Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

[Alter2Ego]

Do you realize that "scientific theory" is nothing more than a group of hypotheses (educated guesses) that can be disputed? In other words, theory is nothing but speculations aka not fact. So tell me, how is speculation by humans more valid than what's written in the Judeo-Christian Bible?

What is written in the Bible is merely the pronouncements of primitive people, and thus not even educated guesses. Obviously, human effort today, with much better tools and a much better knowledge base to work with, is superior to what was possible for nomads thousands of years ago. There is no good reason to believe the Bible consists of anything other than human effort; those who do believe that believe it in response to a threat of Hell or a promise of Heaven or both, hence have been blackmailed or bribed into accepting it, and hence are not evaluating it rationally.

ALTER2EGO -to- DRAGON:
You're right. The Bible writings are not mere educated guesses. They are Divine pronouncements. I'm still waiting for you to explain away the almost 2,000 accurately fulfilled Bible prophesies.

 

[Dragon]

No, the theory of evolution is not merely about the "why" (as in why did animals evolve from the get-go). Whereas the Law of Gravity has been proven by the fact that when something falls we know it will hit the ground (evidence), the theory of evolution has no evidence to support it.

Totally incorrect on so many levels. But you still have not dealt with the challenge posed above, and until you do there is really no point in discussing the evidence for evolution. You don't merely want to disprove evolution, after all, you want people to believe in intelligent design, or perhaps in literal biblical 6-day creation, and despite what you seem to think, that is NOT the default position if the theory of evolution were to be disproved. Until you establish intelligent design as a scientific theory, it is not going to be a candidate to replace evolution, and so you will gain nothing even if you could prove evolution wrong.

So stop talking about evolution for a bit, please. Let's consider ID. Can you show a way in which ID might be falsified, thus making it into a scientific theory that is even worth considering? If you can do that, then we'll consider it against evolution theory as it currently exists in biology. So that's your next task.

What test could we conduct that would prove intelligent design to be false? Answer that, and we'll go on from there.

 

[code1211]

There is none just a vivid imagination.

They try to use an incomplete fossil record as evidence but that shows only stasis they had to create a new theory called punctuated equilibrium.

They do so much dancing in trying to explain the real evidence they can't see how design provides better answers.

I'm not at all sure what you are saying in this...

The lack of transitional fossils if evolution happened as they say.

What people fail to understand the more the mutations the less the chance of survival of the species experiencing too many mutations in a short period of time.

Species cannot just show up in the fossil record unless they were created that way.

So explain the cocker spaniel. This certainly not a wolf. It was bred into existence by men tinkering with breeding. It was not created that way. It was bred that way.

Existing in the fossil record are numerous examples of animals that are no more. Part of the theory of evolution is that species will disappear if they are not suited to changing environments. Missing from the fossil record are most of today's species.

Is it your thesis that the Creator created a whole ecosystem complete with all of the accompanying flora and fauna, discovered he made a mistake, wiped the slate clean and started off in a new direction?

Why do this on the same planet? Why not simply create a new planet and leave the old one to churn along? This would be a big deal to us, but not to him.

If he is all seeing and all knowing, how could this have unfolded?

 

[Dragon]

You're right. The Bible writings are not mere educated guesses. They are Divine pronouncements. I'm still waiting for you to explain away the almost 2,000 accurately fulfilled Bible prophesies.

If you are operating on dogmatic religious belief, which appears to be the case, then we have nothing to talk about at all. As for explaining away prophecies, that's of course quite simple; there is no prophecy in the Bible whose fulfillment cannot be accounted for by one of creative interpretation of later scriptures, deliberate falsification of them with earlier prophecies in mind, or, at best, normal human psychic ability. Also, the Bible is not one work but a collection of works joined together by fallible human authorities, and so even evidence of extraordinary content in one book of the Bible does nothing to support claims about any other book of the Bible.

