Evidence for God from Science

touchingcloth wrote:DannyM - you really aren't following the logic, not in a sound manner. You can say things like "no code known to man *was definitely not* made by an intelligence, and then conclude that all codes you ever encounter must be made by an intelligence, but to follow that logic totally would lead you to absurdities like my sunrise claim. Or perhaps the rational conclusion that every day you brush your teeth and every day you have not been murdered...therefore brushing your teeth protects you from murder.

EDIT - to follow your logic completely you'd have to conclude that DNA and RNA were made by man...

Your attempt at analogous arguments are pretty poor to say the least, TC. I especially like the one about brushing teeth; can you really not do better than that?

And no, following my logic through would not mean DNA and RNA were made by man at all; it would lead to the obvious conclusion that they were made by an intelligent mind. Since that intelligent mind could not possibly be man, DNA coming before man, then the intelligent mind would be God. Or Chance, of course. But since you have exactly 0% inference to Chance being the cause of this code, then your position would be the most illogical position out of the two of us. that you cannot even recognise this is striking, TC. Did you have a particularly heavy Christmas and new year mate?

touchingcloth wrote: What is it you think that's learning though? Where do you envision the entity that learns?

How do you differentiate between "good" and "bad" genes?

DannyM wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:DannyM - you really aren't following the logic, not in a sound manner. You can say things like "no code known to man *was definitely not* made by an intelligence, and then conclude that all codes you ever encounter must be made by an intelligence, but to follow that logic totally would lead you to absurdities like my sunrise claim. Or perhaps the rational conclusion that every day you brush your teeth and every day you have not been murdered...therefore brushing your teeth protects you from murder.

EDIT - to follow your logic completely you'd have to conclude that DNA and RNA were made by man...

Your attempt at analogous arguments are pretty poor to say the least, TC. I especially like the one about brushing teeth; can you really not do better than that?

And no, following my logic through would not mean DNA and RNA were made by man at all; it would lead to the obvious conclusion that they were made by an intelligent mind. Since that intelligent mind could not possibly be man, DNA coming before man, then the intelligent mind would be God. Or Chance, of course. But since you have exactly 0% inference to Chance being the cause of this code, then your position would be the most illogical position out of the two of us. that you cannot even recognise this is striking, TC. Did you have a particularly heavy Christmas and new year mate?

Why have you picked intelligence out as the defining characteristic of what makes a code? Your contention is that every code we know of, that we also know the origin of comes from man...why pick up on "intelligence" rather than just "man"?

touchingcloth wrote:I've repeatedly stated that natural selection is just the name given to the fact of (non random) differential survival between different phenotypes.

Again... How is it non-random? Answer the question please..

touchingcloth wrote:What do you mean by "blind" and what do you mean by "out of nothing"?

What did you think Dawkins meant by it?

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote: What is it you think that's learning though? Where do you envision the entity that learns?

How do you differentiate between "good" and "bad" genes?

By the gene that presents itself in a phenotype, to the extent that a "good" gene tends to allow an individual with that phenotype to propagate in preference to a "bad" gene that doesn't propagate as well.

touchingcloth wrote: Why have you picked intelligence out as the defining characteristic of what makes a code? Your contention is that every code we know of, that we also know the origin of comes from man...why pick up on "intelligence" rather than just "man"?

TC, up until this point you have not once questioned the fact that every known code comes from an intelligent mind. Now, all of a sudden, you take issue with the word "intelligence"... This is revealing. Are we now doing a 360 swerve, going back over our tracks, and trying to redefine the terms? Every known code comes from an intelligence: fact. Name me one that hasn't...

Ask yourself: is God unintelligent, then? Is he a bit of a thicky?

Of course not....but whether God "poofs" DNA or RNA into existence or whether He worked through seemingly random processes does not negate the fact that HE WORKED. HE CAUSED them to happen.

Right now, currently, we don't know how DNA or RNA was built. Perhaps God did "poof" them into existence. Perhaps He worked through the conditions of the early earth. Right now in the lab, we cannot recreate the conditions.

Will we ever? (doubtful)....HOWEVER...our saying that He COULD NOT have worked through conditions in early earth has essentially declared the conditions to reject God. We are saying RIGHT NOW that if, tomorrow, they declared that they found an experiment in the lab that showed DNA or RNA being made in sequential steps, then they have fulfilled our conditions. They will have shown what we have declared to be impossible.

That, in essence, is God of the Gaps. We DON't know how DNA or RNA was created. That doesn't mean that a mechanism doesn't exist, NOR does that mechansim show in any way that God would not be involved.

