Happy Atheist Forum

These questions are simple.  I'd like an answer.

1.)  How much evidence for scientific theories must be presented before there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that it is the truth?

2.)  When will you begin to offer scientific evidence of the existence of your god?

1. None, because they have faith.

2. Never, because they have faith.

Denial is a powerful tool.

It's common knowledge that any scientific fact is simply the Devil trying trick them and lead them astray.  Geeeze.

Quote from: "karadan"1. None, because they have faith.

2. Never, because they have faith.

Denial is a powerful tool.

If you want a good larf, take a look at  this argument (http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=92907&start=0&sid=10e4f24e635eaeddacd97cbfa1ca23a8) about faith I'm having over at politicsforum.org. I'm the OP.

Apparently, blind faith and faith aren't the same thing, faith is the same as trust, and faith in God is the same as the faith my brakes won't fail.

Good thread!

Quote from: "Doctor State"This is why the word "faith" is useless then, because my belief my car will start is nothing like belief in God. If they're alike, then the secular community has grossly underestimated Christian stupidity.

  brilliant.

Quote from: "NearBr0ken"These questions are simple.  I'd like an answer.

1.)  How much evidence for scientific theories must be presented before there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that it is the truth?

2.)  When will you begin to offer scientific evidence of the existence of your god?

I'll do my best.  

1.  I believe in evolution.  To me, there's no disagreement between believing in God (which I do) and thinking, as Pope John Paul II said, that "evolution is more than a theory."  In fact, I'd be willing to bet that most Christians put some stock in evolutionary theories--it's just the hardline wackos who don't.  

2.  I can't.  But isn't there more to most things than science?  Music, for instance, is simply your brain's perception of the effect of vibrating air molecules, but there's so much more to a Miles Davis solo than the physics of sound, isn't there?  A cynic would describe emotions as chemical reactions and nothing more, but the feeling I get when I see my wife goes so far beyond chemical reactions.  

Not the answers you're looking for, I'm sure, but it's a start, huh?

Quote from: "Dickson"

Quote from: "NearBr0ken"These questions are simple.  I'd like an answer.

1.)  How much evidence for scientific theories must be presented before there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that it is the truth?

2.)  When will you begin to offer scientific evidence of the existence of your god?

I'll do my best.  

1.  I believe in evolution.  To me, there's no disagreement between believing in God (which I do) and thinking, as Pope John Paul II said, that "evolution is more than a theory."  In fact, I'd be willing to bet that most Christians put some stock in evolutionary theories--it's just the hardline wackos who don't.  

2.  I can't.  But isn't there more to most things than science?  Music, for instance, is simply your brain's perception of the effect of vibrating air molecules, but there's so much more to a Miles Davis solo than the physics of sound, isn't there?  A cynic would describe emotions as chemical reactions and nothing more, but the feeling I get when I see my wife goes so far beyond chemical reactions.  

Not the answers you're looking for, I'm sure, but it's a start, huh?

The bible shows a completely different process from evolution, so how can you be a christian and also believe in evolution?

I think we are evolved to feel emotions. As a complex creature, we need love and joy to survive. I think it is hard for people to understand how chemicals can combine to form a conscious mind, but it does happen in the universe. the mind is formed by "parts" it is not fundamental. the complexity of mind is due to the way the parts go together, not because of an outside or supernatural cause.

QuoteThe bible shows a completely different process from evolution, so how can you be a christian and also believe in evolution?

I think we are evolved to feel emotions. As a complex creature, we need love and joy to survive. I think it is hard for people to understand how chemicals can combine to form a conscious mind, but it does happen in the universe. the mind is formed by "parts" it is not fundamental. the complexity of mind is due to the way the parts go together, not because of an outside or supernatural cause.

The first one's easy:  I don't take the Bible literally.  


Interesting point about the mind's complexity.  Since it's 9 a.m. right now, my mind hasn't evolved enough to formulate a good answer, so I'll get back to you on that one once the caffeine has had a chance to do its magic.

Quote from: "Dickson"The first one's easy:  I don't take the Bible literally.   :D

Quoteso no flood, no universe in 6 days, no talking snakes, no walking on water, no rising from the dead, no magic hands, no rules written on rocks, and no women from ribs? if none of this stuff really happened then what is it doing in the bible.

take the 6 days to make the universe. if you measure a day from sun up to sun down or even 24hrs. and you say on day 1 god made this and god made that, then isn't that how long it took? If it took longer ,why didn't it say it took longer? there are plenty of metaphors that would work to demonstrate a really long time. People 1000 years had no problem with creation in 6 days. why would christians change there minds about the time of creation, only after science said "no that is not right"?    

No flood, no 6-day universe, no rib-women.  Sorry.  

The creation stories (there are 2 distinct ones in Genesis) are sooooo similar to other cultures' creation myths that it's hard for me to take them literally.  But, a lot of the Bible was written to a specific audience.  Jesus didn't heal epileptics by saying "be gone, disease that causes synapses in the brain to fire in erratic patterns, leaving the victim convulsing on the ground!"  This wouldn't have made sense to people.  He would have been run out of town for being crazy.  

Since Jesus used so many metaphors (in the forms of parables) in his teaching, it makes sense that metaphors show up elsewhere in the Bible, too.  

But . . . I think that life is too complex to have gotten here on its own.  Call me a proponent of "light intelligent design."  I wholeheartedly believe that evolution is a fact, but I have a little trouble seeing how that eons-long process started on its own.  Let's look at water: it defies physics by expanding when it freezes.  If water followed the rules, then ice would sink.  The frozen tops of lakes and ponds would sink to the bottom, reduce the amount of oxygenated water for fish, and kill them all.  To me, logic dictates that there's some planning behind that.

Quote from: "jcm"Let's look at water: it defies physics by expanding when it freezes. If water followed the rules, then ice would sink.

Water doesn't defy physics just because it is less dense in solid form. Some molecules react differently than others. The structure of a molecule of H20 pairs in such a way to make it less dense when it freezes. Water is made of two gasses, so they're not going to mix the same way that a salt does (the mixture of a metal and a transitional element).

Interesting.  Is your background/ job working with chemicals?  Science is a field I find fascinating but never excelled in.


Am I wrong in saying that the trend, though, is for things to contract when they cool?  (It's likely that I slept though class on the day this was explained)



At any rate, I think there are some things that can't be explained by science.  Why I love my dog, for instance, or why I prefer Faulkner to Hemingway.  There's no scientific explanation as to why I hate raw tomatoes:  I just do.

Quote from: "myleviathan"

Quote from: "jcm"Let's look at water: it defies physics by expanding when it freezes. If water followed the rules, then ice would sink.

Water doesn't defy physics just because it is less dense in solid form. Some molecules react differently than others. The structure of a molecule of H20 pairs in such a way to make it less dense when it freezes. Water is made of two gasses, so they're not going to mix the same way that a salt does (the mixture of a metal and a transitional element).

Hey I didn't write that!  

There are a few items that need to be addressed in your beliefs that I think keep you from an understanding of evolution, biology and chemistry.

Quote from: "Dickson"1.  ....To me, there's no disagreement between believing in God (which I do) and thinking, as Pope John Paul II said, that "evolution is more than a theory."  

First, the roman papa isn't a scientist and doesn't have much of a clue of what a scientific theory is. Evolution doesn't need to be "more" than a theory to begin with to be the explanation of how humans came to exist. Second, there is a disagreement between the god of the christian (catholic) bible and evolution in the literal sense of each. It's the catholic church's attempt at appeasement or compromise (maybe they're still stinging from that whole "Galileo Debacle") that has them saying this.

Quote from: "Dickson"2.  I can't.  But isn't there more to most things than science?  

If you want to fill in the gaps in your knowledge with this, go ahead. But that doesn't make it true.

Quote from: "Dickson"Music, for instance, is simply your brain's perception of the effect of vibrating air molecules, but there's so much more to a Miles Davis solo than the physics of sound, isn't there?  

Is there? Yes, it's chemistry, and the complex nature of the human nervous system, beginning with our marvelous brains.

Quote from: "Dickson"A cynic would describe emotions as chemical reactions and nothing more, but the feeling I get when I see my wife goes so far beyond chemical reactions.

Your opinion and definition of cynic fall short of the reality that it is chemical reactions. Again, be careful of just filling in the gaps in your knowledge automatically with statements not based on evidence like (paraphrasing here), "It has to be more than chemical reactions."

Quote from: "Dickson"But . . . I think that life is too complex to have gotten here on its own.  Call me a proponent of "light intelligent design."  I wholeheartedly believe that evolution is a fact, but I have a little trouble seeing how that eons-long process started on its own.

This is the same thing I hear constantly when people have a less than thorough understanding of evolutionary theory and/or genetics. You can't "wholeheartedly" believe evolution is a fact and then turn around and say that life is too complex to have gotten here on its own. That means you don't agree with evolution, since this is what evolution says!

Quote from: "Dickson"Let's look at water: it defies physics by expanding when it freezes.  If water followed the rules, then ice would sink.  The frozen tops of lakes and ponds would sink to the bottom, reduce the amount of oxygenated water for fish, and kill them all.  To me, logic dictates that there's some planning behind that.

Water doesn't "defy physics". Where did this come from?

Quote from: "Dickson"At any rate, I think there are some things that can't be explained by science.  Why I love my dog, for instance, or why I prefer Faulkner to Hemingway.  There's no scientific explanation as to why I hate raw tomatoes:  I just do.

Again, just because you think it doesn't make it right. There are things that you cannot explain (like water freezing), but that doesn't mean they haven't been explained or are not capable of being explained. And why do you believe there is no scientific explanation for your dislike of raw tomatoes? Food taste in people is something that has been explained well. It is an ongoing and well-studied branch of neurobiology. http://www.boston.com/news/health/artic ... _feelings/ (http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2008/03/24/how_tastes_turn_into_feelings/)

I'm pointing all of this out not to be a jerk or say, "you're wrong, I'm right", but to caution against blanket statements that are based on a lack of knowledge rather than a careful study of the things at hand. One of the big problems that we run into is people not understanding a topic, and then filling in the gaps in knowledge with something easy, but without merit.

Hope the responses make sense.

Quote from: "Dickson"Jesus didn't heal epileptics by saying "be gone, disease that causes synapses in the brain to fire in erratic patterns, leaving the victim convulsing on the ground!"  This wouldn't have made sense to people.  He would have been run out of town for being crazy.  

Fine, but you do believe that a man named jesus did put his hands on people and took away either their blindness or disease through miracles?
If jesus did not actually do this to people, then why is it in the bible?

QuoteSince Jesus used so many metaphors (in the forms of parables) in his teaching, it makes sense that metaphors show up elsewhere in the Bible, too.  

I have no problem with parables if they teach about real life. Rainbows existed before the great flood, so saying they didn't is a lie.

QuoteBut . . . I think that life is too complex to have gotten here on its own.  Call me a proponent of "light intelligent design."  I wholeheartedly believe that evolution is a fact, but I have a little trouble seeing how that eons-long process started on its own.

I agree, but how i differ with you is i don't think a conscious mind had forethought in creating the universe. The fact that the earth is stable and hospitable, does not mean it was designed for us. The earth was once completely different for millions of years. After the earth is destroyed, the universe will continue on without in any concern. Space is dirty and full of stuff that would kill us instantly. We are bound to the earth like a fish bound to the sea. With out oxygen to breathe, we would die, yet there is no oxygen in space, no gravity to keep us strong, not way to speak through the air. The earth and the universe where not design around us, we were designed through evolution to fit in the system. We do not exist in the universe easily, it takes a whole lot of effort to keeps us alive on a tiny blue speck in the universe.

I don't think consciousness exist supernaturally or like magic. It is a product of the physical complexity of the brain. Just because you can not see the mind does not mean it is "out there". A mind has a physical component related to every single function in it.

Quote from: "McQ"There are a few items that need to be addressed in your beliefs that I think keep you from an understanding of evolution, biology and chemistry.

Yeah, the biggest item that keeps me from understanding chemistry is my English degree.  


I got the "water goes against the grain by expanding" idea from my high school physics teacher, a self-described agnostic.  Since she had the degree and I didn't, I figured she knew more science than I.

Both McQ and jcm have valid refutations against what I'm saying (and not to worry, I don't think anyone's being a jerk).  I hope that I'm not coming across as one of those "since I can't explain it, it must be God" folks, because that's not how my brain operates.  There's a whole helluva lot that I don't understand about the universe, and I don't give God credit for everything.  

But, I do think that there is some room for God in stuff.  Our brains are magnificigant things, no doubt about it, but the capacity for art, love, emotion--I don't know--seems too juicy to be explained by mere science.

QuoteI don't think consciousness exist supernaturally

I guess that's the seed of our differences, huh?  I think that a being can exist outside of/ without a body.

Quote from: "Dickson"

Quote from: "McQ"There are a few items that need to be addressed in your beliefs that I think keep you from an understanding of evolution, biology and chemistry.

Yeah, the biggest item that keeps me from understanding chemistry is my English degree.   :D

Nice to see  people who think differently but being friendly to one another.This doesn't happen often enough.If everyone could just understand we all don't have the same thoughts,ideas or beliefs and still be friendly this world would be a much better place.

Quote from: "afreethinker30"Nice to see  people who think differently but being friendly to one another.This doesn't happen often enough.If everyone could just understand we all don't have the same thoughts,ideas or beliefs and still be friendly this world would be a much better place.

I think that Internet forums don't lend themselves to this type of conversation.  Most of the Christians who post on this site (and I'm basing this opinion on a small number of posts) are out to convert y'all.  In the physical world, most Christians don't act like the posters on this board do.  In fact, most of the folks with whom I've gone to church have been able to have civil conversations with folks about differences.  I'm an Episcopalian, and we tend to be a little more chilled out than other denominations (I think it's the wine every Sunday).  

I remember a young adults' Sunday school class I was in a few years ago.  We had leftist, liberal me, a few literalists, a super evangelical girl, and a smattering of folks in between.  We disagreed on damn near everything but understood that we didn't know everything.  Quite often, we'd go grab lunch at our favorite Mexican restaurant after services.

This is how most Christians live and act around other people.  I'm sorry that you all don't get to see that.  It sucks that a few assholes have to go and give the rest of us a bad name.

Quote from: "Dickson"Interesting.  Is your background/ job working with chemicals?  Science is a field I find fascinating but never excelled in.


Am I wrong in saying that the trend, though, is for things to contract when they cool?  (It's likely that I slept though class on the day this was explained)



At any rate, I think there are some things that can't be explained by science.  Why I love my dog, for instance, or why I prefer Faulkner to Hemingway.  There's no scientific explanation as to why I hate raw tomatoes:  I just do.

I am a computer tech guy, but I have takent a few chemistry classes.

Substances do generally contract when they cool, making their density greater by decreasing molecular volume. However because certain substances defy that pattern doesn't mean they are defying physics or chemistry. They are on the other hand defining physics and chemistry. These events are still completely natural. It's also a commonplace idea that airplanes defy physics. But this isn't the case.

It seems like you may be discounting science for it's inability to explain absolutely everything, while I don't think any atheist actually believes that it can. Sure, it falls short in areas that are difficult to calculate. But the trend of science is to dispell superstition. And the fact that you don't take the Bible literally is a testament to the prominence of science. You would have been labelled a heretic and burned a few hundred years ago for espousing that view openly within mainstream Christian culture.

