INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

Yeah, I'm definitely stubborn when it comes to pointing out to someone that they're making a bad argument. Pardon me.

Well I saw the stubbornness part but the bad argument pointing out seems to be missing.

And I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about here.

I may use sports scores as a factor to determine the weather forecast and that would be as stupid as theology for science but that does not mean I may predict what the sports scores indicate I should if I have other factors involved that overwhelm what the scores suggest. That still means that scores and weather are not related.

The reason that big bang became generally accepted, MIGHT have something to do with the fact that actual observable evidence for big bang didn’t really start accumulating until the 1940s. I mean, the point is, they ended up accepting it, based on the available evidence. This is how science works.

It also might mean they are all as wrong this time as last time when new evidence surfaces in 50 more years. My point was not their methods are wrong but their conclusions many times are.

Scientists love to attempting to falsify current models and theories, because if they can do so, they will become famous. Going along with the crowd isn’t really going to get you much notice.

Then why, when every single attempt has failed to produce life do they still say life coming from non life is a fact? Rinse and repeat a thousand times over. Reality and your claims do not line up.

What are you talking about? You didn’t provide any statements, you provided a Wikipedia article claiming that some scientists didn’t accept it based on theological reasons.

That is the whole point. Scientists have ulterior motives that affect their "pure" reasoning skills many times. Their preference at many times has swayed their judgment.

What? You think they only ended up accepting it because somebody threatened to pull their grant money, rather than the obvious conclusion that they accepted it based on the accumulation of evidence in its favor?

I have not the slightest idea but I do know that modern academics has areas of motivation that have nothing to do with science. How many Piltdown men, Jan Schons, Cardiff giants, over unity engines, Tasaday tribes, Brimstone butterfly’s, Calaveras skulls, etc have to exist before almighty omniscient science is taken from its lofty perch. Money motivates all and science is no different and the problem is getting worse.

Where do you come up with such wild speculation?

Reality. I will give one example of thousands but it won't help.
The Piltdown Chicken, 1999 (October 1999)

The Piltdown Chicken
(artist's reconstruction)
The National Geographic Society held a press conference on October 15, 1999 to announce a major discovery: It had found a 125-million-year-old fossil in northeastern China that appeared to be the long-sought missing link between dinosaurs and birds. For over twenty years paleontologists had debated whether birds were descended from dinosaurs. This fossil seemed to provide conclusive proof they were.

The fossil bird, when living, would have been about the size of a large chicken, or a turkey. But it would have been a turkey that bore the long tail of a dinosaur. It was this mixture of dinosaur and bird parts that made researchers believe they had found the dinosaur-bird missing link. As Christopher Sloan, author of the National Geographic article, enthusiastically wrote, "Its long arms and small body scream 'Bird!' Its long, stiff tail... screams 'Dinosaur!'"

What Sloan didn't realize at the time, was that the body and tail together should have screamed 'Fake!
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/archive/display/category/science
The list of outright lies is practically endless not to mention the biased assumptions. No subject is as prone to this as theoretical science. Applied science (the field I work in) is a little different in that what they cough up must work, yet "in my field" the last 7 out of 7 instruments we have received have failed. Some so bad they must be completely redesigned.
Continued below:

 

[1robin]

The fact that they accepted it based on evidence negates your argument.

How did you determine this and even if they claimed this how do you know it is true. My claims are a general fact no matter what is true in this case. Theoretical science is probably over 80% wrong if history is the judge.

I don’t even know what you’re saying here. Both concepts lean toward god, but are asserted by scientists using baseless faith and science fiction? Are you negating your own arguments now?

Nope. Though I was a little vague. The point was that both those concepts have relevance to the issue of God. Every fact known about both are indicative of God yet "science" consistently goes the opposite direction on both claims on a regular basis. Why, It sure is not the evidence, there is none?

I’ve already given you plenty of evidence indicating that life can arise from non-life. There have been many studies on the subject.

Nope you have given me a few facts that are about a light year away from getting life from non-life but on pure faith insisted that is what they prove anyway. It is very simple provide a single example of life produced from non-life, not a brick and yell that that means Deep Blue could arise by chance. There is no argument from anyone that nature cannot produce very low equilibrium complexity (amino acids). It can't produce very high complexity. A tree can drop two parallel twigs on the ground on its own, you can't then claim it could have dropped them in the right order to build a house. The difference between two twigs in parallel and a house is infinitely smaller than amino acids and a cell. Produce the cell or quit claiming you can until you actually do.

