PDA

View Full Version : Parallellism is atheological and theistic arguments



LaplacesDemon
04-25-2014, 12:55 PM
From Robin Collins

Typically, the atheist argument against God based on evil takes a similar form to the core version of the fine-tuning argument. Essentially, the atheist argues that the existence of the kind of evils we find in the world is very improbable under theism, but not improbable under atheism. Thus, by the prime principle of confirmation, they conclude that the existence of evil provides strong reasons for preferring atheism over theism.

What makes this argument weak in comparison to the core version of the fine-tuning argument is that, unlike in the case of the fine-tuning, the atheist does not have a significant objective basis for claiming that the existence of the kinds of evil we find in the world is highly improbable under theism. ... But how could atheists show this without first surveying all possible morally good purposes such a being might have, something they have clearly not done? Consequently, it seems, at most the atheist could argue that since no one has came up with any adequate purpose yet, it is unlikely that there is such a purpose. This argument, however, is very weak, as I will now show.

The first problem with this atheist argument is that it assumes that the various explanations people have offered for why an all good God would create evil--such as the free will theodicy--ultimately fail. But even if we grant that these theodicies fail, the argument is still very weak. To see why, consider an analogy. Suppose someone tells me that there is a rattlesnake in my garden, and I examine a portion of the garden and do not find the snake. I would only be justified in concluding that there was probably no snake in the garden if either: i) I had searched at least half the garden; or ii) I had good reason to believe that if the snake were in the garden, it would likely be in the portion of the garden that I examined. If, for instance, I were to randomly pick some small segment of the garden to search and did not find the snake, I would be unjustified in concluding from my search that there was probably no snake in the garden. Similarly, if I were blindfolded and did not have any idea of how large the garden was (e.g., whether it was ten square feet or several square miles), I would be unjustified in concluding that it was unlikely that there was a rattlesnake in the garden, even if I had searched for hours with my rattlesnake detecting dogs. Why? Because I would not have any idea of what percentage of the garden I had searched.

As with the garden example, we have no idea of how large the realm is of possible greater purposes for evil that an all good, omnipotent being could have. Hence we do not know what proportion of this realm we have actually searched. Indeed, considering the finitude of our own minds, we have good reason to believe that we have so far only searched a small proportion, and we have little reason to believe that the purposes God might have for evil would be in the proportion we searched. Thus, we have little objective basis for saying that the existence of the types of evil we find in the world is highly improbable under theism.

From the above discussion, therefore, it is clear that the relevant probability estimates in the case of the fine-tuning are much more secure than those estimates in the atheist's argument from evil, since unlike the latter, we can provide a fairly rigorous, objective basis for them based on actual calculations of the relative range of life-permitting values for the parameters of physics. (See the Appendix to this chapter for a rigorous derivation of the probability of the fine-tuning under the atheistic single-universe hypothesis.) Thus, I conclude, the core argument for preferring theism over the atheistic single-universe hypothesis is much stronger than the atheist argument from evil.


Pretty interesting. Especially for those guys (like Hallquist or Law) who think the argument from evil is knockdown refutation of Christianity.

whag
04-25-2014, 02:30 PM
From Robin Collins



Pretty interesting. Especially for those guys (like Hallquist or Law) who think the argument from evil is knockdown refutation of Christianity.

Link please. Please also read Dembski's The End of Christianity. The new trend in evangelical Christianity is to blame natural evil on the fall retroactively. There'd be no need to formulate such a hypothesis if natural evil didn't present major challenges to God's declaring creation to be very good.

IDScience
06-07-2014, 10:54 AM
The main mistake most atheists make is trying to reason as the "God-like" all knowing being they are trying to disprove, and do so with limited human reasoning.

For example, atheists say

"If God existed X,Y & Z would never happen, but because X,Y & Z is happening, this proves God does not exist, or is highly unlikely to exist."

But this flawed philosophy only proves a God that thinks and reasons exactly like them does not exist, or is highly unlikely to exist. Its not possible for anyone to reason as anything other than what they are, let alone reason as a all knowing God would if he existed. And this flawed philosophy posing as logic and reason comes from some of the most educated atheists in the world.

I have come to the conclusion most atheists are liberal philosophers and not critical thinkers

Jedidiah
06-07-2014, 02:10 PM
So true.
The main mistake most atheists make is trying to reason as the "God-like" all knowing being they are trying to disprove, and do so with limited human reasoning.

For example, atheists say

"If God existed X,Y & Z would never happen, but because X,Y & Z is happening, this proves God does not exist, or is highly unlikely to exist."

But this flawed philosophy only proves a God that thinks and reasons exactly like them does not exist, or is highly unlikely to exist. Its not possible for anyone to reason as anything other than what they are, let alone reason as a all knowing God would if he existed. And this flawed philosophy posing as logic and reason comes from some of the most educated atheists in the world.

I have come to the conclusion most atheists are liberal philosophers and not critical thinkers

Doug Shaver
06-07-2014, 04:36 PM
I have come to the conclusion most atheists are liberal philosophers and not critical thinkers
I can't say yea or nay about most atheists, but I'm a conservative philosopher.

shunyadragon
06-07-2014, 07:52 PM
The main mistake most atheists make is trying to reason as the "God-like" all knowing being they are trying to disprove, and do so with limited human reasoning.

For example, atheists say

"If God existed X,Y & Z would never happen, but because X,Y & Z is happening, this proves God does not exist, or is highly unlikely to exist."

But this flawed philosophy only proves a God that thinks and reasons exactly like them does not exist, or is highly unlikely to exist. Its not possible for anyone to reason as anything other than what they are, let alone reason as a all knowing God would if he existed. And this flawed philosophy posing as logic and reason comes from some of the most educated atheists in the world.

I have come to the conclusion most atheists are liberal philosophers and not critical thinkers

Actually this and most of the posts above do not accurately represent the atheist's arguments. The basic atheist argument is roughly as follows.

(1) There is insufficient evidence to believe in any form of Divine Beings called God(s). The logical arguments for God are old, outdated and highly circular.

(2) There is insufficient evidence that any form of evil exists. What is described as evil is simply natural suffering and death. The view of evil and miracles from ancient religions is just supersticious views of natural events and behavior.

(3) The evidence for God claimed by theists is anecdotal.

whag
06-08-2014, 07:09 AM
The main mistake most atheists make is trying to reason as the "God-like" all knowing being they are trying to disprove, and do so with limited human reasoning.

For example, atheists say

"If God existed X,Y & Z would never happen, but because X,Y & Z is happening, this proves God does not exist, or is highly unlikely to exist."

But this flawed philosophy only proves a God that thinks and reasons exactly like them does not exist, or is highly unlikely to exist. Its not possible for anyone to reason as anything other than what they are, let alone reason as a all knowing God would if he existed. And this flawed philosophy posing as logic and reason comes from some of the most educated atheists in the world.

I have come to the conclusion most atheists are liberal philosophers and not critical thinkers

That's rich considering that theologians themselves initiated discussion on the problem of evil. So only *you* can reason as the God-like all-knowing being you're trying to "prove," but atheists who engage in such thought exercises lack critical thinking skills? Seriously?

Carrikature
06-08-2014, 07:23 AM
From Robin Collins

Pretty interesting. Especially for those guys (like Hallquist or Law) who think the argument from evil is knockdown refutation of Christianity.

While I agree it's a weak argument, the responses to it are not any better (including the one provided). The fine-tuning argument, for its part, has at its base an extremely faulty premise. They are both weak arguments.

Roy
06-08-2014, 07:31 AM
The main mistake most atheists make is trying to reason as the "God-like" all knowing being they are trying to disprove, and do so with limited human reasoning.

For example, atheists say

"If God existed X,Y & Z would never happen, but because X,Y & Z is happening, this proves God does not exist, or is highly unlikely to exist."Few atheists would ever say that, since it presupposes that there is only one concept of "God".

Most atheists would say "If your God existed..." or "If the Xtian God existed..."


I have come to the conclusion most atheists are liberal philosophers and not critical thinkers.I have come to the conclusion that you make little or no attempt to understand what atheists actually say, and therefore your conclusions are based on false assumptions.

Roy

Truthseeker
06-08-2014, 11:37 AM
The main mistake most atheists make is trying to reason as the "God-like" all knowing being they are trying to disprove, and do so with limited human reasoning.

For example, atheists say

"If God existed X,Y & Z would never happen, but because X,Y & Z is happening, this proves God does not exist, or is highly unlikely to exist."

But this flawed philosophy only proves a God that thinks and reasons exactly like them does not exist, or is highly unlikely to exist. Its not possible for anyone to reason as anything other than what they are, let alone reason as a all knowing God would if he existed. And this flawed philosophy posing as logic and reason comes from some of the most educated atheists in the world.

I have come to the conclusion most atheists are liberal philosophers and not critical thinkersWhat is a liberal philosopher? A problem with the word "liberal" is that people use it in several senses.

I guess what you are saying is that atheists tend to assume that whatever God they are arguing against is a being that has whatever "working theory about the universe" and ethics that the atheists assume, perhaps unwittingly. And won't you believe, atheists tend to assume God would be a being whose ethics and working theory are like the atheists'.

LaplacesDemon
06-09-2014, 06:39 AM
While I agree it's a weak argument, the responses to it are not any better (including the one provided). The fine-tuning argument, for its part, has at its base an extremely faulty premise. They are both weak arguments.
What's the faulty premise?

Carrikature
06-09-2014, 09:00 AM
What's the faulty premise?

There are two, actually. First, it assumes the constants are not inter-dependent. That is, a change to one constant without subsequent changes in the others might not allow life as we know it, but there's no reason to suspect that each constant exists independently. Second, it assumes that life as we know it is the only possible form it can take.

Even taken as is, the fine-tuning argument greatly overstates how 'fine' the tuning has to be. What's worse is when people extend it to describe earth's position in the solar system.

IDScience
06-09-2014, 12:27 PM
I can't say yea or nay about most atheists, but I'm a conservative philosopher.

Everyone is a philosopher to some degree or another, philosophy is what we use to fill in the gaps between known logical absolutes or empirical facts. But many atheists tend to completely ignore frame work of logical absolutes all together in favor of an imaginary (if they can imagine it to be true, it can be true) subjective philosophy. For example many atheists don't understand if evolution is false, ID must be true, because these are the only two possibilities for the origins of life, no third hypothesis can exist, and even Dawkins understands this and I give him credit for understanding it.

IDScience
06-09-2014, 01:02 PM
Actually this and most of the posts above do not accurately represent the atheist's arguments. The basic atheist argument is roughly as follows.

(1) There is insufficient evidence to believe in any form of Divine Beings called God(s). The logical arguments for God are old, outdated and highly circular.

(2) There is insufficient evidence that any form of evil exists. What is described as evil is simply natural suffering and death. The view of evil and miracles from ancient religions is just supersticious views of natural events and behavior.

(3) The evidence for God claimed by theists is anecdotal.

There is a long list on why atheists choose to be atheists, my example is a common argument atheists make, and its the main argument used by Sam Harris & Dawkins and the argument Christopher Hitchens made for rejecting God

Also I have a different definition of God than atheists do. Because its religion that the term God originated from, therefore its only religion that can properly define the term. And the oldest know definition of God found is from the sumer civilization and the bible, and that definition is Elohim, which simply means a position of authority. Psalms 82 calls men gods. And the Hebrew Judges and Angels were also called Elohim (gods)

Psalms 82
1 God presides in the great assembly;
he renders judgment among the “gods”:

“I said, ‘You are “gods”;
you are all sons of the Most High.’
7 But you will die like mere mortals;
you will fall like every other ruler.”

God is a position of authority, just as president is a position of authority. the term God per se does not denote the definite article, it denotes a position of authority that many hold. The fathers name is Yahweh, but his position in the universe is the most high God/Elohim. But because there is only one most high God (capital G) the term God becomes synonymous with the person of Yahweh

Lastly, divinity is just a higher nature, and just as humans have a higher nature than worms do, the most high being having a higher nature should not be incomprehensible

IDScience
06-09-2014, 01:30 PM
That's rich considering that theologians themselves initiated discussion on the problem of evil. So only *you* can reason as the God-like all-knowing being you're trying to "prove," but atheists who engage in such thought exercises lack critical thinking skills? Seriously?

I never said I could reason as a God, I don't claim to know the reasons why God would do everything he does, nor do I use subjective philosophy in my reasoning for Gods existence. I use irrefutable logical inferences to claim God exists. Example

We exist, Therefore other sentient life can exist, and can not be rejected
We co-exist with a vast range of life forms with a vast range of intellects and attributes , therefore other sentient life in the universe(s) with a vast range of intellects and attributes (which would include God) can exist elsewhere, and can not be rejected.

I don't illogically put a "cap" on the attribute and intellect levels of all life that can exist in the universe as the atheists do.

Also the universe and biological life (admittedly by science) have the appearance of design, therefore that which appears to be designed can not be rejected from being what it appears to be, because that would be an irrational deduction.

IDScience
06-09-2014, 01:40 PM
Few atheists would ever say that, since it presupposes that there is only one concept of "God".

Most atheists would say "If your God existed..." or "If the Xtian God existed..."

I have debated literally hundreds of atheists on the Internet, and over 75% of them use that line of reasoning for their atheism. If you watch the prominent atheists debate theists, they also use that line of reasoning. The one line I have heard from scores of atheists is... "If God existed, why does he allow babies to suffer" ... or something similar. Many atheists say they became atheists because of the perceived injustices in the world that they believe would not exist if God (who they think should think exactly like them) existed

Carrikature
06-09-2014, 01:54 PM
I have debated literally hundreds of atheists on the Internet, and over 75% of them use that line of reasoning for their atheism. If you watch the prominent atheists debate theists, they also use that line of reasoning. The one line I have heard from scores of atheists is... "If God existed, why does he allow babies to suffer" ... or something similar. Many atheists say they became atheists because of the perceived injustices in the world that they believe would not exist if God (who they think should think exactly like them) existed

The PoE is expressed in terms of the Christian belief that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. It has nothing to do with whether God thinks like them, but with the consistency of claimed attributes and observed behavior.

"Hundreds of atheists on the internet" is not anywhere close to 'most atheists'.

IDScience
06-09-2014, 03:55 PM
What is a liberal philosopher? A problem with the word "liberal" is that people use it in several senses.

Not everyone that claims the title of liberal falls into this definition. When I was younger I found some people did not care at all about final outcome, they only cared about initial intent. For example the "liberal" I am talking about would never care that the welfare policies would eventually create a bigger problem in the long run, their only concerned about the initial compassionate intent and its virtues. Therefore their actions don't actually solve the problem, which is void of logic & reason

Then a few years ago I found that over 90% of atheists considered themselves to be liberal (Hitchens also said this) , and atheism to me is also void of logic because it makes philosophical assumptions about what life forms do and do not exists throughout the entire universe, all without even knowing what exists in our own solar system, and logic can find no reason to put limitations on the intellectual capabilities of any potential life form, yet subjective philosophy that does not stay within the framework of critical thought can find myriads of reasons

For example: Liberal (and only liberal) atheists say not believing God exist does not equate believing God does not exist, when in fact it does. Either God exists or he does not exist, its a true dichotomy. Just as your team can either win or lose the championship, there are only two choices to chose from, If you say you don't believe your team will lose, you have no choice but to say I believe my team will win. Its a logical absolute they honestly can't even see. And if you can't recognize logical absolutes, you will philosophy right around them, which is exactly what they do


I guess what you are saying is that atheists tend to assume that whatever God they are arguing against is a being that has whatever "working theory about the universe" and ethics that the atheists assume, perhaps unwittingly. And won't you believe, atheists tend to assume God would be a being whose ethics and working theory are like the atheists'.

Yes, but even Christians make that mistake, thats why they don't stick to sound doctrine, because they believe God can't possibly be "this way" because I cant imagine God being that way. Atheists are just more prone to this type of reasoning in my experience. Its a lack of critical thought and more of a subjective philosophy that assumes "If I can imagine it to be true, what ever it is, then it can be true"

Doug Shaver
06-09-2014, 04:45 PM
Everyone is a philosopher to some degree or another
That is true. I used to think philosophy was a useless endeavor, until I discovered, when I was in my late 60s, that I'd been doing it all my life. So, I went back to college and got a degree in it.


philosophy is what we use to fill in the gaps between known logical absolutes or empirical facts.
The term "logical absolutes" was not used in any of the classes I took. What are logical absolutes?


