Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (2)

[SkyWriting]

Evolution is already proven.

And it has taken humans 16 000 to come up with your dog.

Only 100 years for mine.
And assuming if was 16,000. Hardly time for 3 good random mutations to show up. Maybe a longer eyelash or something.

 

[SkyWriting]

in science, outside of mathematics, you cannot proof a theory. other then that, there is nothing quite as boring as preforming a experiment that serves only to add more evidence to the mountain that we already have. if you can disproof evolution, that is stuf that would be wildly exciting and something you can build your career out of.

the only people that want more evidence are not going to believe the evidence anyway because they base their disbelieve on religious grounds and have no interest in changing their mind. So there really isn't much of a reason.

Actually there is good reason. To be able to confirm macroevolution in a lab setting by moving the fruit fly into the category of a new species. I'm not saying that "species" is anything other than a human constructed definition, but even getting that far would be a first.

Being a biological first is not a good reason?
Well, I say it'll do.
But thanks for defending (what I call) an indefensible position.

 

[Jnwaco]

the only people that want more evidence [of God] are not going to believe the evidence anyway because they base their disbelieve on religious grounds and have no interest in changing their mind. So there really isn't much of a reason.

Works both ways.

 

[SkyWriting]

I don't think you understand what mutations are in regards to evolutionary theory. They are not necessarily large-scale alterations that give something like out of Total Recall. A mutation may merely be a slightly shorter snout on your dog (or longer) that is selected for. It depends on the breed.

Regardless, your dog was "created" in about 100 years through selection, the underlying process of evolution. That it was directed by man rather than nature is pretty much irrelevant to the process itself.

True. It's the time scale that's relevant, ruling out random mutation altogether and proving that natural variation already present in the DNA is the mechanism for evolution.

The fruit fly experiments adding data that there are real constraints in how far mutations can go in biological systems.

 

[SkyWriting]

Evolution is one of the best supported theories in science.

When I searched for the best books on evolution I found about 100, the majority by 5 authors. Searching for Zombie movies I found 500 by about 500 authors. So the "People become Zombies theory" is better supported.

 

[Skaloop]

The fruit fly experiments adding data that there are real constraints in how far mutations can go in biological systems.

What are those constraints? What mechanisms are at work to have such constraints in place? How far can mutations go in biological systems before encountering these constraints? How do these constraints limit the effects of accumulated mutations in biological systems?

You mentioned species in a previous post. Have you ever studied this list of observed speciation events

 

[Skaloop]

When I searched for the best books on evolution I found about 100, the majority by 5 authors. Searching for Zombie movies I found 500 by about 500 authors. So the "People become Zombies theory" is better supported.

Wow. I thought I had already seen the weakest, most absurd anti-evolution argument on these boards. Then you come along and lower the bar even more.

 

[Jnwaco]

You know, if evolution was the mechanism God used to create man, atheists would be out of arguments really fast.

 

[SkyWriting]

Source? Fruit flies have already been speciated dozens of times. If you think we're trying to change them from one thing into another, pre-determined thing, you severely misunderstand what they're actually doing, and how evolution works.

I KNOW they are not trying to prove a new species can be created by mutating one species into another.
That would be conclusive evidence because it would be a repeatable experiment.
Then people all over the world could create parallel experiments that get similar results.
Then it could be proven that random evolution could spontaneously create the same type of mutations in different places so that species that depended on other species to survive would have double the chance to succeed under differing environment conditions.
Then you could experiment on how environmental pressures direct mutations and create the pressure to form new species that are more advanced
than the previous generation.
Then every child in America could experiment with fruit flies and mutations in laboratory settings and watch evolution at work.
We wouldn't want that to happen.
They should just stick to what they are doing.
I'm with you on this one.

 

[Skaloop]

You know, if evolution was the mechanism God used to create man, atheists would be out of arguments really fast.

If that could be shown conclusively, then yup. They'd still have been right about evolution, though (except for the few atheists who reject it).

Conversely, it it could be shown conclusively tht evolution is a wholly natural mechanism, Creationists/IDists/YECers would be out of arguments really fast, too.

Unfortunately, God using evolution to create man has not been conclusively shown, so we have a plethora of arguments.

 

[Jnwaco]

If that could be shown conclusively, then yup. They'd still have been right about evolution, though (except for the few atheists who reject it).

Conversely, it it could be shown conclusively tht evolution is a wholly natural mechanism, Creationists/IDists/YECers would be out of arguments really fast, too.

Unfortunately, God using evolution to create man has not been conclusively shown, so we have a plethora of arguments.

The problem is, your standard of "conclusive" is set at a level science doesn't even itself claim. So that's the first problem.

Secondly, there are other arguments for God than what the Creationists/IDists/YECers and atheists tend to discuss on web sites.

 

[Skaloop]

The problem is, your standard of "conclusive" is set at a level science doesn't even itself claim. So that's the first problem.

But you don't know my standard of conclusive. I accept evolution, gravity, the age of the Earth, all sorts of other science because I accept that they have been conclusively demonstated. So clearly my standard is not beyond science.