The main line of reasoning behind the multiverse hypothesis has to do with observable evidence of cosmic microwave background radiation left over from the big bang. Here’s some work being done on it:
http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v84/i4/e043507

I have read about multiverse for some time and this does not even make a conclusion. It posits their attempts to segregate results consistent with a collision between bubble universes and ours. How in the bleep could they have the slightest clue what a collision between our universe and one we have no way of even guessing what it would be like would produce. That being said there was nothing in that article that said anything to indicate they found anything or ever could. It is the equivalent of me laying out how I would construct a device that detects the smell of aliens. How would I know what to look for, and even if I did that has nothing to do with their existence. Not to mention that this entire article is wrong. There is no space in between universes for things to expand into. According to Big Bang cosmology the Big Bang (ours) produced all the space that exists. There is no elsewhere fro another universe to exist in. Our universe is it. That article resembles technical White Noise.
The atheist’s most recent god, the multiverse, was laid to rest this January at a rather unusual event: the 70th birthday celebration of Stephen Hawking, which was held at Cambridge. Delivering the eulogy was Dr. Alexander Vilenkin, who had written a recent paper that was presented at the “State of the Universe” meeting of scientists who had gathered to honor Hawking.
After demonstrating the fallacies of the various theories that have attempted to validate a multiverse, Vilenkin summed up his conclusions by saying, “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” This, naturally, put every philosophical naturalist and atheist into mourning because Hawking himself has admitted,
“Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.”
http://carm.org/atheism-and-the-multiverse

Here’s a discussion about it, featuring physicist Alexander Vilenkin:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=multiverse-the-case-for-parallel-universe

Here is a site that puts this argument in it's proper place http://www.reasonablefaith.org/multiverse-and-the-design-argument
but First read this:
Multiverse ideas have traditionally received short shrift from the establishment: Giordano Bruno with his infinite-space multiverse got burned at the stake in 1600 and Hugh Everett with his quantum multiverse got burned on the physics job market in 1957. I've even felt some of the heat first-hand, with senior colleagues suggesting that my multiverse-related publications were nuts and would ruin my career
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=multiverse-the-case-for-parallel-universe
No, I obviously made up the compulsion in science idea.
I will also say that Velankin was part of a team that concluded the strongest argument for a single finite universe on record and is very ambiguous on the issue. At times he is hostile toward multiverses and others not.

I don’t get it. I mean, do you think there are a bunch of god-hating scientists sitting around in a room somewhere desperately trying to come up with random ideas with no basis at all in science, for the sole purpose of falsifying this idea of god you have?

Not exactly. The Bible says man is blinded by the God of this world (Satan) and unable to properly reason about what he sees (or in this case what he doesn't). He is naturally at odds with faith even if unaware of it. I think 95% of any bias anyone (not just science) has is virtually involuntary and non-intentional. I see this every day in countless ways that are obvious (science often is not) and man obviously is a very faulty source of anything. I do not claim there is any organized intentionality on the part of science as a whole but it is full of examples of outright lies, continuous mistakes, and intentional hoaxes in specific cases and there is little reason to think in this one area we have transcended a tendency to prefer truth and be wrong as we have not done so in any other area. We choose what we want to be true incessantly in every area of life. Posting examples of this would exceed your ability to read them.

 

[Domenic]

Lol welcome to the forum.

LOL…okay. I will play the mind game with you my Muslim friend.
I have many Muslim friends. My best human friend is a Muslim.
We both agree there is but one God. You call him by one name, I another.
He created you, and he created me also.
I once knew a man, a very wise man, a teacher. As children, and yes, even into adulthood, we came to believe this wise teacher liked each of us, better than all the other children. Yes, we told our self, “The teacher likes me over all the other children.”
Is that not how we feel about God? He like Muslim over Christian, or Christian over Muslim? We are children my friend. We think like children, we act like children, and we fight like little children.
One day, we will all sit as men, eat together, not spit on the ground before we give aid to those who ask, and say, “Brother, forgive me. I understand we were both in search of the same Creator. Here brother, drink from my cup, and I will drink from your cup. Give praise to our one God.”

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well I saw the stubbornness part but the bad argument pointing out seems to be missing.

Of course you missed that part.

I may use sports scores as a factor to determine the weather forecast and that would be as stupid as theology for science but that does not mean I may predict what the sports scores indicate I should if I have other factors involved that overwhelm what the scores suggest. That still means that scores and weather are not related.

What is this supposed to be related to?

It also might mean they are all as wrong this time as last time when new evidence surfaces in 50 more years. My point was not their methods are wrong but their conclusions many times are.

This doesn’t speak to the point at all.

Then why, when every single attempt has failed to produce life do they still say life coming from non life is a fact? Rinse and repeat a thousand times over. Reality and your claims do not line up.

Oh vey. They don’t say it’s a fact! They say it’s theoretically possible for nonlife to produce life given what we now know and will continue to build upon the knowledge they have so far accumulated. And it is possible, given the results of multiple independent studies that support the assertion. Reality lines up very well with my claims. Sticking your fingers in your ears doesn’t change that.

What you’re trying to do here is akin to saying, “well they were able to map the entire human genome but they haven’t been able to clone a fully functioning human being yet, so they’ve utterly failed!” Or, “scientists have figured out how to differentiate stem cells into any cell in the body under lab conditions but they haven’t cured cancer or Parkinson’s disease yet, so their findings are meaningless.” It’s silly.

That is the whole point. Scientists have ulterior motives that affect their "pure" reasoning skills many times. Their preference at many times has swayed their judgment.

And yet in the very example you gave, their judgment was swayed BY THE EVIDENCE!

The whole point is that you didn’t provide any actual statements from these scientists? Huh?

I have not the slightest idea …

Oh I think you do have an idea here, you just don’t want to admit that what I said was the most obvious and most likely reason. You’d rather draw from wild, unverifiable speculation.

