Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:Sorry... err... just had a quick ... nap.
Mrs K and I were just a bit tired.

Hope you err locked the door...
Dont want kids um disturbing your ah sleep
Do you both feel refreshed now?

RickD wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Sorry... err... just had a quick ... nap.
Mrs K and I were just a bit tired.

http://youtu.be/tpGRdX5sUAs

That song is like having a pic of the in laws on the bedroom wall

RickD wrote:Ed,
You made an assertion that God doesn't exist. You'd have been better off just claiming agnosticism, and saying that you don't know if God exists. But, since you made a positive assertion, that God doesn't exist, it's completely dishonest to think you shouldn't have to back your assertion.

I'm not going to call myself an agnostic because I'm not on the fence about the existence of gods. I don't believe that they exist.

You need to understand that I'm speaking for myself, and I'm not trying to convince anyone else of anything. I don't believe in gods, but that doesn't mean that I can prove that they don't exist. Nobody can prove that. So what? The existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Russel's Teapot are equally unassailable, and so is anything else that anyone can dream up, provided that they describe it as omnipotent, invisible, undetectable, and not subject to scientific scrutiny. The fact that I can't disprove the existence of god tells me one thing - apologists are good at what they do.

I'm not going to pick up the burden of proof simply because I didn't take the time to phrase my statement in such a way as to avoid the appearance of making a positive claim. To me "I don't believe in gods" and Gods don't exist" are the same statement, but somehow one is safe and the other saddles me with the burden of proof. Forget it. I'm not going to play that game.

RickD wrote:Frankly, with all the railing you do against certain people here, I really would have thought you would've put forth proof for your claim. You rail against B. W. Yet you don't have the stones to back up your beliefs.

I've never asked B.W. to prove that god exists, and I never will. He doesn't have an argument that I'm going to accept, so why bother bringing it up? Granted, I've blasted him on some other stuff, but when I call BS on some persecution claim or supposed liberal plot I do the research and cite my sources. And as a progressive, liberal atheist with democratic socialist leanings I can't very well sit by while he makes all kinds of false and insulting statements about me, can I? Trust me, he gives as good as he gets.

In summation, stones aren't the issue here. I've backed up my position as well as it can be backed up, but you don't accept it as valid and you're not going to. What more is there to do?

RickD wrote:And btw, think of this as a warning for your tone. Calling moderators liars, will get you another ban. We were gracious enough to allow you to return, even though you tried to circumvent the rules. Be careful.

Yeah, sorry about that. I meant it as a lighthearted riposte - because come on, you didn't really think I was going to try to prove that god doesn't exist. Unfortunately tone is impossible to read, so it came off as extremely rude. That was not my intent and I apologize.

Audie wrote:

Storyteller wrote:The way I see it. We all have the same evidence. We just believe it supports different things.

I'm not sure ToE is used as proof of atheism either.

"Proof of atheism" is just nonsense. It literally has no meaning.

Evolution has nothing to do with the existence / nonexistence of any god.

Trying to use a theory to prove anyghing is nuts, if anyone even tries to.

Oh...and we all, in principle, have access to the same info.

It is far from true to say that any honest creationist has much knowledge
of science. Possible access, and actual comprehension, knowledge are not the same,
at all.

Otherwise, toss a medical book to the janitor, have him do brain surgery.

Any takers?

So are you saying that if someone is a creationist they have little, or no understanding of science?

And Audie, can you explain, or provide me with an example of, a transitional fossil? Please?

edwardmurphy wrote:

RickD wrote:Ed,
You made an assertion that God doesn't exist. You'd have been better off just claiming agnosticism, and saying that you don't know if God exists. But, since you made a positive assertion, that God doesn't exist, it's completely dishonest to think you shouldn't have to back your assertion.

I'm not going to call myself an agnostic because I'm not on the fence about the existence of gods. I don't believe that they exist.

You need to understand that I'm speaking for myself, and I'm not trying to convince anyone else of anything. I don't believe in gods, but that doesn't mean that I can prove that they don't exist. Nobody can prove that. So what? The existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Russel's Teapot are equally unassailable, and so is anything else that anyone can dream up, provided that they describe it as omnipotent, invisible, undetectable, and not subject to scientific scrutiny. The fact that I can't disprove the existence of god tells me one thing - apologists are good at what they do.

