Natural selection v Intelligent design

[paulm50]

Speaking of scientific discoveries, they lead me to understand the way things currently work. For example, the laws of thermodynamics, how cells go through mitosis, and the difference between plant cells and animal cells... and so on.
They don't lead me to make claims about what actually happened 4 billions years ago. For that reason, we shouldn't make claims as to what actually happened 4 billion years ago citing that modern science supports naturalism, because no scientific data have been brought forth making the positive claim that naturalism is true. Any such claims are based in faith, and you and I are free to say what we believe. So atheists should stop thinking that science is actually trying to further prove naturalism when it's not, because science isn't concerned with disproving God OR proving naturalism.

Can we make claims of what happened a billion years ago, or 500 million years ago?

As for claims we make, which one of us is qualified to, with their own research? All we can do is link to credible scientists research.

Science is way past proving how Nature formed the species.

Science isn't interested in proving god, all it has done is disproved the Genesis Version.

 

[Near]

There is no bickering, because one side says it doesn't know what created the Big Bang and the other says everything was created 6,000 years ago.

It's not as simple as you describe. The views held by theists differ widely on the age of the universe. There are several interpretations of Genesis that allow for a universe far older than 6,000. Furthermore, I again say the God created the universe based on faith, not science. As for the naturalist he also makes the claim that there is no God, based on faith, not science.
A question for you: was that supposed to be an objection to my claim? I've read it twice, and it doesn't seem to be in conflict with what I said apart from your oversimplification of the scenario.

The established proof all points to evolution via natural selection. No evidence points to a god designer.
Not a jot points to the Genesis version and a mountain of evidence points out where it's wrong.

Yes, evolution via natural selection indeed. Not God.
I was taught that in highschool, most of the other christian kids I knew were taught that too.
I affirm evolution through natural selection, and theism,
Natural selection and evolution have no beef with theism.
The established proof however, does not point to evolution via natural selection VIA naturalism.

By the way, I'm still waiting on a single link to a research paper detailing how scientists have proven evolution via natural selection via naturalism.

 

[Larniavc]

and that indeed God can be said to be proven to exist through empirical means

Please provide this evidence for the empirical evidence supporting the God hypothesis.

Stove says that natural selection, which wipes out those incapable of surviving for whatever reason (like weakness, disease etc etc) should, if it was genuinely working, wipe out the females and the young.

That is correct and entirely logical.

Stove also says that women are intellectually inferior to women.

The Intellectual Capacity of Women (1990).

 

[paulm50]

Now let's argue the case on its merits.

Stove says that natural selection, which wipes out those incapable of surviving for whatever reason (like weakness, disease etc etc) should, if it was genuinely working, wipe out the females and the young.

That is correct and entirely logical.

Therefore, natural selection is a nonsense, and so is evolution which depends on it.

Therefore, evolution cannot take place, since no species could last for more than one generation.

How about that?

OK Stove has it wrong. Evolution doesn't wipe out everything in one single swipe.

An Asteroid hits the Earth and causes a mass extinction, that mass not total. Small dinosaurs survived and evolved into birds. Small mammals survived and evolved into all the mammals we have now and more that died out. Along with them are others, like crocodiles, fish and sharks, etc.

The planet over millions of years recovered and other species dominated. Terror Birds and Megafauna, until a change in the Earth's climate. America was the home of the Sabre Tooth tiger and Dire Wolf, they fed on the large prey, that fed on the lush grasslands. Lush grasslands disappear, large prey disappears, Sabre Tooth tiger and Dire Wolf disappear. Allowing the Mountain Lion and Grey Wolf to rise.

Just a tiny look into a subject that overwhelmingly proves how we got here.

As for the god theory, which god is that because it's not the one in Genesis. To question that version and offer another one. Shows it's wrong.

 

[Near]

Can we make claims of what happened a billion years ago, or 500 million years ago?

As for claims we make, which one of us is qualified to, with their own research? All we can do is link to credible scientists research.

Science is way past proving how Nature formed the species.

