Natural selection v Intelligent design

[KCfromNC]

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.

Then Stove doesn't have any idea what natural selection actually is.

 

[KCfromNC]

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?

Well, we actually have evidence to support current science. Your "final science, the end of inquiry" seems to be something you've made up as a rhetorical trick. Reasonable people should prefer the former, if simply because it exists here in reality.

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!

The nice thing about not pretending that religious poetry from 5000 years ago is science is that we can totally ignore questions such as this when doing real science.

 

[KCfromNC]

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

Can you quote 10 biologists who Stove has used as his basis for thinking that biologists teach that women are inherently inferior to men? You claim there are facts, but I find that people who claim there are facts are often the least prepared to actually present those claimed facts when asked.

 

[Larniavc]

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.

You have asserted your position but have not supported it.

Please provide the evidence to support natural selection being deadly in one generation.

All the best.

 

[Larniavc]

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).

If this true than anything we learn has the potential to change at any given time.

Yet it doesn't.

 

[paulm50]

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.

You should read more about him. His take on Natural Selection and Darwinism starts out wrong, continues on the wrong course and ends nowhere.

One does not directly observe chance genetic variations leading to the development of new species, or even continuous variations in the fossil record, but must rely on subtle arguments to the best explanation, scaling up from varieties to species, and so on.​

No one doesn't observe chance genetic variations leading to the development of new species, that's not how evolution works.

One does observe continuous variations in the fossil record. Making it easy to see the scaling up, or down of species, and so on. The later the species, the more variations we see leading to the goal, or extinction when a new sub species grows.

 

[stevevw]

Actually, he did. He spent years collecting the evidence. In any case, it has been over 150 years since Darwin published his seminal work. Since then, multiple parallel lines of evidence have provided further support to evolution. The theory is so well established that it is considered foundational to contemporary biology.

That doesn't make sense. Darwin didn't have access to the type of evidence we have today such as the genetic evidence which will give us a more accurate picture. It was mostly based on observational evidence and we know from experience that this is unreliable. Darwin stated that evolution had to show the gradual transitions of one creature to another in a sort of blending of all animals. He also stated that he couldn't prove that because there wasn't enough evidence at that point and there were gaps in the fossil records. He was sure that the fossil record would come up with more evidence as time went by.

So there wasn't emphatic evidence for evolution them. It was based on assumption. This is also shown by the fact that Dobransky the father of the modern synthesis of evolution pushed to allow the assumption that macro evolution was the same as micro evolution over a long period of time even though it had never been observed,tested and verified.

Please define "kind" and tell us what we should expect to see if a new "kind" of animal were to evolve.

This always comes up. I guess you could say its like species. But even species is ambiguous. There can be a few different meanings to what a species is. But generally the animals cant breed and there are limitations to how far you can change their genetic makeups for adding variations. But also for morphological purposes a species isn't always a good example. There can be may species of bats for example according to evolution but all those bats will still look the same. So I would call all those bats a kind of animal.

The only reason they are called species with evolution is because the different groups of bats have been isolated from each other and cannot mate any more to produce fertile offspring's. But those differences dont mean that the bat is going to continue to become different to the point that it becomes a lizard or whatever it becomes.

Those cases that you call "variations within a kind" are exemplary of evolution. The theory does not predict a crocoduck, which is what creationists seem to expect of evolution. I recommend watching Aron Ra's brilliant Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism series. Specifically, the 11th episode in the series, which focuses on macroevolution.

Darwin call the different species we see in a kind just the vast variation of the same kind originally. So even though some couldn't mate with each other anymore they were all still seen as the same kind of animal with a lot of variations. And thats what it really is. Because there are limits to evolution where the genetic changes come to a point where they cannot go any further the changes or variations stay within the boundaries of that kinds gene pool. They cant take on new genetic info and ability that wasn't there in the first place. That is what the tests have found and there's no support for one kind on animal evolving into a completely different kind.

In fact the animals genetics will weed out any mutation and try to set right any copying mistakes. Mutations are basically bad. Even a so called beneficial one comes with a cost to fitness and will not be selected in the end. The myth of mutations which are a harmful and a copying mistake of what is already good making something better is untrue. Evolutionists just want to use this process to build a theory that is based on a limited mechanism.

Until you define what you mean by "kind," this claim cannot be examined. If you mean that we haven't observed ducks hatching creatures that are half-duck half-crocodile, then you are right - no such observation has been made. But evolution doesn't predict such observations anyway, so the point is moot.

