203
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 206:
Line 206: + + + + + Line 239:
Line 244: + + + + + + + + Line 248:
Line 261: + + Line 253:
Line 268: + + Line 273:
Line 290: − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Line 284:
Line 314: + + + + + + + + + + + + − + + + + + + + + + +
→A fresh start
:In your hypothetical situation, we have one bit of evidence only - the simple fact Stonehenge exists. <u>NO</u> hypothesis can be confirmed when there is only one bit of evidence. In the above situation, the correct scientific conclusion is, actually, in effect, 'insufficient data'. You don't know what weak atheism would say, nor strong atheism because we aren't in that situation. You assert that they would accept the idea man built it, but it is entirely possible that they would echo the scientific conclusion - 'we don't know'. I would also say that there would, in fact, be a likelihood that some Christians would actually view the fact of Stonehenge's existence as further proof of God, as who else would be able to make it pop into existence like that, with zero evidence being left behind of anyone else building it, or even living in the same landmass as it? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:39, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:In your hypothetical situation, we have one bit of evidence only - the simple fact Stonehenge exists. <u>NO</u> hypothesis can be confirmed when there is only one bit of evidence. In the above situation, the correct scientific conclusion is, actually, in effect, 'insufficient data'. You don't know what weak atheism would say, nor strong atheism because we aren't in that situation. You assert that they would accept the idea man built it, but it is entirely possible that they would echo the scientific conclusion - 'we don't know'. I would also say that there would, in fact, be a likelihood that some Christians would actually view the fact of Stonehenge's existence as further proof of God, as who else would be able to make it pop into existence like that, with zero evidence being left behind of anyone else building it, or even living in the same landmass as it? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:39, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:: Your reply ignores the reality, which I mentioned, that the presence of humans in a particular time/place has often been determined on evidence flimsier than this. Scientists would ''not'' say "we don't know". This would be taken as quite sufficient evidence. There's no evidence of it "popping into existence", so no, Christians would not see it as proof of God.
:: Your reply ignores the reality, which I mentioned, that the presence of humans in a particular time/place has often been determined on evidence flimsier than this. Scientists would ''not'' say "we don't know". This would be taken as quite sufficient evidence. There's no evidence of it "popping into existence", so no, Christians would not see it as proof of God.
:::Nope, sorry, there are quite a few Christians who believe certain things that there is actually fairly solid evidence AGAINST, so a simple lack of evidence in support is not a problem for them. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:: Rather than a hypothetical example, I'll give you a real example. Stone artifacts, determined to be spear heads, have been found in Manitoba, and these have been dated to 10,000 to 8,000 years ago (not that I accept the dates, but that's by the way). Apart from these items, there is no evidence for humans existing there at that time. So were these tools made by God, by nature, by animals, by aliens, or by humans? According to you, the only bit of evidence is "the simple fact [the spear heads] exist. <u>NO</u> hypothesis can be confirmed where there is only one bit of evidence. In the above situation, the correct scientific conclusion is, actually, in effect, 'insufficient data'... [I] assert that [weak atheists] would accept the idea man built it, but it is entirely possible that they would echo the scientific conclusion - 'we don't know'." Really? Well, according to the University of Manitoba web-site, it was .... humans! ("A handful of spear heads provides the only evidence of this early human presence")[http://umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/manarchnet/chronology/paleoindian/paleo2.html]
:: Rather than a hypothetical example, I'll give you a real example. Stone artifacts, determined to be spear heads, have been found in Manitoba, and these have been dated to 10,000 to 8,000 years ago (not that I accept the dates, but that's by the way). Apart from these items, there is no evidence for humans existing there at that time. So were these tools made by God, by nature, by animals, by aliens, or by humans? According to you, the only bit of evidence is "the simple fact [the spear heads] exist. <u>NO</u> hypothesis can be confirmed where there is only one bit of evidence. In the above situation, the correct scientific conclusion is, actually, in effect, 'insufficient data'... [I] assert that [weak atheists] would accept the idea man built it, but it is entirely possible that they would echo the scientific conclusion - 'we don't know'." Really? Well, according to the University of Manitoba web-site, it was .... humans! ("A handful of spear heads provides the only evidence of this early human presence")[http://umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/manarchnet/chronology/paleoindian/paleo2.html]
