphibians they do. Thats why they structures are analagous. You seem unable to grasp subtleties in language and logic.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Byblos wrote:

BGood wrote:You're clearly not a scientist. I am only saying that ID is not a science. Yet you insist on defending ID.

You know this reminds of the story of the two doctors (I think they are Australian) who discovered (some time in the mid 80's) that ulcers are caused by bacteria and not stress.

They were the laughing stock of the medical and scientific community and were lableled as crackpots and non-scientists (sounds familiar?).

Yesterday I read on Yahoo they were awarded the Nobel prize in medicine for their discoveries.

ID is a proposed science that is still in its infancy (as Kurieu stated many times). Whether or not you believe in it is irrelevant. But you cannot outright dismiss it if you call yourself a scientist. It is an alternative theory to evolution that is gaining more and more support even within the scientific community.

It was widly beleived that bacteria could not survive in the harsh conditions existing in the stomach.

The idea was greeted with skepticism, and without the evidence to prove it, the skepticism is waranted. That is how science works. Once the evidence was provided however the scientific community accepted that H. pylori bacteria can reside within the stomach lining.

So what you're saying is that they proposed a theory based on belief and not observation? (LOL! sorry, but I had to go there).

Not only was the idea greeted with skepticism, but the scientific community so dismissed the idea that they wouldn't even look at the research data for years. It took one of the doctors to experiment on himself (by injecting himself with the bacteria, then treating himself) for some scientists to start noticing.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:You're right, I didn't mean to take that tone. I am not dismissing ID, I am dismissing irreducible complexity.

Well, it is certainly within your right to chose not to consider it as a viable counter-argument to evolution. Just keep in mind the remote possibility of its validity (like any good scientist would).

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:If it is shown that mutations are not random then yes you're very right, ID will become a valid theory, enveloping the current ideas of evolution.

Now that is a very debatable statement. Are you saying that mutations HAVE been shown to be random? Or is that the assumption of the popular belief? The theory of evolution has in many ways shown that thinks do evolve but so far as I know there is not a single shred of evidence that it was random. Evolution tells you how things happened and how they are inter-dependent. But it most certainly does not tell you why it happened. Randomness requires an answer to the 'why' part.

My moral of the story: Keep your options open.

Byblos wrote:
Now that is a very debatable statement. Are you saying that mutations HAVE been shown to be random? Or is that the assumption of the popular belief? The theory of evolution has in many ways shown that thinks do evolve but so far as I know there is not a single shred of evidence that it was random. Evolution tells you how things happened and how they are inter-dependent. But it most certainly does not tell you why it happened. Randomness requires an answer to the 'why' part.
My moral of the story: Keep your options open.

Agreed, now on the random mutation point. I never stated that mutations are random, only that ID needs to show it is not random for it to become accepted.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

No, I am sure I was being clear. You can't use a gap in knowledge to further a claim.

Evidence for ID isn't the lack of evidence for ID...it is the fact that irreducibly complex machines are in principle unevolvable, for one thing...

But you haven't shown anything to be irreducibly complex. And neither have you proven that it is a fact that it is unevolveable.

That's because you don't read. I quoted an entire chapter from Behe's book.

And I made an entire thread regarding it, and you're only response was an immature reference to Don Quixote.

When you resort to name calling I can only assume that you are only good at pointing to others work and regurgitating other's thoughts.

Because had you a true understanding of what you were saying you would come up with something better than, "You're stupud...".

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Byblos wrote:
Now that is a very debatable statement. Are you saying that mutations HAVE been shown to be random? Or is that the assumption of the popular belief? The theory of evolution has in many ways shown that thinks do evolve but so far as I know there is not a single shred of evidence that it was random. Evolution tells you how things happened and how they are inter-dependent. But it most certainly does not tell you why it happened. Randomness requires an answer to the 'why' part.
My moral of the story: Keep your options open.

Agreed, now on the random mutation point. I never stated that mutations are random, only that ID needs to show it is not random for it to become accepted.