But of course, if you are a dogmatist, as seems to be the case, you will not pay attention to any of this. If you want to discuss the origin of species on a scientific basis, I'll join in. If all you want is to spout Christian dogma, I'm not interested and will ignore you henceforth. Id appreciate it if you would make that clear, just for convenience' sake.

 

[code1211]

Before we get started on this, let's see if we can lay to rest the most basic criticism of intelligent design: that it is not falsifiable, and hence not a scientific theory. If it is not a scientific theory, then it cannot compete with evolution, which is one, and therefore there is not much need to discuss it.

However, this is easily remedied, I would think. To "falsify" a theory is to present a test or experiment or observation that, if it results in A instead of B, means that the theory is not correct.

Can someone tell me a test that would, if it turns out a certain way, prove that intelligent design is false? If so, then we must consider it falsifiable and hence a scientific theory. (Note: this does not mean claiming that it IS actually false, just presenting a test that would prove it false, IF it is.)

I await your responses with great interest.

What sets humans apart and make them superior from all other species ?

Control of water.

 

[code1211]

The lack of transitional fossils if evolution happened as they say.

What people fail to understand the more the mutations the less the chance of survival of the species experiencing too many mutations in a short period of time.

Hey, YWC, care to rise above your usual silliness and present a way to falsify intelligent design, thus making it a scientific theory? I describe the basic process above. Have a shot.

Just as viable as your theory and even more viable.

Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)

by Duane Gish, Ph.D.


This impact pamphlet was written by a scientist, and a science educator, and reviewed by an attorney, to provide a brief summary of the scientific evidence supporting creation. The text materials and references listed at the end together give a more thorough discussion of this scientific evidence.

Introduction

Public schools in many localities are teaching two scientific models - the creation model and the evolution model of the origin of the universe, of life, and of man. There is apparent scientific evidence for creation, which is summarized in this pamphlet, just as there is apparent scientific evidence for evolution. The purpose of this pamphlet is to summarize the evidence that shows that:





"The creation model is at least as scientific as the evolution model, and is at least as nonreligious as the evolution model."


<snip>



]

There is evidence of several million years of life on this planet.

There is evidenced that several forms of life died out millions of years ago.

How old is the Earth in the Creationist theory? How fast to continents drift in the Creationist Theory?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Do you realize that "scientific theory" is nothing more than a group of hypotheses (educated guesses) that can be disputed? In other words, theory is nothing but speculations aka not fact. So tell me, how is speculation by humans more valid than what's written in the Judeo-Christian Bible?

What is written in the Bible is merely the pronouncements of primitive people, and thus not even educated guesses. Obviously, human effort today, with much better tools and a much better knowledge base to work with, is superior to what was possible for nomads thousands of years ago. There is no good reason to believe the Bible consists of anything other than human effort; those who do believe that believe it in response to a threat of Hell or a promise of Heaven or both, hence have been blackmailed or bribed into accepting it, and hence are not evaluating it rationally.

ALTER2EGO -to- DRAGON:
You're right. The Bible writings are not mere educated guesses. They are Divine pronouncements. I'm still waiting for you to explain away the almost 2,000 accurately fulfilled Bible prophesies.

What is really strange and funny at the same time is the many things written about in the scriptures that man did not have the ability or the knowledge to know at the time of the writings proving the bible was divinely inspired.

Which I have prested and they ignored.

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

101 Scientific Facts & Foreknowledge

 

[Youwerecreated]

I'm not at all sure what you are saying in this...

The lack of transitional fossils if evolution happened as they say.

What people fail to understand the more the mutations the less the chance of survival of the species experiencing too many mutations in a short period of time.

Species cannot just show up in the fossil record unless they were created that way.

So explain the cocker spaniel. This certainly not a wolf. It was bred into existence by men tinkering with breeding. It was not created that way. It was bred that way.

Existing in the fossil record are numerous examples of animals that are no more. Part of the theory of evolution is that species will disappear if they are not suited to changing environments. Missing from the fossil record are most of today's species.

Is it your thesis that the Creator created a whole ecosystem complete with all of the accompanying flora and fauna, discovered he made a mistake, wiped the slate clean and started off in a new direction?