 

[SkepticThinker]

but I do know that modern academics has areas of motivation that have nothing to do with science. How many Piltdown men, Jan Schons, Cardiff giants, over unity engines, Tasaday tribes, Brimstone butterfly’s, Calaveras skulls, etc have to exist before almighty omniscient science is taken from its lofty perch. Money motivates all and science is no different and the problem is getting worse.

Let’s look at some of the examples you gave then.

Piltdown man was “discovered” by an amateur scientist and was challenged by actual scientists right from the start because it didn’t fit with what they knew about human evolution at the time, i.e. it didn’t fit with the existing evidence. By the way, we can hardly refer to any of these people as “modern academics” given that the thing was found in 1908. Furthermore, the fact that we don’t regard Piltdown man as a human ancestor today attests to the fact that the scientific method works.

As to the Schon scandal, after his paper was published, scientists around the world tried replicating the results but couldn’t and a bunch of scientists read his papers and discovered all kinds anomalies and errors contained within it. Schon’s doctoral degree was then revoked and nobody anywhere references his work anymore unless they’re ridiculing it. So again, sounds like the scientific method worked to me and the evidence (or lack thereof) prevailed. What’s the problem?

Now again, if we’re talking about modern scientists, I’m not so sure you should be using the Cardiff giant as a relevant example, but whatever. No scientist ever accepted this as anything other than an utter fake and a hoax, so I don’t even know why you mentioned this one. Although, according to Wikipedia (which I know you like) a number of Christian fundamentalists and preachers defended its authenticity.

On to the next one that can hardly be referred to as modern (we’re going way back now, to 1702): the Brimstone butterflies. Carl Linnaeus did in fact think he had found a new species of butterfly, sent to him by a lumber merchant or something like that. When an entomologist studied it years later, he exposed it as a fake. So here again, scientific scrutiny prevailed. This might be your best example.

And finally, as to the Calaveras skull, that too, was challenged by scientists right off the bat. When it was tested using fluorine analysis, it was confirmed to be a hoax. It was tested several more times over the years all confirming that it was of modern origin. So I’m not sure why you included this old example either (from 1866, hardly modern).

By the way, I don’t recall ever saying that scientists are “pure.” What I’ve always said is that the scientific method has a built-in correction mechanism that weeds out the bad science from the good. And it works. As we see from the examples you’ve given, it was the scientific method that exposed these fraudulent claims for what they were. You’ll notice that scientists don’t refer to any of these things as evidence of anything. None of what you have posted runs counter to anything I’ve said, and it doesn’t actually support your argument either. Furthermore, none of this is an indictment of science, rather it’s a beautiful illustration that speaks to how effective the scientific method really is.

Money is a motivating factor for a lot of people, but in the scientific world, if your evidence doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, it (and you) will be discarded into the trash heap of history (which is exactly what happened to Schon). Once you’re exposed as a liar or a fraud, you’re out of the science club.

Reality. I will give one example of thousands but it won't help.
The Piltdown Chicken, 1999 (October 1999)
The Piltdown Chicken
(artist's reconstruction)
The National Geographic Society held a press conference on October 15, 1999 to announce a major discovery: It had found a 125-million-year-old fossil in northeastern China that appeared to be the long-sought missing link between dinosaurs and birds. For over twenty years paleontologists had debated whether birds were descended from dinosaurs. This fossil seemed to provide conclusive proof they were.
The fossil bird, when living, would have been about the size of a large chicken, or a turkey. But it would have been a turkey that bore the long tail of a dinosaur. It was this mixture of dinosaur and bird parts that made researchers believe they had found the dinosaur-bird missing link. As Christopher Sloan, author of the National Geographic article, enthusiastically wrote, "Its long arms and small body scream 'Bird!' Its long, stiff tail... screams 'Dinosaur!'"
What Sloan didn't realize at the time, was that the body and tail together should have screamed 'Fake!
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/archive/display/category/science
The list of outright lies is practically endless not to mention the biased assumptions. No subject is as prone to this as theoretical science. Applied science (the field I work in) is a little different in that what they cough up must work, yet "in my field" the last 7 out of 7 instruments we have received have failed. Some so bad they must be completely redesigned.
Continued below:

US!

I’m sorry but this is a terrible example. National Geographic is not a peer reviewed scientific journal and Sloan is no scientist.
This is like quoting a Time magazine article as scientific evidence for something, i.e. it’s irrelevant. I work in the field of science and if I had quoted a National Geographic article in one of my papers, I’d be laughed out of the room.

 

[SkepticThinker]

How did you determine this and even if they claimed this how do you know it is true. My claims are a general fact no matter what is true in this case. Theoretical science is probably over 80% wrong if history is the judge.

Because that’s how science works. Personal opinions don’t mean squat. You follow the evidence, which is what they did and why they had to accept it.

What claims have you made that are general facts?

Nope. Though I was a little vague. The point was that both those concepts have relevance to the issue of God. Every fact known about both are indicative of God yet "science" consistently goes the opposite direction on both claims on a regular basis. Why, It sure is not the evidence, there is none?

I might give you that life from nonlife is a concept that could have something to do with god (though not necessarily) but I don’t see how the multiverse hypothesis speaks to god at all.

It’s merely your opinion that both concepts are indicative of god and you’re projecting that opinion onto others who may or may not agree with you.