Quote from: "Dickson"

Quote from: "afreethinker30"Nice to see  people who think differently but being friendly to one another.This doesn't happen often enough.If everyone could just understand we all don't have the same thoughts,ideas or beliefs and still be friendly this world would be a much better place. ;)

Quote from: "Dickson"

Quote from: "afreethinker30"Nice to see  people who think differently but being friendly to one another.This doesn't happen often enough.If everyone could just understand we all don't have the same thoughts,ideas or beliefs and still be friendly this world would be a much better place. :brick:

Quote from: "karadan"1. None, because they have faith.

2. Never, because they have faith.

Ah... you beat me to it, so QFT.  

Quote from: "afreethinker30"Nice to see  people who think differently but being friendly to one another.This doesn't happen often enough.If everyone could just understand we all don't have the same thoughts,ideas or beliefs and still be friendly this world would be a much better place. :cool:

Quote from: "leftyguitarjoe"Thank you Dickson for not immediately condemning us to hell!!! An understanding christian is worthy of much respect

Ahh, condemning folks to hell takes too much energy.  

Seriously, though, I've encountered atheist-centered boards whose members were quite hostile towards me and my faith.  So I volley the compliment back.  Thanks for letting me be me.

Quote from: "Dickson"

Quote from: "leftyguitarjoe"Thank you Dickson for not immediately condemning us to hell!!! An understanding christian is worthy of much respect

Ahh, condemning folks to hell takes too much energy.  

Seriously, though, I've encountered atheist-centered boards whose members were quite hostile towards me and my faith.  So I volley the compliment back.  Thanks for letting me be me.

One of the reasons I was attracted to these boards in the first place was the sense and sensibility the members project in their communications.
Some other boards were to full of vitriol when I only wanted to exchange freely and openly without worries of nastiness.
Glad you're with us.
p.s. You never did say what part of the South you are from.

Quote from: "NearBr0ken"These questions are simple.  I'd like an answer.

1.)  How much evidence for scientific theories must be presented before there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that it is the truth?

Depends on the theory and the evidence.  If you're talking evolution, show me some evidence and we can discuss.

Quote2.)  When will you begin to offer scientific evidence of the existence of your god?

Personally, probably never.

Quote from: "NearBr0ken"1.)  How much evidence for scientific theories must be presented before there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that it is the truth?
2.)  When will you begin to offer scientific evidence of the existence of your god?

1.The Laws of Physics were first just theories until they were proven by reproducible tests. It just has to be reproducible every time.
2. You will never prove the exsistance of God by scientific evidence because scientific evidence is just the study of the physical universe. How can that prove the exsitance of a supernatural being? There are other means we can use though. I read someones posts that metaphysics is a good way to disprove God. Although I've read commentaries from others (not this forum) that metaphysics is a good way to prove the exsistance of God. I read someones posts that Occam's Razor is a good way to disprove God's existence. In my view, Occam's Razor is a good way to prove the existence of God. Mathmatics can be employed in the sense that the universe is so complex it could never just happen randomly.
It's all in what you want to believe and I think pride has a lot to do with it too. For atheists and a believer in a higher power. There is a final truth to everything and I hope people here are just trying to find it and respect each others beliefs.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "NearBr0ken"These questions are simple.  I'd like an answer.

1.)  How much evidence for scientific theories must be presented before there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that it is the truth?

Depends on the theory and the evidence.  If you're talking evolution, show me some evidence and we can discuss.

Giving you all the evidence for evolution would take years. Here's a good starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution)

Quote from: "tdh26"Mathmatics can be employed in the sense that the universe is so complex it could never just happen randomly.

Actually mathematics cannot be employed to demonstrate that. The number 234523453453455398002935- 2035929759379100102010201033948203023445 is so rare it's unlikely to occur randomly, but that doesn't make its occurrence a coincidence. There's not "co" in that "coincidence." It's just "incidence." If the number occurred twice, that would be a coincidence.

The amazement at how unlikely it is that we're here demonstrates a belief that humanity is the purpose of the universe. If we weren't here, the Earth still would be. If planets weren't here, the sun still would be. If stars weren't here, the Milky Way still would be. If galaxies weren't here, the universe still would be. If the universe weren't here... maybe something else, maybe nothing would be.

QuoteGiving 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.

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

Quote from: "Voter"

QuoteGiving 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).

Quote

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

QuoteYes, 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.

Quote from: "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.

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.

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.  

Quote from: "tdh26"

Quote from: "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.

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.

Quote from: "tdh26"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).
 

Quote from: "tdh26"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.

Quote from: "tdh26"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?

Quote from: "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.

QuoteThe 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.

QuoteOne 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?

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "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.

QuoteThe 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.

QuoteOne 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://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/)
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/)

Here's one that discusses evolution/creationism debate:

http://www.talkorigins.org/ (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.

Quote from: "Voter"

QuoteYes, 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.

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.

Quote from: "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.

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.

Quote from: "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.

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.

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "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.

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.

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "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.

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.

Quote from: "McQ"[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.

QuoteAnd 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.  

QuoteMy 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.

QuoteLastly, 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...

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "Voter"

QuoteYes, 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.

OK. In simplest form, I'd say that a scientific theory is supported by fulfilled testable, falsifiable predictions.

Regarding natural/supernatural, the terms aren't particularly useful, as the distinction can result from perspective. For instance, if Jesus can explain just how he turned water into wine, then it's natural from his perpective, supernatural from ours. If someday he does explain it, or we figure it out on our own, then it is natural to us as well. Just because we haven't figured out how to discuss or test something in natural terms doesn't mean it's impossible to do so.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "Voter"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.

OK. In simplest form, I'd say that a scientific theory is supported by fulfilled testable, falsifiable predictions.

We're looking for a definition for scientific evidence, not scientific theory.

Wow, this thread is cool. First:

Quote from: "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.

I absolutely believe in science and love learnig more about it and I really disagree with other comments about how science and religion are a odds. I think they compliment each other.

Quote from: "McQ"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.

To get and understanding of where I'm coming from, please google 'Most scientific papers are wrong'. There are a host of other books on the subject. I just don't believe a lot of science as an absolute because it changes a lot. Just look at papers that were published just 30-40 years ago.

There we go again, my wife just came in bitching about me being on the internet. We all have our crosses to bear.

Part of the reason I started on this forum is I got laid-off work and had a little time on my hands. I just found another job and most likely won't have as much time as I'd like to spend here and I've learned a lot from you guys from your prospective. (my views haven't changed though--go figure) I'm sure my responces haven't been up to par as this has been new to me. I'm sure Voter and myself are very different, just as you all are, but I wish you all the best. I hope you don't mind me visiting in the furture.

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Loffler"Since you're the one asking, you propose one first.

OK. In simplest form, I'd say that a scientific theory is supported by fulfilled testable, falsifiable predictions.

We're looking for a definition for scientific evidence, not scientific theory.

I thought it was apparent that scientific evidence is the fulfilled testable, falsifiable predictions.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "Voter"OK. In simplest form, I'd say that a scientific theory is supported by fulfilled testable, falsifiable predictions.

We're looking for a definition for scientific evidence, not scientific theory.

I thought it was apparent that scientific evidence is the fulfilled testable, falsifiable predictions.

As did I, which is why I found it peculiar when you requested a definition for scientific evidence.

Quote from: "tdh26"Wow, this thread is cool. First:

Quote from: "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.

I absolutely believe in science and love learnig more about it and I really disagree with other comments about how science and religion are a odds. I think they compliment each other.

Quote from: "McQ"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.

To get and understanding of where I'm coming from, please google 'Most scientific papers are wrong'. There are a host of other books on the subject. I just don't believe a lot of science as an absolute because it changes a lot. Just look at papers that were published just 30-40 years ago.

There we go again, my wife just came in bitching about me being on the internet. We all have our crosses to bear.

Part of the reason I started on this forum is I got laid-off work and had a little time on my hands. I just found another job and most likely won't have as much time as I'd like to spend here and I've learned a lot from you guys from your prospective. (my views haven't changed though--go figure) I'm sure my responces haven't been up to par as this has been new to me. I'm sure Voter and myself are very different, just as you all are, but I wish you all the best. I hope you don't mind me visiting in the furture.

Best of luck with the new job. Stop by as you can. We may never agree on these things, but that doesn't mean it isn't good to discuss them. And You have my sincere apology for misunderstanding your original intent.  

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "McQ"[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.

Shifting...again. And yes, you are wrong. You've been asked by more than just me to start with your own definition. Additionally, I am somewhat of an authority on biology, oncology, and genetics. It's my job, every day. You seem to have a problem with that. But it's not my problem. By the way, I'm not the only person asking you to come up with the definition yourself, first.

Quote from: "Voter"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.

Yeah, actually, you do seem to really need to get up to speed, and I provided you with some credible sources. And again, you are shifting responsibility. As for being friendly, I'm quite friendly to people who respect the forum, the forum rules, and the people here. If you want to accuse me of something, make it worth while, like that I am intolerant of people who do not wish to discuss things rationally. I genuinely thought that you seemed like you might want to discuss something rationally and gave you kudos for it. But your desire to simply argue without merit came right back out. And by trying to attack the person (me) by applying labels to suit yourself, you lose credibility.
 

Quote from: "Voter"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.

Rail against? Really? Happy to disappoint you. That's not railing. Re-read it and get down to the business of answering or move on. Stick to the topic and avoid building straw men.

Quote from: "McQ"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.

Quote from: "Voter"If only...

My statement of why I entered into the thread is truthful and accurate. Your sarcasm will only serve to lower your credibility even further. Now, either get back to the topic at hand or leave the thread to people who actually want to discuss it. You've shown a need to try to engage in fruitless argument, but I hope you will try to continue this in a more meaningful way from this point.

And please do not bother trying to engage me in this thread, unless it is to legitimately learn something about science, or to legitimately discuss the topic of science.

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "McQ"[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.

Shifting...again. And yes, you are wrong. You've been asked by more than just me to start with your own definition. Additionally, I am somewhat of an authority on biology, oncology, and genetics. It's my job, every day. You seem to have a problem with that. But it's not my problem. By the way, I'm not the only person asking you to come up with the definition yourself, first.

As soon as Loffler passed on the opportunity and asked me to go first, I did so. It was very easy, a lot easier and faster than your diatribes. Seems you were unable to answer.

Quote from: "Voter"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.

Yeah, actually, you do seem to really need to get up to speed, and I provided you with some credible sources. And again, you are shifting responsibility. As for being friendly, I'm quite friendly to people who respect the forum, the forum rules, and the people here. If you want to accuse me of something, make it worth while, like that I am intolerant of people who do not wish to discuss things rationally. I genuinely thought that you seemed like you might want to discuss something rationally and gave you kudos for it. But your desire to simply argue without merit came right back out. And by trying to attack the person (me) by applying labels to suit yourself, you lose credibility. [/quote]
Loffler agreed with my definition. Does he need to get up to speed, too? Are we both wrong? Or are you just unwilling to admit when you are wrong?
 

Quote from: "Voter"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.

Rail against? Really? Happy to disappoint you. That's not railing. Re-read it and get down to the business of answering or move on. Stick to the topic and avoid building straw men. [/quote]
Yes, that's railing - bitter complaint. I am on topic with Loffler. If you'd just butt out and show some patience it would go a lot smoother.

Quote from: "Loffler"The strongest evidence is the subsequent discover, long after Darwin, of DNA. DNA behaves exactly as it should behave if evolution were true

No, DNA does not behave exactly as expected after reading Darwin. Darwin thought that acquired characteristics were heritable. If Darwin were correct, then DNA would be altered by, for instance, exercise, or lack of exercise. A person born with normal musculature who then exercised to greater musculature would effect a heritable change in his DNA. This is not what we have found.

From Origin of Species Ch. 5:
From the facts alluded to in the first chapter, I think there can be little doubt that use in our domestic animals strengthens and enlarges certain parts, and disuse diminishes them; and that such modifications are inherited.

And from Ch. 1:
But I am strongly inclined to suspect that the most frequent cause of variability may be attributed to the male and female reproductive elements having been affected prior to the act of conception.

The great and inherited development of the udders in cows and goats in countries where they are habitually milked, in comparison with the state of these organs in other countries, is another instance of the effect of use.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Loffler"The strongest evidence is the subsequent discovery, long after Darwin, of DNA. DNA behaves exactly as it should behave if evolution were true

No, DNA does not behave exactly as expected after reading Darwin.

Like most Christians, you have an unhealthy fixation with Darwin. He is one scientist of thousands of scientists responsible for the state of modern biology.

My actual statement, rather than the statement you dishonestly tried to pass off as my statement , still holds true: DNA behaves exactly as it should behave if evolution were true. Evolution is not "Darwinism." Evolution is modern biology.

QuoteDarwin thought that acquired characteristics were heritable. If Darwin were correct, then DNA would be altered by, for instance, exercise, or lack of exercise.

Not what Darwin had in mind, but diet and exercise can trigger changes to your DNA. (http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN1628897920080618?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true)

I'm going to do you a big favor: go tell your Christian buddies to stop wasting their time trying to disprove Darwin. Evolution has advanced light years beyond Origin of Species and you guys have so much catching up to do, you can't afford to get caught up on a 150-year-old book.  Darwin is not our Jesus. Say it with me: Darwin is not our Jesus. Knock him down, and you've got thousands more biologists to contend with. And if you think Darwin being proven wrong on many facts makes his theory weaker for it, you completely misunderstand how science works. Simply put, you think science works like religion. But when someone finds a flaw in a theory and corrects it, that theory is made stronger, not weaker. Darwin would be delighted to know about these corrections.

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Loffler"The strongest evidence is the subsequent discover, long after Darwin, of DNA. DNA behaves exactly as it should behave if evolution were true

No, DNA does not behave exactly as expected after reading Darwin.

Like most Christians, you have an unhealthy fixation with Darwin. He is one scientist of thousands of scientists responsible for the state of modern biology.

Strange that you bring up Darwin, I quote you and respond, yet I'm the one with the fixation on Darwin.

If you want to change from Darwin, go ahead and quote the prediction.

QuoteMy actual statement, rather than the statement you dishonestly tried to pass off as my statement , still holds true: DNA behaves exactly as it should behave if evolution were true. Evolution is not "Darwinism." Evolution is modern biology.

This boils down to, DNA behaves exactly as modern biology has found it to behave. There is no prediction in that statement, only observation.

QuoteDarwin thought that acquired characteristics were heritable. If Darwin were correct, then DNA would be altered by, for instance, exercise, or lack of exercise.

Not what Darwin had in mind, but diet and exercise can trigger changes to your DNA. (http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN1628897920080618?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true)[/quote]I agree, this is not what Darwin had in mind.

QuoteI'm going to do you a big favor: go tell your Christian buddies to stop wasting their time trying to disprove Darwin. Evolution has advanced light years beyond Origin of Species and you guys have so much catching up to do, you can't afford to get caught up on a 150-year-old book.  Darwin is not our Jesus. Say it with me: Darwin is not our Jesus. Knock him down, and you've got thousands more biologists to contend with. And if you think Darwin being proven wrong on many facts makes his theory weaker for it, you completely misunderstand how science works. Simply put, you think science works like religion. But when someone finds a flaw in a theory and corrects it, that theory is made stronger, not weaker. Darwin would be delighted to know about these corrections.

