Creationists: Here's your chance

[Autodidact]

Why is science simply a method to understand the natural world ONLY?

Because that's the definition of science. That's what it is.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Why would it be in trouble? Could someone just not say then that bunnies evolved starting in the Cambrian period? And likewise the out of place bones of other things? Couldn’t someone just RESTRUCTURE the theory of evolution without THROWING IT OUT? Surely there would be some people that would do this, would they not?

Some people would, but the vast majority of actual scientists would be intelligent enough not to.

And no, we could not just say that "bunnies evolved from the Cambrian period", that would make no sense. We already have a fairly comprehensive understanding of how all mammals evolved, and the earliest marsupials to appear did so 125 million years ago. If we found modern rabbits in the Cambrian, dating back to over 500 million years ago, not only would this shatter the entire model we've built on the evolution of mammals, but it would completely destroy the theory of evolution in it's entirety since it would demonstrate that a particular mammal existed long before it's proposed ancestors (or it's ancestor's ancestor, or even before tetrapods). It would also indicate that a single species of mammal has existed, entirely unchanged, for hundreds of millions of years.

If you cannot see why such a discovery would falsify evolution, then clearly you do not know much about evolution.

 

[Gunfingers]

It's also worth noting that chance has been proven.

Uncertainty principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RedOne77]

RedOne77
Example of a species turning into another kind of species is? And what do you mean by species by the way?

There is no 100% accurate definition of species. Classically speaking, any two populations that can't produce fertile offspring are considered separate species. Also, when talking about speciation within nature, a commonly accepted trait is when two populations overlap in territory and they simply do not mate with each other.

There are different ways that speciation can happen. The most common way is when a single population gets split in two so that the two populations cannot breed with each other. Over time mutations accumulate, and when the two populations will not mate with each other, or when they can't produce fertile offspring, a new specie(s) is born.

If you have time, this is a page about observed instances of speciation (new species arising) Observed Instances of Speciation

I would highly recommend going through this site: Evolution 101: Speciation

The site, evolutionberkeley, is probably one of the best places to go to get accurate information about evolution that is easy to read and understand.

So does painted_wolf know the professional level evidence yet?

I would say so.

Theories are as high as you can go in science. A theory will never change into a fact and cease to be a theory.

How do you know that?

That is just the way science works. Facts, hypotheses, theories, laws, etc, all have specific purposes and definitions in science.

How is a fact not airtight solid?

So if a fact is an observation, then what we observe without explaining it, is airtight solid yes no? If no, why?

Facts are subject to change as well when new evidence comes in. But perhaps the most important part, at least in terms of the philosophy of science, is that nothing can be 100% truth, not even facts.

Why would seeing a fish turn to a man in one population not make the theory of evolution turn to a solid fact from a theory? Why does science not work like that?

Evolution can be talked about in two main ways. The first, is about the fact of evolution. That is, populations change over time, it's been observed and verified too many times to count. So, evolution is a fact. Also, the theory of evolution explains why/how they change. IOW, evolution is both a fact and a theory.

If you see it’s effects, but not the gravity itself, then you don’t KNOW it’s gravity doing the effecting, you assume it’s gravity doing the effects. All you really know is the effects themselves, the part you believe is that gravity is doing the effects. How do you figure that you KNOW it’s gravity doing it if you can’t see or touch or smell the gravity? I thought you said science was about dealing with the SENSES? Now you’re contradicting that. I’m not understanding?

We can see the attraction of masses, that is what gravity is. We can calculate its force, derive laws and equations from observations, make predictions and so on. What do you mean by "KNOW"? Is gravity proven? No. But nothing in science is. It would be one of the most absurd things I've ever heard to say that we don't "know" that masses attract each other in this day and age.

I don’t doubt SMALL changes happen, but do we see before our very eyes a different kind of species turn into another kind?

It all depends on what your 'limit' of change is. At what point is something a different "kind of species"? This shows the basic progression from a land mammal (Mesonychid) to a whale via the transitional species Ambulocetus.

I disagree for the following reasons.

1: Just because the consensus and orthodox view in science is that design is NOT a scientific theory does not make it NOT a scientific theory. Just because people HIJACK the science plain does not mean they OWN IT.

Of course, science ain't about democracy, it is about tangible evidence and developing theories based on that evidence. Not only is ID a failed idea, IMO, but it isn't science. The 'champion' of ID, Dr. Behe, stated that in order to make ID a science, you would have to change the modern definition of science to include astrology. And he said this under oath in court, mind you, while defending ID. Just to give you a little taste of the obsurdidies of astrology, they claim that the combined gravity of the stars (in the right position) can have effects on you, never mind that the chair you are sitting on has more of a gravitational influence on you than the nearest star (proxima centauri).