When you consider that a microbe has to become an amphibian which eventually will become a fish and then land creature ect then it is making amazing claims. A microbe doesn't have and never did have the genetic info and ability to create more complex body parts. Whether you want to say it happened in tiny steps or not it is still creating something that wasn't there in the first place. Evolution just wants to make it sound easier by breaking it down into small bit size pieces so it seems achievable. Then they add time and presto you have creation. Its just a world view of trying to take the credit for Gods creation by some naturalistic self making process that takes God out of the picture.

It has never been verified when you dig under the surface of their claims. Not only has it been disproved but other mechanisms have been shown to account for the variations we see in animals today. But the changes are mostly within a kind to allow them to adapt to their changing environments. But the environment can also have an influence on a creature. An animal can change their environment with changing themselves. There is epi- genetic influences and HGT as well. Creatures change by the relationships they have with each other and the environment. Then there's developmental evolution (evo-devo).

All these things were seen by evolution as minor side issues of the theory. But now they are seen as causes of how creatures can change and develop. There are too many contradictions and in-congruences with the story that evolution has made. Now we are finding out the truth through new discoveries. Like I said evolution has taken something thats true micro evolution and given it far to much creative power. They have mixed a truth with a lie.

The genetic info for life was there from the beginning and creatures are able to tap into this and turn on and off the genetics they need. We all have a similar blue print but will vary in what we need from it according to how we live and who we are. Some are calling for a new synthesis for evolution as the old ideas are becoming outdated.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
Charles Darwin conceived of evolution by natural selection without knowing that genes exist. Now mainstream evolutionary theory has come to focus almost exclusively on genetic inheritance and processes that change gene frequencies.

Yet new data pouring out of adjacent fields are starting to undermine this narrow stance. An alternative vision of evolution is beginning to crystallize, in which the processes by which organisms grow and develop are recognized as causes of evolution.
http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080

Interaction-based evolution: how natural selection and nonrandom mutation work together
The modern evolutionary synthesis leaves unresolved some of the most fundamental, long-standing questions in evolutionary biology: What is the role of sex in evolution? How does complex adaptation evolve? How can selection operate effectively on genetic interactions? More recently, the molecular biology and genomics revolutions have raised a host of critical new questions, through empirical findings that the modern synthesis fails to explain: for example, the discovery of de novo genes; the immense constructive role of transposable elements in evolution; genetic variance and biochemical activity that go far beyond what traditional natural selection can maintain; perplexing cases of molecular parallelism; and more.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4231362/

The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity
Abstract
The vast majority of biologists engaged in evolutionary studies interpret virtually every aspect of biodiversity in adaptive terms. This narrow view of evolution has become untenable in light of recent observations from genomic sequencing and population-genetic theory. Numerous aspects of genomic architecture, gene structure, and developmental pathways are difficult to explain without invoking the non adaptive forces of genetic drift and mutation. In addition, emergent biological features such as complexity, modularity, and evolvability, all of which are current targets of considerable speculation, may be nothing more than indirect by-products of processes operating at lower levels of organization. These issues are examined in the context of the view that the origins of many aspects of biological diversity, from gene-structural embellishments to novelties at the phenotypic level, have roots in non adaptive processes, with the population-genetic environment imposing strong directionality on the paths that are open to evolutionary exploitation.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full

 

[pshun2404]

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?

God may reveal Himself in different ways to different peoples and then cultures embellish! For example, the nameless one or eternal one of Taoism is not defined in personal terms but by observing nature Lao Tze comes to the conclusion there is one. The Hindus believe the one (Brahm) is manifest in many forms throughout time. In fact all we see is Him manifest. The Yaruba of Nigeria believes one God created and gave the care of creation over to a host of gods (governing spirits) who are now opposing one another. Others believed also in one God and attributed his power to the Sun. Native Americans believe the Great Spirit is IN all created things...

and NO, I have given no new meaning to commonly accepted terms...to know or experience was meant literally in my post and NO I was not demanding "100% absolute airtight proof" of anything (in fact my post implies you cannot have that).

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That doesn't make sense. Darwin didn't have access to the type of evidence we have today such as the genetic evidence which will give us a more accurate picture. It was mostly based on observational evidence and we know from experience that this is unreliable.

What aspect of Darwin's observations was unreliable and in what way?

