Evidence for God from Science

That's a great story, KBC. I can't argue with that. It's amazing what God uses to bring us to Him.

KBCid wrote:By chance did you read my post which RickD replied too?

Ivellious wrote:Of course I did. You never explicitly mention atheism

Then it is clear that you are the only one between us who brought atheism into the discussion.

Ivellious wrote:but you absolutely lump "evolution" with "no God" the way you go about it.

If you think I am the one who is connecting evolution with no God then show me where in evolutions paradigm God exists

Ivellious wrote:Clearly you reject evolution because you believe it explains something without explicitly or implicitly mentioning God.

Clearly I reject evolution because of the evidence that I found prior to any belief in God which by the way you can see in a number of posts I have made on this site. Notice the name... KBCid. id = intelligent design. Religious position... still learning.

What I believe about evolution is that there are small adaptations through time, but not so much that one species turns into another. There is a lot of scientific evidence and logic that is against the evolution theory. Like the fossil records for instance and that there really aren't any signs of evolution today.

We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.28

A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:

And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal -- without demonstration -- to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary

I can't remember where I got this from but I think it says a lot about what people are being taught and why.

Also to this person

Ivellious wrote:Clearly you reject evolution because you believe it explains something without explicitly or implicitly mentioning God.

I would like to say that I can say the same thing about people who believe in evolution. To them it is the only theory that does not include a God creating everything so it must be true.

sandy_mcd wrote:

Gman wrote:I'm glad to see that you are learning... If we allow these words into our science then that should allow other doors to open to our understanding how our science is conducted and not be too dogmatic on how it is approached. We need to be professional about it.

Yep, I guess I just have to keep rephrasing everything i say a bunch of times.

I'm glad I'm not the only one realizing this...

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:I never said they weren't connected. Merely they are separate fields. Evolution is connected with many different fields, such as paleontology/archeology/genetics, etc.... But, these are still different fields. I really don't see the point you are trying to make. They are connected, so what?

Pierson... You are not paying attention to my posts... What have I been saying? I'm saying that it is impossible to divorce philosophy from science. Philosophy will always slip into your science. Why? Becuase we are human beings... Science is unbiased, but people aren't.

And you are not paying attention to my posts. I'm not denying people are biased, yes even scientists. I'm saying the scientific method is the best way to eliminate these biases. It doesn't matter what someone's philosophy is. If the method is used correctly, retested, peer reviewed (you should really research into how these things are done) etc... Scientists come to the same answers regardless of philosophy. I don't see your point. Because individuals are biased that means what? Evolution is false? ID is true? We can't trust the scientific method?

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:Again, we don't accept it as fact, but as a likely possibility. I don't see anywhere in the text that evolutionary biologists are the ones who are doing this research, do you? They are different fields. Connected sure. I don't see what you are trying to prove here...

Again... The words "possibly", "could", or "perhaps" are NOT scientific terms.... That is a belief system. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out.

Look back again to page one and how scientists refer to scientific facts. You seem really hung up on these words for some reason. Remember, this was in regards to something science does not have a definitive answer to (abiogenesis). We do not accept it as fact, but as a likely possibility and have experiments to back it up. I can just as easily crack open my chemistry or physics text book and find these words (maybe, could, possible, perhaps, speculative) for you. You do realize you can find the same words, "May have" "could have" etc... on //www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp (written by a lawyer [Ashby Camp] by the way, NOT a scientist).

God may have had a functional reason for initially placing them at the same chromosomal location in separately created species. He also may have had a functional reason for designing certain transposons with an insertion bias for certain loci.

maybe lateral gene transfers occurred in the past through a mechanism that targeted a specific location in recipient cell DNA and that did not leave viral sequences near the inserted pseudogenes. Perhaps this mechanism is no longer operating, as a result progressive degeneration, and the viral action we see today is a distorted remnant of that originally designed process.

So, Camp is basically arguing that there is a gap in the scientific knowledge about molecular biology in which some yet unknown purpose may have been intended by God. It's an example of the argument from ignorance and god of the gaps. The difference between all these "maybes" and "perhaps" between the two sides is: scientific theories are backed up with empirical evidence, while the other is seriously lacking.

A simple search on PubMed (one of the most popular biomedical search engines) for example.

//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=[b]evolution[/b]
Evolution Yields 317486 results (not to mention this only goes back to 1916)

//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=[b]creationism[/b]
Creationism Yields 125 results

//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22int ... 0Design%22
ID Yields 144 results

Now, if you actually take a look at the results for ID/Creationism, the vast majority are editorial articles by scientists expressing their concern over the creation vs. evolution debate that goes on in popular culture. Aside from these, I can't seem to find any published data that can be easily found. No primary data that leads to the conclusion Intelligent Design is the accepted hypothesis. As far as I know, not a single experiment has been published to test a hypothesis advanced by creationists to test Intelligent Design.

If we take a look back at the "evidence" KBCid cited on the previous page:

//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9975/

The author proposes a few questions.

How is it that the embryo is able not only to generate all the different cell types of the body, but also to produce them in a way that forms functional tissues and organs? How are the cells that differentiate into the embryonic bone specified so as to form an appendage with digits at one end and a shoulder at the other?

