Evidence for your beliefs

[Todd]

Hi,

This is my first post and Topic on this site, so I'll quickly introduce myself.
My name is Todd, 15 years old live in Sydney and I'm Christian and happily got saved about 2 months ago.

So anyway, I think this is a similar topic to something was put on before but anyway, I'd like to try it again.

I want people on this to state their belief and give evidence for why they think it is right or why they believe in it.

I myself as stated above am Christian, I don't know how many people have heard of this but before that I was an evolutionist, take note of what I say here evolutionists, "I didn't WANT to believe in God, because I was afraid of going to Hell for sinning, so I decided that if I believed there wasn't a God there wasn't a hell to possibly end up going to when I die, so I chose something that ruled God out, it took me ages but after 3 years I realised how pathetic evolution is because although I DID believe in it I never saw any proof of it" So anyway after this, I became Christian and saw proofs of it straight away, I've had a lot of my personal prayers answered and there's easily much proof in the bible with so many fulfilled prophecies and SCIENTIFIC FACTS that support the Bible, so thats my reason for trust in the Lord now, I'd write something longer but I'm tired right now.

Anyway, everyone else, I wanna hear your thoughts

[mrmufin]

I also was pointing out that there are science papers, texts, books, what-have-you that does get into cause and effect at Quantum levels.

Yes, and in making your point, you offered a link to a netpaper written by Jos Verhulst titled "An Aristotalian interpretation of quantum mechanics." I'm still curious... do you think that Verhulst's article is driven by his scientific or philosophical interests?

When was the last time you saw a committee design with such balance?

What balance are you refering to? I'm not sure what you mean. How would balance discount a team, heirarchy, or committee design?

Asking all sorts of "why's" doesn't discount my statement.

No, it only puts your assertions about a designer in a more realistic context.

I could do the same tactic to evolution and the Big Bang.

Yes, you could.

Why does there have to be only one point at which this univers started? Why not many? ...For each galaxy? [...] Wouldn't that explain a lot of differences as well as things that look like they are headed in the same direction for other galaxy/planet/star making?

I don't know; and those are some pretty good questions. How would you go about finding out? What evidences would you evaluate, and how? What sources of data would you regard as credible, and why? How would you handle conflicting evidences?

I can guess your answers probably.

Do you think you have a pretty good track record at guessing my answers?

But again, you don't bring up anything that can't be or hasn't been answered. We could ask questions till the cows come home, doesn't mean the statement made is negated. It just means you can ask a lot of questions.

And you can dodge a good chunk of the questions, eh?

Moving on... "I don't see the character of God being a bigger issue to solve." See how you just slipped from a designer to a very specific designer, one which you refer to as God?

I did not "slip", I responded to your posted statement. YOU went from a single designer to asking about percieved problems with finding the answers to character questions. I followed your statement.

No, let's review your statement:

I disagree that the introduction of an itelligent designer raises more problem than it solves. It no more presents additional material to prove/solve than naturalism does. I don't see the character of God being a bigger issue to solve. We would already know many basic truths about Him, such as He cannot lie, He is logical, He is a fatherly type, He can get angry, He can exude love to those we think don't deserve love... The character part would be much easier.

Sound familiar? You started with an intelligent designer, then equated that designer with one (of many) concepts of god, then asserted basic truths about that specific (and apparently male) god. I simply started my line of questioning at the top of your stack of assertions. I want to know how you distinguish the work of a singular designer with the work from a team, heirarchy, committee, etc.? If you have ruled out the alleged design as being the product of committee or heirarchy, I would like to know the methodology used.

From your (currently unsupported) single designer assertion, you continued to equate the designer with a specific god, the one you call God (as opposed to Vishnu, Odin, Loki, Thor, Poseidon, Athena, Apollo, Brahma, Krishna, Sheba, Ra, Allah, or any of the many other gods, or some combination of those gods). Again, I'm curious as to the methodolgy used to determine that the alleged designer is equivalent to one particular god, but not the others.

On top of those assertions, you claimed that the specific god had certain qualities (logical, fatherly, etc.). I asked about the methodology used to determine those properties and, thus far, you have not answered my questions.

In regards to evolution, you already have different conclusions about how it all happened. So how does your question hurt only my argument? Here is where the enclosed box of naturalistic only science loops back on itself.

I think Jose has given ample treatment to this statement, and I humbly defer to his experience and education in scientific matters.

What you are ultimately asking for "who created that God/gods" and "who created that God or gods" ad infinitum. Which you already know it has to start somewhere. All your are really really doing is putting off the beginning.

No, not at all. As I've already stated, I'm quite comfortable with, "I don't know." I don't assume that it has to start somewhere. Maybe it just is. Another thing that I'm curious about is the methodologies used by those who claim that they do know that the universe was created. To the best of my knowledge, we only have observational data from this universe. Now if we had empirical data from other universes and those universes were clearly labeled as "designed by X" or "not designed by X", we might be able to compare and analyze the data points. Can't do that.

Assuming we have answered the question "where did we come from, how did we get here, how did it happen..." and now we have accepted that God did it, now we are looking to test his character et al.

I think you just revealed your methodology: acceptance of assumption. You assumed that you answered certain questions, and then accepted that "God did it."

Since we have accepted a single supernatural source, we can safely assume we have certain traits from Him as well.