Nope you have given me a few facts that are about a light year away from getting life from non-life but on pure faith insisted that is what they prove anyway. It is very simple provide a single example of life produced from non-life, not a brick and yell that that means Deep Blue could arise by chance. There is no argument from anyone that nature cannot produce very low equilibrium complexity (amino acids). It can't produce very high complexity. A tree can drop two parallel twigs on the ground on its own, you can't then claim it could have dropped them in the right order to build a house. The difference between two twigs in parallel and a house is infinitely smaller than amino acids and a cell. Produce the cell or quit claiming you can until you actually do.

I’m sorry, I don’t want to be offensive to you or anything but you’re being really thick-headed on this one.

First of all, I didn’t say anything is proof of anything. In fact, I’ve continually repeated that there is no “proof” in science. What I said more times than I can count is that this evidence suggests that it is tentatively possible that non-life can produce life – that has been demonstrated in the lab on several occasions. There is no room for argument there. You seem to have completely missed the point of the examples I gave about the human genome and stem cells and you’re just flailing your arms around at this point.


Quote:
The main line of reasoning behind the multiverse hypothesis has to do with observable evidence of cosmic microwave background radiation left over from the big bang. Here’s some work being done on it:
http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v84/i4/e043507

I have read about multiverse for some time and this does not even make a conclusion.

Who said it did? It’s still in the testing stages, which is why it is a hypothesis. Again, something I’ve said like a million times now. Quit trying to tell me that anyone accepts this as absolute fact, because they don’t.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It posits their attempts to segregate results consistent with a collision between bubble universes and ours. How in the bleep could they have the slightest clue what a collision between our universe and one we have no way of even guessing what it would be like would produce.

Try reading the articles I provided. That’s a good start.

That being said there was nothing in that article that said anything to indicate they found anything or ever could.

Nah, it was right there in the title of the article. No wonder you missed it.

It is the equivalent of me laying out how I would construct a device that detects the smell of aliens. How would I know what to look for, and even if I did that has nothing to do with their existence. Not to mention that this entire article is wrong. There is no space in between universes for things to expand into. According to Big Bang cosmology the Big Bang (ours) produced all the space that exists. There is no elsewhere fro another universe to exist in. Our universe is it. That article resembles technical White Noise.

No, it really isn’t like that. This comparison stinks too, because if you read the articles, you’d see that they have a theoretical framework of prior knowledge that they’re trying to build upon.

Here’s a discussion about it, featuring physicist Alexander Vilenkin:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=multiverse-the-case-for-parallel-universe

Here is a site that puts this argument in it's proper place http://www.reasonablefaith.org/multiverse-and-the-design-argument

You’re not actually countering with some William Lane Craig philosophy from a creationist website, are you? Come on now. At least counter it with an argument from an actual scientist before you completely discard it. Sheesh.

but First read this:
Multiverse ideas have traditionally received short shrift from the establishment: Giordano Bruno with his infinite-space multiverse got burned at the stake in 1600 and Hugh Everett with his quantum multiverse got burned on the physics job market in 1957. I've even felt some of the heat first-hand, with senior colleagues suggesting that my multiverse-related publications were nuts and would ruin my career. No, I obviously made up the compulsion in science idea.

And?

I will also say that Velankin was part of a team that concluded the strongest argument for a single finite universe on record and is very ambiguous on the issue. At times he is hostile toward multiverses and others not.

So? Maybe there is some compelling evidence that changed his mind? What’s the problem? People aren’t supposed to change their minds when new evidence comes to light?

Not exactly. The Bible says man is blinded by the God of this world (Satan) and unable to properly reason about what he sees (or in this case what he doesn't). He is naturally at odds with faith even if unaware of it.

So? How do we even know that Satan exists in the first place?

I think 95% of any bias anyone (not just science) has is virtually involuntary and non-intentional. I see this every day in countless ways that are obvious (science often is not) and man obviously is a very faulty source of anything. I do not claim there is any organized intentionality on the part of science as a whole but it is full of examples of outright lies, continuous mistakes, and intentional hoaxes in specific cases and there is little reason to think in this one area we have transcended a tendency to prefer truth and be wrong as we have not done so in any other area. We choose what we want to be true incessantly in every area of life. Posting examples of this would exceed your ability to read them.

Science is not subject to the whims of personal opinion, that’s why it’s set up the way it is, with a self-correcting mechanism built into it. And it has worked marvellously thus far.
You might choose what you want to be true in every area of life, but I don’t. I want to find out what is actually true, and I will have to accept it, whether I like it or not. This is something we talked about during our discussion where you were telling me that my view of life is rather sad and dreary in your opinion (given that I think this life is all we get) and I pointed out to you that it doesn’t matter if I like it or not, I feel that I have to accept it, given that that’s what the evidence tells me is the case. Sure, I might want to believe something else, but I can’t force myself to do so.


I’ve put your hoax claims to bed already. J

 

[Hufflechuff]

Very straight forward, intelligent responses there SkepticThinker. Nicely done.

 

[1robin]

Let’s look at some of the examples you gave then.