If you look at the bottom of the article, the author provides a few possible answers

The positional information needed to construct a limb has to function in a three-dimensional coordinate system.* During the past decade, particular proteins have been identified that play a role in the formation of each of these limb axes. The proximal-distal (shoulder-finger; hip-toe) axis appears to be regulated by the fibroblast growth factor (FGF) family of proteins. The anterior-posterior (thumb-pinky) axis seems to be regulated by the Sonic hedgehog protein, and the dorsal-ventral (knuckle-palm) axis is regulated, at least in part, by Wnt7a. The interactions of these proteins determine the differentiation of the cell types and also mutually support one another.

Further reading:
//embryo.asu.edu/view/embryo:125126

Today those who study morphogenesis are asking many questions and trying to determine, for example, how tissues form from populations of cells, how tissues construct organs, how organs grow, how growth is coordinated, how migrating cells are oriented, and how polarity is achieved. The problem of morphogenesis is recognized by many to be one of the most elusive questions of development as it is intertwined with questions of regulation and how the organism functions as a whole.

This "evidence" says NOTHING about the need to invoke an Intelligent Designer. This is just another case of "science isn't sure/doesn't have the answer for "X", therefore I can believe "Y" (ID) is true." That's not how science works and is a classic argument from ignorance. Remember, every "mystery" solved in the history of mankind hasn't had an answer that breaks any physical laws of nature or involve magic.

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:Not sure if you are taking my quote out of context again. Please read what I wrote above. If you are referring to areas of evolutionary research we are still unsure about, I never said it wasn't factual, but unknown. The blanks aren't filled in with "philosophy," it's filled in with "I don't know."

"I don't know" is NOT a scientific term. I'm sorry to explain this to you... You say that "I don't know" but then as I have clearly shown that certain scientists ARE trying to explain it through natural facts. I'm sorry but natural facts never could explain everything as you have already confessed. You fell into my trap.

What!? This is the very nature of the scientific method (we don't know an answer, let's try and figure it out). Please, PLEASE read into it a little bit.

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:I never said anyone has all the answers. I totally agree with you on that point. But some do have more answers than others. I went over degrees of faith. One requires more faith than the other. Look through this thread and compare the evidence provided for evolution vs. that provided for ID (none?). Which do you think requires more faith?

Both ID and naturalism are faith based... The proof for ID is found in evolution, that it can't address all facts.

Please read back to my post on "degrees of faith." I've gone over this several times now. Saying a scientific theory cannot address every question you have doesn't mean you can just make up whatever you want and say the gaps are evidence for your imagination. This is called an argument from ignorance. If you are left with a mystery, it is JUST THAT! A mystery. You don't know the answer. To claim otherwise is lying. You can propose a hypothesis for the answer, but you need to be able to test it.

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:I'll make this point again. I don't care if you don't accept the evidence for evolution, you can believe whatever you want. I care about the alternative being pushed to be taught to school children. If you aren't defending ID, and are just saying evolution is false and you don't know how these organisms came about (clearly appearing to have evolved), we have nothing to talk about.

I actually don't have a problem with evolution.. I only have a problem with it when people can't confess that it is has problems too and can't address all things we can see by our observable world. Theories ok, all answers no...

If you don't have a problem with evolution, what is the whole point of your discussion here? No one is proposing evolution has all the answers. I have said multiple times in this thread (and even in this post) there are some things that are still mysteries. There are mysteries in EVERY scientific discipline (physics is a big one).

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote: Why do you bring God into the equation? (see above) We are comparing evolution with ID. You said yourself ID doesn't necessarily mean God did it. Look at the evidence again, and this time compare evolution with ID. If you think ID has more evidence and requires less faith, post the evidence.

Again.. Your own confessions says that evolution does not have all the answers. ID is already being used a number of areas of science such as archeology, anthropology, forensics and SETI , and it hasn’t hurt science. Even though the designer is not a supernatural agent, but intelligent humans, the principles involved in studying these areas of science can be applied to the study of supernatural ID.

I will make this clearer for you... It's not that the macro evolutionary belief is necessarily bad, however, when only naturalistic points are given it can be easier cloaked into the atheistic philosophy.

Wrong. We have evidence when humans design something. We have NO evidence of any supernatural entity designing anything. To say that evolution is cloaked in atheistic philosophy is ridiculous. You honestly think that all 97% of the scientific community are atheists? The very site you are posting on severely disagrees with you.

//www.godandscience.org/apologetics/why_a ... eists.html

It doesn't matter how someone was raised, what their religious beliefs are (to an extent obviously...), etc... The scientific community examines the evidence and all come to the same conclusion that evolution is a fact.

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:Excellent. Thanks for the definition. I think we can agree "macroevolution" is referring to evolutionary change over long periods of time. Can you give me a specific example of where you have a problem with this?

I have a problem with macroevolution when people teach it as fact... It is NOT.. It is assumed.

Answer the question and give me an example. Stop dancing around.

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:Do you agree that speciation occurs within the realms of "microevolution"? Do you agree that we can get another organism that looks very different from its ancestor within the realms of microevolution? (wolves to chihuahuas for example).

That is relative to the terms. It is still part of the same family.

These are 2 separate questions. They are simple yes or no answers. Do you agree with question one or not? Do you agree with question two (NOT SPECIATION! JUST MORPHOLOGY!)?

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:I don't see the need for the last sentence. I never said evolution disproved God. This goes back to my main point on page 1 as well. If evolution was proven false, that does not prove ID (and/or God) to be true.

