Destroying Evolution in less than 5 minutes

[1Tonne]

Yes, evolution deals with the natural world as a natural unguided process because that is what the scientific evidence shows us. There is no scientific evidence for God, since God is supernatural, beyond and outside of nature. Thus He cannot be studied through a scientific lense, only a theological lense.

I agree that God, being supernatural, is not directly observable or testable like a chemical reaction in a lab. But that doesn’t mean there’s no evidence for God; it just means the type of evidence is different. We often infer the existence of something not because we see it directly, but because we see its effects.
For example, we’ve never seen the wind or gravity directly, but we see what they do. Similarly, we’ve never observed anyone creating the universe, but we do observe cause and effect, order, complexity, and information, things that consistently point to an intelligent source.
In fact, this kind of reasoning is consistent with the scientific method:

• A building points to a builder.
• A painting points to a painter.
• Code points to a programmer.
• And complex, information-rich biological systems point to design.
• A creation points to a creator

These are observations we can test, repeat, and verify in every other realm of life. It’s only when it comes to origins that people set those principles aside and say, “No, this must have come about without any intelligence involved.”
So, the issue isn’t that there’s no evidence for God, the issue is how that evidence is interpreted. If someone’s worldview rules out the supernatural before even looking at the data, then of course they won’t “see” God in the evidence. But that’s not a scientific conclusion, that’s a philosophical starting point.

WOW. I am still back on page 4 in this thread and I just noticed that it is already up to page 8. I give up. LOL

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I agree that God, being supernatural, is not directly observable or testable like a chemical reaction in a lab. But that doesn’t mean there’s no evidence for God; it just means the type of evidence is different. We often infer the existence of something not because we see it directly, but because we see its effects.
For example, we’ve never seen the wind or gravity directly, but we see what they do. Similarly, we’ve never observed anyone creating the universe, but we do observe cause and effect, order, complexity, and information, things that consistently point to an intelligent source.
In fact, this kind of reasoning is consistent with the scientific method:

• A building points to a builder.
• A painting points to a painter.
• Code points to a programmer.
• And complex, information-rich biological systems point to design.
• A creation points to a creator

These are observations we can test, repeat, and verify in every other realm of life. It’s only when it comes to origins that people set those principles aside and say, “No, this must have come about without any intelligence involved.”
So, the issue isn’t that there’s no evidence for God, the issue is how that evidence is interpreted. If someone’s worldview rules out the supernatural before even looking at the data, then of course they won’t “see” God in the evidence. But that’s not a scientific conclusion, that’s a philosophical starting point.

WOW. I am still back on page 4 in this thread and I just noticed that it is already up to page 8. I give up. LOL

Describe the scientific evidence for God then. Have at it, because you'd do more than get a Nobel prize for it.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

How many bones, fossils and intact skeletons do you think we've discovered?

I guessing archeologist have dug up 100s of thousands of bones and skeletal remains of hominins. A very small percentage of the supposed total of over 110 billion that walked the Earth at one time or another. So, I would say archeologists don't have a strong sampling to base their theories on.

 

[NxNW]

That's a laugh; lets go back into our piles of old bones and see if we missed something. Surely there has to be connections between this bone and that bone. Oh and lets not forget about those "ghost" creatures that haven't had their bones found yet (and probably never will). There were multiple species of Homo; where did they come from; how did they get there.

Yes, I see those many correct predictions made by archeologists - here today, gone tomorrow.

See above.

Their guesses are as good as the next bone dug up out of the Earth.

What guesses?

Here is what I hear from archeologists - it's hard to find intact bones because many don't survive the harsh conditions they were left in but from the bones we have we deduce that this is how evolution played out. Bravo!

If only you could provide examples.

When I saw Johansen (the discoverer of Lucy) speak, he went over all the ways we know Lucy is accurate. Multiple skeletons have been found, so they weren't pieced together from rando bones.

 

[dlamberth]

Evolution is a modern invention....

God created EVERYTHING at the same time....in the 6 day creation period.

I've long ago rejected that ancient middle-eastern creation story. That's because this universe tells a very different creation story about itSelf. Rather than a modern invention science has opened a very old window into how God has created new life forms through the ages.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I guessing archeologist have dug up 100s of thousands of bones and skeletal remains of hominins. A very small percentage of the supposed total of over 110 billion that walked the Earth at one time or another. So, I would say archeologists don't have a strong sampling to base their theories on.

