Evidence for God from Science

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: With no precedent showing that organic life is designed how can this conceptual jump be made. Lets take for example a sponge. The cells in the sponge are able to work together to construct a very complicated latice for support. If some alien species discovers it they will conclude biological origins, just as in the case with Mount Rushmore. This doesn't bring us any closer to the origins of life. We already know that all artifacts of a certain complexity on earth have biological origins, from seashells to super computers.

Wow BGood! Talk about a perceptual jump. You will find that for the vast majority of human recorded history and a large part of Scientific discovery were carried out by humans that believed that organic life was designed. Evolution is a recent newcomer, and has no precedent showing that organic life can evolve from non living matter. So this argument is amusing.

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: With no precedent showing that organic life is designed how can this conceptual jump be made. Lets take for example a sponge. The cells in the sponge are able to work together to construct a very complicated latice for support. If some alien species discovers it they will conclude biological origins, just as in the case with Mount Rushmore. This doesn't bring us any closer to the origins of life. We already know that all artifacts of a certain complexity on earth have biological origins, from seashells to super computers.

Wow BGood! Talk about a perceptual jump. You will find that for the vast majority of human recorded history and a large part of Scientific discovery were carried out by humans that believed that organic life was designed. Evolution is a recent newcomer, and has no precedent showing that organic life can evolve from non living matter. So this argument is amusing.

But it was those preconceptions which prevented people from experimenting and testing preconceptions in the first place.

Science changed all that and within the paradigm of science there cannot be made an assumption that bioligical organisms were designed without proof or an example of such interference haven taken place.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: With no precedent showing that organic life is designed how can this conceptual jump be made. Lets take for example a sponge. The cells in the sponge are able to work together to construct a very complicated latice for support. If some alien species discovers it they will conclude biological origins, just as in the case with Mount Rushmore. This doesn't bring us any closer to the origins of life. We already know that all artifacts of a certain complexity on earth have biological origins, from seashells to super computers.

Wow BGood! Talk about a perceptual jump. You will find that for the vast majority of human recorded history and a large part of Scientific discovery were carried out by humans that believed that organic life was designed. Evolution is a recent newcomer, and has no precedent showing that organic life can evolve from non living matter. So this argument is amusing.

But it was those preconceptions which prevented people from experimenting and testing preconceptions in the first place.

Science changed all that and within the paradigm of science there cannot be made an assumption that bioligical organisms were designed without proof or an example of such interference haven taken place.

When did the pardigm of science make that declaration? An assumption that bioligical organisms were designed was included in the pardigm of science for 6000 years and you want to discard all that because of Darwin and a group of English philosophers that proposed 200 years ago how things could be explained by another means.

Your statement about not testing and such is garbage, Men have been experimenting for thousands of years discovering and laying down knowledge in Math, Geometry, and science.

Within the pardigm of science I can suppose that a pretty purple butterfly laid eggs that became the known universe IF I want, no one can control my thoughts. If I began to wonder that all the eggs this butterfly laid if they were the planets, then the planets should all be of similar size and make-up. I can test this hypothesis, and would be devastated that my butterfly theory doesn't hold water.

You may think this is absurd, but you fail to understand the scientific process if you don't understand that it makes little difference what the theoretical perspective is, and that by definition theoretical perspectives are assumptions. The hypothesis are compared to the evidence, and the investigative and discovery process is used by any thinking human to form and develop ideas about the world about them.

Evolution has its head in the sand and is self involved. If you fail to see the value of different theoretical perspectives then live and discover within your shell, and let everyone know what you discover.

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: With no precedent showing that organic life is designed how can this conceptual jump be made. Lets take for example a sponge. The cells in the sponge are able to work together to construct a very complicated latice for support. If some alien species discovers it they will conclude biological origins, just as in the case with Mount Rushmore. This doesn't bring us any closer to the origins of life. We already know that all artifacts of a certain complexity on earth have biological origins, from seashells to super computers.

Wow BGood! Talk about a perceptual jump. You will find that for the vast majority of human recorded history and a large part of Scientific discovery were carried out by humans that believed that organic life was designed. Evolution is a recent newcomer, and has no precedent showing that organic life can evolve from non living matter. So this argument is amusing.

But it was those preconceptions which prevented people from experimenting and testing preconceptions in the first place.

Science changed all that and within the paradigm of science there cannot be made an assumption that bioligical organisms were designed without proof or an example of such interference haven taken place.

When did the pardigm of science make that declaration? An assumption that bioligical organisms were designed was included in the pardigm of science for 6000 years and you want to discard all that because of Darwin and a group of English philosophers that proposed 200 years ago how things could be explained by another means.

This is true and it's not a problem. This shouldn't alter the study of evoltion the evidence remains the same.