No it doesn't.. But evolution doesn't have a strangle hold on all the possible answers either. Science should not be approached dogmatically. Especially around the topic of origins.

It's not. I've said multiple times it's a hypothesis. If you don't know what that means, Google it.

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:Give me physical examples please. Where macroevolution is assumed and certain concepts of ID are fact. This should be easy.

Let look at it in regards to gravity. I don’t think you can compare Darwinian evolution to gravity. When you look at the scientific methods of Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton they made observations plus predictions that anyone could observe… Darwinian evolution is not like that. DE is a different kind of science, it’s a historical science that claims what happened in the past, it’s not like gravity at all… There is a categorical difference between evolutionary science and gravity.. Gravity can make simple predictions like the gravitational force between the earth and the moon. It’s something that can be measured.. You can’t take Darwinism and formulate it to an equation like F=MA the force of gravity. Dawinism is NOT a law, you can’t measure it.. It’s all just speculation… And if you believed that life arose by chance processes, you have to believe that millions of years ago life arouse from non-life, from matter, and this violates the law of biogeneis. No scientist has ever showed this law could ever be violated.

We aren't talking about gravity here. We aren't talking about abiogenesis or the origin of life. We are talking about ID and Evolution. The question was a simple one and you still didn't answer it.

Regardless, evolution is a theory. This is the highest level of confidence science can achieve. Theories do not become laws, but every theory includes and encompasses laws and facts. As a theory is an explanation of both in a given field of study. Evolutionary theory explains things like: Mayr's law of monophyly, Evo Devo, Principle of gradualism/monophyly, Gould's law of evolutionary economics, Darwin's 3rd law of biodiversity, punctuated equilibrium, natural selection, etc... It is testable and measurable (see my first post on page 1).

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote: "Not as fact but in weight of evidence." This statement is confusing to me. Can you think of something that is in weight of the evidence but is not a fact?

Can you think of anything that doesn't when it comes to macro-evolution or chemical evolution?

Anything that doesn't what? Isn't in weight of the evidence and is not a fact? Like ghosts? You aren't making ANY sense. Again, answer the question and quit dancing around.

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote: Mendel was also religious, that has nothing to do with anything.

Everyone is religious... Even you. Just the fact that he believed the Bible shows how crucial he was to science.

The fact he believed the bible shows how crucial he was to science? I guess Darwin would be classified under that same category, seeing as he went to a religious school and was aiming to be a clergyman and all...

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:Theories are explanations of the facts. Evolution is both. I have shown you what college text books say about the origin of life. Purely speculative, but offers experiments done in the lab to show why it's a likely possibility. Why is it taught? Because it's a common question and is currently being studied. We don't have the answer, but the hypotheses and experiments are brought to the students attention. What's wrong with that? Are you proposing we shouldn't teach any hypotheses in classrooms?

There maybe no facts other than natural facts, but of course is that what you mean that doesn’t get you what you want and need which is your reason for believing that there are no facts other than natural facts. It just gives you the way you are choosing to use the term. But can natural facts explain everything?

Can the natural world be explained and understood only in natural terms? If so, then we must have some indication that it is possible. As an example if one was to look at the brain, how would one conclude that there was consciousness? If you looked at a chemical process in the brain could you find what someone said that day or a book that they might have read? It doesn’t mean that we don’t know anything about it but if you are locked into the natural explanations as the only body of knowledge and the correspondence to it as the only reality, then you are making yourself your own reality.

Natural facts are doing a pretty good job explaining the world so far... The questions you are asking are great questions. But, again, just because science don't have the answer doesn't mean you can assume anything you want and claim it as fact. There is nothing wrong with claiming "I don't know." But, all evidence points to the brain being completely material. Do you have any evidence of anything supernatural? I hope we don't need to get into this. This (naturalism and the brain) has nothing to do with the current topic.

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:It doesn't matter. What matters is the evidence. We don't have any evidence that it was God, aliens or a time traveling cell biologist. I'm still waiting for someone to provide evidence in this thread for ID.

Again... What evidence? You have stated that you don't know... Therefore the belief in a creator cannot be thrown under the table..

This is the second time I gave you the link to some hypotheses supported by some experiments. Choosing not to read it doesn't mean it isn't there.

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Sure, a belief in a creator can't be thrown under the table. The belief that aliens, time traveling cell biologist, polytheism (after all, a group of creators are much better at creating complex systems than just one) and the flying spaghetti monster also can't be thrown under the table. BUT, we don't have ANY evidence for any of these things. Just because we don't have a definitive answer for something yet, DOES NOT equate to "therefore anything I can imagine is a legitimate answer."

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:So, because humans are going to inject their philosophies into science, we can't look to alternate hypotheses? That's crazy! No scientific research would ever get done. It doesn't matter if philosophies get injected by individuals. As I said, we all have different philosophies. The scientific method is the best method to discover truth, REGARDLESS of your philosophy. This is why we have the peer review process.

You are greatly confused... You have already stated, "We don't have any evidence that it was God" you have JUST injected your philosophy into your science. I'm sorry you failed the test...

If you disagree, provide the evidence to show me I'm wrong. I have asked you SEVERAL times for evidence supporting ID and have gotten NOTHING.

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote: I never said science disproves the existence of God. We aren't talking about that. We are talking about Intelligent Design and Evolution. Why do you keep going back to God?