I'm not going to pick up the burden of proof simply because I didn't take the time to phrase my statement in such a way as to avoid the appearance of making a positive claim. To me "I don't believe in gods" and Gods don't exist" are the same statement, but somehow one is safe and the other saddles me with the burden of proof. Forget it. I'm not going to play that game.

RickD wrote:Frankly, with all the railing you do against certain people here, I really would have thought you would've put forth proof for your claim. You rail against B. W. Yet you don't have the stones to back up your beliefs.

I've never asked B.W. to prove that god exists, and I never will. He doesn't have an argument that I'm going to accept, so why bother bringing it up? Granted, I've blasted him on some other stuff, but when I call BS on some persecution claim or supposed liberal plot I do the research and cite my sources. And as a progressive, liberal atheist with democratic socialist leanings I can't very well sit by while he makes all kinds of false and insulting statements about me, can I? Trust me, he gives as good as he gets.

In summation, stones aren't the issue here. I've backed up my position as well as it can be backed up, but you don't accept it as valid and you're not going to. What more is there to do?

RickD wrote:And btw, think of this as a warning for your tone. Calling moderators liars, will get you another ban. We were gracious enough to allow you to return, even though you tried to circumvent the rules. Be careful.

Yeah, sorry about that. I meant it as a lighthearted riposte - because come on, you didn't really think I was going to try to prove that god doesn't exist. Unfortunately tone is impossible to read, so it came off as extremely rude. That was not my intent and I apologize.

Interestingly Ed
We align very closely with our political ideals.
I only say this because there is a preconceived idea that Christians are....conservative, one-eyed, right winged, republicans.
But that's not the only flavour of christianity
If you find yourself sceptical and resistant to the what is perceived as 'christian mainstream ideals' then you are blindsiding yourself to a myriad of what 'Christianity' means to many people.
It means to me equality, and dignity and fairness.
This places myself on a very different keel as I believe this basic principal is relevant across the board, to those that live in ways that I may or may not agree with,
It is their right to do so,
And it's not my right to dictate otherwise
You just cannot give others in fairness the basic principal of free will to live accordingly to thier own desires to then take a moral superiority that their way is not acceptable.
That takes way the dignity and worth of free will.
People will choose poorly
But the choice to choose is the ultimate beauty.
We cant claim the basic principal of God given free to all then ***** or whinge that others won't comply because that really is our ultimate message.
Not compliance
But choice.
People deserve the right not by own standards but by a higher standard
To make choices, to be stupid, to learn. To be whom and what they choose to be, whilst gathering wisdom and experience.
People have to be allowed the freedom to be ignorant, uninformed, stupid, free,and reckless, because the opposite is conformity without exception. Do as your told, and don't ask questions.
That's not freedom and it's not freewill
That's why religion suffocated me, but Jesus set me free
It was the ultimate feeling of freedom
Ironically I feel more free now than I ever did under the veil of religion or a humanistic ideal of existence.
To have the ultimate experience of being yourself but the freedom to be the best version of yourself and sometimes the worst but to utilise those times to learn and grow is to me freedom.
Freedom to soar or crumble

Storyteller wrote:

Audie wrote:

Storyteller wrote:The way I see it. We all have the same evidence. We just believe it supports different things.

I'm not sure ToE is used as proof of atheism either.

"Proof of atheism" is just nonsense. It literally has no meaning.

Evolution has nothing to do with the existence / nonexistence of any god.

Trying to use a theory to prove anyghing is nuts, if anyone even tries to.

Oh...and we all, in principle, have access to the same info.

It is far from true to say that any honest creationist has much knowledge
of science. Possible access, and actual comprehension, knowledge are not the same,
at all.

Otherwise, toss a medical book to the janitor, have him do brain surgery.

Any takers?

So are you saying that if someone is a creationist they have little, or no understanding of science?

And Audie, can you explain, or provide me with an example of, a transitional fossil? Please?

No, and I have expressed myself clearly on this.

Here again, in different words. There is no known data that indicates that either ToE or "deep time", both rejected by yec as unbiblical, are false.
None.

