Natural selection v Intelligent design

[Archaeopteryx]

No you brought his religious status into it by using him of all people. You only say that his religious views dont cloud his judgement of evolution because you are already assuming that evolution is true. But if we go by how anti religious people normally go Dr Collins believes in fairy tales so therefore his views of everything are suspect.

That's ridiculous. Collins' religiosity doesn't mean that all his views must be considered suspect.

Otherwise if they are not then surely his views on religion and God are just as valid as those on evolution. Unless you want to say that he is together on his views of evolution and out of whack on his views of God and religion.

No, Collins has good reason to acknowledge the reality of evolution. He tells us directly in the quote: he accepts it because the evidence for it is "truly overwhelming." I don't know what reasons Collins has for believing in gods so I can't comment on that.

Science goes against religious belief as far as the way it determines what is fact in our reality. It has to be testable and verified. Science cant test belief or the supernatural. In that sense it goes against all that is God and belief. When I say they can go hand in hand I mean that a person just like Dr Collins who has a mind based in science can also have a personal faith in God. Science can only tell us how something works or happened. Faith can only answer the questions of why it happened. But science may only be able to explain so much. There maybe things that cant be explained by the scientific method.

As I have said before this is where God can be presented as a possible answer. Dr Collins has said the same thing and he also believes that religion and science can go together and that science can reveal God more and more. By finding how things work we can then see when things go beyond the science and into the ways which defy the normal cause and effect of how science determines the way things should work. Of course science will always say there's a logical explanation for this. But we wouldn't be able to get to that point without the science.

steve, you don't seem to understand why this line of reasoning is fallacious. If science shows us that we lack understanding, then it's not "revealing God more and more." It's revealing our ignorance.

You have misunderstood what I mean by this. As I have said before it is not an argument from ignorance because we know what the parameters for the type of things that will answer these questions we find hard to answer at the moment. We know what realm the answers will be in because the scientists themselves have told us what it will be like. The type of answers they have use in an attempt to answer this are in the realms of being out of this world and our reality.

So the answer is going to be something that defies logic and the maths we normally use for everything else we measure things by. If that is the case then the answers will be something beyond the science and will not be something that the criteria for verification that science uses will be able to determine and falsify. So even though we dont know what that answer is we can say what realm it will be in. That is not totally from ignorance. I havnt said that the answer will be God. But I have said it has the qualities of a god or something beyond our natural world. In that sense it is supernatural.

In that sense you are confused. Science doesn't tell us that the answer must be supernatural or "beyond our natural world." It only tells us that the answer is beyond our current understanding. You seem to be conflating "beyond our current understanding" with "beyond all understanding" and "beyond the natural world." That something is beyond our current understanding doesn't imply that it is beyond all understanding or that it must be supernatural.

This can probably be summed up as well by how scientists are struggling with uniting relativity with the quantum world. They are looking for a theory of everything and as Stephen Hawkins has said once we find that then we will know the mind of God.

You do know that Hawking was referring to the "mind of God" metaphorically?

Ive already explained this. It goes against all that is science by not being able to be tested in the way science can verify things. But because science can get us to a point where it breaks down itself and what it sees cannot be verified by the usual parameters that science uses for falsification it can reveal the qualities of God. So in that sense science can reveal God.

Science takes us to the edge of our understanding. It reveals our ignorance, what we don't yet understand.

AS I said why did you choose DR Collins out of all the scientists to prove your case for evolution.

Already answered.

You did because some Christians believe in evolution. The scientists I am using believe in God and therefore a form of creation. Thats all that matters not their particular religion for this point. The point being that you chose a Christian/religious person to make a point that even a Christian/religious person believes in evolution so it must be true.

No, steve. Evolution isn't true because a Christian believes it must be true; it is true because, as Collins noted, the evidence for it is "truly overwhelming." That's the point. The truth of evolution doesn't depend on whether Christians believe it or not. The case for evolution doesn't depend on a religious argument, but a scientific one.

So the relevance of Dr Collins being a Christian to prove evolution has no bearing on whether it makes evolution true or not.

Exactly! His religious opinions are irrelevant.

But as I said earlier it seems to matter to some who want to discredit any scientists who is used when showing evidence against evolution if they have the slightest connection to religion. The first thing I get is ah but he is a Christian or the link you used is associated with religion so its suspect.

They are suspect because their objection to evolution is religiously motivated, not scientifically motivated. The difference is that Collins' acceptance of evolution is based on an evaluation of the evidence - "truly overwhelming" - not religion. In other words, Collins' acceptance of evolution doesn't appear to be motivated by his religion. Religious doctrine is not a good reason for accepting or rejecting evolution.