You took me exactly where I wanted you to go. If ID needs to show that mutation is not random then, by the same token, evolution needs to show that it is (random). And here I will paraphrase:

If it is shown that mutations are random then yes you're very right, evolution will become a valid theory, enveloping the current ideas of intelligent design.

Kmart, and BGood

You guys usually have a Decent Conversation but it seems that alot of names have been Thrown around. This Thread is Locked for the Time Being. Please watch the Name calling guys, it is definately not uplifting for the other person on the Receiving End

THANKS

Bgood wrote
Evolution has withstood rigorous tests and continues to do so. To base a hypothesis on it is not a problem.

I will concede that it created discussion and if one wanted to use it for inspiration they could create further hypothesises to guide investigations in other areas. This however does not effect my ability to hypothesize and collect evidence by the theory of creation, which has also withstood rigorous tests and continues to do so,.
___
Bgood wrote
Well lets take a close look. We have two similar environments. But in one we have new world monkeys, cougars and two toed sloths. In the other we have old world monkeys, gorillas and pythons. Why two completely different sets of animals?

Survival of the fittest, natural selection, and adaptation all explain these things. It is simple why the different animals, some died in one environment and lived in the other. The species adapted to their environments. You know full well, why ask the question?
___
Bgood wrote
Similarity does not equate to same builder.
You are assuming a maker, how is this scientific?
Now your making a hypothesis on an assumption not a scientific basis.

Again hypothesis are supposed to be based upon an assumption, they don't spring forth in the eternal well of knowledge into our minds, they are conjecture, they are beliefs, and they are explanations. The striking similarity of the animals within their classes and orders have given course for me to hypothesize that God created the world as scripture indicates. IF you were to look at brick structures on this imaginary road we traveled, and could test the bricks and find the mud came from the same pit, and the straw grew in the same field, you might say they were strikingly similar. Look life is made from the same blocks, organisms have the same architecture. Open your eyes to the marvelous wonder of it all, and then say bah, its all happenstance; I don't understand this it goes against logic, reason, math, and science. My assumptions are what give me inspiration to hypothesize weather they be that God exists, or they be that I am a result of my environment. We have been over this. Hypotheses are not science, theory are not science. This theoretical framework is not the science it is the explanation.
___
Bgood wrote
Next are you assuming that H5N1's goal is to spread sickness and death? That there is something driving it to improve its disease delivering capabilities?

No. Except the survival instinct that everything appears to have been created with.
___
Bgood wrote
What do you mean by animal adaptibility?

I would think a very similar hypothesis that Darwin used for his theoretical framework. Not surprising we have both been exposed to similar evidences. That is that species appear to have an interaction with their environment.
___
Bgood wrote
Why are some animals similar and others not?

Why does one carpenter build a shed roof and others build dormers? Why did Leonardo not paint Mona Lisa frowning? Why was Mozart a great musician? Why did Picasso not paint the exact picture hundreds of times?
___
Bgood wrote
Lets use for example a lungfish, tuna, and panfish.

Not sure what you are looking for here, but you tell me how it disproves creation, and then we will talk.

___

Quote:

What is this anyway Science doesn't stop working because one subscribes to a different Theory.

Bgood wrote
Sure it does if you allow the definition of theory to degrade to the point of, beleifs and ideas. You seem to be under the impression that theories change all the time. An idea cannot be termed a theory until it has passed numerous tests.

No, those would be the things that one uses to create hypotheses and they should change to a avoid this sickening bias that has made science false. The theory of creation has passed numerous tests, see here our efforts to debunk it yet again.


Quote:
One mustn't stick there head in the sand and stop investigating and reasoning and expanding knowledge simply because they believe creation to be true. I don't believe that human embryos have gills, where did this come from? Guess what they won't survive underwater. Are you referring to convolutions in the cephalic end of the fetus that become the head?
Bgood wrote
The ridges in a human embryo are analagous to the gills in an amphibian. I.E. they become gills in other creatures. No they never develop into functioning gills, and no a fetus does not breathe. So take your head out of the sand and continue investigating.

This is laughable. So since embryos in very early development appear wrinkled on one end and that develops into a head and very dissimilar organisms end up with different breathing systems then what? So. This supports nothing.