There's that methodology again: acceptance and assumption. How could those assumptions be falsified?

What is the opposite of chocolate?

Choco-early. (attempt at humor)

Ha!

Law of the Excluded Middle: Can you be sitting and standing at the same time? Easy to test for that don't you think?

An easy test, indeed. Everytime I ride my bicycle, there are moments when I'm both sitting and standing; for example, when I'm stopped in traffic, sitting on the bicycle seat while standing with one foot on the pavement.

Did the ball roll to the other side by itself? Or did someone push it? Is the floor slanted? Did gravity do it? Did the ground move? Is there a mechanism in the ball ...

And accurately answering those questions would involve using scientific methodologies, unless you can come up with a better suggestion.

Your statement seems to imply that there is either a consistent worldview shared by scientists or some confusion between ideology and methodology. What about religious scientists?

Yes, I do imply there is a consistent or common world view. And that is that ONLY natural explanations can be.

That's not a worldview, but a methodology. As a group, scientists consist of a diverse array of worldviews: atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, etc. are all free to challenge and contribute to science. As scientists, their data and methodologies should not be impacted by their philosophy, religion, political position, sexual orientation, gender, skin tone, etc.

I just don't consider philosophy as useful as science...

You might want to check the history of science then. It was philosophy and philosophers that started science as we know it.

And you might want to check for my original statement rather than misrepresent it to try to benefit your position. I'll save you some time and repost it for you:

I just don't consider philosophy as useful as science when it comes to understanding the mechanical aspects of the Universe.

Kinda has a different ring to it when the context isn't distorted, dontcha think?

Can I ask you two if this thread seems to be headed in directions that are already being debated in the other threads? If so, should we let this thread die a bit? Unless of course you just like me and want to keep me a while.

I think you left quite a few questions unanswered to just let the thread die off.

Regards,
mrmufin

[ENIGMA]

the basic premise is that we invoke God only when we find things that cannot be explained by science

"mutations and natural selection led to this suite of characteristics in this organism,..."

So it is not ok for an "I don't know" answer from a creationist viewpoint, but it is ok to say "evolution did it" for an I don't know answer?

No, evolution is rather the falsifiable explanation for the phenomena that has yet to be falsified.

(ie, no data)

What would be acceptable data? Prime numbers sent via radio waves from space?

A big indestructible statue built out of an unidentifiable substance, depicting a big guy carrying the 10 Commandments, surrounded by a few angels, and a plaque saying "GOD WUZ HERE", would pretty much do it for me.

There seems to be an assumption that the purpose of science is to Prove Things. Mrmufin has pointed out that it can't do that. Why? Because science is a human endeavor.

Again, if science does not attempt to prove things then why the need for empirical evidence and testability and repeatability? Why does it test things at all? Why do scientists tell us that evolution is all but fact. Why does it not stop at "educated guesses"? Why the need to tout scientific Laws?? Is science simply better myth tellers than the ancients?

Science makes no attempt to prove things. It, rather, makes the attempt to shoot things down based on empirical data. It more or less functions on the general notion that a person who wanders around a densely packed minefield for a few weeks without blowing up, in all likelyhood:

a) Has some strategy for avoiding the areas with mines.
and
b) Said strategy, or at least some non-trivial portion of it, is correct for at least a non-trivial subset of the minefield.

So in this example, the longer the guy wanders around before getting blown up, the more likely it is that the strategy is correct and works for the whole minefield.

For example, Newtonian Physics was doing fairly well in the minefield for a few hundred years, but then when the strategy was applied to the part which deals with fast-moving or very massive objects, or very, very small objects, the strategy failed. Then Einstein and Heisenberg came onto the picture, took a look at Newtonian physics, had a few new ideas and tested them out. Now we are currently left in physics with the odd problem that while Einstein's ideas can move into "Really Big Stuff" territory and survive and the various Quantum Physics stategies can move into "Really Small and Fast Stuff" territory and survive, they can't inhabit the other's territory which poses a problem since to understand more about the universe we would need a strategy to encompass both areas. A number of current strategies are being devised in this regard.

Evolutionary theory has wandered in the minefield for 150 years, and has held up rather well with only a few minor strategy corrections here and there with the development of knowledge about genetics.

Creationism has decided to say, more or less, "Bugger the minefield, we could move through the place really easy", and then proceeds to do so... in a helicopter. The mines weren't all that important anyway...

The trouble is, since we don't know beforehand how it works, we don't have a benchmark for determining when we've gotten to The Final Answer.

Ah, but if you look around science (ie scientists) ARE telling us they have The Final Answer to our Origins.

They're telling us what still works after extensive testing.

There's always the possibility that someone will prove (I don't know how) that God really did create everything

Isn't the "(I don't know how)" insert, a tell tale clue that you've already started to exclude something mentally? Given the rest of you post, why throw in the tinge of skepticism so early? After all according to your own words "As we accumulate more data, the explanations often change.".

However, falsifiable explanations that last for a significant period of time under extensive testing and scrutiny are almost certain to contain at least some portion of what is, in fact, going on. Otherwise they have been giving the correct results by pure chance, which, ironically, creationists have an odd tendency to point out how unlikely such occurences are.

...(which, of course, God designed to have just the right degrees of similarity to make it look like there was genetic inheritance from a common ancestor).