Darwin stated that evolution had to show the gradual transitions of one creature to another in a sort of blending of all animals. He also stated that he couldn't prove that because there wasn't enough evidence at that point and there were gaps in the fossil records. He was sure that the fossil record would come up with more evidence as time went by.

And he was right: the gaps were filled with new discoveries.

So there wasn't emphatic evidence for evolution them. It was based on assumption.

No, that's not accurate. Darwin had evidence, which is why his work was taken seriously when it was eventually published.

This is also shown by the fact that Dobransky the father of the modern synthesis of evolution pushed to allow the assumption that macro evolution was the same as micro evolution over a long period of time even though it had never been observed,tested and verified.

But it has been observed, steve.

This always comes up. I guess you could say its like species. But even species is ambiguous. There can be a few different meanings to what a species is. But generally the animals cant breed and there are limitations to how far you can change their genetic makeups for adding variations. But also for morphological purposes a species isn't always a good example. There can be may species of bats for example according to evolution but all those bats will still look the same. So I would call all those bats a kind of animal.

The only reason they are called species with evolution is because the different groups of bats have been isolated from each other and cannot mate any more to produce fertile offspring's. But those differences dont mean that the bat is going to continue to become different to the point that it becomes a lizard or whatever it becomes.

You see, this is precisely why I keep urging you to pursue a free online course in evolutionary biology. This paragraph suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution.

Darwin call the different species we see in a kind just the vast variation of the same kind originally. So even though some couldn't mate with each other anymore they were all still seen as the same kind of animal with a lot of variations. And thats what it really is. Because there are limits to evolution where the genetic changes come to a point where they cannot go any further the changes or variations stay within the boundaries of that kinds gene pool. They cant take on new genetic info and ability that wasn't there in the first place. That is what the tests have found and there's no support for one kind on animal evolving into a completely different kind.

What would that look like? If you are expecting a crocoduck, or something of that nature, then you have not understood evolution properly. That appears to be the case here.

When you consider that a microbe has to become an amphibian which eventually will become a fish and then land creature ect then it is making amazing claims. A microbe doesn't have and never did have the genetic info and ability to create more complex body parts. Whether you want to say it happened in tiny steps or not it is still creating something that wasn't there in the first place. Evolution just wants to make it sound easier by breaking it down into small bit size pieces so it seems achievable. Then they add time and presto you have creation.

Evolution is descent with modification. There is no point in continuing until you grasp this definition.

All these things were seen by evolution as minor side issues of the theory. But now they are seen as causes of how creatures can change and develop. There are too many contradictions and in-congruences with the story that evolution has made. Now we are finding out the truth through new discoveries. Like I said evolution has taken something thats true micro evolution and given it far to much creative power. They have mixed a truth with a lie.

You don't appear to understand the fundamentals of evolution, so I don't think you are in a position to comment on the credibility of the theory.

 

[paulm50]

That doesn't make sense. Darwin didn't have access to the type of evidence we have today such as the genetic evidence which will give us a more accurate picture. It was mostly based on observational evidence and we know from experience that this is unreliable. Darwin stated that evolution had to show the gradual transitions of one creature to another in a sort of blending of all animals. He also stated that he couldn't prove that because there wasn't enough evidence at that point and there were gaps in the fossil records. He was sure that the fossil record would come up with more evidence as time went by.

Unlike the bible writers who had all the science.
Darwin's theory has been proven and proven again. Unlike Genesis, or the god theory.

So there wasn't emphatic evidence for evolution them. It was based on assumption. This is also shown by the fact that Dobransky the father of the modern synthesis of evolution pushed to allow the assumption that macro evolution was the same as micro evolution over a long period of time even though it had never been observed,tested and verified.
This always comes up. I guess you could say its like species. But even species is ambiguous. There can be a few different meanings to what a species is. But generally the animals cant breed and there are limitations to how far you can change their genetic makeups for adding variations. But also for morphological purposes a species isn't always a good example. There can be may species of bats for example according to evolution but all those bats will still look the same. So I would call all those bats a kind of animal.

Unlike the bible writers who had all the science.
Darwin's theory has been proven and proven again. Unlike Genesis, or the god theory.

The only reason they are called species with evolution is because the different groups of bats have been isolated from each other and cannot mate any more to produce fertile offspring's. But those differences dont mean that the bat is going to continue to become different to the point that it becomes a lizard or whatever it becomes.

No one claims a rodent will become a lizard.

