Interesting video about evolution and origins.

[Brian2]

So any opinion you have on the subject is unsupported?

Sy Garte's opinions are supported, as are James Tour's.
What does it matter if my views are unsupported?
Should I spend many hours making sure my views are supported so that you can still call those views wrong?

 

[exchemist]

If it could be shown scientifically that someone designed the universe or things in it then that would be proof of God. The believers who looks at stuff like the eye and flagellum motor etc etc etc (and there are many complex things) has to go down the path of incredulity to say it happened without a designer/maker. So that leaves the way open for atheists to say that irreducible complexity has been debunked,,,,,,,,,,, but really that is not true as evidence for God, it is just true as a subject for scientific acceptance.
As you say, the path is always left open for science to say how it thinks something evolved naturally.
But when we look at that, all it can ever be is educated guesses.
So it ends up in reality being scientific educated guesses versus believer's faith and incredulity.
In science the naturalistic way, the educated guesses, win because science cannot test for or find spirits or God in any verifiable way.
But also science cannot verify that any path they say was followed for the evolution of eyes or flagellum motor etc is true.
So really it only sounds as if the naturalistic path has won over faith when in fact they both require some degree of faith. Those who believe what science says (guesses) has to have faith (in the face of no verification) that the natural way is correct and that science has found the best of the naturalistic paths.

That is nonsense of course, which is why the judge dismissed the idea that irreducible complexity is a scientific theory. Science is not guesswork. It is evidence-based. There is evidence to show how both the eye and the bacterial flagellum may have evolved.

There is no way to obtain evidence that a biological structure cannot have arisen by natural processes.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

that leaves the way open for atheists to say that irreducible complexity has been debunked

Each specific claim of irreducible complexity has been debunked. There were four or five before the ID people stopped suggesting them. You mentioned the eye and the flagellum, but the immune system and the clotting cascade were also offered as examples of irreducible complexity, which claims were also falsified.

all [science] can ever be is educated guesses. it ends up in reality being scientific educated guesses versus believer's faith and incredulity. the naturalistic path has won over faith when in fact they both require some degree of faith.

It's been no contest. Science has outperformed faith hands down. And no faith is required to reap the benefits of science. You're doing it now, as am I.

Scientific fact, law, and theory all enjoy the benefit of empirical support. They work. They accurately predict outcomes. Somebody wanted to conquer polio and smallpox and used "educated guesses" to do it. Somebody wanted to get men to the moon and back and built machines that they predicted could do this using what you call educated guesses, and they were correct. Contrast that with faith-based belief, which actually is a guess - a pure guess divorced from education - and which can be used to do nothing. The two methods couldn't be more different in their results. Go ahead and choose the faith-based one if that suits you. Others have gone with the one with the proven track record.

science cannot verify that any path they say was followed for the evolution of eyes or flagellum motor etc is true.

All it needed do was identify ANY path was not irreducibly complex in order to falsify the claim to the contrary.

Those who believe what science says (guesses) has to have faith (in the face of no verification) that the natural way is correct and that science has found the best of the naturalistic paths.

Nature is here. Life is here. Gods are not. The faith enters when one declares that it is impossible for nature to have generated life without a god's help.

It is true that the supernatural does not lend itself to testable theories so why are testable theories demanded by atheists

You still don't know the answer to that?

Sy Garte's opinions are supported, as are James Tour's.

Not by sound argument. What they have are gut feelings, hunches, and intuitions, and they believe them. But they can't convince critical thinkers without that evidence to which you just referred, because as you say, it is essential that sufficient evidence to justify belief be present before believing. The method depends on a strict adherence to its rules, which the creationists flout. Look what became of their program and its reputation for failure to do that. That's what Kitzmiller was all about - revealing the impotence and poverty of thought of their project and destroying professional reputations in the process.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is true that the supernatural does not lend itself to testable theories so why are testable theories demanded by atheists, and without them it is irrational to even claim to have evidence?

Perhaps you mistake criticism for demands.
I don't make the latter.
It would be impossible to comply.

 

[Valjean]

If it could be shown scientifically that someone designed the universe or things in it then that would be proof of God. The believers who looks at stuff like the eye and flagellum motor etc etc etc (and there are many complex things) has to go down the path of incredulity to say it happened without a designer/maker.

No -- you've got it precisely backwards. Deferring to evidence is not incredulity. Incredulity is denying or ignoring the evidence.
Science relies on evidence, to investigate mechanism, not agency. Creationists ignore mechanism, they just assert an agent. This, of course, explains nothing. It's a special pleading, inasmuch as there's no evidence of a conscious agent, no evidence of magical intervention in known mechanisms and laws of nature, and no need of any cause or agent other than nature.

So that leaves the way open for atheists to say that irreducible complexity has been debunked,,,,,,,,,,, but really that is not true as evidence for God, it is just true as a subject for scientific acceptance.

Religion's assertion that these mechanisms are irreducibly complex has been shown, with examples, to be wrong.

As you say, the path is always left open for science to say how it thinks something evolved naturally.
But when we look at that, all it can ever be is educated guesses.