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::There, you're comparing apples with oranges. We know that the spearheads were created by man as we can compare them with independant evidence that very similar spearheads were created by man. In addition, we do have evidence of man in the areas surrounding the region, and there was, at the time, no barrier to man moving into that region. In your hypothetical example, Stonehenge is fairly unique and unusual (to such an extent that we still haven't actually figured out exactly what it's for) and, in your hypothetical example, the one and only piece of evidence we actually have that man was even on the same landmass was the simple fact Stonehenge existed, so there was a barrier to man simply moving into the region - it's called the sea. Now, if the simple existence of these spearheads were the one and only bit of evidence that we had of the existence of man at the time in the whole of the North American continent, then you would be comparing apples with apples. However, that's not true. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:'''Example 2'''
:'''Example 2'''
:Well, the 'inconsistency' is due to your assertions. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:39, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:Well, the 'inconsistency' is due to your assertions. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:39, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:: But you haven't succeeded in showing that my assertions were incorrect. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:: But you haven't succeeded in showing that my assertions were incorrect. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::And here we are back at your whole underlying mistake - that people must prove you wrong, rather than you proving yourself correct. In science, you have to back up what you say with evidence. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:Something else that occurred to me about your two tables. According to what you seem to think science is, then all of the various hypotheses for both scenarios are, actually, solid science, even the hypothesis of DNA on Earth being created by an unknown group of humans, as that could be people who are, basically, humans, but from a massively more advanced civilization from a different planet. The only exception to this, according to your table, is the idea that DNA is formed by nature, but even that is due to your assertion that this is 'inconsistent with scientific observation', which is, basically, wrong. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:47, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:Something else that occurred to me about your two tables. According to what you seem to think science is, then all of the various hypotheses for both scenarios are, actually, solid science, even the hypothesis of DNA on Earth being created by an unknown group of humans, as that could be people who are, basically, humans, but from a massively more advanced civilization from a different planet. The only exception to this, according to your table, is the idea that DNA is formed by nature, but even that is due to your assertion that this is 'inconsistent with scientific observation', which is, basically, wrong. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:47, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:: Humans "from a massively more advanced civilization from a different planet"? Er, that's "aliens".
:: Humans "from a massively more advanced civilization from a different planet"? Er, that's "aliens".
::: Not if they're the same species. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:: When I refer to DNA being produced by nature, I am, of course, talking about the ''origin'' of DNA, not about DNA being produced by living things that have DNA instructions telling those living things how to produce DNA. Given that, no, the statement is not wrong at all. DNA being produced by nature ''is'' inconsistent with scientific observations. DNA contains genetic [[information]], and no known natural mechanism produces new genetic information. Even Richard Dawkins was unable to name any examples.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/] Rather, there are known mechanisms that ''destroy'' or ''eliminate'' information. More on that below.
:: When I refer to DNA being produced by nature, I am, of course, talking about the ''origin'' of DNA, not about DNA being produced by living things that have DNA instructions telling those living things how to produce DNA. Given that, no, the statement is not wrong at all. DNA being produced by nature ''is'' inconsistent with scientific observations. DNA contains genetic [[information]], and no known natural mechanism produces new genetic information. Even Richard Dawkins was unable to name any examples.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/] Rather, there are known mechanisms that ''destroy'' or ''eliminate'' information. More on that below.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::I remember hearing about that. You know something? The reason Dawkins was 'stumped' was because he was struggling to hold onto his temper. The reason this was the case case was that he had been told that he was being interviewed for a film, called Crossroads, that explores the relationship between science and religion. Being asked that question gave the game away that he was, in fact, being interviewed by creationists for a creationist piece of propoganda. This is because this question is so easy to actually answer that only creationists ask it, and the reason he stopped the interview was in sheer anger at being lied to. I gave you three examples in an article below, one of which was, arguably, actually a decrease in genetic information, even though this lead to an advantageous ability. However, for a rather more definitive answer, try Down's Syndrome. In this, not just a protein, or even a gene, is added, but an entire extra chromosome. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
"''The science is based on the idea there is no God as there is no evidence of God, as I have stated repeatedly.''": And as I have stated repeatedly ''and substantiated'', there ''is'' evidence for God.