Why do this on the same planet? Why not simply create a new planet and leave the old one to churn along? This would be a big deal to us, but not to him.

If he is all seeing and all knowing, how could this have unfolded?

You answered the question yourself man manipulated the variations through breeding different breeds. Are you saying variations could not happen because of the vast genepool ?

Traits can disappear as the genepool decreases with purebred animals. That's what is happening when you create new purebreds you are breeding genetic information out. The gene pool of the mutt is much larger and is the reason for variations.

I have no idea what your argument is concerning the cocker spaniel.

 

[Douger]

Here. It's much more feasible and equally off the wall.
The Raelian Movement: Intelligent Design for Atheists

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're right. The Bible writings are not mere educated guesses. They are Divine pronouncements. I'm still waiting for you to explain away the almost 2,000 accurately fulfilled Bible prophesies.

If you are operating on dogmatic religious belief, which appears to be the case, then we have nothing to talk about at all. As for explaining away prophecies, that's of course quite simple; there is no prophecy in the Bible whose fulfillment cannot be accounted for by one of creative interpretation of later scriptures, deliberate falsification of them with earlier prophecies in mind, or, at best, normal human psychic ability. Also, the Bible is not one work but a collection of works joined together by fallible human authorities, and so even evidence of extraordinary content in one book of the Bible does nothing to support claims about any other book of the Bible.

But of course, if you are a dogmatist, as seems to be the case, you will not pay attention to any of this. If you want to discuss the origin of species on a scientific basis, I'll join in. If all you want is to spout Christian dogma, I'm not interested and will ignore you henceforth. Id appreciate it if you would make that clear, just for convenience' sake.

Dogmatic,pot calling the kettle black again Dragon ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Before we get started on this, let's see if we can lay to rest the most basic criticism of intelligent design: that it is not falsifiable, and hence not a scientific theory. If it is not a scientific theory, then it cannot compete with evolution, which is one, and therefore there is not much need to discuss it.

However, this is easily remedied, I would think. To "falsify" a theory is to present a test or experiment or observation that, if it results in A instead of B, means that the theory is not correct.

Can someone tell me a test that would, if it turns out a certain way, prove that intelligent design is false? If so, then we must consider it falsifiable and hence a scientific theory. (Note: this does not mean claiming that it IS actually false, just presenting a test that would prove it false, IF it is.)

I await your responses with great interest.

What sets humans apart and make them superior from all other species ?

Control of water.

Wrong,brain power my friend.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hey, YWC, care to rise above your usual silliness and present a way to falsify intelligent design, thus making it a scientific theory? I describe the basic process above. Have a shot.

Just as viable as your theory and even more viable.

Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)

by Duane Gish, Ph.D.


This impact pamphlet was written by a scientist, and a science educator, and reviewed by an attorney, to provide a brief summary of the scientific evidence supporting creation. The text materials and references listed at the end together give a more thorough discussion of this scientific evidence.

Introduction

Public schools in many localities are teaching two scientific models - the creation model and the evolution model of the origin of the universe, of life, and of man. There is apparent scientific evidence for creation, which is summarized in this pamphlet, just as there is apparent scientific evidence for evolution. The purpose of this pamphlet is to summarize the evidence that shows that:





"The creation model is at least as scientific as the evolution model, and is at least as nonreligious as the evolution model."


<snip>



]

There is evidence of several million years of life on this planet.

There is evidenced that several forms of life died out millions of years ago.

How old is the Earth in the Creationist theory? How fast to continents drift in the Creationist Theory?

Those are simply dogmatic views. The reason why there are so many different dating methods is because they are all unreliable.

When you can take differents parts of the same tree or rock and come up with different ages for the same tree and rock that is a problem.What was really funny was when a tree was done that people knew the age of the tree when it was handed over for testing they wewre only off by about 20.000 years.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Here. It's much more feasible and equally off the wall.
The Raelian Movement: Intelligent Design for Atheists

When they actually find a space ship and or an alien that would be the time to discuss such nonsense.