Piltdown man was “discovered” by an amateur scientist and was challenged by actual scientists right from the start because it didn’t fit with what they knew about human evolution at the time, i.e. it didn’t fit with the existing evidence. By the way, we can hardly refer to any of these people as “modern academics” given that the thing was found in 1908. Furthermore, the fact that we don’t regard Piltdown man as a human ancestor today attests to the fact that the scientific method works.

Nice wiggling. It wasn't a real scientists it was a young one. It wasn't modern science it was 1908 (which is within the last .001 of Human existence according to many "scientists")

The Piltdown hoax is perhaps the most famous paleoanthropological hoax ever to have been perpetrated. It is prominent for two reasons: the attention paid to the issue of human evolution, and the length of time (more than 40 years) that elapsed from its discovery to its full exposure as a forgery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

I am leaving and the wrong steps science has taken takes a lot of time I do not currently have.

Try reading the articles I provided. That’s a good start.

I unfortunately did and that is 30 minutes I will never get back and if you read the response article I provided you would see why.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Very straight forward, intelligent responses there SkepticThinker. Nicely done.

Thank you. Much appreciated.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nice wiggling. It wasn't a real scientists it was a young one. It wasn't modern science it was 1908 (which is within the last .001 of Human existence according to many "scientists")

No wiggling, just facts. And yeah, 1908 isn't exactly modern times - it's more than a century ago. I guess if you're comparing it to ancient times it could be considered modern.

The Piltdown hoax is perhaps the most famous paleoanthropological hoax ever to have been perpetrated. It is prominent for two reasons: the attention paid to the issue of human evolution, and the length of time (more than 40 years) that elapsed from its discovery to its full exposure as a forgery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

Umm, right there in the wiki article you quoted it says,
"Almost from the outset, Woodward's reconstruction of the Piltdown fragments was strongly challenged," which supports exactly what I said. The fact that it was never fully incorporated into our understanding of human evolution or into the general scientific consensus that it was actually real, speaks volumes. It also supports what I said. The scientific method works.

You’re not really debating anything I said here.

I am leaving and the wrong steps science has taken takes a lot of time I do not currently have.

I’m not sure what you’re saying here. You’re leaving?

I unfortunately did and that is 30 minutes I will never get back and if you read the response article I provided you would see why.

I already responded to it. Are those pesky facts getting in the way again?

 

[Azekual]

All of your arguments do nothing to impress upon me that God exists or existed. There is no such thing as indisputable proof of God because he does not exist.

 

[Skeptisch]

You’re not really debating anything I said here.

SkepticThinker, your patience is unbelievable and your rebuttals well researched and to the point. However, the red breasted opponent you are toiling with is not exactly know for his intellect, it probably does not even realise that you plugged most of its feathers. In spite of that, chances are it will be back for more of the same.

 

[1robin]

All of your arguments do nothing to impress upon me that God exists or existed. There is no such thing as indisputable proof of God because he does not exist.

Well since you breeched the proof claim the burden is all yours, good luck. BTW what specifically makes you suggest you were an actual Christian but no longer are? That has always been a claim I found so self-refuting as to merit the request for detail.

 

[1robin]

Of course you missed that part.

I will have to take your word for it.

What is this supposed to be related to?

It was an example of the absolute fact that I can use as an influence an illegitimate factor to resolve an issue (as they did with theology and science) and yet not always go with what that one fact suggests. The point was that they let theological preference influence their scientific conclusions, I never suggested they always use that one factor as the determining factor and that was never the point.

Oh vey. They don’t say it’s a fact! They say it’s theoretically possible for nonlife to produce life given what we now know and will continue to build upon the knowledge they have so far accumulated. And it is possible, given the results of multiple independent studies that support the assertion. Reality lines up very well with my claims. Sticking your fingers in your ears doesn’t change that.

No, they indeed do assume it is an absolute fact. I would not mind if they claimed what you do here as long as God is given a similar status but that is not what the reality of the situation is. Many (in fact probably most) scientists assume life arose on its own and there is no God. This is a good description of what the paradigm is though it is a little stronger than what I would "term" the average is.
This is why the eminent Harvard zoologist Richard Lewontin states:
"[W]e have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations…that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."13
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/838
That is a very good site.

“Considering the way the prebiotic soup is referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life as an already established reality, it comes as something of a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence.”
― Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis

"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past." Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, p. 199

The old tried and true and still in textbooks Idea is that nothing became everything in an expansion process (explosion is now heresy for some reason). It condensed by gravity into planets eventually, and the "prebiotic soup" at least on Earth after receiving about 300,000 volts eventually coughed up life. Which part do secular scientists deny?

What you’re trying to do here is akin to saying, “well they were able to map the entire human genome but they haven’t been able to clone a fully functioning human being yet, so they’ve utterly failed!” Or, “scientists have figured out how to differentiate stem cells into any cell in the body under lab conditions but they haven’t cured cancer or Parkinson’s disease yet, so their findings are meaningless.” It’s silly.

What? That is like saying we have mapped California so we could duplicate it. Or saying since we have created scans of human nervous systems we can grow a man in a test tube. I never said anything even hinting science is meaningless. It has produced a wealth of great things, unfortunately it seems to balance the scales by producing equally bad things like weaponized anthrax and Tsar bombas. I said that specifically in the case of the origin of life we have produced the equivalent of sand and water and claimed the Taj Mahal arose on its own. In fact the difference between amino acids and life is greater than sand and sky scrapers. Don't drag my argument into another context and yell fowl.