But many atheists tend to completely ignore frame work of logical absolutes all together in favor of an imaginary (if they can imagine it to be true, it can be true) subjective philosophy.
So, you think there is something we should call objective philosophy?


For example many atheists don't understand if evolution is false, ID must be true
I don't understand that, either. Could I trouble you to show me your proof?


these are the only two possibilities for the origins of life
Not just because you say so, they aren't.


Dawkins understands this
It isn't true just because he says so, either.

whag
06-09-2014, 05:03 PM
I don't illogically put a "cap" on the attribute and intellect levels of all life that can exist in the universe as the atheists do.*

Yes you do. You put a cap on God's attributes and intellect by denying He created species through evolution.


Also the universe and biological life (admittedly by science) have the appearance of design, therefore that which appears to be designed can not be rejected from being what it appears to be, because that would be an irrational deduction.

You also have the appearance (admittedly by science) of coming from a long line of primates. Therefore, if you appear to be a primate through epistemologically sound methods of investigation, rejecting that would be an irrational deduction.

LaplacesDemon
06-11-2014, 09:38 AM
There are two, actually. First, it assumes the constants are not inter-dependent. That is, a change to one constant without subsequent changes in the others might not allow life as we know it, but there's no reason to suspect that each constant exists independently. Second, it assumes that life as we know it is the only possible form it can take.

Even taken as is, the fine-tuning argument greatly overstates how 'fine' the tuning has to be. What's worse is when people extend it to describe earth's position in the solar system.
I think you're mistaken about the assumptions. I'll quote physicist Luke Barnes who did a recent review of the fine-tuning literature in physics
1)Most of the papers vary several parameters

The vast majority of fine-tuning/anthropic papers, from the very earliest papers in the 70′s until today, vary many parameters1. I’ve addressed these issues at length in my review paper. I’ll summarise some of that article here.

The very thing that started this whole field was physicists noting coincidences between the values of a number of diffehttp://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2013/08/01/fine-tuning-and-the-myth-of-one-variable-at-a-time/rent constants and the requirements for life.
2) We know that if not for fine tuning there would not be any kind of complex chemistry (some universe turn out with only hydrogen gas if not for nuclear force fine-tuning) and no stable bodies like planets for life to live on and no stars to provide an energy source. its a reasonable assumption that intelligent life needs complex chemistry

Carrikature
06-11-2014, 10:31 AM
I think you're mistaken about the assumptions. I'll quote physicist Luke Barnes who did a recent review of the fine-tuning literature in physics
1)Most of the papers vary several parameters
.
2) We know that if not for fine tuning there would not be any kind of complex chemistry (some universe turn out with only hydrogen gas if not for nuclear force fine-tuning) and no stable bodies like planets for life to live on and no stars to provide an energy source. its a reasonable assumption that intelligent life needs complex chemistry

It's possible that I'm mistaken about the assumptions. I'm not sure you understood what I was getting at with #1, though. It's not a matter of looking at individual constants to see what variance would be allowed. It's a matter of looking at how one constant's value would change if another constant was different. As far as I understand it, what's been done is akin to looking at the ideal gas law and asking how far pressure and volume are allowed to change without passing certain temperature limits. In reality, pressure, volume and temperature are interrelated. When one or more values change, the others have to change with it. To the best of my knowledge, we have no reason to assume that the 'fine-tuned' constants don't operate in a similar manner. If some forces were to go up, how do we know that other forces don't go down in a way that still gets us close enough? I haven't seen an answer to that, yet.

I'll address an important point from your link, though.

"Remember that fine-tuning doesn’t claim that our universe is uniquely life-permitting, but rather that life-permitting universes are rare in the set of possible universe."

This sort of reliance on rarity is a non-starter when arguing for a specific conclusion. It's the same problem Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism suffers from. Let's grant readily that our existence is based on a rare chance and then ask what difference it makes how common it turns out to be. Rarity isn't an argument for God and never will be.

Your response to point #2 doesn't really counter what I said. You say that it's a reasonable assumption that intelligent life needs complex chemistry. I happen to disagree. Even if I granted that it's reasonable, it remains an assumption. Perhaps more importantly, intelligent life isn't a necessary goal. It's still a discussion of rarity.

IDScience
06-11-2014, 12:57 PM
The PoE is expressed in terms of the Christian belief that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. It has nothing to do with whether God thinks like them, but with the consistency of claimed attributes and observed behavior.

"Hundreds of atheists on the internet" is not anywhere close to 'most atheists'.

How is God not consistent with these attributes?, In order to know this you would need to possess the attributes yourself and find them not consistent with your own

My claim was of the hundreds of atheists I have debated, most atheists used these arguments. These would be considered polls numbers accurate + or - 5%

IDScience
06-11-2014, 01:41 PM
The term "logical absolutes" was not used in any of the classes I took. What are logical absolutes?

A logical absolute is what I refer to as an axiom that can logically only have a limited number of choices. for example, Its a logical absolute that a coin flip can only be either be heads or tails, provided it does not get lucky and stand on its end. But in the way I am using it, its a logical absolute that the universe and life on earth were either created by cognitive mechanisms using intent, or non-cognitive mechanisms without intent (the anthropic principle) , its a true dichotomy, no third hypothesis can possibly exist, therefore if one can clearly be rejected the other must win by default. This is something many subjective philosophers don't recognize, and if they don't recognize this logical absolute framework, they will philosophize right around it

"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" Sherlock Holmes


So, you think there is something we should call objective philosophy?

Yes, any explanation that stays within the framework of what is known to be logical and rational. The "something from absolutely nothing" hypothesis for the origins of the universe does not stay within the known laws of thermodynamics, so I consider it irrational subjective philosophy and not rational objective philosophy. If we had observable testable evidence of something coming from literally nothing and defying the first law, that would be different


I don't understand that, either. Could I trouble you to show me your proof?...Not just because you say so, they aren't...

Name the third hypothesis for the origins of life on earth other than ID or chemical abiogenesis. There is no logical third hypothesis. And both Richard Dawkins and Douglas Futuyma are quoted as also understanding this dichotomy/logical absolute

"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ...Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker

"Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence." Douglas Futuyma


It isn't true just because he says so, either.

Then name the third alternative. This is what I'm talking about when I say subjective philosophers don't recognize logical absolutes.

IDScience
06-11-2014, 01:58 PM
Yes you do. You put a cap on God's attributes and intellect by denying He created species through evolution.

Of course not, I never said God was not capable of producing Darwinian evolution, and if the evidence was there I would accept it. But since every prediction (that I know of) Darwinian evolution has made has been repeatedly falsified, and both the fossil record and species have massive gaps between them, and a theory is only as good as the predictions it makes, I have no reason to believe God used Darwinian evolution to create the species.


You also have the appearance (admittedly by science) of coming from a long line of primates. Therefore, if you appear to be a primate through epistemologically sound methods of investigation, rejecting that would be an irrational deduction.

The phylogenetic relationships do not match, this is old news to informed creationists

"No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree from its root to the major branchings within and among the various [groups] to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves".
C. Woese, Procedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95 (1998), pg 6854-6859.

"Clarification of the phylogenetic relationships of the major animal phyla has been an elusive problem, with analyses based on different genes and even different analyses based on the same genes yielding a diversity of phylogenetic trees."
M. Lynch, Evolution 53 (1999) p 323.

Watch "The Great Debate What Is Life" http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/the-great-debate-what-is-life/what-is-life-panel

DATE: February 12, 2011
RUN TIME: 42 minutes
SPEAKERS: Richard Dawkins, J Craig Venter, Sydney Altman, Lee Hartwell, Paul Davies, Chris McKay, Lawrence Krauss, Roger Bingham

Craig Venter Informs Dawkins and Davies Darwin's "Tree of Life" is false, its now the mangled "Bush of Life". There is no way to decipher the predicted relationships

Carrikature
06-11-2014, 03:01 PM
How is God not consistent with these attributes?,

If the world we live in is not the best possible world, the description of omnibenevolence doesn't apply. If it is not the best possible world, there's no reasonable expectation of a better world to come.



In order to know this you would need to possess the attributes yourself and find them not consistent with your own

I see no reason to take this claim seriously. It is, at best, pure assumption on your part.



My claim was of the hundreds of atheists I have debated, most atheists used these arguments. These would be considered polls numbers accurate + or - 5%

Your initial claim was "most atheists". You've since modified that statement to apply only to those you've encountered. You're now trying to tell me that the modified statement was your original claim. It was the modification I took issue with. I have no way of knowing whether or not your initial claim was only meant to apply to those you've interacted with, but it's not remotely clear that this was so.

shunyadragon
06-11-2014, 03:43 PM
There is a long list on why atheists choose to be atheists, my example is a common argument atheists make, and its the main argument used by Sam Harris & Dawkins and the argument Christopher Hitchens made for rejecting God.

You have not coherently cited the above to support this argument.


Also I have a different definition of God than atheists do. Because its religion that the term God originated from, therefore its only religion that can properly define the term. And the oldest know definition of God found is from the sumer civilization and the bible, and that definition is Elohim, which simply means a position of authority. Psalms 82 calls men gods. And the Hebrew Judges and Angels were also called Elohim (gods)

I believe you are still grossly misrepresented atheists here including the above mentioned. They reject all different God(s) of any possible definition. You will need to cite specifics if you continue to assert this claimthat the God(s) atheist do not believe in do not include your God..

shunyadragon
06-11-2014, 03:57 PM
Of course not, I never said God was not capable of producing Darwinian evolution, and if the evidence was there I would accept it. But since every prediction (that I know of) Darwinian evolution has made has been repeatedly falsified, and both the fossil record and species have massive gaps between them, and a theory is only as good as the predictions it makes, I have no reason to believe God used Darwinian evolution to create the species.



The phylogenetic relationships do not match, this is old news to informed creationists

"No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree from its root to the major branchings within and among the various [groups] to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves".
C. Woese, Procedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95 (1998), pg 6854-6859.

"Clarification of the phylogenetic relationships of the major animal phyla has been an elusive problem, with analyses based on different genes and even different analyses based on the same genes yielding a diversity of phylogenetic trees."
M. Lynch, Evolution 53 (1999) p 323.

Watch "The Great Debate What Is Life" http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/the-great-debate-what-is-life/what-is-life-panel

DATE: February 12, 2011
RUN TIME: 42 minutes
SPEAKERS: Richard Dawkins, J Craig Venter, Sydney Altman, Lee Hartwell, Paul Davies, Chris McKay, Lawrence Krauss, Roger Bingham

Craig Venter Informs Dawkins and Davies Darwin's "Tree of Life" is false, its now the mangled "Bush of Life". There is no way to decipher the predicted relationships

Your selective citations grossly misrepresent the science of evolution.

Doug Shaver
06-11-2014, 05:57 PM
A logical absolute is what I refer to as an axiom that can logically only have a limited number of choices. for example, Its a logical absolute that a coin flip can only be either be heads or tails, provided it does not get lucky and stand on its end.
The possible outcomes of a coin toss are established by empirical science. Principles of logic have nothing to do with it except insofar as we need logic to discover and describe empirical reality.


But in the way I am using it, its a logical absolute that the universe and life on earth were either created by cognitive mechanisms using intent, or non-cognitive mechanisms without intent
What you are asserting is just an exclusive disjunction. You don't need to invent any new terminology to do that.

And up to this point, by the way, I might agree with you. If I understand your assertion correctly, I would restate it thus: It either is or is not the case that the universe, including life on earth, was created by a cognitive mechanism using intent. If that is what you mean, I have no problem with it. The logical form of such a premise is "A or not-A," and if we can demonstrate the impossibility of not-A, then we have proved the truth of A.


no third hypothesis can possibly exist
Right. Logicians call that the Law of Excluded Middle.


This is something many subjective philosophers don't recognize
This accusation is akin to claiming that many electricians don't recognize Ohm's Law. The LEM is about as basic as anything gets in philosophy.


The "something from absolutely nothing" hypothesis for the origins of the universe does not stay within the known laws of thermodynamics,
Maybe. Maybe not. But you are claiming that disproof of the theory of evolution would constitute proof of ID. That has nothing to do with whether any current theory of cosmogony is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.


Name the third hypothesis for the origins of life on earth other than ID or chemical abiogenesis.
The origin of life was either natural or supernatural. If it was natural, then it was abiogenic. Therefore, if not abiogenic, then it was supernatural. I'll give you that much.

Strictly speaking, evolution is not about the origin of life. But, just for the time being, I'll put that quibble on hold.

IDScience
06-12-2014, 12:08 PM
If the world we live in is not the best possible world, the description of omnibenevolence doesn't apply. If it is not the best possible world, there's no reasonable expectation of a better world to come.

Again, you repeatedly make the mistake of assuming to know what a life form with "omnibenevolence" characteristics would do in certain situations. And you repeatedly fail to understand unless you possess these characteristics yourself and find them contradictory to your own, its impossible for you to know this. You can't even get over this minuscule hurdle of critical thought.

"What I cannot create, I do not understand" Richard Feynman


I see no reason to take this claim seriously. It is, at best, pure assumption on your part.

Then you are claiming to have reasoning abilities beyond what is inherent to your nature and abilities, which is not only patently illogical, its complete arrogance. Which does not surprise me because arrogance is a Hallmark of atheism. As Solomon said "God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble"

Does a single celled organism know what a human would do in any given situation, of course not, but the arrogant illogical ones are certain they do know.


Your initial claim was "most atheists". You've since modified that statement to apply only to those you've encountered. You're now trying to tell me that the modified statement was your original claim. It was the modification I took issue with. I have no way of knowing whether or not your initial claim was only meant to apply to those you've interacted with, but it's not remotely clear that this was so.

Incorrect, I did not modify my statement at all, I clarified it to you even though no clarification should have been necessary if you knew anything about how polls work. Ill explain it one more time.

Polls are not conducted by asking 100% of the targeted audience, they are conducted by asking a large group of them so that an accuracy rate of + or - 5% will be achieved. (Just Google "How are Polls Conducted"). And in my experience with debating atheists, the vast majority of those that are intelligent enough to carry on a debate, use the "IF ANALOGY", i.e. "IF GOD EXISTED, X,Y&Z WOULD NEVER HAPPEN" as a main reason for their atheism.

And the ironic part of this is, you seem to be blind to the fact that you're using these same ""IF ANALOGY" arguments in this debate, with... "If the world we live in is not the best possible world, the description of omnibenevolence doesn't apply"... , then turn around and argue most atheists don't use that argument.

Shooting down the same arguments you're trying to making in the exact same post you are setting them up in, is not conducive to winning the debate

IDScience
06-12-2014, 12:40 PM
You have not coherently cited the above to support this argument.

Then it appears you have not watched many debates between atheists & theists. Most debating theists know all the arguments used by atheists, and if you just spend a little time on youtube watching Sam Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, Barker, Shermer etc.., you will find extensive evidence of my statement.


I believe you are still grossly misrepresented atheists here including the above mentioned. They reject all different God(s) of any possible definition. You will need to cite specifics if you continue to assert this claimthat the God(s) atheist do not believe in do not include your God..

That's a nonsensical and false statement. They can't possibly reject Gods "of any possible definition" because the original definition of God (Elohim) denotes any position of authority over someone else. As I said the Hebrew judges were called Elohim, as are human men is Psalms 82. God (Elohim) denotes a position of authority not a person, just as president is a position and not a person. The fathers proper name is Yahweh, but his position in the universe is the most high God (capital G)

I find it assuming you think atheists can better define the term God, rather than the theists that the term originated from.

A common tactic of atheists is to define God as a "square circle" (a illogical concept), then explain how "square circles" can't exist, and think they have given a rational argument for Gods non-existence.

God is simply BIG INTELLECTUAL LIFE, which you have no logical argument against

IDScience
06-12-2014, 02:13 PM
The possible outcomes of a coin toss are established by empirical science. Principles of logic have nothing to do with it except insofar as we need logic to discover and describe empirical reality.

Thats like saying the principles of gravity have nothing to do with objects falling, except insofar as we need it to describe empirical reality. We use logic to conclude what the results of empirical science are. Deductive logic tells us through observation all coin flips will fall on either heads or tails, therefore we can logically deduce any coin flip will fall on either heads or tails


What you are asserting is just an exclusive disjunction. You don't need to invent any new terminology to do that.