2: the design view is not just a religious idea trying to pass off as a scientific theory, because the design view is not based ON a religious view, it’s based on what is PERCIEVED in the NATURAL or PHYSICAL WORLD. Therefore, it IS a scientific THEORY. I remember Richard Dawkins said that things have an APPEARANCE of design, well I disagree with that, I say things actually ARE designed. But whether we say it IS or only an appearance, either way it is referring to the physical world, therefore is a scientific theory.

ID is a religious idea trying to mask itself as science to force religion into schools. This is clearly seen in such things as the Wedge document/strategy: Wedge strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As well as the Dover Trial. Judge Jones, a conservative judge appointed by President Bush of all people, has made it clear that ID is grounded in religion and is not an applicable science. I suggest you look over this page to understand what I'm talking about: NOVA | The Judge Speaks

An excerpts from the site: "ntelligent design is not science. We find that intelligent design fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that intelligent design is science. They are: (1) intelligent design violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to intelligent design, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) intelligent design's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.... The evidence at trial demonstrates that intelligent design is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. What is likely the strongest evidence supporting the finding of intelligent design's creationist nature is the history and historical pedigree of the book to which students in Dover's ninth-grade biology class are referred, Of Pandas and People. Pandas is published by an organization called FTE, as noted, whose articles of incorporation and filings with the Internal Revenue Service describe it as a religious, Christian organization.... Intelligent design, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science.... Moreover, intelligent design's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not intelligent design itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard."

Yes I believe it is a part of the design theory that God tweak mutations to design things.

Also here is the double standard that I am seeing here and that I don’t like. Evolutionists are saying that mutations are RANDOM, or caused by CHANCE. Now intelligent designers are saying mutations are NOT caused by chance, but rather a designer. They say well we can’t prove the designer, well I say they can’t prove CHANCE! Thus they are having a double standard. Don’t tell us to prove the designer if you can’t prove chance did it. Right? Am I right or wrong here? And why either way?

There is no proof in science, nothing can be proved. All evidence suggests that mutations are random, but even if they are not, how would you test the idea that a designer mutated a segment of DNA? Without invoking supernatural causes, how would you explain how a designer mutated DNA? Or how would you tell if said mutation is random or not?

 

[RedOne77]

How does it not stand up under scientific scrutiny? I am familiar with some of the Dover trial, yes.

See my previous post.

Also, I think this series might help you understand this: [youtube]b_HxiUwf4Eg[/youtube]
YouTube - Lesson 13/16: Intelligent Design Part 1

Yes I do.

We predict that things that APPEAR to be simple, will be found out later to be complex.

I'm not sure that is a scientific prediction, nor am I sure this had anything to do with a designer. Why would a designer design things that appear simple but are complex? This statement looks like a non-sequitur, a logical fallacy in which the conclusion does not follow the premise; 'If there is a designer, than things that appear simple will really be complex'. Why not complex things actually being simple? In terms of computer code design, the simpler the better as there is less chance of error.

We predict that chance will never be PROVEN to exist.

Even if we exclude the misuse of the word "proven", the idea that X will never be shown is not a scientific prediction. You need something more applicable, something that can be tested via experiment. This statement just works off of ignorance.

We predict that something can never come from nothing (going back to the beginning of the universe that is).

So, you predict the first law of thermodynamics? Interestingly enough, physicists have observed things come from 'nothing'. Virtual particles pop in and out of existence all the time. :yes: One of my favorite ideas about the Big Bang is that it happened from one of these virtual particles that popped into existence in the quantum field that had a lot of energy and just started expanding.

Not to mention all the weird things that happen regarding black holes and matter/anti-matter particles. It is possible for a black hole to lose mass/energy by in-taking matter!

We predict that consciousness will never be proven to be happening just BY the brain alone.

Again, an argument/'prediction' from ignorance. You need a positive prediction. Also, what does this have to do with a designer? Remember, God isn't part of the scientific process, and you can't assume (from a scientific standpoint) that if science ever could detect a designer, that the designer is God, let alone the Christian version of God.

I think these are pretty good predictions.

They might be fine 'predictions' someone might use Sunday morning at the pulpit, but they simply aren't scientific predictions, which is what ID needs if it wants to be part of the scientific process.

So your saying that if someone predicted something to be in a certain layer and got it wrong, that this would falsify evolution? I highly DOUBT that people would stop believing in evolution just by one failed prediction.

It depends. If we find a Cambrian bunny evolution would be in trouble. But things that are wrong, but not far off, might revise the pathway here and there, but it wouldn't destroy the theory.

Any example of a wrong prediction?

Not off the top of my head.

Actually if I remember correctly, they predicted the cell would be simple, then found out later it was COMPLEX. That was a wrong prediction on their part.

That really isn't a prediction about evolution though. Also, I don't think it was a prediction, more of an accepted fact that the cell was simple - showing that facts are not air-tight solid.