Ever think maybe our measuring devices are wrong? Ever think maybe things have not always changed at the same pace in the past? And besides we have as much DNA in common with mice as an ape. Having similar DNA is not equivelant to ancestry. 99% of the biology of any organism is in the soft anatomy which is not accessible via the fossil record. So [you've] taken that 1% of info and extrapolated out? Lining up fossils and claiming lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested but is rather an assertion based on some similarities and 1% of the data.

It can be quite falsified, however.

Point out a T-Rex fossil in the Pre-Cambrian and evolutionary theory as we know it is dead. Just like the poor guy in the minefield.

Those two lines share all the same letters and structure, and share roughly 90% of the same order, yet have polarizing differences in outcome.

Except in that example all the letters code for something. In DNA, profoundly little of it does. The DNA that does code for things has a far more limited alphabet, plenty of redundancy, and very efficient error correction.

present our understanding as the current best explanation of the data.

Who is to say science has the best explanation of the data?

If you have a better one, then do present it. The minefield is always looking for new victims.

Many people don't like that, especially if they really want The Truth.

But you just agreed earlier in your post that science doesn't find "truth". So now you know the truth? And why would it be that only science has the truth? And why would it be that only people who don't believe this unproving science thing are the ones who aren't accepting of the truth?

Why do you accept instructions about how to cross a minefield on foot from those who won't dare to land, but dismiss the notion of asking someone who has crossed it on foot several times?

If people have been raised to believe that the bible gives them Truth, then science, by its very nature, will seem wishy-washy.

And what about people who have not been "raised" in religion? Is science wishy-washy too? Cannot the same be said in reverse about those "raised" in science? And yes for the rest of that paragraph, science is supposed to give truthful answers, it is objective correct? Or is it here to make up stuff and not have to prove what it is telling us?

Its job is to try to shoot down what it is about to tell us. Heavily. With prizes for the people who shoot down the biggest and strongest stuff.

Whatever gets through, survives for the next running along with whatever newly designed competitors have been proposed. Anything that perpetually continues to survive is considered established. With quite possibly a prize for the guy to develop it.

What bit doesn't work?

[mrmufin]

So it is not ok for an "I don't know" answer from a creationist viewpoint, but it is ok to say "evolution did it" for an I don't know answer?

Actually, it's quite okay for anyone to say "I don't know" if it's the most accurate answer. Problem is, that's exactly what creationists are not doing. Rather, the creationist asserts that God did it in places where an I don't know would've worked just fine.

Which is fine, if you have all the mutations. Or even most of them.

What sort of evidence would you find persuasive? How many transitional fossils, how much genetic data would be required to convince you of the integrity of evolutionary theories? If the evidences supporting evolution were all falsified tomorrow, do you think that your specific brand of creationism would win by default?

What would be acceptable data? Prime numbers sent via radio waves from space?

Nah, that wouldn't convince me that a particular god exists, but I gotta admit that it's more convincing than acceptance and assumption.

So far, he's only given us data that make it look like he's not home.

I thought there wasn't any data?

And no data might be consistent with, "God's not home" or "God hasn't been around much lately" or "God's powers were revoked by his superiors" or even "God might not even exist." The example I like to use to explain the concept is the search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The lack of affirmative evidences of WMDs may be consistent with "they flushed 'em all down the toilet as coalition forces were rolling into Bagdad" or "The WMDs were secretly scuttled off to Syria" or even "The WMDs are just not there." The most accurate statement would be No Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have been found. Just as no conclusive evidence in favor of a particular god or designer exists is applicable to evolutionary theories. Apparently, a creator possessing the capacities you assert would have the ability to reveal itself in clear, convincing, discernable terms. What conclusions can be made which are consistent with the lack of data?

Again, if science does not attempt to prove things then why the need for empirical evidence and testability and repeatability?

Perhaps to garner a useful understanding of the mechanical aspects of nature? In my humble opinion, empirical evidences, testability, and repeatability trumps acceptance and assumption.

Why does it test things at all?

To garner support and/or falsify hypotheses and theories. To weed out the inaccurate assumptions and false hypotheses in the course of understanding nature. Kinda like the way Lavoisier's tests falsified hypotheses about phlogiston and led to the formal discovery of oxygen.

Why do scientists tell us that evolution is all but fact. Why does it not stop at "educated guesses"?

Evolutionary theories exist to explain and maintain consistency with empirical data. Based on the fossil record, dating methodolgies, our knowledge of DNA and RNA structures, the theories comprising evolutionary biology exist to explain the data. I'm not aware of any scientists that suggest that days of discovery of evidence are over. Testing and evaluations continue. You're free to offer up alternative falsifiable explanations that are consistent with all of the evidences gathered.

Why the need to tout scientific Laws?? Is science simply better myth tellers than the ancients?

Do the old myth tellers expose themselves to peer and public scrutiny? The usefulness of scientific laws help us describe the basic mechanics of a situation.

For example, I can use Ohm's Law (I = E/R) to estimate the current flow (I) in a circuit based on known a voltage (E) and resistance (R). As well, I can algebraically manipulate Ohm's Law and estimate voltge based on known current flows and resistance (E = I * R) or estimate resistance based on given voltage and current (R = E/I). By defining power, P, as voltage times current, I can draw further useful estimations about circuits based on known power consumption values and factors. By understanding Kirchoff's Laws regarding voltage drops in series and parallel circuits, further estimations about the operation of circuits can be made. So scientific laws aren't "touted" as a need, as much as they are useful for estimating behaviors.