Darwin call the different species we see in a kind just the vast variation of the same kind originally. So even though some couldn't mate with each other anymore they were all still seen as the same kind of animal with a lot of variations. And thats what it really is. Because there are limits to evolution where the genetic changes come to a point where they cannot go any further the changes or variations stay within the boundaries of that kinds gene pool. They cant take on new genetic info and ability that wasn't there in the first place. That is what the tests have found and there's no support for one kind on animal evolving into a completely different kind.

Which is why DNA is so close.

In fact the animals genetics will weed out any mutation and try to set right any copying mistakes. Mutations are basically bad. Even a so called beneficial one comes with a cost to fitness and will not be selected in the end. The myth of mutations which are a harmful and a copying mistake of what is already good making something better is untrue. Evolutionists just want to use this process to build a theory that is based on a limited mechanism.

Mutations die, evolution isn't mutations. Imagine traveling to China, one step a minute, this is the speed evolution works at.

When you consider that a microbe has to become an amphibian which eventually will become a fish and then land creature ect then it is making amazing claims. A microbe doesn't have and never did have the genetic info and ability to create more complex body parts. Whether you want to say it happened in tiny steps or not it is still creating something that wasn't there in the first place. Evolution just wants to make it sound easier by breaking it down into small bit size pieces so it seems achievable. Then they add time and presto you have creation. Its just a world view of trying to take the credit for Gods creation by some naturalistic self making process that takes God out of the picture.

Not claims, factual science.

You lack an understanding of the subject so stopping here.

So now prove god was involved, not be making false claims on what did work, couldn't. Show us proof god was involved. And that the Christian religion points out how.

Science is the first to admit it has got it wrong, in fact it's only scientists that point out their mistakes. Now with the same level of investigation prove god did it.

Two more specific predictions can now be raised. First, if long-term writing mechanisms participate in the creation of de novo genes, as stipulated by the present theory, then to some degree there may be molecular parallelism in the establishment of de novo genes even before the time that they first become transcribed or translated.

This problem can be sharpened by discussions of introns and of sex, because both are phenomena that, like TEs, and like an evolutionarily productive mutation rate, provide evolvability and thus need an explanation[16]. In his chapter of 1990 [16], Professor Doolittle provokingly writes that the existence of introns and the entire apparatus that allows for exon shuffling is in a sense more interesting than the entire part of the evolutionary process that traditional theory attempts to address. Rather than small quantitative changes, this apparatus allows for “quantum leaps” through the creation of new genes and enzymes. He then attempts to address this issue with high-level selection, but again admits that all that this selection can be expected to do is favor species that for one reason or another have lost fewer of their introns or have their introns positioned better in terms of their long-term usefulness through exon shuffling. However, the origin of the usefulness is not thus explained, and seems to be left to fortuitousness; and once we admit that the more important part of evolution is enabled fortuitously by the existence of a complex biological system, it is not clear how much of evolution is really explained or is explainable by the traditional theory anyhow.​

From the pages you link to.

Although those who promote the concept of the adaptive evolution of the above features are by no means intelligent-design advocates, the burden of evidence for invoking an all-powerful guiding hand of natural selection should be no less stringent than one would demand of a creationist. If evolutionary science is to move forward, the standards of the field should be set no lower than in any other area of inquiry.​

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full

So make your case for the god side.

 

[paulm50]

Science is a process of continual learning. Sometimes it goes back and admits it got it wrong, the article you link to are part of that process. They then correct, rebuild and advance.

Unlike religions, which stop after the original writers put their pens down. That goes for pagan to Christistion to Moonies. For them there is only one truth, no matter how crazy it is. Because if men can use that tool, they can make troops slaughter an entire city.

And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, both young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

And they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein; only the silver, and the gold, and the vessels of brass and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD.

The House of the Lord, seems the priests were corrupt even then.

 

[dgiharris]

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?...

As far as men doing things for God... Who can say what God wants? It could be that God gave us free will then put a series of challenges in front of us just to see how we'd do? Could be that there are other higher purposes. All this doesn't negate what I said. His intellect, like his power is infinitely greater than ours. So there is risk in us trying to second guess him like, "Well, if there was a God then why did this happen or that happen..."

 

[dgiharris]

If this true than anything we learn has the potential to change at any given time.

Yet it doesn't.

In the event of any time related / causality phenomena, we would never know. The universe would end and then begin again and either we would cease to exist or everything we know would retroactive change to align with the new universe (watch some Sci-Fi time travel movies to see what I'm talking about ).