You can say that all you want. But actual archeologists and scientists actually know what they're doing. So why should anyone take what you say, a random person on the Internet, over trained and accredited scientists?

 

[Hvizsgyak]

Feel free to knock down your own straw man. Nobody else will bother with it, but be sure to get back to us when you have a cogent criticism of the actual science.

You are right I don't have an intricate understanding of the science but I know descent when I see it and alot of theories are being challenged in the archeology world. Clovis First, one wave of Homo sapiens out of Africa vs multiple, did southeast Asians travel to the islands in the Pacific, what happened to the Neanderthals - killed off or gradually genetically taken over and many, many more disagreements because not enough data is there.

What we get (the general public) is "this is what happened" (the law of the land, don't question it) then 5 to 10 years late we get "no, this is what happened (the new law of the land, don't question it). Could these scientists try to be a little bit humbler and say, "with the data we have, this is what we believed happened; this could change in the future with new data". Simple as that.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

archeologists don't study evolution or hominids.

thank you for correcting me .

 

[Hvizsgyak]

From Amasci:

There is no single list called "The Scientific Method." It is a myth.

The rules of a science-fair typically require that students follow THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, or in other words, hypothesis-experiment-conclusion. The students must propose a hypothesis and test it by experiment. This supposedly is the "Scientific Method" used by all scientists. Supposedly, if you don't follow the rigidly defined "Scientific Method" listed in K-6 textbooks, then you're not doing science. (Some science fairs even ban astronomy and paleontology projects. After all, where's the "experiment" in these?)

Unfortunately this is wrong, and there is no single "Scientific Method" as such. Scientists don't follow a rigid procedure-list called "The Scientific Method" in their daily work. The procedure-list is a myth spread by K-6 texts. It is an extremely widespread myth, and even some scientists have been taken in by it, but this doesn't make it any more real. "The Scientific Method" is part of school and school books, and is not how science in general is done. Real scientists use a large variety of methods (perhaps call them methods of science rather than "The Scientific Method.") Hypothesis / experiment / conclusion is one of these, and it's very important in experimental science such as physics and chemistry, but it's certainly not the only method. It would be a mistake to elevate it above all others. We shouldn't force children to memorize any such procedure list. And we shouldn't use it to exclude certain types of projects from science fairs! If "The Scientific Method" listed in a grade school textbook proves that Astronomy is not a science, then it's the textbook which is wrong, not Astronomy.

"Ask a scientist what he conceives the scientific method to be and he adopts an expression that is at once solemn and shifty-eyed: solemn, because he feels he ought to declare an opinion; shifty-eyed because he is wondering how to conceal the fact that he has no opinion to declare." - Sir Peter Medawar

There are many parts of science that cannot easily be forced into the mold of "hypothesis-experiment-conclusion." Astronomy is not an experimental science, and Paleontologists don't perform Paleontology experiments... so is it not proper Science if you study stars or classify extinct creatures?


Or, if a scientist has a good idea for designing a brand new kind of measurement instrument (e.g. Newton and the reflecting telescope) ...that certainly is "doing science." Humphrey Davy says "Nothing tends so much to the advancement of knowledge as the application of a new instrument." But where is The Hypothesis? Where is The Experiment? The Atomic Force Microscope (STM/AFM) revolutionized science. Yet if a student invented the very first reflector telescope or the very first AFM, wouldn't such a device be rejected from many school science fairs? After all, it's not an experiment, and the lists called "Scientific Method" say nothing about exploratory observation. Some science teachers would reject the STM as science; calling it 'mere engineering,' yet like the Newtonian reflector, the tunneling microscope is a revolution that opened up an entire new branch of science. Since it's instrument-inventing, not hypothesis-testing, should we exclude it as science? Were the creators of the STM not doing science when they came up with that device? In defining Science, the Nobel prize committee disagrees with the science teachers and science fair judges. The researchers who created the STM won the 1986 Nobel prize in physics. I'd say that if someone wins a Nobel prize in physics, it's a good bet that their work qualifies as "science."

Forcing kids to follow a caricature of scientific research distorts science, and it really isn't necessary in the first place.

Another example: great discoveries often come about when scientists notice anomalies. They see something inexplicable during older research, and that triggers some new research. Or sometimes they notice something weird out in Nature; something not covered by modern theory. Isaac Asimov said it well:
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny...' "

This suggests that lots of important science comes NOT from proposing hypotheses or even from performing experiments, but instead comes from unguided observation and curiosity-driven exploration: from sniffing about while learning to see what nobody else can see. Scientific discovery comes from something resembling "informed messing around," or unguided play. Yet the "Scientific Method" listed in textbooks says nothing about this, their lists start out with "form a hypothesis." As a result, educators treat science as deadly serious business, and "messing around" is sometimes dealt with harshly.