 

[Smidlee]

They are suspect because because their objection to evolution is religiously motivated, not scientifically motivated. The difference is that Collins' acceptance of evolution is based on an evaluation of the evidence - "truly overwhelming" - not religion.

Actually Collins made a religious argument to support evolution. He basically believes that God wouldn't do it that way so it had to be evolution. Creationists quickly point out that's a religious statement as it deals with what God would or wouldn't do. Collins is a good example of someone who thinks he can separate his world view for his work but fail. Time and time again I read evolutionist making a religious argument to support evolution.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Actually Collins made a religious argument to support evolution. He basically believes that God wouldn't do it that way so it had to be evolution. Creationists quickly point out that's a religious statement as it deals with what God would or wouldn't do. Collins is a good example of someone who thinks he can separate his world view for his work but fail. Time and time again I read evolutionist making a religious argument to support evolution.

Collins' religious arguments for evolution are doomed to failure. There's no reason to take religious arguments for evolution seriously when the scientific argument is the only one that matters.

 

[paulm50]

Science itself is meant to be self correcting but unfortunately there are humans who do the science who are not. Its the same for anything. Religion is suppose to help people but unfortunately there are people who dont who represent religion.

The bible doesn't self correct at all, some followers are self correcting and some are sticking to the originals words.

As for science, it has to correct itself all the time. We discover new technologies that get us deeper into understanding the subject. This sometimes means scientists have to go back and correct. Your disagreement is based n them not going back to a time when we had little understanding. Like Newton's time.

Its funny how many atheists quickly state that any reference from a Christian or religious site connected with science is questionable and invalid and want purely scientific peer reviewed support to be credible. This is a good example that it doesn't matter so much what affiliation a person has to be right or wrong. I could bring up scientists who disagree with Dr Collins as well and believe in Gods creation like Professor John Lennox. Or maybe this one.

It's not about what one scientist says, it's about the weight of evidence. You already recognise the bible's version is wrong on so many counts. Yet try to cling to a god creating everything, by basing the belief on what we don't know. Whereas evolutionists base their evidence on what we do know. You can claim they get it wrong in parts.

Present your evidence of where your theory is right, then we can debate this.

Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance.

-Isaac Newton, Physics, Mathematics

Science didn't stop learning in the 1700s. given the number of suns in the entire Universe. It seems it was entirely by chance.

 

[paulm50]

Actually Collins made a religious argument to support evolution. He basically believes that God wouldn't do it that way so it had to be evolution. Creationists quickly point out that's a religious statement as it deals with what God would or wouldn't do. Collins is a good example of someone who thinks he can separate his world view for his work but fail. Time and time again I read evolutionist making a religious argument to support evolution.

Would a god create a world as it's written in the bible, with all the failures. Or one based on the knowledge we have now? Well if it was a god, it wasn't intelligent there are too many failures in the evolutionary tree to make it intelligent.

Humans are just a very minor part of the Earth's evolution. The Earth is a one billionth, if not less of the Universe's evolution. Why go through all the different stages of evolution to arrive at Homo Sapiens. Why billions of planets, that do nothing and get bombarded by Asteroids, to have one with Humans? Creationist will answer we can never understand god's infinite wisdom, because they don't understand. Evolutionists will just point to us being one in a billion.

So if I said the same man said that God is real would you take that as being just as valid. Or do you just pick and choose what he said as being valid.

Science needs proof, not a statement of what one thinks.

Prove to us why god would of taken a billions of years to create Humans on Earth, a planet one in billions of others.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

They are suspect because their objection to evolution is religiously motivated, not scientifically motivated. The difference is that Collins' acceptance of evolution is based on an evaluation of the evidence - "truly overwhelming" - not religion. In other words, Collins' acceptance of evolution doesn't appear to be motivated by his religion. Religious doctrine is not a good reason for accepting or rejecting evolution.

As an example of what I mean, consider the Pope's recent comments on evolution. How many Catholics who were previously opposed to evolution would have reconsidered their position solely on the basis of the Pope's comments? Don't get me wrong, they should reconsider their position, but not on the basis of the Pope's opinion or because of official church doctrine, but because of the evidence. There are many good reasons to accept evolution, but papal opinion or church doctrine is not one of them.

 

[stevevw]

That's ridiculous. Collins' religiosity doesn't mean that all his views must be considered suspect.

I agree but that is the experience on this site. I've lost count of some people discrediting good science research because it was associated with religion. Mention the site bio-logos or Bio-complexity.com and your shot down.