No, we have actual evidence, actual examples, and actual, functional processes relying on selection.

So it ends up in reality being scientific educated guesses versus believer's faith and incredulity.

Science tests. The process is productive. It's not "educated guesswork."
You're being either dishonest and deceptive, or incredibly obtuse, since this has been explained innumerable times.

In science the naturalistic way, the educated guesses, win because science cannot test for or find spirits or God in any verifiable way.

Science does not attempt this. There's no evidence to test. There's no reason to expect evidence -- no need.
Investigation of unevidenced special pleadings is not the job of science.

But also science cannot verify that any path they say was followed for the evolution of eyes or flagellum motor etc is true.

What do you mean by "verify?" The claim rests on actual irreducible complexity, which has been demonstrated to be wrong.
Nevertheless, we have observable, living examples of organisms with 'simplified', reduced complexity organs functioning perfectly well.

So really it only sounds as if the naturalistic path has won over faith when in fact they both require some degree of faith.

Bite your tongue! Profanity violates RF rules, does it not?
"F**th" is a despicable word, in scientific circles. Science hates f**th. The whole scientific mechanism is designed to eliminate any reliance on this ridiculous, unfounded, unproductive mechanism.
Please stop trying to conflate science with religion.

Those who believe what science says (guesses) has to have faith (in the face of no verification) that the natural way is correct and that science has found the best of the naturalistic paths.

Again. Science doesn't guess. Scientific facts are based on testing and productivity. They're verified. Injecting f**th is throwing a wrench/spanner into the gears.

 

[Valjean]

Even though he denies it the only version of Intelligent Design that was falsifiable proved that it was indeed falsifiable by being falsified. That was the version of ID that was falsified by a mousetrap in an analogy. Behe used to argue that an intelligently Irreducible Complexity showed that ID was a fact. And this is the concept that was refuted by a mousetrap in an analogy, since Behe used a mousetrap in his example and the bacterial rotator flagellum in reality. His argument was that a mousetrap "could not work" without all of its parts. Each one was needed to work. Ken Miller showed that mousetrap could work. Without all of its parts. It could work at a different job. He made a crude tie clip out of it. When it comes to the flagellum there were all sorts of bacteria that were found with only a partial flagellum. It still worked. And that gave a pathway of evolution for that flagellum. Those partial flagella had different jobs than being a flagellum. So they still worked as far as evolution goes.
The reason that it has not been refuted since then is because Behe and other learned their lesson. They no longer put ID into the form of a testable hypothesis. Unfortunately that also makes it pseudoscience.

The mousetrap did not evolve slowly through a series of increasingly complex, fully functional, stages. It was designed, in toto. It is not analogous.
Behe compares apples and oranges.

 

[Valjean]

It is true that IC is not a science with verifiable evidence but it is also true that it is not verifiable that those things that IC claim are too complex for evolution, actually evolved.
So in that respect, that part of science is not real science.

Not following. Rephrase?

IC has never been refuted. All that has happened is that it has been shown not to be a science.
So nobody can say that science has shown that the eye or flagellum motor or anything else has evolved and nobody can say that it has been shown that God did not have a hand in the creation of the eye or flagellum motor etc.

Leprechauns and unicorns have never been refuted, either, but this is no evidence they exist. You're arguing from ignorance*.
There are living examples of previous "design" stages, and both evolution and natural selection are established, demonstrated, observable facts. There is no rational reason to assert magic as a viable alternative. I believe you're motivated by religious mythology. You keep trying to fit the world into your unevidenced yet premised religious narrative.

* https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Argument-from-Ignorance

 

[Valjean]

Yes it probably is flawed. However the many atheists I have been speaking to demand verifiable evidence for God.

Well, God is the major premise you base your whole religious narrative and world-view on, isn't it?

 

[Valjean]

It is not known that evolution can work without supernatural input.
That is just the assumption, as in "evolution is true and so every aspect of it has worked without supernatural input".

It is not known that evolution could work without the intercession of trans-dimensional construction mice, either.
Seriously, though... Evolution is an observable and testabed phenomenon. It does work all on its own, automatically, with no magical/supernatural input. There are no "assumptions" needed.

"Supernatural input," on the other hand....

 

[Valjean]

I was, in context, saying that as a Christian I find a lot of evolution to be assumed rather than proven so in relation to what I believe about evolution, I might draw the line in places that other Christians may not. They may accept everything that science says about evolution and what probably happened.
Much of what scientists say about what happened is unverified and just presumed to be probably true because all of evolution is true for them.
And then there are those who draw the line elsewhere and reject evolution altogether.

Have you looked into why science makes these claims you believe are merely assumed? You might find theyre based on actual, empirical evidence.

 

[Valjean]

It is true that the supernatural does not lend itself to testable theories so why are testable theories demanded by atheists, and without them it is irrational to even claim to have evidence?

Because there is no 'supernatural'?

If someone says that the flat earthers are refuted and the YECers are refuted so the Bible and the Bible God are refuted, that seems to show something about that person and not that the Bible and Bible God are refuted.

