Two Questions for Christians

[Voter]

Giving you all the evidence for evolution would take years.

I didn't ask for all the evidence, I asked for some evidence, presumably the strongest first.

Here's a good starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution

As there's not a consensus definition of scientific evidence, a good starting point would be a discussion of scientific evidence, which that link lacks.

[Loffler]

Giving you all the evidence for evolution would take years.

I didn't ask for all the evidence, I asked for some evidence, presumably the strongest first.

The strongest evidence is the subsequent discover, long after Darwin, of DNA. DNA behaves exactly as it should behave if evolution were true, and all subsequent (and lucrative) scientific research and development in DNA has depended on natural selection being true. For example: 90% of your DNA is meaningless, empty code. That's right, most of your DNA doesn't do anything. Only a small amount of it carries any actual genes, not all of which actually do anything. Some of your genes are deactivated remnants of your ancestral past, which reminds me...

Let me move down a rung to something simpler that your Sunday school teacher's probably already coached you on responding to: vestigial organs. We have an appendix, which digests wood in some animals but does not do that in us. We have the tiny remnants of a second eyelid in the corner of our eyes. We have more teeth than we need. We have organs with redundant functions (the kidneys filter the blood, but the liver can help sometimes).

Here's a good starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution

As there's not a consensus definition of scientific evidence, a good starting point would be a discussion of scientific evidence, which that link lacks.

Yes, authors of science articles have a nasty habit of assuming their readers have a basic understanding of science. This unfortunate assumption certainly doesn't help mend the widening rift between Christianity and science.

[Voter]

Yes, authors of science articles have a nasty habit of assuming their readers have a basic understanding of science. This unfortunate assumption certainly doesn't help mend the widening rift between Christianity and science.

So what would you propose? We need to agree on that before assessing your proposed evidence.

[tdh26]

Yes, authors of science articles have a nasty habit of assuming their readers have a basic understanding of science. This unfortunate assumption certainly doesn't help mend the widening rift between Christianity and science.

I would disagree in the sense that scientists don't agree in much a lot of the time. There are plenty of current and past debates that go on for years between scientists. Even in the evolutionary field.
If science were so pure, there would hardly be any debate, but it's riddled with theories and suppositions that go on and on. There are even articles I've read that state; 'Most scientific papers are wrong' and that's because they assume so many things that are not true to come to a conclusion. To me, there is no widening rift between Christianity and science and I'm not sure how anyone could say that seeing science came out of a belief in God. They wanted to know God more by studing his creation. Hence the great universities built by the Church and or supported by the Church. Science would be hundreds of years behind where we are now if it wasn't from this motivation of the Church.

[McQ]

As in another thread on the forum, I'm seeing the potential for good discussion go by the wayside because tdh and voter are ignoring perfectly sound answers to questions. loffler provided exactly what you two needed, but you blew it off. If you want to discuss science, then be willing to discuss science, not why you don't believe it.

The level of misunderstanding is astounding here. One thing I do agree with you on is that science doesn't deal with the supernatural. At least we've got that behind us! But I highly encourage you to take some college level biology, physics, astronomy courses...something that brings you beyond the level of "Answers in Genesis", etc.  This is really painful and it is also why I started staying out of any threads to do with the subjects I am most knowledgeable on, biology and astronomy. It's just too head-bangingly hard to go over and over the same ground with people who don't want to learn something. It's hard not to get sucked back in though, especially when you see people not responding to valid points. It's different and much more rewarding when people actually want to learn something, but that so rarely happens that it's just easier and less time consuming/frustrating to sit back and watch the wheels fall off the wagon.

So, back to your original discussion, and don't mind me over here in the corner.  

[McQ]

Yes, authors of science articles have a nasty habit of assuming their readers have a basic understanding of science. This unfortunate assumption certainly doesn't help mend the widening rift between Christianity and science.

I would disagree in the sense that scientists don't agree in much a lot of the time. There are plenty of current and past debates that go on for years between scientists. Even in the evolutionary field.

There are debates in science all the time because that's what is supposed to happen. Do you understand that? Science doesn't start from a declaration of an absolute truth, like religion does. It starts from observation and then makes hypotheses to explain the observations, leading to the the theories that we outline and detail. It is a self-correcting system that relies on continual testing. And it works fine.