Jbuza wrote:Your statement about not testing and such is garbage, Men have been experimenting for thousands of years discovering and laying down knowledge in Math, Geometry, and science.

Many of these discoveries were made in agnostic classical societies like Athens and not in Catholic Europe of the dark ages. It was not until the birth of critical minds of the Renaissance that manklind continued to build upon the knowledge of their Greek forebears.

Jbuza wrote:Within the pardigm of science I can suppose that a pretty purple butterfly laid eggs that became the known universe IF I want, no one can control my thoughts. If I began to wonder that all the eggs this butterfly laid if they were the planets, then the planets should all be of similar size and make-up. I can test this hypothesis, and would be devastated that my butterfly theory doesn't hold water.

You may think this is absurd, but you fail to understand the scientific process if you don't understand that it makes little difference what the theoretical perspective is, and that by definition theoretical perspectives are assumptions. The hypothesis are compared to the evidence, and the investigative and discovery process is used by any thinking human to form and develop ideas about the world about them.

Evolution has its head in the sand and is self involved. If you fail to see the value of different theoretical perspectives then live and discover within your shell, and let everyone know what you discover.

"I can suppose that a pretty purple butterfly laid eggs that became the known universe IF I want" This is true.

Again you can hypothesize it but without evidence it remains a hypothesis and cannot be regarded a scientific theory. There is no physical evidence of a designer yet in essence you are trying to equate a hypothesis (ID) with a theory (Evolution).

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: With no precedent showing that organic life is designed how can this conceptual jump be made. Lets take for example a sponge. The cells in the sponge are able to work together to construct a very complicated latice for support. If some alien species discovers it they will conclude biological origins, just as in the case with Mount Rushmore. This doesn't bring us any closer to the origins of life. We already know that all artifacts of a certain complexity on earth have biological origins, from seashells to super computers.

Wow BGood! Talk about a perceptual jump. You will find that for the vast majority of human recorded history and a large part of Scientific discovery were carried out by humans that believed that organic life was designed. Evolution is a recent newcomer, and has no precedent showing that organic life can evolve from non living matter. So this argument is amusing.

But it was those preconceptions which prevented people from experimenting and testing preconceptions in the first place.

Science changed all that and within the paradigm of science there cannot be made an assumption that bioligical organisms were designed without proof or an example of such interference haven taken place.

When did the pardigm of science make that declaration? An assumption that bioligical organisms were designed was included in the pardigm of science for 6000 years and you want to discard all that because of Darwin and a group of English philosophers that proposed 200 years ago how things could be explained by another means.

Your statement about not testing and such is garbage, Men have been experimenting for thousands of years discovering and laying down knowledge in Math, Geometry, and science.

Within the pardigm of science I can suppose that a pretty purple butterfly laid eggs that became the known universe IF I want, no one can control my thoughts. If I began to wonder that all the eggs this butterfly laid if they were the planets, then the planets should all be of similar size and make-up. I can test this hypothesis, and would be devastated that my butterfly theory doesn't hold water.

You may think this is absurd, but you fail to understand the scientific process if you don't understand that it makes little difference what the theoretical perspective is, and that by definition theoretical perspectives are assumptions. The hypothesis are compared to the evidence, and the investigative and discovery process is used by any thinking human to form and develop ideas about the world about them.

Evolution has its head in the sand and is self involved. If you fail to see the value of different theoretical perspectives then live and discover within your shell, and let everyone know what you discover.

"I can suppose that a pretty purple butterfly laid eggs that became the known universe IF I want" This is true.

Again you can hypothesize it but without evidence it remains a hypothesis and cannot be regarded a scientific theory. There is no physical evidence of a designer so in essence you are trying to equate a hypothesis (ID) with a theory (Evolution).

No you are the one confusing the issues. ID, creation and evolution are all theories. You are failing to understand science, I guess. Those are the theoreis the hypothesis would be:

Evolution could hypothesize that Natural selection could cause mutation.

ID could hypothesize that the design of an organism causes it to react to its environment and mutate to it.

Creation could hypothesize that organisms react to their envrionement but don't change into new species.

The theory helps to determine what will be hypothesized, and it is the hypothesis that guides the observations.

IT is not the theory that is proven, but the hypotheses. When many hypotheses are confirmed, and the theory is capable of predicting that one starts to believe a paticular theory.

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: "I can suppose that a pretty purple butterfly laid eggs that became the known universe IF I want" This is true.

Again you can hypothesize it but without evidence it remains a hypothesis and cannot be regarded a scientific theory. There is no physical evidence of a designer so in essence you are trying to equate a hypothesis (ID) with a theory (Evolution).

No you are the one confusing the issues. ID, creation and evolution are all theories. You are failing to understand science, I guess. Those are the theoreis the hypothesis would be:

Evolution could hypothesize that Natural selection could cause mutation.

ID could hypothesize that the design of an organism causes it to react to its environment and mutate to it.