Bio-logos is a site started by Francis Collins. If you check it out you will see heeps of articles contradicting evolutionism. Here is their description about who they are.
At BioLogos, we present the Evolutionary Creationism (EC) viewpoint on origins. Like all Christians, we fully affirm that God is the creator of all life—including human beings in his image. We fully affirm that the Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God. We also accept the science of evolution as the best description for how God brought about the diversity of life on earth.

But while we accept the scientific evidence for evolution, BioLogos emphatically rejects Evolutionism, the atheistic worldview that so often accompanies the acceptance of biological evolution in public discussion. Evolutionism is a kind of scientism, which holds that all of reality can in principle be explained by science. In contrast, BioLogos believes that science is limited to explaining the natural world, and that supernatural events like miracles are part of reality too.
http://biologos.org/questions/biologos-id-creationism

No, Collins has good reason to acknowledge the reality of evolution. He tells us directly in the quote: he accepts it because the evidence for it is "truly overwhelming." I don't know what reasons Collins has for believing in gods so I can't comment on that.

So because he believes in evolution does that make it true. If so because he believes in God does that make it true. He is an expert on God as much as he is on evolution as he is an evangelical Christian.

steve, you don't seem to understand why this line of reasoning is fallacious. If science shows us that we lack understanding, then it's not "revealing God more and more." It's revealing our ignorance.

I am qualifying the type of knowledge we are lacking. That knowledge is qualified as being something that is acting in contradiction of the way science works.Its not just any lack of knowledge. Under normal circumstances I would agree that generally when we dont know something we cant assume that it is God or that there is anything extra ordinary about it. We use to do that and we found there was a logical explanation. But when it comes to the point that science has reach now after 100s of years we are seeing something that is beyond the logic of science. We have accumulated knowledge that will make us aware of where we are at. We are not so easily fooled anymore because we have a lot of science to back us up now.

But when we put it all together it is still no making any sense. The test results show that something is happening beyond the mathamatics of science. 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4 at this point its equaling 5 or some other illogical answer. So therefore even the normally logical scientists are appealing to far fetched ideas like worm holes and hologram worlds. We have been down this path before so you know what I'm getting at. But basically I am saying we cant just assume its God but we can say that it has some qualities that have been attributed to God. Whether its some alien pulling some strings or some magical force we dont know about of some other dimension we havnt discovered it is still something that could change our understanding of everything and make many things possible.

In that sense you are confused. Science doesn't tell us that the answer must be supernatural or "beyond our natural world." It only tells us that the answer is beyond our current understanding. You seem to be conflating "beyond our current understanding" with "beyond all understanding" and "beyond the natural world." That something is beyond our current understanding doesn't imply that it is beyond all understanding or that it must be supernatural.

I am only doing what the scientists are doing. See that is the difference. Scientists can claim that science only looks for the truth or facts or only uses what can be tested as evidence but when the actual scientists who are using the science make their ideas they contradict the very science they stand for.

My whole argument isn't with science its with those who use it and then say that religion is believing in fairies and the supernatural and therefore invalid. Whats good for the geese is good for the gander. But I dont blame them for turning to these far fetched ideas because that is what the evidence is pointing to. The scientists are not saying we just dont know. They are presenting several ideas which all have a quality of being far fetched and out of this world and beyond the natural world.The best way to make this point is to use the very science and what they are saying at the moment about the point they are at and what they are trying to explain.

The formulas that result from string theory predict more than four dimensions (10 or 11 in the most common variants, though on version requires 26 dimensions), but the extra dimensions are "curled up" within the Planck length. In addition to the strings, string theory contains another type of fundamental object called a brane, which can have many more dimensions. In some "braneworld scenarios," our universe is actually "stuck" inside of a 3-dimensional brane (called a 3-brane). String theory was initially developed in the 1970s in an attempt to explain some inconsistencies with the energy behavior of hadrons and other fundamental particles of physics.
http://physics.about.com/od/quantumphysics/f/stringtheory.htm
Now if that doesn't send you into orbit then nothing will. Talk about science fiction.

You do know that Hawking was referring to the "mind of God" metaphorically?

Yes but the reason he makes that metaphor in the first place is because the theory of everything is thought to be so all encompassing. It is near impossible to be able to even contemplate what that may be. So it is associated with what people think God is.

Science takes us to the edge of our understanding. It reveals our ignorance, what we don't yet understand.

Yes but the scientists who use that science then take it beyond and make up all sorts of explanations to deal with what they find. If it was a case of just not knowing then they should say we just dont know. But they do more than that. They say that some of the ideas they present are more than likely true. In fact there isn't a year that goes by where they say they have proved one of them only to be proven wrong later. The point is between all of those ideas they are all in the realms of being out of this world. One way or another they are all far fetched and beyond the natural world we see and calculate everything by. To me thats not to dissimilar to how God is.

