Evidence for God from Science

More about ERVs here.. That reference secular sources..

http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/endogen ... ruses.html

And yes.. Welcome.

Richard Dawkins , Darwin's Rottweiler

Hold tight for the Straw Man:

"A type of Red Herring that attacks a misrepresentation of an opponent's position. That is called to burn a straw man. It is a surprisingly common fallacy, because it is easy to misunderstand another person's position."

According to Dawkins: "Science shares with religion the claim that it answers deep questions about origins, the nature of life and the cosmos. But there the resemblance ends. Scientific beliefs are supported by evidence, and they get results. Myths and faiths are not and do not.' But as [Alister McGrath] responds:

Dawkins's caricature of Christianity may well carry weight with his increasingly religiously illiterate or religiously alienated audiences, who find in his writings ample confirmation of their prejudices, but merely persuades those familiar with religious traditions to conclude that Dawkins has no interest in understanding what he critiques. . . The classic Christian tradition has always valued rationality and does not hold that faith involves the abandonment of reason or the absence of evidence. Indeed, the Christian tradition is so strong on this matter that it is often difficult to understand where Dawkins got these ideas.

http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_daw ... lacies.htm

Please do read the link and see a demolition of Dawkins' fallacies...
-
-
-

Time to pile on the pressure...

7 Urban Legends Biologists Believe…. but an Engineer Would Never Tolerate:

"1. “Random mutations are usually neutral or harmful but occasionally they confer a benefit to an organism. Natural Selection filters out the harmful mutations, causing species to evolve.”

This is THE central dogma of neo-Darwinism and is allegedly accepted by “virtually all scientists.” You will find it in literally 1,000 textbooks and 10,000 websites. To the average biologist and to the average man on the street, it sounds perfectly plausible. And I fully understand why people believe this. But I'm an EE. I know that the information in DNA is a signal. By definition, random mutations are noise. Telling a communications engineer that adding noise to a signal sometimes create new, useful data structures is like telling a nurse you can occasionally cure a common cold by swallowing rat poison. This is absurd! You'll be hard pressed to find any communications engineer who, upon examining this claim, would agree with it. Have you ever had a data glitch on your computer that improved your files? Ever? There is not a one single principle or practice in engineering that would ever suggest that this is actually true. All the Natural Selection in the world is powerless without a beneficial mutation. And you'll never get a major benefit from accidental copying errors. The mutations that drive evolution are systematic and directed, not accidental.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/ee/

Myth 2

2. “97% of your DNA is junk - an accumulation of evolutionary leftovers from random mutations over millions of years.”

Myth 3

3. “You only need 3 things for evolution to occur: heredity, variation and selection.”

Myth 4

4. “Biology is nothing more than sophisticated physics and chemistry.”

Myth 5

5. “Genetic Algorithms Prove Darwinian Evolution.”

Myth 6

6. “The human eye is a pathetic design. It's got a big blind spot and the 'wires' are installed backwards.”

Myth 7

7. “There is no such thing as purpose in nature. There is only the appearance of purpose.”

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/ee/

Bring on the rebuttals...

DannyM wrote:

Proinsias wrote:I can't answer your question Danny. To me evolutionary theory is a helpful way of looking at the world, much like Newtonian physics. No deep truths, just a handy new angle on things.

To me, evolutionary theory can seem quite interesting when I look at this theory and see honesty and sense being made... An Evolutionary Manifesto - http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/davison-manifesto.html

Darwinism is what I take issue with, and for me it is destroyed in this paper...

By helpful I mean that Darwinian evolutionary theory, along with Mendel's work, united biology in a way that hadn't been dreamed of before and was the smoking gun to start the race for a common language which Watson and Crick uncovered. Its projection into the unobservable past to explain origins may be far from water tight but the advancements in understanding biology and medicine have been huge.

I don't see the paper destroying Darwinism. It's an interesting theory, I was pointed to it and some similar articles when I first arrived here by godslanguage, painting Darwinian evolution as more of a low level fine tuning mechanism working on major changes to the genome which come about due to chromosome rearrangement, I think. It strikes me as entirely reasonable to expect that when looking at the current evolutionary tree of life we will find other mechanisms aside from the Darwinian/Medellian one we can observe at the moment, especially where paths diverge; phylum, genus, species etc.
Darwinian evolutionary theory has been going strong for quite some time, I don't think papers like this will destroy Darwinism but may eventually show that it is not the be all and end all of evolution.
In any case, if traditional Darwinian evolution, gets a major overhaul, which I'm sure it will one day. And if the theory to do so resembles the one in that paper. I don't think it will have much impact, beyond flamewars, on the athiest vs theist debate. It may open up and oec/yec style split in evolutionary biologists but science is always at its most exciting when people disagree.