 

[code1211]

The lack of transitional fossils if evolution happened as they say.

What people fail to understand the more the mutations the less the chance of survival of the species experiencing too many mutations in a short period of time.

Species cannot just show up in the fossil record unless they were created that way.

So explain the cocker spaniel. This certainly not a wolf. It was bred into existence by men tinkering with breeding. It was not created that way. It was bred that way.

Existing in the fossil record are numerous examples of animals that are no more. Part of the theory of evolution is that species will disappear if they are not suited to changing environments. Missing from the fossil record are most of today's species.

Is it your thesis that the Creator created a whole ecosystem complete with all of the accompanying flora and fauna, discovered he made a mistake, wiped the slate clean and started off in a new direction?

Why do this on the same planet? Why not simply create a new planet and leave the old one to churn along? This would be a big deal to us, but not to him.

If he is all seeing and all knowing, how could this have unfolded?

You answered the question yourself man manipulated the variations through breeding different breeds. Are you saying variations could not happen because of the vast genepool ?

Traits can disappear as the genepool decreases with purebred animals. That's what is happening when you create new purebreds you are breeding genetic information out. The gene pool of the mutt is much larger and is the reason for variations.

I have no idea what your argument is concerning the cocker spaniel.

The point with the dog breeds is that the mechanics exist within all species to adapt. Why is this capability there if all creations were created perfect.

If all creations were not perfect, what is the point of the definition of God?

You failed to address the part highlighted in red above.

 

[code1211]

What sets humans apart and make them superior from all other species ?

Control of water.

Wrong,brain power my friend.

Without the control of water, all the brain power in the world is spent subsisting.

This is what set the Roman Empire apart in the time of Pax Romana. All of the great civilizations have learned how to control water. Without that control, Pax Romana became the Dark Ages.

Use your brain power.

 

[code1211]

Just as viable as your theory and even more viable.

Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)

by Duane Gish, Ph.D.


This impact pamphlet was written by a scientist, and a science educator, and reviewed by an attorney, to provide a brief summary of the scientific evidence supporting creation. The text materials and references listed at the end together give a more thorough discussion of this scientific evidence.

Introduction

Public schools in many localities are teaching two scientific models - the creation model and the evolution model of the origin of the universe, of life, and of man. There is apparent scientific evidence for creation, which is summarized in this pamphlet, just as there is apparent scientific evidence for evolution. The purpose of this pamphlet is to summarize the evidence that shows that:





"The creation model is at least as scientific as the evolution model, and is at least as nonreligious as the evolution model."


<snip>



]

There is evidence of several million years of life on this planet.

There is evidenced that several forms of life died out millions of years ago.

How old is the Earth in the Creationist theory? How fast to continents drift in the Creationist Theory?

Those are simply dogmatic views. The reason why there are so many different dating methods is because they are all unreliable.

When you can take differents parts of the same tree or rock and come up with different ages for the same tree and rock that is a problem.What was really funny was when a tree was done that people knew the age of the tree when it was handed over for testing they wewre only off by about 20.000 years.

And the answer to my question which you ignored?

 

[Old Rocks]

ALTER2EGO -to- CODE1211:

If the animals evolved, as you claim, where's the evidence of this? The pro-evolution scientists have all admitted that the fossils (bones of long dead animals) is full of nothing but gaps. Gaps indicate there are no bones to connect one type of animal family/species with an entirely different type.

You reference to this admission relates to the Scientific certainty level which is far beyond the normal standard of human understanding. If you have seen the TV series, "Bones", you have seen skeletal remains of the various victims on the Dr.'s table as she divines the cause of death.

If you were to lay the bones of chimps, gorillas, squirrels, cats, dogs and all the animals with spines on the table in the same way and this goes all the way back to the dinosaurs, you can find pretty much the same set of bones in each of these animals with few departures.

Why are there none with two spines? Why are there alway four appendages? What's the deal with seven holes in the skull? Why not four eyes or two mouths or four nostrils?