If science were so pure, there would hardly be any debate, but it's riddled with theories and suppositions that go on and on.

That is so wrong it is not even amusing. The purpose is to come up with testable hypotheses, based on observations. The debates and writing of papers come from examining all of these. It is supposed to happen! First, get a basic (and I mean basic) understanding of what science is. Theories aren't something it is riddled with, as if they are a problem. Learn what "theory" means as well...please! Theories aren't quite "debated", the way you think. If you think so, then I challenge you to debate me regarding the Theory of Gravitation. I say it is solid, but since it's only a "theory" please help me test it by finding a nice, tall building and stepping off the roof (it's supposed to be humorous, but I sincerely hope you get my point and learn what a theory is).
 

There are even articles I've read that state; 'Most scientific papers are wrong' and that's because they assume so many things that are not true to come to a conclusion.

Please share them here in this thread. Or at least provide proof sources.

To me, there is no widening rift between Christianity and science and I'm not sure how anyone could say that seeing science came out of a belief in God. They wanted to know God more by studing his creation. Hence the great universities built by the Church and or supported by the Church. Science would be hundreds of years behind where we are now if it wasn't from this motivation of the Church.

Why don't you ask Galileo if he agrees with that last sentence?

[Voter]

As in another thread on the forum, I'm seeing the potential for good discussion go by the wayside because tdh and voter are ignoring perfectly sound answers to questions. loffler provided exactly what you two needed, but you blew it off. If you want to discuss science, then be willing to discuss science, not why you don't believe it.

Incorrect. I'm perfectly willing to discuss loffler's answers, once we agree on a definition of scientific evidence. I'll probably also want to define evolution.

The level of misunderstanding is astounding here.

Yep, so why are you criticizing me for attempting to come to an agreement on basic terms before proceeding?  The point of that is to avoid misunderstanding.

One thing I do agree with you on is that science doesn't deal with the supernatural. At least we've got that behind us! But I highly encourage you to take some college level biology, physics, astronomy courses...something that brings you beyond the level of "Answers in Genesis", etc.  This is really painful and it is also why I started staying out of any threads to do with the subjects I am most knowledgeable on, biology and astronomy. It's just too head-bangingly hard to go over and over the same ground with people who don't want to learn something. It's hard not to get sucked back in though, especially when you see people not responding to valid points. It's different and much more rewarding when people actually want to learn something, but that so rarely happens that it's just easier and less time consuming/frustrating to sit back and watch the wheels fall off the wagon.

So, back to your original discussion, and don't mind me over here in the corner.  

If you're so well educated in science, why don't you give us a definition of scientific evidence?

[McQ]

As in another thread on the forum, I'm seeing the potential for good discussion go by the wayside because tdh and voter are ignoring perfectly sound answers to questions. loffler provided exactly what you two needed, but you blew it off. If you want to discuss science, then be willing to discuss science, not why you don't believe it.

Incorrect. I'm perfectly willing to discuss loffler's answers, once we agree on a definition of scientific evidence. I'll probably also want to define evolution.

The level of misunderstanding is astounding here.

Yep, so why are you criticizing me for attempting to come to an agreement on basic terms before proceeding?  The point of that is to avoid misunderstanding.

One thing I do agree with you on is that science doesn't deal with the supernatural. At least we've got that behind us! But I highly encourage you to take some college level biology, physics, astronomy courses...something that brings you beyond the level of "Answers in Genesis", etc.  This is really painful and it is also why I started staying out of any threads to do with the subjects I am most knowledgeable on, biology and astronomy. It's just too head-bangingly hard to go over and over the same ground with people who don't want to learn something. It's hard not to get sucked back in though, especially when you see people not responding to valid points. It's different and much more rewarding when people actually want to learn something, but that so rarely happens that it's just easier and less time consuming/frustrating to sit back and watch the wheels fall off the wagon.

So, back to your original discussion, and don't mind me over here in the corner.  

If you're so well educated in science, why don't you give us a definition of scientific evidence?

