Evidence For And Against Evolution

[shunyadragon]

I'll say that you are raising the bar unrealistically too high.

ID supporters simply use the same methods used in other sciences to detect design, (forensic science, archeology, SETI, etc.) and apply those methods to life and the universe.

Actually absolutely NO, the other sciences do not use the same methods to detect design. The references you made are where the sciences use methods to detect human design, and not design in nature other than human or other possible mortal intelligent beings in our universe, .

I cited a well researched and documented reference that demonstrated the unethical use of statistics and probability by ID advocates.

 

[shunyadragon]

And what would be the actual (correct) version of evolution? The version that is uncontroversial and that nearly all scientists accept?

There is only one correct science of abiogenesis and evolution accepted by 97%+ scientists. There is no other science of abiogenesis and evolution. It is not controversial. for disagreements on the details of the science of abiogenesis and evolution is not controversial, and is the same as the disagreements in all sciences, and resolved by research and discoveries.

 

[leroy]

Apologetic arguments totally lack objectivity nor objective evidence. They are simply accusations of 'My God(s) are greater than your God(s),'

Well support your asertion, pick an argument that is commonly used by apologetics, (kalam, teleological, resurrection etc.) and explain. Why the argument lacks objectivity

 

[leroy]

There is only one corrct science of abiogenesis and evolution accepted by 97%+ scientists. There is no other science of abiogenesis and evolution. It is not controversial. Disagreements on the details of the science of abiogenesis and evolution is not controversial, and is the same as the disagreements in all sciences, and resolved by research and discoveries.

So which are the claims that 97%+ scientists accept?

 

[leroy]

Actually absolutely NO, the other sciences do not use the same methods to detect design. The references you made are where the sciences use methods to detect human design, and not design in nature other than human or other possible mortal intelligent beings in our universe, .

I cited a well researched and documented reference that demonstrated the unethical use of statistics and probability by ID advocates.

Is there any relevant difference between human and non human design?

Wouldn't astrobiologists use the same methods that archeologists use to detect design in other planets?


Ok i'll read the article that you cited

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No my claim was not refuted, at most you refuted your strawman understanding of CSI.

Wrong again as usual. I understand CSI as expressed by Dembski. In order for a bacteria to evolve the trait for digesting nylon, a designer would have to intervene. This is a recent evolution with no evidence for that designer. It refutes the claim that CSI means a designer.

 

[shunyadragon]

Is there any relevant difference between human and non human design?

There is a great deal of difference between looking signs of human or other mortal alien evidence of design and looking for design for the cause of nature and natural processes. The sciences do not look for design for the causes of nature, natural laws, nor the processes of nature.

Wouldn't astrobiologists use the same methods that archeologists use to detect design in other planets?

Not design in the physical nature planets, but the possibility of design by mortals on other planets such as radio signals.

Ok i'll read the article that you cited.

I have a heavy background in statistics and I can explain it to you if it helps.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So which are the claims that 97%+ scientists accept?

You don't know? Then what is it you propose to discuss here, motorcycle mechanics?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I provided the reasons why I would claim that design is a better explanation than the one provided by pollymath.

Wether if I succeeded or not is irrelevant, you can't accuse me for not answering,

You spent weeks not answering. What you claim you did in conversation, if you did it, is still not supporting your claim. We already know what evidence it would take to convince you, a biased creationist, that ID was the best explanation. None. You are supposed to convince everyone else, so that you can mandate your belief system in place of svience.

 

[shunyadragon]

So which are the claims that 97%+ scientists accept?

97%+ of all scientists accept abiogenesis and evolution as supported by falsifiable hypothesis that natural causes, and natural laws cause life to form and evolve over billions of years. If they are Theistic Evolutionists like myself than we believe God used natural processes and natural laws to Create our physical existence. In fact God is responsible for Creating the Natural Laws.

If you are a Metaphysical Naturalist, such as atheists than they would believe that the Laws of Nature are the eternal and infinite cause of everything. They would only accept the scientific evidence for anything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't know? Then what is it you propose to discuss here, motorcycle mechanics?

It can be a religious topic:

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance - Wikipedia

 

[YoursTrue]

And what would be the actual (correct) version of evolution? The version that is uncontroversial and that nearly all scientists accept?

That's what I've been asking.

 

[gnostic]

I'll say that you are raising the bar unrealistically too high.

ID supporters simply use the same methods used in other sciences to detect design, (forensic science, archeology, SETI, etc.) and apply those methods to life and the universe.