Again you fell into my trap... You clearly stated... "We don't have any evidence that it was God." You are making philosophical statements.. Not science.

If you disagree, spring your trap and show me the evidence for ID. If you don't have any, you are just proving my point correct.

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:I could just as easily ask you for evidence of magic creating life. If you want "macro evolution" creating a new species, look back to the first page and click the link to go back to my response to Jlay. (the one with the whale fossils).

To sit there and say you have gotten no evidence is being disingenuous. The people who are claiming the scientific consensus has examined the evidence and gotten it WRONG are the ones who need to provide some evidence. I'm still waiting.

And we are still waiting for your evidence too... So far nothing..

I don't even.... Are you being serious? Did you not see my very first post on page one in the thread? I think you are just trying to avoid the question.

Gman wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:It's not science's job to disprove the Bible. The Bible is making the extravagant claims, the burden of proof is on you. I'll create another thread regarding questions I have about the Bible later.

You stated that there is no evidence for God.. Also the Bible has revealed the "Big Bang" Theory.

I said there isn't any evidence for ID. Prove me wrong.

I'll try and get to the rest of the posts later.

Pierson5 wrote: And you are not paying attention to my posts. I'm not denying people are biased, yes even scientists.

And even you... In your scientific bias...

Pierson5 wrote:I'm saying the scientific method is the best way to eliminate these biases. It doesn't matter what someone's philosophy is.

Wrong.... If you are assuming that all there is matter to make your evolutionary point, then you are injecting your philosophy into your science.. Naturalism is based on the premise that nature is all there is. It is based on the premise on metaphysical naturalism. One assumes that in the beginning was nothing but matter and mindless motion. It follows from this starting point assumption is that impersonal unintelligent purposeless forces must have been capable of doing all the creation because there wasn’t anything else. Now this way of thinking is said to generate reliable conclusions. Conclusions that we can label as scientific knowledge and make very strong statements such as that evolution or fully naturalistic evolution is a fact. Now of course to get to that conclusion you would have to say that those premises are true. So if one says that they are going to apply their completely naturalistic thinking, they are going to assume that there was no creator around at the beginning and that purposeless material had to do everything.

Pierson5 wrote:If the method is used correctly, retested, peer reviewed (you should really research into how these things are done) etc... Scientists come to the same answers regardless of philosophy. I don't see your point. Because individuals are biased that means what? Evolution is false? ID is true? We can't trust the scientific method?

That people will inject their own conclusions biased on their science and based on their own presuppositions. Even when their science doesn't even have all their answers as you have beautifully explained to us. .

Pierson5 wrote:Look back again to page one and how scientists refer to scientific facts. You seem really hung up on these words for some reason. Remember, this was in regards to something science does not have a definitive answer to (abiogenesis). We do not accept it as fact, but as a likely possibility and have experiments to back it up. I can just as easily crack open my chemistry or physics text book and find these words (maybe, could, possible, perhaps, speculative) for you. You do realize you can find the same words, "May have" "could have" etc... on //www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp (written by a lawyer [Ashby Camp] by the way, NOT a scientist).

Thank you for proving my point... Because if you don't have all the answers, then by default we will have to consider other options. Thus you have opened the door to philosophy...

Pierson5 wrote:So, Camp is basically arguing that there is a gap in the scientific knowledge about molecular biology in which some yet unknown purpose may have been intended by God. It's an example of the argument from ignorance and god of the gaps. The difference between all these "maybes" and "perhaps" between the two sides is: scientific theories are backed up with empirical evidence, while the other is seriously lacking.

Again... By your own confession of evolution.. "I never said it was a fact, or that I accept any of the hypotheses as fact. Nothing is taken on faith or miracles. I simply state "I don't know, but here are some good ideas."

I'm sorry but according to your own words you don't have all the facts or empirical evidence when it comes to evolutionary theory. "I don't know, but here are some good ideas" is not a scientific claim.

Pierson5 wrote:A simple search on PubMed (one of the most popular biomedical search engines) for example.

//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=[b]evolution[/b]
Evolution Yields 317486 results (not to mention this only goes back to 1916)

//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=[b]creationism[/b]
Creationism Yields 125 results

//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22int ... 0Design%22
ID Yields 144 results

Now, if you actually take a look at the results for ID/Creationism, the vast majority are editorial articles by scientists expressing their concern over the creation vs. evolution debate that goes on in popular culture. Aside from these, I can't seem to find any published data that can be easily found. No primary data that leads to the conclusion Intelligent Design is the accepted hypothesis. As far as I know, not a single experiment has been published to test a hypothesis advanced by creationists to test Intelligent Design.

Why are so concerned about the ID belief? I thought they had all the answers... Are they threatened by it? Franky I think ID has philosophical components as well... But if they are threatened that it interferes with their science and pull it into their articles, then maybe we should take another look at it.. After all.. I don't know, but there are some good ideas. Right? Maybe they are starting to see other ideas..

Pierson5 wrote:The positional information needed to construct a limb has to function in a three-dimensional coordinate system.* During the past decade, particular proteins have been identified that play a role in the formation of each of these limb axes. The proximal-distal (shoulder-finger; hip-toe) axis appears to be regulated by the fibroblast growth factor (FGF) family of proteins. The anterior-posterior (thumb-pinky) axis seems to be regulated by the Sonic hedgehog protein, and the dorsal-ventral (knuckle-palm) axis is regulated, at least in part, by Wnt7a. The interactions of these proteins determine the differentiation of the cell types and also mutually support one another.

