Evidence for God from Science

What is the single most positive example of observable macroevolution?

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/searching4Tik.html


This link was already provided. Keep in mind, this piece of evidence alone does not equate to a scientific theory. You have to look at the entire body of evidence combined with a thorough understanding of genetics.

Transitional fossils are being found all the time, and not coincidentaly, they are found exactly where the expect to find them.

Evidence is not necessarily required for a theory to be considered scientific.


Sorry that don't play. Try introducing intelligent design as a mere hypothesis into the education system and see what happens.

Here is what I see on the macroevolution.

When someone demands evidence on macroevolution, we are told there is a moutain of evidence. When examples are requested we are provided numerous examples of microevolution, and then told that given enough time macroevolution will result.

What is the single most positive example of observable macroevolution?

"Why is it that thet theorym which you claim is not science, is accpeted by the academies of science."

The credentials of truth are not established by popularity. How was Hitler able to convince an entire nation that Jews were not human and use the scientific community to perpetuate this atrocity.

Scientists are not holy men. They are not above human emotions or possesing beliefs, even dogmatic beliefs. This is the attitude that positions Darwinian evolution as being at the top of some sacred mountain. And that it is somehow blasphemy to call into question, or request evidence for its claims. This has been accomplished not by scientific method but by ideological thinking and outright snobbery.

Barabus, by even making this claim you are exhibiting the very thing you claim to be denying.

I can post hundreds of quotes from within this elitist society that demostrates, that although science at large does hold evolution to be viable, there are doubts and disbelief within this said group. Just one example, "Biochemist Franklin Harold stated in a 2001 Oxford University Press monograph that "there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."

I wasn't asking about an opinion poll among the ignorant masses. We are specifically talking about whether or not the Theory of Evolution is actual science or not. Your contention is that you as well as a handful of other people on this forum who have, so far, displayed a complete misunderstanding of the scientific process, have reason to believe that the collection of scientists who are experts in the field don't know what science is.

Popularity doesn't equal truth, but your contention that scientists don't know what constitutes science just smacks of wilful ignorance on your part.

Surely this is evidence that a Ferrari and a Focus evolved from a common ancestor.

Actually they did. You can trace both of them back to the model T.

Ok, Barabus - let's take the time, again, to walk through you posts:

1: Write very lengthy responses that take a lot of time to wade through.

You write a lot of things that are based on fundamental mistakes. Are you interested in dialogue or not?

2: Rarely directly address the point the poster you responded to made but rather derail the conversation onto whatever tangent you think will best make your point.

Every single point you've made, I have addressed directly. As to your criticisms below, I'll be more than happy to demonstrate how you missed MY point. As you missed it, I can certainly understand how you fail to see how it addresses your point.

3: Use big flowery words in an attempt either scare or confuse the person you are arguing with, or at a minimum, confuse the other readers into thinking you must know what you are talking about.

I'm pretty sure that none of the words I have used have been at all big or flowery. Your assumption of the ignorance of the readers of this board is telling. The fact that I use the names of the fallacies demonstrates my confidence in the competence of the reader. This little nugget here indicates your distain for them. Good to know you respect your audience, whom you have never addres, so much. Perhaps, considering that I have been here for years, I know something about these people that you don't.

4: Despite never answering questions asked of you, you claim that your own questions must be answered to your level of satification, otherwise your opponent must concede defeat.

I claim you must concede defeat when you dodge the question, not when you offer a weak answer. A weak answer is just that, an answer. A dodge is an evasion, which means that you do NOT have an answer. I've castigated fellow theologians for doing just that. It's not just you, Barabus (or whoever you are). It's what people do when they don't have a response.

Awfuly disengenuous. I dare say its awfuly close to breaking one of the commandments as well......but technically its not a lie, so you'll probably get off scott free.

And the ad hominems continue.

Okay, so you start off by stating that different bits of knowledge can be attained through different methods. Your first paragraph makes a good and correct point........but missed the point I was making. It appears as though you cherry picked which part of the discussion you wanted to read to make your point.

Oh, and a veiled ad hominem. At least you are subtle. Yes, I could be cherry picking, but more likely, I've read the work, have every confindence in j's argument thus far, and point out in this case where you have made a glaring mistake. In short, I am pointing out your philosophical errors, Babs. You can debate the rest with whomever you like.

The very last sentece is classic JAC3510, in which you attempt to belittle those who disagree with you as being inferior....in this case demonstrating ignorance. God cannot be prooven....not through science, not through history, not through philosophy. I don't wish to debate this with you. I've been there, done that, and have a project due in 10 days.

This is downright comical. Was that directed at YOU? Only if you believe that recognizing that the question of God's existence is philosophical, rather than scientific, "devalues the validity of the question." If you don't think it devalues the question, then you clearly are not demonstrating ignorance on the question. So, do you think it invalidates the question? If not, then don't get worked up over something that I've not said about you. You see, I haven't assumed anything about your personal views on this matter. Perhaps you should practice the same.