DannyM wrote:Well, unless you want to posit God as being constrained by this universe, then I am clearly thinking outside of the universe. Even strict materialists think outside the universe and its limitations. Our universe does not contain within itself the reasons for its own existence; it is not self-explanatory. If it has an explanation at all, it must be of a different order. Hence I am simply not constrained by the universe and its limitations. And any 'thing' we try to rationalise our way to as being the cause of this universe must therefore not be a part of the contingent order; this, you surely need to admit, would be no help at all, either as an explanation, or in any other way...?

I think this works both ways. It's going to be tough to know with certainty that the universe does not contain the reason for its own existence, or that we would even recognise it if it was put in front of us. Or as you say "if it has an explanation at all". It's also going to be tough to be certain that the universe is explained by a self explanatory cause. In any case it would appear that we are not omniscient and thus cannot answer these questions with certainty.
Thinking of God and comprehending that which lies outwith the universe are two different things to me. I can think about life outside of our universe, this does not mean that it is there, that I can comprehend it, or that there is an outside.
I believe we were talking about comprehension of things outwith the universe and you are pointing to God, if you can comprehend God then I think you may be God, which to me is embodied in things like taoism and zen.

DannyM wrote:Darwinist-materialists deny that the universe has any need of an explanation outside itself. So upon what evidence does this denial rest? Since the best scientific evidence suggests that the universe - space, time and matter - came into being some 14 billion years ago, and has continued in existence without interruption ever since, what cause or causes do they invoke to explain [this improbable] phenomenon? When did cause and effect simply become abandoned? And why is it somehow 'sufficient' to lazily put it down to a wonderful accident?

I'm not necessarily asking you to answer all this, Pro, but rather offering up these questions for anyone to take a stab at.

If you wish to take things to their logical conclusion, and wish to avoid infinite regression or Hindu-esque ideas of cyclical time, you're going to have to abandon cause and effect at some point. Some abandon this when our scientific knowledge fails, approaching the big bang whilst waiting on new info, others will invoke God as the ultimate explanation and use the increasing knowledge of science to pad out the ever increasing, and complex, actions and reactions since the 'first uncaused cause'.
In many cases if feel that those who believe in a creator place that creator at the immediate fringe of the current knowledge, in this case the big bang or the origin of life. If life appears in a lab and the universe is shown to one of countless universes which imply a higher structure God will move back a step, with the theist being even more convinced of the design of it all and the atheist being more convinced as the chances have been upped hugely.

DannyM wrote:On another note, good to 'see' you...been a long while.

Nice to be back. I have been trying to keep up with checking in here but life has been keeping me busy recently.

eagle25c wrote:Considering that Newtonian physics is only 250 years old, Darwinain theory 150 thereabouts and Einstein's relativity at 100, I'll put my money on science coming up with a plausible theory or proof within the next 200 years

It would be nice if someone could do something to Darwin's theories similar to what Einstein done to Newtons, before I snuff it. Not falsifying it, but showing that things are really not that simple.

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:You were a «Christian» in name only. Once you are regenerated by the Holy Spirit there is no going back. In other words, you just traded one god for another. This is quite common.

I've heard you use this line a few times and it irks me. The notion that when when one goes from Christian to atheist they were never a Christian in the first place, but going the other way they can become Christian. You can join the club, but if you ever leave then you were a fake member. If one holds no particular authourity in scripture any longer then scriptural definitions also lose authority. Christians are no more than people claiming to be Christians, there is no such thing as a true Christian etc. Once one breaks away from Christianity they are no longer bound by Christian definitions of Christianity. It would seem you cannot claim to be a true Christian either as there is still time for you to change your mind as dramatically as you have done before, only time will tell. Perhaps our OP is a true Christian that will resume the path and is going through a difficult spell, who knows.

Proinsias wrote:[
I don't see the paper destroying Darwinism. It's an interesting theory, I was pointed to it and some similar articles when I first arrived here by godslanguage, painting Darwinian evolution as more of a low level fine tuning mechanism working on major changes to the genome which come about due to chromosome rearrangement, I think. It strikes me as entirely reasonable to expect that when looking at the current evolutionary tree of life we will find other mechanisms aside from the Darwinian/Medellian one we can observe at the moment, especially where paths diverge; phylum, genus, species etc.