It was also an accepted fact that light didn't have a speed. Now, however, we know that it does ~ 300,000 kilometers per second or 186,000 miles per second.

One other thing I do want to mention, there is nothing wrong about being wrong in science. In science you are supposed to make wrong hypotheses, but science is also a self-correcting process in which it takes the failures that it gets and learns from them to formulate new/better hypotheses and eventually develop well supported theories.

So how does one interpret data to fit something other than the ToE?

By interpreting it to fit intelligent design, in other words, if things LOOK designed, then we can interpret them to BE designed.

I was thinking of something a little more specific. I could say that the Earth looks flat, and we can interpret the data to have the Earth flat. However, if I bring up that during Earthquakes P and S waves travel at different rates and the proportion of the timing between waves felt differs depending on where you are on the Earth's surface (because it is round and the Earth has 'layers' of different material underneath the surface), I need something other then 'the Earth LOOKS flat therefore it can be interpreted as flat.'

For example. Why is it that in the fossil record, the oldest layers have only single celled life, then includes primitive aquatic life, crustaceans, amphibians, reptiles, then finally mammals and birds?

You may say, just because something LOOKS designed does not MAKE it designed. Well I could say the same thing about the theory of evolution, just because things LOOK evolved, does not MAKE them macro evolved perse.

That is why science has experiments, data collecting, hypotheses, conclusions and theories. Science goes beyond what something "looks" like on the surface, it is all about getting into the facts and explaining why those facts are facts.

Well for me there is only one OTHER PLAUSIBLE alternative. The view that the universe made itself is not plausible to me because it’s a contradiction. The view that the universe was always here is not plausible because it creates the infinite regression problem. The view that the universe is not here is not plausible because we are obviously here. The view that something came from nothing by chance and then that something by chance evolved into what we see today is also not plausible to me because 0+0=0 it does not equal 1.

1-1=0

If you have multiple universes, as long as the total energy is 0, you can get something from nothing. Many have theorized that while this universe is mostly matter, other universes may be virtually nothing but anti-matter. Freaky stuff, really.

So by disproving or showing that the theory of evolution is false then makes the design view a lot more stronger and the post plausible out of the rest.

Only to the public because a false dichotomy has been inserted where it need not be. Falsifying evolution does not add scientific support for ID and vise versa.

And what do you mean science has never advanced by putting God into the equation of a scientific idea? That’s incorrect, even Richard Dawkins who is atheist said “the question of God, IS a SCIENTIFIC question”. I am quoting from memory.

If that is correct than Dawkins is wrong, but I have my doubts that Dawkins would imply such a thing.

I think the evidence that the earth is round is a lot stronger then the evidence for the theory of evolution. Secondly, how is there no proof for the earth being round? What about those pictures of the earth being round that the space men took? Is that not proof? If it’s not, what is it?

It is a fact that the Earth is round. The pictures are evidence, and the evidence is strong enough for it to be fact that the Earth is round. The same thing cannot happen with the theory of evolution as a theory is much broader in scope and explains facts.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Just wanted to say, RedOne77's posts pretty-much cover all of the bases better than I could. Excellent stuff.

 

[RedOne77]

Ok, so if science cannot detect them, why do they make hypothesis about them but they choose to stay away from making hypothesis about God, spirits, souls, and the spirit world? That seams selective.

I'm not sure I understand. Science doesn't make hypotheses about the supernatural. Science sometimes does, however, make hypotheses regarding natural elements that may be supernatural in origin. For example, they did studies on prayer and meditation and how it effects the brain. Yet this is a natural pursuit, there is nothing supernatural or about God in the science itself. One could draw personal conclusions about the supernatural, but such conclusions are not science.

Why doesn’t science make effort to try to DETECT the “laws” in nature and not just make hypothesis about them? And then if they are making effort to try to do this, why be selective on just “laws” and not go also for detecting the spirit realm and God, spirits, souls?

Such is simply out of the realm of scientific methodology. If you were to create a methodology to detect such things, it would probably include some elements of science as it would probably have some sort of epistemological background too, but it would not be science.

Why doesn’t science deal with this kind of thinking (researching the spirit world/God/souls)? Yes religion and some philosophy indeed does, but why does science NOT?

God is part of the supernatural, meaning 'above' the natural, something distinct from the natural. You cannot take methodological naturalism and apply it to the supernatural. It would be like trying to light up a room with radio waves, it just will not work.

 

[RedOne77]

Ok, if it starts off with the premise of naturalism, isn’t that ruling out any supernatural or spiritual or God intervention causes?

Also why does it “ignore it”?

This might be a little tricky to explain. Science doesn't work on the premise of philosophical naturalism, rather methodological naturalism. Philosophical naturalism is a philosophy that says only the natural exists. Conversely, methodological naturalism says there may or may not be a supernatural anything, but we can study the natural world systematically and assume that any supernatural force out there will not mess up our experiments. Science follows methodological naturalism, so you are correct in that science automatically rules out any supernatural intervention, it simply makes no stand one way or the other. It ignores the supernatural because it doesn't care about the supernatural, all it is concerned with is the natural.