Creation could hypothesize that organisms react to their envrionement but don't change into new species.

The theory helps to determine what will be hypothesized, and it is the hypothesis that guides the observations.

IT is not the theory that is proven, but the hypotheses. When many hypotheses are confirmed, and the theory is capable of predicting that one starts to believe a paticular theory.

Heres a definition of a theory.
A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

So tell me again how ID is a theory?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: "I can suppose that a pretty purple butterfly laid eggs that became the known universe IF I want" This is true.

Again you can hypothesize it but without evidence it remains a hypothesis and cannot be regarded a scientific theory. There is no physical evidence of a designer so in essence you are trying to equate a hypothesis (ID) with a theory (Evolution).

No you are the one confusing the issues. ID, creation and evolution are all theories. You are failing to understand science, I guess. Those are the theoreis the hypothesis would be:

Evolution could hypothesize that Natural selection could cause mutation.

ID could hypothesize that the design of an organism causes it to react to its environment and mutate to it.

Creation could hypothesize that organisms react to their envrionement but don't change into new species.

The theory helps to determine what will be hypothesized, and it is the hypothesis that guides the observations.

IT is not the theory that is proven, but the hypotheses. When many hypotheses are confirmed, and the theory is capable of predicting that one starts to believe a paticular theory.

Heres a definition of a theory.
A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

So tell me again how ID is a theory?

No. I'm bored by this. Perhaps you should tell me how Speciation has been proven, how adaptation through natural selection has been proven. Extinction is what we see, and we see no in-between forms. They are on equal footing, the theories, I could not care any less wether you accept it or science accepts it. Your theory is as full of holes as any.

There are numerous hypothesis that I can devise from ID that can be proven true. Dismiss it if you wan't I don't care.

When did the pardigm of science make that declaration? An assumption that bioligical organisms were designed was included in the pardigm of science for 6000 years and you want to discard all that because of Darwin and a group of English philosophers that proposed 200 years ago how things could be explained by another means.

This is technically not correct. Evolutionary type philopsophies and hypothesis have been around for much longer than 200 years. It's only been in the last 200 years that those ideas have found more widespread acceptance. I can tell more, if it matters.

August wrote:

When did the pardigm of science make that declaration? An assumption that bioligical organisms were designed was included in the pardigm of science for 6000 years and you want to discard all that because of Darwin and a group of English philosophers that proposed 200 years ago how things could be explained by another means.

This is technically not correct. Evolutionary type philopsophies and hypothesis have been around for much longer than 200 years. It's only been in the last 200 years that those ideas have found more widespread acceptance. I can tell more, if it matters.

Yes you are quite right there have been people ignoring God for a long time. But I was talking to the overall culture of science itself not to a few individuals. The fact remains that much of the scientific discoveries were made under assumptions that science is trying to eradicate. The fact remains that this culture that arose from english philosophers and Darwin's theory has come in and usurped what science had discovered theorizing from a theoretical framework that these newbies now say isn't science.

Jbuza wrote: Yes you are quite right there have been people ignoring God for a long time. But I was talking to the overall culture of science itself not to a few individuals. The fact remains that much of the scientific discoveries were made under assumptions that science is trying to eradicate. The fact remains that this culture that arose from english philosophers and Darwin's theory has come in and usurped what science had discovered theorizing from a theoretical framework that these newbies now say isn't science.

Jbuza, yes, you are right, but it is not the whole story. Evolutionary thought originated with with some of the ancient Greeks, was further developed in the Middle Ages, and then by the Germans before the English got hold of it. But you are right, before Spencer asserted naturalism, most of the philosophers held to some form of Absolute that governed the processes. Among the first to make it a naturalistic process was Darwins grandfather, Lamarck and Spencer.

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: "I can suppose that a pretty purple butterfly laid eggs that became the known universe IF I want" This is true.

Again you can hypothesize it but without evidence it remains a hypothesis and cannot be regarded a scientific theory. There is no physical evidence of a designer so in essence you are trying to equate a hypothesis (ID) with a theory (Evolution).

No you are the one confusing the issues. ID, creation and evolution are all theories. You are failing to understand science, I guess. Those are the theoreis the hypothesis would be:

Evolution could hypothesize that Natural selection could cause mutation.

ID could hypothesize that the design of an organism causes it to react to its environment and mutate to it.

Creation could hypothesize that organisms react to their envrionement but don't change into new species.

The theory helps to determine what will be hypothesized, and it is the hypothesis that guides the observations.

IT is not the theory that is proven, but the hypotheses. When many hypotheses are confirmed, and the theory is capable of predicting that one starts to believe a paticular theory.

Heres a definition of a theory.
A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

So tell me again how ID is a theory?