Though your grasp of the english language and ability to write are competent, I fail to see what point you are trying to make. What I got out of this was a few paragraphs of your support for philosophy, an argument against a case I never made, and an attempt to belittle opposing points of view. I'm starting to remember why I pretty much ignored this post.

Given your incorrect misreading of my previous point, I can see where you would have difficulty here. In that paragraph, I show why claiming that the nature of the question of God devalues its validity is self-refuting. If you make no such claim, then you can agree and move on. If you do make the claim, you have to deal with that issue.

Translation: "I rambled on for several paragraphs not really saying much and certainly not supporting my position. I'm pretty sure no one really understood what I was talking about, so I should add this little tag at the end."

Just sticking QED on the end of a proof doesn't make it valid.

No, I am applying the first paragraph that you admit makes a correct point. AGAIN, I will lay it out for you.

1. J claims evolution is unobservable, and therefore not scientific;
2. You claim that the belief in God is not observable, and therefore not scientific.
3. You continue to claim that if one cannot believe in evolution on the basis that it is not observable, one has no basis on which to believe in God.
4. I reply that you are conflating all types of fact with scientific fact. Again, one can reject evolution as a proper science, due to the fact that it is NOT observable and testable, and STIL Lhave a basis for believing in God, because the nature of the facts are different. Evolution is to be evaluated on scientific grounds (so we are told). God is to be evaluated on philosohical grounds. Thus, evolution MUST be observable and testable, whereas God does not have to be.
5. Thus, your counter response to J is INCORRECT.
6. Because it is incorrect, J's point is validated until you come up with a different counter argument.

All that is nothing more than what I have already said, and what you seem to have failed to grasp (or you grasp it and are simply ignoring it).

Okay, now we are back on topic. *shew* all that and finaly we get to discuss what the issue was to begin with. If you have forgotten after reading through your version of War and Peace, Jlay made the claim that we needed to directly observe a dog create something that is not a dog in order to validate Evolution. (I'll go under the assumption that he'd accept any organism creat a different species in a single generation). When I responded that this was an "unreasonable standard" he then responded "being testable and observable is unreasonable?"

If you haven't been able to follow, he clearly misunderstands the nature of science and what they consider to be "testable and observable." ID, for example is not testable or observable. Neither is the existence of God, which is why neither are considered science. As far as scientists are concerned, Evolution IS. Jlay (and potentialy you) are confusing the concept with "directly witnessing the event." Most people on this forum agree that the Earth is billions of years old. Is that testable and obervable? According to Jlay's standard, it is not.

Personally, I would have taken a different approach to your discussion regarding the dog, but the discussion is what it is. I'm not going to go back and change it. Now, J made a specific point, namely, that any organism (he used two, a dog and virus) should be able to produce something that is not the same organism if evolution is true. It should be testable and observable. You reply that "A dog will ALWAYS produce a dog. It will NEVER produce something that is not a dog," which is just silly. The whole premise of evolution is that organisms change over time. Certainly, it doesn't happen in one generation. The separation of populations and the slow mutation of the two in different ways may explain a lot, but in the strictest sense, dogs came from non-dogs (so says evolution). THAT is what should be observable, and it simply isn't.

The age of the earth, however, IS observable and testable just as much as the distance from the Sun to the earth is. Those are static measurements. We've seen the laws of physics at work. That is, we have observed and tested them. The same cannot be said about Darwinism. You have a picture you have painted, but that picture is NOT testable. Thus, it isn't science. It is a philosophy, and the sooner that is realized, the sooner it can be properly understood and debated.

So I made the correlation to a belief in God, which is not testable or observable either. I think its only reasonable that if he holds scientists to an extreme standard that handicaps what science is capable of determining, in this case requiring *direct observation* as demonstrated in the bulk of what he has written, then shouldn't he hold his belief in God to the same stadard.

No, that is not reasonable. The belief in God has NO CORRELATION to the claim that evolution is or is not scientific. Even if you take J's statements the way that you did, that he wants, in one generation, a dog to produce a Flargh by direct observation, that STILL does not make your statement reasonable. Yes, the evidence for God is not testable or observable (in the sense we are talking about), but from that, it does NOT follow that ALL KNOWLEDGE requires direct observation. That is the point you keep on missing.

Let's try it this way:

1. ALL knowledge is based on facts;
2. NOT ALL facts are of the same type (some are scientific, some are mathematical, some are historical, etc.);
3. Different types of facts are known through different means;
4. Therefore, knowledge is gained by different means.

If you claim evolution is a scientific issue, then it MUST be proven by scientific facts, which, by definition, means facts that are observable and testable. If those facts cannot be observed and tested, then evolution is NOT scientific. The belief in God is NOT based on scientific facts. It is based on PHILOSOPHICAL facts, which are NOT testable and observable. Thus, you central point here is mistaken, because you are confusing two different types of facts.