Don't assume because you have never heard of the terminology I personally invented it.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:On_Logical_Absolutes

http://logical-critical-thinking.com/logic/logical-absolutes/


And up to this point, by the way, I might agree with you. If I understand your assertion correctly, I would restate it thus: It either is or is not the case that the universe, including life on earth, was created by a cognitive mechanism using intent. If that is what you mean, I have no problem with it. The logical form of such a premise is "A or not-A," and if we can demonstrate the impossibility of not-A, then we have proved the truth of A.

Yes that is my assertion, and its nice to find an atheist (I assume) that actually understands this. Most atheists I debate do not


Right. Logicians call that the Law of Excluded Middle.

Which is in the category of logical absolutes (See Rational Wiki) The definition of the term should be self evident because absolutes do exist within logic & reason (I fully understood it when I first heard it). Quibbling over systematics only makes one appear at a loss to address the argument being made


This accusation is akin to claiming that many electricians don't recognize Ohm's Law. The LEM is about as basic as anything gets in philosophy.

Not even close. Ohm's Law (the little I know of it) is a precise mathematical equation, subjective philosophy is not, hence the preface "subjective".


Maybe. Maybe not. But you are claiming that disproof of the theory of evolution would constitute proof of ID. That has nothing to do with whether any current theory of cosmogony is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.

Of course it does, the many worlds (multiverse) of quantum physics is proposed specifically to prevent the first law from being violated. There is no empirical testable evidence at all of these other unseen undetectable worlds


The origin of life was either natural or supernatural. If it was natural, then it was abiogenic. Therefore, if not abiogenic, then it was supernatural. I'll give you that much.

That is not what I am saying. ID does not posit any supernatural mechanisms nor does it claim to identify the designer, or even care who the designer is. Its true Creationism (the biblical Genesis account of ID) does claim to identify the designer, but ID does not, so don't confuse the two as most atheists do. And supernatural abilities are not needed to create life, only an intelligence capable of assembling the cell with over 300 molecular machines, and writing specific codes in DNA for specific species, thats all, nothing more. Craig Venter and George Church predict science will eventually ID life. And ironically this will come from the same scientists that claim "ID is not science". Creationists always laugh at that one.

Also, life created by science in the lab is biogenesis not abiogenesis because it originated from another life. Only life that originated from non-sentient mechanisms is abiogenesis


Strictly speaking, evolution is not about the origin of life. But, just for the time being, I'll put that quibble on hold.

Correct, but from your posts you seem to understand that without chemical abiogenesis, atheistic evolution has no foundation to stand on. I find atheists that use observable evidence of minor fluctuations within phenotypes as sufficient evidence that no intelligent designer is needed, to be irrational "subjective" philosophers void of critical thought

Doug Shaver
06-12-2014, 06:17 PM
What you are asserting is just an exclusive disjunction. You don't need to invent any new terminology to do that.


Don't assume because you have never heard of the terminology I personally invented it.*
OK, so you didn't invent it yourself. Instead you're just parroting it. Nice catch, but I didn't learn my philosophy by surfing the Web, especially not by reading websites whose authors won't even identify themselves.


We use logic to conclude what the results of empirical science are.
Empirical science uses many tools. Logic is one of them. This tells us as much about the relationship between logic and science as the observation that a carpenter uses a hammer to build a house.


But you are claiming that disproof of the theory of evolution would constitute proof of ID. That has nothing to do with whether any current theory of cosmogony is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.


Of course it does
Not just because you say so, it doesn't.


the many worlds (multiverse) of quantum physics is proposed specifically to prevent the first law from being violated.
Whatever might have motivated the multiverse theory has nothing to do with evolution.


The origin of life was either natural or supernatural. If it was natural, then it was abiogenic. Therefore, if not abiogenic, then it was supernatural. I'll give you that much.


That is not what I am saying.
In that case, I don't know what you're saying, and you will have to make your point clearer.


Its true Creationism (the biblical Genesis account of ID) does claim to identify the designer, but ID does not, so don't confuse the two as most atheists do.
The ID community has no one but themselves to blame for the confusion. I've read quite a bit of both creationist and ID literature. ID's disavowal of its creationist foundations is disingenuous, to put it as charitably as possible.


And supernatural abilities are not needed to create life, only an intelligence capable of assembling the cell with over 300 molecular machines, and writing specific codes in DNA for specific species, thats all, nothing more.
Right. For all ID cares, it could have been space aliens, right? If the space alien hypothesis were proved, the folks at the Discovery Institute would just say, "We told you so," gloat for a few days and then shut up, eh?


Strictly speaking, evolution is not about the origin of life. But, just for the time being, I'll put that quibble on hold.


Correct, but from your posts you seem to understand that without chemical abiogenesis, atheistic evolution has no foundation to stand on.
It's time to take the hold off of my quibble. If it were proved that life could not have originated through natural processes, my views on evolution would not be affected in the least.

shunyadragon
06-12-2014, 06:44 PM
Then it appears you have not watched many debates between atheists & theists. Most debating theists know all the arguments used by atheists, and if you just spend a little time on youtube watching Sam Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, Barker, Shermer etc.., you will find extensive evidence of my statement.

Please cite atheists specifically to support your argument, and not the general shotgun approach. I have read their books and watched their debates.


That's a nonsensical and false statement. They can't possibly reject Gods "of any possible definition" because the original definition of God (Elohim) denotes any position of authority over someone else. As I said the Hebrew judges were called Elohim, as are human men is Psalms 82. God (Elohim) denotes a position of authority not a person, just as president is a position and not a person. The fathers proper name is Yahweh, but his position in the universe is the most high God (capital G)

Yes, they reject ALL possible God(s), because of a lack of evidence.


I find it assuming you think atheists can better define the term God, rather than the theists that the term originated from.

No in general atheists do not try and define God(s). They just do not believe that there is not any evidence for ALL possible kinds and variations of Divine beings called God(s), angels, souls or spiritual beings by any possible definitions.


A common tactic of atheists is to define God as a "square circle" (a illogical concept), then explain how "square circles" can't exist, and think they have given a rational argument for Gods non-existence.

Please cite atheists making this claim. The claim of atheists is that there is no objective evidence for any possible God(s).


God is simply BIG INTELLECTUAL LIFE, which you have no logical argument against

Your making an unsubstantiated claim. Atheists would justifiably claim there is no evidence for this 'God is simply BIG INTELLECTUAL LIFE.'

IDScience
06-13-2014, 12:10 PM
Your selective citations grossly misrepresent the science of evolution.

What you mean to say is my selective citations grossly misrepresent the science of evolution you believed was true

Every prediction Darwinian evolution has made, that I'm aware of, has been falsified. The conserved elements (functional elements that can't evolve) have already falsified the theory, but science will not admit it, therefore science does not treat evolution like a real scientific theory, they treat it like a religion. The main tenet of science is based in falsification, or "attack the theory", if your not trying to prove the theory wrong, your not practicing real science as its defined. But evolutionary science knows very well if they applied "attack the theory" principles to Darwinian evolution, it would fold like a house of cards, and the egos in science along with it. This is why "Teach The Controversy" (teaching the problems with evolution is schools) proposed by ID proponents, has been rejected by science

The Journal of theoretical biology said

"Much of the problem is that neo-Darwinism appears completely invincible to falsification by observations or by experiments, so much so that many doubt if it is a scientific theory at all. Partly, the stochastic nature of evolutionary changes must demand that there should be an unique explanation for each event, so that any difficulty raised by observations could be explained or explained away with ease, and partly, the practitioners of neo-Darwinism exhibit a great power of assimilation, incorporating any opposing viewpoint as yet another "mechanism" in the grand "synthesis". But a real synthesis should begin by identifying conflicting elements in the theory, rather than in accommodating contradictions as quickly as they arise." Beyond neo- Darwinism - An Epigenetic Approach to Evolution" Journal of Theoretical Biology Vol. 78,

Darwinian evolution is not allowed to be falsified because the only other theory to replace it with is ID, and evolutionary science has arrogantly claimed ID is not science, long before the science was even settled. These are huge egos that climbed out on a limb and they are trying to prevent the inevitable crash

'We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it's good, we know it is bad, but because there isn't any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation. . ."
Professor Jerome Lejeune: From a French recording of internationally recognized geneticist, Professor Jerome Lejeune, at a lecture given in Paris on March 17, 1985. Translated by Peter Wilders of Monaco.

If your not aware of it yet, look up "The Altenberg 16 meeting" ,it was a recent meeting of 16 top evolutionists that are quietly trying to salvage a theory on the ropes

Doug Shaver
06-14-2014, 08:31 AM
If your not aware of it yet, look up "The Altenberg 16 meeting" ,it was a recent meeting of 16 top evolutionists that are quietly trying to salvage a theory on the ropes
I looked it up and found a summary of what all 16 participants had to say. I found no evidence in their comments that evolutionary theory is on the ropes.

We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time.
Why should I take his word over that of at least hundreds of geneticists who disagree with him?

firstfloor
06-14-2014, 09:56 AM
......... Darwinian evolution is not allowed to be falsified because the only other theory to replace it with is ID, ............. ID is a theory about the use of magic performed by a magical magician (therefore doubly magical) for which no explanation can be given even in principal. It is not scientific and therefore cannot compete with a scientific theory. It is such a mad idea that only the lunatic fringe is still interested in it.

By the way, it is not true that the universe is fine tuned for life. As far as we can tell, practically its entire vastness is extremely hostile to life and we helpless, hopeless and insignificant beings are trapped on this tiny insignificant speck we call mother earth. The earth is already getting quite old at about 4.5 billion years. In 1.1 billion years from now, the Sun will be 10% brighter than it is today. This extra energy will cause a moist greenhouse effect in the beginning, similar to the runaway warming on Venus. But then the Earth’s atmosphere will dry out as the water vapour is lost to space, never to return. And life will disappear from the earth – this is not fine tuning for life so much as it is fine tuning for sterility. The way we are going, it’s not likely that we’ll survive another 1000 years let alone a billion.

“And the heaven was removed as a scroll when it is rolled up …” – the end will come but it just ain’t gonna happen like that.

IDScience
06-14-2014, 11:31 AM
OK, so you didn't invent it yourself. Instead you're just parroting it. Nice catch, but I didn't learn my philosophy by surfing the Web, especially not by reading websites whose authors won't even identify themselves.

Every word or phrase used to describe some aspect of reasoning was originally coined by one single individual, including the Law of excluded middle. And 50 years from now philosophers may be arguing using the term "logical absolutes". Learn to "evolve"


Not just because you say so, it doesn't.

Thats not a rebuttal, you must explain why I am wrong


Whatever might have motivated the multiverse theory has nothing to do with evolution.

The "whatever" was your statement "That has nothing to do with whether any current theory of cosmogony is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics."

And Darwinian evolution is the easiest scientific theory to dismantle, so I can stick to it


In that case, I don't know what you're saying, and you will have to make your point clearer.

You said "The origin of life was either natural or supernatural.", which I in response said the supernatural is not needed to create life, because Criag Venter said natural science will eventually do it

The dilemma that many atheists are unwittingly setting themselves up for is when they insist that ID and religious supernatural creationism must be synonymous. They don't realize by making this claim they will be forced by their own words to become religious creationists if abiogenesis is proven false and the cell is proven to be intelligently designed, and believe me it will. So I suggest unless you want to be forced by your own words to convert to religious creationism at some point, drop the "ID must equate supernatural creationism" arguments now.

As a creationist I believe God is the intelligent designer, but that can not be empirically proven therefore the identity of the designer is out of the scope of empirical science and should not be entertained by them. The identity of the designer is an argument for philosophers & religions, not scientists. The problem with science today is, its littered with liberal philosophers that think its their job to answer every single question posed by humanity, even when its clearly out of the scope of ability to observe and test. We need to get the subjective philosophers (pseudo intellectuals) out of science and replace them with objective critical thinkers (real scientists)


The ID community has no one but themselves to blame for the confusion. I've read quite a bit of both creationist and ID literature. ID's disavowal of its creationist foundations is disingenuous, to put it as charitably as possible.

The blame goes to people who stereotype (ironically the same people who argue against stereotyping). The problem is the vast majority of ID proponents are creationists, this is due to the fact the three major religions (Judaism, Christianity & Islam) believe in the Genesis account, and they are the most out spoken proponents for ID, this makes it appear as if they are synonymous. But Hindus, Bahai, Deists, Shintoists, Shamanists, ALIENSDIDIT atheists, etc., are not Creationists

All popular creationist ID proponents do not advocate identifying the designer should be included in the ID hypothesis, because that alienates ID proponents that do not believe in the Genesis account of ID, including the atheists that believe aliens created life. But because most people will believe the God of the bible is the designer, science throws the proverbial baby out with the bath water because of their stance on the bible.


Right. For all ID cares, it could have been space aliens, right? If the space alien hypothesis were proved, the folks at the Discovery Institute would just say, "We told you so," gloat for a few days and then shut up, eh?

Thats it. I personally could care less who someone wants to believe the designer is, that is a job for religions and philosophers to battle over, not empirical science. But to throw out valid a hypothesis just because it has religions overtones is not objective science, its subjective philosophy

"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." Physicist Leonard Susskind


It's time to take the hold off of my quibble. If it were proved that life could not have originated through natural processes, my views on evolution would not be affected in the least.

Thats fine, but your views on intelligent design can not if your honest with yourself. Also once you accept life was ID, your views on how evolution works, its limitations and its mechanisms will almost certainly change

IDScience
06-14-2014, 12:02 PM
Please cite atheists specifically to support your argument, and not the general shotgun approach. I have read their books and watched their debates.

I already did cite specific atheists by name, if you missed that blatant specific response you will miss everything else I post


Yes, they reject ALL possible God(s), because of a lack of evidence.

Thats good, just as long as you stay consistent and reject 100% of everything else that has a "lack of evidence" for its existence.


No in general atheists do not try and define God(s). They just do not believe that there is not any evidence for ALL possible kinds and variations of Divine beings called God(s), angels, souls or spiritual beings by any possible definitions.

If your going to reject "ALL possible kinds and variations of Divine beings called God(s), angels, souls or spiritual beings by any possible definitions" You don't have any choice but to define them. You can't reject something you have not properly defined and determined does not exist

And by your own rules of evidence, you must reject the many dimensions of string theory and the multiverse. What tells me you don't debate scientists about the lack of evidence for string theory or multiverse?


Please cite atheists making this claim. The claim of atheists is that there is no objective evidence for any possible God(s).

Sorry, I did not think to write down their name or ask for their personal information so I could have it handy upon request. However I am writing down your name so If I'm ever asked again to "Please cite atheists making this claim", in reference to a point you made, I will give them your name


Your making an unsubstantiated claim. Atheists would justifiably claim there is no evidence for this 'God is simply BIG INTELLECTUAL LIFE.'

I agree there is no direct observable evidence for God, but there is clear indirect evidence for his existence. And I have no problem with atheists rejecting things with no observable evidence, I can respect that you require a certain level of evidence to believe in things. The problem lies in the atheists contradictory stances in accepting things like abiogenesis by faith with no empirical evidence its even possible, but then require a different level of proof when it comes to Gods existence

Its the hypocritical nature of atheism that is the problem here.

IDScience
06-14-2014, 12:41 PM
ID is a theory about the use of magic performed by a magical magician (therefore doubly magical) for which no explanation can be given even in principal. It is not scientific and therefore cannot compete with a scientific theory. It is such a mad idea that only the lunatic fringe is still interested in it.

And you must keep believing that in order to rationalize your arguments against it. Wake up, ID is the future of science, Craig Venter already predicted science will eventually ID life. No magic is needed to create life, but I realize the process may appear as magic to simple minds

Its funny that the exact same scientists that parrot "ID IS NOT SCIENCE", will verify the hypothesis is valid. Ironic isn't it?


By the way, it is not true that the universe is fine tuned for life. As far as we can tell, practically its entire vastness is extremely hostile to life and we helpless, hopeless and insignificant beings are trapped on this tiny insignificant speck we call mother earth. The earth is already getting quite old at about 4.5 billion years. In 1.1 billion years from now, the Sun will be 10% brighter than it is today. This extra energy will cause a moist greenhouse effect in the beginning, similar to the runaway warming on Venus. But then the Earth’s atmosphere will dry out as the water vapour is lost to space, never to return. And life will disappear from the earth – this is not fine tuning for life so much as it is fine tuning for sterility. The way we are going, it’s not likely that we’ll survive another 1000 years let alone a billion.