Today those who study morphogenesis are asking many questions and trying to determine, for example, how tissues form from populations of cells, how tissues construct organs, how organs grow, how growth is coordinated, how migrating cells are oriented, and how polarity is achieved. The problem of morphogenesis is recognized by many to be one of the most elusive questions of development as it is intertwined with questions of regulation and how the organism functions as a whole.

This "evidence" says NOTHING about the need to invoke an Intelligent Designer. This is just another case of "science isn't sure/doesn't have the answer for "X", therefore I can believe "Y" (ID) is true." That's not how science works and is a classic argument from ignorance. Remember, every "mystery" solved in the history of mankind hasn't had an answer that breaks any physical laws of nature or involve magic.

I'm sorry but his article is addressing mainly micro-evolution, the formation of existing matter... That isn't what we are talking about... We are talking about how this type of science disproves the notion of God or a designer... Clearly a designer could have front loaded the information as well.. Macro evolution has never been proven, it is assumed via micro-evolution, including the creation of life. I'm sorry you wasted your time..

Pierson5 wrote: What!? This is the very nature of the scientific method (we don't know an answer, let's try and figure it out). Please, PLEASE read into it a little bit.

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Now, now.. You are the one who stated that you don't have all facts. So your own conclusions already prove my point.. Also a dogmatic belief is unhealthy. This over arching explanatory model is so much hand waving, well evolution did at that, we don’t understand how but it’s going to do that. Well that isn’t science, that’s just a verbal place holder.

Pierson5 wrote:Please read back to my post on "degrees of faith." I've gone over this several times now. Saying a scientific theory cannot address every question you have doesn't mean you can just make up whatever you want and say the gaps are evidence for your imagination. This is called an argument from ignorance. If you are left with a mystery, it is JUST THAT! A mystery. You don't know the answer. To claim otherwise is lying. You can propose a hypothesis for the answer, but you need to be able to test it.

Or like you said fill in the gaps with my own ideas.. Clearly macro-evolution is not testable, your mystery. Forever.

Pierson5 wrote:If you don't have a problem with evolution, what is the whole point of your discussion here? No one is proposing evolution has all the answers. I have said multiple times in this thread (and even in this post) there are some things that are still mysteries. There are mysteries in EVERY scientific discipline (physics is a big one).

Right, no one does have all the answers when it comes to science.. But you are saying that God does NOT fit your evolutionary evidence.. Therefore I'm against your ideas.. And ultimately against you.

Pierson5 wrote:Wrong. We have evidence when humans design something. We have NO evidence of any supernatural entity designing anything. To say that evolution is cloaked in atheistic philosophy is ridiculous. You honestly think that all 97% of the scientific community are atheists? The very site you are posting on severely disagrees with you.


//www.godandscience.org/apologetics/why_a ... eists.html

No.. I never said that evolution itself was atheistic philosophy.. What I said was it is was easier "cloaked" into the atheistic philosophy by the way it is presented. That being with the presupposition that all we have is naturalism and nothing more. With that belief, your results will turn out more in the atheistic camp when we ask the "why" and "how" questions..

Pierson5 wrote:It doesn't matter how someone was raised, what their religious beliefs are (to an extent obviously...), etc... The scientific community examines the evidence and all come to the same conclusion that evolution is a fact.

But you have already confessed to us that it isn't a fact.. So the evidence can be easily changed..

Pierson5 wrote:Answer the question and give me an example. Stop dancing around.

Yes.. Stop dancing around.. Macro-evolution is not a fact and has never been duplicated scientifically..

Pierson5 wrote:These are 2 separate questions. They are simple yes or no answers. Do you agree with question one or not? Do you agree with question two (NOT SPECIATION! JUST MORPHOLOGY!)?

Again.. Your view of speciation is defined in your own terms or belief system. I don't have the time to discuss philosophy with you. You still are in the same family..

Pierson5 wrote:It's not. I've said multiple times it's a hypothesis. If you don't know what that means, Google it.

More like a weak hypothesis, hardly a theory.

Pierson5 wrote:We aren't talking about gravity here. We aren't talking about abiogenesis or the origin of life. We are talking about ID and Evolution. The question was a simple one and you still didn't answer it.

Sure it does.. Many "so called" scientists use the mechanisms of abiogenesis to promote their view for, in this case, macroevolution.

Pierson5 wrote:Regardless, evolution is a theory. This is the highest level of confidence science can achieve. Theories do not become laws, but every theory includes and encompasses laws and facts. As a theory is an explanation of both in a given field of study. Evolutionary theory explains things like: Mayr's law of monophyly, Evo Devo, Principle of gradualism/monophyly, Gould's law of evolutionary economics, Darwin's 3rd law of biodiversity, punctuated equilibrium, natural selection, etc... It is testable and measurable (see my first post on page 1).

No... Macro-evolution is what I call wishful thinking. It is not a theory, it is a belief.. You are confused between macro-evolution and micro-evolution.

Pierson5 wrote:Anything that doesn't what? Isn't in weight of the evidence and is not a fact? Like ghosts? You aren't making ANY sense. Again, answer the question and quit dancing around.