The arguments used to try to disprove those are, without exception simply false. As in strawman, misrepresentation, fraud or damn lie. Abundant examples of each are to be found.

Intellectual honesty, which is the topic (not theft, etc) is simply incompatible with yec or gap belief.

A rather famous yec is a Dr K Wise, a paleontologist who is quoted saying that even if all the evidence in the universe turns against yec, he will still be a yec as that is wht the bible seems to indicate.

That is the refined essence of intellectual dishonesty.

An informed person knows there is no disproof of ToE. Few creationists have more than just a very limited idea of evolution, and that generally so distorted and lied about by professional creationists as to be essentially unrecognizable.

I wouldnt say that the average creationist is intellectually dishonest, tho I would say they are quite negligent in a matter that is of some importance to the whole of their strange belief structure.

Those who are well educated in science and yet "bitterly cling" in Obama's phrase, to yec are intellectually dishonest, at best.

I've a feeling you have some expectation of a transitional animal that is not in line with what I would understand it to be but there is this..



A creature with with teeth and feathers? Somewhere between "reptile" and "bird"? A creature with three toes, between a five toed and a one toed animal?



What something suggests to one is far from what it suggests to another, often enough.

Lets consider flowers. The petals are as you no doubt know, modified leaves.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... m_RTBG.jpg

Here is a peace lily, so called. Notice that the "flower" consists of one leaf, that is no different from other leaves other than a bit of curve, and no chlorophyll. Later, it will turn green and be like the other leaves.

Something like that is intermediate between a plant with no flowers, and one with very elabourate ones.

I dont mean roses evolved from peace lily, or that anything did or necessarily will. But if one came back in a million years, and found that they have now four distinct petals, that wilt after blooming, more like a "flower" as we usually think of them? Would that single petal flower seem to you a transitional form from no flowers to a proper flower?

Why might such a change have taken place?

Keeping it simple since you asked for one example-

a three toed horse. Intermediate between ancestors with 5 and modern horses, with 1 toe.

Thanks Audie

I`m not a YEC so I can`t comment on that. I`m more of your OEC/Progressive Creationist I think. I don`t have a problem with evolution, per se but I don`t really know all the ins and outs of it either so I`m undecided. Evolution and God can co exist in my opinion.

Thanks for the example, I want to study this a bit more before I get back to you. As for the three toed horse, I forgot about those

John Wright on evolution and belief:

I do not think evolution will ever be discredited in the public eye, because at the moment it is the best theory we have which fits the available facts. I simply think it is not a scientific theory, since it cannot be proven or disproven.

The atheist who use it as a club to bludgeon theists is simply making a schoolboy mistake: all evolution disproves is Biblical literalism, that the Six Days of Creation in Genesis are literal. Saint Augustine did not think they were, nor do I, nor can they be, since the first and second chapter of Genesis give different accounts.

Evolution does not disprove God any more than it disproves theosophy or neoplatonism or Keynesianism. Evolution is a theory of biology, a way of interpreting facts into a framework. It stands or falls based on philosophical considerations of the utility of the framework, namely, does the theory explain more than it confounds?

Belief in God, on the other hand, is a theological stance. It stands or falls based on one character, one’s insight, and the logical relation between the stance and the accepted authorities charged with transmitting revealed truth, that is, the Church. A theological stance that offends scripture or Church teaching is not disproved like a scientific theory is disproved: it is declared anathema. It is condemned more for its disloyalty to the teachings of the Apostle than for its logical incoherence (albeit that plays a role in theological argument as well).

So the two things, belief in evolution and belief in God, are as unrelated as taste in music and belief in the free market. The operate in different spheres by different rules using different standards of truth and resting on different authorities to render a verdict.

When I was an atheist, I did not use the argument that since Darwin penning ORIGIN OF SPECIES was right, ergo Moses penning chapter one of GENESIS must be wrong, since the argument simply does not follow.

Darwin wrote a philosophical ‘just-so’ story to explain how species could arise from variations in breeding, which he called by the oxymoronic name of natural selection, that is, unselected selection, unguided guidance.

Moses wrote a hymn.