We agreed that scientific evidence requires prediction.
You mentioned Darwin and DNA, so I looked into his writings and found that his predictions were wrong.
You do not give any other specific scientist or prediction that I can examine, yet blame me for discussing the one that you did mention.
So far, evolution is 0-for-1. Moving on:

Quote from: "Loffler"all subsequent (and lucrative) scientific research and development in DNA has depended on natural selection being true.

Natural selection removes deleterious mutations. However, apparently deleterious mutations have fixated in species. This is explained in two ways: temporary environmental factors could make a generally deleterious mutation neutral, and so it would have a tiny but nonzero chance of fixation; or, the piggy-back effect, in which a deleterious mutation appears in the location of a much more beneficial mutation. These explanations preserve natural selection, but remove falsifiability. Therefore, natural selection does not qualify as scientific evidence.

Quote from: "Voter"You mentioned Darwin and DNA, so I looked into his writings and found that his predictions were wrong.
You do not give any other specific scientist or prediction that I can examine, yet blame me for discussing the one that you did mention.

I mentioned Darwin merely as a starting point for modern biology. The discovery and subsequent study of DNA demonstrated that all life forms really are part of one extended family as early evolution and natural selection predicted. I blame you merely for assuming evolution is a card castle hinging on Darwin; it's not. You can refute every single sentence in Origin of Species and you will only have succeeded in wasting your own time, because evolution today is backed up by every level of biology from organic chemistry up to zoology.

QuoteYou do not give any other specific scientist or prediction that I can examine, yet blame me for discussing the one that you did mention.
So far, evolution is 0-for-1. Moving on:

Later evolutionary science proves an earlier evolution postulate wrong, and you count that as a point against evolution. Only a Christian would use that logic.

QuoteThese explanations preserve natural selection, but remove falsifiability. Therefore, natural selection does not qualify as scientific evidence.

First of all, natural selection isn't scientific "evidence," it's scientific "theory."
Natural selection is perfectly falsifiable. As J.B.S. Haldane famously said, a rabbit fossil from the Cambrian would falsify natural selection. Furthermore, if new barriers to evolution are discovered in the DNA sequence which prevent evolution from one species to another, this would falsify evolution. Furthermore, if even beneficial mutations are demonstrated to normalize rather than exaggerate over long periods, this would falsify evolution (this one is not going to happen as science has already witnessed beneficial mutations exaggerating over time).

Quote from: "Voter"Natural selection removes deleterious mutations. However, apparently deleterious mutations have fixated in species. This is explained in two ways: temporary environmental factors could make a generally deleterious mutation neutral, and so it would have a tiny but nonzero chance of fixation; or, the piggy-back effect, in which a deleterious mutation appears in the location of a much more beneficial mutation. These explanations preserve natural selection, but remove falsifiability. Therefore, natural selection does not qualify as scientific evidence.

Most mutations are neutral (not exclusively deleterious as is commonly believed) in the sense they do not confer any advantage or disadvantage.  Also what is deleterious and beneficial does not exist within a vacuum or in a static state.  It must be remembered that there is constant change not only within the organism population but in the environment in which they live.  The point being that what may be beneficial at one time or in one place may not be so great in another time and/or place - case in point, sickle cell.  A simple one amino acid substitution (point mutation) - glutamatic acid is replaced by valine which occurs on the beta globin chain.  Those who are heterozygous for the sickle cell trait have an effective resistance to malaria.  Unfortunately, those homozygous can develop sickle cell anemia. The trait has persisted due to the advantage of the protective trait in confers toward malaria.  This is due in large part to not providing a hospitable reproducing environment for the parasites as well as enhancement of immunoprocesses such as IgG antibody response.  This is just one simple example without getting into the many other covariates involved in the process on natural selection.  The process is not as simple or black and white as  evolutionary opponents portray it.  It is easy to dismiss something when it is presented in such a simplified and hackneyed manner.

[/drive-by posting]...we now return you to your regularly scheduled thread...

For those who require supporting references for the above statements:

Aidoo, M., Terlouw, D., Kolczak, M., McElroy, P., O ter Kuile, F., Kariuki, S. et al. (2002). Protective effects of the sickle-cell gene against malaria morbidity and mortality.  The Lancet, 359, 1311-1312.

Allison, A. (1954). Protection afforded by sickle-cell trait against subtertian malarial infection.  British Medical Journal, 1, 290-294.

Cabrera, G., Cot, M., Migot-Nabias, F., Kremsner, P., Deloron, P. & Luty, A. (2005). The Sickle Cell Trait Is Associated with Enhanced Immunoglobulin G Antibody Responses to Plasmodium falciparum Variant Surface Antigens.  The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 191, 1631-1638.

Kimura, M. (1968). Evolutionary rate at the molecular level. Nature, 217, 624-626.

Mayr, E. (2001).  What Evolution Is.  New York: Basic Books.

Nachman, M. & Crowell, S.(2000). Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics, 156, 297-304.

Quote from: "Loffler"I mentioned Darwin merely as a starting point for modern biology. The discovery and subsequent study of DNA demonstrated that all life forms really are part of one extended family as early evolution and natural selection predicted.

Can you quote the prediction? Then you might have something.

QuoteI blame you merely for assuming evolution is a card castle hinging on Darwin; it's not. You can refute every single sentence in Origin of Species and you will only have succeeded in wasting your own time, because evolution today is backed up by every level of biology from organic chemistry up to zoology.

Then your time would be better spent presenting those fulfilled testable, falsifiable predictions rather than faulting me for reasonably responding to your post.

QuoteLater evolutionary science proves an earlier evolution postulate wrong, and you count that as a point against evolution. Only a Christian would use that logic.

No, I count it as a lack of evidence for evolution, which is correct.

QuoteFirst of all, natural selection isn't scientific "evidence," it's scientific "theory."

OK. Got any evidence?

Quote

QuoteLater evolutionary science proves an earlier evolution postulate wrong, and you count that as a point against evolution. Only a Christian would use that logic.

No, I count it as a lack of evidence for evolution, which is correct.

How can evidence of evolution be lack of evidence of evolution?

QuoteCan you quote the prediction? Then you might have something.

You'll have to be more specific, there are millions and millions of predictions from the body of biological science I could choose from, though I don't know if I'd know how to find most of them online. The most basic statement of natural selection is "Individuals within a species that are best suited to their environment will survive and reproduce more than those less suited, thereby passing on their more useful traits and genetic qualities to successive generations." To say this has been "demonstrated" would be as much an understatement as to say germ theory has been demonstrated. For example, if natural selection were not true, animals would not bear superficial and useless resemblances to each other; instead, they do: flightless birds have wings; whales have tiny back leg bones; humans have goosebumps, appendices, male nipples, tiny secondary eyelids, wisdom teeth and a tailbone; cave fish have functionless eyes underneath a layer of skin; dandelions have sex organs; and whiptail lizards have fake sex even tho the entire species is female. This is all evidence species evolve from one into through natural selection.

Some creationists label this an argument from ignorance: scientists don't know the function of vestigial organs, so they assume they serve no purpose. Actually, this is incorrect: scientists do know the function of these organs, because they see them functioning in other species: most birds use wings to fly, land animals use back legs to walk, furry animals have goosebumps as a fear response to make their hair stand up, wood-eating animals use their appendix to digest cellulose, females use nipples for nursing, other animals have fully-developed nictitating membranes, animals with less-crowded mouths can keep their wisdom teeth comfortably, nearly all animals use their eyes to see, other flowers use their sex organs for reproduction, and other lizards (and nearly all animals) use sexual behavior to actually pass genes along.

One of Darwin's predictions comes from his suggestion, based on the evidence available to him at the time, that reptiles evolved from birds. This was demonstrated in 1862 with the discovery of Archaeopteryx. On that note...

As we've seen your citations of Darwin's predictions which did not turn out to be true, here are Darwin's predictions which did turn out to be true:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/pred-nf.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/pred-nf.html)

Another way to understand how evolution is falsifiable: the famous Piltdown Man hoax.

"The alleged fossil was controversial from the start precisely because it didn’t match evolutionary expectations. It had a modern human skull but an ancient apelike jaw (altered by someone who knew what he was doing), rather than a mix of features on both parts. It was like trying to fake a 1950 car by mixing parts from a 1980 car and a 1920 car. As more and more hominid fossils surfaced, Piltdown Man was increasingly seen as a side branch even if it did turn out to be genuine. It just didn't match the other finds. Piltdown Man actually vindicated evolution." source (http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Top10MythsEvol.HTM)and more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_man)

Quote from: "Dickson"I can't.  But isn't there more to most things than science?  Music, for instance, is simply your brain's perception of the effect of vibrating air molecules, but there's so much more to a Miles Davis solo than the physics of sound, isn't there?  A cynic would describe emotions as chemical reactions and nothing more, but the feeling I get when I see my wife goes so far beyond chemical reactions.  

What you've described is called emergent behaviour.  Another example is an ant colony.  No single ant is intelligent enough to engineer and build an ant hill.  However, the ant hill created by the colony could only be engineered and created by something more intelligent that a single ant.  Emergent behaviour.  In a way, you're own argument works against you.  You basically said that the way in which religion surpasses science is emotionally.  This classifies religion as little more than mass emotional hype.  I totally agree with you.

Voter:  as a Christian and a bystander to your back-and-forth with McQ and Loffler, allow me to make a suggestion:  quit trying to pick a fight.  If you're trying to change someone's mind, then you've got to be willing to change your own.  

Loffler:  When you say shit like this

QuoteOnly a Christian would use that logic.

I've got to call bullshit.  Substitute "vegan" or "atheist" or even "black person" for "Christian."  I'm a Christian and I don't have a problem with Darwin.  Don't let some moderately annoying Christian turn you into a bigot.  

Okay, now that I've gotten that off my chest . . .

NearBrOken:
I think I see your point (I think emergent intelligence is a fascinating phenomenon.  Have you heard the RadioLab show about it?  It's fucking amazing) but don't quite get the connection between "mass emotional hype" and emergence.  Interesting idea, though.  

As a preemptive reply--some of the holiest moments I've had have been alone (and, no, I'm not talking about the afternoon I "discovered" the Victoria's Secret catalog in the mail).  Would you chalk this up to some residual emergence that stuck with me after I had left a group?  Or was I carrying the group psychology with me?  These aren't pointed, rhetorical questions: I'm just curious.

QuoteI've got to call bullshit. Substitute "vegan" or "atheist" or even "black person" for "Christian." I'm a Christian and I don't have a problem with Darwin. Don't let some moderately annoying Christian turn you into a bigot.

The fact you have no problem with Darwin does not contradict my statement at all. If you can't figure out why, maybe I'm more right about Christianity and logic than I thought.

QuoteVoter: as a Christian and a bystander to your back-and-forth with McQ and Loffler, allow me to make a suggestion: quit trying to pick a fight. If you're trying to change someone's mind, then you've got to be willing to change your own.

I'm not trying to change someone's mind.
I am willing to change my own.
Even if I weren't, that makes no sense.

QuoteYou'll have to be more specific, there are millions and millions of predictions from the body of biological science I could choose from, though I don't know if I'd know how to find most of them online.

Choose any that you like, although as already noted it would make sense to start with the strongest.

QuoteThe most basic statement of natural selection is "Individuals within a species that are best suited to their environment will survive and reproduce more than those less suited, thereby passing on their more useful traits and genetic qualities to successive generations."

1. How do we define and test "best suited"?
2. If evolution is true, then apparently deleterious mutations have fixed in species. Most animals can synthesize vitamin C. Primates and guinea pigs cannot.

Quote from: "Voter"

QuoteVoter: as a Christian and a bystander to your back-and-forth with McQ and Loffler, allow me to make a suggestion: quit trying to pick a fight. If you're trying to change someone's mind, then you've got to be willing to change your own.

I'm not trying to change someone's mind.
I am willing to change my own.
Even if I weren't, that makes no sense.

Actually, it does make sense.  People don't tend to want to bother discussing with someone they percieve to be closed minded.  Plus, ultimately, any debate-like discussion (like this one) has the root purpose of changing someone's mind.  I think Dickson's advice on how to approach conversations like this one was very good advice.

Quote from: "laetusatheos"Actually, it does make sense.  People don't tend to want to bother discussing with someone they percieve to be closed minded.  Plus, ultimately, any debate-like discussion (like this one) has the root purpose of changing someone's mind.  I think Dickson's advice on how to approach conversations like this one was very good advice.

Yeah, well, what the fuck do you know, you immoral godless heathen!  Burn!  Burn!!  

Quote from: "Voter"1. How do we define and test "best suited"?
2. If evolution is true, then apparently deleterious mutations have fixed in species. Most animals can synthesize vitamin C. Primates and guinea pigs cannot.

Definition of "best suited" in regards to an environment, that which not only can survive the rigors of an environment but also thrives (stays healthy and can reproduce viable offspring, who are probably healthy as well).

Im not exactly sure what you are getting at with the second statement.  Can you expand on it?

Quote from: "Voter"

QuoteYou'll have to be more specific, there are millions and millions of predictions from the body of biological science I could choose from, though I don't know if I'd know how to find most of them online.

Choose any that you like, although as already noted it would make sense to start with the strongest.

I chose to use the example of vestigial organs.

Quote

QuoteThe most basic statement of natural selection is "Individuals within a species that are best suited to their environment will survive and reproduce more than those less suited, thereby passing on their more useful traits and genetic qualities to successive generations."

1. How do we define and test "best suited"?

We compare a trait with other traits, predict which trait would be the best for surviving in a given environment, then study to see if we are correct. Animals which retain counter-productive traits within their environment would be evidence against evolution.

Quote2. If evolution is true, then apparently deleterious mutations have fixed in species. Most animals can synthesize vitamin C. Primates and guinea pigs cannot.

Unless and until evolution can explain this, it is a point against evolution. In the same way a mosquito could conceivably kill an elephant.

Quote from: "laetusatheos"Actually, it does make sense.  People don't tend to want to bother discussing with someone they percieve to be closed minded.

Incorrect. I perceive loffler to be closed minded. He probably thinks the same of me. Yet, here we are, bothering to discuss.

QuotePlus, ultimately, any debate-like discussion (like this one) has the root purpose of changing someone's mind.

There are other purposes. Personally, I find it entertaining, like doing a crossword puzzle. I also like to check on the continuing validity of my own position from time to time.  But in all the years I've been doing this, I've never seen one of the debaters, on either side, switch over. I've seen outspoken atheists convert to Christianity, twice, but they still cling to evolution. So I have to disagree that the root purpose is necessarily changing someone's mind.

QuoteI think Dickson's advice on how to approach conversations like this one was very good advice.

Which advice is that?

Quote from: "Voter"Incorrect. I perceive loffler to be closed minded. He probably thinks the same of me. Yet, here we are, bothering to discuss.

I don't think you're close-minded. You're obviously just uneducated on the subject of biology. Since you don't know the basics of evolution, you lack an 8th grade science education.

Quote from: "Voter"Which advice is that?

Um....the advice I was quoting in my post.