Secondly, there are other arguments for God than what the Creationists/IDists/YECers and atheists tend to discuss on web sites.

Oh, I know, that's why I said Creationists/IDists/YECers rather than theists or Christians. I wasn't talking about arguments for/against god, but rather their arguments against evolution.

 

[Jnwaco]

But you don't know my standard of conclusive.I accept evolution, gravity, the age of the Earth, all sorts of other science because I accept that they have been conclusively demonstated. So clearly my standard is not beyond science.

That's true, I don't know your standard of conclusive. Everyone has their own standard and it's personal. That's fine.

But, if science won't tell us, and you're interested in the question, then you'd have to arrive at God through another line of reasoning. Otherwise we and everyone else debating this or that scientific implication could be just spinning their wheels.

Oh, I know, that's why I said Creationists/IDists/YECers rather than theists or Christians. I wasn't talking about arguments for/against god, but rather their arguments against evolution.

Fair enough.

 

[Skaloop]

But, if science won't tell us, and you're interested in the question, then you'd have to arrive at God through another line of reasoning. Otherwise we and everyone else debating this or that scientific implication could be just spinning their wheels.

But I believe that science can and does tell us about the existence of god, namely that he doesn't exist. And for me, it's pretty conclusive, depending on just how one defines god. Strict Biblical literalism - conclusive non-existence. Vague, general deism - not conclusive either way, so I stick with the null.

Arriving at God must come from another line of reasoning, and to get the specific God of Christianity, that entire line of reasoning is pretty much the Bible and accepting its veracity. I also think science can address that veracity.

I'd be happy to discuss the scientific nature of my lack of belief in god's existence. Most of it boils down to things that we would expect to see if God existed, but don't.

 

[Jnwaco]

But I believe that science can and does tell us about the existence of god, namely that he doesn't exist.

Okay then, prove it. Isn't that the standard line? Most scientists and even published atheists admit that science doesn't prove any such thing. It's what atheists tell themselves to feel more secure in the conclusion.

And for me, it's pretty conclusive, depending on just how one defines god. Strict Biblical literalism - conclusive non-existence. Vague, general deism - not conclusive either way, so I stick with the null.

Arriving at God must come from another line of reasoning, and to get the specific God of Christianity, that entire line of reasoning is pretty much the Bible and accepting its veracity. I also think science can address that veracity.

I'd be happy to discuss the scientific nature of my lack of belief in god's existence. Most of it boils down to things that we would expect to see if God existed, but don't.

I doubt that would produce any logical truth.

 

[Doveaman]

I'd be happy to discuss the scientific nature of my lack of belief in god's existence. Most of it boils down to things that we would expect to see if God existed, but don't.

And what exactly would we expect to see if God existed, but don't? World peace? The end to all human suffering? A single unified religion? Better science? No Atheists?

 

[AV1611VET]

I wasn't talking about arguments for/against god, but rather their arguments against evolution.

1

 

[Skaloop]

And what exactly would we expect to see if God existed, but don't? World peace? The end to all human suffering? A single unified religion? Better science? No Atheists?

Christians to have a statistically higher rate of spontaneous remission from cancer than non-Christians, due to increased prayer for same.

Nuns statistically less likely to be killed in automobile accidents.

Of course, those are based on a specific god-concept, namely one that answers prayers (not all, but some), favours his followers, and intervenes in Earthly situations (especially for the more devout). Certain Christians contend that their God does these things, and the statistics could demonstrate that.

It's not to say that all Christians suddenly become cancer-free, or that all nuns survive car crashes. But if God is intervening at all, it should show up statisitcally.

Again, though, that depends on which god-concept you want to use.

Nor is it meant as proof that god does not exist. But it certainly doesn't suggest that he does.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I did refute it. You used fallacious logic (namely a tautology).

Where? You claimed my argument boiled down to "We're here, so X must be true. It's a tautology. You're answering the question "how did we get here with an infinite past" by saying "we're here".", but as I stated in the next post, that is not my argument at all. My point is that the problem of 'how did we get to now?' doesn't make sense, because a) 'now' is wherever it is we happen to be, and b) we don't 'get here', because that implies an origin point, which doesn't exist in this hypothetical, eternal universe.

Think of it this way: if the universe is eternal, then an infinite amount of time has elapsed before 'now'. The problem of who we could have traversed an infinite distance with finite steps is solved: we have an infinite number of finite steps.

The conditioned present can only arise when it's conditions are complete.

The 'present' is a volume in 4D spacetime, nothing more.

If the conditions are infinite, they can never be complete.

Why not?

 

[Skaloop]

Okay then, prove it.

I'm not trying to prove it. I'm merely describing one reason for my personal lack of belief.

Isn't that the standard line? Most scientists and even published atheists admit that science doesn't prove any such thing. It's what atheists tell themselves to feel more secure in the conclusion.

Actually, I think it perhaps might have more to do with political correctness and not wanting to appear as though one is disrespecting religious beliefs.