Storyteller wrote:Thanks Audie

I`m not a YEC so I can`t comment on that. I`m more of your OEC/Progressive Creationist I think. I don`t have a problem with evolution, per se but I don`t really know all the ins and outs of it either so I`m undecided. Evolution and God can co exist in my opinion.

Thanks for the example, I want to study this a bit more before I get back to you. As for the three toed horse, I forgot about those

I chose the horse as an easy familiar example.

PaulSacramento wrote:John Wright on evolution and belief:

I do not think evolution will ever be discredited in the public eye, because at the moment it is the best theory we have which fits the available facts. I simply think it is not a scientific theory, since it cannot be proven or disproven.

The atheist who use it as a club to bludgeon theists is simply making a schoolboy mistake: all evolution disproves is Biblical literalism, that the Six Days of Creation in Genesis are literal. Saint Augustine did not think they were, nor do I, nor can they be, since the first and second chapter of Genesis give different accounts.

Evolution does not disprove God any more than it disproves theosophy or neoplatonism or Keynesianism. Evolution is a theory of biology, a way of interpreting facts into a framework. It stands or falls based on philosophical considerations of the utility of the framework, namely, does the theory explain more than it confounds?

Belief in God, on the other hand, is a theological stance. It stands or falls based on one character, one’s insight, and the logical relation between the stance and the accepted authorities charged with transmitting revealed truth, that is, the Church. A theological stance that offends scripture or Church teaching is not disproved like a scientific theory is disproved: it is declared anathema. It is condemned more for its disloyalty to the teachings of the Apostle than for its logical incoherence (albeit that plays a role in theological argument as well).

So the two things, belief in evolution and belief in God, are as unrelated as taste in music and belief in the free market. The operate in different spheres by different rules using different standards of truth and resting on different authorities to render a verdict.

When I was an atheist, I did not use the argument that since Darwin penning ORIGIN OF SPECIES was right, ergo Moses penning chapter one of GENESIS must be wrong, since the argument simply does not follow.

Darwin wrote a philosophical ‘just-so’ story to explain how species could arise from variations in breeding, which he called by the oxymoronic name of natural selection, that is, unselected selection, unguided guidance.

Moses wrote a hymn.

Not bad other than the rather idiotic comments in bold.

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:John Wright on evolution and belief:

I do not think evolution will ever be discredited in the public eye, because at the moment it is the best theory we have which fits the available facts. I simply think it is not a scientific theory, since it cannot be proven or disproven.

The atheist who use it as a club to bludgeon theists is simply making a schoolboy mistake: all evolution disproves is Biblical literalism, that the Six Days of Creation in Genesis are literal. Saint Augustine did not think they were, nor do I, nor can they be, since the first and second chapter of Genesis give different accounts.

Evolution does not disprove God any more than it disproves theosophy or neoplatonism or Keynesianism. Evolution is a theory of biology, a way of interpreting facts into a framework. It stands or falls based on philosophical considerations of the utility of the framework, namely, does the theory explain more than it confounds?

Belief in God, on the other hand, is a theological stance. It stands or falls based on one character, one’s insight, and the logical relation between the stance and the accepted authorities charged with transmitting revealed truth, that is, the Church. A theological stance that offends scripture or Church teaching is not disproved like a scientific theory is disproved: it is declared anathema. It is condemned more for its disloyalty to the teachings of the Apostle than for its logical incoherence (albeit that plays a role in theological argument as well).

So the two things, belief in evolution and belief in God, are as unrelated as taste in music and belief in the free market. The operate in different spheres by different rules using different standards of truth and resting on different authorities to render a verdict.

When I was an atheist, I did not use the argument that since Darwin penning ORIGIN OF SPECIES was right, ergo Moses penning chapter one of GENESIS must be wrong, since the argument simply does not follow.

Darwin wrote a philosophical ‘just-so’ story to explain how species could arise from variations in breeding, which he called by the oxymoronic name of natural selection, that is, unselected selection, unguided guidance.

Moses wrote a hymn.

Not bad other than the rather idiotic comments in bold.

Actually Audie there is not idiotic about those comments, considering how they are qualified.
Note in regards to the TOE:

I simply think it is not a scientific theory, since it cannot be proven or disproven.