If you want to study the spirit world, you would have to come up with a different methodology than science.

Like what?

I don't know, nobody does. The closest we can get is religion and philosophy/logic. And of course, there are always the atheists who say that it can't be studied because it doesn't exist - so religion is merely people's overactive imagination and used to keep everyone in line etc.

Wow, I was not expecting to hear this, I was not prepared for that. But, let me come out of my shock a little bit and gather myself up and ask a few questions.

1: How does Genesis not mean that “God created the heavens and the earth”?

It does mean that, but that is not a scientific claim.

2: how is it that in the bible the “heavens” and the “earth” and the “light” and the “land, trees and plants” and the “sun, moon, stars” not mean what they say they are?

It is not so much that they aren't these physical things, but what the objects represent and the meaning and significance behind them.

3: what do they mean if not as described? What does the “heavens” mean? What does earth mean? What does the “plants” mean?

The heavens are the stars, the earth is the land, and a plant is a plant.

I don't think it is so much exactly what each thing is, but how it is used in the story to make a point. But I suppose I don't have the background required to answer this question really.

4: If the bible does not claim God created the PHYSICAL heavens and earth or universe, then WHO or WHAT created the physical universe? Why would the bible just say that God created the spirit world and had nothing to do with the physical universe?

One of the main points of Genesis is that God did create the world and sustains it.

Ok, I am confused about what you’re saying. First you said no scientific claims are mentioned in Genesis 1, then you say God did create the physical universe and sustains it?

Because God is omitted from scientific discussion, claiming that God created the world is not a scientific claim. Science is concerned with how, not who.

Why wouldn’t it be science to study the spiritual world? Why is science LIMITED to the physical world?

Because that's all the methodology science can handle, it is not equipped to tackle questions beyond the physical.

You’re comparing apples and oranges and so it does not teach me anything.

1: why is using science to detect the supernatural like using a thermometer to read someone’s mind? You see, comparing apples and oranges just makes me ask a new question.

Just as you can't use a thermometer to read someone's mind, you can't take science and study the supernatural. It simply does not make any sense.

Why would it be in trouble? Could someone just not say then that bunnies evolved starting in the Cambrian period? And likewise the out of place bones of other things? Couldn’t someone just RESTRUCTURE the theory of evolution without THROWING IT OUT? Surely there would be some people that would do this, would they not?

Not with something of that magnitude. Evolution works off of several principles, one of them being that organisms are stuck with what their ancestors gave them. IOW, they only have what their ancestors have (with a few mutations here and there) to work with. Scientists have a pretty good understanding of how mammals evolved, so finding a mammal before reptiles (as they evolved from reptiles) would cast serious doubt on the theory. Especially if the precursors to reptiles, amphibians, weren't even on the Earth yet.

Is there been examples where they THOUGHT a fossil would be in a certain place and low and behold they got it wrong?

I'm sure they have. From what I understand early paleontology had a very hard time because they didn't have knowledge of the evolutionary pathways and geological stuff that we know now. Along with technology, which has helped out modern fossil hunters tremendously.

Most of the predictions made about evolution, are really about specific pathways that evolution could have taken. Disproving these ideas doesn't disprove the theory, just the specific pathway mentioned. Yet, if such a pathway is chief, like amphibians before reptiles before mammals, and you find a mammal before amphibians supposedly evolved, then there's a problem with the overall theory.

What are those conceivable natural phenomena that could have caused the big bang?

Well, we could be part of a multiverse, and that can get crazy very fast when talking about how new universes are formed. Just to give you an idea, if two edges (membranes) from two different universes collide, they could create a new universe in-between the two. I've also heard that when a star callapses into a black whole, it might actually be creating a universe in which from the inside, would appear to be expanding.
If there is a multiverse and equall amounts of matter and anti-matter, you could get such a system from random quantum fluctuations. I don't remember any of the details now, but if an electron and a positron interact in a certain way, you could theoritically create enough potential energy to start an expansion, thus a new universe from essentially 'nothing'.
My personal favorite, and one I've already mentioned before, is a virtual particle that randomly popped into existance (we know they do) and had so much energy it just started to expand.

Is it RIGHT for science to put God in a box? If yes, why?

God is in a box in the sense that it doesn't deal with God. God in untestable, therefore it can't be science. I do think it is right, and smart, for science to know its own limitations and act accordingly.

Edit:

Why is science simply a method to understand the natural world ONLY?

Because that's all it can do.

Why is it a bad idea?

You get very bad theology, like the day-age idea, and you will tend to look at the physical more than the spiritual, missing the message and focusing on things it never wanted to imply.