___
Bgood wrote
But you have all the answers already with your simpler theory. Why continue the investigation?

No, this isn't true. Why continue the investigation indeed, because that is part of the nature of man that is so singular and unique that is explained by, together with his reasoning and logic abilities, my theory of creation. Look at what man has been able to do--Huge concoctions of aluminum and fibers weighing thousands of pounds flying around this planet. Why is this not apparent in other species? Creation answer: Man is singular and unique in this place created fearsome and in the image of God. Evolution answer: . . . . .

___

Quote:
Reason says that when checking the efficacy of treatments it would be best to test on the most similar and readily available subjects.

What? Scientific investigation, logic, and reason are supposed to be the frameworks, not the theory. IT is this absurd twistage that has allowed a once respectable theory to grow into a laughable mess that still doesn't explain hard questions that my more simple theory answers perfectly for.
Bgood wrote:
You're clearly not a scientist. I am only saying that ID is not a science. Yet you insist on defending ID.

I am only saying the theory of evolution is not science, yet you insist on defending it. You say I think I have all the answers with my more simple theory, no, not at all. I am sure there is far far more to know than my puny mind will every comprehend in 75 years, but I have the assurance of knowing I can ask God someday. You laugh at creation because it is simple, than you fail to understand a creation view, the world God made is wonderous and marvelous. The ageless methods of science, and the truths of math and logic, and the wonder of reason are a great enjoyment to me, and then I hear this brainwashing junk from evolutionists that say here we are, we are knowledge, we have the answers for you, and I find it laughable. Can you comprehend that the framework that has been built by evolution and the one you ask that a group of ID advocates to build is the explanation, is the hyotheses, are the theories and the things we derive through scientific investigation, things we can uncover through math and logic are the evidence. You call evolution science, but its not. Creation and evolution are on equal footings, they are the explanations that have served to explain to people what they have experienced and observed. Again evolution claims to be the very science it is observing. WE are. Truth is here. Stop investigating, stick your head in the sand, the issue is done.

Jbuza wrote:I will concede that it created discussion and if one wanted to use it for inspiration they could create further hypothesises to guide investigations in other areas. This however does not effect my ability to hypothesize and collect evidence by the theory of creation, which has also withstood rigorous tests and continues to do so,.
___
Survival of the fittest, natural selection, and adaptation all explain these things. It is simple why the different animals, some died in one environment and lived in the other. The species adapted to their environments. You know full well, why ask the question?
___
Again hypothesis are supposed to be based upon an assumption, they don't spring forth in the eternal well of knowledge into our minds, they are conjecture, they are beliefs, and they are explanations. The striking similarity of the animals within their classes and orders have given course for me to hypothesize that God created the world as scripture indicates. IF you were to look at brick structures on this imaginary road we traveled, and could test the bricks and find the mud came from the same pit, and the straw grew in the same field, you might say they were strikingly similar. Look life is made from the same blocks, organisms have the same architecture. Open your eyes to the marvelous wonder of it all, and then say bah, its all happenstance; I don't understand this it goes against logic, reason, math, and science. My assumptions are what give me inspiration to hypothesize weather they be that God exists, or they be that I am a result of my environment. We have been over this. Hypotheses are not science, theory are not science. This theoretical framework is not the science it is the explanation.
___
No. Except the survival instinct that everything appears to have been created with.
___
I would think a very similar hypothesis that Darwin used for his theoretical framework. Not surprising we have both been exposed to similar evidences. That is that species appear to have an interaction with their environment.
___
Why does one carpenter build a shed roof and others build dormers? Why did Leonardo not paint Mona Lisa frowning? Why was Mozart a great musician? Why did Picasso not paint the exact picture hundreds of times?
___
No, those would be the things that one uses to create hypotheses and they should change to a avoid this sickening bias that has made science false. The theory of creation has passed numerous tests, see here our efforts to debunk it yet again.