Also, "if" God was on a higher plane of existence and outside time and space, then there would be very different frames of reference. Everything God wanted in frame A) could have happened in the period of 5 seconds, but for us down here in frame B) it could have taken 5 billion years...

Also, it is worth noting that the length of time of our existence-- especially when held against the entire lifespan of the universe, is so infinitesimally small that it doesn't make a good yard stick for measuring the frequency of change in the universe (if said change were observable). Hmmm.... speaking of which, I recall various universal expansion models that show that the speed of light and other physical universal constants did change over time from the big bang till now... However, to be fair, cosmology is very theoretical and a lot of stuff is up in the air...

 

[pshun2404]

Can you quote 10 biologists who Stove has used as his basis for thinking that biologists teach that women are inherently inferior to men? You claim there are facts, but I find that people who claim there are facts are often the least prepared to actually present those claimed facts when asked.

Why does one's reasoning only count with you guys if 10 others have said it before you (and on top of that it has to be 10 which agree with you)? Is there no room for intelligence, insight, and originality? If it were not for those who thought independently and outside the accepted box we would still be viewing the universe though Newtonian Mechanics! This excuse is really so sad....its like you are brainwashed or something and unable to think for yourselves (Same with a lot of YECs...it really is a hinderance to genuine progress)...consenesus was never meant to lead thinking, if it were we would still have slavery and women would still not vote.

There certainly were many who believed (and some ignorant men still do) Darwin's idea that women via natural selection are inferior...though I agree like basic Darwinian based racist attitudes this notion is not believed in today and even if it were you would probably not find 10 modern biologists who would admit it (though I think the notion has been dispelled).

After all there is no male or female, slave or free, superior or inferior in Christ...all are one (ontological equals)...its about time man is catching up...this really upset people in a time when Socrates believed every man ought to own one and Plato taught we should hold all women in common.

 

[Near]

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.

Which interpretation of Genesis are you attempting to refute? There are quite a few more. Take into consideration that it may not be the case that the Genesis description past the first verse is speaking of the creation of the universe, but rather the Earth in this solar system.

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.
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.
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"

Again with all the evidence that can be googled in support of natural selection, I have not found anything that actually supports the belief that there are no causes which transcend the physical world. You continue to make assertions, yet your faith in naturalism remains to be on par with another religious man.
I'll repeat what you said: The established proof does point to evolution via natural selection.
However, it doesn't point to metaphysical naturalism. Nothing about fossil records show that naturalism is true.

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.

If the Bible is accurate, the model described in Genesis would be true. However, there's ongoing debate as to which interpretation of the Genesis count is correct; what was the writer attempting to describe? That's the question some theologians are spending time on. I don't quite understand what you mean by tension, as there are multiple models in naturalism as to how life, and this planet arose. The fact that there are different interpretations doesn't mean we should throw out the book, the same goes for science.
Furthermore, the believer if he feels like it, can leave the faith, if he finds that the several interpretations of Genesis are crushed by what the naturalistic models appear to have proven.

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

When an agnostic doesn't believe in God, that isn't faith. When an atheist makes the positive assertion that no God exists, and naturalism is valid, he is making a faith based claim. What evidence are you aware of which helps prove naturalism?

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

The burden of proof is on the theist if the theist says he knows that God exists. If he is merely sharing his faith, we can say, "well that's what you believe, but I don't".
The agnostic has no burden of proof, since he says he doesn't know whether or not God exists.
The atheist makes the claim that naturalism is true, and no God exists, and therefore since he makes a positive assertion, he does have the burden of proof as well.

 

[Larniavc]

In the event of any time related / causality phenomena, we would never know. The universe would end and then begin again and either we would cease to exist or everything we know would retroactive change to align with the new universe (watch some Sci-Fi time travel movies to see what I'm talking about ).

If it would be undetectable what reason do you have to suspect it has happened. To take it one step further there could have been several 'higher plane' entities battling it out constantly rebooting the universe ever Thursday. As a hypothesis it has zero explanatory power.

Also, "if" God was on a higher plane of existence and outside time and space, then there would be very different frames of reference. Everything God wanted in frame A) could have happened in the period of 5 seconds, but for us down here in frame B) it could have taken 5 billion years...

You need to provide evidence for this higher plane with an alternate space time.

Also, it is worth noting that the length of time of our existence-- especially when held against the entire lifespan of the universe, is so infinitesimally small that it doesn't make a good yard stick for measuring the frequency of change in the universe (if said change were observable). Hmmm.... speaking of which, I recall various universal expansion models that show that the speed of light and other physical universal constants did change over time from the big bang till now... However, to be fair, cosmology is very theoretical and a lot of stuff is up in the air...