QuoteI don't think you're close-minded. You're obviously just uneducated on the subject of biology. Since you don't know the basics of evolution, you lack an 8th grade science education.

(Waiting for McQ to jump in, berate the ad hominem, and keep things on track. Not holding my breath, though.)

QuoteUnless and until evolution can explain this, it is a point against evolution.

Evolution has explained it, as I mentioned in an earlier post:
"This is explained in two ways: temporary environmental factors could make a generally deleterious mutation neutral, and so it would have a tiny but nonzero chance of fixation; or, the piggy-back effect, in which a deleterious mutation appears in the location of a much more beneficial mutation. These explanations preserve natural selection, but remove falsifiability."

QuoteIn the same way a mosquito could conceivably kill an elephant.

One of the two primary mechanisms of evolution is shown to be either falsified, or non-falsifiable. To me, that's a serious consideration.

Moving on to vestigial organs:

Quoteflightless birds have wings; whales have tiny back leg bones; humans have goosebumps, appendices, male nipples, tiny secondary eyelids, wisdom teeth and a tailbone; cave fish have functionless eyes underneath a layer of skin; dandelions have sex organs; and whiptail lizards have fake sex even tho the entire species is female. This is all evidence species evolve from one into through natural selection.

Some creationists label this an argument from ignorance: scientists don't know the function of vestigial organs, so they assume they serve no purpose. Actually, this is incorrect: scientists do know the function of these organs, because they see them functioning in other species: most birds use wings to fly, land animals use back legs to walk, furry animals have goosebumps as a fear response to make their hair stand up, wood-eating animals use their appendix to digest cellulose, females use nipples for nursing, other animals have fully-developed nictitating membranes, animals with less-crowded mouths can keep their wisdom teeth comfortably, nearly all animals use their eyes to see, other flowers use their sex organs for reproduction, and other lizards (and nearly all animals) use sexual behavior to actually pass genes along.

most birds use wings to fly- another strike against natural selection, as flight has several strong benefits
wood-eating animals use their appendix to digest cellulose - ability to eat wood sounds handy, wonder how that went away
females use nipples for nursing - if this is vestigial, that means males could formerly nurse - a huge advantage that has been lost. Another blow to natural selection.
animals with less-crowded mouths can keep their wisdom teeth comfortably - smaller jaws are another deleterious mutation that fixed.
This is all evidence species evolve from one into through natural selection. - the above are all evidence that natural selection doesn't work

Quote from: "Voter"

QuoteI don't think you're close-minded. You're obviously just uneducated on the subject of biology. Since you don't know the basics of evolution, you lack an 8th grade science education.

(Waiting for McQ to jump in, berate the ad hominem, and keep things on track. Not holding my breath, though.)

It's only an ad hominem if I use an attack of your character as an argument against your points. This is the opposite: I'm using your bad points to make a judgment about you.

Quote

QuoteUnless and until evolution can explain this, it is a point against evolution.

Evolution has explained it, as I mentioned in an earlier post:
"This is explained in two ways: temporary environmental factors could make a generally deleterious mutation neutral, and so it would have a tiny but nonzero chance of fixation; or, the piggy-back effect, in which a deleterious mutation appears in the location of a much more beneficial mutation. These explanations preserve natural selection, but remove falsifiability."

Then it's not a point against evolution.

Quote

QuoteIn the same way a mosquito could conceivably kill an elephant.

One of the two primary mechanisms of evolution is shown to be either falsified, or non-falsifiable. To me, that's a serious consideration.

It hasn't been falsified and it hasn't been shown to be falsifiable. There is so much you don't understand.

Quotemost birds use wings to fly- another strike against natural selection, as flight has several strong benefits

How is this a strike against natural selection?

Quotewood-eating animals use their appendix to digest cellulose - ability to eat wood sounds handy, wonder how that went away
females use nipples for nursing - if this is vestigial, that means males could formerly nurse - a huge advantage that has been lost. Another blow to natural selection.

It's not that males had the ability to nurse, it's that males start out female in utero and become male during development. Male nipples are "vestigial" from earlier in their own lives.

Quoteanimals with less-crowded mouths can keep their wisdom teeth comfortably - smaller jaws are another deleterious mutation that fixed.
This is all evidence species evolve from one into through natural selection. - the above are all evidence that natural selection doesn't work

You provided zero good evidence. We don't know what caused the above changes, and "gosh, sure sounds advantageous to me!" isn't even an hypothesis or even a conjecture. It's an emotive feeling.

You're worse at this than most evolution critics.

QuoteThen it's not a point against evolution.

No kidding. Neither is it evidence for evolution, as you thought.

QuoteIt hasn't been falsified and it hasn't been shown to be falsifiable. There is so much you don't understand.

Let's see. Deleterious traits fix in species, which goes directly against the prediction of natural selection. At this point, natural selection is false. Then, explanations for these observations are proposed without any independent evidence. If you accept these, natural selection is not falsifiable.

QuoteHow is this a strike against natural selection?

Natural selection predicts that deleterious mutations will not fix in a species. Flight has strong benefits. Loss of it is deleterious.

QuoteIt's not that males had the ability to nurse, it's that males start out female in utero and become male during development. Male nipples are "vestigial" from earlier in their own lives.

That's different from the vestigial organ argument.

QuoteYou provided zero good evidence. We don't know what caused the above changes, and "gosh, sure sounds advantageous to me!" isn't even an hypothesis or even a conjecture. It's an emotive feeling.

Wedon'tknow what caused these changes? If evolution is true,they were caused by mutationand natural selection. You're correct that a jaw too small for all the teeth is a disadvantage. Therefore, if natural selection were true, we wouldn't have small jaws.

QuoteLet's see. Deleterious traits fix in species, which goes directly against the prediction of natural selection.

Tell me what deleterious traits you're referring to I'll correct your misunderstanding about nature. The general idea is that deleterious traits will disappear when they impede successful reproduction enough to be outpaced by the reproductive efforts of specimens with a reduced form of the deleterious trait. This is why vestigial organs don't disappear all at once, but rather gradually reduce in size.

QuoteFlight has strong benefits. Loss of it is deleterious.

The cost of flight is carrying around large wings, if a habitat has other requirements which make flight less valuable and smaller wings more valuable, I predict this would make wings shrink. I predict birds living in places too cold for trees to grow or land invertebrates to live will stop flying and start swimming.

QuoteThat's different from the vestigial organ argument.

Still not very intelligently designed. God is pretty stupid.

QuoteWedon'tknow what caused these changes? If evolution is true,they were caused by mutationand natural selection. You're correct that a jaw too small for all the teeth is a disadvantage. Therefore, if natural selection were true, we wouldn't have small jaws.

Unless a greater need made big jaws deleterious.

And again, I have to point out that God is a dipshit. He can't even get a mouth right. Why is he such a lousy designer?

QuoteTell me what deleterious traits you're referring to I'll correct your misunderstanding about nature.

I already mentioned, and you agreed to, loss of ability to synthesize vitamin c, a vitamin which is essential for survival.

Flight allows a bird to easily escape most predators,and cover long distances in search of food or mates. Loss of flight is deleterious.

QuoteThe cost of flight is carrying around large wings, if a habitat has other requirements which make flight less valuable and smaller wings more valuable, I predict this would make wings shrink. I predict birds living in places too cold for trees to grow or land invertebrates to live will stop flying and start swimming.

There's plenty of trees and land invertebrates around ostriches and several other species of flightless bird.

QuoteStill not very intelligently designed. God is pretty stupid.

An opinion against intelligent design is not evidence for evolution. This is a sign of desparation.

You should have stuck to examples which can be explained by change of habitat, like whale hip bones. If you're done trying to claim that deleterious changes aren't deleterious, I'll move on to those.

Voter, please explain the reason why god would create the following:

fleas? what purpose do they serve to humans?

stars that can only be observed with photographic film, why are they there?

asteriod, like the one that crashed into earth near yucatan...why not get rid of at least the ones that would crash into earth.

magnetic field to protect us from the sun? i thought the sun was a good thing? poor mars.

black holes? who needs 'em?

expanding universe? why not a still and unchanging universe. certainly would avoid a big crunch or a big rip down the road.

pluto? why is it there? must serve some purpose to man right?

extremophiles? some live at the bottom of the ocean near hot vents and others swim around in nuclear waste. again what purpose do they serve man?

exploding stars? after the earth is destroyed, then what?

human beings that live their entire life and die never hearing anything about your religion. god allowed that?

Quote from: "Voter"

QuoteI don't think you're close-minded. You're obviously just uneducated on the subject of biology. Since you don't know the basics of evolution, you lack an 8th grade science education.

(Waiting for McQ to jump in, berate the ad hominem, and keep things on track. Not holding my breath, though.)

Voter, your insistence on trying to stir things up here is simply unacceptable.  If you do not want to comply with the good nature of this forum I will put you on a time out (ban, that may or may not be lifted later) to allow you to reflect on how to approach others in conversation.    I will remind you that being respectful of others is part of the forum rules and I have already let past incidences slide without taking official action (a mistake on my part). There will be no additional warnings before action is taken; your behavior needs to change now.

Btw, that was not an ad hominem, it was an explanation of why Loffler does not consider you closed minded...it just so happens that part of his reason relates to your demonstrated lack of understanding the basics of evolution.  An ad hominem would have been if he completely ignored something you said in your arguments then responded by saying that you are a moron who cannot understand anything and therefore your arguments are false.  See the difference?

Quote from: "Voter"I already mentioned, and you agreed to, loss of ability to synthesize vitamin c, a vitamin which is essential for survival.

Man, you sure do love bearing false witness.

I said if there's no explanation for the above, it's a strike against natural selection. You informed me that there is. So it's no longer a strike against natural selection.

QuoteThere's plenty of trees and land invertebrates around ostriches and several other species of flightless bird.

QuoteStill not very intelligently designed. God is pretty stupid.

An opinion against intelligent design is not evidence for evolution. This is a sign of desperation.

What's the matter? You Christians can dish out the desperate arguments but you can't take em?

So male nipples stretch the definition of vestigial organs. Unless you can think of a way this proves anything, move on. This isn't church, we don't have to pore on every little word over and over. This is because the science data grows every day, rather than remaining the same for thousands of years.

QuoteYou should have stuck to examples which can be explained by change of habitat, like whale hip bones. If you're done trying to claim that deleterious changes aren't deleterious, I'll move on to those.

What claim are you referring to?

Voter, can you please start presenting us with something solid which could be at least remotely considered evidence for ID... Or whatever it is you're trying to prove?  

Quote from: "Asmodean"Voter, can you please start presenting us with something solid which could be at least remotely considered evidence for ID... Or whatever it is you're trying to prove?  

Voter's one of those people who thinks he's engaged his opponent as long as he can keep coming up with any response at all. The longer threads get, the more he thinks he's accomplished.

And actually, I agree. I love thinking about the thousands of marginal creationists out there who will come across this thread in the future, see our arguments, and finally receive the full education they failed to receive in school. Voter is helping us do a public service.

Quote from: "jcm"Voter, please explain the reason why god would create the following:

fleas? what purpose do they serve to humans?

stars that can only be observed with photographic film, why are they there?

asteriod, like the one that crashed into earth near yucatan...why not get rid of at least the ones that would crash into earth.

magnetic field to protect us from the sun? i thought the sun was a good thing? poor mars.

black holes? who needs 'em?

expanding universe? why not a still and unchanging universe. certainly would avoid a big crunch or a big rip down the road.

pluto? why is it there? must serve some purpose to man right?

extremophiles? some live at the bottom of the ocean near hot vents and others swim around in nuclear waste. again what purpose do they serve man?

exploding stars? after the earth is destroyed, then what?

human beings that live their entire life and die never hearing anything about your religion. god allowed that?

I know I wasn't asked, but I'd like to take a stab at most of these.

Most of the things in the universe don't serve the purposes of humans, but that neither proves nor negates God's existence.  But, I'm one of the majority of Christians who isn't a strict creationist, so I'm obviously full of shit.  Only the obnoxious few are correct, according to them.  

Except for Black Holes.  Those are obviously portals into the Bizzaro universe where everything's reversed.  In the Bizzaro universe, Taco Bell doesn't induce gastrointestinal events and it's never, never peanut butter jelly time.  

As far as natural disasters (like your asteroid) I suggest reading C.S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain.  It does a great job of answering questions like this.

Quote from: "Loffler"Voter's one of those people who thinks he's engaged his opponent as long as he can keep coming up with any response at all. The longer threads get, the more he thinks he's accomplished.

And actually, I agree. I love thinking about the thousands of marginal creationists out there who will come across this thread in the future, see our arguments, and finally receive the full education they failed to receive in school. Voter is helping us do a public service.

So we just sits back and watches them convert?  :D

QuoteI know I wasn't asked, but I'd like to take a stab at most of these.

Most of the things in the universe don't serve the purposes of humans, but that neither proves nor negates God's existence. But, I'm one of the majority of Christians who isn't a strict creationist, so I'm obviously full of shit. Only the obnoxious few are correct, according to them.

Except for Black Holes. Those are obviously portals into the Bizzaro universe where everything's reversed. In the Bizzaro universe, Taco Bell doesn't induce gastrointestinal events and it's never, never peanut butter jelly time.  

As far as natural disasters (like your asteroid) I suggest reading C.S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain. It does a great job of answering questions like this.

as a christian, you would have to agree that the bible clearly states that man was create in god's image and the universe, stars, earth, plants, animals and insects were all designed for man's survival. humans were created with a soul so they can experience the world and choose good over evil and live forever in heaven after they die.

humans are the reason we have a universe at all. is that not the message the bible teaches?

in bizzaro universe wall-e was a shitty movie

taco bell doesn't induce gastrointestinal events, but you have to eat it everyday to avoid it.

yeah...it is more like mustard and ice cream time there, which is pretty nasty.

pay me a couple hundred bucks and i might read cs lewis.

Quote from: "jcm"as a christian, you would have to agree that the bible clearly states that man was create in god's image and the universe, stars, earth, plants, animals and insects were all designed for man's survival. humans were created with a soul so they can experience the world and choose good over evil and live forever in heaven after they die.

humans are the reason we have a universe at all. is that not the message the bible teaches?

in bizzaro universe wall-e was a shitty movie

taco bell doesn't induce gastrointestinal events, but you have to eat it everyday to avoid it.

yeah...it is more like mustard and ice cream time there, which is pretty nasty.

pay me a couple hundred bucks and i might read cs lewis.

Sure, the Bible states that stuff, but that doesn't make it true.  This is actually the view a majority of Christians have.  

And, I'd venture to say that an uber conservative literalist would take issue with the "universe is here for us" idea.  To them, the universe was God's creation and we're just an addendum.  I actually jive with this view, too:  humans aren't as important in the grand scheme of things as we'd like to be.

Good call on Taco Bell preventing GI meltdown.  How awesome would that be?

Quote from: "Dickson"Sure, the Bible states that stuff, but that doesn't make it true.  This is actually the view a majority of Christians have.  

isn't the bible the word of god and that is what makes it true? if you don't believe the bible, then how can you call yourself christian.

QuoteVoter, please explain the reason why god would create the following:

Interesting that you'd try to divert me from the discussion of evidence for evolution.

Quote from: "Asmodean"Voter, can you please start presenting us with something solid which could be at least remotely considered evidence for ID... Or whatever it is you're trying to prove?  