But who says that? This is a very indirect and tenuous argument.
If we want to refute the Bible we can use defects in the book itself to do it.

Yes I know that Christians like me break the rules of logic but that is fine, that does not mean we are wrong.

It means you and your claims are irrational.

 

[McBell]

Yes I know that Christians like me break the rules of logic but that is fine, that does not mean we are wrong.

If logic has no bearing in your argument, what is the point of the argument?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The mousetrap did not evolve slowly through a series of increasingly complex, fully functional, stages. It was designed, in toto. It is not analogous.
Behe compares apples and oranges.

I know, but even his analogy failed when one looked at it from an evolutionary point of view. That was why I had both the analogy and a real life example that showed how his idea was refuted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sy Garte's opinions are supported, as are James Tour's.
What does it matter if my views are unsupported?
Should I spend many hours making sure my views are supported so that you can still call those views wrong?

LOL! So you are saying not at all. Nice shooting there. I think you got your pinky toe.

 

[Valjean]

It is not known that evolution can work without supernatural input.
That is just the assumption, as in "evolution is true and so every aspect of it has worked without supernatural input".

Argument from ignorance.

I don't believe something because it hasn't been shown not to exist.
I do believe a designer/maker is responsible for the universe however (whether you want to call Him a celestial octopus is up to you) and that He has not been shown not to exist.
If He had been shown not to exist then I would not believe in Him.
Interestingly many atheists seem to use lack of scientific evidence as evidence that God does not exist.

You're still arguing from ignorance, despite your protestation to the contrary.
Celestial construction octopodi haven't been shown not to exist, either.

The ToE has been shown to work completely independent of any extraneous input. Why do you keep trying to input extraneous and unneeded factors?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is true that IC is not a science with verifiable evidence but it is also true that it is not verifiable that those things that IC claim are too complex for evolution, actually evolved.
So in that respect, that part of science is not real science.
IC has never been refuted. All that has happened is that it has been shown not to be a science.
So nobody can say that science has shown that the eye or flagellum motor or anything else has evolved and nobody can say that it has been shown that God did not have a hand in the creation of the eye or flagellum motor etc.

No part of ID is science. You do not seem to understand this. But then you seem to think that it is just an informed guess when someone tells you that a rock will fall when you drop it.

What we can show is that the evolution of the motor flagellum has been shown to be possible without magic and there is good evidence for that. What is so odd is that you refuse to even understand the concept of evidence or the scientific method. When you do that you only make yourself look ridiculous when it comes to the sciences.

Here is how you can show yourself that neither ID nor IC are scientific:

Tell us what reasonable tests based upon the predictions that they make could possibly refute them.

That is a very very serious question. If you cannot answer it then you are saying that as far as you know that neither of those concepts are scientific.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes I realise that, however that is the demand from atheists I have been speaking to.
Either evidence is verifiable or it is not evidence.
Faith is what you have when you have no verifiable evidence.
Believing unverified conclusions is irrational, etc etc.

I think that there was some confusion somewhere. You can't have evidence for a god without first establishing what would make that god detectable.

I was, in context, saying that as a Christian I find a lot of evolution to be assumed rather than proven

Well, you are mistaken.

so in relation to what I believe about evolution, I might draw the line in places that other Christians may not. They may accept everything that science says about evolution and what probably happened.

Because they respect the evidence and/or the scientific method, I assume.

Much of what scientists say about what happened is unverified and just presumed to be probably true because all of evolution is true for them.

That is, uh... libel. Sorry, but that is what it is.

And then there are those who draw the line elsewhere and reject evolution altogether.

And that is denialism.

 

[Valjean]

Brian really needs to explain, exactly, the problems he sees with evolution, biology and biologists. "Assumed" needs some concrete examples.
I question whether Brian understands the evidence the ToE is based on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Brian really needs to explain, exactly, the problems he sees with evolution, biology and biologists. "Assumed" needs some concrete examples.
I question whether Brian understands the evidence the ToE is based on.

Most apologists do not even understand the meaning of evidence, which will vary a bit depending upon context. Historical evidence has different standards than scientific evidence for example. In historical evidence all religious claims tend to be ignored. And I have seen @Brian2 complaining about that. He should realize that if one takes Christian claims seriously then one would have to take all such claims seriously and his religion would fare poorer as a result.

As you know in the sciences the standards are that one must have a testable, aka refutable, hypothesis or theory to even have evidence. That is a completely foreign idea to many believers and they cannot seem to understand why someone would want to honestly and seriously try to refute their own hypothesis. Of course the reason is that if a scientist does not do that and puts out shoddy work then others will gladly do it for him.

 

[Brian2]

Who says that? You're constructing another strawman. How would evolution disprove God?

If someone believes that Genesis 1 can only be read purely literally then it seems that evolution has shown that the Bible God is not true, and since the Bible God is the only true God imo, that means that evolution has disproven God.

So produce some examples of the supernatural/magic. Why should anyone believe in something with no evidence of existence?

Examples would be the creation of the universe and the giving of life.
They are beliefs but only as much as saying that they happened naturally are beliefs.