You have no idea what your talking about. And your operative words are "As far as we can tell". You don't know what conditions exist in the next nearest galaxy to us, let alone the billions of galaxies throughout the universe

The unfalsifiable non-verifiable muliverse hypothesis is entertained by science strictly to explain the fine tuning problem. The hypocrites in science reject God because he is "unfalsifiable", they are then forced by the teleological argument (the main argument for ID) to have faith in an equally unfalsifiable multivetrse hypothesis just to explain the fine tuning problem. The irony in evolutionary science runs deep

Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multivese
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator

“If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.” Tim Folger quoted cosmologist Bernard Carr

“If you discovered a really impressive fine-tuning … I think you’d really be left with only two explanations: a benevolent designer or a multiverse.“ Atheist physicist Steven Weinberg,

The cosmological constant needs to be set to one part in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion. trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion (1 10/120) or life in the universe can not exist

"The fine tunings, how fine tuned are they. Most of them are one percent sort of things. In other words if a thing is one percent different everything gets bad. And a physicist could say maybe those are just luck. On the other hand this cosmological constant is tuned to one part in ten to the hundred and twenty, one hundred and twenty decimal places. Nobody thinks that accidental. That is not a reasonable idea. That something is tuned to one hundred and twenty decimal places by accident. That's the most extreme example of fine tuning" Atheist Physicist Leonard Susskind - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4T2Ulv48nw


"The temptation to believe that the Universe is the product of some sort of design, a manifestation of subtle aesthetic and mathematical judgment, is overwhelming. The belief that there is "something behind it all" is one that I personally share with, I suspect, a majority of physicists..," Physicist Paul Davies

"The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the universe. There must be religious overtones. But I think most scientists prefer to shy away from the religious side of it." Boslough, Hawking's Universe, 121.

"How could this possibly have come to pass (that the laws of physics conform themselves to life)?As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather Agency- must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" Atheist astronomer George Greenstein

"This is a very special universe: it's remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren't just the way they are, we couldn't be here at all....Some scientists argue that, Well, there's an enormous number of universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right. Well, that's a postulate, and it's a pretty fantastic postulate. It assumes that there really are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for each of them. The other possibility is that our was planned, and that is why it has come out so specially." Charles Hard Townes, Nobel Prize in Physics UC Berkeley

"Astronomy leads us to an unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly-improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan" Nobel laureate Arno Penzias

"Such properties seem to run through the fabric of the natural world like a thread of happy coincidences. But there are so many odd coincidences essential to life that some explanation seems required to account for them... A superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology" Astronomer Fredrick Hoyle

"But an atheist has to regard the orderliness of the universe as an axiom, a proposition accepted without proof, and which bears no relation to his other axiom of atheism. The Biblical theist is in a better position because he can treat the orderliness of the universe as a theorem, derived from his axiom that the Bible's propositions are true, including that the universe was created by a God of order, not confusion. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D."

IDScience
06-14-2014, 12:54 PM
I looked it up and found a summary of what all 16 participants had to say. I found no evidence in their comments that evolutionary theory is on the ropes.

Of course not, do you actually think the atheist egos in science will admit the theory is on the ropes? Be real. Its a fact the Neo-Darwinian synthesis is on the ropes, this is what the Altenberg 16 meeting was all about. Of course they have not thrown in the towel for evolution/speciation, but the long held beliefs about the mechanisms for the theory are dead, and the ignorant masses are unaware of it

"...The edifice of the Modern Synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair.... The summary of the state of affairs on the 150th anniversary of the Origin is somewhat shocking: in the post-genomic era, all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution" -"The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?" E. Koonin

"We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes"-The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis, DJ Depew,


We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time.
Why should I take his word over that of at least hundreds of geneticists who disagree with him?

Because every prediction Darwinian evolution has made has failed. And a theory is only as good as its predictions. Men with huge egos and a agenda will lie, the results of empirical data will not lie

shunyadragon
06-14-2014, 05:53 PM
I already did cite specific atheists by name, if you missed that blatant specific response you will miss everything else I post

You cited by name, but you did not cite them supporting your assertions.


That's good, just as long as you stay consistent and reject 100% of everything else that has a "lack of evidence" for its existence.

OK, no problem.




If your going to reject "ALL possible kinds and variations of Divine beings called God(s), angels, souls or spiritual beings by any possible definitions" You don't have any choice but to define them. You can't reject something you have not properly defined and determined does not exist.

How can you define different kinds of supernatural beings or anything else in the supernatural when you find no evidence that it exists. From an objective perspective you need evidence of something to objectively definite. Yes there are many standard usable definitions in the English language for; God(s), angels, souls, demons, dragons, huge giants (as described in the Bible.), monsters, aliens, but at present there is no evidence for these 'things' outside human imagination and anecdotal claims.

Being able to define something based on anecdotal indirect evidence does not justify an argument that it exists.


And by your own rules of evidence, you must reject the many dimensions of string theory and the multiverse. What tells me you don't debate scientists about the lack of evidence for string theory or multiverse?

These are not my rules. There is evidence for string theory and multiverse. The evidence is not conclusive nor are all scientists in agreement, but these concepts are a direct result of falsifiable hypothesis and models.




Sorry, I did not think to write down their name or ask for their personal information so I could have it handy upon request. However I am writing down your name so If I'm ever asked again to "Please cite atheists making this claim", in reference to a point you made, I will give them your name.

Again you have made claims about what atheist say and believe, but you have not cited them to support your assertions.




I agree there is no direct observable evidence for God, but there is clear indirect evidence for his existence. And I have no problem with atheists rejecting things with no observable evidence,

You have presented considerable objections so far. The evidence for God(s) is highly anecdotal. I believe in God, but I avoid these bad arguments.


I can respect that you require a certain level of evidence to believe in things. The problem lies in the atheists contradictory stances in accepting things like abiogenesis by faith with no empirical evidence its even possible, but then require a different level of proof when it comes to Gods existence

Your knowledge of science appears vey limited and warped. Since you prefer to cite the less then 1% of the scientists that do not support natural evolution. Fully 99% plus of all scientist in the related fields support natural evolution. There is evidence for natural processes that lead to abiogenesis. The field of research is very new, only 20 - 30 years at best. The possible processes of abiogenesis are falsifiable in the real world and research is progressing. If you're interested start a thread and we will discuss the present state of the evidence. The science of evolution and abiogenesis are scientific issues, and nothing to do with the argument for or against theism, or atheism or deism, or any other belief system. Those that believe in Theistic Evolution consider Evolution and Abiogenesis as natural processes of how God created. Based on Methodological Naturalism science is justifiably neutral as tow whether there is a God involved or not.


It's the hypocritical nature of atheism that is the problem here.

The above does not make sense as part of a logical argument.

Doug Shaver
06-14-2014, 10:48 PM
Every word or phrase used to describe some aspect of reasoning was originally coined by one single individual, including the Law of excluded middle.

Yeah. When an idea is new, somebody has to invent a label for it. But an idea doesn't become new just because somebody on the Internet sticks a new label on it.


Whatever might have motivated the multiverse theory has nothing to do with evolution.


The "whatever" was your statement . . . .
That is the height of absurdity. The scientists who have worked on multiverse theory could not possibly have been motivated by anything I have ever said.


The origin of life was either natural or supernatural. If it was natural, then it was abiogenic. Therefore, if not abiogenic, then it was supernatural. I'll give you that much.


That is not what I am saying.

In that case, I don't know what you're saying, and you will have to make your point clearer.

You said*"The origin of life was either natural or supernatural.", which I in response said the supernatural is not needed to create life, because Criag Venter said natural science will eventually do it
The logical form of my statement is "A or not-A." That is true no matter who says what.


The dilemma that many atheists are unwittingly setting themselves up for is when they insist that ID and religious supernatural creationism must be synonymous. They don't realize by making this claim they will be forced by their own words to become religious creationists if abiogenesis is proven false and the cell is proven to be intelligently designed, and believe me it will.
I can just as easily say, "Believe me it won't." Your personal confidence doesn't count for anything more than mine.

Other atheists can speak for themselves, but on the day I am confronted with incontrovertible facts that are inconsistent with a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life or its present diversity, I will believe whatever those facts tell me I must believe. I am not afraid to change my mind. I have done it before, and I can do it again.


So I suggest unless you want to be forced by your own words to convert to religious creationism at some point, drop the "ID must equate supernatural creationism" arguments now.
There is no intellectual virtue in trying to make one's position unfalsifiable. Nobody wants to admit that they have been wrong, but I'm willing to do it when I must.


The problem with science today is, its littered with liberal philosophers that think its their job to answer every single question posed by humanity
I have not seen that, and I have been observing scientific discourse for almost my whole life. And if I have not seen it, it isn't because I am a liberal philosopher, because I am not a liberal philosopher.


The ID community has no one but themselves to blame for the confusion. I've read quite a bit of both creationist and ID literature. ID's disavowal of its creationist foundations is disingenuous, to put it as charitably as possible.

The blame goes to people who stereotype (ironically the same people who argue against stereotyping).
Not all stereotypes are groundless. "A's are typically B" can be factually true even if "Some A's are not B" is also true.


The problem is the vast majority of ID proponents are creationists
Sure, because it was creationists who invented ID.


this is due to the fact the three major religions (Judaism, Christianity & Islam) believe in the Genesis account
It is a certain faction within each religion that thinks the current theory of evolution is inconsistent with Genesis. A majority of each's adherents have no problem reconciling Genesis with modern science.


But Hindus, Bahai, Deists, Shintoists, Shamanists, ALIENSDIDIT atheists, etc., are not Creationists
Every religion has its dissenters from the consensus within that religion.


But to throw out valid a hypothesis just because it has religions overtones is not objective science
I agree, but the hypothesis doesn't become valid just because you use lots of scientific terminology to formulate it. The science is not in the language. It's in the process.


if your honest with yourself.
If your argument requires you to impugn the integrity of anyone who disagrees with you, then you don't have a good argument.

Doug Shaver
06-14-2014, 11:00 PM
do actually you think the atheist egos in science will admit the theory is on the ropes?
What I think is that your observation is irrelevant. What do you think it would prove if I were to say, "The egos in evangelical Christianity will not admit that evangelical Christianity is nonsense"?


the long held beliefs about the mechanisms for the theory are dead, and the ignorant masses are unaware of it*
I have heard countless skeptics say the same thing about Christianity.


every prediction Darwinian evolution has made has failed.
Show me one such prediction.

Doug Shaver
06-14-2014, 11:30 PM
But you are claiming that disproof of the theory of evolution would constitute proof of ID. That has nothing to do with whether any current theory of cosmogony is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.


Of course it does

Not just because you say so, it doesn't.

Thats not a rebuttal
Yes, it is. What it is not, is a refutation. Do I need to explain the difference?


you must explain why I am wrong*
You have not given me a good reason to believe it. That is all the justification I need for not believing it.

IDScience
06-16-2014, 03:48 PM
You cited by name, but you did not cite them supporting your assertions.

As I said, I did not think I would ever be quizzed for specifics on this question. One debate I do remember was between Sam Harris and William Lane Craig on youtube. Where Harris used the "If God existed, X,Y&Z would never happen" argument. Its a very common argument for atheists to make. I personally get these arguments constantly from them


How can you define different kinds of supernatural beings or anything else in the supernatural when you find no evidence that it exists. From an objective perspective you need evidence of something to objectively definite.

Incorrect, we have objectively defied the concept of the "supernatural" before there was any evidence of its existence (although there is evidence now). My point was you can't reject a word/concept you have not properly defined

For example, you said..


No in general atheists do not try and define God(s). They just do not believe that there is not any evidence for ALL possible kinds and variations of Divine beings called God(s), angels, souls or spiritual beings by any possible definitions.

If I were to ask you if you believe grtwshsns exist or not, your response to me would be "I don't know tell me what a "grtwshsns" is first so I can decide".

You must have a coherent definition of the concept that you choose to reject before you can rationally reject its existence.

Also the "supernatural" does not exist per se, its only a label put on things that that are not within the scope of observable nature, and unable to be quantified and qualified. Radio waves would have been labeled "supernatural" to people thousands of years ago, and all of quantum physics would have been labeled supernatural 200 years ago. But once science learns how something works, and develop a theory for it, they move the concept from the supernatural to the natural

The "supernatural spirit realm" spoken of by theists for thousands of years is simply a term for another dimension of reality that science now accepts as a reality. But science does not refer to other unseen, unfalsifiable, non-verifiable dimensions as "supernatural", they are simply not apart of our observable world (i.e. string theory) , but they are just as natural as the dimension we live in.


Yes there are many standard usable definitions in the English language for; God(s), angels, souls, demons, dragons, huge giants (as described in the Bible.), monsters, aliens, but at present there is no evidence for these 'things' outside human imagination and anecdotal claims.

Correct, just as there is no evidence for any other life forms existing anywhere else in the universe, however science does not blanketly reject their existence based on your criteria. Science uses logical inferences to make assumptions, and so do theists.


Being able to define something based on anecdotal indirect evidence does not justify an argument that it exists.

Why do you assume the indirect evidence I'm referring to is anecdotal?. I use the observable and testable teleological argument for Gods existence because it is extensive and supported even by atheists in science


These are not my rules. There is evidence for string theory and multiverse. The evidence is not conclusive nor are all scientists in agreement, but these concepts are a direct result of falsifiable hypothesis and models.

Absolutely no empirical evidence at all of their existence (many references available) , and they are both completely unfalsifiable. Please show me evidence to the contrary.


You have presented considerable objections so far. The evidence for God(s) is highly anecdotal. I believe in God, but I avoid these bad arguments.

When I first read that statement I thought it was a typo, but in context it obviously cant be. Tell me how did you come to believe God exists when you don't seem to believe there is any rational reason to believe in God?

You said


(1) There is insufficient evidence to believe in any form of Divine Beings called God(s). The logical arguments for God are old, outdated and highly circular.

(2) There is insufficient evidence that any form of evil exists. What is described as evil is simply natural suffering and death. The view of evil and miracles from ancient religions is just supersticious views of natural events and behavior.

(3) The evidence for God claimed by theists is anecdotal.

Atheists would justifiably claim there is no evidence for this 'God is simply BIG INTELLECTUAL LIFE.'

There can be only three reason why anyone could come to believe God exists

1. Personal revelation or experience/anecdotal (you have stated is a "bad argument")
2. The teleological argument/logical inferences, i.e. it looks designed, therefore it is (you have stated is "highly circular")
3. Blind faith & Philosophy (you have stated you reject things that have no observable evidence for their existence)

Please tell me what is your reasoning for believing In Gods existence. ?


Your knowledge of science appears very limited and warped. Since you prefer to cite the less then 1% of the scientists that do not support natural evolution. Fully 99% plus of all scientist in the related fields support natural evolution.

First of all, you fail to understand these fields of science only allow atheistic (naturalistic) hypotheses to be entertained, therefore they will naturally select for people who believe in naturalism, hence your numbers for methodological naturalists will always be biased

And tell me where I ever once said "evolution" does not happen?. The problem here is you do not acknowledged, recognize, or understand the limits and mechanisms of evolution. Years ago evolutionary science observed minor fluctuations in phenotypes, then falsely extrapolated entire system evolution from that observation. We now know through the fossil record (via rampant stasis) and through genetics (via the "conserved elements" or elements that do not evolve) entire system evolution is false.

Anyone that believes in "entire system evolution" either knows nothing about biology, nothing about engineering, or both. I will not belabor you with the specifics here, but I will explain in a thread I will start "Why Darwinian Evolution Is Impossible"


There is evidence for natural processes that lead to abiogenesis. The field of research is very new, only 20 - 30 years at best. The possible processes of abiogenesis are falsifiable in the real world and research is progressing. If you're interested start a thread and we will discuss the present state of the evidence.