Ah, but if you look around science (ie scientists) ARE telling us they have The Final Answer to our Origins.

What scientists are doing that? Please cite some examples, and explain the flaws in the methodology and data interpretation.

Ever think maybe our measuring devices are wrong?

Yep. Are they? How would you go about demonstrating the accuracy, or lack thereof, of our measuring devices? What are the calibration reference points and standard values? In demonstrating the inaccuracy of the measuring devices, expect your methodologies to be placed under intense scrutiny as well. Simply suspecting that the measuring devices might be wrong doesn't falsify anything, and even if it did, that doesn't mean that your beliefs win by default.

Ever think maybe things have not always changed at the same pace in the past?

Yep. How would you go about demonstrating historical rates of change? Again, expect your demonstrated methodologies to come under scrutiny. Even if the historical rates of change are all buggered up (do you really think scientists haven't asked that question?) doesn't give credibility to your assumptions and acceptances.

And besides we have as much DNA in common with mice as an ape.

What is your source for this data?

Lining up fossils and claiming lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested but is rather an assertion based on some similarities and 1% of the data.

Is that the extent of the investigations used by scientists to build theories? The beautiful thing about science is that it welcomes the challenge to its methodologies. Numerous times in this thread, you've been asked by myself and others to demonstrate, citing specific examples to base some of your statements. You consistently fail to make such demonstrations, but instead, stack additional assertions on top of assumptions. You've misrepresented statements to try to bolster your position. If you have some problem with the particular methodologies used by any scientist, feel free to describe a better method. Expect questions from me.

If people have been raised to believe that the bible gives them Truth, then science, by its very nature, will seem wishy-washy.

And what about people who have not been "raised" in religion? Is science wishy-washy too?

I think you're trying to equivocate religious truth with scientific understanding. I don't think Jose is implying that science is wishy-washy, but that science is admittedly not absolute.

Cannot the same be said in reverse about those "raised" in science?

Again, you're confusing ideology with methodology. Science is not an ideology, but a methodology. Didn't we agree that science doesn't offer answer to moral concerns? Just a few posts back? That science didn't prove aesthetics, like savory or sexy or buttery or funny? That science doesn't prove mathematics?

And yes for the rest of that paragraph, science is supposed to give truthful answers, it is objective correct?

Science is objective, but not absolute. Religions claim absolutes without being objective. Which methodology would lead to a more accurate understanding of the mechanical aspects of nature?

Or is it here to make up stuff and not have to prove what it is telling us?

Have you not been reading the responses that have been provided in this thread? Do you not understand the difference between proof and evidence? If rigorous proofs are important to you, I suggest mathematics. But mathematics is not validated (or proven) by any empirical or physical data. Mathematics --as absolute and objective as it may be-- does not reflect reality, though it is one useful tool for quantifying objects and events.

Again, you are assuming science has truth.

Is scientific understanding equivalent to truth? Answering this question, I think, says more about how you define truth than scientific methodology, which seeks understanding. If you equivocate understanding with truth, then yes, science has truth. If you see some distinction between truth and understanding, then I submit that understanding is more appropriate to describe scientific theories, laws, methodologies.

See, I do understand its limits and all. Which is what I am saying. Science is trying to give us some answers for certain subjects that it shouldn't.

Feel free to support your assertions with some specific examples.

Regards,
mrmufin

[Icarus]

No, let's review your statement:

Actually, lets review even further, it was dangerdan's post. NOT yours. MY bad for attributing it to you. My apologies.

Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2004 3:09 am     Post subject:

..., but you are now faced with the even greater problem of an even bigger and even more spectacular God type character!

So, either way I was responding to someone else raising the point and not me bringing up the point. Do I get a reprieve for attributing it to you? please? mea culpa.

I'm still curious... do you think that Verhulst's article is driven by his scientific or philosophical interests?

I think that particular paper is driven by both.



mrmuffin, jose, enigma, dangerdan,
Right now in this particular thread I have four or five posters to my one. I cannot give attention to all of you on all subjects, questions, rebuttals et al. I'd like to propose to those of you four or five in this mix a more controlled debate. Also because my time will be limited the next week or so.

Since mrmufin and dangerdan have the most posts, pick a single question to pose, I'll answer, you'll respond, my rebuttal, you get the final word. End of that question. Next question same format.

(Lets mark each post with the corresponding 1 through 5 to keep track for me since I'll likely have two or three of you asking.)
1. mrmufin poses question.
2. Icarus responds.
3. mrmufin responds.
4. Icarus responds.
5. mrmufin responds with final.

Next question from mrmufin. Same format.

If that is ok with you. Lord knows it'll help me track you guys and the questions better.

Thanks.

[Jose]

the basic premise is that we invoke God only when we find things that cannot be explained by science

"mutations and natural selection led to this suite of characteristics in this organism,..."

So it is not ok for an "I don't know" answer from a creationist viewpoint, but it is ok to say "evolution did it" for an I don't know answer?