Or to simplify using your analogy......we know Lincoln gave the Gettysburg address through history (not science) but if Jlay was to apply teh same standard to the subject of history that he does to science, ie that it needs direct observation, then we could not reasonably state that Lincoln gave it because none of us saw it, historical evidence be damned.

No no no no no no no no. THIS is my point that you keep misunderstanding. It is exactly because Gettysburg is NOT a scientific fact that it does NOT have to be observable. Please note this:

ONLY SCIENTIFIC FACTS MUST BE TESTABLE AND OBSERVABLE, BUT ALL SCIENTIFIC FACTS MUST BE SO.

Thus, the same criteria does not apply to Lincoln or God. Thus, your counterpoint to J is simply WRONG.

In classic JAC3510 fashion, you simply belittle points made that you have no case against. What we've had so far is a sad attempt by a theologian to refute the Theory of Evolution. You've given me no reason so far to believe that you are any kind of expert on the matter, nor have you made any convincing argument other than to pull out a definition from a dictionary and then claim that the Theory of Evolution doesn't fall under that definition.

First off, this is a genetic fallacy. Regardless of whether I am a trained expert or not, arguments speak for themselves. To reject an based on the person giving it is fallacious.

Second, there is not a single word of belittlement in the words which you quoted. That was in response to your saying:

• What you are suggesting is that the overwhelming amount of evidence that would take a small library to fill is all one giant coincidence. The body of evidence as a whole simply can't be discussed in a couple of paragraphs on an internet forum. As I have typically come to expect, any time a pertinent example is given......which, mind you, is but one small example encompassing a single paragraph from this small library.....the same counter arguemnt is given, that being that there could be another explanation for whay that one piece of evidence alone does not lead to clonclude the reality of evolution.

My point is that, contra you (if I read you correctly - it was rather hard to follow your syntax), the overwhelming body of evidence has to be looked at one at a time. If a counter argument can be found for each one (and there are for), then the whole body of evidence is as overwhelming as a whole body of bad arguments. You can't lump a LOT of bad arguments together to form one overwhelming big one.

Yet somehow it looks like science to me. Maybe I don't know what science is.......despite having a degree in it. Maybe my Ameircan University education has failed me. Perhaps had I received my degree in theology I would be better prepared to understand why the study of evolution fails under the rules of science. Maybe at the same time I would also understand why ID IS a viable field of study.

Maybe you don't? I don't know. I gave you a definition of science that you said was wrong, even though it is echoed Britannica.

I appreicate your degree in science, but what you need to understand is that you got a degree in a METHOD. Science and the philosophy of science are two different things. Science asks questions about the world. The philosophy of science asks questions about science. You can't use science to talk about what science is. That is a philosophical question. Perhaps if your degree was in philosophy, you would see that more clearly.

Oh won't deny that you are skilled in the art of debate. You and I can sit here and argue about whether or not teh study of Evolution is *real* science, but neither one of us is a scientist in that field. So I think it is a very peritinent question to ask you that if the theory is not scientific, then why is it that all of the academies of science on the planet accept it as one? C'mon, JAC3510.....from a guy as smart as you I would at the very least expect you to support your position. All you have managed to do so far is display your misunderstanding of the field. At least give me a baseless conspiracy theory....or *something.*

Again, you miss the point. Being a scientist in a field does not qualify me to say if that field is science. Being a specialist in a field means only that I have learned the methods of that field. The nature of that field and its classification is a philosophical question.

Now, I've already answered whey all the academics think that evolution is science. I'll address your reply to that below.

<watch this>

If you can't, then you'll have to conced the point.

You are correct (hey, you are learning! Maybe you aren't just a preacher after all . . . ) And I can, and already did in my previous post, although you missed the point again. I'll make it clearer below.

Did you just figure you'd throw this in there to score some points. Maybe you should elaborate exaclty where this happened. As far as I can tell, it never happend. My best guess is, especially since this was in the post where you wrote this, you think this is a Tu Quoque fallacy:

You are going to have to explain yourself, because to the best of my knowledge, that is not remotely a Tu Quoque fallacy. A Tu Quoque would have been if my own line of reasoning was questioned, and I turned around and told Jlay that he did the same thing. ie, I would have written:

"How can you question MY standard for MY belief when you do the same thing"

But that's not what I asked. I asked him why his own belief system was inconsistent. It wasn't meant to prove that either belief system was correct or incorrect. I was merely questioning how he manage to pick and choose which beliefs require a high degree of scrutiny and skepticism and others a low degree. I'll admit that BOTH of his lines of reasoning may be faulty.

No, that's not where the fallacy was made. I ALREADY explained it. Here, let me just quote myself:

• I said quite a bit more than that. jlay made a specific point as to evolution's lack of observability and testability, the hallmarks of the physical sciences. Your rather weak response to that objection was to claim that belief in God is not observable or testable, and therefore, he had the same problem (hence, the tu quoque, as if proving jlay had a problem would resolve your own).

In other words, J pointed out a problem in your view, and you pointed out that he had the same problem. In your own reply to me, you make a BIG point of that. Note again, here, you said: "I made the correlation to a belief in God, which is not testable or observable either." See the word "either" there? You said, "So evolution isn't testable by your definition? Well guess what? Neither is God!"