A valid theory of abiogenesis does not exist. RNA world has recently suffered many problems

Watch "The Great Debate What Is Life" on The Science Network
http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/the-great-debate-what-is-life/what-is-life-panel

Sydney Altman said natural RNA (all RNA found in nature) can do none of the 25 enzymatic functions synthetic RNA can do, and all RNA experiments are done with synthetic RNA. Also on that same video, Craig Venter informs Dawkins, Darwin's predicted "Tree Of Life" does not exist, and Dawkins is visibly upset by this news

And two recent articles on the problems with RNA world

"The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early evolution of life (except for all the others)" Harold S Bernhardt
"Study of ribosome evolution challenges RNA world hypothesis" Gustavo Caetano-Anollés

“I’m convinced that the RNA world (hypothesis) is not correct....That world of nucleic acids could not have existed if not tethered to proteins.” Caetano-Anollés


The science of evolution and abiogenesis are scientific issues, and nothing to do with the argument for or against theism, or atheism or deism, or any other belief system.

Quite the opposite, abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution are staples of the atheistic philosophy. Many atheists have said it was their belief in evolution that led them to their atheism. Dawkins said Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.


Those that believe in Theistic Evolution consider Evolution and Abiogenesis as natural processes of how God created. Based on Methodological Naturalism science is justifiably neutral as tow whether there is a God involved or not.

Why would any rational thinking theist believe the selection of luck randomness can do a better job at creating life and species than the mind of God?. Thats a ridiculous proposal. Any theist that believes in abiogensis or Darwinian evolution does so because of media propaganda and school indoctrination. Just as nobody would believe lucky randomness has a better chance at writing Microsoft Windows when there is a master PC programmer available. Its nonsensical


The above does not make sense as part of a logical argument.

The above does not make sense as a part of a logical rebuttal. Thats an absolutely pointless response that did not address my argument in the least. My argument is, atheists reject God based on the fact there is no observable empirical evidence of his existence, therefore logic dictates it is the lack of observable evidence that is the foundation for their lack of belief in God, therefore logic dictates any and all other things that also have a lack of observable evidence of its existence should also be rejected by atheists on the same grounds. But we know this is not true don't we?. Which makes atheists hypocrites, lairs or both

IDScience
06-16-2014, 03:52 PM
Yeah. When an idea is new, somebody has to invent a label for it. But an idea doesn't become new just because somebody on the Internet sticks a new label on it.

Were not taking about a new "idea", we are talking about a new "term" that encompasses more than one term of logic


That is the height of absurdity. The scientists who have worked on multiverse theory could not possibly have been motivated by anything I have ever said.

LOL, good one Doug. You could not see from my response where the confusion came from? It should have been obvious. The way you wrote it can be implied, you didn't know where that topic came from,. You should have said

"Whatever might have motivated the origins of the multiverse theory has nothing to do with evolution."

That would have been a more accurate statement.


The logical form of my statement is "A or not-A." That is true no matter who says what.

I was not addressing your "logical form" I was addressing your erroneous assumption that supernatural abilities are needed to create life, again that should have been clearly evident.


Other atheists can speak for themselves, but on the day I am confronted with incontrovertible facts that are inconsistent with a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life or its present diversity, I will believe whatever those facts tell me I must believe. I am not afraid to change my mind. I have done it before, and I can do it again

But the question is, if ID is verified and abiogenesis nullified does this equate in your mind God did it?. Or will you jump on the ALIENS DID IT bandwagon as most other atheists will. This is the whole point I am making with people making ID and supernatural creationism synonymous. Because if your not prepared to become a God believer if and when that happens, you will have some egg to wipe off your face when you have to back peddle and admit to ID proponents that you were wrong about ID equating supernatural creation. And that error in judgment about what ID actually is will put your reasoning abilities in question


I have not seen that, and I have been observing scientific discourse for almost my whole life. And if I have not seen it, it isn't because I am a liberal philosopher, because I am not a liberal philosopher.

I see it all the time. The evidence would be, find me a question science does not currently attempt to answer, or claim an answer to an unsolved question will eventually be forthcoming. Its the nature of science to do this


Not all stereotypes are groundless. "A's are typically B" can be factually true even if "Some A's are not B" is also true.

I agree, I am not saying there are no grounds for stereotypes, they are called that for a reason, because they are accurate. I'm saying the liberal establishment who claims to abhor using stereotypes, will use them on creationists and ID proponents


It is a certain faction within each religion that thinks the current theory of evolution is inconsistent with Genesis. A majority of each's adherents have no problem reconciling Genesis with modern science.

Thats because they have interpreted the bible incorrectly. Gen 1 & Gen 2 are two separate creation events. Gen 1 being Neanderthals millions of years ago and Gen 2 being Adam & Eve 6000 years ago. If they understood this they would not believe the evolutionary scientists


I agree, but the hypothesis doesn't become valid just because you use lots of scientific terminology to formulate it. The science is not in the language. It's in the process.

Correct, and the process (therefore hypothesis) of ID will be verified by science long before the process of chemical reactions comes even close. This is a fact


If your argument requires you to impugn the integrity of anyone who disagrees with you, then you don't have a good argument.

The integrity of evolutionary scientists are a problem. David Berlinski's daughter had a video on youtube called "dissidents", in which she was at a conference in Europe that had many evolutionary scientists discussing the problems with the Darwinian theory, and as soon as she pulled out her camera to interview, all but one scattered like rats off a sinking ship for fear of being seen at the conference

Evolutionary science (liberals) rules like the Catholic church did before the reformation, by intimidation and ridicule. Its really sad how they treat those who look for problems in evolutionary theory

IDScience
06-16-2014, 03:54 PM
What I think is that your observation is irrelevant. What do you think it would prove if I were to say, "The egos in evangelical Christianity will not admit that evangelical Christianity is nonsense"?

Christians admits we stand by faith, and our belief is not falsifiable. Science claims to stand on empirical observable testable evidence that is falsifiable, and claims to reject everything that does not fit that criteria. See the difference?


Show me one such prediction.

If your not aware of even one false evolutionary prediction, your not at all familiar with evolutionary science.

The tree of life (phylogenetic relationships) falsified
Junk DNA, falsified
Molecular clock predictions, falsified
Selection of Random mutations as a mechanism, falsified
Gradualism, falsified

"...The edifice of the Modern Synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair.... The summary of the state of affairs on the 150th anniversary of the Origin is somewhat shocking: in the post-genomic era, all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution" The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?" E. Koonin


Yes, it is. What it is not, is a refutation. Do I need to explain the difference?

No, I need to explain the difference to you. Your confusing a rebuttal with a response

"The rebuttal, strictly interpreted, refers to argumentation meant 'to overcome opposing evidence and reasoning by introducing other evidence and reasoning that will destroy its effect.' In practice, the terms refutation and rebuttal are used interchangeably, except that the second speech by each advocate in an academic debate is designated as the rebuttal speech." (Austin J. Freeley and David L. Steinberg, Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making, 12th ed. Cengage Learning, 2008)"

Therefore "Not just because you say so, it doesn't." is not a rebuttal, it's a response


You have not given me a good reason to believe it. That is all the justification I need for not believing it.

If I remember correctly that comment was in response to me saying. If abiogenesis was false, ID must be true. Which I then said if I am wrong, then prove it by giving me a third hypothesis, which you never did

Truthseeker
06-16-2014, 08:21 PM
Homo neanderthalensis started at 600,000 years ago, according to Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

Doug Shaver
06-17-2014, 12:19 AM
When an idea is new, somebody has to invent a label for it. But an idea doesn't become new just because somebody on the Internet sticks a new label on it.


Were not taking about a new "idea", we are talking about a new "term" that encompasses more than one term of logic
Why do you think we need a new term? What was inadequate about the terminology that was in use before the Internet came along?


"Whatever might have motivated the origins of the multiverse theory has nothing to do with evolution."

That would have been a more accurate statement.*
OK, I'll accept that version of it.


The logical form of my statement is "A or not-A." That is true no matter who says what.


I was not addressing your "logical form" I was addressing your erroneous assumption that supernatural abilities are needed to create life, again that should have been clearly evident.
My statement was: "The origin of life was either natural or supernatural." There is no assumption there about supernatural abilities being needed to create life. Just because of its logical form, the statement is true no matter what might be necessary to create life.


Or will you jump on the ALIENS DID IT bandwagon as most other atheists will.
I don't care what most other atheists do. If it were to be demonstrated that a natural origin of life was impossible, then the alien hypothesis won't be any help unless it is presupposed that the aliens themselves were of supernatural origin.


And that error in judgment about what ID actually is will put your reasoning abilities in question
You say so. It is your judgment of my reasoning abilities.


The problem with science today is, its littered with liberal philosophers that think its their job to answer every single question posed by humanity


I have not seen that, and I have been observing scientific discourse for almost my whole life. And if I have not seen it, it isn't because I am a liberal philosopher, because I am not a liberal philosopher.

I see it all the time.
Let's see an example. Give us a quotation from a scientist who said, "I think it is our job to answer every single question posed by humanity," or word to that effect.


The evidence would be, find me a question science does not currently attempt to answer, or claim an answer to an unsolved question will eventually be forthcoming. Its the nature of science to do this*
Are you asking me to produce a quotation by a scientist saying that there are questions science cannot answer?


I am not saying there are no grounds for stereotypes
Good.


they are called that for a reason, because they are accurate.
No, that is not why they are called that. A stereotype originally was a kind of printing plate. The word was later extended metaphorically to refer to certain kinds of generalizations, usually with the pejorative connotation of being oversimplified.


I'm saying the liberal establishment who claims to abhor using stereotypes, will use them on creationists and ID proponents*
Liberals denounce stereotypes because stereotypes historically have been used to justify racism and other bigotries, which they regard as evil. They have reasoned, erroneously, that whatever can be used to justify evil must itself be evil and therefore stereotypes must be evil. It then follows, of course, that when they themselves use stereotypes, they must deny doing so.


It is a certain faction within each religion that thinks the current theory of evolution is inconsistent with Genesis. A majority of each's adherents have no problem reconciling Genesis with modern science.


Thats because they have interpreted the bible incorrectly.
They disagree with your interpretation. Why should I extend any privilege to yours? I have no problem in principle with rejecting a majority viewpoint, but I need a better reason than the minority's mere assertion "The majority is wrong."


Gen 1 & Gen 2 are two separate creation events. Gen 1 being Neanderthals millions of years ago and Gen 2 being Adam & Eve 6000 years ago.
You say so.


the hypothesis doesn't become valid just because you use lots of scientific terminology to formulate it. The science is not in the language. It's in the process.


Correct, and the process (therefore hypothesis) of ID will be verified by science
A hypothesis is a statement, not a process. The formulation of a hypothesis is a process, but it is not the entire scientific process, and if you get the rest of the process wrong, your hypothesis is scientifically worthless.


If your argument requires you to impugn the integrity of anyone who disagrees with you, then you don't have a good argument.


The integrity of evolutionary scientists are a problem.
You say so.


David Berlinski's daughter had a video on youtube
You think you can prove your point by referencing a YouTube video, and then you expect me to believe that you know enough about science to tell me when it isn't working the way it's supposed to.

Doug Shaver
06-17-2014, 01:22 AM
What I think is that your observation is irrelevant. What do you think it would prove if I were to say, "The egos in evangelical Christianity will not admit that evangelical Christianity is nonsense"?


Christianity admits we stand by faith, and our belief is not falsifiable.
Some Christians admit that, but that has nothing to do with whether any Christian will admit to believing in nonsense. Unfalsifiable nonsense is still nonsense.


Science claims to stand on empirical observable testable evidence that is falsifiable, and claims to reject everything that does not fit that criteria. See the difference?
I saw the difference between science and Christianity a long time ago.


Show me one such [falsified] prediction.


The tree of life (phylogenetic relationships) . . . Junk DNA . . . Molecular clock predictions . . .
Selection of Random mutations as a mechanism . . . Gradualism
Good. Now, pick one of those and show me, with pertinent references to the scientific literature, (a) that evolutionary theory predicted it and (b) the discovery that falsified it.


But you are claiming that disproof of the theory of evolution would constitute proof of ID. That has nothing to do with whether any current theory of cosmogony is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.


Of course it does

Not just because you say so, it doesn't.

Thats not a rebuttal

What it is not, is a refutation. Do I need to explain the difference?

No, I need to explain the difference to you. Your confusing a rebuttal with a response
A response can be a rebuttal, a refutation, or neither (an evasion, e.g.). A refutation is a rebuttal, but a rebuttal is not necessarily a refutation. To be a refutation, it must succeed in proving that the opponent's claim is actually false. To be a good rebuttal, it suffices to demonstrate that the opponent has failed to adequately demonstrate the truth of his claim. A bad rebuttal tries to do that but fails.


You have not given me a good reason to believe it. That is all the justification I need for not believing it.


If I remember correctly that comment was in response to me saying. If abiogenesis was false, ID must be true. Which I then said if I am wrong, then prove it by giving me a third hypothesis, which you never did
I'm not trying to prove you wrong. I'm trying to prove that I'm not being unreasonable when I disagree with you.

Carrikature
06-17-2014, 07:11 AM
Again, you repeatedly make the mistake of assuming to know what a life form with "omnibenevolence" characteristics would do in certain situations. And you repeatedly fail to understand unless you possess these characteristics yourself and find them contradictory to your own, its impossible for you to know this. You can't even get over this minuscule hurdle of critical thought.

"What I cannot create, I do not understand" Richard Feynman

This is false. Words have definitions, and we can analyze those definitions. God does not call himself omnibenevolent. People do that. People, using their definitions, make a claim. We have the ability to assess that claim within the framework of the definitions. If, using this framework, the description does not apply to what we see around us, there is an issue. This is what we find in regards to omnibenevolence, and that's quite clearly is the case or the PoE would be non-existent.



Then you are claiming to have reasoning abilities beyond what is inherent to your nature and abilities, which is not only patently illogical, its complete arrogance. Which does not surprise me because arrogance is a Hallmark of atheism. As Solomon said "God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble"

Does a single celled organism know what a human would do in any given situation, of course not, but the arrogant illogical ones are certain they do know.

I have made no such claim to reasoning abilities beyond what is 'inherent to my nature or abilities'. This is your claim made on questionable premises.

Your claim that we must possess certain characteristics in order to make claims about them is pure assertion on your part, and one that you've provided no reason for me (or anyone) to accept. I reject your claim, plain and simple. I would do so merely on the fact that it is pure assertion without backing, but I can further do so on the basis of it's quite at odds with normal, everyday function. We need not fully know or understand a given subject to reason about it and/or to make true statements about it.



Incorrect, I did not modify my statement at all, I clarified it to you even though no clarification should have been necessary if you knew anything about how polls work. Ill explain it one more time.

Polls are not conducted by asking 100% of the targeted audience, they are conducted by asking a large group of them so that an accuracy rate of + or - 5% will be achieved. (Just Google "How are Polls Conducted"). And in my experience with debating atheists, the vast majority of those that are intelligent enough to carry on a debate, use the "IF ANALOGY", i.e. "IF GOD EXISTED, X,Y&Z WOULD NEVER HAPPEN" as a main reason for their atheism.

When you say one thing then later say another thing, even if the second thing is a clarification, it is also a modification. Your initial statement was non-specific and generally false. You've since amended it to only aim at "those with whom you've interacted". So be it.



And the ironic part of this is, you seem to be blind to the fact that you're using these same ""IF ANALOGY" arguments in this debate, with... "If the world we live in is not the best possible world, the description of omnibenevolence doesn't apply"... , then turn around and argue most atheists don't use that argument.

Shooting down the same arguments you're trying to making in the exact same post you are setting them up in, is not conducive to winning the debate

You can't even keep your own claims straight. I do not use the impossibility of omnibenevolence as a "main reason for my atheism". That I can use an if-then statement as a disproof for any facet of religion is not the same as it being a main reason for my beliefs, nor does it have any impact on how many atheists do or do not use it as a main reason. Of course, this all ignores the very real fact that I'm not even an atheist.

IDScience
06-18-2014, 03:36 PM
Why do you think we need a new term? What was inadequate about the terminology that was in use before the Internet came along?

Because the term encompasses more than one law of logical absolute outcome. As long as you understand the meaning behind it what difference does it make. Again, this is one step away from quibbling about punctuation and spelling.

http://logical-critical-thinking.com/logic/logical-absolutes/

Law of Identity
Law of Excluded Middle
Law of Non-contradiction


My statement was: "The origin of life was either natural or supernatural." There is no assumption there about supernatural abilities being needed to create life. Just because of its logical form, the statement is true no matter what might be necessary to create life.