DannM wrote: I personally am not trying to fill any gaps; on the contrary, I'm following the rationality and the logic. Evolutionists who trot out the old "ongoing research" and "who knows what we might discover in ...years" are just stating the blindingly obvious and, in doing so, some are actually attempting to STIFLE all other ideas with this vagues appeal to the future...

absolutely they have stifled thinking out there. Their stubborness, however, shouldn't mean that we throw out the possibility that God worked through seemingly natural events.

This is like throwing their white coats over the gaps so no one can posit any other ideas...

True, as Gman said, there is evolution of the gaps as well.

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:I've repeatedly stated that natural selection is just the name given to the fact of (non random) differential survival between different phenotypes.

Again... How is it non-random? Answer the question please..

Let's take it to a really simplistic example, where there is only one type of organism in the world, and there is no possibility that mutations occur. Therefore every individual has a genotype containing a given amount of a known selection of genes. Sexual combination shuffles these genes around so you get different genotypes, but never a novel version of a given gene. Different genotypes present as different phenotypes...are you contending that every single phenotype will be as good as every other at surviving in the environment? (To make it simpler still let's say that the environment is totally static...always the same temperature, same amount of resources etc.).

touchingcloth wrote: By the gene that presents itself in a phenotype, to the extent that a "good" gene tends to allow an individual with that phenotype to propagate in preference to a "bad" gene that doesn't propagate as well.

Ok, so the gene presents itself as a "good" gene. How??

Umm, anyone actually listening when the sickle cell allele example was brought up???

Selection shows that one allele provides an advantage in one environment whereas another allele provides an advantage in another environment, not random, not learning.

Even the multiple year study about the finches beaks show selection in different environments. NOt a problem for Christians

DannyM wrote:

touchingcloth wrote: Why have you picked intelligence out as the defining characteristic of what makes a code? Your contention is that every code we know of, that we also know the origin of comes from man...why pick up on "intelligence" rather than just "man"?

TC, up until this point you have not once questioned the fact that every known code comes from an intelligent mind. Now, all of a sudden, you take issue with the word "intelligence"... This is revealing. Are we now doing a 360 swerve, going back over our tracks, and trying to redefine the terms? Every known code comes from an intelligence: fact. Name me one that hasn't...

No - I've accepted your broad definition of an intelligent mind. Then when I narrowed that down to man specifically (you've still not defined what you mean by 100% inference, so by what I've gleaned so far it should also hold for "man" as well as "intelligence") you cried unfair. Whether you say man or intelligence I'll still say your logic is invalid. I'd urge you to seek out a career logician to see what they say about the proposition "all codes we definitely know the origin of are created by intelligence, therefore all codes (whether we know the origin of them or not) are created by intelligence". If that isn't your proposition then please correct me.

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote: By the gene that presents itself in a phenotype, to the extent that a "good" gene tends to allow an individual with that phenotype to propagate in preference to a "bad" gene that doesn't propagate as well.

Ok, so the gene presents itself as a "good" gene. How??

As in zoegirls example the "good" gene could be normal, and the "bad" gene could be a sickle cell variation. Clearly this will alter the survival rates of individuals carrying the good vs the bad gene, and therefore the frequency of that gene in the population.

touchingcloth wrote:Let's take it to a really simplistic example, where there is only one type of organism in the world, and there is no possibility that mutations occur. Therefore every individual has a genotype containing a given amount of a known selection of genes. Sexual combination shuffles these genes around so you get different genotypes, but never a novel version of a given gene. Different genotypes present as different phenotypes...are you contending that every single phenotype will be as good as every other at surviving in the environment? (To make it simpler still let's say that the environment is totally static...always the same temperature, same amount of resources etc.).

Again you have no genes, genotypes, phenotypes, cells, or anything of organic matter to begin with, but since I'm a generous man I'll let that slide for now.

Here is a question for you. How is it surviving in this static environment? How did it get that way?

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:Let's take it to a really simplistic example, where there is only one type of organism in the world, and there is no possibility that mutations occur. Therefore every individual has a genotype containing a given amount of a known selection of genes. Sexual combination shuffles these genes around so you get different genotypes, but never a novel version of a given gene. Different genotypes present as different phenotypes...are you contending that every single phenotype will be as good as every other at surviving in the environment? (To make it simpler still let's say that the environment is totally static...always the same temperature, same amount of resources etc.).

Again you have no genes, genotypes, phenotypes, cells, or anything of organic matter to begin with, but since I'm a generous man I'll let that slide for now.

Here is a question for you. How is it surviving in this static environment? How did it get that way?

Let's say it was plonked there, fully formed. In fact, let's say that god - your god - plonked it there, fully formed. Does that alter what I said about different genotypes causing different survival rates?

I think the idea that he was asking here is the following

1) do you not agree that different alleles can produce different phenotypes?
2) Can some of these phenotypes lend a better fit to the environment than others?

...plonked? is that a word?