You get very bad science, which usually isn't even science. This is quite possibly even worse than the bad theology, as you slow down and in some cases reverse scientific progress which is used to save lives and relieve suffering. At least the bad theology will not, or should not, cause or interfere with relieving suffering. Although, in times past when the 'church' had more power, bad scientific theology lead to the deadening of minds (I guess it still does) and has caused much unneeded suffering and stunting of scientific progress.

 

[idea]

Here's an article I wrote a little bit ago:

Evolution is the only scientific theory which explains a physical phenomenon by saying “It just randomly happens.” The entire evolutionary explanation begins with, and depends upon, “random” mutations. Beginning a theory with “random mutations” is the equivalent of saying “it just randomly happens”. We know from experience that nothing happens randomly. We live in an orderly universe that is governed by definable laws. There is a cause behind every effect, actions preceded reactions. Objects do not just randomly move around without reason. One of the most basic principles in physics is Newton’s law of motion. Newton’s law states that “An object that is at rest will stay at rest until an unbalanced force acts upon it.” In other words, if you observe a rock flying through the air, you can bet that rock didn’t just “randomly” get up off the ground. Something caused the rock to move, something applied a force.

Waves do not just “randomly” appear in the ocean. Waves are caused by something, they are caused by wind. The tides do not just randomly rise and fall. Tides change at predictable times due to the gravitational pulls of the sun and the moon on the earth. Snowflakes do not just randomly form. Water crystallizes at a precise pressure and temperature. The size that a snowflake will grow to is determined by nucleation kinetics. The beautiful crystalline structures which appear are created when covalent bonds join polar molecules to one another. Imagine what science would be reduced to if instead of finding an underlying cause, we remained content to merely state “It just randomly happens” and then discourage any additional hypothesis which suggests otherwise.


Brownian motion is the "seemingly" random motion of particles suspended in a fluid. If you have ever noticed the chaotic dancing motion of specks of dust in the light streaming from a window, you have seen Brownian motion. Dr. Brown was a botanist and a talented technician who was a pioneer in microscopy work. One day in 1827 while researching the Clarkia species, Dr. Brown observed tiny grains of pollen moving erratically in water. Dr. Brown was a superior scientist who knew that nothing just randomly moves around, and so he set out to find what was causing the pollen grains to move. After careful experimentation, Dr. Brown concluded that the motion “arose neither from currents in the fluid, nor from its gradual evaporation”. Dr. Brown first hypothesized that the motions arose because the particles themselves were alive. He tested this hypothesis by “killing” the pollen grains through soaking them in alcohol for 11 months. The dead pollen grains moved around just as the freshly gathered pollen grains moved. Upon expanding his experimentation Dr. Brown found that organic material was not the only form of matter which exhibited seemingly random motion. Through grinding down various substances into a sufficiently fine powder he found that rocks, dirt, and all solid material exhibited similar behaviors as the pollen grain. The question remained, what causes the erratic motions of dust?


In 1951, 124 years after Dr. Brown’s experiments, Erwin Wilhelm Müller invented the field ion microscope and became the first person to actually see atoms. Brownian motion is not random. The tiny grains of pollen move as a result of collisions with other molecules. The molecules which cause the pollen grains to dance are too small for the human eye to see, but scientists were able to logically deduce their existence based upon the actions of dust. Now we are able to see the cause behind the motion. Once again we know that there is a cause behind everything. Additionally, the small molecules which cause Brownian motion do not move randomly. Molecular Dynamic (MD) simulations use physical laws and atomic potentials to calculate the motions of particulate materials. The motion of each individual atom is controlled by applied forces from other molecules, as well as definable potential and kinetic energies. Again, there is no such thing as random motion. Randomness implies that which has no underlying cause. There is a cause behind every action that we observe.

To deny the existence of causality and instead insist on attributing the organization of physical systems as being the product of pure randomness is to deny the very foundations of science. Theories are created to explain the cause behind physically observable phenomenon. If a statement does not hold an underlying cause, it is not a theory. “It just randomly happens” is not a theory, does not explain anything, and does not contribute meaningful information for society to use. Until Darwinians can remove words such as random, chance, haphazardly, and accidentally from their vocabulary, they have not presented a viable theory.

in short, I think evolutionists have "observations" but not a "theory". A theory explains why something happens. What I see are just a bunch of observations without a real theory to go along with it...

PS - natural selection comes after the "random" mutation. I agree with natural selection, I just don't agree with "random" mutations....

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Here's an article I wrote a little bit ago:

Excellent. Allow me to critique it.

Evolution is the only scientific theory which explains a physical phenomenon by saying “It just randomly happens.”

Right off the bat, you get it wrong.

Natural selection is not random.

The entire evolutionary explanation begins with, and depends upon, “random” mutations. Beginning a theory with “random mutations” is the equivalent of saying “it just randomly happens”.