But you never qualified the terms. Does natural mean ipso facto no ID took place, or if ID did take place, must it be a supernatural intelligence?


I don't care what most other atheists do. If it were to be demonstrated that a natural origin of life was impossible, then the alien hypothesis won't be any help unless it is presupposed that the aliens themselves were of supernatural origin.

Well it satisfies the appearance of design without God, which is what all atheists actually want anyway. And that statement also lends credence to my claim that science needs to answer every question posed, which is why its littered with philosophers and not engineers.


Let's see an example. Give us a quotation from a scientist who said, "I think it is our job to answer every single question posed by humanity," or word to that effect.

Ill look for it, I think I did hear something to that effect years ago. But since its the nature of science to find answers to questions, I don't see how you could rationally argue against this.


Are you asking me to produce a quotation by a scientist saying that there are questions science cannot answer?

No, I'm asking you to produce a quote by science that claims some question are completely off limits to science


Liberals denounce stereotypes because stereotypes historically have been used to justify racism and other bigotries, which they regard as evil. They have reasoned, erroneously, that whatever can be used to justify evil must itself be evil and therefore stereotypes must be evil. It then follows, of course, that when they themselves use stereotypes, they must deny doing so.

Recognizing truth does not make you a racist. I recognize orientals consistently score higher on SAT scores, Jews are better communicators, hence they flock to the fields that use those skills, Germans and better engineers, Africans are more physically adept, ect. the list can go on and on (and I know there are exceptions to every rule). Liberals don't like to admit these self evident truths because it causes people to feel uncomfortable, hence they created political correctness (i.e. lying) to cover up these truths that everyone clearly recognizes. This is why liberals appear disingenuous


They disagree with your interpretation. Why should I extend any privilege to yours? I have no problem in principle with rejecting a majority viewpoint, but I need a better reason than the minority's mere assertion "The majority is wrong."

Because my OEC theory makes far more sense, its explains the contradictions in the creation events between Gen 1 & 2. Its explains Neanderthals existing before Adam & Eve, It also explains the genetic and archaeological evidence that our modern species appeared suddenly 6000-7000 years ago, even though mankind has been here much longer.


A hypothesis is a statement, not a process. The formulation of a hypothesis is a process, but it is not the entire scientific process, and if you get the rest of the process wrong, your hypothesis is scientifically worthless.

I said the process of ID will be verified before the process of abogenesis is. And a hypothesis can not be verified before the process is verified, thus the process (therefore hypothesis) of ID will be verified by science before abiogenesis is. Why is it difficult to understand its the process of scientists intelligently designing life that will verify the hypothesis of intelligent design?


You think you can prove your point by referencing a YouTube video, and then you expect me to believe that you know enough about science to tell me when it isn't working the way it's supposed to.

Everyone familiar with evolutionary academia knows how those critical of evolution (applying the scientific method of attacking the theory) are treated. And if you truly don't know about it, you prove your not informed on whats really going on. I get all the ID/evolution news on a daily basis, and this type of treatment is common. Thats how liberals come to a consensus, by intimidation, ridicule and political correctness, not by critical debate of the facts


Some Christians admit that, but that has nothing to do with whether any Christian will admit to believing in nonsense. Unfalsifiable nonsense is still nonsense

To use your words. "You say so".

Your statement should be worded .."but that has nothing to do with whether any Christian will admit to believing in what I believe to be nonsense"... If you admit a position is unfalsifiable, then you can't possibly know if that position is actually nonsense if its unfalsifiable. Things that are true can be unfalsifiable, because the very definition of unfalsifiable means its incapable of being proven false, thus unfalsifiable things can be true, thus your statement is nonsensical as a factual claim


I saw the difference between science and Christianity a long time ago

Did you also happen to see how science does the same things they blame Christians for doing when it comes to their own theories?.


Good. Now, pick one of those and show me, with pertinent references to the scientific literature, (a) that evolutionary theory predicted it and (b) the discovery that falsified it.

I should not have to do this for someone that debates this topic. If your not fully aware of both sides of an argument, you have no business debating it.

The quotes for false predictions are exhaustive in every area, and may get me flagged for quote spaming if I post them all (its happen to me before on this website), Ill post a few on the phylogenetic conflicts

"Early expectation that data from more molecules would lead to a clearer answer "began to crumble a decade ago when scientists started analyzing a variety of genes from different organisms and found that their relationship to each other contradicted the evolutionary tree of life derived from rRNA analysis alone."
J. Lake, R. Jain, M. Rivera, Science283 , p 2027-2028.

"With more and more sequences available, it turned out that most protein phylogenies contradict each other as well as the rRNA trees" H. Philippe and P. Forterre, Journal of Molecular Evolution 49 , p509-523.

"Clarification of the phylogenetic relationships of the major animal phyla has been an elusive problem, with analyses based on different genes and even different analyses based on the same genes yielding a diversity of phylogenetic trees." M. Lynch, Evolution 53 (1999) p 323.

"No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree from its root to the major branchings within and among the various [groups] to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves".
C. Woese, Procedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95 (1998), pg 6854-6859.

"Each new prokaryotic genome that appears contains dozens, if not hundreds, of genes not found in the genomes of its nearest sequenced relatives but found elsewhere among Bacteria or Archaea." W. Ford Doolittle Science 286, 1999.

Hope for a basis for organizing molecular data into a tree of life (ancestor-decendent relationships) is dwindling. This is attributed by some to lateral gene transfers...the incongruities "are sufficiently frequent and statistically solid that they can neither be overlooked nor trivially dismissed on methodological grounds." ... "It is time to question underlying assumptions". C. Woese, Procedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95 (1998), pg 6854-6859.

I have many more if you want them


A response can be a rebuttal, a refutation, or neither (an evasion, e.g.). A refutation is a rebuttal, but a rebuttal is not necessarily a refutation. To be a refutation, it must succeed in proving that the opponent's claim is actually false. To be a good rebuttal, it suffices to demonstrate that the opponent has failed to adequately demonstrate the truth of his claim. A bad rebuttal tries to do that but fails.

Yes, all rebuttals and refutations are responses, but not vice versa. I don't expect you to refute any of my arguments, but I do expect more than a "Not because you say so" response. If you don't intend to give a explanation why I'm wrong, then don't bother responding

IDScience
06-18-2014, 03:56 PM
This is false. Words have definitions, and we can analyze those definitions. God does not call himself omnibenevolent. People do that. People, using their definitions, make a claim. We have the ability to assess that claim within the framework of the definitions. If, using this framework, the description does not apply to what we see around us, there is an issue. This is what we find in regards to omnibenevolence, and that's quite clearly is the case or the PoE would be non-existent.

The origins of the claim has no relevance to its actual definition. There can be a difference between its actual definition and its perceived definition, and our human ability to perceive and assess the definition is strictly bound by human logic & reason.

And, this case can be solved by your own words.."People, using their definitions, make a claim".. Therefore humans, who do not possess these characteristics, make the claim and they define the parameters of the "omnibenevolence claim" without even knowing where the parameters of omnibenevolence are located or the extent of their reach. Logical fallacies are rampant in philosophers.

Also your argument below is not logically sound


If the world we live in is not the best possible world, the description of omnibenevolence doesn't apply. If it is not the best possible world, there's no reasonable
expectation of a better world to come.

If we currently did live in "the best possible world" now, then there would be no reasonable expectation of a better world to come because the world could not possibly get any better based on that criteria. But if we do not live in the best possible (enjoyable) world right now, the expectation of a better world to come is not only reasonable, but should be expected based on the law of averages


Your claim that we must possess certain characteristics in order to make claims about them is pure assertion on your part, and one that you've provided no reason for me (or anyone) to accept.

I never claimed that. Of course you can makes claims all day long about the nature of characteristics you do not personally have. My statement was that you cant claim it accurately unless you possess the characteristics you are critiquing


I would do so merely on the fact that it is pure assertion without backing, but I can further do so on the basis of it's quite at odds with normal, everyday function. We need not fully know or understand a given subject to reason about it and/or to make true statements about it.

True, you do not need to fully know or understand a given subject to reason about it or even to make true statements about it, but you do need to fully know and fully understand a given subject to not make false statements about it.

Prime example: non-coding DNA being labeled as nonfunctional JUNK. The subjective philosophers in science made assertions about things they did not fully understand, thereby made false statements about the subject. And this will inevitably happen in 100% of subjects that people do not fully understand.


When you say one thing then later say another thing, even if the second thing is a clarification, it is also a modification. Your initial statement was non-specific and generally false. You've since amended it to only aim at "those with whom you've interacted". So be it..

Its a modification in wording, not in meaning. I had to modify the wording for you to understand it, but you still don't.


You've since amended it to only aim at "those with whom you've interacted". So be it.

Thats like telling a pollster you've since amended it to only those you have polled. it still constitutes + or - 5% of the targeted audience


You can't even keep your own claims straight. I do not use the impossibility of omnibenevolence as a "main reason for my atheism. That I can use an if-then statement as a disproof for any facet of religion is not the same as it being a main reason for my beliefs, nor does it have any impact on how many atheists do or do not use it as a main reason

If atheists do use the IF-THEN argument, which you agree atheists do (and you have also used that argument) then you can't emphatically say its not "a main reason for their atheism", because only if you practice debating atheists as I do and find its a claim they rarely or never use in a debate, can you make this claim about what the cause of their atheism is established in.

And I can tell you of the many hundreds of atheists I have debated (considering the accuracy of polls) the vast majority use the IF-THEN arguments. I find it assuming you attempt to convince me my experiences with atheists and the polls numbers that follow are false

And lastly, if your not even an atheist how can you argue for their position and claim to know why they are atheists?. Wait, I know why, because someone who can predict how a omnibenevolence, omnipresent, omniscient life-form would think, would certainly also know how all atheists would think...Checkmate, you got me on that one.

Doug Shaver
06-19-2014, 05:27 AM
Good. Now, pick one of those and show me, with pertinent references to the scientific literature, (a) that evolutionary theory predicted it and (b) the discovery that falsified it.

The quotes for false predictions are exhaustive in every area, and may get me flagged for quote spaming if I post them all (its happen to me before on this website)
You wouldn't have that problem if you knew the difference between a reference and a quotation. I didn't ask for any quotations.

You did include references, though. It might take me a while to check them, but I'll get back to you when I'm done with that.

Doug Shaver
06-19-2014, 06:42 AM
Why do you think we need a new term? What was inadequate about the terminology that was in use before the Internet came along?


Because the term encompasses more than one law . . . .
Law of Identity
Law of Excluded Middle
Law of Non-contradiction
We don't need a new term for that. Aristotle already gave us one. The term is "axiom."


Again, this is one step away from quibbling about punctuation and spelling.
People who do not know, and will not learn, how to punctuate and spell correctly have no one but themselves to blame if people have a hard time figuring out what they're trying to say.


Does natural mean ipso facto no ID took place, or if ID did take place, must it be a supernatural intelligence?
That depends on what is being claimed about the intelligence responsible for the design. If it is a disembodied intelligence, then it is supernatural. If it's aliens, then it's natural, but then we'll want an explanation for how they acquired their intelligence.


Are you asking me to produce a quotation by a scientist saying that there are questions science cannot answer?


No, I'm asking you to produce a quote by science that claims some question are completely off limits to science
I can't quote science. I can only quote scientists.


they have interpreted the bible incorrectly.


They disagree with your interpretation. Why should I extend any privilege to yours?

Because my OEC theory makes far more sense
Every Christian says their interpretation of scripture makes the most sense. You're getting mighty close to claiming something like infalllibility for your own interpretation.


Why is it difficult to understand its the process of scientists intelligently designing life that will verify the hypothesis of intelligent design?
Because your idiosyncratic semantics makes you unintelligible.


Everyone familiar with evolutionary academia knows how those critical of evolution (applying the scientific method of attacking the theory) are treated.
Sure. And the only people familiar with evolutionary academia are the ones who happen to agree with you. Because in your worldview, disagreement with you is proof of ignorance.


Thats how liberals come to a consensus
You can complain about liberals all you want, but when you're talking with me, you might as well be complaining about Australian aborigines for all the good it will do you.


If you admit a position is unfalsifiable, then you can't possibly know if that position is actually nonsense if its unfalsifiable.
Fascinating. That sounds a lot like logical positivism. I would never have guessed you had any sympathy for that philosophy.


If your not fully aware of both sides of an argument, you have no business debating it.
There you go again, claiming that no one but ignoramuses can disagree with you.


but I do expect more than a "Not because you say so" response. If you don't intend to give a explanation why I'm wrong, then don't bother responding
If your say-so is enough to prove your point, my say-so is enough to prove mine. And so, I say you're wrong. Shall we end this discussion now?

Doug Shaver
06-19-2014, 10:55 AM
The quotes for false predictions are exhaustive in every area, and may get me flagged for quote spaming if I post them all (its happen to me before on this website), Ill post a few on the phylogenetic conflicts
You referenced five articles (two of your six quotations are from one of them). I have obtained copies of all five and will read them as soon as I can.

I'm assuming that by "phylogenetic conflicts" you mean falsification of common ancestry. If you mean something else, please clarify your semantic intentions. Meanwhile, I'll be examining your quotations in their proper context to see whether they support anybody's claim that common ancestry has been falsified.

Doug Shaver
06-19-2014, 02:45 PM
That didn't take as long as I was afraid it might.

First up:

Carl Woese, "The Universal Ancestor," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 95, No. 12 (Jun. 9, 1998), pp. 6854-6859.

Your quotation:

"No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree from its root to the major branchings within and among the various [groups] to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves".
Actual quotation (plus context):

A discrete picture of the ancestor began to emerge only when many more sequences representing all three phylogenetic domains became available. These sequences could be seen as putting phenotypic flesh on an ancestral phylogenetic skeleton. Yet that task has turned out to be anything but straightforward. Indeed, it would seem to require disarticulating the skeleton. No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced.

Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves (p. 6854).
What Woese is saying here is not that common ancestry has been falsified. He is saying that there remain many unanswered questions about particular relationships among several taxonomic groups.

Your other quotation from Woese:

Hope for a basis for organizing molecular data into a tree of life (ancestor-decendent relationships) is dwindling. This is attributed by some to lateral gene transfers...the incongruities "are sufficiently frequent and statistically solid that they can neither be overlooked nor trivially dismissed on methodological grounds."... "It is time to question underlying assumptions".

Actual quotations, plus context:

Exceptions to the topology of the rRNA tree such as these are sufficiently frequent and statistically solid that they can be neither overlooked nor trivially dismissed on methodological grounds (p. 6854).
All of this apparently happened in far less than 1 billion years, whereas evolution within each of the three primary lines of descent has been going on for over 3 billion years now with outcomes that don't even begin to compare with the spectacular ones associated with the ancestor and its original offspring (4) -- yet experience teaches that complex, integrated structures change more slowly than do simple ones. Moreover, the totipotent ancestor associates physiologies that have not been observed together in any modern lineage and asks that all of this come about through vertical inheritance. Thus, we are left with no consistent and satisfactory picture of the universal ancestor. It is time to question underlying assumptions (p. 6855).
Again, there is nothing here, or anywhere else in the article, to suggest a falsification of common ancestry. There is only an admission that we are not yet sure what that common ancestor would have looked like.

Next is:

James A. Lake, Ravi Jain and Maria C. Rivera, "Mix and Match in the Tree of Life," Science, New Series, Vol. 283, No. 5410 (Mar. 26, 1999), pp. 2027-2028.

Your quotation:

"Early expectation that data from more molecules would lead to a clearer answer "began to crumble a decade ago when scientists started analyzing a variety of genes from different organisms and found that their relationship to each other contradicted the evolutionary tree of life derived from rRNA analysis alone."

Actual quotation:

The clonal theory began to crumble a decade ago when scientists started analyzing a variety of genes from different organisms and found that their relationship to each other contradicted the evolutionary tree of life derived from rRNA analysis alone (p. 2027)
The clonal theory is not a prediction of evolutionary theory. It was a specific hypothesis about particular relationships among early lineages. The gene relationships that were discovered were inconsistent not with the general theory of common ancestry but with that hypothesis.

Then we come to:

W. Ford Doolittle, "Phylogenetic Classification and the Universal Tree," Science,
New Series, Vol. 284, No. 5423 (Jun. 25, 1999), pp. 2124-2128.