And yet in the very example you gave, their judgment was swayed BY THE EVIDENCE!

Of course their judgment is swayed by the evidence and most times it is governed by it. It seems however that in theoretical science their judgment exceeds the evidence about 85% of the time and the evidence is irrelevant in another 5%.

The whole point is that you didn’t provide any actual statements from these scientists? Huh?

Are you asking me to provide a statement where a scientists said all the evidence adds up to X but I like Y better. I am sure I could but I provided one just as effective above and at least two where their theological preference affected (but not controlled) their conclusions. If they were not enough nothing would be.

Oh I think you do have an idea here, you just don’t want to admit that what I said was the most obvious and most likely reason. You’d rather draw from wild, unverifiable speculation.

I have no idea what was the specific case in their situation but without any doubt what so ever those factors have influenced and even controlled professional claims. That was never the issue anyway. The fact remains and was the issue that theological preference was present in the equation they used to arrive at a scientific conclusion. It does not matter if this one factor was not strong enough to render a verdict consistent with it. It should not be there in any respect or amount. You either missed or intentionally missed the entire point.

 

[1robin]

Let’s look at some of the examples you gave then.

Piltdown man was “discovered” by an amateur scientist and was challenged by actual scientists right from the start because it didn’t fit with what they knew about human evolution at the time, i.e. it didn’t fit with the existing evidence. By the way, we can hardly refer to any of these people as “modern academics” given that the thing was found in 1908. Furthermore, the fact that we don’t regard Piltdown man as a human ancestor today attests to the fact that the scientific method works.

That is one strange claim. You say basically this and I agree with.
From the outset, some scientists expressed skepticism about the Piltdown find (see above). G.S. Miller
How is this remarkable at all? What new discovery is ever free from skepticism? That is no honorable or unique accomplishment.
I did not scientists are all unethical boobs and would not eventually figure out (after 40 years) something pieced together by an amateur is a fake. There however is little extraordinary merit in eventually doing so. BTW how many are still a hoax and either not noticed in ignorance or covered up on purpose (no way to tell). It took 40 years in this case because all of the relevant science in the field was wrong.
The Piltdown man hoax succeeded so well because, at the time of its discovery, the scientific establishment believed that the large modern brain preceded the modern omnivorous diet, and the forgery provided exactly that evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man#Identity_of_the_forger
Is this what you call conscientious science?
The scientific community celebrated Dawson's discovery as the long-awaited "missing link" between ape and man and the confirmation of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. As the decades passed and new information came to light, however, it became clear that the Piltdown Man was not what he seemed.
http://www.history.com/news/piltdown-man-hoax-100-years-ago
Looks more like convenient, bias driven, sensationalism if the claim is accurate.

As to the Schon scandal, after his paper was published, scientists around the world tried replicating the results but couldn’t and a bunch of scientists read his papers and discovered all kinds anomalies and errors contained within it. Schon’s doctoral degree was then revoked and nobody anywhere references his work anymore unless they’re ridiculing it. So again, sounds like the scientific method worked to me and the evidence (or lack thereof) prevailed. What’s the problem?

I am not sure you are getting what I am driving at. My point is that just because you find an article that claims "scientists create life" it still has never been done. I have tracked down at least a dozen articles given by your side as a counter claim to my claim that science has never proven life arose from non-life. Every single one once read eventually admits they made no life what so ever. The point was science for various reasons many times claims stuff it never produces and it gets wearisome. This guy was from Bell labs and given many awards and yet was not just wrong but intentionally wrong. It is evidence there is much more that evidence driving many in the field. None of your details changes this an iota.

Now again, if we’re talking about modern scientists, I’m not so sure you should be using the Cardiff giant as a relevant example, but whatever. No scientist ever accepted this as anything other than an utter fake and a hoax, so I don’t even know why you mentioned this one. Although, according to Wikipedia (which I know you like) a number of Christian fundamentalists and preachers defended its authenticity.

If you were to claim that Christians claim many times more than evidence allows I would agree and probably add to it. In fact my side is far more guilty than yours is but as I only have the burden of justified faith it is a little different. I do not think integrity has an expiration date as to your age issue. It wasn't ignorance but intentionality that drove this lie. However I did not see any credible scientists associated with it so you may drop it if you wish.

On to the next one that can hardly be referred to as modern (we’re going way back now, to 1702): the Brimstone butterflies. Carl Linnaeus did in fact think he had found a new species of butterfly, sent to him by a lumber merchant or something like that. When an entomologist studied it years later, he exposed it as a fake. So here again, scientific scrutiny prevailed. This might be your best example.

Actually I just got them from a random list. Since I see they will be contended let me augment this claim with a better one of the same type. BTW you said this one was a good one, Why? I submit a similar and better known one. The famous Pepper Moth:
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud-pepper-moth-biston-betularia.htm

And finally, as to the Calaveras skull, that too, was challenged by scientists right off the bat. When it was tested using fluorine analysis, it was confirmed to be a hoax. It was tested several more times over the years all confirming that it was of modern origin. So I’m not sure why you included this old example either (from 1866, hardly modern).