Already answered.

No, steve. Evolution isn't true because a Christian believes it must be true; it is true because, as Collins noted, the evidence for it is "truly overwhelming." That's the point. The truth of evolution doesn't depend on whether Christians believe it or not.

But the point is you have presented Dr Collins view and not his evidence. So you are only using Dr Collins say so as proof and nothing else. Anyone can say that evolution is true or not true without anything to substantiate it. In other words you entire evidence is that DR Collins said its true so it must be true. I was saying that if we base it on this then Dr Collins also says that God is true so it also must be true. Other scientists say that God is true so it must be true. Other scientists say evolution is also false so they must also be right according to their say so. Someones say so doesn't prove anything whether they are a Christian or evolutionist.

Exactly! His religious opinions are irrelevant.

I agree and so is his opinions on evolution. But on the other hand a Christian who who is a scientists shouldn't be automatically invalid because he is a Christian or linked to religion. It should be purely based on the evidence and not they associations of personal opinions.

They are suspect because because their objection to evolution is religiously motivated, not scientifically motivated. The difference is that Collins' acceptance of evolution is based on an evaluation of the evidence - "truly overwhelming" - not religion.

How do you know that the evidence they present is motivated by their religious connections. How do you know the peer reviewed papers and other scientific research is not based on the evidence. How do you know its also not the other way around and an anti religious persons opinion about evolution isn't motivated by wanting evolution to be true. The assumption you have that any evidence associated with a religious connection is invalid in the first place is the real problem not the actuality of it happening.

By you automatically saying it is suspect without any evidence shows that you are prejudging people without verifying things. This is what happens a lot and any evidence with a religious connection even if the scientists just happens to be a Christian or Catholic or whatever invalidates all their hard work and evidence. They have to jump through hoops to even get the chance to present their case. Yet we see time and time again how any evidence no matter what the personal motivation is for pro evolution evidence is automatically allowed.

In fact there is evidence for widespread bias and suspect results even in the peer review process of science research in general. There is a herd mentality with science where scientists follow the pack and the consensus of opinion rather than whether its true or not. I have seen some excellent work from scientists who have religious connections.

 

[stevevw]

As an example of what I mean, consider the Pope's recent comments on evolution. How many Catholics who were previously opposed to evolution would have reconsidered their position solely on the basis of the Pope's comments? Don't get me wrong, they should reconsider their position, but not on the basis of the Pope's opinion or because of official church doctrine, but because of the evidence. There are many good reasons to accept evolution, but papal opinion or church doctrine is not one of them.

Actually I see this with the pro evolution side as well. How many lay people who dont understand evolution just accept what a scientists says. They believe the stories on the TV docos that paint this particular picture in which a lot has not been verified. So it works both ways. As I said there is evidence for even peer reviewed work being falsified and presented and people then using that as evidence for evolution when it was either false or sloppy work that was wrong.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Actually I see this with the pro evolution side as well. How many lay people who dont understand evolution just accept what a scientists says. They believe the stories on the TV docos that paint this particular picture in which a lot has not been verified. So it works both ways. As I said there is evidence for even peer reviewed work being falsified and presented and people then using that as evidence for evolution when it was either false or sloppy work that was wrong.

The difference is that a scientist has the expertise that the Pope lacks. Why do you trust your doctor for medical advice as opposed to a faith healer, psychic, or homeopathy practitioner?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I agree but that is the experience on this site. I've lost count of some people discrediting good science research because it was associated with religion. Mention the site bio-logos and your shot down.

Once again, their objections are religious motivated, not scientifically motivated.

So because he believes in evolution does that make it true. If so because he believes in God does that make it true.

No, I never said that. I never claimed that evolution is true because Collins believes it to be true. You are confusing the point at issue, again. I spent most of the last post clarifying this. Did you even read it?

He is an expert on God as much as he is on evolution as he is an evangelical Christian.

An expert on god? Then let him demonstrate his expertise. There are other "experts on God" who disagree very strongly with Collins. Why I should privilege his "expert" religious opinion over another person's "expert" religious opinion?

I am qualifying the type of knowledge we are lacking. That knowledge is qualified as being something that is acting in contradiction of the way science works.Its not just any lack of knowledge. Under normal circumstances I would agree that generally when we dont know something we cant assume that it is God or that there is anything extra ordinary about it. We use to do that and we found there was a logical explanation. But when it comes to the point that science has reach now after 100s of years we are seeing something that is beyond the logic of science. We have accumulated knowledge that will make us aware of where we are at. We are not so easily fooled anymore because we have a lot of science to back us up now.