I don't know that it's OK from a creationist viewpoint. All I know is that this is the way ID works. Their basic premise is as I stated above. But, why do you insist that I've suggested "evolution did it" for an I don't know answer ? We actually know a lot of things, which force us to the conclusion that evolution is the best explanation. I'd say it's an "I think I do know" answer.

...identifying the mutations and investigating the ecological and environmental conditions that applied the selection pressure.

Which is fine, if you have all the mutations. Or even most of them.

Perhaps some day we will. We can't start by knowing all of them, any more than you can walk across the street without taking a first step. So, we start looking, and we report what we find. Sometimes, what we find tells us we were wrong, and we have to regroup and devise a better explanation. Do you do that, or is it always the same God that did it?

(ie, no data)
....
So far, he's only given us data that make it look like he's not home.

I thought there wasn't any data?

Well, he's given us all of the data on which the theory of evolution is based, as well as the data on which the theories of the development of the universe and formation of the earth are based. He's given us gobs and gobs of data that suggest an entirely natural series of events. He's given us no data that suggest he's been involved.

There seems to be an assumption that the purpose of science is to Prove Things. Mrmufin has pointed out that it can't do that. Why? Because science is a human endeavor.

Again, if science does not attempt to prove things then why the need for empirical evidence and testability and repeatability? Why does it test things at all? Why do scientists tell us that evolution is all but fact. Why does it not stop at "educated guesses"? Why the need to tout scientific Laws?? Is science simply better myth tellers than the ancients?

I see your point. I didn't phrase my discussion very well. Maybe I can't, but I'll try it this way: Yes, science does seek to find out how things work. It would be great if it were possible to prove things. We accept the fact, however, that we aren't perfect. How do we deal with the inherent difficulties in trying to find out about things we don't know? We do those things you've asked about. We look for evidence. We accept only things that are reproducible. That's part of the methodology of trying to eliminate as much error and variability as we can.

Why do we say that evolution is all but fact? Because people have been trying for 150 years to prove it wrong, and they haven't succeeded. Evolution is probably the scientific theory that is supported by more lines of evidence than any other.

The trouble is, since we don't know beforehand how it works, we don't have a benchmark for determining when we've gotten to The Final Answer.

Ah, but if you look around science (ie scientists) ARE telling us they have The Final Answer to our Origins.

You missed the point of the post. They are telling us "the current best explanation we have, based on the available data" about our origins. You are free to assume that this is The Final Answer, but if you do, you are making this assumption yourself. Science is not. Certainly, many scientists go about their business as if the current best explanation is equivalent to the final answer, but those who are working on questions of origins recognize that there are a great many details yet to be worked out. They know it's not The Final Answer. It's just the best answer we have right now.

There's always the possibility that someone will prove (I don't know how) that God really did create everything

Isn't the "(I don't know how)" insert, a tell tale clue that you've already started to exclude something mentally? Given the rest of you post, why throw in the tinge of skepticism so early? After all according to your own words "As we accumulate more data, the explanations often change.".

You've taken a leap here that is not warranted by the data. I put in "I don't know how" because I really don't know. People have tried for years, and they haven't been able to do it. You're right that "as we accumulate more data, the explanations often change," and this is one of those places where more data might change our explanations. This is inherent in the phrasing "there's always the possibility that someone will prove..." If I knew how to do it myself, I would. If someone else knew how, they probably would. Since no one has been able to, it looks a lot like no one knows how. But, you know, someone might come up with a way.

Ever think maybe our measuring devices are wrong? Ever think maybe things have not always changed at the same pace in the past?

These are some of the reasons that we say that our current understanding is "the current best interpretation of the available data." Sure, we think about these things all the time. People are always trying to develop more accurate measuring devices. As for the rate of change, the challenge is to find evidence for variation, and to determine the effect of the variation on the processes we are studying. Feel free to develop measuring devices that can assess variation in the rates at which natural processes have happened in the past. It would be a very useful contribution.

And besides we have as much DNA in common with mice as an ape.

We do? Interesting. We didn't, the last time I did the comparison.

Having similar DNA is not equivelant to ancestry.

Certainly not. There's more to it. An important part of the analysis is the patterns of similarity. But, we can turn this around, and ask: if there were ancestry, what would the DNA similarities be? We would also need to ask: what alternative mechanisms could give rise to the patterns that exist in DNA similarities? The concept of common ancestry doesn't come out of a single comparison of mice, apes, and humans. It comes out of the combination of DNA data and a great many other analyses as well.

99% of the biology of any organism is in the soft anatomy which is not accessible via the fossil record.

Well, usually not accessible. Some fossils do have soft parts preserved. Still, much can be learned from those parts that are preserved. Bones show sites of tendon attachment, thereby giving us insight into those soft tissues. They also show us the sizes of nerve passageways (if that's the term), which can give us insight into those soft tissues. Patterns of deformities can tell us about diseases. Patterns of mothers/babies can tell us about maternal behavior. Associated fossil assemblages can tell us about the ecology of ancient animals. You might find it interesting, and great fun, to go out into the field with a good paleontologist. There are all kinds of things they can tell from fossils, that are not apparent to those of us that haven't studied them as thoroughly.

So [you've] taken that 1% of info and extrapolated out? Lining up fossils and claiming lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested but is rather an assertion based on some similarities and 1% of the data.