Voter if you are so willing to discuss what loffler already pointed out, then you would answer him directly and not try to shift responsibility to me. And for Pete's sake, you could Google the information you need to get up to speed, or to provide a starting point for discussion. And if you want to define evolution, by all means, go ahead! You could have provided a definition already to see if it matches up with the one evolutionary biologists use.  

If you want more background information first, here are a few reputable sources:

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwi ... f-species/
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Here's one that discusses evolution/creationism debate:

http://www.talkorigins.org/
 
Next, I am not criticizing you for attempting to come to an agreement on basic terms. I agree it is necessary. I applaud it and recognize it as a basic need. You are asking someone else to do your homework for you though. You should have, by now, already tried to frame some definitions. Why ask me to do it for you? In fact, why not first try to understand what science is and what the scientific method is?

My point is that you have maybe, possibly, minutely shown some evidence (nice word, huh?) that you actually want to learn something, by asking to come to an agreement on terms. Major kudos for that! Additionally, I'm trying not to group you in with tdh, as you are different people with different thoughts and ideas, beliefs, etc. It is difficult to do, since you echo some of the same traits of lacking a true desire to listen. You both fail to realize that many people here, myself included, have been in your position already. However, you have not been in ours. I know what you think and believe, to a point. So my goal is to get you to first come to a legitimate understanding of:

1. Atheism
2. Science and what it is and does
3. Evolutionary Biology

Because even if we try to define terms, it won't work well, if you don't have a fundamental understanding of these topics. Does that make sense?

As for my knowledge of science, I claim nothing fancy here. I know I understand it better than you, but less than others. My primary degree is in biology and I work in oncology/hematology with genetics every day, but that doesn't mean a hoot if I don't think like and work like someone who uses the scientific method. So your last question is moot, as I'm not the one who was responsible, in this thread, for attempting it. Again, give it a go and see where it leads.

Lastly, as I said before, I'm out of this shindig, except to keep it on track. I have neither the time nor desire to slog through it. I simply jumped in to moderate the discussion in order to keep it from veering too far off because of people not directly answering posts from members.

[Loffler]

Yes, authors of science articles have a nasty habit of assuming their readers have a basic understanding of science. This unfortunate assumption certainly doesn't help mend the widening rift between Christianity and science.

So what would you propose? We need to agree on that before assessing your proposed evidence.

Since you're the one asking, you propose one first.

[Dickson]

I've found thinkorigins a very helpful tool in getting some basic science down (again, the English degree gets in the way).  

At the risk of hijacking the conversation (though that might not be a bad thing):  is there any way to scientifically prove the supernatural?  Just wondering.

[Loffler]

I've found thinkorigins a very helpful tool in getting some basic science down (again, the English degree gets in the way).  

At the risk of hijacking the conversation (though that might not be a bad thing):  is there any way to scientifically prove the supernatural?  Just wondering.

Yes. For example, claiming the ability to read playing cards psychically, and then demonstrating the ability in lab conditions beyond random chance, would be evidence of ESP.

Claiming the ability to predict the future, making 10 and only 10 predictions, agreeing on the conditions of fulfillment, and then meeting the previously-agreed-upon conditions to a statistically significant degree of fulfillment of some or all of the predictions, would be evidence of prognostication.

Claiming your dog can fly, then having him fly for scientists in laboratory conditions, would demonstrate that your dog can fly.

Claiming prayer works, then demonstrating in a study that prayers tend to produce the desired result a statistically significant percentage of time more than random chance, would be evidence that prayer works.

Claiming your crystals heal people, then demonstrating in a controlled study that users of your crystals tended to experience better health than the test group which did everything the same except refrained from using your crystals, would be evidence that your crystals really do heal people.

Typically, the next step after any of these tests would be publication of the results in a science journal, then another scientist attempting to reproduce the same results using the same laboratory conditions. Each time this happens successfully, the evidence is considered stronger.

[McQ]

I've found thinkorigins a very helpful tool in getting some basic science down (again, the English degree gets in the way).  

At the risk of hijacking the conversation (though that might not be a bad thing):  is there any way to scientifically prove the supernatural?  Just wondering.

Dickson, do you mean TalkOrigins? If so, yes it is a source of information. I haven't been on there in a little while. The Panda's Thumb is another good site, or was, at my last visit.