Pro.. I don't think anyone here is trying to destroy Darwinian evolution.. I think it's going to be with us for a long time.. And to tell you the truth, I really don't have too many problems with it.. Even Stephen Hawking's ideas. However, that being said, I think what frustrates most creationists here is when evolution turns into a gospel. A kind of dogmatic belief.. Whereas belief in God is considered a religions endeavor, and evolution a solely scientific endeavor. When that happens, then there is going to be a fight.. And rightly so, both the Bible and materialism will conflict. Why? Because both of them try to understand the world from their own philosophic point of views.

Again, I really don't have a problem with the Theory of Evolution. But if it starts infringing on my territory, saying what is true and what isn't. Then there is going to be a battle..

I do like crashing evolutionist's parties however.. I have to admit that... I like playing the devil's advocate.

Gman wrote:Pro.. I don't think anyone here is trying to destroy Darwinian evolution.. I think it's going to be with us for a long time.. And to tell you the truth, I really don't have too many problems with it.. Even Stephen Hawking's ideas. However, that being said, I think what frustrates most creationists here is when evolution turns into a gospel. A kind of dogmatic belief.. Whereas belief in God is considered a religions endeavor, and evolution a solely scientific endeavor. When that happens, then there is going to be a fight.. And rightly so, both the Bible and materialism will conflict. Why? Because both of them try to understand the world from their own philosophic point of views.

Again, I really don't have a problem with the Theory of Evolution. But if it starts infringing on my territory, saying what is true and what isn't. Then there is going to be a battle..

Danny did say that the paper linked above destroys Dariwnism:

Darwinism is what I take issue with, and for me it is destroyed in this paper...

I feel that Darwinian evolution is a phase in our understanding. It will be with us for a long time as you say, along with Newton, Hawkins, Einstein etc. When it becomes dogmatic there is an issue. There is room for the dogmatic theistic creationist and the chance atheist evolutionist, most people I know are somewhere in the middle.

In short I don't think one can claim to be dogmatic and also a supporter of evolution, evolutions means change and it's tough to be dogmatic about change

Proinsias wrote:Danny did say that the paper linked above destroys Dariwnism:

Ok, but I don't think Danny is on a witch hunt or anything to completely eradicate Darwinism.. That is what I meant..

Proinsias wrote:I feel that Darwinian evolution is a phase in our understanding. It will be with us for a long time as you say, along with Newton, Hawkins, Einstein etc. When it becomes dogmatic there is an issue. There is room for the dogmatic theistic creationist and the chance atheist evolutionist, most people I know are somewhere in the middle.

In short I don't think one can claim to be dogmatic and also a supporter of evolution, evolutions means change and it's tough to be dogmatic about change

Well put Pro.. In essence, no one really has 100 percent truth of anything.. I think if we could all admit that then there would be less tension on the forum.

You know, with all due respect, this forum is actually more orderly, respectful, and peaceful than many other creation/evolution, or atheist/Christian type message boards. I hang out all the time on the "largest Chrsitian apologetics message board", and I tell you it's an utter mad house to say the least. Constant name calling on both sides, especially with the atheists, the mods at that place let them get away with murder and let the atheists pretty much run the place and the vast majority of the Christians on there are equally loud yecs. It's really sad, because constantly I see people on there claiming to be Christians but after hanging around the place and around all those unruly atheists and equally bad yec Christians, they end up dropping the faith or they claim to at the very least. But when you don't have enough competent apologists, moderators, and too many angry emotional atheists, you regretfully get those results. But thankfully, I don't see nearly as much of that stuff here as I do at that place. This place may be less in quantity of participants but it far exceeds in quality of discussion. And with that I'm very much exceedingly thankful to be a part of this place. Thanks for your time.

Amen to that Derrick!

Proinsias wrote:By helpful I mean that Darwinian evolutionary theory, along with Mendel's work, united biology in a way that hadn't been dreamed of before and was the smoking gun to start the race for a common language which Watson and Crick uncovered. Its projection into the unobservable past to explain origins may be far from water tight but the advancements in understanding biology and medicine have been huge.

I would disagree. Darwinian evolution has been used by many as though it were a stick with which to beat religion over the head. I'm not labeling all Darwinists here; in fact, Alister Mcgrath largely accepts Darwinism, and he's a Christian theologian.

Its projection onto origins is merely speculation. Douglas Futuyma, in his Evolutionary Biology, said, "By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of life superflous."

This statement just isn't science. Look at the statement, Pro, and tell me if you think it has any scientific or Darwinian basis...