Even if this were true, what's wrong with trying to explain the data that are available? That's what we do all the time. Indeed, that's what the bible does, but it used the data that were available at the time it was written, not the data that are available now. This is what people do when the try to understand their world.

It is incorrect, however, to say that "claiming lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested." As with any scientific hypothesis, it is testable by the simple method of determining what predictions the hypothesis makes, and asking whether those predictions are met.

Saying that because we share 90% of the same DNA as other animals does not constitute a legitimate link. (besides the protien molecules are much much different. but since I am on the DNA comparisons...)

You'll have to explain this further. We aren't talking about 90% of the same DNA as other animals, because that would limit our comparison to only a few animals. You have to be clear about whether you are talking about all of the DNA, or just the protein-coding sequences. There are different selection pressures on them. And, of course, I'd be interested in knowing why you think DNA similarities do "not constitute a legitimate link." They are certainly a legitimate link in paternity cases.

As for the protein molecules, I think you'll find that you are mistaken, if you look into it. The proteins are, of course, determined by the DNA sequences. I suspect that you are thinking of the "trees" based on cytochrome C, or hemoglobin, or some other protein, and the "trees" based on DNA sequence from some other gene, and the finding that these different trees are not always the same. That's a reflection of the amount of data available for comparison, the different selection pressures that affect different genes, etc. As phylogeneticists have used larger datasets, with more characters to compare, they have resolved these issues.

Jose is a debating god.
Jose is a debating dog.

Those two lines share all the same letters and structure, and share roughly 90% of the same order, yet have polarizing differences in outcome.

Yes, the effect of mutation is impressive. It would be interesting to know the ancestor of the initial phrase, which may have been "Jose is a deflating gob" and see how it gave rise to the first of these. It would also be interesting to see the descendents of these two sentences. They might give rise to different species, like "Jose is de barking dog" and "Jose is adept in goods." The important thing with mutations is that it is possible to follow the lineage.

present our understanding as the current best explanation of the data.

Who is to say science has the best explanation of the data?

Huh? Anyone is invited to offer explanations, whether they are scientists or not. But the realm of human endeavor in which such explanations are offered is called "science," so I suspect that anyone's explanation will be considered "science," unless it doesn't account for all of the data, or brings in issues that the data do not support.

Many people don't like that, especially if they really want The Truth.

But you just agreed earlier in your post that science doesn't find "truth". So now you know the truth? And why would it be that only science has the truth? And why would it be that only people who don't believe this unproving science thing are the ones who aren't accepting of the truth?

I suspect that you are trying to mis-read what I wrote, to make me sound silly. Well, maybe I did sound silly. Or, maybe I wasn't very clear. The point is that people who want The Truth are dissatisified with science. If you look at the whole paragraph, not one sentence at a time, you'll see that I wasn't claiming that now I know the truth. I was still claiming that I don't, and that science doesn't, and pointing out that some people who want The Truth find this dissatisfying.

If people have been raised to believe that the bible gives them Truth, then science, by its very nature, will seem wishy-washy.

And what about people who have not been "raised" in religion? Is science wishy-washy too? Cannot the same be said in reverse about those "raised" in science? And yes for the rest of that paragraph, science is supposed to give truthful answers, it is objective correct? Or is it here to make up stuff and not have to prove what it is telling us?

Certainly, many non-religious folks are just as dissatisfied--if they want The Truth. In early years in school, science is taught in the form of "here, learn this." What is taught is usually empirically-obvious things, like what plants and animals are, and such. A lot of people adopt the notion that science is supposed to be Truth, simply because at that level of learning, most of the information is easily verified. That is, the current best explanation of the data looks like it probably really is true. If you look at what I said in the rest of the post, you'll note that science is not here to make up stuff, but to do its best at explaining how things are--within the constraint that humans don't always get it right.

and they will be confused, at best, when science conflicts with what they already believe.

Again, you are assuming science has truth. Why is it the religious person is the one confused? Have you never been sent back to the drawing board by a boss or client by "that's not right, go back and look at the data again" and you say in your heart "what does he know! I am the one who poured over the numbers and came up with the answer..." only to find that the boss/client was right? If you haven't then you are a better person than any on the planet.

There is no assumption that science has the truth. The only assumption is that it offers the best explanation it can for the data that have been accumulated. People who assume it is Truth are in a greater state of confusion than those who recognize that it is just our current understanding. Even so, if it conflicts with your worldview, regardless of your religion or lack thereof, it's confusing. Ideally, everyone does just what you suggest in your analogy--everyone goes back and looks at the data again. Ideally, that's what science is supposed to be teaching--that we all need to look at data and interpret it ourselves. It's just that doing so is confusing if there are two different interpretations, and you have to figure out how to distinguish between them.

With any luck, it helps to recognize what science can do, what its methods are, and what its limitations are.

See, I do understand its limits and all. Which is what I am saying. Science is trying to give us some answers for certain subjects that it shouldn't.

I think you are blending a healthy skepticism with an incomplete dataset, and therefore reaching conclusions that are a bit hasty. With more data, you may find that it isn't so easy to come to the same conclusions--or, in some cases, to any conclusion at all. I think you are doing the right thing to question this stuff seriously, but make sure you think about the answers to your questions. Even if you don't buy the argument, it may help to see why others of us consider the argument valid. I always like to come to the realization that "the other guy" isn't nuts after all, but has good reasons for believing what they do.