Science isn't interested in proving god, all it has done is disproved the Genesis Version.

You're showing your temporal chauvinism. What makes you think current science has the final word on the matter?

Why think current science should be exalted over final science, the end of inquiry?

If you think we've reached the end of inquiry on how the species actually came to be you've become quite dogmatic.

I for one think that there is still room for inquiry. Furthermore, which research papers are you aware of that have disproved Genesis, and what interpretations have those so-called scientists disproved exactly, since there are many interpretations of Genesis? Did they actually go through all of the interpretations of Genesis? Did they consider the "coded" interpretation as well? I'm really sitting in my seat with anticipation for a link to this exhaustive refutation to Genesis!

 

[Larniavc]

I'm really sitting in my seat with anticipation for a link to this exhaustive refutation to Genesis

Easily done. Genesis tells us that there was earth and water before light. But cosmology tells us that the elements that constitute water (for example) simply did not exist and there was a quark-gluon plasma, instead.

 

[paulm50]

It's not as simple as you describe. The views held by theists differ widely on the age of the universe. There are several interpretations of Genesis that allow for a universe far older than 6,000. Furthermore, I again say the God created the universe based on faith, not science. As for the naturalist he also makes the claim that there is no God, based on faith, not science.
A question for you: was that supposed to be an objection to my claim? I've read it twice, and it doesn't seem to be in conflict with what I said apart from your oversimplification of the scenario.

Once science proves how the Big Bang happened, you will have to fall back to believe what created, what created the Big Bans was a god. Moving further away from the bible.

Yes, evolution via natural selection indeed. Not God.
I was taught that in highschool, most of the other christian kids I knew were taught that too.
I affirm evolution through natural selection, and theism,
Natural selection and evolution have no beef with theism.
The established proof however, does not point to evolution via natural selection VIA naturalism.

The established proof does point to evolution via natural selection. It was also guided by cataclysmic events and changes in the Earth's environment. One has to factor that in.

By the way, I'm still waiting on a single link to a research paper detailing how scientists have proven evolution via natural selection via naturalism.

There are mountains of evidence, Google it.

Naturalism noun
1. (in art and literature) a style and theory of representation based on the accurate depiction of detail.
"his attack on naturalism in TV drama"
2. the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.
"this romanticized attitude to the world did conflict with his avowed naturalism"

 

[Asyncritus]

Your approach to how Natural Selection works is wrong, it exposes a real lack of knowledge.

Assertions prove nothing. I have (and so has David Stove) presented the facts governing the case.

It's up to you to show us how he could be wrong.

We're waiting.....

 

[paulm50]

You're showing your temporal chauvinism. What makes you think current science has the final word on the matter?

Why think current science should be exalted over final science, the end of inquiry?

If you think we've reached the end of inquiry on how the species actually came to be you've become quite dogmatic.

I for one think that there is still room for inquiry. Furthermore, which research papers are you aware of that have disproved Genesis, and what interpretations have those so-called scientists disproved exactly, since there are many interpretations of Genesis? Did they actually go through all of the interpretations of Genesis? Did they consider the "coded" interpretation as well? I'm really sitting in my seat with anticipation for a link to this exhaustive refutation to Genesis!

Science never thinks it's reached the end. Are you hoping there will be a 180 degree turn and everything discovered so far will be proved wrong?

Every research paper. Google them. This is no longer a level debate, we have all the bones, remains, fossils, DNA and more to prove Genesis is wrong. It's your job to link to overwhelming evidence Genesis is right, and not to claim it wasn't written correctly, or god didn't tell them properly.

Because to acknowledge science and change the story, leaves the story behind. That's the problem blind faith has, it's stuck in a box of it's own making. Read it and see the problem.

 

[paulm50]

Assertions prove nothing. I have (and so has David Stove) presented the facts governing the case.

It's up to you to show us how he could be wrong.

We're waiting.....

How Natural Selection works. Is that enough for you?

 

[dgiharris]

...Furthermore, I again say the God created the universe based on faith, not science.