See my first entry to this thread, post #39.

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "Voter"I already mentioned, and you agreed to, loss of ability to synthesize vitamin c, a vitamin which is essential for survival.

Man, you sure do love bearing false witness.

I said if there's no explanation for the above, it's a strike against natural selection. You informed me that there is. So it's no longer a strike against natural selection.

I said that natural selection is either falsified, or non-falsifiable, which is true. If you don't find it a "strike against" that one of the primary mechanisms of evolution isn't falsifiable, then there's nothing more to be said on that prediction.

Quote

QuoteThere's plenty of trees and land invertebrates around ostriches and several other species of flightless bird.

QuoteStill not very intelligently designed. God is pretty stupid.

An opinion against intelligent design is not evidence for evolution. This is a sign of desperation.

What's the matter? You Christians can dish out the desperate arguments but you can't take em?

So you still have no substantive response to the point that birds apparently lost flight in an environment that favors flight. This is evidence against evolution.

Quote

QuoteYou should have stuck to examples which can be explained by change of habitat, like whale hip bones. If you're done trying to claim that deleterious changes aren't deleterious, I'll move on to those.

What claim are you referring to?

Loss of flight in birds, for one. You quoted my last response on this subject above, but then made an unrelated response. Seems you were projecting your own shortcomings on me when you said, "Voter's one of those people who thinks he's engaged his opponent as long as he can keep coming up with any response at all." It's typical of internet evolutionists to resort to insults, or attempts to change the subject to creationism, when they can't support their claims on evolution.

Quote from: "Voter"So you still have no substantive response to the point that birds apparently lost flight in an environment that favors flight. This is evidence against evolution.

A: It most certainly is not evidence against evolution.

B: Which birds are you refering to exactly? And how would flight benefit them in their habitat? Please give me some sort of a biologically correct analysis.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Asmodean"Voter, can you please start presenting us with something solid which could be at least remotely considered evidence for ID... Or whatever it is you're trying to prove?  :unsure:

Quote from: "Voter"Interesting that you'd try to divert me from the discussion of evidence for evolution.

it is just a couple of questions. i am not trying to divert you at all. you can continue the discussion with the others, i won't stop you.
 
if you don't want to answer questions that are asked, then what are you doing here?

Quote from: "jcm"

Quote from: "Dickson"Sure, the Bible states that stuff, but that doesn't make it true.  This is actually the view a majority of Christians have.  

isn't the bible the word of god and that is what makes it true? if you don't believe the bible, then how can you call yourself christian.

I believe some of the Bible.  The Gospels, for instance, are redundant enough for there to be some accuracy to them.  Some of the books of the Old Testament are obviously historical documents, so I give them some validity.  Most of the New Testament, though, is commentary from human beings (mostly one human being, actually) and I don't agree with everything they say.  Since God did not write the Bible, some things are bound to get lost in translation.  Besides, if I worship the Bible as an infallible object, aren't I creating an idol for myself?

Everyone,

Voter is on a one day ban for not only ignoring my warning but for not showing significant improvement in his/her behavior.  The ban will automatically lift on Monday, July 28th around 12:30p central standard time.  

Quote from: "Voter"I said that natural selection is either falsified, or non-falsifiable, which is true.

And as I explained to my own satisfaction and to the satisfaction of all intelligent readers of this thread, but not to your satisfaction, it is not true.  

QuoteSo you still have no substantive response to the point that birds apparently lost flight in an environment that favors flight. This is evidence against evolution.

I'll explain it to you again: if science doesn't have an explanation for a deleterious trait (regardless of whether I myself am aware of it), it's a strike against evolution. One strike against a million. You seem to be under the very false impression that one strike refutes evolution; it doesn't, because evolution has no shortage of points for it. There are plenty of traits scientists had no explanation for yet. But the day they learned to look not just at how a trait might benefit a species but also how that trait might have benefited the species' ancestors, thousands of those mysteries were solved.

QuoteLoss of flight in birds, for one.

It's not entirely accurate to say loss of flight isn't deleterious. It's more accurate to say flight might have come in handy, but it might have had to be sacrificed for the ability to swim in the Antarctic, the ability to run and kick for ostriches, or the ability to forage on the floor in heavily canopied woods for kiwis. I'm not familiar with the lineage of birds, perhaps the flight-nonflight split occurred very early in their history and modern flightless birds are descended from birds that never properly flew, so rather than losing the ability to fly they never had it in the first place.

QuoteYou quoted my last response on this subject above, but then made an unrelated response. Seems you were projecting your own shortcomings on me when you said, "Voter's one of those people who thinks he's engaged his opponent as long as he can keep coming up with any response at all." It's typical of internet evolutionists to resort to insults, or attempts to change the subject to creationism, when they can't support their claims on evolution.

You guys make it so damn easy. You don't really apply yourselves to evolution. How you Christians ever got in such positions of power to kill the millions of people you killed I'll never know.

QuoteI believe some of the Bible. The Gospels, for instance, are redundant enough for there to be some accuracy to them. Some of the books of the Old Testament are obviously historical documents, so I give them some validity. Most of the New Testament, though, is commentary from human beings (mostly one human being, actually) and I don't agree with everything they say. Since God did not write the Bible, some things are bound to get lost in translation. Besides, if I worship the Bible as an infallible object, aren't I creating an idol for myself?

if the bible was not written by god and the idea of god was also created by man, then isn't just another theory among others that is not yet tested or proven to be true. so why not just say you don't know if there is a god or not, since you are only trusting someone else's delusion?
 
i have no problem with some of the bible's teachings on how to live your life and live in society. The golden rule is something I try to live by. But these are apart of experiences humans have had in societies. These ideas were also created by man. Saying god will punish you if you do not live a moral life or by the bible only drives in home.
 
the predictions about the way the universe was created is flat wrong. the bible took a stab at it and it is wrong. all the bible needed to say was god created the universe, but it didn't. It said it took 6 days and spoke about the order of events. Science has shown many errors in bible, so this leads me to believe that all of the bible was just made up. People 1000 years ago had no problem with a universe created in 6 days. It is only after science came along and proved it wrong, did people say "well we must have misinterpreted the bible"

Quote from: "jcm"if the bible was not written by god and the idea of god was also created by man, then isn't just another theory among others that is not yet tested or proven to be true. so why not just say you don't know if there is a god or not, since you are only trusting someone else's delusion?
 

We differ on "the idea of god [being] created by man" because I see God as the source from which all things came into being (and, no I'm not talking about the creation stories in Genesis.  I'm not a literalist as far as creation goes).  If I had never had experiences in which I felt God's presence, then yes, I would be just "trusting someone else's delusion."  However, since I've felt God's presence (some occasions stronger than others) I've got my own experiences to base my faith on and not rely entirely on scripture, which is often shaky.

Quote from: "Dickson"

Quote from: "jcm"if the bible was not written by god and the idea of god was also created by man, then isn't just another theory among others that is not yet tested or proven to be true. so why not just say you don't know if there is a god or not, since you are only trusting someone else's delusion?

We differ on "the idea of god [being] created by man" because I see God as the source from which all things came into being (and, no I'm not talking about the creation stories in Genesis.  I'm not a literalist as far as creation goes).  If I had never had experiences in which I felt God's presence, then yes, I would be just "trusting someone else's delusion."  However, since I've felt God's presence (some occasions stronger than others) I've got my own experiences to base my faith on and not rely entirely on scripture, which is often shaky.

What about the sensation makes you think it was God?

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "Dickson"We differ on "the idea of god [being] created by man" because I see God as the source from which all things came into being (and, no I'm not talking about the creation stories in Genesis.  I'm not a literalist as far as creation goes).  If I had never had experiences in which I felt God's presence, then yes, I would be just "trusting someone else's delusion."  However, since I've felt God's presence (some occasions stronger than others) I've got my own experiences to base my faith on and not rely entirely on scripture, which is often shaky.

What about the sensation makes you think it was God?

I just knew.  Yeah, I know most of you probably won't buy that, but that's the only way I can describe it.  The feeling is more intense than "man, this sofa is comfortable."  It's just a quiet, a calm, that goes beyond my vocabulary.  Of course, I know that not all unexplainable things aren't God.  But some things are, in my mind, only explainable as God's presence.

QuoteWe differ on "the idea of god [being] created by man" because I see God as the source from which all things came into being (and, no I'm not talking about the creation stories in Genesis. I'm not a literalist as far as creation goes). If I had never had experiences in which I felt God's presence, then yes, I would be just "trusting someone else's delusion." However, since I've felt God's presence (some occasions stronger than others) I've got my own experiences to base my faith on and not rely entirely on scripture, which is often shaky.

I am interested in your experience. How do you know the difference between god and your own delusion?

Again, if you think the bible is wrong, why do you call yourself Christian?

Quote from: "jcm"

QuoteWe differ on "the idea of god [being] created by man" because I see God as the source from which all things came into being (and, no I'm not talking about the creation stories in Genesis. I'm not a literalist as far as creation goes). If I had never had experiences in which I felt God's presence, then yes, I would be just "trusting someone else's delusion." However, since I've felt God's presence (some occasions stronger than others) I've got my own experiences to base my faith on and not rely entirely on scripture, which is often shaky.

I am interested in your experience. How do you know the difference between god and your own delusion?

Again, if you think the bible is wrong, why do you call yourself Christian?

Having deluded myself in many ways (girls, drugs, trying to talk myself into shitty jobs, etc) I can tell the difference between an internal and external influence.  Here's a specific example:

After a very dear friend of mine died, I was pissed at God, the universe, everything.  She died in a boating accident, body wasn't recovered for 10 days, just fucking awful.  The only time during the entire ordeal I wasn't angry was during her funeral, during which I was just emotionally numb.  I tried to feel something, but nothing was there.  

A few days later I went to the grave to set some flowers and a note by the headstone.  The anger had bubbled back up again, and I collapsed in a fury of tears.  Without warning I stopped crying and was covered in one of the deepest senses of peace I've ever tasted.  It was pervasive.  Now, I'm sure this feeling wasn't from inside me because I was entirely too angry/drained to muster it up on my own.  

About the Bible:  I don't think it's all wrong, just some of it.  And maybe "wrong" isn't the right word--inapplicable is a better term.  Like all writings, the Bible was aimed at a specific audience (Jews during the time of the Egyptian enslavement, give or take a few decades).  I view the Bible like I view any book of theology--it's a mortal's take on God.  Sometimes I agree with what's being said.  Sometimes I don't.  I'm not so bivalent in my logic that I reject everything in a book (or a person, or a meal) because I dislike one component.

Quote from: "Dickson"I just knew.

I consider that a dangerous phrase. (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=21828#p21828)

QuoteA few days later I went to the grave to set some flowers and a note by the headstone. The anger had bubbled back up again, and I collapsed in a fury of tears. Without warning I stopped crying and was covered in one of the deepest senses of peace I've ever tasted. It was pervasive. Now, I'm sure this feeling wasn't from inside me because I was entirely too angry/drained to muster it up on my own.

That could have been a dopamine or serotonin release following the extreme stress of your sorrow. Also, some scientists think the function of crying is to release stress hormones, since tears released while crying (as opposed to other tears) contain significantly greater quantities of hormones prolactin, adrenocorticotropic hormone, Leu-enkephalin, and elements potassium and manganese. So the sense of peace and calm might've been the biological relief of your body having successfully purged a lot of stress.

I’m sorry to jump in here once again but there seems to be some confusion in the area of natural selection.  So, I figured I’d jump in with an informational post.  First I’ll start off with the definition of natural selection from several sources and go from there.

QuoteA process of interaction between organisms and their environment that results in a differential rate of reproduction of different phenotypes in the population; can result in changes in the relative frequencies of alleles and genotypes in the population â€" that is, in evolution (Curtis & Barnes, 1994)

QuoteNatural selection, resulting from the different abilities of organisms to survive and reproduce in their environment.  Natural selection is the primary process by which populations of organisms become progressively better adapted to their environments (Hartl & Jones, 2002)

QuoteNatural selection: the unequal survival and reproduction of organisms due to environmental forces, resulting in the preservation of favorable adaptations.  Usually, natural selection refers specifically to differential survival and reproduction on the basis of genetic differences among individuals. (Audesirk, Audesirk & Byers, 2002)

Now, we have some definitions which are worded differently but all convey the same idea.  Natural selection is a process which takes place over time and it is an interaction of an organism with its environment.  Let’s look at an example from Audesirk et al. (2002):

QuoteOn the island of Trinidad, guppies live in streams that are also inhabited by several species of larger, predatory fish that frequently dine on guppies.  In upstream portions of these streams, however, the water is too shallow for the predators, and the guppies that manage to find their way to these shallower waters are free of danger from predators.  When scientists compared a group of male guppies that had colonized an upstream area to those that remained downstream, they found that the upstream guppies had become much more brightly colored than the downstream guppies.  The explanation for this difference stems in part from the sexual preferences of female guppies.  The females prefer to mate with the most brightly colored males, so the brightest males have a large advantage when it comes to reproduction.  In predator-free areas, male guppies are free to evolve the bright colors that females prefer.  Bright color, however, also makes guppies more conspicuous to predators, and therefore more likely to be eaten.  Thus, where predators are common, they act as agents of natural selection.  In predator rich areas, the brightest males are less likely to survive, and duller males have the advantage.  The color difference between the upstream and downstream guppy populations is a direct result of natural selection. (pp. 281).

Three categories of selection (based on their effects on a population) are recognized:

1.   Directional selection
2.   Stabilizing selection
3.   Disruptive selection

Audesirk et al. (2002) explains each one:

QuoteDirectional selection favors individuals who possess values fro a trait at one end of the distribution range of a particular trait and selects against both average individuals and  individuals at the opposite extreme of the distribution.  For example, directional selection may favor small size and select against both average and large individuals in a population.

Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is another example of directional selection.

Stabilizing selection favors individuals who possess an average value for a trait (for example, intermediate body size) and selects against individuals with extreme values. [The peacock’s tail and sickle cell heterozygotes are examples]

Disruptive selection favors individuals who possess relatively extreme values for a trait at the expense of individuals with average values.  Disruptive selection favors organisms at both ends of the distribution of the trait (for example, both large and small body sizes)…individual black-bellied seed-crackers (small, seed-eating birds found in the forests of Africa) have beaks that come in one of two sizes.  A bird may have a large beak or small beak, but very few birds have a medium-sized beak.  The species’ food source includes both hard seeds and soft seeds, and each bird seems to specializes in eating only one type of seed.  Cracking hard seeds requires a large stout beak.  However, a smaller, pointier beak is apparently a more efficient tool for processing soft seeds.  Individuals with intermediate-sized beaks have a lower survival rate than do individuals with either large or small beaks.  Disruptive selection in black-bellied seed crackers thus favors birds with both large and small beaks, but not those with medium-sized beaks. (pp. 297-298)

To summarize natural selection in a few words, Morris probably says it well:

Quote…those that did reproduce would pass along their traits to their offspring, while other individuals would not.  In time, this would cause these favorable characteristics to spread throughout a population.  There would thus be a gradual change in the character of the species, as it accumulated changes that caused it to become better adapted to its environment.