But you stated at the beginning of your posts that evolution wasn't a fact.. Why are you changing your tune now?

Pierson5 wrote:The fact he believed the bible shows how crucial he was to science? I guess Darwin would be classified under that same category, seeing as he went to a religious school and was aiming to be a clergyman and all...

It seems that issues raised by ID will most likely naturally arise in biology classrooms whether design is mandated or not since the evolutionary theory was born in the theological cradle as it did with Darwin. Darwin as well on various occasions posed theological and philosophical questions on evolution (or to a creator) in his book, “The Origin of Species.” As an example he wrote,

“To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes.”

Statements like this should probably belong in philosophy classes. In fact Neil Shanks, a professor of philosophy of science, claimed that many of Darwin’s books have been eliminated from certain scientific classroom discussions due to their theological content. Is this being fair to science?

Pierson5 wrote:Natural facts are doing a pretty good job explaining the world so far... The questions you are asking are great questions. But, again, just because science don't have the answer doesn't mean you can assume anything you want and claim it as fact. There is nothing wrong with claiming "I don't know." But, all evidence points to the brain being completely material. Do you have any evidence of anything supernatural? I hope we don't need to get into this. This (naturalism and the brain) has nothing to do with the current topic.

It has been proven via the evolutionary views that natural facts DO NOT professionally explain our known world. As I have already asked you, if one was to look at the brain, how would one conclude that there was consciousness? If you looked at a chemical process in the brain could you find what someone said that day or a book that they might have read? You can't...

Pierson5 wrote: This is the second time I gave you the link to some hypotheses supported by some experiments. Choosing not to read it doesn't mean it isn't there.

I thought you had a theory?

Pierson5 wrote:Sure, a belief in a creator can't be thrown under the table. The belief that aliens, time traveling cell biologist, polytheism (after all, a group of creators are much better at creating complex systems than just one) and the flying spaghetti monster also can't be thrown under the table. BUT, we don't have ANY evidence for any of these things. Just because we don't have a definitive answer for something yet, DOES NOT equate to "therefore anything I can imagine is a legitimate answer."

But you have already claimed that you had your own ideas... That is a belief.. Your belief.. You have ready stated that evolution DOESN'T have all the answers.. So you inject your own philosophy.

Pierson5 wrote:If you disagree, provide the evidence to show me I'm wrong. I have asked you SEVERAL times for evidence supporting ID and have gotten NOTHING.

I already did in my other posts... And your science has shown me that I'm right, because nothing can create nothing.. We are only talking about philosophy here.. The whole thing. Thank you for proving my points..

Pierson5 wrote:If you disagree, spring your trap and show me the evidence for ID. If you don't have any, you are just proving my point correct.

You state, "We don't have any evidence that it was God?" You have also already confessed to us that you don't have all the answers.. So you answered it yourself. Fill in your own blanks,,,

Pierson5 wrote:I don't even.... Are you being serious? Did you not see my very first post on page one in the thread? I think you are just trying to avoid the question.

It's nothing more than your philosophical belief. Macro-evolution is a belief, your god.. I'm sorry to burst your bubble.

Pierson5 wrote:
I said there isn't any evidence for ID. Prove me wrong.

I'll try and get to the rest of the posts later.

Try creating life in a lab using inorganic matter some time. And without intelligence... You can't... I'm sorry you took the bait.

Gman... You clearly can't differentiate whether we are talking about abiogenesis or evolution, you constantly confuse what is meant by a hypothesis and theory, you refuse to answer any of my questions and have yet to provide any evidence or anything meaningful to the discussion. I think we can agree its a waste of both of our time to continue down this path. Unless you provide evidence for your view (as I have multiple times) we have nothing further to talk about. Unless anyone else on this site thinks you've made a good point anywhere in your post, then I'll address it.

KBCid wrote:

KBCid wrote: Actually it cannot yet be tested for. If a multitude of life forms were created that function based on the same materials and tool sets for their formational organization then there is no method whereby one could empirically prove or disprove it as historical truth since like things react the same under like conditions. So a change that may occur because of a specific environmental variable to one organism is logically probable to occur to any other form of organism that uses the same basis of materials and tool sets as the first.

Pierson5 wrote:Do you think ID is a legitimate scientific hypothesis? If so, is it falsifiable? (from this comment it sounds like it is not).

ID is already a scientific study in several areas.
Falsifiability in the context of ID as a cause of structures can be absolute and can also fall into a gray area depending on the amount of evidence to work with. The gray area would occur when ID cause the construction of something that natural cause could have formed just as well. So, there is no way to differentiate cause of some structures. Of course, at this time evolutionists 'assume' that anything historical that is not directly attributable to intelligence can come about by natural causes. There is no method for falsifying it since is considered a historical occurance which is not reproducible in current time.
To presume a priori that only natural causes can explain historic structures is where science is hobbled. Such an assumption in itself is not scientific since it cannot be tested for validity. Therefore, assuming ID is not tenable because it is not a natural cause based on the unscientific assumption of naturalism is hypocrisy.
Intelligence is a causal force within our observable environment therefore we know it can exist. Historical occurance of this force is where a group of people decided that it could not possibly have existed based on a series of unproven and unproveable assumptions.
So, if we really want to perform true scientific method then it cannot be arbitrarily bound by anything other than what can be empirically tested to form such boundaries.