Tough crowd tonight; they don't want to hear anything.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What we get (the general public) is "this is what happened" (the law of the land, don't question it) then 5 to 10 years late we get "no, this is what happened (the new law of the land, don't question it). Could these scientists try to be a little bit humbler and say, "with the data we have, this is what we believed happened; this could change in the future with new data". Simple as that.

But if you took the time and effort to read the actual scientific literature of what you're criticising, you'll see that scientists DO treat everything conditionally. It's full of "with the data we have, this what we believe happened; this could change at a later date".

Your entire argument is baseless because what you want science to do... it already does.

 

[BCP1928]

Could these scientists try to be a little bit humbler and say, "with the data we have, this is what we believed happened; this could change in the future with new data". Simple as that.

That is the fundamental epistemological principle of all science.

 

[BCP1928]

I agree that God, being supernatural, is not directly observable or testable like a chemical reaction in a lab. But that doesn’t mean there’s no evidence for God; it just means the type of evidence is different. We often infer the existence of something not because we see it directly, but because we see its effects.
For example, we’ve never seen the wind or gravity directly, but we see what they do. Similarly, we’ve never observed anyone creating the universe, but we do observe cause and effect, order, complexity, and information, things that consistently point to an intelligent source.
In fact, this kind of reasoning is consistent with the scientific method:

• A building points to a builder.
• A painting points to a painter.
• Code points to a programmer.
• And complex, information-rich biological systems point to design.
• A creation points to a creator

These are observations we can test, repeat, and verify in every other realm of life. It’s only when it comes to origins that people set those principles aside and say, “No, this must have come about without any intelligence involved.”

Not "must have." The best you get is "likely did, in the absence of evidence to the contrary."

So, the issue isn’t that there’s no evidence for God, the issue is how that evidence is interpreted. If someone’s worldview rules out the supernatural before even looking at the data, then of course they won’t “see” God in the evidence. But that’s not a scientific conclusion, that’s a philosophical starting point.

Who does that?

WOW. I am still back on page 4 in this thread and I just noticed that it is already up to page 8. I give up. LOL

 

[AV1611VET]

But if you took the time and effort to read the actual scientific literature of what you're criticising, you'll see that scientists DO treat everything conditionally. It's full of "with the data we have, this what we believe happened; this could change at a later date".

If scientists would have pulled that "everything is conditional; this is what we believe happened and could change later" nonsense, the Butler Act would probably still be in effect.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If scientists would have pulled that "everything is conditional; this is what we believe happened and could change later" nonsense, the Butler Act would probably still be in effect.

Do you mean the British Butler Act of 1944?

ETA: No, of course you're talking about the Butler Act of 1925 that prohibited the teaching of evolution in Tennesse.

 

[Bradskii]

The cartoon sums it up perfectly. This isn't a discussion. Any facts and figures presented are utterly worthless. Arguing any given point is similarly a worthless exercise because the arguments are not made in good faith. I'll repeat that: The arguments are not made in good faith.

Unsubscribing from the thread.

 

[AV1611VET]

ETA: ... you're talking about the Butler Act of 1925 that prohibited the teaching of evolution in Tennesse.

Correctamundo!

 

[AV1611VET]

The cartoon sums it up perfectly. This isn't a discussion. Any facts and figures presented are utterly worthless. Arguing any given point is similarly a worthless exercise because the arguments are not made in good faith. I'll repeat that: The arguments are not made in good faith.

Unsubscribing from the thread.

Before you go, let me answer for that kid under the CREATIONIST METHOD side:

"None ... science can take a hike."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Correctamundo!

... pray explain how scientific honesty on the condional nature of science would have allowed evolution to not be taught in schools in the state of Tennessee after 1925.

 

[AV1611VET]

... pray explain how scientific honesty on the condional nature of science would have allowed evolution to not be taught in schools in the state of Tennessee after 1925.

In my opinion, public opinion would have remained strong in favor of the Butler Act, if those arguing against it were being wishy-washy about it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

In my opinion, public opinion would have remained strong in favor of the Butler Act, if those arguing against it were being wishy-washy about it.

And your opinion is duly noted and discarded.
It's sad that you see intellectual honesty as a negative, but it's oh so telling.