Tu quoque.

And this is called the strawman argument. Perhaps you are familiar with that as well? Any other arguments I didn't make that you'd like to refute with some flowery language? Maybe a line of reasoning that I'm not using that you'd like to spend 4 or 5 paragraphs on why its invalid......only to cap it off with something like, "So, as it stands, your line of reasoning is invalid. You are irrational."

That's not a strawman. It's just a statement of fact. A strawman is a version of your argument that I make on my own to tear down and thereby claim victory of your argument. I did no such thing in the words you quoted. I simply stated a fact: fallacious arguments are irrational. People that make judgments based on irrational arguments are irrational, because it means that they are making judgments without reason.

That's a judgment of your position. Not a counter argument.

Now, how is your argument irrational? I've shown repeatedly. Your response to J committed the tu quoque fallacy, and it was also based on a false premise, namely, that all knowledge is based on scientific fact. It was, then, BOTH invalid (the fallacy) AND unsound (the false premise).

JAC3510, this is about all I really have time for. This is exactly why I didn't engage you in the first place. I have to spend pages and pages and pages refuting your bad arguments one at a time. You typically respond with more of the same. Its just not worth it. I don't have the time nor do I really care. You seem to get off on bumping around from forum to forum engaging people in this way. Have you not landed a preacher gig yet?

I've been at this forum longer than just about anyone here (second, I think, only to K . . . did I miss anyone?). Anyway, you can't expect to go around making logically invalid arguments and not expect to get called on it. Sorry if you don't like that. I'm glad you know some things about the mechanics of your scientific field, whatever it is. Hey, we need people with your knowledge. But that doesn't mean you know anything about how to think about the fields. And you are consistently showing that you misunderstand that aspect.

So amongst all of the babble, the ranting, the tactical gymnastics, the strawmen, the misaplication of logical fallacies, and the flowery language, I'll leave you with one simple point:

JAC3510, who has no formal training in the sciences, thinks that the academies of science don't know what science is.

Again, there is a difference on the question of WHAT science is and HOW to make measurements and create theories. The former is philosophy. The latter is science.

Again - I am the one who gave a valid definition of science, which YOU rejected. MY defintion is backed by Britannica. YOU rejected that. Not me. That tells me a great deal about who understands what science is better.

You still didn't answer my question. My question had nothing to do with Richard Dawkin's personal philosophy which he may or may not use Evolution (or abiogenesis) to support. My question is specifically about the Theory of Evolution. Why is it that thet theorym which you claim is not science, is accpeted by the academies of science.

Can I draw a conclusion by your continual dodge?

By your labeling it a dodge, I can certainly draw a conclusion about your interest in interacting with ideas (I'll choose to look at it as your interest, rather than ability here . . . benefit of the doubt).

Now, my reference to Dawkins had nothing to do with abiogenesis. As I myself said: "Since I'm just a theologian who doesn't understand science (despite my proof to the contrary), let me quote someone who answers this question themself who DOES understand science and Darwinism."

You asked why people accept evolution as science when I claim it is not. Now, why should I put words in their mouth when they give me their own words? Are you saying that I know their reasons better than they do? That, my friend, is called research. It is called using primary, rather than secondary, sources. You can feel free to tell Dawkins that he doesn't understand science. That is fine. I am still going to reply that the reason HE accepts it as science is because HE accepts the worldview REGARDLESS OF THE EVIDENCE. That is, he accepts it for PHILOSOPHICAL REASONS, precisely the point I've been making all along.

As for any worldview that someone may use evolution to support, it does not matter if it is correct of incorrect or whether it is philosphical, scientific, mathematical, or historical.......it has nothing to do whatsoever with the Theory itself. The theory is either valid or invalid despite what people use that information for.

When the scientist tells you that he accepts the worldview REGARDLESS of the evidence, then it has everything to do with it. Furthermore, as any philosopher of language, science, or history can tell you, one's worldview has a massive impact on how one views and catagorized evidence. Your not seeing that says something about your understanding of philosohy, not my understanding of science.

Your argument reminds me of the last 30 minutes of Expelled where the case was made that Darwinism lead to the application of Eugenics in Nazi Germany. A) it did not, but more appropriately B) that has no more bearing on the validity of the theory than dropping a bomb on Hiroshima has on nuclear physics (well....at least I should state that the danger of killing people doesn't mean that nuclear physics must be wrong).

Wheteher (A) is true, you are correct about (B). But you didn't ask me if evolution was VALID. You asked me why so many scientists accept it as science if it is not. I gave you the answer from their own mouth.

Nevetheless, thanks for posting as your response displays the same irrational fear of knowledge that I have seen among many other religious zealots. Yes, understanding the Theory of Evolution *could* lead someone to a Godless world view. I personaly think Jesus will forgive, but if they be damned to hell for their loss of faith, it would be falacious reasoning to say that those consequences should make you conclude that it musn't be science.