KBCid wrote: So if an experimenter theorizes that all life evolved from a common ancestor then he must also define an experiment to test his theory. Tell me what test can be performed to test this theory?. Historical happenings that are beyond an experimenters ability to verify is where the line is crossed for scientific methodology and plunges head first into religion.
You can religiously believe that life had a common ancestor but, you have zero observable historic evidence that there was one and you have no possible method to test it. Therefore, you have nothing to base the theory on. Unscientific in every sense but, a darned good religious philosophy to get others to believe in if your pushing a religious agenda.

ID is already a scientific study in several areas? I assume you are referring to humans being the intelligent designers, which is not the same thing as invoking the supernatural. If you are referring to the same designer responsible for life, which area of science is this designer invoked?

When you refer to falsifiability, you say ID can be falsified, except when it can't, and falls into a gray area. You claim evolution is non-falsifiable because it's considered a "historical occurrence" and not reproducible. That's false. Evolution is absolutely falsifiable. Here are a few things that would falsify evolution: If we found a rabbit fossil in the Precambrian period, a static (non-changing) fossil record over time, if genetic/molecular evidence came back showing human's closest ancestor was the parakeet, confirmation that mutations are prevented from accumulating and, of course, any observations showing organisms being created supernaturally. "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." - Charles Darwin

Intelligent Design explanations involving the direct intervention of the supernatural in the physical world are not falsifiable, because any result of an experiment or investigation could be the unpredictable action of an omnipotent deity. I do agree with your last statement. Could you propose an experiment on how we could test (or falsify) ID?

Aside from presupposing the existence of an all-knowing being that designed everything, ID doesn't explain a number of bizarre and harmful morphological and molecular features. (e.g. the fact that upright mammals support 70% of their weight on a single column. The fact that human mouths don't have enough room for the teeth that come in. The fact that our vision has severe problems compared to a number of other animals (much less what it could be). Men having nipples, the existence of the human tailbone, etc, etc). But it can always be said "Ah, but maybe that's what the designer wanted. We can't know his intentions." An eternal way to protect a flawed theory and is, again, unfalsifiable.

There are no easy answers in science. Every theory (including evolution, relativity, germ theory, etc) is wrong to varying degree. They will all be altered vastly as we increase our understanding of the cosmos. But they all explain the facts about the world to varying accuracies and are incredibly useful in not only describing the world, but helping us survive our environment and produce better living conditions and more fulfilling lives for all. Substituting an intelligent designer for evolution because there's some question that evolution can't explain doesn't solve any of this. At best, it's intellectual fear of the unknown. At worst, it attempts to destroy the benefits of scientific theory and quench further study.

As for "finding the common ancestor," I encourage you to study geology and evolutionary biology to understand why putting our finger on exactly where a common ancestor existed and what it looked like is nearly impossible. A lot things in science are known through inference (conclusion based on data). Here is a summery of some of the data:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Unive ... r#Features
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_des ... on_descent

I'm sure you could say "We can infer an intelligent designer." Then I would respond "Show me the converging lines of evidence that support that hypothesis."

Regardless, evolution is the change in species over time, it's a process. I mean, even if God made the first life form, that would not invalidate evolution a tiny bit. You criticize that evolutionary theory takes this part for 'granted' (which I am not saying it does in any way), but if this part of the theory, the first parent organism, were to be proven to be invalidated, evolution would still be a viable theory, given our knowledge of genetics and other lines of evidence.

As I argued with someone on Facebook (whom I know) who thought we were "burying our heads in the dirt" by objecting to evolution in schools, I replied with this:

If questioning theories is burying our heads in the dirt, we would have gotten nowhere scientifically or philosophically. That said, they should not have removed the references, but acknowledged it as a theory or a possible explanation, with strengths and weaknesses of the said theory. The proper scientific approach is to question that theory which does not have air-tight evidence, and then even if it does, question it all the more to be sure. When did it become good science to silence all dissidents over a theory? Note, I'm not saying evolution is right or wrong here even though I do have an opinion, I'm just saying we need to actually teach weaknesses of a theory as well as its strengths, and note other theories that others have proposed because maybe one of those is right, or maybe evolution is right, or maybe none of them is right. (Same with the climate thing.)

My problem with people pushing evolution is that they violate one of the chief steps in the scientific process - namely, experimentation. If we cannot re-create situations in a lab or other place we have no business making interpretations on flawed data and little experimentation. You could surmise that things are possibly connected, you could even guess on how you think it all happened, but you have NO business teaching this all as FACT in public schools or scientific journals and then turning around and demonizing dissidents who question your "science". If you're going to propose what the naturalists propose, then fill the holes. They haven't yet. And even if they did and evolution or true, they can't nail down biogenesis. It has never been replicated. Ever.

Not only this, but they deliberately blend the six definitions of evolution and claim that creationists deny all of them, which, we do not. Science stands on its own - but people interpret it in different ways and conduct flawed "experiments" and therein lies the problem.