The supernatural, by definition, is beyond the natural, or outside of the realm of the natural. Science deals with the natural world. Therefore, it doesn't try to prove what it cannot describe in the natural world.

[Loffler]

I've found thinkorigins a very helpful tool in getting some basic science down (again, the English degree gets in the way).  

At the risk of hijacking the conversation (though that might not be a bad thing):  is there any way to scientifically prove the supernatural?  Just wondering.

Dickson, do you mean TalkOrigins? If so, yes it is a source of information. I haven't been on there in a little while. The Panda's Thumb is another good site, or was, at my last visit.

The supernatural, by definition, is beyond the natural, or outside of the realm of the natural. Science deals with the natural world. Therefore, it doesn't try to prove what it cannot describe in the natural world.

I try to steer clear of this artificial dichotomy, because it gives supernatural claimants an easy out. Just because we refer to some phenomena as "supernatural" doesn't mean they should not be tested scientifically. It just means their supernatural claims would become natural upon laboratory demonstration. It doesn't lose the "supernatural" label until after it's demonstrated scientifically.

[McQ]

I've found thinkorigins a very helpful tool in getting some basic science down (again, the English degree gets in the way).  

At the risk of hijacking the conversation (though that might not be a bad thing):  is there any way to scientifically prove the supernatural?  Just wondering.

Dickson, do you mean TalkOrigins? If so, yes it is a source of information. I haven't been on there in a little while. The Panda's Thumb is another good site, or was, at my last visit.

The supernatural, by definition, is beyond the natural, or outside of the realm of the natural. Science deals with the natural world. Therefore, it doesn't try to prove what it cannot describe in the natural world.

I try to steer clear of this artificial dichotomy, because it gives supernatural claimants an easy out. Just because we refer to some phenomena as "supernatural" doesn't mean they should not be tested scientifically. It just means their supernatural claims would become natural upon laboratory demonstration. It doesn't lose the "supernatural" label until after it's demonstrated scientifically.

Yeah, I answered that a bit quickly. I think it's accurate, but I like loffler's point better. Science doesn't comment on the supernatural. However, it tests everything it can. If it can be described/demonstrated scientifically, then voila! It is natural.

Kind of why it is my opinion that "god" keeps getting put into a smaller and smaller box. As we learn more about the universe, we find less "god" and more "nature".

But I'm tired, and I'm probably just going to muss this up more. Like I said, I like loffler's answer better.

[Voter]

[Voter if you are so willing to discuss what loffler already pointed out, then you would answer him directly and not try to shift responsibility to me.

You jumped in and asserted yourself as somewhat of an authority on matters scientific. Seemed like a definition of scientific evidence was a reasonable request. Apparently I was wrong.

And for Pete's sake, you could Google the information you need to get up to speed, or to provide a starting point for discussion. And if you want to define evolution, by all means, go ahead! You could have provided a definition already to see if it matches up with the one evolutionary biologists use.

I don't need to get up to speed, I'm allowing an opponent a first crack at defining basic terms of discussion. Friendler people find that to be a polite gesture.  

My point is that you have maybe, possibly, minutely shown some evidence (nice word, huh?) that you actually want to learn something, by asking to come to an agreement on terms. Major kudos for that! Additionally, I'm trying not to group you in with tdh, as you are different people with different thoughts and ideas, beliefs, etc. It is difficult to do, since you echo some of the same traits of lacking a true desire to listen. You both fail to realize that many people here, myself included, have been in your position already. However, you have not been in ours. I know what you think and believe, to a point. So my goal is to get you to first come to a legitimate understanding of:

1. Atheism
2. Science and what it is and does
3. Evolutionary Biology

Because even if we try to define terms, it won't work well, if you don't have a fundamental understanding of these topics. Does that make sense?

No, it doesn't make sense to rail against a request for a definition of scientific evidence, then claim that your goal is to educate me on science and what it is and does. That's complete nonsense.

Lastly, as I said before, I'm out of this shindig, except to keep it on track. I have neither the time nor desire to slog through it. I simply jumped in to moderate the discussion in order to keep it from veering too far off because of people not directly answering posts from members.

If only...