My thoughts on God creating the universe are fairly simple. When you are all powerful and can do whatever you want, you don't think about the how, you just do "it". You snap your fingers and voila, your will is done.

Think of when you get up to turn the TV on... Do you think about your heart beating, your lungs drawing in air, your kidney's processing waste, your liver filtering the blood???? No. Those things are part of you and not worthy of thought. Those processes just are. They are natural subsets of you.

I submit that the physical processes of the universe (gravity, energy, mass,time, etc) are like the unconscious processes of God. He no more thinks about these things than we think about our pancreas creating insulin or our hair growing.

When God wants something done, it just gets done. The entire order of the universe rearranges itself to do whatever God wills. Now enter science. Science merely seeks to explain "how" the universe works. Science is not anything God chooses, it's not like God has to decide whether to do something based on faith or something based on science. No. God just is, and God just does.

If God decided that all humans should have the ability to travel back and forth through time, then the entire structure of the universe and physical laws would change to enable this ability. Mathematics and physics would change and then we'd have an entirely new universe with new physical and mathematical laws that would facilitate time travel. In fact, in this universe the notion of linear time would be non-existent. And "science" would again have the same role, and its role would be explaining "how" the universe works.

Basically, my point is that any action God takes, science would back it up simply because anything god does would have a logical explanation behind it because God's actions automatically creates the logic to empower said action. It is the ultimate axiomatic circular reference (if that makes any sense).

 

[dgiharris]

....Basically, my point is that any action God takes, science would back it up simply because anything god does would have a logical explanation behind it because God's actions automatically creates the logic to empower said action. It is the ultimate axiomatic circular reference (if that makes any sense).

So, applying the above to the argument of natural selection and evolution.

God wanted to create us, and evolution is merely the process that facilitated his will. When you are all powerful and outside of time and space, you don't care if a process takes one second or one billion years. You want to create sentient beings, your will be done and voila... humans come to be.

I don't understand why creationists have a problem with evolution and natural selection. It is almost as if they feel that evolution somehow negates God. That unless humans were created by a process that is unexplainable by science, then God doesn't exist? It's like they need God to be a genie, they need God to prove he is God by doing something that is counter to our understanding of the Universe.

But that doesn't make any sense to me. If God created this universe and if this universe is one that adheres to logic and mathematics, then wouldn't everything that God wanted to be done be done according to the rules of the universe he created?

Or put another way, imagine you are God. You create a universe. Why would you ever create a universe that would not allow you to do whatever it is that you wanted to do?

 

[paulm50]

When God wants something done, it just gets done.

No.

When god wants something done, he often gets men to do it for him. Or are all those men from 10,000 BC and before doing god's work or just saying it was god's work?

From building the first stone circles, which were longer than 12,000 years ago. Some have claimed this is what god wants, or demands. Which raise big questions.

A god powerful enough to create the Universe, doesn't need mere mortals to walk people out of Egypt, wouldn't need Noah to build an Ark, he would create one, and so on. The list is endless.

Would the one god, capable of creating a Universe, choose a small tribe of goat herders to carry his message, send his son to a community suffering under the heel of the Romans, or send him to Rome to convert the power brokers? That was where Christianity was picked up and kicked up the ladder and controlled from tor 1600 years and the RC still commands a huge following.

I don't understand why creationists have a problem with evolution and natural selection. It is almost as if they feel that evolution somehow negates God. That unless humans were created by a process that is unexplainable by science, then God doesn't exist? It's like they need God to be a genie, they need God to prove he is God by doing something that is counter to our understanding of the Universe.

They need their miracle like the RC needs its Saints.

The bible writers believed in Genies and witchcraft.

 

[Asyncritus]

Please provide this evidence for the empirical evidence supporting the God hypothesis.


Stove also says that women are intellectually inferior to women.

The Intellectual Capacity of Women (1990).

I haven't read that one. But the natural selection one is monumental in its demonstration of the sheer stupidity of the idea (and he presents a large number of examples from the human species to prove it) that natural selection could allow anything to survive for more than one generation.