Callisto wrote:As I argued with someone on Facebook (whom I know) who thought we were "burying our heads in the dirt" by objecting to evolution in schools, I replied with this:

If questioning theories is burying our heads in the dirt, we would have gotten nowhere scientifically or philosophically. That said, they should not have removed the references, but acknowledged it as a theory or a possible explanation, with strengths and weaknesses of the said theory. The proper scientific approach is to question that theory which does not have air-tight evidence, and then even if it does, question it all the more to be sure. When did it become good science to silence all dissidents over a theory? Note, I'm not saying evolution is right or wrong here even though I do have an opinion, I'm just saying we need to actually teach weaknesses of a theory as well as its strengths, and note other theories that others have proposed because maybe one of those is right, or maybe evolution is right, or maybe none of them is right. (Same with the climate thing.)

My problem with people pushing evolution is that they violate one of the chief steps in the scientific process - namely, experimentation. If we cannot re-create situations in a lab or other place we have no business making interpretations on flawed data and little experimentation. You could surmise that things are possibly connected, you could even guess on how you think it all happened, but you have NO business teaching this all as FACT in public schools or scientific journals and then turning around and demonizing dissidents who question your "science". If you're going to propose what the naturalists propose, then fill the holes. They haven't yet. And even if they did and evolution or true, they can't nail down biogenesis. It has never been replicated. Ever.

Not only this, but they deliberately blend the six definitions of evolution and claim that creationists deny all of them, which, we do not. Science stands on its own - but people interpret it in different ways and conduct flawed "experiments" and therein lies the problem.

I really don't see why you guys keep going back to things that can't be reproduced in the lab. There are plenty of things we can't reproduce in the lab. e.g. We can't reproduce clouds in the lab...

http://phys.org/news/2011-12-cloud-drop ... prime.html

"In the laboratory, we can't possibly reproduce all the chemical and physical cloud processes that happen in the atmosphere.

Guess we should forget about evaporation then huh? I mean, "Macro-evaporation" hasn't been observed. I think we can all agree "Micro-evaporation" is a fact. We can see water collect on the sides of cups. Water rising into the sky to form complex structures, that's just an assumption, not a fact. Even the person who discovered evaporation doubted its legitimacy.

Though evaporation answers all the problems with the water cycle, I still doubt it is the correct answer. - Diary of Nilis Wallerius

Teach the controversy! The idea that rain comes from an Intelligent Designer is just as legitimate. Walleriusian evaporation is just propaganda and there is no truth in it.

/endrant/satire

Please tell me how the assessment of the evidence done by 97% of scientists are wrong about evolution being a fact. Your last sentence goes back to biogenesis. I've been beating that dead horse far too long. No one is "demonizing" intelligent design. The problem is ID tries to get it's side taught in school by skipping the whole scientific process to prove they have a legitimate hypothesis. Instead they take it straight to court. You claim we need to be able to reproduce experiments for these things in the lab, please point to an experiments done in support of ID... We're at about 100 posts and I've only had 2 people even attempt to provide evidence. One was an argument for a deistic worldview. The other was actually from a scientific article, but had nothing to do with ID and was more of an argument from ignorance. You have a high standard of evidence for evolution, I assume you carry this same standard for ID. Let's see the mountain of evidence for your side. You can compare it to the evidence I provided on the first page.

We can't reproduce clouds in the lab...

What lol........... ever been to science works in Canberra Australia.

Guess we should forget about evaporation then huh? I mean, "Macro-evaporation" hasn't been observed. I think we can all agree "Micro-evaporation" is a fact. We can see water collect on the sides of cups. Water rising into the sky to form complex structures, that's just an assumption, not a fact. Even the person who discovered evaporation doubted its legitimacy.

Big difference, we can actually observe them forming and draw conclusions from there. We cannot observe macro evolution in motion and cannot draw proper conclusions.


I don't have to prove ID as I am a fence sitter on the subject, I just don't like macro evolution being taught as complete fact when it is far from it.
I also wouldn't want ID taught as fact either.


Dan

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

We can't reproduce clouds in the lab...

What lol........... ever been to science works in Canberra Australia.

Guess we should forget about evaporation then huh? I mean, "Macro-evaporation" hasn't been observed. I think we can all agree "Micro-evaporation" is a fact. We can see water collect on the sides of cups. Water rising into the sky to form complex structures, that's just an assumption, not a fact. Even the person who discovered evaporation doubted its legitimacy.

Big difference, we can actually observe them forming and draw conclusions from there. We cannot observe macro evolution in motion and cannot draw proper conclusions.


I don't have to prove ID as I am a fence sitter on the subject, I just don't like macro evolution being taught as complete fact when it is far from it.
I also wouldn't want ID taught as fact either.


Dan

Hah, the part about clouds is suppose to be a joke, I guess I could have used a better example . We can see fully formed clouds, and we can see water on the ground, but where is the "transitional" water . Also, you can see how ridiculous this sounds without evidence for an alternate hypothesis backed by evidence. This is a pretty good indication of what it feels like for me when we have these discussions... In regards to macro-evolution, it depends on what your definition is. The point is, there are plenty of things that are not reproducible in the lab. If you want to be consistent (which is seems like you are), obviously we wouldn't be able to teach ID either. But, as I said before, people can believe whatever they want. What I care about are the ones who propose the scientific community is wrong and they are right and want their view taught in schools. I want to see the evidence for such a claim.

Fair call.


But in saying that it should cut both ways.


Dan

P.S. For those interested in reproducing clouds in the lab (it was a mystery for a while):

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1111010/j ... 604694.jsp

what a lorra,lorra nonsense when all that is required via google box is [Quick....lets discriminate] and also [discrimination against creationists] - be quick and come back home - twinc