Interesting video about evolution and origins.

[Brian2]

That video seems to be a presumption that if part of the flagellum motor can be used for something, that means that the whole idea of Irreducible Complexity has been debunked. This thinking seems to have come from the notion that evolution is true so the flagellum must have evolved from other functioning things.
I guess it's better to let the science show that the flagellum as an example of irreducible complexity has not been debunked, so I'll do that.

 

[Brian2]

Nope, we went over this error.

Sorry I don't think anyone has explained how educated guesses are any more than educated guesses.

No, just because you do not understand something that is not an excuse to make false claims about other people. You really need to be a lot more careful in your reasoning.

I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false, is guilty of falsehood; and the accidental truth of the assertion, does not justify or excuse him.

Abraham Lincoln

So you are asserting something that you don't know is true or not and then showing you are guilty of falsehood. OK

 

[Brian2]

By that reasoning a house is proof of god, right?
Even if it was proven that the universe was designed, all it shows is that the universe was designed.
It would show that your god or any other god designed it.

You rely to heavily on a false dichotomy.

Huh?

 

[blü 2]

I have found hour long interviews he has given in which he explains why he changed from atheism to theism and Christianity. I have not listened to them but here is a quote about him in an ad for his book "The Work of His Hands" A scientist's journey from atheism to Faith.

"Raised in a militant atheist family, Sy Garte fell in love with the factual world of science. He became a respected research biochemist with an anti-theistic worldview to bolster his work--and he had no intention of seeking a God he didn't believe in. That is, until the very science he loved led him to question the validity of an atheistic worldview.
His journey to answer the questions that confronted him drew him into becoming a fully committed Christian, determined to show others the truth: modern science doesn't contradict God at all but instead supports Christianity."

He does point out that the scientific method does not tie the origins of life to naturalism. So in that respect it is not fair to expect it to tie anything to God.
But he is a scientist and speaks of science and where it is at in finding answers for the origins of life, and the possible answers. In that respect he is not a false authority, but is an authority.
He does believe in evolution it seems but also says that evolution is not the origins of life anyway and that evolution can fit in with the Biblical Genesis.
He explains things in a simple way which means that even I can understand what he is on about.

Why did he become a Christian? Why not a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Confucian?

Looks exactly like the indoctrination of his infancy caught up with him and overwhelmed his objectivity, no?

 

[Brian2]

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.

If science does not show that the eye or bacterial flagellum have evolved then it is educated guesswork to say that they did evolve.
That is not to say that the educated guesswork is not true, it just shows the nature of the science.
We cannot verify what science comes up with and we cannot verify that a biological structure cannot have arisen by natural processes.

 

[McBell]

If science does not show that the eye or bacterial flagellum have evolved then it is educated guesswork to say that they did evolve.
That is not to say that the educated guesswork is not true, it just shows the nature of the science.
We cannot verify what science comes up with and we cannot verify that a biological structure cannot have arisen by natural processes.

Interesting.
so how do you verify that any of it was "GodDidIt"?

I understand your stance of "I do not understand, there fore god."
It has been around for a lot longer than you or me.

Are you just looking for someone to say that it is possible a god was involved?
If so, why god?
Why more specifically your chosen favorite god?
Why not, say, invisible pink and purple fairies?

 

[exchemist]

If science does not show that the eye or bacterial flagellum have evolved then it is educated guesswork to say that they did evolve.
That is not to say that the educated guesswork is not true, it just shows the nature of the science.
We cannot verify what science comes up with and we cannot verify that a biological structure cannot have arisen by natural processes.

Nonsense. Given that there is overwhelming evidence for evolution in general, one would be a moron not to make the default assumption that it is going to apply to these features too.

The question for the evolution denier has to be: "Why should these, uniquely, be an exception?" If the only answer is, "We have not yet found a pathway by which it could have happened.", that would apply to any currently open question in science.

So the evolution denier is arguing that science can't ever answer questions that remain open today. So lets' shut down science research.

How stupid is that?

As for verification, it is a truism that truth in science is always provisional. That applies to all its theories. Nevertheless, we build aircraft and design drugs on the basis of that provisional truth, with some success. Evolution, in particular, is something we see at work all around us every day. My wife died of it, in fact.

 

[Brian2]

Why did he become a Christian? Why not a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Confucian?