Natural selection is not a theory of chance.  It preserves favorable adaptations and weeds out unfavorable traits. (pp. 144)

I hope this helps somewhat….carry on…

References:

Audesirk, T., Audesirk, G. and Byers, B. (2002). Biology: Life on Earth. (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Curtis, H. and Barnes, S. (1994). Invitation to Biology. (5th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.

Hartl, D. and Jones, E. (2002). Essential Genetics: A Genomics Perspective. (3rd ed.). Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Morris, R. (2002). The big questions: Probing the promise and limits of science. New York: Henry Holt.

Quote from: "Loffler"That could have been a dopamine or serotonin release following the extreme stress of your sorrow. Also, some scientists think the function of crying is to release stress hormones, since tears released while crying (as opposed to tears) contain significantly greater quantities of hormones prolactin, adrenocorticotropic hormone, Leu-enkephalin, and elements potassium and manganese. So the sense of peace and calm might've been the biological relief of your body having successfully purged a lot of stress.

Oh, easily, it could have been a biological response (and that's really interesting info about crying) but again, even though this isn't a popular view around here, I felt embraced by something and felt larger than my own biology.

Quote from: "Dickson"

Quote from: "Loffler"That could have been a dopamine or serotonin release following the extreme stress of your sorrow. Also, some scientists think the function of crying is to release stress hormones, since tears released while crying (as opposed to tears) contain significantly greater quantities of hormones prolactin, adrenocorticotropic hormone, Leu-enkephalin, and elements potassium and manganese. So the sense of peace and calm might've been the biological relief of your body having successfully purged a lot of stress.

Oh, easily, it could have been a biological response (and that's really interesting info about crying) but again, even though this isn't a popular view around here, I felt embraced by something and felt larger than my own biology.

It was larger than you, that's for sure. No doubt stress management neurochemistry is much older than you or even humanity.

There are plenty of drugs that make one feel larger than their own biology. Some occur naturally in the body.

At the risk of kicking a guy when he's down, this is sooooooooo much more pleasant without voter.  

Quote from: "Squid"I’m sorry to jump in here once again but there seems to be some confusion in the area of natural selection.  So, I figured I’d jump in with an informational post.  First I’ll start off with the definition of natural selection from several sources and go from there.

I just knew you weren't dead!  :beer:

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "Squid"I’m sorry to jump in here once again but there seems to be some confusion in the area of natural selection.  So, I figured I’d jump in with an informational post.  First I’ll start off with the definition of natural selection from several sources and go from there.

I just knew you weren't dead!  :beer:

The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated...

I've been tied up in changing jobs, moving, classes and feverishly working to pull things together for my thesis.  I have more free time here and there now so I can stop by every so often.

Quote from: "Squid"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated...

One of my favorite Twain quotes.

Good Questions
*Watches Christians try to answer*
 

I know this doesn't address all the topics mentioned but I figured I could at least toss some more info into the discussion.  I'd love to tackle the other questions and so forth but the IRB waits for no one - gotta have that proposal submitted soon.

QuoteThe fossil evidence for evolution would actually support Creation more. We only find conpletely identifiable species, but nothing in between. Evolution requires transitional species. Over a 4.6 billion year history, the amount of transitionary fossils would be staggering. Yet there are none. Everything we find we are able to classify into its own species - even if at first we think it's transitional. Lucy for example, or the archaeopteryx. We keep digging, but finding true and noticeable species. Where is everything in the middle?

You’ve made a common error many people make when thinking about evolutionary change.  Essentially, every form of organism is “transitional”.  The protest of someone who wants the “half lizard, half mammal” creature will always win in their demands because their basic understanding of evolutionary changed is incorrect.  A specimen which is said to be “transitional” is one which links together other specimens to tie a lineage together.  For example, say we have species X which live, oh say, 10 million years ago and we also have species Y which lived about 5 million years ago. We know that X and Y are of the same lineage but are lacking specimens within that 5 million year window to link together their differences in, we’ll say, phenotype particulars such as appendage changes.  A transitional specimen in this case would be a specimen from that time frame within that lineage.  Therefore the creationist cries for some odd chimerical creature are nothing but a showcase for ignorance in evolutionary biology.

Let us take a look at one real world specimen.  A good example is the discovery of T. roseae.  This specimen represents a crucial link between terrestrial tetrapods and fish.  Tiktaalik is a sarcopterygian fish from the Devonian period.  It is important in the fish to tetrapod lineage because, as Daeschler, Shubin and Jenkins (2006) state:

Quote…[Tiktaalik roseae] represents an intermediate between fish with fins and tetrapods with limbs, and provides unique insights into how and in what order important tetrapod characters arose (pp. 757)

It represents a specimen linking earlier specimens such as Panderichthys and Elpistostege  to the later specimens such as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega.  Since most people understand concepts better with visual stimulation, here’s some pictures:

Picture 1 shows T. roseae’s position within the lineage:

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k86/solidsquid/nature04639-f72.jpg

Picture 2 shows the actual specimen:

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k86/solidsquid/nature04639-f22.jpg

To go into further detail and offer more examples for the fish to amphibian transtition, we can see one of the earliest tetrapods, Acanthostega which has been connected positively to the later tetrapod Icthyostega (Coates and Clack, 1990) and the structure of its limbs. Other data converge to support the transition, not simply just fossil record specimens. For instance, it has been found that salmon have a particular protein which aid in its movement from sea to fresh water and back. The protein in particular is called glycine-rich RNA binding protein (SGRP) which is 70% homologous to the cold inducible RNA binding proteins (CIRP) found in mammals and amphibians (Pan, Zarate, Choudhurry, Rupprecht, and Bradley, 2004). This particular feature also serves as an example of genetic homology as well â€" which is another point I’ll address further in this post.

Another recent find is that of a new specimen of lizard (Adriosaurus microbrachis) which is about 95 million years old. This specimen shows, “complete loss of the manus and zeugopodium in association with elongation of the axial skeleton” (Palci and Caldwell, 2007). The significance of this find would be that it would fit the laymanistic concept of a “transitional” specimen from “lizard” to “snake”.

A similar find was reported in April of 2006 of an Upper Cretaceous serpent with functional hindlimbs as well as a sacrum supporting its pelvic girdle whereas these have been lacking in other specimens which more closely resemble modern snakes (Apesteguia and Zaher, 2006).

This image is of A. microbrachis and shows the pectoral girdle and cervical vertebrae:

http://i16.tinypic.com/5zqgrw8.jpg

This is a drawing of what the specimen would have most likely resembled, notice the reduction in size of the forelimbs â€" which is also shown in the photograph of the fossil specimen above:

http://i16.tinypic.com/5y7n8fp.jpg

This is a photo take directly from the article on the specimen N. rionegrina:

http://i19.tinypic.com/4ldhqc2.jpg

Another issue in the assertion of “staggering” amount of fossils (once it is understood what science considers a “transitional” specimen to be) is the issues of fossilization itself as well as time and labor.  What is meant by time and labor is that there aren’t hundreds of thousands of field researchers combing the land in search of fossils.  The research is restricted to field researchers and also amateur fossil hunters.  Looking for and finding not just fossils but specific specimens is time consuming, arduous for the individuals and not many people have all the time in the world to go where ever they want and start digging.

Now, as to fossilization itself as a process, this is not a guaranteed prize for every dying creature.  It is not some snap process nor is it as easy as having something buried in mud.

Monroe and Wicander (2001) provide some quick information about fossilization, stating:

QuoteDissolved minerals can be precipitated in the pores of bones, teeth, and shells or can fill the spaces within cells of wood.  Wood may be preserved by silica replacing the woody tissues; it then is referred to as petrified, a term that means "to become stone".  Silicon dioxice (SiO2) or iron sulfide (FeS2) can completely replace the calcium carbonate (CaCO3).  Insects and the leaves, stems, and roots of plants are commonly preserved as thin carbon films that show the details of the original organism.

Shells and bones in sediment may be dissolved leaving a cavity called a mold shaped like the shell or bone.  If a mold is filled in, it becomes a cast. (178-179).

And Alters (2000) also provides a quick overview of the process:

QuoteDuring the formation of sedimentary rock, dead organisms are sometimes washed along with the mud or sand and eventually reach the bottom of a pond or lake.  Dead marine organisms fall to the bottom of the ocean.  As the sediments harden into rock, they harden around the bodies of these dead organisms.  The hard parts of these organisms, such as their skeletons, may become preserved or may be broken down and replaced with other minerals.

Sometimes, however, soft-bodied animals are preserved in exceptionally fine-grained muds, in conditions in which the supply of oxygen was poor while the muds were being deposited, thus slowing the decomposition of the organism.  Eventually, the soft parts of an organism decay completely, leaving behind a mold, or impression, of its body.  Mold may become filled with minerals, such as lime or silica found in underground water, forming casts, which resemble the original organism or body part. (539-540)

For fossilization to occur the right ingredients must be there â€" the correct soil, lack of other creatures which might consume the specimen, environmental factors which may destroy a specimen before it can be successfully buried.  Then there is no guarantee that a  large enough portion let alone any of the body may be fossilized.  Your argument relies upon the assumptions of a non-changing environment, a 100% fossilization occurrence, and non-interference by any factor (weather, decay, predators, scavengers, et cetera) once an organism has died.

Tarbuck and Lutgens (2002) note the chances of an organism becoming fossilized are not in the middle of the curve â€"

Quote…only a tiny fraction of organisms that lived during the geologic past have been preserved as fossils. Normally, the remains of an animal or plant are totally destroyed." (183).

This is one large hindrance to having a fossil record full of "transitions" or some ideal, smooth linear progression.

Among fossils we have two major groups, body and trace fossils. Bunch and Tesar (2003) comment on these two groups stating:

QuoteBody fossils are either actual remains of organisms in which the original chemicals have been replaced by other chemicals, thus retaining the original shape but not the organic chemistry. Bones, teeth, and shells are the most common animal body fossils. Petrified wood is a common plant body fossil. Softer tissues, such as those that compose worms and leaves are less apt to be preserved; they are more likely to have been eaten or broken down by decomposers (bacteria, etc.).

Trace fossils include imprints, tracks, burrows, feces, and chemical traces. They can be very informative about the habits and habitats of their creators. They also may tell us something about the organisms’ anatomy. For example, footprint size and the distance between prints in a track provide clues to the size and weight of the animal that made the track. (pp. 211).

Geological events such as erosion also play a large role in the finding of complete fossil "chains" as well as being able to find perfectly stratified sediment as well. Many variables work against piecing together a complete fossil record. The work that has been completely thus far is fairly amazing in what scientists have put together over the years and continue to do so.

In a review of intertidal fossilization probabilities by Schopf (1978), he found for that specific environment in one specific area (Friday Harbor, Washington) in 16 different sediments only 29% of the total fauna was represented.  This is just one example, however, and many factors play a role yet to think that once an organism dies that its fate is sealed in stone so to speak is incorrect.

QuoteChemical and anatomical similarities such as what? Life requiring proteins from the 20 amino acids? Absolutely. DNA/RNA? Absolutely. Yet those all scream common design as well. As far as anatomical similarities which ones are you referring to? That mammals/reptiles/amphibians have 4 legs? Why don't birds? They come later in the evolutionary model.

What is being referred to is called homology.  Homology is defined as (in the biological context) “relationship between traits of organisms that are shared as a result of common ancestry (Mindell and Myer, 2001)”.  The definition is simple yet homology itself is not.  Here is another visual aid taken from Mindell and Myer:

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k86/solidsquid/Homology.jpg

Mindell and Myer explain the figure stating:

QuoteDifferent forms of homology are associated with one or more different evolutionary processes: orthology with organismal lineage splitting (cladogenesis); paralogy with gene duplication; xenology with lateral gene transfer; partial homology with exon shuffling or other recombination mechanisms; gametology with origination of genetic sex determination and barriers to recombination between sex chromosomes; pro-orthology with duplication of a particular gene in one lineage but not in another; and synology with fusion of formerly independent lineages. Note that a single trait can have several different homology relationships, as seen for the trait whose relationships of orthology, synology, paralogy, and xenology are shown in yellow. Red and blue branches denote distinct lineages from which representative taxa have merged, by means of endosymbiosis, over time. The lattice structure depicts the early stages of the evolution of life, before the existence of highly integrated cells, when lateral transfer of molecular traits appears to have been particularly common.

In relation to body plan homologies we can examine those genes which control that aspect.  Body plan is controlled by Hox clusters, this is the same for us and for fruit flies. Recent research has revealed the connection of evolutionary relationships of those clusters between bilaterians (animals with a bilateral symmetry) and cnidarians (such as jellyfish with radial symmetry), a so-called “missing link” between the two (Ogishima and Tanaka, 2007).

And we can go further in talking about homology. Organisms have “adapted” to their environment through a weeding out of unfit geno/phenotypes. Or, formally defined by Curtis and Barnes (1994) as:

Quotea process of interaction between organisms and their environment that results in a differential rate of reproduction of different phenotypes in the population; can result in changes in the relative frequencies of alleles and genotypes in the population, that is, evolution (pp.G-14).

Aside from forelimb structure, another example would be the middle ear of tetrapods which can be traced all the way back to prehistoric fish. This structure is shared by mammals, reptiles, dinosaurs, amphibians and so forth. A detailed analysis of the Devonian fish, Panderichthys, finds representations of “the earliest stages in the origin of the tetrapod middle ear architecture” (Brazeau and Ahlberg, 2006).

These similarities are not arbitrarily chosen on some whim. Homology supports what we should find as evolutionary theory states. These structures should not be confused with analogous structures which are only superficially similar such as the wing on a bird and the wing of an insect.

Homologies are not restricted to comparative anatomy either it also appears in genetics, biochemistry, neuroscience and may other areas. One well studied homologue is cytochrome c which is found to be similar in over 60 different species (Curtis and Barnes, 1994). The amygdaloid complex in the brain of amniotes share “basic developmental, subdivisions, hodological and neurochemical features” (Moreno and Gonzalez, 2006). The book lungs within species of the class Arachnida are homologous (Scholtz and Kamenz, 2006). 14% of nervous system specific genes have found orthologs across 13 different species (Noda, Ikeo and Gojobori, 2006).

Lizards, along with some other vertebrates have a “third eye” called the parietal eye which has photosensitive cells. Su, Luo, Terakita, Shichida, Liao, Kazmi et al. (2006) showed that a particular opsin, called parietopsin has orthologs across many species.

Davis, Dahn and Shubin (2007) reported on the functional Hox gene of Polyodon spathula also known as the paddle fish. They found several genetic orthologs between the Hox gene expression and regulation in this fish and tetrapods further supporting the homologous structure of forelimbs.

The list goes on and on. Homology goes far past the example of forelimb structure in high school text books . Homology is predicted by evolution and is validated through a wealth of research across many fields within science.

References:

Alters, S. (2000). Biology: Understanding life. (3rd ed.).  Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett.

Apesteguia, S. and Zaher, H. (2006). A Cretaceous terrestrial snake with robust hindlimbs and a sacrum. Nature, 440, 1037-1040.

Brazeau, M. and Alhberg, P. (2006). Tetrapod-like middle ear architecture in a Devonian fish. Nature, 439, 318-321.

Bunch, B. and Tesar, J. (2003). Discover Science Almanac. New York: Hyperion.