I've never said anything about evolution leading to godlessness. There you go reading into my statements again. Further, I've never once mentioned my religion in this thread, which tells me that this entire time, you've rejected everything have said, or could say, out of hand on the basis of your labeling me a "religious zealot." That is, again a genetic fallacy.

You may understand how to DO science, Babs. But your understanding of WHAT science is or of philosophy generally is absolutely terrible.

Actually they did. You can trace both of them back to the model T.

So you admit that a common designer could be a reasonable theory for shared materials (DNA)?


I visited the site. I find it very laughable considering that is the absolute best single evidence according to you. What we have is an extinct creature. Or a creature that has been so compromised by "millions of years" of fossilization that we can't distinquish it any longer.

We don't have a creature it evolved from or into, only speculation, artistic drawings and scultptures. I have to admit there are some drawings in there that would make the Imagineers at Disney proud.

Isn't evolution great. It has only taken 3.75 million years to generate this.

A mudfish.

So why is Tiktaalik transitional? Because it is old. Why is it old? Because of where we found it. So for these reasons it is transitional. And not just transitional, but the author states that this is actually a human ancestor.

In Your Inner Fish, Neil Shubin tells the story of evolution by tracing the organs of the human body back millions of years, long before the first creatures walked the earth. By examining fossils and DNA, Shubin shows us that our hands actually resemble fish fins, our head is organized like that of a long-extinct jawless fish, and major parts of our genome look and function like those of worms and bacteria.

Now this same scientist looks at the mudfish and little Bobby the homosapien, scratches his temple and says, "common ancestor!" Science!!!

please, go back an play in immagination land with Lucy and Archaeopteryx. How people can print crap like this and be considered scientific exposes the whole seedy underbelly of the whole movement. Thanks for the link. You have without a doubt corfirmed the fallacy of Darwinism.

I wonder how much $$$$$$$ went into this junk. I suspect the funding from Harvard would've dried up pretty quick if they'd just come back from digging in dirt with a mudfish.

So you admit that a common designer could be a reasonable theory for shared materials (DNA)?

Reasonable "theory?" No. Not remotely.

Reasonable idea? Belief? Absolutely, as I had stated many times in this thread it is a belief I share.



As for the rest of your post, it amounts to pointing and laughing at how rediculous something you don't understand is.

I think you and I are done.

I think you and I are done.

One of us is done. One of us is medium rare.

Sorry, but you were asked to provide the best evidence, and you give us a link that is 10% evidence and 90% imagination. If you think artists making drawings and writing whisical books is scientific evidence then excuse me. I don't know whether to or

Things are getting heated here!

It seems that the points are going back and forth.


There are several issues that need to be clarified, because now there are several "ping-pong" balls being hit back and forth and many balls are getting missed. I won't even attempt to bring order out of the "you don't argue well....not *you* don't argue well" converstations but rather want to focus on the several "ping-pong balls"

1. Evolution is such a problematic word anymore because there have been so many applicaitons of it.

2. Evolution can simply refer to what Barabus, BGOod, and Wayne have been asserting, which is that it is only a mechanism which results in diversity in organisms. They are not (at least I am not hearing this from Barabus and BGood I believe has made this point in the past) implying anything about the exclusion of a creator, merely that science cannot address that.

3. Evolution, strictly speaking, *doesn't * address how the cells/life came to be, that is the realm of abiogenesis. It simply addresses what happened when they were there. Now, are they related, absolutely, just as Gman has stated, you do have to determine where the material came from that evoltuion affects. And the line does indeed blur when textbooks refer to a natural selection of RNA molecules: only those RNA molecules that were stable or replicated more successfully were selected.

4. Evolution can then be brought into the philosophical realm, as it has been, very obnoxiously so by Dawkins, Hitchens, et. al. These pieces of evidence, they proclaim, are what allow us to reject God. If you, Barabus and wayne, are or have been becoming frustrated at the misuses of science in previous posts, then you can understand the frustration at the misuses of philosophy or theology when we encounter an onslaught of naturalistic *philosophy* from a naturalistic method. Is it any wonder that most CHristians react negatively (whether this stems from anger, fear, or indignation) when scientists turn what they claim is simply a method into philosophy? At the heart of it, there are genuine believers who are theistic evolutionists (Francis COllins). But evolution is the grand scheme of things has been equated with atheism or at the least naturalistic philosophy for so long that people *assume* the philosophy behind the evidence, especially in the laymans world.

(Of course, part of this also stems from a reaction on their part when Christians are steadfast in proclaiming that God couldn't have done that, which seems rather like placing limitations on God...the question should seem to be what God did versus what He could do)

5. Addressing the micro-macro argument. I have looked at the link for tiktaalik, and indeed there are some interesting new features that the fossil shows. THe issue remains whether the collection of mutations that results in this bundle of adaptations could have accumulated together, even within the 12 million years. If you say that that didn't have to happen at the same time, you have to address the worry that some mutations, without others, would have perhaps been selected against. We are looking at a package of advantageous structures. Now you can say that with enough time this could happen, and certainly we see that there *were* animals that existed...but we will never be able to see whether this happened. So whether fish occurred and then divine intervention caused the changes? We will never know.