Again what is not met with skepticism in it's early history. Since the last .002 of human history is now ancient let me see if I can find a similar but more modern one. Try the study of the town of Vilcambaba in 1978. BTW adding details to a failure does not make it a success.
Continued below:

 

[1robin]

By the way, I don’t recall ever saying that scientists are “pure.” What I’ve always said is that the scientific method has a built-in correction mechanism that weeds out the bad science from the good. And it works. As we see from the examples you’ve given, it was the scientific method that exposed these fraudulent claims for what they were. You’ll notice that scientists don’t refer to any of these things as evidence of anything. None of what you have posted runs counter to anything I’ve said, and it doesn’t actually support your argument either. Furthermore, none of this is an indictment of science, rather it’s a beautiful illustration that speaks to how effective the scientific method really is.

Let me put it a different way to make it more understandable. Let's say that for some reason the US auto racing establishment became endowed with the almost omniscience that we have for science in modern times. People simply trusted it and thought if there was any danger that they would be protected by the great researchers at the racing authority. However when a car goes sailing through the crowd and kills 150 and fifty people I do not think claiming well they put up a better fence is going to help those 150. You must remember the context and what I am actually claiming, so I will restate.
1. There exists nothing "Known" to science that indicates God and the Bible in general is unworthy of placing faith in.
2. However even though there is nothing known to challenge faith a few things are "claimed" to be reliable enough to challenge faith. Multiverses, abiogenesis, etc....
3. My only point in criticizing science is to point out that even in non-theoretical areas claims are often wrong and no area of scientific v/s biblical contention is science at a reliable state or even close to that level.
4. Science is great, I studied it, work in it, and have a degree in math and it is also faulty in the best of circumstances bot to mention the rarified hyperbolic arena where claims exist that are used to challenge God.
5. Even in my field of applied electrical engineering we are approx. 7 for 7 in failures for new instruments in my current project. I will not wager my soul on the theoretical guys when the practical guys are 0 for 7 in my case at least.

I will give a classic example. The poster child for theology influenced science is Dawkin’s. He was asked where life came from, in the context of first cause issues, science can’t answer. He started off great and honest, he said “don’t have a clue”. However his theology or Hubris (apparently) just could not leave well enough alone. He said but Aliens could have “seeded” life here. This is a archetype of what I am complaining about and I will list why.
1. He did not fix anything even if he was right. He only kicked the can down the road and said there, take that. Apparently he thinks we are too stupid to know we are still in need of an origin even with aliens.
2. He completely left the field where he or anyone on Earth has any training. He went straight to science fiction. There are only a few reasons why he would have done this and NONE are valid.
3. He invented a solution because of a nonscientific reason. Science dead ends at the arrival of a cell or close to it.
4. He could have simply stopped at “I don’t know” and would have respected his honesty.
5. On another occasion he was honest and said in evolution there is no way to say Hitler was not right. I guess because it was biology his pride just would let him here.

Money is a motivating factor for a lot of people, but in the scientific world, if your evidence doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, it (and you) will be discarded into the trash heap of history (which is exactly what happened to Schon). Once you’re exposed as a liar or a fraud, you’re out of the science club.

I am sure that is true in many cases and I equally sure the exact same cliques and old boys clubs exist in science as they do IN EVERY OTHER field of human endeavor. I also imagine that is more true of the theoretical group than most.

US!

Don't get it.

I’m sorry but this is a terrible example. National Geographic is not a peer reviewed scientific journal and Sloan is no scientist.

You are equivocating so much it looks intentional. It's too old (within 200 years). He was only a young scientist (degreed). It was eventually discovered (40 years). It was announced (not determined) by a magazine. Some were skeptical (of what are they not). Details are not good excuses. I will however give you this one. I did not notice how fast science contradicted National Geographic.
Let me replace this one: A survey of climatologist predictions between 1965 and 1975 had about 20% predicting cooling and about 55% predicting warming, and about 25% apparently who could not read a thermometer. Today Russian science says global warming is over and European science that says Iceland will be gone in a decade (exaggerating of course). Who is right and what is going on? I would think a thermometer would settle this issue.

You also never sufficiently explained my original complaint. Let’s say the 4000 years ago the ignorant Hebrews did as you or another suggested looked around and decided that sanitation was important for health. Even if that was all there was to it why were surgeons in 1860 not even this smart? Millions paid for this regress of science. I do nothing we will get anywhere with just how valuable and accurate science is but my claim requires even far less evidence than I have given so far, see 1-5 above. I think we are getting off track.

 

[1robin]

Because that’s how science works. Personal opinions don’t mean squat. You follow the evidence, which is what they did and why they had to accept it.

What claims have you made that are general facts?

The way you quote posts the links to the previous time a statement was posted do not exist and I am not looking through the 50 pages of stuff we have said to answer this. Let me instead post some things that I do not remember if I have yet or not.
1. The Bible is by far the most textually accurate document from ancient history.
2. Christ is the most textually attested character of ancient history.
3. There is no claim in theoretical science that is not at least somewhat and sometime composed of a majority of opinion. Sometimes reasoned and sometimes against reason.