[dangerdan]

Hmmm, as this thread is pretty saturated, and Icarus has a lot of questions to answer, I’ll temporarily dip out to help the pacing.

…oh how noble I am.

…though if things do thin out I’d like to take up this area of the debate -

Quote:

So before it even gets to its "objective" investigations it has removed a possible and logical answer. It has sealed itself into its own box (and claims "this is all there is, our little box).

I think it is more sealing itself in its box and saying “this is all we are concerning ourselves with”.

[mrmufin]

Actually, lets review even further, it was dangerdan's post. NOT yours. MY bad for attributing it to you. My apologies.

Yes, dangerdan did make comments, but I cited your response to dangerdan. Hopefully, your position remains consistent regardless of who you are debating.

mrmuffin, jose, enigma, dangerdan,
Right now in this particular thread I have four or five posters to my one. I cannot give attention to all of you on all subjects, questions, rebuttals et al. I'd like to propose to those of you four or five in this mix a more controlled debate. Also because my time will be limited the next week or so.

I can certainly respect your limited time frame; my participation in DC&R over the next few weeks may be sporadic as well.

Since mrmufin and dangerdan have the most posts, pick a single question to pose, I'll answer, you'll respond, my rebuttal, you get the final word. End of that question. Next question same format.

(Lets mark each post with the corresponding 1 through 5 to keep track for me since I'll likely have two or three of you asking.)
1. mrmufin poses question.
2. Icarus responds.
3. mrmufin responds.
4. Icarus responds.
5. mrmufin responds with final.

Next question from mrmufin. Same format.

If that is ok with you. Lord knows it'll help me track you guys and the questions better.

Thanks.

Fair enough to me.

I'm going to try really hard not to step on dangerdan's requested portion of the debate with Icarus, but I can't guarantee there won't be any overlap.

I think that the crux of my disagreement with Icarus is whether or not science is methodology or ideology; at least this is what I am gleaning from his statements within this discussion. Frankly, I think that Icarus is addressing a very valuable point; the lines between methodology and ideology can get a bit fuzzy. Additionally, it's one line of apologetics (and I mean that in the kindest way) that doesn't get a whole lot of attention in these forums. Before posing "my question," I'll try to frame it with some of the points which I think we're in agreement upon.

I think that we're in general agreement that there are limitations on science; science does not validate mathematics or logic; that science does not concern itself with moral and aesthetics matters; that science does not imbue matters like love, justice, trust, or savory with inherent objectivity. However, Icarus seems to think that (and please excuse any imprecision my paraphrase) because science considers only natural explanations, that there may be additional methods and/or explanations which are currently unrecognized (or unused) by scientists. If I'm interpreting his statements properly, I think that Icarus is also suggesting that this methodology casts a "philosophical filter" on the interpretation of data. (Please clarify or adjust, if I'm incorrectly describing your position.)

While I admit that the lines between methodology and ideology can get a bit fuzzy at times, my position is that opportunities in scientific endeavors are not limited to those with a particular worldview, and that the effect of any ideological filter on data interpretation is negligible. Insufficient math skills would do more to preclude you from a future in, say, theoretical physics than religious perspective. In all fairness, I need to temper my statement by putting some constraints on what constitutes scientific data. There is no doubt in my mind that some scientists, regardless of their ideology, can and do put an ideological spin on the data, particularly in certain venues. In many books by Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, Richard Dawkins, Michael Behe, etc., there is little doubt left to the reader regarding the worldview of the author. However, there is a difference --and at times, a great difference-- between the personally authored works of Behe, Feynman, Sagan, and others, and their works published in public and peer reviewed scientific journals, such as Science, Nature, Scientific American, etc.

We may or may not agree on whether or not ideology is impacting data interpretation in any specific context. Regardless of the context, and toward a more objective means of data interpretation and/or experimental methodology, how is the (alleged) ideological filter avoided? That is, if it's impossible (or even highly unlikely) to avoid the impact of ideology on methodology and/or interpretation, what can be done to remedy the situation? If limitation to the natural realm is in any way detrimental to science, how can this be addressed toward more comprehensive and conclusive scientific methods? I know that I just asked more than one question, but there is some overlap, and my larger objective was to address the interesting notion of scientific limits and what you think might be done to alleviate such limitations.

Again, I think that this is a valuable and provocative issue which lies at the core of disagreement between us, and is highly relevant to the underlying topic of this discussion: evidence supporting our personal beliefs.

Regards,
mrmufin

[Jose]

We may or may not agree on whether or not ideology is impacting data interpretation in any specific context. Regardless of the context, and toward a more objective means of data interpretation and/or experimental methodology, how is the (alleged) ideological filter avoided? That is, if it's impossible (or even highly unlikely) to avoid the impact of ideology on methodology and/or interpretation, what can be done to remedy the situation? If limitation to the natural realm is in any way detrimental to science, how can this be addressed toward more comprehensive and conclusive scientific methods? I know that I just asked more than one question, but there is some overlap, and my larger objective was to address the interesting notion of scientific limits and what you think might be done to alleviate such limitations.

Again, I think that this is a valuable and provocative issue which lies at the core of disagreement between us, and is highly relevant to the underlying topic of this discussion: evidence supporting our personal beliefs.