Coates, M. & Clack, J. (1990). Polydactyly in the earliest known tetrapod limbs. Nature, 347, 66-69.

Curtis, H. and Barnes, N. (1994). Invitation to Biology. (5th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.

Daeschler, E., Shubin, N. & Jenkins, F. (2006). A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan.  Nature, 440, 757-763.

Davis, M., Dahn, R. and Shubin, N. (2007). An autopodial-like pattern of Hox espression in the fins of a basal actinopterygian fish. Nature, 447, 473-477.

Mindell, D. & Myer, A. (2001). Homology evolving. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 16, 434-440.

Monroe, J. & Wicander, R. (2001). Physical geology: Exploring the earth. (4th ed.). Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.

Moreno, N. and Gonzalez, A. (2006). The common organization of the amygdaloid complex in tetrapods: New concepts based on developmental, hodological and neurochemical data in anuran amphibians. Progress in Neurobiology, 78, 61-90.

Noda, A., Ikeo, K. and Gojobori, T. (2006). Comparative genome analyses of nervous system-specific genes. Gene, 365, 130-136.

Ogishima, S. and Tanaka, H. (2007). Missing link in the evolution of Hox clusters. Gene, 387, 21-30.

Palci, A. and Caldwell, M. (2007). Vestigial forelimbs and axial elongation in a 95 million-year-old non-snake squamate. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 27(1), 1-7.

Pan, F., Zarate, J., Choudhury, A., Rupprecht, R. and Bradley, T. (2004). Osmotic stress of salmon stimulates upregulation of a cold inducible RNA binding protein (CIRP) similar to that of mammals and amphibians. Biochemie, 86, 451-461.

Scholtz, G. and Kamenz, C. (2006). The book lungs of Scorpiones and Tetrapulmonata (Chelicerata, Arachnida): evidence for homology and a single terrestrialisation event of a common arachnid ancestor. Zoology, 109, 2-13.

Schopf, T. (1978). Fossilization potential of an intertidal fauna: Friday Harbor, Washington.  Paleobiology, 4, 261-270.

Su, C., Luo, D., Terakita, A., Shichida, Y., Liao, H., Kazmi, M. et al. (2006). Parietal-eye phototransduction components and their potential evolutionary implications. Science, 311, 1617-1621.

Tarbuck, E. and Lutgens, F. (2002). Earth: An Introduction to Physical Geology. (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Quote from: "NearBr0ken"These questions are simple.  I'd like an answer.

1.)  How much evidence for scientific theories must be presented before there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that it is the truth?

2.)  When will you begin to offer scientific evidence of the existence of your god?

I'm not a Christian, however, I would like to share my perspective.

1. Evidence is always subjective. Different people require different amounts of evidence for anything. How much evidence would you need to believe that aliens are real? Would a picture prove it? A video? How about simply a logical argument that is built off another belief you hold.

2. Why do you need to offer evidence for God to believe in God? Evidence is just one way to interpret reality. Do you really believe that our 5 sense reality is all that there is to the universe when science itself proves that this is only a thin spectrum of reality? What about all that dark matter? What about the 99.9% of empty space in the atoms that compose you? What is that other 99.9% of "emptiness" that makes up each individual? All anybody is doing is making their best judgment based off what they have gathered. How is an atheist any more right to not believe in a God than a religious person to believe in a God? Evidence is simply another type of belief system, so why then is scientific evidence the only way towards truth?

Quote from: "slayerment"1. Evidence is always subjective. Different people require different amounts of evidence for anything. How much evidence would you need to believe that aliens are real? Would a picture prove it? A video? How about simply a logical argument that is built off another belief you hold.

Yes, I want video of god, a picture of god that can be scientifically verified.  That's what I need.

Quote from: "slayerment"2. Why do you need to offer evidence for God to believe in God? Evidence is just one way to interpret reality. Do you really believe that our 5 sense reality is all that there is to the universe when science itself proves that this is only a thin spectrum of reality? What about all that dark matter? What about the 99.9% of empty space in the atoms that compose you? What is that other 99.9% of "emptiness" that makes up each individual? All anybody is doing is making their best judgment based off what they have gathered. How is an atheist any more right to not believe in a God than a religious person to believe in a God? Evidence is simply another type of belief system, so why then is scientific evidence the only way towards truth?

All of that is fine a good... great philosophical discussion.

However... my problem is that those who have faith and believe in god and use his bible as their daily guidebook want to use said guidebook to make laws for there rest of us to follow, whether we believe in god or not.  THAT creates a problem from where I sit.  I have no problem with people believing... honestly, I don't.  My own mother is a very devout woman and we're good friends.  Most of friends are Christians.  HOWEVER, I part ways with them when it comes to gay rights and abortion and any other number of issues that are guided primarily by religion (I know, abortion is opposed by more people than just Christians).  And THAT is why it is important for them to provide proof of their god.

If I said that the Winnie the Pooh books show the dangers of eating honey and that we should ban honey because this parable, inspired by a reall Pooh, indicates it's bad for people, everyone would think I was nuts, right?  Until I showed proof that Winnie the Pooh is real and he really did say that, I have no right to expect that type of legislation to get past my telling someone.  If someone wants to eat honey and it's dangerous, more power to them.

Same thing with same sex marriage and their wanting to ban it by using the bible.

Quote from: "slayerment"Why do you need to offer evidence for God to believe in God? Evidence is just one way to interpret reality.

Um no ... I would have to disagree with that on just about every level.

Evidence based reasoning (in effect science) is, to date, the ONLY thing that has ever provided any reasoned and justifiable (by which I mean validatably supported) explanations for any facet of the universe in which we live.

Kyu

Quote from: "slayerment"

Quote from: "NearBr0ken"These questions are simple.  I'd like an answer.

1.)  How much evidence for scientific theories must be presented before there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that it is the truth?

2.)  When will you begin to offer scientific evidence of the existence of your god?

I'm not a Christian, however, I would like to share my perspective.

1. Evidence is always subjective. Different people require different amounts of evidence for anything. How much evidence would you need to believe that aliens are real? Would a picture prove it? A video? How about simply a logical argument that is built off another belief you hold.

2. Why do you need to offer evidence for God to believe in God? Evidence is just one way to interpret reality. Do you really believe that our 5 sense reality is all that there is to the universe when science itself proves that this is only a thin spectrum of reality? What about all that dark matter? What about the 99.9% of empty space in the atoms that compose you? What is that other 99.9% of "emptiness" that makes up each individual? All anybody is doing is making their best judgment based off what they have gathered. How is an atheist any more right to not believe in a God than a religious person to believe in a God? Evidence is simply another type of belief system, so why then is scientific evidence the only way towards truth?

Evidence is NOT simply another belief system, UNLESS you consider reality subjective.    Evidence is concrete fact that lends credence to an argument or viewpoint, but it is not wrong.  It may be interpreted wrongly, but what we see, hear, touch, taste, and smell, is most certainly to be taken as accurate manifestations of reality.  What we think of that information, and how we interpret it, may or may not constitute reality.  Evidence, at its purest form, is a statement of the existence.  The Bible exists, most certainly, but then you must consider all the evidence surrounding it, for example, and decide if it is to be taken seriously.  Evidence against the Bible, in this case, would include fossil records, the age of the earth, age of the universe, fact that the writers were human and moved by human motives, et cetera.  You must account for ALL evidence in some way with your worldview.  I won't linger on what evidence is.

People require different amounts of evidence because that is their choice.  They may also make that choice based on strength of the arguments generated from that evidence, rather than just the volume of evidence.  People take different amounts of evidence to convince based on whether they take issue with gaps in an explanation, how well they can connect related evidence, how much they're willing to trust the source presenting an argument based on that evidence.  This doesn't mean each piece of evidence is merely belief.   Quite the contrary.

With all this in mind, remember that to suggesting reality and evidence ITSELF to be subjective is lethal to everything: Light, the Bible, 4chan, fossils, your feelings, and mercury.  All of these things only appear to exist, but to cast down one is to suggest the possibility of nothing being as it appears, because reality is not concrete.  I will not live that way, I will evaluate what I perceive, thin slice of reality though it may be, I will not question whether my perception can be trusted.   It's not living if you can't be sure your mind is your mind.  But feel free to play in the fluffiest philosophy, I did for awhile.  

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zweg.com%2Fico%2Fpedobear.gif&hash=bb7797c0dc2fdac7c94da81cfa1bb0d05c296963)

QuoteEvidence is NOT simply another belief system, UNLESS you consider reality subjective. Evidence is concrete fact that lends credence to an argument or viewpoint, but it is not wrong.

I'm sorry to jump into the middle of this discussion. But what do you define as evidence? For instance, politicians like to quote statistics as evidence for ideologies and positions and I always find problems with "evidence" like that. If you mean evidence as scientific experiments and studies done through archaeology, geology, biology, physics and chemistry then I'm absolutely on the same page.

QuoteEvidence against the Bible, in this case, would include fossil records, the age of the earth, age of the universe, fact that the writers were human and moved by human motives, et cetera. You must account for ALL evidence in some way with your worldview. I won't linger on what evidence is.

I personally believe that the universe is as old as scientists hypothesize, I believe evolution was a part of the formation of life and I'm a Christian...After reading Genesis quite a few times for this specific reason I don't believe that the two contradict.

QuoteWith all this in mind, remember that to suggesting reality and evidence ITSELF to be subjective is lethal to everything: Light, the Bible, 4chan, fossils, your feelings, and mercury. All of these things only appear to exist, but to cast down one is to suggest the possibility of nothing being as it appears, because reality is not concrete. I will not live that way, I will evaluate what I perceive, thin slice of reality though it may be, I will not question whether my perception can be trusted.

Side track, every once in a while I have these phases where it is hard for me to grasp what reality is. I can bring it about just by thinking about it...and it takes a long time to get back to reality...am I the only one who gets that? I believe the same thing as you, it's just fits of...I don't know...psychosis I guess.

Quote from: "Titan"I'm sorry to jump into the middle of this discussion. But what do you define as evidence? For instance, politicians like to quote statistics as evidence for ideologies and positions and I always find problems with "evidence" like that. If you mean evidence as scientific experiments and studies done through archaeology, geology, biology, physics and chemistry then I'm absolutely on the same page.

No worries, and the "evidence" they quote, such as statistics, tends to be their interpretation of the evidence.  All of that is still evidence, it's just evidence of something different, such as subversion (on a meta level, I mean).   :lol:

Quote from: "Titan"But what do you define as evidence? For instance, politicians like to quote statistics as evidence for ideologies and positions and I always find problems with "evidence" like that. If you mean evidence as scientific experiments and studies done through archaeology, geology, biology, physics and chemistry then I'm absolutely on the same page.

I was asked what I meant by evidence once and this is what I came up with, I've scanned through it and I don't think it needs much updating.

What Evidence Is
Introduction
Recently, in forum, I was asked what evidence was i.e. what is a definition for evidence ... I admit I was shocked, frankly I had never even given the matter any though before, so I sat back to give the matter some thought.

Definitions
An "assertion" is something we can say about the universe in which we live or is relevant to some state of that universe. For the purpose of this discussion I am interested only in assertions as they pertain to the real (natural or materialistic) universe.

"Evidence" is anything that may support an assertion or increase its likelihood of being correct. All assessment of evidence is a form of probability, an interpretation, and is dependent upon the observer or interpreter.

In common usage the word "observe" simply means to see, to view something, but in scientific terms an observation (or rather a relevant observation) is a piece of evidence that has been agreed by all relevant parties to be correctly and accurately associated with the assertion which it is claimed to be. It is important to note that the use of the word "observation" in a scientific sense can refer to data that has not been directly observed, for example if the population of the United States is said to be around 350 million it is understood that that is backed up by population data … no single individual is capable of directly observing all 350 million individuals simultaneously.

Discussion
An observation should be regarded evidence when it is:
•   Compatible with the assertion … it is pointless to observe that trees are tall and assert that that is why they are green as the observation has no direct relevance to the assertion.
•   Not compatible with other assertions ... it is further pointless to observe that trees are tall and assert that that is why they are green when the (more logical) assertion that chlorophyll (abundant in the leaves of trees) better explains why the tree is green.

It is important to note that a lack of evidence, whilst not obstructing a given assertion, may not be used as a supporting observation for a given assertion i.e. it is not, in scientific terms, evidence.

Assume, for instance, that a respected scientist says there is a very strong case for life on Mars … should people who hear of this necessarily take this as evidence that there is life on Mars? Under normal circumstances people will tend to take the word of such a scientist and assume that what that worthy says is fact however if there is reason to doubt then they might start to ask themselves if that scientist might say that there was life on Mars when he or she had no specific evidence. If such doubt exists the first action would be to question whether that scientists statement actually does constitute evidence … is the scientists sphere of expertise compatible with his or her statement, has that scientist made such statements before and how were they evaluated at that time, has that scientist a hidden agenda or ulterior motive in making such a statement?

Despite the fact that the logic is, itself, self-evident there is a human tendency to ignore the second condition and it is common for individuals to regard as evidence observations which are accepted as compatible with other assertions. Sometimes this is because they simply refuse to consider the alternatives and will, instead, consider only a subset of possible assertions whilst at other times it is simply because they like the observation and assertion in question.

It is also important to understand that the conditions for an observation being acceptable as evidence are entirely independent of the nature of the observation i.e. an observation is valid evidence for a given assertion once verified (agreed to be true), once compatibility with the assertion is established and provided it is not also compatible with others.

Conclusion
When making an assertion about the state of our universe it is important to establish that the observational data used to justify that assertion is both fact (true, verifiable), compatible with the assertion and incompatible with others competing assertions.

For instance when someone claims that the diversity (observation) around us can only be explained by the actions of deity (assertion) not only is their no observed link between deity and diversity (and indeed no observation of deity) but there exists (in the theory of evolution) a perfectly plausible assertion that is supported by a huge number of observations.

References
"What Is Evidence", Yahouda Harpaz

Quote from: "Titan"I personally believe that the universe is as old as scientists hypothesize, I believe evolution was a part of the formation of life and I'm a Christian...After reading Genesis quite a few times for this specific reason I don't believe that the two contradict.

So what I'd call the theistic evolutionist position.

I think Genesis and science very much disagree:

 Genesis & The Big Bang

Introduction
Fundamentalists will often use the argument attempt to claim that the bible and science are compatible in that Genesis can be interpreted as predictive of modern day scientific knowledge. The implications of such a claim, were it to be demonstrated as true would be immense ... whilst it would not automatically demonstrate the bible as being correct from cover to cover it would certainly lend it a great deal of credence.

The purpose, therefore, of this article is to compare the first chapter of genesis with current scientific knowledge and attempt to establish whether there is common ground between the two and from that determine whether the bible was right in what it says about the development of the universe.

Discussion

Genesis 1
Approximately 13½ billion years ago the universe was compressed to a point with no dimensions. This, in lay terminology, was the moment before time and space existed ... there was no matter/energy, time, or space, literally NOTHING.

1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The universe started.

On this level it is easy to compare current scientific theory with scriptural statements such as Genesis 1, 1 but where such comparisons fall down is if one goes further levels into scientific theory. Where does the fact that “the universe started” actually start and end? If we wish to be strictly accurate then the start of the universe was something that occurred over a time period that was too small to measure so in effect the very first statement of the bible has merit. However it must be recognised that there is no way in which science can recognise the existence of a creator god ... a creator god would have to be beyond nature for it to exist at this point and to create the universe within which we would eventually come to exist i.e. it would be supernatural and science can, therefore, safely ignore it.