Please show which part of cosmology is up in the air.

All the best.

 

[Larniavc]

Which interpretation of Genesis are you attempting to refute?

Gen 1:1-3 But I'm not interpreting it. I'm just reading what it says.

2nd Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"
Deuteronomy 4:2 "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."
Revelation 22:18-19 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
Psalm 12:6-7 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Nothing about fossil records show that naturalism is true.

Please provide evidence to support this.

If the Bible is accurate,

It's not: as has been shown in this very message.

All the best.

 

[Near]

Well, we actually have evidence to support current science. Your "final science, the end of inquiry" seems to be something you've made up as a rhetorical trick. Reasonable people should prefer the former, if simply because it exists here in reality.

The nice thing about not pretending that religious poetry from 5000 years ago is science is that we can totally ignore questions such as this when doing real science.

Are you going to claim that naturalism has been proved?
I didn't claim the bible is science. If you're referring to science, the process, the bible isn't a process. As for science, a collection of inferences from observations, I don't claim the bible is science in that way either.
It's equally wrong to say that metaphysical naturalism is science, since there is no evidence supporting it, (edit) as far as I know*
When you say, "we actually have evidence to support current science." What do you mean by that exactly?
What is current science saying about metaphysical naturalism?

 

[Near]

Gen 1:1-3 But I'm not interpreting it. I'm just reading what it says.

Unless you're a computer, and not actually comprehending what was written, a rational mind, such as the one you have is interpreting what it reads. Another thing, are you reading it in Ancient Hebrew? Why not post a few verses from the text attached with your thoughts of what the writer was trying to express?

Please provide evidence to support this.

Oops, I should have said, I'm unaware of how naturalism is proved via the fossil record. Please enlighten me as to how it is, if it actually is. I'll also admit, what I said was a belief, since it's quite hard to make a scientific* case for or against naturalism due to insufficient data.

It's not: as has been shown in this very message.
All the best.

What evidence shows that the Bible is not accurate?
Perhaps your interpretation is off.

 

[dgiharris]

If it would be undetectable what reason do you have to suspect it has happened.

No reason, just a mathematical-like premise based on a hypothetical model. "If" A occurred "then" B would result.

If it would be undetectable what reason do you have to suspect it has happened. To take it one step further there could have been several 'higher plane' entities battling it out constantly rebooting the universe ever Thursday. As a hypothesis it has zero explanatory power..

You are wrong. You put forth the argument, "Well, if Q happened then why didn't we observed XYZ..." and my hypothesis and hypothetical construct explains why we wouldn't observe XYZ. Unfortunately, since with current physics time travel is impossible and thus we can't perform experiments, we can however play in math space and answer various "what ifs".

What if every Thursday the entire universe rebooted? What would that look like? Well, it would look like it does now, the beings created on Thursday would have memories (perhaps false perhaps real) that stretch back in time prior to Thursday. Ever see this movie?

You need to provide evidence for this higher plane with an alternate space time.

No I don't. I postulated a "what if" and that postulate makes use of Einstein's Theory of Relativity which we have a high degree of confidence that it is correct. What I stated "can" be true. "If" God was in a higher plane of existence or outside of this universe "then" it is conceivable that based on Relativity that frames of reference-- especially time, could be different. Unless you care to disprove Einstein's Theory of Relativity, I don't see what your problem with my statement was since I'm speaking in the hypothetical.

....Please show which part of cosmology is up in the air.

All the best.

One part of cosmology that is up in the air is Dark Matter and Dark energy . http://science.time.com/2013/02/26/cosmic-fuggedaboudit-dark-matter-may-not-exist-at-all/

I will admit I am not an expert on the subject, but I do know that aspects of cosmology are not aligning very well with other aspects of physics, especially particle physics.

To date, some of the dark matter stuff required for various cosmology models hasn't been verified in the lab. It was hoped that the Large Hadron Collider would provide proof of dark matter or dark energy but so far nothing has been produced that can be linked to dark matter and dark energy. So yeah, like I said, there are some aspects of cosmology that is up in the air.

And I think that is fine, I mean, the big bang theory is not even a century old. Computing power was barely adequate to start modeling this stuff back in 1995, so in a way you could say we've only had 20 years or so in actually being able to model various theories.