You bring up the question "why would why assume there are limitations to mutations?" and the simply response is that we just don't know, do we? Other then few speciation events that we can point two, we don't know how powerful mutations are. Perhaps there are real limitations to mutations. We are taking a few events and extrapolating to the past. With regards to explanatory power, the idea that we can look at the fossil history and interpret this to be the story of God's working, this certianly allows us to put the pieces together. Can we test His divine intervention, not be science. But it can certainly be a conclusion. Should this stop our investigations? It shouldn't and we should, as CHristians, always be careful of the "God did it". But we should also be wary of taking a mechanism and assuming a philosohy and thereby rejecting God through it.

My 2 cents, anyway....

I'll make this one simple:

2. You claim that the belief in God is not observable, and therefore not scientific.

I MADE NO SUCH CLAIM!!!!!!!!!

Your entire argument has been built on this false premise. I already explained to you that that was not the meaning behind my statement, yet you continue to make it the basis of your argument.....hence, the strawman. I will not explain it agin.

Again, you miss the point. Being a scientist in a field does not qualify me to say if that field is science. Being a specialist in a field means only that I have learned the methods of that field. The nature of that field and its classification is a philosophical question.

Uh, no it is not. This is exactly why scientific journals are peer reviewed by scientists, not philosophers.....and especially not theologians.



Each and every error that you picked out in my reasoning above is based on a conclusion that you claimed I drew which I did not. I'll pick but one example......as if I should have to as I've already pointed out the error in your initial premise which you ignored.

First off, this is a genetic fallacy. Regardless of whether I am a trained expert or not, arguments speak for themselves. To reject an based on the person giving it is fallacious.

I drew no such conclusion. I drew the conclusion that you did not know what you are talking about based entirely on your demonstration that you misunderstood the field of science. That was clear to me before I made the comment. The comment itself was not intended to be the premise leading me to conclude that you were ignorant. It was meant to illuminate you to that idea that you are arguing from a laughable position. In otherwords, JAC3510, the point I was making was akin to "do you have any clue how rediculous you sound."

You are wrong because you are wrong.

I'll leave this time with this simple statement:

JAC3510 claims that the academies of science don't know what science is because scientists merely learn the methods of their field of study. The actual classifcation of such field should be left to the philosophers.

Somehow I presume their must have been a disconnect between the scientists doing the work and the philosphers that they should have been confering with to determine whether or not their work was valid.

I was going to tell you that you are a joke, but then I realized that it isn't a very funny one. You might actually have followers.

DID YOU GUYS KNOW THAT MAKING YOUR POSTS BIG MAKES YOUR POINTS MORE ACCURATE?!?

Ok, with that out of my system, I'll simply make two points (again):

1. You said:

I MADE NO SUCH CLAIM!!!!!!!!!

Yes, you did. I walked through it in detail, which you conveniently ignored (again).

2. On your HUGE point:
You are simply wrong. Plain old fashioned wrong. There is no more simple way to say it. The question of what science IS is NOT a scientific question. Go take a philosophy course, take a test, and when that question comes up, mark it as a scientific question, and watch the answer come back with big red X.

For the final time, I am the one who gave a valid definition of science which YOU rejected. If anyone has proven that they misunderstand WHAT science IS, that would be you. I'm sure you are very good at doing science. But that doesn't mean you understand WHAT it is.

Besides, what would a science journal be doing publishing philosophy papers, anyway? I thought science was one field and philosophy another? So if a science journal, peer reviewed or not, give a paper on what science IS, then they are writing outside of their field, which is exactly what makes people like Richard Dawkins so idiotic.

Anyway, since your whole posted amounted to a great BIG "na-uh", completely with big bold words, I suppose you can say you are done with me, too. Funny, though . . . one of the characteristics of preachers: they like to yell at their congregations. Feel free to pass the plate whenever you like. I'm not sure what kind of offering you will get, but you could try.

Yes, you did. I walked through it in detail, which you conveniently ignored (again).

I clarified in detail right here:

Okay, now we are back on topic. *shew* all that and finaly we get to discuss what the issue was to begin with. If you have forgotten after reading through your version of War and Peace, Jlay made the claim that we needed to directly observe a dog create something that is not a dog in order to validate Evolution. (I'll go under the assumption that he'd accept any organism creat a different species in a single generation). When I responded that this was an "unreasonable standard" he then responded "being testable and observable is unreasonable?"

If you haven't been able to follow, he clearly misunderstands the nature of science and what they consider to be "testable and observable." ID, for example is not testable or observable. Neither is the existence of God, which is why neither are considered science. As far as scientists are concerned, Evolution IS. Jlay (and potentialy you) are confusing the concept with "directly witnessing the event." Most people on this forum agree that the Earth is billions of years old. Is that testable and obervable? According to Jlay's standard, it is not.