2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The first point to note is that the bible has skipped a few hundred thousand years to reach this point conveniently missing out the expansion of the central singularity, the formation of various forces such as electromagnetism and gravity, photons, positrons, neutrinos (and their corresponding anti-particles), deuterium, ionised plasma, neucleosynthesis of helium and its cooling to a temperature of 10,000 Kelvin over a period of 300,000 years. At this point the first light is seen and it is here that we start to find sequencing problems with the biblical tale and the theory advanced by science.

According to the bible water is already in existence (presumably floating free in space) and the christian god (or rather his “spirit”) is able to move across it. This water is not in or of the Earth because the Earth has not yet been formed.

3. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Presumably this refers to the period 300,000 years after the start of the universe when light is first seen and it is easy to accept that a supernatural deity, observing his creation, might consider the light to be good and that it was distinct from the dark. However the fact that this god then decides to refer to light as Day and dark as Night (further confirmed by the passage of the first day) indicates that cyclical day and night (the kind only found on planetary bodies) had begun ... at this point no galaxies or stars (let alone planets) existed just an ever-expanding cloud of rapidly cooling plasma. The reference to the time as a single day having passed is at odds with the observation that the universe at this time was already considerably older than the entire modern hominid history.

6. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Again it is hard to rationalise this with any kind of science in that it appears to be referring to the division of heaven from the rest of the universe. Again there is a reference to the total amount of time having passed (2 days).

9. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

This is the third day and at this point it appears that the Earth has been created which means that the bible has mysteriously skipped forward around 6 or 7 billion years to the point of the Earth’s formation. Time for the christian god does not appear to be in any way particularly constant.

In fact time has skipped forward a fairly significant amount (a hundred thousand years or so) into the Earth’s early history rather than stopping at the point of the just formed Earth (by which I mean the first point at which one could observe the Earth and definitively state that it was a planetary body). Both land and water now exist.

11. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13. And the evening and the morning were the third day.

The first vegetation appears and indeed vegetation likely did appear prior to true animal life at least on the planets land surface. The third day ends.

14. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15. And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18. And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Ah ... so Genesis says that the stars, the sun & the moon were created after the Earth? Strange that ... current cosmological thought indicates that the Sun would have formed either slightly before or at the same time as the Earth and the rest of the solar planetary bodies and the moon slightly after. Moreover the only apparent reason for their formation is to rule either day or night and to allow for signs (astrology?) and seasons. The only purpose of stars is to provide light for the Earth it would seem.

20. And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

No particular problem here though I note that no mention is made of earlier life forms than fish, fowl, whales etc. certainly nothing microscopic or even vaguely dinosaur-like.

24. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Simplistic but, again, no major problems.

26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Well it isn’t the way science would have it i.e. that we evolved from a common man-ape ancestor.

28. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Final orders I suppose?

Conclusion.
Currently, on the basis of a brief analysis of Genesis 1 alone, it can be seen that there are significant sequencing (order of creation) flaws and huge vistas of time unaccounted for not to mention the fact that Genesis 1 refers to the process of creation over a period of 6 days.

Whether or not one regards this as an accurate account of creation largely depends upon one’s belief system and the type of interpretation one wishes to apply. The majority of fundamentalists tend to be rather literal with regard to biblical interpretation and so the claimed 6 day creation period cannot be reconciled with the scientific account of universal development. Further more the evidence indicates that planetary bodies would have been created (at best) at the same time as their local star so the sequencing of universal development is not compatible with scriptural.

A less rigid interpretation might allow for flexibility in time (days) but does not account for the wild variance in terms of the length of each day.

A purely allegorical view of Genesis makes most sense as a method of uniting the two disparate worldviews i.e. that the bible was meant as a scriptural work aimed at simpler people in a time long past.

Quote from: "Titan"Side track, every once in a while I have these phases where it is hard for me to grasp what reality is. I can bring it about just by thinking about it...and it takes a long time to get back to reality...am I the only one who gets that? I believe the same thing as you, it's just fits of...I don't know...psychosis I guess.

Reality, I suppose, is what we experience ... there is, of course, no hard evidence to support anyone's view that what they experience is real (it's just assumed to be so I guess) but my answer to anyone who tries to use that as an argument to dismiss scientific thought usually revolves around an invitation to step in front of a fast moving lorry and find out. That sounds harsh but, quite frankly, I think those kind of arguments are dumb.

Kyu

Ya know, every time I think I'm making a long, detailed post, I always come back to either find the thread died or I've been completely outdone.  Very well detailed and presented, Kyuuketsuki!  I might be tempted to present my own list, but the topic is morality and I've derailed enough stuff.  

Actually, evangelicalism turns away from a literal interpretation of Genesis. I was actually ignoring one of my professors today and thinking about the formation of the universe as it appears through a Biblical perspective.

If you accept that Moses wrote Genesis while on Mt. Sinai then what you are faced with is how would he perceive that which he is viewing? What would God show him in a short span of time in order to give him "the jist" of creation (Remember, there is something far more important in the Genesis account than just a chronological recording of events).

Essentially, the theory is that Moses would have been standing on Mt. Sinai and suddenly he would be brought back in time to view creation as it began to unfold. If that was the case then what would be the interpretation and how would Moses divide it into coherent units of time?
This website is more along the lines of what I believe http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml#young_earth_vs_old_earth
With specific reference to http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/greg_moore_does_old_earth_creationism_contradict_genesis_1.shtml

QuoteFundamentalists will often use the argument attempt to claim that the bible and science are compatible in that Genesis can be interpreted as predictive of modern day scientific knowledge. The implications of such a claim, were it to be demonstrated as true would be immense ... whilst it would not automatically demonstrate the bible as being correct from cover to cover it would certainly lend it a great deal of credence.

Actually, fundamentalists would be less inclined to argue for compatibility and instead would argue that modern science has it wrong. Evangelicalism is the one that argues for compatibility. The distinction is important for many discussions concerning Biblical doctrine.

Quote from: "Titan"Actually, evangelicalism turns away from a literal interpretation of Genesis. I was actually ignoring one of my professors today and thinking about the formation of the universe as it appears through a Biblical perspective.

Which is fine if true but still gives you huge problems ... with a less than literal interoperation of your bible you then open a chink in your theistic armour where people like me can rationally ask you to justify why you regard some bits of your religious scriptures as true, others false and most importantly what methodology you apply in the decision making process.

Quote from: "Titan"If you accept that Moses wrote Genesis while on Mt. Sinai then what you are faced with is how would he perceive that which he is viewing? What would God show him in a short span of time in order to give him "the jist" of creation (Remember, there is something far more important in the Genesis account than just a chronological recording of events).

Actually there's a very good joke about that which I will try and find and post later.

Why should I accept Moses writing Genesis on Mount Sinai (or there being a god there) given that there are at least two chapters in Genesis, that each covers much the same ground in a different style (and some contradiction) the implication of which is that there were at least two authors.

BTW, I don't know how others feel about this, but I don't do theist URL's ... each and every time I have done so (and the reason I now take this stance) is that they consistently fail to deliver whatever said theist promises it will. Also, I write my own answers and post them myself, I fail to see why others shouldn't do the same. I don't particularly object to the "more information" type URL's but I do expect a fully formed argument to be posted.

Quote from: "Titan"Actually, fundamentalists would be less inclined to argue for compatibility and instead would argue that modern science has it wrong. Evangelicalism is the one that argues for compatibility. The distinction is important for many discussions concerning Biblical doctrine.

Fair point and I will amend that document accordingly.

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Which is fine if true but still gives you huge problems ... with a less than literal interoperation of your bible you then open a chink in your theistic armour where people like me can rationally ask you to justify why you regard some bits of your religious scriptures as true, others false and most importantly what methodology you apply in the decision making process.

There's an interesting article about the use as Genesis (or the Bible in general) as a science text.

Warnick, B. & Fooce, C.  (2007.)  Does teaching creationism facilitate student autonomy?  Theory and Research in Education, 5(3), 357-378.

If you have access to EBSCOhost or ERIC you should be able to find it. I'll post some relevant quotes:

Quote from: "p. 166"...the creation account -- the story of light triumphing over darkness, and order conquering chaotic preexisting primordial waters -- could be taken to foreshadow the reader's own struggles and eventual redemption (and, for Christians, that also of Christ). This sort of symbolic ordering makes meaning, understanding and reason possible. Clearly, the premodern sacred text plays a very different role from the modernist referential text. The sacred history focuses on changing the reader rather than describing the world.

When sacred narratives are read only in a referential way, as the modernist assumptions of the science classroom push us to do, they are fundamentally distorted. That is to say, they are distorted in that they are being read in a framework very different from the framework of scriptural composition and early interpretation. For the modernist, the stories are taken as merely one possible way of referring to independently existing events. They are taken as a possible representation of reality rather than as incarnating the form that gives us access to meaning.

[Genesis] is intended to be historical in some sense, to be sure, but the characteristics of the text mean that it does not lend itself to any straightforward historical classification. [Essentially,] Genesis is a 'literary-artistic representation' of creation history that is intended to enact a way of seeing the world.

...creationists seek to convince their audience that they are merely contemplating simple conclusions from the Bible, when really they are contemplating conclusions from the Bible shaped by their preunderstandings of how the Bible should be read (quoting Noll, 1994: 197-8)

S'just interesting.

QuoteWhich is fine if true but still gives you huge problems ... with a less than literal interoperation of your bible you then open a chink in your theistic armour where people like me can rationally ask you to justify why you regard some bits of your religious scriptures as true, others false and most importantly what methodology you apply in the decision making process.

Actually, that has been the case for a long time. There is much of the Bible that is already interpreted figuratively, it is just a matter of figuring out, through debate and inquiry, which parts are valid as literal interpretations and which aren't. The process is a complex one, many dissertations are written on subjects that are disagreed on and many churches split due to singular interpretations of the Bible.

QuoteWhy should I accept Moses writing Genesis on Mount Sinai (or there being a god there) given that there are at least two chapters in Genesis, that each covers much the same ground in a different style (and some contradiction) the implication of which is that there were at least two authors.

While you find the joke I'll try to find the evidence that it was Moses. But what style differences make you believe that it was a different author?

QuoteBTW, I don't know how others feel about this, but I don't do theist URL's ... each and every time I have done so (and the reason I now take this stance) is that they consistently fail to deliver whatever said theist promises it will. Also, I write my own answers and post them myself, I fail to see why others shouldn't do the same. I don't particularly object to the "more information" type URL's but I do expect a fully formed argument to be posted.

That is absolutely fair and a valid point. I still go to sites atheists suggest simply because there is a wealth of knowledge out there and I need to improve what I know. I just want you to know that there are a lot of answers to these questions. Ones made by people with astronomy degrees and Biblical degrees (for internal evaluation). I'm not a single isolated voice trying desperately to hold on to both science and Christianity.

curiosityandthecat
I'm inclined to agree with that interpretation. I don't favor teaching the Genesis story in the Bible. In fact I believe when we start trying to combine religion and state we always end up doing something far worst than secularists would (e.g. the Salem witch trials, the inquisition, etc.). What fundamentalists like James Dobson and Focus on the Family do not understand is that there was a VERY good reason the founding fathers did not use "God" once in the constitution. Regardless of their background they kept his name out for a reason. In the word's of G.K. Chesterton “Whenever you remove any fence, always pause long enough to ask yourself the question, ‘Why was it put there in the first place?’”

QuoteWhile you find the joke I'll try to find the evidence that it was Moses. But what style differences make you believe that it was a different author?

Try to find evidence that it was Moses? Wouldn't you rather just look for the truth regardless of what that turns out to be? You're trying to defend yourself rather than look for truth. Besides, I thought it was pretty well agreed upon by historians that Moses did not write the Torah.

Quote from: "Sophus"Besides, I thought it was pretty well agreed upon by historians that Moses did not write the Torah.

Who did write the Torah? Each of the Hebrew letters has a corresponding characterist and numerical value to it. Words themselves are made of letters with characteristics that describe the word. It's trippy.

Quote from: "Arthur Dent"

Quote from: "Sophus"Besides, I thought it was pretty well agreed upon by historians that Moses did not write the Torah.

Who did write the Torah? Each of the Hebrew letters has a corresponding characterist and numerical value to it. Words themselves are made of letters with characteristics that describe the word. It's trippy.

Scholars believe it was a group of people from a later time.

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Which is fine if true but still gives you huge problems ... with a less than literal interoperation of your bible you then open a chink in your theistic armour where people like me can rationally ask you to justify why you regard some bits of your religious scriptures as true, others false and most importantly what methodology you apply in the decision making process.

Actually, that has been the case for a long time. There is much of the Bible that is already interpreted figuratively, it is just a matter of figuring out, through debate and inquiry, which parts are valid as literal interpretations and which aren't. The process is a complex one, many dissertations are written on subjects that are disagreed on and many churches split due to singular interpretations of the Bible.

Science has an easy to understand method, in essence it is a method ... what is the method bible philosophers use to establish what is and what is not true about the bible?

More to the point, let me ask you a question ... is the Genesis account correct (by which I mean should it be regarded as fact, allegory or fiction)?

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Why should I accept Moses writing Genesis on Mount Sinai (or there being a god there) given that there are at least two chapters in Genesis, that each covers much the same ground in a different style (and some contradiction) the implication of which is that there were at least two authors.

While you find the joke I'll try to find the evidence that it was Moses. But what style differences make you believe that it was a different author?

Can't find it, will post it when I happen across it next.

From Wikipedia:

Today virtually all scholars accept that the Pentateuch "was in reality a composite work, the product of many hands and periods.”In the first half of the 20th century the dominant theory regarding the origins of the Pentateuch was the documentary hypothesis. This supposes that the Torah was produced about 450 BC by combining four distinct, complete and coherent documents, known as the Yahwist (“Y” or “J”, from the German spelling of Yahweh), the Elohist (“E”), the Deuteronomist (“D”), and the Priestly source (“P”). Genesis 1 is from P, and Genesis 2 from J.

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"BTW, I don't know how others feel about this, but I don't do theist URL's ... each and every time I have done so (and the reason I now take this stance) is that they consistently fail to deliver whatever said theist promises it will. Also, I write my own answers and post them myself, I fail to see why others shouldn't do the same. I don't particularly object to the "more information" type URL's but I do expect a fully formed argument to be posted.

That is absolutely fair and a valid point. I still go to sites atheists suggest simply because there is a wealth of knowledge out there and I need to improve what I know. I just want you to know that there are a lot of answers to these questions. Ones made by people with astronomy degrees and Biblical degrees (for internal evaluation). I'm not a single isolated voice trying desperately to hold on to both science and Christianity.

Good for you (the last bit) but my experience has been that theist url's rarely (if ever) turn out to be the answer that the proponent claims they are and given that they are often long and time consuming I don't do them. In fairness to you of you point me to a url that you can clearly say is short (less than, say, a thousand words), you offer a short summary (which is actually what I'm after ... I don't expect you to be expert but I kind of expect evidence that you understand the argument being raised) and you don't do overdo url usage I will visit them.

Kyu