Not if those random mutations are subject to a selection process. What's more, random mutations don't just "randomly happen". We know exactly how mutations occur, we just have no means by which to predict in what ways the billions of letters of genetic code will be altered and what the end result will be of each mutation beforehand - this is what is meat by "random".

Regardless, these mutations are selected through the process of environmental attrition, meaning that evolution does not occur randomly.

We know from experience that nothing happens randomly.

We do?

We live in an orderly universe that is governed by definable laws. There is a cause behind every effect, actions preceded reactions. Objects do not just randomly move around without reason. One of the most basic principles in physics is Newton’s law of motion. Newton’s law states that “An object that is at rest will stay at rest until an unbalanced force acts upon it.” In other words, if you observe a rock flying through the air, you can bet that rock didn’t just “randomly” get up off the ground. Something caused the rock to move, something applied a force.

False dichotomy. You're taking a rule from one field of science and applying it to the entirety of the universe. Surely you understand that Newton's laws of motion have little to no relevance in biology.

Waves do not just “randomly” appear in the ocean. Waves are caused by something, they are caused by wind. The tides do not just randomly rise and fall. Tides change at predictable times due to the gravitational pulls of the sun and the moon on the earth. Snowflakes do not just randomly form. Water crystallizes at a precise pressure and temperature. The size that a snowflake will grow to is determined by nucleation kinetics. The beautiful crystalline structures which appear are created when covalent bonds join polar molecules to one another. Imagine what science would be reduced to if instead of finding an underlying cause, we remained content to merely state “It just randomly happens” and then discourage any additional hypothesis which suggests otherwise.

Once again, false dichotomy.

And evolution does not state "it just randomly happens".

Brownian motion is the "seemingly" random motion of particles suspended in a fluid. If you have ever noticed the chaotic dancing motion of specks of dust in the light streaming from a window, you have seen Brownian motion. Dr. Brown was a botanist and a talented technician who was a pioneer in microscopy work. One day in 1827 while researching the Clarkia species, Dr. Brown observed tiny grains of pollen moving erratically in water. Dr. Brown was a superior scientist who knew that nothing just randomly moves around, and so he set out to find what was causing the pollen grains to move. After careful experimentation, Dr. Brown concluded that the motion “arose neither from currents in the fluid, nor from its gradual evaporation”. Dr. Brown first hypothesized that the motions arose because the particles themselves were alive. He tested this hypothesis by “killing” the pollen grains through soaking them in alcohol for 11 months. The dead pollen grains moved around just as the freshly gathered pollen grains moved. Upon expanding his experimentation Dr. Brown found that organic material was not the only form of matter which exhibited seemingly random motion. Through grinding down various substances into a sufficiently fine powder he found that rocks, dirt, and all solid material exhibited similar behaviors as the pollen grain. The question remained, what causes the erratic motions of dust?

In 1951, 124 years after Dr. Brown’s experiments, Erwin Wilhelm Müller invented the field ion microscope and became the first person to actually see atoms. Brownian motion is not random. The tiny grains of pollen move as a result of collisions with other molecules. The molecules which cause the pollen grains to dance are too small for the human eye to see, but scientists were able to logically deduce their existence based upon the actions of dust. Now we are able to see the cause behind the motion. Once again we know that there is a cause behind everything. Additionally, the small molecules which cause Brownian motion do not move randomly. Molecular Dynamic (MD) simulations use physical laws and atomic potentials to calculate the motions of particulate materials. The motion of each individual atom is controlled by applied forces from other molecules, as well as definable potential and kinetic energies. Again, there is no such thing as random motion. Randomness implies that which has no underlying cause. There is a cause behind every action that we observe.

To deny the existence of causality and instead insist on attributing the organization of physical systems as being the product of pure randomness is to deny the very foundations of science. Theories are created to explain the cause behind physically observable phenomenon. If a statement does not hold an underlying cause, it is not a theory. “It just randomly happens” is not a theory, does not explain anything, and does not contribute meaningful information for society to use. Until Darwinians can remove words such as random, chance, haphazardly, and accidentally from their vocabulary, they have not presented a viable theory.

As expected, the entirety of your argument falls down because of your initial assertion. Considering that evolution is NOT random, and that we have an extremely detailed explanation of just what causes it to occur, this entire article of yours is fallacious.

in short, I think evolutionists have "observations" but not a "theory". A theory explains why something happens. What I see are just a bunch of observations without a real theory to go along with it...

We have the explanations. Have you ever read a biology book?

PS - natural selection comes after the "random" mutation. I agree with natural selection, I just don't agree with "random" mutations....

So, you knew from the start that evolution is not random?

We call them "random" because we have no means of predicting where they occur and what effect they will have beforehand. But we know exactly how they can occur - errors in copying, interference from radiation, retroviruses, etc.

Did you not look into this?