But when we put it all together it is still no making any sense. The test results show that something is happening beyond the mathamatics of science. 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4 at this point its equaling 5 or some other illogical answer. So therefore even the normally logical scientists are appealing to far fetched ideas like worm holes and hologram worlds. We have been down this path before so you know what I'm getting at. But basically I am saying we cant just assume its God but we can say that it has some qualities that have been attributed to God. Whether its some alien pulling some strings or some magical force we dont know about of some other dimension we havnt discovered it is still something that could change our understanding of everything and make many things possible.

steve, this argument does not work. I've already explained why.

I am only doing what the scientists are doing.

No, you're not. Scientists are busy trying to figure it out. It takes hard work and dedication. What you're doing here is simply arguing from ignorance.

Yes but the scientists who use that science then take it beyond and make up all sorts of explanations to deal with what they find. If it was a case of just not knowing then they should say we just dont know.

They do say that we don't know! That's why they're trying to figure it out.

The point is between all of those ideas they are all in the realms of being out of this world. One way or another they are all far fetched and beyond the natural world we see and calculate everything by. To me thats not to dissimilar to how God is.

I think you are confusing "beyond our understanding" for "beyond the natural world." It's "out of this world" in the sense that it is not within our current understanding. That's not to say that it's necessarily "out of this world" in some supernatural sense.

But the point is you have presented Dr Collins view and not his evidence. So you are only using Dr Collins say so as proof and nothing else. Anyone can say that evolution is true or not true without anything to substantiate it. In other words you entire evidence is that DR Collins said its true so it must be true. I was saying that if we base it on this then Dr Collins also says that God is true so it also must be true. Other scientists say that God is true so it must be true. Other scientists say evolution is also false so they must also be right according to their say so. Someones say so doesn't prove anything whether they are a Christian or evolutionist.

steve, I've completely lost patience with you. You just aren't listening, so why bother?

But on the other hand a Christian who who is a scientists shouldn't be automatically invalid because he is a Christian or linked to religion. It should be purely based on the evidence and not they associations of personal opinions.

That's what I said! You didn't listen!

How do you know that the evidence they present is motivated by their religious connections.

Because I've interacted with them.

How do you know the peer reviewed papers and other scientific research is not based on the evidence.

How many times have I clarified this? And yet you're still repeating this as though I've never addressed it. I'm not criticising the peer-reviewed papers, but your (mis)interpretation of them!

How do you know its also not the other way around and an anti religious persons opinion about evolution isn't motivated by wanting evolution to be true. The assumption you have that any evidence associated with a religious connection is invalid in the first place is the real problem not the actuality of it happening.

You can't argue against the evidence for evolution with religion. It doesn't work. You can only argue against the evidence.

By you automatically saying it is suspect without any evidence shows that you are prejudging people without verifying things. This is what happens a lot and any evidence with a religious connection even if the scientists just happens to be a Christian or Catholic or whatever invalidates all their hard work and evidence. They have to jump through hoops to even get the chance to present their case. Yet we see time and time again how any evidence no matter what the personal motivation is for pro evolution evidence is automatically allowed.

Please re-read my post. I'm not addressing this. I'm tired of clarifying points that I thought were already clear. Every clarification I give seems to be greeted with further misunderstanding.

 

[Smidlee]

Would a god create a world as it's written in the bible, with all the failures. Or one based on the knowledge we have now? Well if it was a god, it wasn't intelligent there are too many failures in the evolutionary tree to make it intelligent.

Are you claiming God is the source of failures?

Humans are just a very minor part of the Earth's evolution. The Earth is a one billionth, if not less of the Universe's evolution. Why go through all the different stages of evolution to arrive at Homo Sapiens. Why billions of planets, that do nothing and get bombarded by Asteroids, to have one with Humans? Creationist will answer we can never understand god's infinite wisdom, because they don't understand. Evolutionists will just point to us being one in a billion.
Science needs proof, not a statement of what one thinks.

Don't just take a creationist word for it how about an evolutionist :
"Now what's most unsettling to me about this is that we didn't build these machines. As someone originally trained as an engineer, I've got to be honest with you, I kind of hate this.....On the one hand it's extremely well organized, but on the other hand the sheer scale of all of this unfamiliar well-organized stuff that happens in there makes me feel that I've stumbled onto an alternate landscape of technology that's built by an engineer a million times smarter than me."

Prove to us why god would of taken a billions of years to create Humans on Earth, a planet one in billions of others.