No. I'm bored by this. Perhaps you should tell me how Speciation has been proven, how adaptation through natural selection has been proven. Extinction is what we see, and we see no in-between forms. They are on equal footing, the theories, I could not care any less wether you accept it or science accepts it. Your theory is as full of holes as any.

There are numerous hypothesis that I can devise from ID that can be proven true. Dismiss it if you wan't I don't care.

I suspect from our threads on geology and physics, that you reject theories based on implications. But if you truly wish to learn science there is plenty of reading material available in the public library.

August wrote:

Jbuza wrote: Yes you are quite right there have been people ignoring God for a long time. But I was talking to the overall culture of science itself not to a few individuals. The fact remains that much of the scientific discoveries were made under assumptions that science is trying to eradicate. The fact remains that this culture that arose from english philosophers and Darwin's theory has come in and usurped what science had discovered theorizing from a theoretical framework that these newbies now say isn't science.

Jbuza, yes, you are right, but it is not the whole story. Evolutionary thought originated with with some of the ancient Greeks, was further developed in the Middle Ages, and then by the Germans before the English got hold of it. But you are right, before Spencer asserted naturalism, most of the philosophers held to some form of Absolute that governed the processes. Among the first to make it a naturalistic process was Darwins grandfather, Lamarck and Spencer.

And there is nothing wrong with having a personal philosophy drive one's desire to explore things. The only problem is when one lets personal beleifs color the interpretation of observations. It's best that most scientist stick to collecting data.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:I suspect from our threads on geology and physics, that you reject theories based on implications. But if you truly wish to learn science there is plenty of reading material available in the public library.

Bgood if this is still the case then you have been only reading what you want to, or I have done a terrible job of explaining my position. I do not reject them at all, I don't reject Darwin, I don't reject evolution. By all means they further hypothesis and are one of the ideas that science should keep itself open to. By all means if you are convinced evolution is true, with little actual testing or predicting than Invetigate to your hearts content.

I understand why you have this opinion that I clearly need to go learn about science, but I do not share it about you. I realize you think If I knew more about science that I would come to realize that evolution is the answer to all my problems, and If I will only embrace it, then I can be accepted into the tea club that science has become.

So I guess you are saying I should go look at all the thought and theory and learn about what every other scientist thinks. No thanks, I will gather and investigate on my own. The information is there, but it has to be tested. Evolution predicts things that are not happening, geology shows strong evidence for a global flood, and the basis of advanced physics, which we have no full knowledge of, was discovered by a man who beleived he was studying the mind of God.

Yeah you are write I could go to the library and gets lots of books on what other men have thought, clearly that is a popular way of gathering knowledge for eovlutionists. They hace cited each other and built on each other in an interestingly absurd concoction of speculation and conjecture that makes a fine theory to investigae by, but there is little actual prediction, or explanative power. The two pillars holding up evolution are Adaptation by natural selection, and macroevolutionary mutation.

Hey if you wan't to keep creation theory out of science so that you can feel more secure in your card house be my guest. Perhaps attacking the educational level of opponents will help you to continue with your sharade. Perhaps you should construct sterotypical thinking that creationists are dimwitted and throwbacks from the middle ages, and couple that with the enlightened thinkers of our day who are the gods of this place. Its a great wonder that anyone can even glimpse the truth.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:And there is nothing wrong with having a personal philosophy drive one's desire to explore things. The only problem is when one lets personal beleifs color the interpretation of observations. It's best that most scientist stick to collecting data.

Yes quite right. Becasue as everyone knows scientists have been educated within a scientific community that is open to the exchange of all ideas. This is so wrong, they have all been inundated by a philosophical position that is an outgrowth of the cultural atmosphere of science that presupposes that a lie is true. Scientists are good at collecting data, I will give you that, but they are the worst to trust to interpret it for you. Thanks anyway I will use my own mind.

The interpretations of nearly every observation science has explained in the past 200 years is colored by the beleif that in spite of a history of extinction by habitat change, and no events of speciation evolution must be true. So I don't want to hear it.

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:And there is nothing wrong with having a personal philosophy drive one's desire to explore things. The only problem is when one lets personal beleifs color the interpretation of observations. It's best that most scientist stick to collecting data.

Yes quite right. Becasue as everyone knows scientists have been educated within a scientific community that is open to the exchange of all ideas. This is so wrong, they have all been inundated by a philosophical position that is an outgrowth of the cultural atmosphere of science that presupposes that a lie is true. Scientists are good at collecting data, I will give you that, but they are the worst to trust to interpret it for you. Thanks anyway I will use my own mind.

The interpretations of nearly every observation science has explained in the past 200 years is colored by the beleif that in spite of a history of extinction by habitat change, and no events of speciation evolution must be true. So I don't want to hear it.

What happened to open exchange of ideas?
How does extinction prove evolution wrong?
How does no recent speciation prove evolution wrong?