Proinsias wrote:I don't see the paper destroying Darwinism.

I see it destroying Darwinism as an adequate mechanism to explain the astounding complexity of life. It's not the theists who ever sought to project Darwinism onto origins; this is solely the work of the Darwinists, or neo-Darwinists, if you like.

From Davison's paper:

"Every shred of tangible evidence points to sexual reproduction as a highly conservative device, serving only to bring evolution to a virtual standstill. Just as William Bateson indicated even before 1900, I too find it amazing how long the Darwinian view has prevailed in the face of an enormous and continually growing body of information with which it cannot possibly be reconciled.

In short, Darwinism must be abandoned as a meaningful instrument of organic change.

This, in a nutshell, is my contention. RM+NS is simply not sufficient or adequate to explain the complexity of life. I'm not in complete denial of the mechanism as such, but am denying it as any sort of satisfactory explanation of how life "evolved".

Proinsias wrote:science is always at its most exciting when people disagree.

Well said!!

Proinsias wrote:I think this works both ways. It's going to be tough to know with certainty that the universe does not contain the reason for its own existence, or that we would even recognise it if it was put in front of us.

We'll never be able to measure the laws of this universe, only their effects. Why is it that, with science and logic,, we can rationally demonstrate the effects of these laws? Why is it that we can show that the universe was created in a primordial explosion of energy and light? Not only do we know that our universe had a beginning in space and time, but we also know that the origin of the universe was a beginning for space and time. This was quite literally a miracle.

In our heads are atoms and molecules and neurons shooting away. What logical necessity is there for the workings of these neurons and molecules inside our heads to match the universe outside? Why should there be a correspondence between the two? It's a strange correspondence here that ultimately relies on faith. The only difference is the atheist relies on the evidence while denying the metaphysical ground on which it stands. Mind, not matter, came at the beginning...In my view.

Proinsias wrote:I believe we were talking about comprehension of things outwith the universe and you are pointing to God, if you can comprehend God then I think you may be God, which to me is embodied in things like taoism and zen.

What the --! I fear you misunderstand me. I can never fully or even nearly begin to comprehend God. But I can comprehend that there is a transcendental causer of the universe.

Proinsias wrote:If you wish to take things to their logical conclusion, and wish to avoid infinite regression or Hindu-esque ideas of cyclical time, you're going to have to abandon cause and effect at some point. Some abandon this when our scientific knowledge fails, approaching the big bang whilst waiting on new info, others will invoke God as the ultimate explanation and use the increasing knowledge of science to pad out the ever increasing, and complex, actions and reactions since the 'first uncaused cause'.

But of course, you know that I will invoke God because I believe in God. This has no bearing on my proposition that RM+NS is utterly inadequate to account for complex life. It's almost a moot point, as my contention remains unscathed.

Proinsias wrote:Nice to be back. I have been trying to keep up with checking in here but life has been keeping me busy recently.

[/quote]

Good to see you though Pro!

Gman wrote:

Proinsias wrote:Danny did say that the paper linked above destroys Dariwnism:

Ok, but I don't think Danny is on a witch hunt or anything to completely eradicate Darwinism.. That is what I meant..

Thanks Gman. Perhaps my line was a bit hyperbolic, but you clearly recognise that I'm not necessarily saying Darwin's mechanism is not a plausible mechanism as such, just that it is woefully inadequate to describe, and incompatible with what we know of, the complexity of life.

DannyM wrote:Thanks Gman. Perhaps my line was a bit hyperbolic, but you clearly recognise that I'm not necessarily saying Darwin's mechanism is not a plausible mechanism as such, just that it is woefully inadequate to describe, and incompatible with what we know of, the complexity of life.

Agreed..

It certainly can't explain the complexity of life for sure..

Hey what time is it out there in London?

Gman wrote:

DannyM wrote:Thanks Gman. Perhaps my line was a bit hyperbolic, but you clearly recognise that I'm not necessarily saying Darwin's mechanism is not a plausible mechanism as such, just that it is woefully inadequate to describe, and incompatible with what we know of, the complexity of life.

Agreed..

It certainly can't explain the complexity of life for sure..

Hey what time is it out there in London?

Right now? Well I'm on the SW Coast, but the time is 4.15 in the afternoon...What's the time in sunny California??

DannyM wrote:Right now? Well I'm on the SW Coast, but the time is 4.15 in the afternoon...What's the time in sunny California??

Oh sorry.. It's 8:23 am. And it is sunny.. But cold, 46 degrees..

I live close to this..