That's your religious belief not mine. I believe God created man just as describe in Genesis.

 

[paulm50]

Are you claiming God is the source of failures?

I'm claiming who or whatever claims responsibility for how we all got here, including the Universe. Has to take responsibility for the failure, as well as praise for the successes. Which were fewer.

Don't just take a creationist word for it how about an evolutionist :
"Now what's most unsettling to me about this is that we didn't build these machines. As someone originally trained as an engineer, I've got to be honest with you, I kind of hate this.....On the one hand it's extremely well organized, but on the other hand the sheer scale of all of this unfamiliar well-organized stuff that happens in there makes me feel that I've stumbled onto an alternate landscape of technology that's built by an engineer a million times smarter than me."

He's talking about the Earth being billions of years old, and that's not Genesis's account. Still one scientists, let's see if mainstream picks it up. Until then the majority hold the solution. Stephen D Larson.

That's your religious belief not mine. I believe God created man just as describe in Genesis.

I believe in the Earth being billions of years old, and from a very simple single cell with very simple DNA, everything evolved.

A god creating all the creatures that went extinct, all the dead planets, all the things that can and do go wrong. Can't be intelligent design. I have higher expectations for a god.

 

[paulm50]

Claim CA111:
Many scientists reject evolution and support creationism.

Coming up with a few scientists who support Creationism is easy with today's Internet. The truth is also easy to find.

Today's World, where so much knowledge, is only a click away.

 

[Smidlee]

I'm claiming who or whatever claims responsibility for how we all got here, including the Universe. Has to take responsibility for the failure, as well as praise for the successes. Which were fewer.

He's talking about the Earth being billions of years old, and that's not Genesis's account. Still one scientists, let's see if mainstream picks it up. Until then the majority hold the solution. Stephen D Larson.

I wrote he was an evolutionist but he doesn't give any reason why evolution would appear a million times smarter than man. Like everyone else he just assumes it. I personally don't believe the voice of the majority is the voice of God nor Truth. Man loves darkness rather than light.

I believe in the Earth being billions of years old, and from a very simple single cell with very simple DNA, everything evolved.

A god creating all the creatures that went extinct, all the dead planets, all the things that can and do go wrong. Can't be intelligent design. I have higher expectations for a god.

We all have to choose which creator we choose to believe in. Either a nature god or God outside of nature created us. I see the evidence pointing to God who is over a million times smarter than man.

 

[stevevw]

The difference is that a scientist has the expertise that the Pope lacks. Why do you trust your doctor for medical advice as opposed to a faith healer, psychic, or homeopathy practitioner?

I agree but the thing with evolution is its not so black and white. I am sure the Pope has an entourage of advisers who get advice from the experts. But evolution can be a tricky subject and the interpretation of the evidence can be seen in more than one way and each way can be supported by the evidence just as good as the other. We have gone through that before. But one example would be is the different yet similar features between two different species a variation of the same species or an intermediate showing the evolution between them.

How these things are determined will make a case for one way or the other. In some ways its a bit like the climate debate. Does the change in weather represent a normal cycle change or is it brought about by man made climate change. Some things can be determined but others are subject to interpretation. So in many areas of the evolution and creation debate the evidence is not so black and white. You can even have a difference of opinion between two opposing views or even a difference between two pro evolutionists on what that evidence represents.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I agree but the thing with evolution is its not so black and white. I am sure the Pope has an entourage of advisers who get advice from the experts. But evolution can be a tricky subject and the interpretation of the evidence can be seen in more than one way and each way can be supported by the evidence just as good as the other.

No, steve, your interpretation is not just as good as any other. It's a misinterpretation based on a flimsy understanding of the subject. I've politely urged you to remedy that situation by pursuing the many worthwhile free educational materials available. Yet you'd rather stay here and pontificate.

 

[stevevw]

Once again, their objections are religious motivated, not scientifically motivated.

Have you got support for this. As far as I understand the peer reviewed work that a site like bio- complexity does is just as legit and an open access paper as much as any. It has to conform to certain standards the same as anyone. The science is just as legit and the credentials are just as good. It is science first and religion is put aside. Science has to be subjected to testing and if it was influenced by religious motives then it wouldn't pass that test.

No, I never said that. I never claimed that evolution is true because Collins believes it to be true. You are confusing the point at issue, again. I spent most of the last post clarifying this. Did you even read it?

Yes I did. But initially you posted a twitter caption of what Dr Collins had said as evidence for evolution. It never had any support for what was said. So I gather you were using Dr Collins as a way of bolstering the proof for evolution being true. IF DR Collins says it has overwhelming evidence and he's a Christian then it must be true. Why else would you post that without any link supporting what he says. I could post one of his sermons and say that it must be true because Dr Collins said it was true.