This is laughable. So since embryos in very early development appear wrinkled on one end and that develops into a head and very dissimilar organisms end up with different breathing systems then what? So. This supports nothing.
___
No, this isn't true. Why continue the investigation indeed, because that is part of the nature of man that is so singular and unique that is explained by, together with his reasoning and logic abilities, my theory of creation. Look at what man has been able to do--Huge concoctions of aluminum and fibers weighing thousands of pounds flying around this planet. Why is this not apparent in other species? Creation answer: Man is singular and unique in this place created fearsome and in the image of God. Evolution answer: . . . . .
__

OK, you have some very good points.
=)
And on many things we agree. However...

I am only saying the theory of evolution is not science, yet you insist on defending it. You say I think I have all the answers with my more simple theory, no, not at all. I am sure there is far far more to know than my puny mind will every comprehend in 75 years, but I have the assurance of knowing I can ask God someday. You laugh at creation because it is simple, than you fail to understand a creation view, the world God made is wonderous and marvelous. The ageless methods of science, and the truths of math and logic, and the wonder of reason are a great enjoyment to me, and then I hear this brainwashing junk from evolutionists that say here we are, we are knowledge, we have the answers for you, and I find it laughable. Can you comprehend that the framework that has been built by evolution and the one you ask that a group of ID advocates to build is the explanation, is the hyotheses, are the theories and the things we derive through scientific investigation, things we can uncover through math and logic are the evidence. You call evolution science, but its not. Creation and evolution are on equal footings, they are the explanations that have served to explain to people what they have experienced and observed. Again evolution claims to be the very science it is observing. WE are. Truth is here. Stop investigating, stick your head in the sand, the issue is done.

Evolution does not leave God out of the equation, it just doesn't cover it.

I will repeat, Evolution does not say God does not exist.

Maybe this is why you say evolution is not a scientific theory.

And I don't laugh at creation or ID.
=(

What are we arguing about?

Evolution does not leave God out of the equation, it just doesn't cover it.

I will repeat, Evolution does not say God does not exist.

Maybe this is why you say evolution is not a scientific theory.

In a sense, true-except God is marginalized, and Christianity cannot be true if evolution is true-why? Bible says we're made in God's image (his attributes...not physically)...evolution says we're the cause of random chance and blind luck.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote: Uh, no, the ridges in the human embryo have nothing to do with gills. Parts of the ridges become parts of the ear...there is no relationship dippy.

Pharyngl Pouch or something like that-can't spell.

Learn to spell dippy. Do some more research too. The rudimentary gill slits in mammals never do become gills, however in amphibians they do. Thats why they structures are analagous. You seem unable to grasp subtleties in language and logic.

I don't wanna quote myself...but, in summary-they are superficially analogous-in the same way a shotgun and a baseball bat are superficially analogous-both are weapons...but they have nothing else in common really than what they can be used for. And, do realize this idea originates from Ernest Haekal, who was shown to be a fraud over a century ago.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote: Uh, no, the ridges in the human embryo have nothing to do with gills. Parts of the ridges become parts of the ear...there is no relationship dippy.

Pharyngl Pouch or something like that-can't spell.

Learn to spell dippy. Do some more research too. The rudimentary gill slits in mammals never do become gills, however in amphibians they do. Thats why they structures are analagous. You seem unable to grasp subtleties in language and logic.

I don't wanna quote myself...but, in summary-they are superficially analogous-in the same way a shotgun and a baseball bat are superficially analogous-both are weapons...but they have nothing else in common really than what they can be used for. And, do realize this idea originates from Ernest Haekal, who was shown to be a fraud over a century ago.

No it was the idea that ebryological development showed progresses through the evolutionary development of an organism which was shown to be wrong.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

Evolution does not leave God out of the equation, it just doesn't cover it.

I will repeat, Evolution does not say God does not exist.

Maybe this is why you say evolution is not a scientific theory.

In a sense, true-except God is marginalized, and Christianity cannot be true if evolution is true-why? Bible says we're made in God's image (his attributes...not physically)...evolution says we're the cause of random chance and blind luck.

Thats one interpretation of evolution but the facts don't show that. Aha now I understand!

But the facts do show that all life appears to be interrelated and have radiated from a common source. That is the evolutionary theory.

Evolution is a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals. It is a science to explain the diversity and distribution of life on earth.