So I made the correlation to a belief in God, which is not testable or observable either. I think its only reasonable that if he holds scientists to an extreme standard that handicaps what science is capable of determining, in this case requiring *direct observation* as demonstrated in the bulk of what he has written, then shouldn't he hold his belief in God to the same stadard.

Or to simplify using your analogy......we know Lincoln gave the Gettysburg address through history (not science) but if Jlay was to apply teh same standard to the subject of history that he does to science, ie that it needs direct observation, then we could not reasonably state that Lincoln gave it because none of us saw it, historical evidence be damned.

Science does NOT require direct observation of the event as it is taking place in order to conclude that it happend. Jlay, was making the claim that it does, as demonstrated in his post where he wanted to see a dog make something other than a dog.

That is a bastardization of the scientific process. It is an incorrect and overly extreme standared.

However, he does not apply the same stadard.......I'm going to be very clear here. I am not saying the same methods......the same stadard of applying a bastardization and extreme degree of skepticism applied toward his line of reasoning that allows him to conclude the existence of God.


The Lincoln story was meant to be analogous.....hence the use of the word above. Of course the methods for determining a historical event are different. Did you really think that needed to be explained? I am not talking about applying the same methods. I'm talking about his problem with arbitrarily discountung the metods of science that allows one to determine and event that we cannot directly observe happening while arbitrarily accepting that same process through philosophy.

What ever your position is on that subject is up to you to decide but i want to make it explicitly clear that I was NOT in any way shape or form insinuating that he apply the scientific method toward his belief in God. Capice?

I'm sure you are very good at doing science.

No, apparently I'm not good and science because I don't know what it is. You clearly stated yourself that scientists are using the wrong methods to draw the conclusions that they draw. How can you on the one hand say that they learn the methods of the field, but then on the other hand say that they are not?


Lets take the next step in following your rationale. So, scientists are good at using the scientific method, but don't know what science is. That is the philosopher's job. Your answer for why the academies of science all accept Evolution as a scientifc theory is, though they are good at scientific methods, they don't really know what science is. Therefore their conclusion is wrong (maybe they are good at the methods up to the point of drawing a conclusion?)

So how do you suppose we let all this happen? How could this field of research have been allowed to continue like this for so long while obviously drawing erroneous conclusions?

Before answering that, maybe you should also establish exactly what you think evolution is. Your quote from Dawkins above lead us to believe that you are really discussing something that is not the Theory of Evolution.

First, I think Jac deserves an applause... He nailed it to a degree..

Second..

Barabus wrote:You are the only one here who seems to draw this conclusion. Perhaps people like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens turn you off, but don't conflate whatever arguments they might use to support their case with the Theory of Evolution.

FWIW, Charles Darwin believed in God. Darwin also does not address the origin of life.....otherwise his famous book would have likely been called "Origin of Life."

You are incorrect…. With a capital “I”. Darwin did recognized how serious the abiogenesis problem was for his theory, and once even conceded that all existing terrestrial life must have descended from some primitive life form that was called into life “by a Creator” (Origin of species, 1900, p. 316)

Barabus wrote:Where abiogenesis belongs in the classroom (not that I care if they pull it out) is certainly not to teach it as fact, but to show how a hypothesis is tested. As I stated in another thread, they have managed to create self replicating and evolving RNA in the laboratory. Note, abiogenesis, despite this finding, is STILL only a hypothesis. It should be made clear that this one finding alone (or al of the progress they made) does not take this beyond the hypothesis (belief, if you will) stage.

Oh, so now you are conceding that abiogenesis is being taught in schools. That is fine by me if you want to call abiogenesis a hypothesis, a mere assumption or guess. It is clearly not a fact… Thank you for proving my point.

Barabus wrote:So if you have no facts to back you up and you only have an assumption then why can't I make my assumptions on the origins of life?
IOW, though you believe there is an intelligent designer and I believe there is an intelligent designer, that belief is not founded in science and, thus, does not belong in a science class room.

Baloney... You have already stated that Darwinism is not scientific… There is no evidence for it so by default it doesn't belong in our science classrooms either. Like JAC has said… It is clearly a philosophy.. So philosophy class yes..

Barabus wrote:Abiogenesis and the Big Bang (neither of which have anything to do with Evolution) only belong in the classroom as far as explaining what a hypothesis is, how one arrives at one, how it is tested, what results are produced, and just as importantly why it is still only a hypothesis and not a theory.

Bull… Abiogenesis is clearly taught in biology classes along with evolutionary theory. Darwinian evolution is the philosophical glue that holds it all together (supposedly). It is NOT science… Again read the book that I showed you earlier. It is CLEARLY taught in the classrooms..