No, ID don't use Scientific Method (SM), PERIOD...especially the testing stage of SM.

And it is not unrealistically too high, because the theory of Evolution has already repeatedly pass the Falsifiablity, Scientific Method and Peer Review, the 3 requirements needed for hypothesis to become SCIENTIFIC THEORY, and therefore science.

Other scientific theories, have passed the 3 requirements:

Physics:

• Newtonian mechanism (motion, force and gravity)
  
• Special Relativity and General Relativity
• Quantum Mechanics
• Particle Physics
  
• Electromagnetism
• Nuclear physics

Biology

• Molecular Biology
• Evolution

Earth Science

• Stratigraphy
• Tectonic

Physical Cosmology

• Big Bang theory (formerly Expanding Universe model)

Each one of these have gone through the 3 requirements, so the bar, while they are high, they are not unrealistic. That Intelligent Design failed, are because many so-called ID experts (eg Steven Meyer, Michael Behe, etc) refused to do the hard work, by testing their claims, rigorously and repeatedly, to verify the explanation.

Falsifiability is the 1st step for any potential scientific theory. You not only need to offer explanation, prediction and maths, the hypothesis must also have the potential of being tested. So any hypothesis must provide instruction of how, where and when to test it.

An explanation that isn't falsifiable disqualify it from being hypothesis, and Intelligent Design don't qualify as hypothesis.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That's what I've been asking.

Clearly not very well or comprehensively. But this is not unexpected.

Neither of you have any training or skill in science, despite your claims and pretensions of authority.

Incessantly requesting information you should possess is a diversionary tactic and a poor attempt to assemble a "gotcha" moment.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well support your asertion, pick an argument that is commonly used by apologetics, (kalam, teleological, resurrection etc.) and explain. Why the argument lacks objectivity

Are you claiming they do? Show me.

 

[shunyadragon]

That's what I've been asking.

Again . . .

97%+ of all scientists accept abiogenesis and evolution as supported by falsifiable hypothesis that natural causes, and natural laws cause life to form and evolve over billions of years. If they are Theistic Evolutionists like myself than we believe God used natural processes and natural laws to Create our physical existence. In fact God is responsible for Creating the Natural Laws.

If you are a Metaphysical Naturalist, such as atheists than they would believe that the Laws of Nature are the eternal and infinite cause of everything. They would only accept the scientific evidence for anything.

 

[chris baron]

isn't it obvious that we were created by some supreme being? isn't it just as obvious as that a car was designed and manufactured. no one is going to say that a car was not designed and manufactured so how can anyone say that the world was not designed and manufactured.
there really is no option but intelligent design. random chance even over billions of years can not create the flora and fauna of the earth or the properties of matter.
the bible is simply the true narrative of human history.
God created the world 6000 yrs ago, He chastised the world with a massive global flood 4400 yrs ago and humanity has continued to degenerate.
every day is just another page in the biblical narrative.

 

[McBell]

isn't it obvious that we were created by some supreme being?

Not really.
But let us assume it is.
What do you make of the design flaws?

isn't it just as obvious as that a car was designed and manufactured. no one is going to say that a car was not designed and manufactured so how can anyone say that the world was not designed and manufactured.

Comparing the all of everything to a car is like comparing apples to microprocessors.
It doesn't work.

there really is no option but intelligent design.

Yes there is.
And you know there is.
Otherwise you would not have to make the claim there isn't.

random chance even over billions of years can not create the flora and fauna of the earth or the properties of matter.

Prove it.
Show your math

the bible is simply the true narrative of human history.

Not even close

God created the world 6000 yrs ago, He chastised the world with a massive global flood 4400 yrs ago and humanity has continued to degenerate.
every day is just another page in the biblical narrative.

So why all the evidence that the world is far older?

 

[chris baron]

Not really.
But let us assume it is.
What do you make of the design flaws?


Comparing the all of everything to a car is like comparing apples to microprocessors.
It doesn't work.

there are no flaws in God's creation. what seems to be a flaw is just representative of the low nature of this world.
aging, for example, is not a flaw. we age at the rate that God established, if he wished we would not age at all but this process of decline with years is a parameter that God set for those living in this low world.
some critters live a day, some critters live over 100 yrs there are even critters that don't age at all but continue to regenerate only limited in their lifespans by predation. aging therefore is not due to time but due to design.

 

[McBell]

there are no flaws in God's creation.

Ah, so the inefficiencies and redundancies are intentional...
Got it.

Interesting that the more you reveal about your God, the less he sounds like a god.
But to each their own.