Looks exactly like the indoctrination of his infancy caught up with him and overwhelmed his objectivity, no?

You better read the book to find out why he became a Christian.
But there was no indoctrination of his infancy except indoctrination from a family with generations of atheists.

 

[Brian2]

But if the evidence cannot be used (verified externally, examined, shared, how do you know it is evidence? How does a person know it is real evidence and not just a product of their own imagination?

We can examine the evidence to see if it falls apart when attacked,,,,,,,,,,, and there are plenty of attacks on the existence of God and on the Bible and Jesus.
But really I suppose we know it is real evidence and not just a product of our own imagination the same way someone might know that chemicals could form naturally into life forms,,,,,,,,,,, through faith,,,,,,,,,, because there is no verification for that, just as there is no verification for many things that science might claim about what happened in the past.

 

[Brian2]

No, you need to show that there is reliable evidence for spirits and God and genies (sorry, big time Barbara Eden fan). You cannot just claim that there is evidence. You need to be able to show it. You need to be able to give the standards for that evidence and show that those standards are rational and reasonable. You cannot claim confirmation bias against others until you do at least that.

Please note, how many times have I tried to get science deniers to learn the standards of evidence for science? And my willingness to show do more than give the standards is the fact that I so often offer to "Go over what is evidence and why". But believers seem to only want to believe. They do not seem to want to know if knowing gets in the way of their beliefs.

I don't need to do anything,,,,,,,,,,,, especially not to repeat myself over and over.

 

[Brian2]

Once again you test it with objective, not subjective, tests. Tests of the sort "If this happens my belief is confirmed (that does not mean "proven") and if that happens my beliefs are false.

The best way to find out if one's beliefs are correct or not is to try to disprove them.

If years on the forums has not disproven my beliefs what can?

 

[Brian2]

You are irrationally going after only one small part of science because it disagrees with your myths. That in a way is worse than denying all of science since that would at least be consistent. But no matter how much you complain it is hypocritical to pick the parts of science that you will accept and the parts that you rejection without a rational argument.

And I treat all unverifiable claims equally. I give them all the same "put up or shut up" challenge. I am not picking on your belief any more than I am picking on others. Once again, you should learn how to be consistent.

So you think that being able to produce biological chemicals in laboratory conditions verifies that they could be produced in nature?
Or do you think that a scientific suggestion of how a part of nature might have evolved is verification that it evolved?

 

[Brian2]

That is a rather interesting spin on it.

That ID just comes along and offers up an alternative to science...
To bad it just isn't true.
ID has tried for a very long time to convince it is actual science.
Since it is almost the polar opposite of science, of course it gets rejected as science.

You show up to a chess tournament with a deck of Uno cards, it does not matter how intently you claim that Uno is chess, you will be told that Uno is not chess.

Whether it is science or not is not the issue. The issue is whether what Irreducible Design has been shown to be wrong in what it claims or whether it has just been shown not to be part of acceptable science.

 

[blü 2]

You better read the book to find out why he became a Christian.
But there was no indoctrination of his infancy except indoctrination from a family with generations of atheists.

Fair point.

However, to look at Christianity with a cold eye, the first thing you see is emblems of the crucifixion, some with a tortured Jesus and some without.

So I wonder why he didn't ask what I've asked here from time to time in vain ─ why, given an omnipotent God, was any death, let alone one which involved prolonged cruelty, necessary to achieve whatever it was that was supposed to be achieved? Whatever it was, why couldn't that God achieve it with one snap of those omnipotent fingers?

Does the book examine his views on that question ─ the boldly proclaimed suffering through scourging, taunting and crucifixion itself, not to mention the ritual drinking of blood and eating of human flesh of the eucharist? Did he think all that was a wonderful idea or didn't those issues occur to him?

 

[McBell]

Whether it is science or not is not the issue. The issue is whether what Irreducible Design has been shown to be wrong in what it claims or whether it has just been shown not to be part of acceptable science.

Irreducible Complexity has been shown to be flat out wrong in its claims, not only in the sciences but also in the courts.