 

[RedOne77]

Ok, tell me there understanding so I can now understand how chemicals work on the brain to cause hallucinations?

Basically chemicals rush to the brain, bind to specific sites on the brain causing a cascade of events involving a ton of other chemical pathways that excite brain activity that can cause a wide range of sensations.

Wait, hold on there. You said that scientists understand that the chemicals working on the brain can cause hallucinations, I am asking HOW do they know this, what is there understanding? Now you say that it may NOT happen, ok, so which is it then, chemicals working on the brain WILL cause hallucinations or they will not? If they are SUPPOSE to, then WHY don’t they at times? If they do cause hallucinations, then WHY or HOW are they doing it? Why are some chemicals causing hallucinations and some not?

It all has to do with the chemical state the person is in. It is all about chemicals and what binds to what. I know they've injected chemicals into the brain causing 'near death experiences'. Each person is slightly different, and each person has a slightly different chemistry from day to day. Also, it appears that the situation a person is in can also have an effect - those that are under more stressful situations tend to have more vivid near death experiences.

But, it’s a plausible opinion since others have had an experience while being dead longer. But anyway, science has opinions that cannot be tested as well. So far I have heard you say that some chemicals cause hallucinations and some don’t. But you have not explained this, so this leaves me to think science holds opinions about the chemicals that work on the brain.

Chemicals can only bind to specific things. If it isn't the right chemical, it will not bind and ultimately will not produce a near death experience. In order to be science, it must be testable, which is why ideas about the spirit or soul cannot be undertaken by science.

They “FEEL”? I thought feelings were not a part of science, but only testable things. That is there explanation? Can we TEST that explanation for chemicals working on the brain to cause hallucinations?

Also how is it a REASONABLE explanation when you have not yet given me the REASON they say this?

They have induced near death experiences with the chemical DMT, which is a powerful psychedelic and is known to cause hallucinations, and is also a chemical that is released when the brain perceives death.

I don't know the chemical(s) they used for alien abductions, but I know they've induced hallucinations about alien abductions in patients before. Completely different topic and study, I know, just thought I'd throw that out there - inducing hallucinations via chemicals/drugs is not a new thing.

Also to say there is no scientific evidence to suggest otherwise, do you have scientific evidence to suggest chemicals working on the brain cause hallucinations? Or is it just how they “feel”?

There is hard evidence that shows that chemicals can cause hallucinations, just talk to anyone who's taken LSD.

I hate to say this, but you’re not answering my question. What is the difference between a natural based out of body experience, a false near death experience and a real near death experience? What are the differences between each one? What is your “opinion” or your explanation?

There is no scientific answer, it all comes down to opinion. Maybe one day in the future such things could be answered, but for now opinions will have to do. I think statistically, if you have a near death experience, you are quite likely to believe that such an experience is supernatural. If you almost die, but don't have one, you are likely to think that there is no afterlife. Again, whether it is completely natural or not is all opinion. My opinion is that some are, some aren't. I haven't done enough looking to say much more than that, other than those that have them usually change their lives and view of the world and become more spiritual. That, in of itself, makes me inclined to believe that such experiences are divine in nature, but I wouldn't bet on it.

How is God the one reaching out and changing their life when in fact it really is the experience that changed their life? How is God using the experience to reach out and change them? Is it not just the experience alone that changed them?

Also why would God not reach out to them WITHOUT the experience their?

God works in mysterious ways. Through the natural unfolding of events I believe God can and does touch peoples lives in ways we cannot begin to imagine.

Correction: many have died and got resuscitated and told us about it. How do you deal with them? Also how you would verify the light at the end of the tunnel is by either doing a out of body experience or having a near death experience, or come up with a scientific means to try to detect it.

No one has truly died and came back to tell us. People have officially died and were resurrected, but they have not experienced death without chemicals, which is the issue here. You can't say that the light at the end of the tunnel cannot be a hallucination because we simply don't know, and any appeal otherwise is solely opinion more than likely based off of a religious idea, not science.

1: why do you give near death experiences more weight then out of body when they are very similar by nature and by experience?

2: how is there nothing scientific that suggests that such a thing exists as out of body experiences?

Out of body experiences are usually explained by the brain taking in information from the senses and for some reason 'hallucinating' yourself over yourself watching X from the hallucination's perspective. It is simply my opinion in that I give more weight to near death experiences than astro-projection, nothing scientific about it, just opinion. There is no scientific reason to take either one as fact.

 

[Jollybear]

Thanks for the response, i read it all, i will read it again and respond when i can. I will write my response a little bit everyday and then when i finish it, i will submit it to you. May take a little while, but i will get it done.

 

[idea]

Excellent. Allow me to critique it.


Right off the bat, you get it wrong.

Natural selection is not random.

I agree - natural selection is great - I agree with it. It comes after the fact though. What is there to select from if it does not first mutate? nothing. The mutation happens before the selection. I want to know why mutations happen.