Hear, hear!

With respect to your great outnumbering, Icarus, I'll note what you've already suspected, that I just pop in now and again to muddy the waters. But, mrmufin has given us a good direction--sort of a philosophical discussion of how to address the inherent human bias of science. Indeed, this bias is one of the things that is being put into the State Standards for high school science classes these days. Science is done in the real world, with real people in real time. It's impossible not to be tainted (if that's the word) by the societal norms and the customary beliefs. Some people frame their interpretations of data in accord with custom, others try to find opposing views. Still, people cannot be impartial, being as we are, people.

This isn't just an issue between evolutionists and creationists, but exists among scientists as well. Grant funding is dependent, in part, on what the current wave of fashion is. To a large extent, this follows technological breakthroughs that make new investigations possible, but there is scientific ideology in it as well. But, let's leave that for NIH and NSF to worry about, and concern ourselves here with what mrmufin has just suggested: whether a naturalistic basis of science is a detriment, and whether there are ways to deal with what seems to some to be a bias.

[commonsense]

I don't know why evolutionists believe what they do how do you explain

1.fossil evidence not supporting evolution. (no transitory species)

2.The cambrian explosion.

3.different genetics leading to the same structure such as the fruit fly and the yellow jacket having the same structure yet developing from a different gene.

4.mutations used by evolutionists that actually go against evolution such as the 4 winged fruit fly actually being a cripple and dies out by natural selection. The antibiotic resistant bacteria that cannot reproduce quickly because of this mutation and also dies out. Its all the same mutations may provide one beneficial thing but only at the cost of another and is put out by natural selection but i guess no scientists tell us about 4 wing fruit flys only being able to survive in a lab or antibiotic resistant bacteria surviving only when isolated from the rest of normal bacteria.

5.the pictures in every high school text book that are supposed to be early embryos that look alike but actually are different staged embryos (the ones chosen to look most alike) not only that but then they smudge the drawings to look even more like each other

6. irrefutable machines found in flagellum on bacteria in the human body. These things are built like an engine they have over 30 parts and if any one were missing they would not work. Based on the theory of evolution this would have to be made one piece at a time and its not because evolution discards the things that are useless so all thirty had to appear at once.

7. prophecies in the bible coming true and not just a few one by one every prophecy predicted is happening

8.why are humans so much more advanced than everything else a monkey and a human huge difference. a monkey and an alligator not much difference in intelligence.

9. why do humans have morals where are they from other animals don't have that.

10. emotions such as compassion couldn't have come from natural selection compassion is a weakness in self benefit and that is what natural selection is based on why is it here and not in other animals.

evolution is an outdated theory which holds no evidence i can see of being true. Times have changed it used to be people wouldn't let anyone speak against the bible well now no one will let anyone speak against evolution especially in school everyone immediately points a finger and calls out religion if anyone speaks against evolution, Science is supposed to be about questioning what we know in order to find the truth.........what happened

[Nyril]

1.fossil evidence not supporting evolution. (no transitory species)

We've got tons of them.

2.The cambrian explosion.

Not a problem, creatures just got easier to set in stone.

3.different genetics leading to the same structure such as the fruit fly and the yellow jacket having the same structure yet developing from a different gene.

Why is this a challenge to evolution?

4.mutations used by evolutionists that actually go against evolution such as the 4 winged fruit fly actually being a cripple and dies out by natural selection. The antibiotic resistant bacteria that cannot reproduce quickly because of this mutation and also dies out. Its all the same mutations may provide one beneficial thing but only at the cost of another and is put out by natural selection but i guess no scientists tell us about 4 wing fruit flys only being able to survive in a lab or antibiotic resistant bacteria surviving only when isolated from the rest of normal bacteria.

Not all mutations are good, I don't think anyone's claming that. Not a problem.

5.the pictures in every high school text book that are supposed to be early embryos that look alike but actually are different staged embryos (the ones chosen to look most alike) not only that but then they smudge the drawings to look even more like each other

Name the book.

6. irrefutable machines found in flagellum on bacteria in the human body. These things are built like an engine they have over 30 parts and if any one were missing they would not work. Based on the theory of evolution this would have to be made one piece at a time and its not because evolution discards the things that are useless so all thirty had to appear at once.

Engines don't reproduce. Bacteria do. Why would all 30 of had to appear at once? What's wrong with gradual steps?

7. prophecies in the bible coming true and not just a few one by one every prophecy predicted is happening

You can word a prohecy so that no matter what the outcome, its true. Not convincing. Also not relevant. What if god used evolution?

8.why are humans so much more advanced than everything else a monkey and a human huge difference. a monkey and an alligator not much difference in intelligence.

Define advanced. Birds fly, hawks see farther, animals see in the dark, our noses are nothing compared to a dog's, we're deaf compared to other creatures, our skin is rather easily torn, and unlike almost every single other animal on Earth we don't produce our own Vit. C, also we can't regenerate limbs.

9. why do humans have morals where are they from other animals don't have that.

10. emotions such as compassion couldn't have come from natural selection compassion is a weakness in self benefit and that is what natural selection is based on why is it here and not in other animals.

Its survival of the species, not individual. If helping others increases a group's chance of survival, that trait is more likely to continue.