Evidence for God from Science

Philip wrote:It really doesn't matter how one groups them. [...]

The question's premise is that the evidence of biological traits is to determine the grouping of 3 animals. Maybe hold off bringing in topics like the Big Bang for a while.

So what preliminary grouping conclusions did you reach regarding some traits, e.g., External color? Size/weight? Hair? Egg, or live birth? Feathers? Mammary glands? Feet/leg scales? Specialized teeth? 3 middle-ear bones? Endothermic bodies? Backbone? One-way lung airflow?

It amuses me when people, secular enthusiasts, talk of science like Science as though such is some wise, all-knowing person. I'd say it is "people" not science or the scientific method which is merely one tool to be used in understanding the world. And then, if science is a hammer, not everything is a nail.

Right, science can't explain everything but it can explain a lot. I think it's rightfully said that science has become the new religion.

Morny wrote:How might the scientific method work on a claim of common descent? Using the panoply of biological traits, how would you group hog-nosed bats, robins, and blue whales?
A, B, or C?

Code: Select all

A:  --+----- blue whale
      |
      +--+-- robin
         |
         +-- hog-nosed bat

B:  --+----- robin
      |
      +--+-- hog-nosed bat
         |
         +-- blue whale

C:  --+----- hog-nosed bat
      |
      +--+-- robin
         |
         +-- blue whale

Well it's not entirely accurate, but i figure uk that and are just using a simple example. It would be B since according to current geologic and evolutionary thought birds came before flying mammals, which came b4 whales.

Kurieuo wrote:It amuses me when people, secular enthusiasts, talk of science like Science as though such is some wise, all-knowing person.

Silliness. I don't know one scientist or "secular" enthusiast, who even remotely thinks science is all-knowing. If anything, science people think science has barely scratched the surface of knowledge.

Kurieuo wrote:I'd say it is "people" not science or the scientific method which is merely one tool to be used in understanding the world.

Saying that the scientific method is "merely" one tool, is like saying that the Bible is merely one book.

Since even before Francis Bacon the scientific method has been the foundation of every new understanding about the world. So, yes, I'm a science enthusiast, but the question is, why isn't everyone?!

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:I think it's rightfully said that science has become the new religion.

The easiest way for me to think of the difference between science and a religion is that science, using the scientific method, reaches a consensus way more often than not.

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:Well it's not entirely accurate, but i figure uk that and are just using a simple example. It would be B since according to current geologic and evolutionary thought birds came before flying mammals, which came b4 whales.

A good thought, and I agree with your answer B. But answering my question is even much simpler, i.e., the answer does _not_ rely on evolutionary thought, geological dating, fossils, DNA, philosophy, or religion.

The answer comes from determining "which does not belong" based on shared objective biological traits, a very small subset of which I listed in a previous post.

Morny wrote:

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:I think it's rightfully said that science has become the new religion.

The easiest way for me to think of the difference between science and a religion is that science, using the scientific method, reaches a consensus way more often than not.

Yes, but what I was meaning was people treat that like a religion. Like they make a claim and say"oh science backs this up" or something like that. And if u make a anti-scientific claim then it's treated like heresy almost.

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:It amuses me when people, secular enthusiasts, talk of science like Science as though such is some wise, all-knowing person.

Silliness. I don't know one scientist or "secular" enthusiast, who even remotely thinks science is all-knowing. If anything, science people think science has barely scratched the surface of knowledge.

Kurieuo wrote:I'd say it is "people" not science or the scientific method which is merely one tool to be used in understanding the world.

Saying that the scientific method is "merely" one tool, is like saying that the Bible is merely one book.

Since even before Francis Bacon the scientific method has been the foundation of every new understanding about the world. So, yes, I'm a science enthusiast, but the question is, why isn't everyone?!

Stop playing coy. Francis Bacon was a Christian btw. You actually owe a lot to many Christians upon whom much of modern science stands upon the shoulders of. Look into it if you don't believe me, the names of people. So much for your anti-religion-spliligion thing.

I would say almost every Christian on this forum is VERY pro-science. As for religion - I have no use for it - hate it, actually. Religion IS the cause of a great amount of conflict upon the earth. Course, I don't view Christianity as a religion, but as truth.

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:Yes, but what I was meaning was people treat that like a religion. Like they make a claim and say"oh science backs this up" or something like that. And if u make a anti-scientific claim then it's treated like heresy almost.

Ah, OK. That's understandable. I've said this multiple times here that I spend way more time elsewhere having pointed discussions with non-religious, supposedly science-minded people, who clearly don't understand what science is.

You didn't give specific examples, but I can believe your claim.

Philip wrote:I would say almost every Christian on this forum is VERY pro-science. As for religion - I have no use for it - hate it, actually. Religion IS the cause of a great amount of conflict upon the earth. Course, I don't view Christianity as a religion, but as truth.

Thanks. That's helpful and good to hear.

Kurieuo wrote:Stop playing coy. Francis Bacon was a Christian btw. You actually owe a lot to many Christians upon whom much of modern science stands upon the shoulders of. Look into it if you don't believe me, the names of people. So much for your anti-religion-spliligion thing.

Who is doing the science is irrelevant. Where did you get the impression otherwise? Maybe you're misinterpreting my pro-science as anti-religion? The closest description to my view on both areas is Gould's non-overlapping magisteria.

Kurieuo wrote: Heh, a basic "toolkit" common to all animals sequenced. More confirmation for believing that similar "gene code" or "toolkits" were used across many species, particularly if we throw in how such goes against evolution of a simple to complex progression (rather we have the contrary of de-evolution it seems i.e., "the flies and worms").

Many of the genes in that basic "toolkit" will code for things essential to life - breakdown and metabolism of foodstuffs, respiration, all the stuff that lifeforms would quickly die without having.

Sink wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: Heh, a basic "toolkit" common to all animals sequenced. More confirmation for believing that similar "gene code" or "toolkits" were used across many species, particularly if we throw in how such goes against evolution of a simple to complex progression (rather we have the contrary of de-evolution it seems i.e., "the flies and worms").

Many of the genes in that basic "toolkit" will code for things essential to life - breakdown and metabolism of foodstuffs, respiration, all the stuff that lifeforms would quickly die without having.

Designed objects, e.g., mixed and matched from a toolkit, normally don't form a single nested hierarchy. Group the following human-designed creatures:

• centaurs
  griffins
  minotaurs

No one objective nested hierarchy emerges, because the designer mixed-and-matched traits. For the same reason, cars don't form a single objective nested hierarchy, because automotive designers copy and paste subunits from one car to another.

But living organisms do form a single objective nested hierarchy, based on the panoply of biological traits. So given:

• hog-nosed bats
  robins
  blue whales,

the hog-nosed bats and blue whales group together first. Adding more organisms, e.g., orangutans and orange trees, continues to conform to a single nested hierarchy, which the hypothesis of common descent predicts.