Contents

1. Biology: Exploring Life

I. THE LIFE OF THE CELL
2. The Chemical Basis of Life
3. The Molecules of Cells
4. A Tour of the Cell
5. The Working Cell
6. How Cells Harvest Chemical Energy
7. Photosynthesis: Using Light to Make Food

II. CELLULAR REPRODUCTION AND GENETICS
8. The Cellular Basis of Reproduction and Inheritance
9. Patterns of Inheritance
10. Molecular Biology of the Gene
11. How Genes Are Controlled
12. DNA Technology and Genomics

III. CONCEPTS OF EVOLUTION
13. How Populations Evolve
14. The Origin of Species
15. Tracing Evolutionary History

IV. THE EVOLUTION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
16. The Origin and Evolution of Microbial Life: Prokaryotes and Protists
17. Plants, Fungi, and the Colonization of Land
18. The Evolution of Invertebrate Diversity
19. The Evolution of Vertebrate Diversity

And it is bunk.. And if we performed the same rigorous tests that we could on ID with Darwinian evolution, DE probably wouldn't pass the test to be classified as science either. It is simply not testable. Sorry...

Barabus wrote:If you wish to also include ID, I don't have a problem with that either.......but the only purpose it would serve would be to explain exactly why it is NOT science.

You have already provided us all the proof that DE is not science either. Thank you for recording this for us..

Barabus wrote:Evolution, OTOH, is a worldwide accepted scientific theory and shoul dbe presented as exactly that, including what a scientific theory is.......1,000s of experiements and pieces of evidence supporting it and not a single one, despite all the attempts, that refutes it.

Again.. What evidence? How can you test your claim? This is the 8th time I've asked you for evidence and you have provided nothing..

Barabus wrote:Again, if anyone is teaching that we *know* that the universe and life arrived without a God, then they are wrong.....but I am not aware of where that is being taught.

No… They don't mention an intelligent designer at all… Their claim is that it all happened ONLY through naturalistic means. No God, just particles and chance.. Sorry, that is just plain silly and cannot be tested.

Barabus wrote:Again, if it says exaclty that in your biology book, then please provide a quote and a page number.

Page numbers? Many... 294, 318 - 339. And more of course..

*Evolution is philosophy, not science. Its not observable or testable.*


I think you guys are on to something here. Seriously, you should go forward with this argument. The scientific community NEEDS you to go forward with this argument.

Barabus wrote:*Evolution is philosophy, not science. Its not observable or testable.*


I think you guys are on to something here. Seriously, you should go forward with this argument. The scientific community NEEDS you to go forward with this argument.

We already did.. And they shot it down. Why? Because they claimed that it was religious to imply an intelligent designer. The only problem with this being that they failed to acknowledge that their beliefs were religious also.. You see, were are not talking about science at all here. This is philosophy vs philosophy, religion vs religion.. Nothing more and nothing less.

Come on guys the mudfish is the elephant standing in the corner.

Barabus just said that tiktaalik was the BEST evidence of macroevolution. That the characteristics of this creature are evidence. Well that would be great if those charecteristics were unique. But they are not. Why is the mudfish not held up with such regard? Simply because it is guilty of living today. Yet we are supposed to beleive that what these folks dug up in the rocks is evidence of macroevolution because it is old. That's it.

You see, these "scientist," or Imagineers are guilty of trying to make something out of nothing.

The mudfish. Evolution's greatest failure.
The tiktaalik.Evolution's greatest accomplishment.

Does the word hypocrisy come to mind??

Gman wrote:Second..

Barabus wrote:You are the only one here who seems to draw this conclusion. Perhaps people like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens turn you off, but don't conflate whatever arguments they might use to support their case with the Theory of Evolution.

FWIW, Charles Darwin believed in God. Darwin also does not address the origin of life.....otherwise his famous book would have likely been called "Origin of Life."

You are incorrect…. With a capital “I”. Darwin did recognized how serious the abiogenesis problem was for his theory, and once even conceded that all existing terrestrial life must have descended from some primitive life form that was called into life “by a Creator” (Origin of species, 1900, p. 316)

The fact remains, regardless of the origin of life, the theory of evolution still explains the diversity of life.

Gman wrote:

Contents

1. Biology: Exploring Life

I. THE LIFE OF THE CELL
2. The Chemical Basis of Life
3. The Molecules of Cells
4. A Tour of the Cell
5. The Working Cell
6. How Cells Harvest Chemical Energy
7. Photosynthesis: Using Light to Make Food

II. CELLULAR REPRODUCTION AND GENETICS
8. The Cellular Basis of Reproduction and Inheritance
9. Patterns of Inheritance
10. Molecular Biology of the Gene
11. How Genes Are Controlled
12. DNA Technology and Genomics

III. CONCEPTS OF EVOLUTION
13. How Populations Evolve
14. The Origin of Species
15. Tracing Evolutionary History

IV. THE EVOLUTION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
16. The Origin and Evolution of Microbial Life: Prokaryotes and Protists
17. Plants, Fungi, and the Colonization of Land
18. The Evolution of Invertebrate Diversity
19. The Evolution of Vertebrate Diversity

Sorry I dont see a mention of abiogenesis in the table of contents above.
Am I missing something?