, random mutations don't just "randomly happen". We know exactly how mutations occur, we just have no means by which to predict in what ways the billions of letters of genetic code will be altered and what the end result will be of each mutation beforehand - this is what is meat by "random".

The entire point of a theory is to be able to predict what happens. You know - the scientific process:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.


It's not a theory. Evolutionists have made it to #1, but not to 2,3,4.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

I agree - natural selection is great - I agree with it. It comes after the fact though. What is there to select from if it does not first mutate? nothing. The mutation happens before the selection. I want to know why mutations happen.

Because the process of DNA replication from the parent(s) to the offspring is imperfect. Slight variations creep into the genetic code and cause mutations in the organism.

The entire point of a theory is to be able to predict what happens. You know - the scientific process:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.


It's not a theory. Evolutionists have made it to #1, but not to 2,3,4.

What's an "evolutionist"? Is that anything like a biologist?

As for predictions:

CA210: Evolution predictions

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I agree - natural selection is great - I agree with it. It comes after the fact though. What is there to select from if it does not first mutate? nothing. The mutation happens before the selection. I want to know why mutations happen.

Like I said, we already have a thoroughly comprehensive understanding of how mutations occur. They can be caused by copying errors in DNA, radiation, retroviruses, etc. I suggest you look into it, the facts are all there.

The entire point of a theory is to be able to predict what happens. You know - the scientific process:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

We already know the mechanism that causes evolution. Random mutation and natural selection caused by environmental attrition.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

Evolution has been used to make predictions about fossils in the geological strata, there whereabouts in the strata and the features of said fossils. It is also used to make predictions as to each years mutations of viruses such as the common cold, and is widely used in genetics and practically all fields of biology.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Again, see above. Evolution is regarded by the scientific consensus as the most well-supported and evidenced theory in modern science.

It's not a theory. Evolutionists have made it to #1, but not to 2,3,4.

Obviously, you've never actually looked into it.

 

[idea]

We already know the mechanism that causes evolution. Random mutation and natural selection caused by environmental attrition.

There you go again with the "it just randomly happens" explanation again

 

[ImmortalFlame]

There you go again with the "it just randomly happens" explanation again

You obviously didn't read these parts in my previous post:

"Not if those random mutations are subject to a selection process. What's more, random mutations don't just "randomly happen". We know exactly how mutations occur, we just have no means by which to predict in what ways the billions of letters of genetic code will be altered and what the end result will be of each mutation beforehand - this is what is meat by "random"."

"We call them "random" because we have no means of predicting where they occur and what effect they will have beforehand. But we know exactly how they can occur - errors in copying, interference from radiation, retroviruses, etc."

Also, please respond to the entirety of a post rather than just cherry-picking. I've been respectful enough to at least try and respond to the majority of the points you've raised, the least you could do is show me the same courtesy.

 

[idea]

Because the process of DNA replication from the parent(s) to the offspring is imperfect. Slight variations creep into the genetic code and cause mutations in the organism.

I'm a materials engineer. When we look at new alloys, we don't say they are imperfect, or they have errors, we look at the types of bonds / how the atoms interact, we know why the crystals form, what strength properties they will have etc. etc.

We can predict it - if you put these molecules together, you will get x in return. I have not yet seen anyone predict/explain using precise quantifiable experimentation what causes mutations. ie – if you introduce this new molecule under this circumstance, this specific mutation will happen due to this type of atomic bonding. No one can explain why DNA molecules come together.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm a materials engineer. When we look at new alloys, we don't say they are imperfect, or they have errors, we look at the types of bonds / how the atoms interact, we know why the crystals form, what strength properties they will have etc. etc.

We can predict it - if you put these molecules together, you will get x in return. I have not yet seen anyone predict/explain using precise quantifiable experimentation what causes mutations. ie – if you introduce this new molecule under this circumstance, this specific mutation will happen due to this type of atomic bonding. No one can explain why DNA molecules come together.

Here's a starting point:

Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[idea]

You obviously didn't read these parts in my previous post:

"Not if those random mutations are subject to a selection process.

again, the selection process happens after there is something to select from. I am interested in the process through which there is something to select from.

What's more, random mutations don't just "randomly happen". We know exactly how mutations occur, we just have no means by which to predict in what ways the billions of letters of genetic code will be altered and what the end result will be of each mutation beforehand - this is what is meat by "random"."

"We call them "random" because we have no means of predicting where they occur and what effect they will have beforehand. But we know exactly how they can occur - errors in copying, interference from radiation, retroviruses, etc."

Also, please respond to the entirety of a post rather than just cherry-picking. I've been respectful enough to at least try and respond to the majority of the points you've raised, the least you could do is show me the same courtesy.

In materials engineering, we deal with billions of atoms too. We've been able to figure it out though. We can predict things