Now correct me if I am wrong, for I may well be, but is not Irreducible Design nothing more than a continuation of the already shown to be flat out wrong Irreducible Complexity?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We can examine the evidence to see if it falls apart when attacked,,,,,,,,,,,

I'm not sure I understand. Either there is evidence that can be examined or their is not. What do you mean attacked?

and there are plenty of attacks on the existence of God and on the Bible and Jesus.

Sure. But how is that addressing the existence of evidence that can be reviewed by all?

But really I suppose we know it is real evidence and not just a product of our own imagination the same way someone might know that chemicals could form naturally into life forms,,,,,,,,,,, through faith,,,,,,,,,, because there is no verification for that, just as there is no verification for many things that science might claim about what happened in the past.

There is evidence for past events. Evidence of the past has been used to support the Bible. Are you saying that evidence isn't real either? It cannot go both ways. Past evidence cannot be valid for one view and invalid for another without reason.

How does one know that evidence is real?

 

[Brian2]

True, science cannot test for God or spirits, but neither can you, or anyone else. All this 'evidence' you claim is subjective -- in your head, or testimonial -- in someone else's head. Personal belief, or even emotional certainty, is not usable evidence.

It's useable by all sorts of people except it is not useable in science or by people who claim to not believe anything that is not verifiable. (yet who still believe unverifiable science)

Nor can any of this other, subjective evidence you cite. Personal belief or emotion may be evidence to you, but it's not communicable or testable, so it's not epistemically useful as evidence. It's not a useful "tool."
Aside: Note that science does not prove. It amasses evidence, forms explanatory hypotheses, and attempts to disprove them.
Mathematics proves. Sciences evidences.

I can amass ton of unverifiable evidence and you reject it all as evidence, but really it is not evidence in science and not evidence for people who only believe verifiable things. (and yet who also believe those parts of science that are unverifiable.)

But it's the only objectively evidenced reality.

It's believed by faith.

How about your showing me another, non-subjective way; a way that's not all in my head.

Many beliefs in the science of what is supposed to have happened in the past are not objective or verifiable. They are in your head,,,,,,,,,,,,, as in, "I believe in evolution and am an atheist so I may as well just believe that science is filling in the gaps with the truth and not bother thinking much about it and if it is verifiable or not."

But so is yours, no?
In fact, yours isn't even a methodology.

My methodology does not deny evidence or conclusions just because they are unverifiable.

I'm fine with listening, but I also realize that if their experiences and interpretations are insubstantial, ie: subjective, they're also unverifiable, so must be taken with a grain of salt.

Yes I do a similar thing when I hear science tell me things that happened in the past and I know that they are not verifiable but may believe them all the same. You don't have to take things with a grain of salt when there is enough evidence not to.

But they remain undetectable to those not experiencing them, hence: invisible. Is it not reasonable to defer belief in the invisible?
People make all sorts of claims. They claim voices, visions, and visitations. Should they be given serious credence with no other supporting evidence?

Others claiming the same or similar is supporting evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Whether it is science or not is not the issue. The issue is whether what Irreducible Design has been shown to be wrong in what it claims or whether it has just been shown not to be part of acceptable science.

Design has not been demonstrated. Irreducible complexity has been falsified.

There isn't anything further to say about design from the view of science until some evidence actually turns up.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Image trying to use science to investigate the existence of spirits or a spirit God.

Science investigates reality. Imagined creature are the purview of fiction writers, and do not manifest in reality - just the idea of them and any affect such beliefs might have, such as people praying to them. So far, there has been no evidence of spirits identified.

Then ID comes along with wonderful reasons that an intelligence is needed

ID has given no reason why an intelligent designer is needed. It has proposed irreducible complexity as such a reason, but not been able to identify its existence in biological systems.

If years on the forums has not disproven my beliefs what can?

Nothing can contradict what you have chosen to believe by faith. Your beliefs are not amenable to evidence or argument. You may know that the moderator in the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye on whether creationism is a viable scientific pursuit asked them, “What would change your minds?” Scientist Bill Nye answered, “Evidence.” Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, “Nothing. I'm a Christian.” Elsewhere, Ham stated, “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record." Your beliefs are as safe as Ham's.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't need to do anything,,,,,,,,,,,, especially not to repeat myself over and over.

You do if you want to claim to be making a rational argument. I, perhaps incorporate, assumed that you were trying to make such an argument.

If you only want to post irrational claims then carry on as you have been doing lately.