Your quotation:

"Each new prokaryotic genome that appears contains dozens, if not hundreds, of genes not found in the genomes of its nearest sequenced relatives but found elsewhere among Bacteria or Archaea."
This statement does not appear in the article. If it is supposed to be a paraphrase, you had no business putting quotation marks around it. In any case, like the others, the statement is not in any way contrary to any prediction of evolutionary theory.

We also have:

Michael Lynch, "The Age and Relationships of the Major Animal Phyla," Evolution, Vol. 53, No. 2 (Apr., 1999), pp. 319-325

Clarification of the phylogenetic relationships of the major animal phyla has been an elusive problem, with analyses based on different genes and even different analyses based on the same genes yielding a diversity of phylogenetic trees (Table 1) (p. 323).
Nothing in this statement entails the falsification of common ancestry.

And finally:

Herve´ Philippe and Patrick Forterre, "The Rooting of the Universal Tree of Life Is Not Reliable," Journal of Molecular Evolution, Vol. 49 (1999), pp. 509-523.

With more and more sequences available, it turned out that most protein phylogenies contradict each others as well as the rRNA tree (p. 510).
The article reports no falsification of common ancestry. The sequencings reported in this article show that we do not yet know all the particular details about relationships among early taxa. They do not show that there could not have been a common ancestor for all organisms.

IDScience
06-19-2014, 03:58 PM
You wouldn't have that problem if you knew the difference between a reference and a quotation. I didn't ask for any quotations.

You did include references, though. It might take me a while to check them, but I'll get back to you when I'm done with that.

You asked for the pertinent information, and I gave it to you. Its my pet peeve when people I debate make claims, then post a reference that is not even fully accessible to the pertinent information. If you would prefer to make it more difficult and to do all the lengthly footwork and reading yourself to find the information I am claiming, then that is your choice. I have no problem with it


People who do not know, and will not learn, how to punctuate and spell correctly have no one but themselves to blame if people have a hard time figuring out what they're trying to say.

Yes, but in my experience people who feel the need to argue about punctuation usually do so because they have no argument to be made about the main point, so they take what ever victory in the debate they can get


That depends on what is being claimed about the intelligence responsible for the design. If it is a disembodied intelligence, then it is supernatural. If it's aliens, then it's natural, but then we'll want an explanation for how they acquired their intelligence.

But the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics suggests mind and brain are separate entities (the observer effect), and quantum entanglement, which Eisenstein called "spooky action at a distance", defies the conventional law of physics that prohibits information traveling faster than the speed of light. This is one of my points, that many people are stuck in a outdated interpretation of what the supernatural and natural actually are.


Every Christian says their interpretation of scripture makes the most sense. You're getting mighty close to claiming something like infalllibility for your own interpretation

Not at all

Romans 3:4 let God be true, but every man a liar
1Co 13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly

But Solomon may have implied a race of people existing before "us" in Ecc, and the theory does fit the evidence

Ecc 1:9 That which has been is that which shall be; and that which has been done is that which shall be done; and there is nothing new under the sun.
Ecc 1:10 Is there a thing of which it may be said, See, this is new? It has already been in days of old, which were before us.
Ecc 3:15 That which has been is now; and that which is to be has already been; and God requires that which is past.


Because your idiosyncratic semantics makes you unintelligible.

It appears you may prefer the use of philosophical double negative poetic rhetoric (aka liberal logic). Certainly you must be able to grasp the basic concept that the process of intelligently designing life must be verified before is can be referred to as a successful theory of intelligent design.?. Its the successful process that verifies the theory. I can't get anymore basic that that


Sure. And the only people familiar with evolutionary academia are the ones who happen to agree with you. Because in your worldview, disagreement with you is proof of ignorance.

On this issue it is ignorance. Would you like me to post the information on how those who are critical of Darwinian evolution are treated by academia?. Darwinian evolution is a "religion" of sorts because it does not follow the tenets that all other areas of science follow, which is to continually attempt to prove the theory wrong. All other scientific theories teach the problems in their theory, in fact they encourage looking for holes in the theory. But evolutionary science hides these gaping holes in the theory from students because as Eugenie Scott said, ..."It will just confuse the students"... Therefore its not even an actual theory, its an atheistic ideology posing as a legitimate scientific theory


Fascinating. That sounds a lot like logical positivism. I would never have guessed you had any sympathy for that philosophy.

Yes it is, and considering my position on liberal atheists, and the fact falsification came from the liberal atheist Popper, you should have seen that position coming.

Falsification rejects that which is incapable of being rejected (falsified) , and if an investigator of a crime rejected a valid potential suspect on the grounds the suspect was incapable of being rejected, he would be fired on the spot. Attacking the theory is essential , but rejecting "out of hand" that which is incapable of being attacked and rejected is irrational and illogical.


There you go again, claiming that no one but ignoramuses can disagree with you.

Wrong, but the problems in the theory of evolution are so well known, even the 16yo atheist noobs on youtube know all about them. I expected more knowledge of the subject from someone who initiated the debate on this topic. Knowing your opponents arguments is debate 101


You referenced five articles (two of your six quotations are from one of them). I have obtained copies of all five and will read them as soon as I can.

I'm assuming that by "phylogenetic conflicts" you mean falsification of common ancestry. If you mean something else, please clarify your semantic intentions. Meanwhile, I'll be examining your quotations in their proper context to see whether they support anybody's claim that common ancestry has been falsified.

If you want more from other sources I have many.

The phylogenetic conflicts refer to the conflicts in the predicted relatedness. Darwinian evolution makes predictions of relatedness based on the fossil record sequences and physical characteristics of species. Species that are predicted to be closer related based on these criteria should have more similar genotypes (genetics) , and species that are predicted to be distantly related should have less similar genotypes, and if these predictions were true, it would have verified Darwin's "tree of life". But the tree of life that predicts divergence is not a clean tidy tree as predicted it would be, its a manged undecipherable bush with no way yet to predict relatedness.

And with no way to make valid predictions, its not a scientific "theory", its an unsubstantiated faith based ideology

Doug Shaver
06-19-2014, 05:09 PM
You wouldn't have that problem if you knew the difference between a reference and a quotation. I didn't ask for any quotations.

You did include references, though.


You asked for the pertinent information, and I gave it to you.
What I asked for a lot more specific than "pertinent information."


People who do not know, and will not learn, how to punctuate and spell correctly have no one but themselves to blame if people have a hard time figuring out what they're trying to say.


Yes, but in my experience people who feel the need to argue about punctuation usually do so because they have no argument to be made about the main point, so they take what ever victory in the debate they can get
When you've driven me to the point where I have nothing to criticize but your punctuation, everyone on this forum will know about it.


But the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics suggests mind and brain are separate entities
There's a reason it's called an interpretation rather than a theory.


quantum entanglement, which Eisenstein called "spooky action at a distance",
Eisenstein was a 19th-century mathematician. You're thinking of Einstein.


defies the conventional law of physics that prohibits information traveling faster than the speed of light.
Yes, this discrepancy between quantum theory and special relativity is a scientific puzzle.


Because your idiosyncratic semantics makes you unintelligible.


It appears you may prefer the use of philosophical double negative poetic rhetoric (aka liberal logic).
I guess that's possible.


Certainly you must be able to grasp the basic concept that the process of intelligently designing life must be verified before is can be referred to as a successful theory of intelligent design.?. Its the successful process that verifies the theory. I can't get anymore basic that that
If you say that you can't make any better sense than that, I believe you.


Because in your worldview, disagreement with you is proof of ignorance.


On this issue it is ignorance. Would you like me to post the information on how those who are critical of Darwinian evolution are treated by academia?.
I've watched Ben Stein's movie "Expelled." Do you have anything to add to it?


Darwinian evolution is a "religion" of sorts because it does not follow the tenets that all other areas of science follow, which is to continually attempt to prove the theory wrong. All other scientific theories teach the problems in their theory, in fact they encourage looking for holes in the theory. But evolutionary science hides these gaping holes in the theory
I've studied science, including its historical development, for 50 years. You don't know what you're talking about.


That sounds a lot like logical positivism. I would never have guessed you had any sympathy for that philosophy.


Yes it is, and considering my position on liberal atheists, and the fact falsification came from the liberal atheist Popper, you should have seen that position coming.
I should have expected you to sound like the people you hate? You just might have a point there.


Darwinian evolution makes predictions of relatedness based on the fossil record sequences and physical characteristics of species.
It makes predictions based on whatever evidence is available. When Darwin published his book, fossils and observable physical characteristics were the only evidence at hand. Now we have tons of other kinds of evidence.


But the tree of life that predicts divergence is not a clean tidy tree as predicted it would be
The theory never predicted a clean and tidy tree. All it ever predicted was a tree of some kind.

IDScience
06-20-2014, 02:34 PM
That didn't take as long as I was afraid it might.

First up: Carl Woese, "The Universal Ancestor," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 95, No. 12 (Jun. 9, 1998), pp. 6854-6859.

What Woese is saying here is not that common ancestry has been falsified. He is saying that there remain many unanswered questions about particular relationships among several taxonomic groups.

I'm not going to address all of Woese's quotes because your rebuttals are redundant, and the tactic of altering my premise will not work here.

First of all, never will you find any evolutionist admitting to "falsifying" the entire theory, this will never happen. And never once did I say science admitted to falsifying "the theory", I repeatedly said "the predictions" in the theory have failed, thats it. Quotes from science are never intended to prove "the theory" has been falsified, they are intended to prove the "specific predictions" were falsified.

Also, common ancestry (all life-forms with a single identical genetic code) has been falsified. Craig Venter briefly explains this in the video below starting at 8:45 to 11:45. And it does not surprise me that evolutionary biologists are unaware of this because even atheisms high priest Dawkins was unaware of this in 2011. Craig Venter told Dawkins and Davies that Darwin's tree of life does not exist (Venter said "there may be a bush of life") , and Dawkins was confounded and upset by this news, and Venter only laughs at Dawkins in response

I suggest you watch "The Great Debate - What is Life?" on the science network.
http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/the-great-debate-what-is-life

Therefore the "specific prediction" that species believed to be closer related must also have similar genotypes, and vice versa, creating the predicted phylogenetic tree of life has failed.

No matter how many false predictions the theory makes, evolutionary science simply modifies the theory to accommodate the current evidence

"Much of the problem is that neo-Darwinism appears completely invincible to falsification by observations or by experiments, so much so that many doubt if it is a scientific theory at all. Partly, the stochastic nature of evolutionary changes must demand that there should be an unique explanation for each event, so that any difficulty raised by observations could be explained or explained away with ease, and partly, the practitioners of neo-Darwinism exhibit a great power of assimilation, incorporating any opposing viewpoint as yet another "mechanism" in the grand "synthesis". But a real synthesis should begin by identifying conflicting elements in the theory, rather than in accommodating contradictions as quickly as they arise." Beyond neo- Darwinism - An Epigenetic Approach to Evolution" Journal of Theoretical Biology Vol. 78,

For example the theory predicted a gradual transition in the fossil record, and when the specific prediction was falsified, evolutionary science invented punctuated equilibrium (evolution so fast it leaves no evidence it happened) as the excuse. Therefore the new prediction of P.E. is then verified by the fossil record. So the entire theory is being "verified" through Ad hoc circular reasoning, which proves its not real science, its an atheistic ideology posing as science and you allow yourself to be duped by it

"A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?" New Scientist, Vol.108, Dec.5, 1985, p. 67

"But the danger of circularity is still present.... The temporal ordering of biological events beyond the local section may critically involve paleontological correlation....for almost all contemporary paleontologist it rest upon the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis.", Evolution Vol. 28, p.466

Gould admits P.E. has no mechanism to prove its validity

"In this crucial sense, the theory of punctuated equilibrium adopts a very conservative position. The theory asserts no novel claim about modes or mechanisms of speciation; punctuated equilibrium merely takes a standard microevolutionary model and elucidates its expected expression when properly scaled into geological time. Gould * p. 778"


Next is: James A. Lake, Ravi Jain and Maria C. Rivera, "Mix and Match in the Tree of Life," Science, New Series, Vol. 283, No. 5410 (Mar. 26, 1999), pp. 2027-2028.

The clonal theory is not a prediction of evolutionary theory. It was a specific hypothesis about particular relationships among early lineages. The gene relationships that were discovered were inconsistent not with the general theory of common ancestry but with that hypothesis.

Tell to me how a specific hypothesis (within the theory) that predicts to explain prokaryotes to eukaryotes evolution is not a part of the theory of evolution?. The fact is its one of a long list of failed predictions in the theory that have failed, and you know it. And a theory is only as good as the predictions it makes


Then we come to: W. Ford Doolittle, "Phylogenetic Classification and the Universal Tree," Science,
New Series, Vol. 284, No. 5423 (Jun. 25, 1999), pp. 2124-2128.

Your quotation: "Each new prokaryotic genome that appears contains dozens, if not hundreds, of genes not found in the genomes of its nearest sequenced relatives but found elsewhere among Bacteria or Archaea."

This statement does not appear in the article. If it is supposed to be a paraphrase, you had no business putting quotation marks around it. In any case, like the others, the statement is not in any way contrary to any prediction of evolutionary theory.

That is your mistake, not mine. I never used the title ""Phylogenetic Classification and the Universal Tree," with Doolittle's quote or in any of my quotes

My quote was... "Each new prokaryotic genome that appears contains dozens, if not hundreds, of genes not found in the genomes of its nearest sequenced relatives but found elsewhere among Bacteria or Archaea." W. Ford Doolittle Science 286, 1999."


We also have: Michael Lynch, "The Age and Relationships of the Major Animal Phyla," Evolution, Vol. 53, No. 2 (Apr., 1999), pp. 319-325

Clarification of the phylogenetic relationships of the major animal phyla has been an elusive problem, with analyses based on different genes and even different analyses based on the same genes yielding a diversity of phylogenetic trees (Table 1) (p. 323).

Nothing in this statement entails the falsification of common ancestry.

Don't claim the quote doesn't say something it nor I ever said it did. Snopes is famous for this same tactic of extending the claim beyond what it actually says, then saying its a "false" claim. The quote says proving the predicted phylogenetic relationships has been an "elusive problem", thus the "specific prediction" failed.


And finally: Herve´ Philippe and Patrick Forterre, "The Rooting of the Universal Tree of Life Is Not Reliable," Journal of Molecular Evolution, Vol. 49 (1999), pp. 509-523.

With more and more sequences available, it turned out that most protein phylogenies contradict each others as well as the rRNA tree (p. 510).

The article reports no falsification of common ancestry. The sequencings reported in this article show that we do not yet know all the particular details about relationships among early taxa. They do not show that there could not have been a common ancestor for all organisms.

The quote clearly says the "phylogenies contradict each other" which means the "specific prediction" for the tree of life failed. And you need to stop extending the quotes beyond what they claim, or read them slower so you understand them

There is not one common ancestor for all organisms, and Woese also admits this

"The high, pervasive levels of horizontal gene transfer at early times created an evolutionarily communal state of living systems in the sense that the aboriginal organismal community evolved as a collective whole, not as individual cellular lineages." -Interpreting the universal phylogenetic tree, Carl R. Woese*

Doug Shaver
06-20-2014, 04:43 PM
And never once did I say science admitted to falsifying "the theory", I repeatedly said "the predictions" in the theory have failed, thats it.
If a theory's predictions are falsified, the theory is falsified. If you actually knew any science, you'd understand that.


evolutionary science simply modifies the theory to accommodate the current evidence
And you think that's unscientific?


the theory predicted a gradual transition in the fossil record
No, it never predicted that. It predicted gradual transitions in the characteristics of populations. Whether and how the fossil record would record those transitions is not addressed by any biological theory. It's addressed by geological theory.


you need to stop extending the quotes beyond what they claim
I'll remember that the next time some inerrantist gets on my case for quoting the Bible out of context.


The fact is its one of a long list of failed predictions in the theory that have failed, and you know it.
You say so.

You have presented your evidence, and I have addressed it. I see nothing to be gained by continuing this discussion.

seer
06-20-2014, 06:16 PM
I have a question ID. I have heard a lot about certain primates and humans being very similar genetically, like something on the order of 95% similar. Doesn't this show that we are related biologically?