I am not arguing against the existence of God. I'm just observing the world around me as He game me the sense and the senses to do and concluding that He is not as interested in the development of the species as the philosophers who explain His existence (isn't that just a tad patronizing) to the Great Unwashed.

As far as the evidence of Evolution, it is all around us and the mechanisms for it are being exposed and are being used on a daily basis as Corn is being made into hybrids and thoroughbreds are being raised to run races and dogs are being bred to win shows or hunt ducks.

If you have ever looked at a baby and said he has his mother's nose, you are witnessing evolution.

Because of all of this evidence, empirical and relayed, it is really incumbent on the ID folks to justify your position with something better than "it's because I read it" in a book documenting stories from the Stone Age.

Again this is not an attack on your religion or your beliefs. You are welcome to them, but converting me to your understanding of things will require a bit more logic.

There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.

More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels on ball bearing.

"In a research survey published in 2001, the evolutionary biologist Joel Kingsolver reported that in sample sizes of more than one thousand individuals, there was virtually no correlation between specific biological traits and either reproductive success or survival. “Important issues about selection,” he remarked with some understatement, “remain unresolved.”

Of these important issues, I would mention prominently the question of whether natural selection exists at all. Computer simulations of Darwinian evolution fail when they are honest and succeed only when they are not. Thomas Ray has for years been conducting computer experiments in an artificial environment that he has designated Tierra. . . . Sandra Blakeslee, writing for the New York Times, reported the results under the headline “Computer ‘Life Form’ Mutates in an Evolution Experiment: Natural Selection Is Found at Work in a Digital World.”

So, this is natural selection at work? Blakeslee observes, with solemn incomprehension, “the creatures mutated but showed only modest increases in complexity.” Which is to say, they showed nothing of interest at all. This is natural selection at work, but it is hardly work that has worked to intended effect.

What these computer experiments do reveal is a principle far more penetrating than any that Darwin ever offered:
There is a sucker born every minute."

The above from Berlinski's "Devil's Delusion," p. 189-190

Complete bullshit. We have observed speciation;

Observed Instances of Speciation

 

[Youwerecreated]

So explain the cocker spaniel. This certainly not a wolf. It was bred into existence by men tinkering with breeding. It was not created that way. It was bred that way.

Existing in the fossil record are numerous examples of animals that are no more. Part of the theory of evolution is that species will disappear if they are not suited to changing environments. Missing from the fossil record are most of today's species.

Is it your thesis that the Creator created a whole ecosystem complete with all of the accompanying flora and fauna, discovered he made a mistake, wiped the slate clean and started off in a new direction?

Why do this on the same planet? Why not simply create a new planet and leave the old one to churn along? This would be a big deal to us, but not to him.

If he is all seeing and all knowing, how could this have unfolded?

You answered the question yourself man manipulated the variations through breeding different breeds. Are you saying variations could not happen because of the vast genepool ?

Traits can disappear as the genepool decreases with purebred animals. That's what is happening when you create new purebreds you are breeding genetic information out. The gene pool of the mutt is much larger and is the reason for variations.

I have no idea what your argument is concerning the cocker spaniel.

The point with the dog breeds is that the mechanics exist within all species to adapt. Why is this capability there if all creations were created perfect.

If all creations were not perfect, what is the point of the definition of God?

You failed to address the part highlighted in red above.

The creator created humans perfect with the ability to live forever not sure if animals were to live forever before sin entered the picture.

The reason animals become extinct is what you would call natural selection. When sin entered the world the human pair adam and eve were removed from the only perfect spot on earth,the garden of eden.

So now we live in non-perfect enviornment and some species can adapt to their surroundings and some can't. I believe the creator gave all living things the ability to adapt but with limits. If we go beyond the limits we die.

With all the catastrophes that changed the enviornment probably was the cause of many species going extinct. We are not living under the conditions the way God intended. Man now is living under these conditions because of the choice of the origional human couple adam and eve.

 

[Youwerecreated]

There is evidence of several million years of life on this planet.