An expert on god? Then let him demonstrate his expertise. There are other "experts on God" who disagree very strongly with Collins. Why I should privilege his "expert" religious opinion over another person's "expert" religious opinion?

There are other experts who disagree with Dr Collins on evolution. So just saying its true doesn't make it true. Dr Collins is an evangelical Christian,he has a web site teaching about God. So he is claiming to be an expert teacher on God and creation as well. So because you are using him to prove that evolution must be true from the statements he makes then anyone can also use him to say that God must be true from the statements he makes about God. All I am saying is just because Dr Collins says that evolution is true even if he is an expert in the field doesn't mean its true. Especially when you consider that his particular brand of evolution is opposed in many way to the Darwinian evolution that most secular evolutionists believe.

steve, this argument does not work. I've already explained why.

No, you're not. Scientists are busy trying to figure it out. It takes hard work and dedication. What you're doing here is simply arguing from ignorance.

When it comes to ideas like holograms, multiverses, string theory, worm holes and time travel do you think scientists have any direct evidence for these. Yet all these are serious contenders for theories to explain what is being seen today with astrophysics and quantum physics. They are loosely based in indirect evidence. What is the difference between that and say intelligent design being loosely based with indirect evidence.

They do say that we don't know! That's why they're trying to figure it out.

I agree they dont know. But thats not how th3ey come across or what they admit. Ive lost count of the times that scientists have said they know whats happening and have proof that something like a multiverse, hologram theory or some other type theory is true. Then soon afterwards they are proven wrong so they come up with the next big idea that has no support only to be found wrong again. They are actually saying that they think they know what the answer is and they are close to working it out. String theory is the best candidate at the moment. Look at the big bang theory. Its only based on indirect evidence but it is said to be true. They dont like to admit they dont know.

I think you are confusing "beyond our understanding" for "beyond the natural world." It's "out of this world" in the sense that it is not within our current understanding. That's not to say that it's necessarily "out of this world" in some supernatural sense.

No the findings are showing that to explain what they are finding with the finely tuned universe, the big bang, an expanding universe and how all the matter in the universe can stay in balance the answer has to go beyond our normal criteria for the physics we use to calculate things and the way cause and effect works in nature as we know it. So thats why they come up with things like hologram worlds because they work in different dimensions. Thats why they mentions multiverses because they allow different dimensions that have different physical aspects that work different to our world. They cant deal with the explanation without doing this because their maths cannot accommodate it. So in that sense because there could be a number of possibilities that they have to consider the supernatural could be one of them.

To me a two dimensional hologram world that makes reality a projection rather than a real 3D reality is moving into a supernatural world. Of course scientists will say its not supernatural because they can put an explanation on it. But if a scientists explained something that was really supernatural would it then be classed as not supernatural because it has an explanation. Spooky action at a distance can be explained to a point but does that change the fact that two entangled participles can affect each other instantaneously even if on opposite sides of the universe. Virtual particles that pop in and out of existence like magic. If that doesn't fit whats supernatural then how is this natural as far as the way we calculate things.

Because I've interacted with them.

You've interacted with Bio-complexity.com?

How many times have I clarified this? And yet you're still repeating this as though I've never addressed it. I'm not criticizing the peer-reviewed papers, but your (mis)interpretation of them!

My interpretation cannot be to far off the ones I am talking about because they are designed to show that evolution is either false or design in nature is true. Thats why they are done.

You can't argue against the evidence for evolution with religion. It doesn't work. You can only argue against the evidence.

Thats right. But what I am saying is even if its good evidence because its connected with religion in some way it is being classed as invalid only because of its association with religion. The evidence might be the best in the world or come form expert scientists in their fields. But its still seen as suspect which I think is unfair and discriminatory.

Please re-read my post. I'm not addressing this. I'm tired of clarifying points that I thought were already clear. Every clarification I give seems to be greeted with further misunderstanding.

I have been reading and following your posts and up until just now you have you not clarified how you came to the conclusion that any scientific evidence that has a religious connect is suspect. Up until now your evidence for this was your say so without any supporting evidence. I'm sorry but if I accept everything that a person tells me just on their say so then I would be always being lead down a garden path.

But now you have finally clarified how you know a by saying you have had interactions with them and this is how you know that they are suspect. That is still not very good support but at least you have clarified things a little better in how you can decide what is suspect and what is not though I still have to take your word for it. I think we have a bit of a communication breakdown here.