IDScience
06-21-2014, 11:27 AM
If a theory's predictions are falsified, the theory is falsified. If you actually knew any science, you'd understand that.

That's correct Doug, if all of a theories predictions are falsified, then the entire theory is falsified. That's why I have been telling you Darwinian evolution is not a real scientific theory, its an atheistic ideology that will never be allowed to be publicly falsified until another valid theory that does not include God as a mechanism is proposed. (atheists need the aliens to land soon).

This is why "Teach The Controversy" (teaching the failed predictions in schools) proposed by ID proponents is forbidden by evolutionary science, because they know the theory will collapse, and that combined with the blatant appearance of design in the cells (even admitted by atheists Crick and Dawkins) will allow ID a foot hold in students minds.



evolutionary science simply modifies the theory to accommodate the current evidence


And you think that's unscientific?

Make up your mind here Doug, do you believe as you said.. "If a theory's predictions are falsified, the theory is falsified".. or do you believe modifying the theories failed predictions to fit the newly discovered evidence is the way scientific theories should be conducted?.



the theory predicted a gradual transition in the fossil record


No, it never predicted that. It predicted gradual transitions in the characteristics of populations. Whether and how the fossil record would record those transitions is not addressed by any biological theory. It's addressed by geological theory.

Physical characteristics of species is exactly what I meant and you know this. But the "sudden appearance and stasis" quotes from palaeontologists are numerous. And the poor geological recording excuse is not accepted by paleontologists. Features do not change in the exact same species spanning many millions and billions of years of geological records. And we have living fossils existing in every strata layer that contain fossils in it.

So, starting with cyanobacteria 3.5by, all through Cambrian, and in every other strata layer that contain fossils, we have some of those same species alive today that did not participate in your theory. Yet your theory teaches other organisms of the exact same species living in the exact same environment went through rapid bursts of evolutionary change at a speed so fast we can't prove it actually happened.

The only reason people believe this ridiculous ideology posing as a theory is because its enforced by media propaganda, intimidation and ridicule of its detractors, just as the catholic church did at one time

And ill end this by saying. I do not understand why many intelligent theists cling so tightly to a atheistic origins of life and species even when they have been presented extensive evidence to the contrary. The only reasons I can come up with is they are either completely blind to the facts, or liberals towing the party line and have succumbed to the pressures of political correctness for fear of ridicule if they speak out against it. For many people accepting the politically correct ideology that they know is untrue, is more palatable than the true alternative that brings discomfort to their lives

IDScience
06-21-2014, 11:32 AM
I have a question ID. I have heard a lot about certain primates and humans being very similar genetically, like something on the order of 95% similar. Doesn't this show that we are related biologically?

That percentage was based on comparing the protein coding sequences which is only 1.5% our DNA, and because of the false prediction that the other 98.5% was useless "junk", they came to the 97-98% similarity conclusion. The percentage has recently been lowered to 70% or lower
http://www.refdag.nl/chimpanzee_1_282611

Also the similarities between humans and chimps do not take in to account the HAR (Human accelerated regions) regions

Newly discovered gene may hold clues to evolution of human brain capacity-Tim Stephens

http://cbse.soe.ucsc.edu/news/article/1581?ID=1581
"Pollard's analysis showed that HAR1 is essentially the same in all mammals except humans. There were only two differences between the chicken and chimp genomes in HAR1's sequence of 118 bases (bases are subunits of DNA, the As, Cs, Ts, and Gs that spell out the genetic code). This similarity means the DNA sequence remained unchanged over hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary history, an indication that it performs a biologically important function. But sometime after the human lineage diverged from its last common ancestor with chimpanzees 5 to 7 million years ago, HAR1 began to change rather dramatically"-

"We found 18 differences between chimps and humans, which is an incredible amount of change to have happened in a few million years," Pollard said

But more importantly, the only evidence for evolution is in the observable transition from one state to another, not in static highly conserved similar regions. Similarities in species is not evidence of "evolution", its evidence of similarities, nothing more.

This is why Senior editor of Nature magazine Henry Gee said

"No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."- Senior editor of Nature Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time

Also we know its gene regulation, controlled by "junk DNA" (one of a long list of failed predictions) that determines how identical genes will be expressed. Humans have some of the same genes as plants do, but its the non-coding DNA that contains the blueprints for the species and determines how the identical genes will be expressed

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/regulation-of-transcription-and-gene-expression-in-1086
“Many eukaryotic species carry genes with the same sequences as other plants and animals. In addition, the same DNA sequences (though not the same proteins) are found within all of an organism’s diploid, nucleated cells, even though these cells form tissues with drastically different appearances, properties, and functions. Why then, is there such great variation among and within such organisms? Quite simply, the way in which different genes are turned on and off in specific cells generates the variety we observe in nature. In other words, specific functions of different cell types are generated through differential gene regulation” Regulation of Transcription and Gene Expression in Eukaryote: Theresa Phillips. Nature

Mice also have the same similarities in protein coding genes

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC395773/
"A detailed inventory of the protein-coding genes was made upon the completion of the human and mouse genome projects [3]. Overall, the mouse proteome is similar to that of the human, and about 99% of the mouse protein-coding genes have a homolog in the human genome"-The mammalian transcriptome and the function of non-coding DNA sequencesSvetlana A Shabalina"

And because its the non-coding regions that determines how identical genes will be expressed, it therefore follows its the non-coding regions that contain the species blueprints, and its these regions that bring the percentage of the chimp similarities to 70%. And its no coincidence its the non-coding DNA that is also the most conserved, and this is why we have species that have not evolved in hundreds of millions and billions of years, because of these highly conserved (do not evolve) regions in non-coding DNA. But with the *magic* of punctuated equilibrium we can make it appear as if they did.

“Now scientists are starting to speculate that proteins, and the regular DNA that creates them, are just the nuts and bolts of the system. ‘They’re like the parts for a 757 jet sitting on the floor of a factory,’ says University of Queensland geneticist John Mattick. The noncoding DNA is likely “the assembly plans and control systems.” Unfortunately, he concludes, because we’ve spent 30 years thinking of it as junk, we’re just now learning how to read it.” Steve Olson Wired Magazine 2/2007, page 113,

Doug Shaver
06-21-2014, 10:41 PM
Make up your mind here Doug, do you believe as you said.. "If a theory's predictions are falsified, the theory is falsified".. or do you believe modifying the theories failed predictions to fit the newly discovered evidence is the way scientific theories should be conducted?.
I believe both. Modification is not equivalent to destruction. The core of evolutionary theory is descent with modification from common ancestry. That core idea has not been touched by any discovery made since Darwin wrote Origin of Species. At this point in our intellectual history, it looks about as robust as the theory of gravity.


the theory predicted a gradual transition in the fossil record


No, it never predicted that. It predicted gradual transitions in the characteristics of populations. Whether and how the fossil record would record those transitions is not addressed by any biological theory. It's addressed by geological theory.

Physical characteristics of species is exactly what I meant and you know this.
No, I don't know that. When someone says the predictions of evolutionary theory have been falsified, I cannot assume anything about what they know or what they might mean.


But the "sudden appearance and stasis" quotes from palaeontologists are numerous.
Sure they are, but they don't prove that evolutionary theory has been falsified.

seer
06-22-2014, 02:45 AM
That percentage was based on comparing the protein coding sequences which is only 1.5% our DNA, and because of the false prediction that the other 98.5% was useless "junk", they came to the 97-98% similarity conclusion. The percentage has recently has been lowered to 70% or lower
http://www.refdag.nl/chimpanzee_1_282611

Also the similarities between humans and chimps do not take in to account the HAR (Human accelerated regions) regions

Newly discovered gene may hold clues to evolution of human brain capacity-Tim Stephens

http://cbse.soe.ucsc.edu/news/article/1581?ID=1581
"Pollard's analysis showed that HAR1 is essentially the same in all mammals except humans. There were only two differences between the chicken and chimp genomes in HAR1's sequence of 118 bases (bases are subunits of DNA, the As, Cs, Ts, and Gs that spell out the genetic code). This similarity means the DNA sequence remained unchanged over hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary history, an indication that it performs a biologically important function. But sometime after the human lineage diverged from its last common ancestor with chimpanzees 5 to 7 million years ago, HAR1 began to change rather dramatically"-

"We found 18 differences between chimps and humans, which is an incredible amount of change to have happened in a few million years," Pollard said

But more importantly, the only evidence for evolution is in the observable transition from one state to another, not in static highly conserved similar regions. Similarities in species is not evidence of "evolution", its evidence of similarities, nothing more.

This is why Senior editor of Nature magazine Henry Gee said

"No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."- Senior editor of Nature Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time

Also we know its gene regulation, controlled by "junk DNA" (one of a long list of failed predictions) that determines how identical genes will be expressed. Humans have some of the same genes as plants do, but its the non-coding DNA that contains the blueprints for the species and determines how the identical genes will be expressed

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/regulation-of-transcription-and-gene-expression-in-1086
“Many eukaryotic species carry genes with the same sequences as other plants and animals. In addition, the same DNA sequences (though not the same proteins) are found within all of an organism’s diploid, nucleated cells, even though these cells form tissues with drastically different appearances, properties, and functions. Why then, is there such great variation among and within such organisms? Quite simply, the way in which different genes are turned on and off in specific cells generates the variety we observe in nature. In other words, specific functions of different cell types are generated through differential gene regulation” Regulation of Transcription and Gene Expression in Eukaryote: Theresa Phillips. Nature

Mice also have the same similarities in protein coding genes

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC395773/
"A detailed inventory of the protein-coding genes was made upon the completion of the human and mouse genome projects [3]. Overall, the mouse proteome is similar to that of the human, and about 99% of the mouse protein-coding genes have a homolog in the human genome"-The mammalian transcriptome and the function of non-coding DNA sequencesSvetlana A Shabalina"

And because its the non-coding regions that determines how identical genes will be expressed, it therefore follows its the non-coding regions that contain the species blueprints, and its these regions that bring the percentage of the chimp similarities to 70%. And its no coincidence its the non-coding DNA that is also the most conserved, and this is why we have species that have not evolved in hundreds of millions and billions of years, because of these highly conserved (do not evolve) regions in non-coding DNA. But with the *magic* of punctuated equilibrium we can make it appear as if they did.

“Now scientists are starting to speculate that proteins, and the regular DNA that creates them, are just the nuts and bolts of the system. ‘They’re like the parts for a 757 jet sitting on the floor of a factory,’ says University of Queensland geneticist John Mattick. The noncoding DNA is likely “the assembly plans and control systems.” Unfortunately, he concludes, because we’ve spent 30 years thinking of it as junk, we’re just now learning how to read it.” Steve Olson Wired Magazine 2/2007, page 113,

Thanks ID, I think.

shunyadragon
06-22-2014, 03:29 AM
Thanks ID, I think.

If you would only realized the IDScience's view is not science. It is ENRON bookkeeping of selective out of context and ridiculously false sound bites to justify a religious agenda.

Doug Shaver
06-22-2014, 04:21 AM
I have heard a lot about certain primates and humans being very similar genetically, like something on the order of 95% similar. Doesn't this show that we are related biologically?
If that were the only datum we had about the relationship between humans and other primates, it wouldn't show a thing, but we do have a ton of other data as well. The genetic similarity very nicely confirms what all the other data show, but it is just one of many nails in the coffin of creationism.

IDScience
06-23-2014, 02:43 PM
I believe both. Modification is not equivalent to destruction. The core of evolutionary theory is descent with modification from common ancestry. That core idea has not been touched by any discovery made since Darwin wrote Origin of Species.

Incorrect, the theory of descent with modification can only be inferred (not proven) if the phylogenetic relationships match, if they do not match, the inference of Darwin's theory does not exist. And Darwin himself admitted if this inference in the fossil record did not exist, his theory would be proven false

Here is your problem. Darwinian evolution (all species descendant from a single cell) was established as a scientific fact based solely on the observation of minor fluctuations in phenotypes (which we now know is phenotypic plasticity), and the rest of the theory was a complete and total extrapolation without any evidence to support it. Evolutionary science of that time believed future generations would find the transitional fossils that would infer the theory of decent with gradual modification, but this did not happen. Gould said Darwin, as well as all other paleontologists, were embarrassed by the fossil record because it did not verify the prediction, hence the reason why Gould invented P.E. to save face

So because the fossil record did not show the predicted inference of descent with gradual modification, the hopes to prove the prediction were then pinned on genetics, but this has also failed. As I have shown you the predicted "tree of life" which is essential to infer common decent, does not exist. All we have now is a mangled "bush of life", and that mangled bush has no possible way to validate the inference of common descent with modification because its branches do not form a predictable pattern, thus the inference of the phenotypes matching the genotypes does not exist, thus your entire theory of radical phenotypic speciation has no actual or inferential evidence.

You fail to understand evolutionary theory (unlike all other scientific theories) has no ability to prove its validity by the scientific method of observation and testing. We can't observe the phenotypic changes that science claims takes many millions of years, therefore your theory stands solely on inferences of common decent, and if those inferences do not exist, you don't have a theory, you have an ideology. Therefore because the phylogenetic relationship inferences do not exist you stand by faith alone in your theory


At this point in our intellectual history, it looks about as robust as the theory of gravity

Here is the difference, the theory of gravity does not extrapolate the theory eventually morphs into radical, untestable and unpredictable changes that can't be verified by observation and experimentation. Your "robust" theory of evolution is nothing more than a highly sophisticated environmentally induced adaptation mechanism that selects from a pool of preloaded conserved slight variations that are needed for survival in a changing environment, and this is why we only observe minor variations in the fossil record and in species, because this is the only evolution that takes place. And this is why we have 500 million year old living fossils and stasis throughout the fossil record, the rest of your theory is an extrapolation in your head by faith in P.E.

For example. The cecal valves of lizards is common example used by evolutionists to prove descent with modification, but we know these features do not accumulate as predicted by Darwin, the features in these lizards were lost in less than 4 months when the diet/environment changed

"Our results suggest that in P. sicula, at least some of the changes associated with a dietary shift toward a higher proportion of plant material may be plastic. Specimens from the Pod Mrcaru population, which in nature eat substantial amounts of plant material exhibited a reduction in digestive tract length AND A TOTAL LOSS OF CECAL VALVES AFTER BEING FED AN EXCLUSIVELY ARTHROPOD DIET FOR 15 WK" - Bart Vervust

IDScience
06-23-2014, 02:48 PM
Thanks ID, I think.

Let me ask you a question. Do you believe we are related to monkeys based on this genetic similarity in protein coding sequences?, If so then you must also believe we are related to mice based on the same similarities in protein coding sequences

"A detailed inventory of the protein-coding genes was made upon the completion of the human and mouse genome projects [3]. Overall, the mouse proteome is similar to that of the human, and about 99% of the mouse protein-coding genes have a homolog in the human genome"-The mammalian transcriptome and the function of non-coding DNA sequencesSvetlana A Shabalina"

IDScience
06-23-2014, 02:51 PM
If that were the only datum we had about the relationship between humans and other primates, it wouldn't show a thing, but we do have a ton of other data as well. The genetic similarity very nicely confirms what all the other data show, but it is just one of many nails in the coffin of creationism.

You have repeatedly said we have "a ton" of evidence for Darwinian evolution, I would like to see some of that evidence.

seer
06-23-2014, 06:34 PM
Let me ask you a question. Do you believe we are related to monkeys based on this genetic similarity in protein coding sequences?, If so then you must also believe we are related to mice based on the same similarities in protein coding sequences

"A detailed inventory of the protein-coding genes was made upon the completion of the human and mouse genome projects [3]. Overall, the mouse proteome is similar to that of the human, and about 99% of the mouse protein-coding genes have a homolog in the human genome"-The mammalian transcriptome and the function of non-coding DNA sequencesSvetlana A Shabalina"

To be honest, I have no idea. You make a good point though.

If you have the time ID, you might like to start a thread on Natural Science. Some of the guys over there are fairly well versed on these matters. I think you are making some excellent points.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/forumdisplay.php?62-Natural-Science-301

Doug Shaver
06-23-2014, 08:20 PM
I would like to see some of that evidence.
I'm sure you would, like an inerrantist would like to see "just one contradiction" in the Bible. I don't play that game any more, and I'm not playing this one now.

It's a waste of time. No matter what I say to the inerrantist, they respond, "That's not a contradiction." No matter what I show you, you'll respond, "That's not evidence."