There is evidenced that several forms of life died out millions of years ago.

How old is the Earth in the Creationist theory? How fast to continents drift in the Creationist Theory?

Those are simply dogmatic views. The reason why there are so many different dating methods is because they are all unreliable.

When you can take differents parts of the same tree or rock and come up with different ages for the same tree and rock that is a problem.What was really funny was when a tree was done that people knew the age of the tree when it was handed over for testing they wewre only off by about 20.000 years.

And the answer to my question which you ignored?

Some creationist believe the timeline of the bible and I do to but I am not sure if we go by God's timeline or mans. If we go by God's timeline the scriptures say a thousand years is a day to God so that would mean each day of creation was a thousand years. and the following the timeline of the bible man has been on the earth for 6,000 years plust the time of creation then we would be looking at the earth being 12,000 to 13,000 years old.

If each creation day was a 24 hour period by mans timeline then yes the earth is over 6,000 years. But no one knows for sure it is only based on speculation.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You reference to this admission relates to the Scientific certainty level which is far beyond the normal standard of human understanding. If you have seen the TV series, "Bones", you have seen skeletal remains of the various victims on the Dr.'s table as she divines the cause of death.

If you were to lay the bones of chimps, gorillas, squirrels, cats, dogs and all the animals with spines on the table in the same way and this goes all the way back to the dinosaurs, you can find pretty much the same set of bones in each of these animals with few departures.

Why are there none with two spines? Why are there alway four appendages? What's the deal with seven holes in the skull? Why not four eyes or two mouths or four nostrils?

I am not arguing against the existence of God. I'm just observing the world around me as He game me the sense and the senses to do and concluding that He is not as interested in the development of the species as the philosophers who explain His existence (isn't that just a tad patronizing) to the Great Unwashed.

As far as the evidence of Evolution, it is all around us and the mechanisms for it are being exposed and are being used on a daily basis as Corn is being made into hybrids and thoroughbreds are being raised to run races and dogs are being bred to win shows or hunt ducks.

If you have ever looked at a baby and said he has his mother's nose, you are witnessing evolution.

Because of all of this evidence, empirical and relayed, it is really incumbent on the ID folks to justify your position with something better than "it's because I read it" in a book documenting stories from the Stone Age.

Again this is not an attack on your religion or your beliefs. You are welcome to them, but converting me to your understanding of things will require a bit more logic.

There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.

More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels on ball bearing.

"In a research survey published in 2001, the evolutionary biologist Joel Kingsolver reported that in sample sizes of more than one thousand individuals, there was virtually no correlation between specific biological traits and either reproductive success or survival. &#8220;Important issues about selection,&#8221; he remarked with some understatement, &#8220;remain unresolved.&#8221;

Of these important issues, I would mention prominently the question of whether natural selection exists at all. Computer simulations of Darwinian evolution fail when they are honest and succeed only when they are not. Thomas Ray has for years been conducting computer experiments in an artificial environment that he has designated Tierra. . . . Sandra Blakeslee, writing for the New York Times, reported the results under the headline &#8220;Computer &#8216;Life Form&#8217; Mutates in an Evolution Experiment: Natural Selection Is Found at Work in a Digital World.&#8221;

So, this is natural selection at work? Blakeslee observes, with solemn incomprehension, &#8220;the creatures mutated but showed only modest increases in complexity.&#8221; Which is to say, they showed nothing of interest at all. This is natural selection at work, but it is hardly work that has worked to intended effect.

What these computer experiments do reveal is a principle far more penetrating than any that Darwin ever offered:
There is a sucker born every minute."

The above from Berlinski's "Devil's Delusion," p. 189-190

Complete bullshit. We have observed speciation;

Observed Instances of Speciation

Wrong what has been observed is microevolution learn the difference between the two. Never has flies become nonflies. Never has humans become nonhumans. Never has horses become nonhorses. Never has bacteria become nonbacteria,That is macroevolution.

A change of traits within a family or group is microevolution.