That is an incontrovertible fact, and does irreparable damage to evolution theory.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes, the same can be said about the bible.
You can rely on "evidence", and so can I. However, when you're referring to evidence, it isn't clear to me that the data behind the so-called evidence, necessarily supports your world-view.
Scientific data presented these doesn't lead me to believe that there is no God.

I believe in God, not as the result of modern science, because of his grace (if my faith is in what is true); he's led my on the path of faith. If God doesn't exist, well it's merely been my upbringing, and environment which has led me to my belief.

You keep referring to some sort of battle between faith and science, and God and Nature, but I see no reason to view it as a competition. I can observe the same evidence you refer to (which you haven't really described), and I can believe in God too, without contradiction.

You don't have faith in God because you weren't led down that path, whether it's because God didn't give his saving grace to you, or that your upbringing and other factors present in your life led you to your current state.
Belief in God isn't based on proof; there are plenty of arguments for God's existence but they're not going to make anyone believe anything. They're more like models which may or may not be true, atheists dismiss theological arguments all the time.

As for Genesis, it provides a model of how we came about. The same is true for non-religious models. Abiogenesis, where's the proof that it actually came about. I'll grant that it's somehow possible, but did it actually occur? I don't have scientific data available to say that I know how things came to be.
You can either believe it, or disbelieve it. There is no overwhelming proof that God doesn't exist.

There's a bit of tension in what you've written here. First, you say that there is no conflict between faith and science, but then you introduce Genesis as a model of how we came about. If the model given in Genesis is contrary to what we observe, then that would be a point of conflict. You later alluded to an even deeper problem, which is that Genesis doesn't provide a single model; there are as many Genesis models as there are interpretations of Genesis. If any one of these models is falsified, the believer can simply reinterpret the text and shift to another model.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

SActually, I'm not offering an argument when I say God created the world. I'm sharing my faith. Likewise when an atheist says God did not create the universe, he's making a faith-based claim, not a scientific one.

No faith is needed to reject a claim for which there is no good evidence.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That's why a christian microbiologist and an atheist microbiologist can work together and produce results. There's no bickering about whether or not God is the ultimate source of the universe, or if there is no God. It's a discussion outside of science. It's a discussion in Metaphysics.

There is no bickering because the Christian doesn't bring his or her faith into the lab.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You're showing your temporal chauvinism. What makes you think current science has the final word on the matter?

Why think current science should be exalted over final science, the end of inquiry?

If you think we've reached the end of inquiry on how the species actually came to be you've become quite dogmatic.

I for one think that there is still room for inquiry. Furthermore, which research papers are you aware of that have disproved Genesis, and what interpretations have those so-called scientists disproved exactly, since there are many interpretations of Genesis? Did they actually go through all of the interpretations of Genesis? Did they consider the "coded" interpretation as well? I'm really sitting in my seat with anticipation for a link to this exhaustive refutation to Genesis!

A literal interpretation of Genesis isn't reconcilable with what we now know. There are other interpretations, but many of them are so vague as to be unfalsifiable, or they require creative interpretation to be reconciled with scientific discovery. We are better off considering Genesis a creation myth and moving on.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It's not as simple as you describe. The views held by theists differ widely on the age of the universe. There are several interpretations of Genesis that allow for a universe far older than 6,000. Furthermore, I again say the God created the universe based on faith, not science. As for the naturalist he also makes the claim that there is no God, based on faith, not science.

The burden of proof is on the theist. No faith is required to reject a claim for which there is no good evidence.

 

[KCfromNC]

To know there is no God one would have to know and experience all things, because God could be within an area that they do not know or in which they have not experienced.

This renders monotheism unknowable, then, since you'd have to search everywhere to be sure that there's only one god. Anyone who claims to know anything about a god must be wrong, at least if you accept the unstated premise here that any claim to knowledge requires omniscience.

But luckily this reliance on 100% absolute airtight proof isn't what we mean by knowledge, so the whole thing is based on a false premise.

Why do people who are trying to promote their religious belief need to change the normal meanings of words to try and find spaces to slip their gods into reality?