I might give you that life from nonlife is a concept that could have something to do with god (though not necessarily) but I don’t see how the multiverse hypothesis speaks to god at all.

Well when it started to become certain that we can only show that we have one FINITE universe, that indicated or was so consistent with God that these ideas that have virtually no evidence either started to be born or resuscitated. I do not know if it was incidental or causal but it appears that as soon as science had pretty much eliminated non-God indicating universes (steady state) then once that do not indicate or have need of God appeared in forms that can't be verified. Not one of these issues is enough to even make God a good theory. However when you have them in such abundance from just about every field of academics there is it is more than enough to justify faith even possibly without a Bible.

It’s merely your opinion that both concepts are indicative of god and you’re projecting that opinion onto others who may or may not agree with you.

Let me change my claim just to reduce pointless contention. To give truth to one who loves it not is only only to increase opportunity for contention- one of my favorites. I claim that reality (cosmology is what we have been discussing) has produced reliable evidence that it's nature is consistent with God if you object to indicative for no apparent reason.

I’m sorry, I don’t want to be offensive to you or anything but you’re being really thick-headed on this one.
First of all, I didn’t say anything is proof of anything. In fact, I’ve continually repeated that there is no “proof” in science. What I said more times than I can count is that this evidence suggests that it is tentatively possible that non-life can produce life – that has been demonstrated in the lab on several occasions. There is no room for argument there. You seem to have completely missed the point of the examples I gave about the human genome and stem cells and you’re just flailing your arms around at this point.

Since something is getting very lost here let's evaluate an analogy instead. Nature is well known to be able to produce lower than equilibrium complexity and occasionally a little higher level of complexity. That means I would have said amino acids were possible to produce by nature long before an experiment was done. Same with elements, etc. I have used the analogy that producing sand and iron let’s say and then claiming that indicates a world trade center can arise on its own is not valid. What is it you do not agree with? I feel as frustrated with you as you claim to be with me and I wish you could explain why the simple and obvious claims I have made aren’t.
1. Do you think the analogy inaccurate? I do not know about all parameters but the relative difference in complexity is less between iron plus sand and WTC and amino acids and life.
2. Or do you think producing sand and gravel IS evidence that computer controlled elevators can arrise naturally.
Let me give another. Put all 100 puzzle pieces in a bag separated and shake them up and you will get a few that fit together correctly but break up before many are fitted. Your experiments are the equivalent of getting three pieces and saying that puzzles self organize when shaken long enough. This will never be because like nature the chances things break apart is astronomically greater than the right ones come together. I believe this analogy is representative because it was a favorite of A. E. Wilder (a very credentialed and accomplished Chemist). Some of the additional myriad other complications are illustrated here. http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/838
Now please cut it out with the name calling and tell me specifically what is wrong with the .01% of the problems associated with your claim.

The main line of reasoning behind the multiverse hypothesis has to do with observable evidence of cosmic microwave background radiation left over from the big bang. Here’s some work being done on it:
http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v84/i4/e043507

Unless I am wrong (and that is certainly possible this article illustrates how to check for this multiverse claim. Before we discuss whether it is good or bad or if I understand what they said how is this evidence for something. To me it says the equivalent of well if aliens exist we can scan such and such with such and such, therefore they exist. Maybe I am not educated enough to get that article, in fact I will bet that not .001% of the population can but I saw nothing to indicate finding evidence that proves anything.

Who said it did? It’s still in the testing stages, which is why it is a hypothesis. Again, something I’ve said like a million times now. Quit trying to tell me that anyone accepts this as absolute fact, because they don’t.

I never said or did not intend to ever even hint that science claims this is true. I claim two things.
1. It is an almost completely fantasy based theory yet it is viewed as intellectually permissible.
2. It is used as a counter theory to the well-established and well evidenced God consistent single finite model.
In other words science can suppose or consider a fantasy devoid of almost ( maybe any) evidence to counter reality as we know it almost exclusively when reality is consistent with God, but will reject the concept of God as even allowable as being an explanation of what we can reliably know. That is not valid in either science or anything else. No semantic gymnastics can alter that.

 

[1robin]

SkepticThinker, your patience is unbelievable and your rebuttals well researched and to the point. However, the red breasted opponent you are toiling with is not exactly know for his intellect, it probably does not even realise that you plugged most of its feathers. In spite of that, chances are it will be back for more of the same.

Come on man. The reputation for arrogance of the non-theist is in need of little help from you. If you can't make an argument color commentary meant to be slightly offensive is no substitute. It is stuff like this that keeps knowledgeable but non-confrontational Christians out of debates like this and even makes slightly combative ones like me regret some conversations and there for refuse others. I guess if you can't rise to the occasion then attempts to lower the argumentation to your level is all that is left. The issue deserves better and more sincere discourse. In almost all debates both sides think the other just doesn’t get it but why is it usually my side with the decorum and honor to resist claiming it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

SkepticThinker, your patience is unbelievable and your rebuttals well researched and to the point. However, the red breasted opponent you are toiling with is not exactly know for his intellect, it probably does not even realise that you plugged most of its feathers. In spite of that, chances are it will be back for more of the same.

I'm starting to feel a little bit like I'm repeatedly smashing my face into a wall. Just a little.