As you know, the scientific method is clear and one of the key elements in proving a scientific hypothesis is if it is falsifiable:
a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.

In regards to his view on "natural selection".
Yes, Darwin wrote something that,at the time, could not be proven and wrote it neatly and carefully.
That is called ( by writers) "just-so" writing.
As for the term "natural selection" being an oxymoron.
http://www.debate.org/debates/Natural-S ... xymoron/1/

Before you call things idiotic just because you disagree with them, maybe you should try to understand the context of the post and what the writer was actually saying.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:John Wright on evolution and belief:

I do not think evolution will ever be discredited in the public eye, because at the moment it is the best theory we have which fits the available facts. I simply think it is not a scientific theory, since it cannot be proven or disproven.

The atheist who use it as a club to bludgeon theists is simply making a schoolboy mistake: all evolution disproves is Biblical literalism, that the Six Days of Creation in Genesis are literal. Saint Augustine did not think they were, nor do I, nor can they be, since the first and second chapter of Genesis give different accounts.

Evolution does not disprove God any more than it disproves theosophy or neoplatonism or Keynesianism. Evolution is a theory of biology, a way of interpreting facts into a framework. It stands or falls based on philosophical considerations of the utility of the framework, namely, does the theory explain more than it confounds?

Belief in God, on the other hand, is a theological stance. It stands or falls based on one character, one’s insight, and the logical relation between the stance and the accepted authorities charged with transmitting revealed truth, that is, the Church. A theological stance that offends scripture or Church teaching is not disproved like a scientific theory is disproved: it is declared anathema. It is condemned more for its disloyalty to the teachings of the Apostle than for its logical incoherence (albeit that plays a role in theological argument as well).

So the two things, belief in evolution and belief in God, are as unrelated as taste in music and belief in the free market. The operate in different spheres by different rules using different standards of truth and resting on different authorities to render a verdict.

When I was an atheist, I did not use the argument that since Darwin penning ORIGIN OF SPECIES was right, ergo Moses penning chapter one of GENESIS must be wrong, since the argument simply does not follow.

Darwin wrote a philosophical ‘just-so’ story to explain how species could arise from variations in breeding, which he called by the oxymoronic name of natural selection, that is, unselected selection, unguided guidance.

Moses wrote a hymn.

Not bad other than the rather idiotic comments in bold.

Actually Audie there is not idiotic about those comments, considering how they are qualified.
Note in regards to the TOE:

I simply think it is not a scientific theory, since it cannot be proven or disproven.

As you know, the scientific method is clear and one of the key elements in proving a scientific hypothesis is if it is falsifiable:
a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.

In regards to his view on "natural selection".
Yes, Darwin wrote something that,at the time, could not be proven and wrote it neatly and carefully.
That is called ( by writers) "just-so" writing.
As for the term "natural selection" being an oxymoron.
http://www.debate.org/debates/Natural-S ... xymoron/1/

Ok; ok. He THINKS it is not a theory.

The topic is a theory, not a hypothesis, the word is "disprove" not "falsify".

NO theory can ever be proven, so its rather ignorant to speak of one not being proven.

As for being disproved, the ToE is as open to disproof as any theory.
If his contextualized opinion is different from how things actually are, well so....? Its just an opinion.

The name "just-so" is his unqualified opinion. In science and philosophy, a just-so story, also called an ad hoc fallacy, is an unverifiable and unfalsifiable narrative explanation for a cultural practice, a biological trait, or behavior of humans or other animals.

Darwin's book and theory do not match that, though it sure applies to any and all creationist ideas about the nature of life on earth.

As for "natural selection' if one likes to play equivocation games, I guess that's fun for those its fun for. Its is known as a fallacy, of course, for good reason.

Was there supposed to be some point to that quote? Other, that is, than to be another demonstration that creationists dont know what they are talking about?

PaulSacramento wrote:Before you call things idiotic just because you disagree with them, maybe you should try to understand the context of the post and what the writer was actually saying.

Prease exprain what he was actually saying.


What he actually wrote is kinda dumb.

I said dumb because it is dumb, not " just because I disagree".

Audie wrote:An informed person knows there is no disproof of ToE.

Woah, and I thought she can't get any more dumb.