 

[stevevw]

No, steve, your interpretation is not just as good as any other. It's a misinterpretation based on a flimsy understanding of the subject. I've politely urged you to remedy that situation by pursuing the many worthwhile free educational materials available. Yet you'd rather stay here and pontificate.

I am not talking about my interpretation but the experts interpretations. In case you havnt noticed I am not just talking about myself. Maybe we should give it a rest now as it seems to be some misunderstandings going on. We can come back to it later or move onto something else as it seems to be going over the same ground.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Have you got support for this. As far as I understand the peer reviewed work that a site like bio- complexity does is just as legit and an open access paper as much as any. It has to conform to certain standards the same as anyone. The science is just as legit and the credentials are just as good. It is science first and religion is put aside. Science has to be subjected to testing and if it was influenced by religious motives then it wouldn't pass that test.

I have no idea what "bio-complexity" is. Scratch that, I looked them up. It's an ID journal. You've proving my point for me, steve.

Yes I did. But initially you posted a twitter caption of what Dr Collins had said as evidence for evolution. It never had any support for what was said. So I gather you were using Dr Collins as a way of bolstering the proof for evolution being true. IF DR Collins says it has overwhelming evidence and he's a Christian then it must be true. Why else would you post that without any link supporting what he says. I could post one of his sermons and say that it must be true because Dr Collins said it was true.

I already answered this. I'm not repeating myself for the third, fourth, fifth or whatever time.

There are other experts who disagree with Dr Collins on evolution. So just saying its true doesn't make it true. Dr Collins is an evangelical Christian,he has a web site teaching about God. So he is claiming to be an expert teacher on God and creation as well. So because you are using him to prove that evolution must be true from the statements he makes then anyone can also use him to say that God must be true from the statements he makes about God.

Already addressed this.

When it comes to ideas like holograms, multiverses, string theory, worm holes and time travel do you think scientists have any direct evidence for these. Yet all these are serious contenders for theories to explain what is being seen today with astrophysics and quantum physics. They are loosely based in indirect evidence. What is the difference between that and say intelligent design being loosely based with indirect evidence.

Already addressed this in a previous thread.

I agree they dont know. But thats not how th3ey come across or what they admit.

Yes, it is.

Ive lost count of the times that scientists have said they know whats happening and have proof that something like a multiverse, hologram theory or some other type theory is true.

I've kept count of the number of times I've heard a scientist proclaim to know exactly how the universe came to be: 0.

Then soon afterwards they are proven wrong so they come up with the next big idea that has no support only to be found wrong again. They are actually saying that they think they know what the answer is and they are close to working it out. String theory is the best candidate at the moment. Look at the big bang theory. Its only based on indirect evidence but it is said to be true. They dont like to admit they dont know.

What?! They do admit that they don't know! They admit that all the time. Not knowing is the very reason they are trying to figure it out! You know who often doesn't like to admit that they don't know? Someone who thinks that they can waltz into an astrophysics department and erase all the equations off the blackboard while scrawling "Goddidit" in their place.

No the findings are showing that to explain what they are finding with the finely tuned universe, the big bang, an expanding universe and how all the matter in the universe can stay in balance the answer has to go beyond our normal criteria for the physics we use to calculate things and the way cause and effect works in nature as we know it.

I've already addressed this.

You've interacted with Bio-complexity.com?

No, with creationists, such as yourself.

I have been reading and following your posts and up until just now you have you not clarified how you came to the conclusion that any scientific evidence that has a religious connect is suspect. Up until now your evidence for this was your say so without any supporting evidence. I'm sorry but if I accept everything that a person tells me just on their say so then I would be always being lead down a garden path.

Do you deliberately go out of your way to misinterpret what I've written? I'm asking this in all seriousness, because I'm beginning to suspect that your misinterpretation is deliberate.

But now you have finally clarified how you know a by saying you have had interactions with them and this is how you know that they are suspect. That is still not very good support but at least you have clarified things a little better in how you can decide what is suspect and what is not though I still have to take your word for it. I think we have a bit of a communication breakdown here.

You don't listen. That's the breakdown.

 

[paulm50]

I wrote he was an evolutionist but he doesn't give any reason why evolution would appear a million times smarter than man. Like everyone else he just assumes it. I personally don't believe the voice of the majority is the voice of God nor Truth. Man loves darkness rather than light.

And today we are both free to choose. A right we had to fight the church very hard for.

We all have to choose which creator we choose to believe in. Either a nature god or God outside of nature created us. I see the evidence pointing to God who is over a million times smarter than man.

And today we are both free to choose. A right we had to fight the church very hard for.