"''The science is based on the idea there is no God as there is no evidence of God, as I have stated repeatedly.''": And as I have stated repeatedly ''and substantiated'', there ''is'' evidence for God.
:Well, you have stated repeatedly there is evidence for God. If you've actually substantiated it, you did it incredibly subtly and I missed it. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:39, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:Well, you have stated repeatedly there is evidence for God. If you've actually substantiated it, you did it incredibly subtly and I missed it. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:39, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:: Hmmm, perhaps I haven't substantiated it ''in replies to you'', although I certainly have in other discussions. For one thing, it's an established principle that everything that has a beginning has a cause, which means that the natural universe must have had a cause, and as the cause of everything that is natural cannot itself be natural, then the cause must be ''supernatural'', i.e. God. For another, information is only seen to arise from intelligent beings. DNA contains genetic information, and the only candidates for intelligent beings predating DNA are God and aliens, and the aliens would have to have something equivalent to DNA, which raises the same question for the source of ''that'' information, so eventually you are back to God being the only candidate. That's just two bits of ''evidence'' (not necessarily ''proof'') for God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:: Hmmm, perhaps I haven't substantiated it ''in replies to you'', although I certainly have in other discussions. For one thing, it's an established principle that everything that has a beginning has a cause, which means that the natural universe must have had a cause, and as the cause of everything that is natural cannot itself be natural, then the cause must be ''supernatural'', i.e. God. For another, information is only seen to arise from intelligent beings. DNA contains genetic information, and the only candidates for intelligent beings predating DNA are God and aliens, and the aliens would have to have something equivalent to DNA, which raises the same question for the source of ''that'' information, so eventually you are back to God being the only candidate. That's just two bits of ''evidence'' (not necessarily ''proof'') for God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, sorry, we're back at the 'it must be God, as we're here to talk about it' argument, just one step removed. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
"''For what evidence? You haven't looked at any yet.''": Who says I haven't? I have evidence in the form of a Stonehenge-like structure, for example.
"''For what evidence? You haven't looked at any yet.''": Who says I haven't? I have evidence in the form of a Stonehenge-like structure, for example.
:Your whole point is that you're considering possibilities, then ruling out the possibilities using evidence. It is not possible to do it this way around and claim you're proposing possibilities based on evidence. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:39, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:Your whole point is that you're considering possibilities, then ruling out the possibilities using evidence. It is not possible to do it this way around and claim you're proposing possibilities based on evidence. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:39, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:: Huh? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:: Huh? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
::: Your whole point is that, according to you, in science, you use the evidence to eliminate possibilities. If you are only using the evidence to eliminate the possibilities, what did you use to establish the possibilities you're now eliminating? It can't be the evidence, because you have to establish the possibilities before they are there to be eliminated. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
"''Applying the same standards, it's also evidence for Allah. It's also evidence for Jehovah. It's also evidence for YHWH. It's also evidence for the invisible pink unicorn. It's also evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's also evidence for the Great Snozuflu. It's also evidence for anything and everything that my imagination can conjure up to explain the beginnings of life generally, or the beginnings of man specifically. And, of course, it's also evidence for evolution.''": Oh dear, oh dear. Let's pull that nonsense apart.
"''Applying the same standards, it's also evidence for Allah. It's also evidence for Jehovah. It's also evidence for YHWH. It's also evidence for the invisible pink unicorn. It's also evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's also evidence for the Great Snozuflu. It's also evidence for anything and everything that my imagination can conjure up to explain the beginnings of life generally, or the beginnings of man specifically. And, of course, it's also evidence for evolution.''": Oh dear, oh dear. Let's pull that nonsense apart.
:I should really expand on that - you see, you're putting a false dichotomy. You're saying that something must be either (a) or (b). What if it's something else? What if the invisible pink unicorn is not a 'supreme being', but simply a quite powerful one? What if the Flying Spaghetti Monster is simply a creature from another planet? An example I gave below - what if we're a cosmic lab accident? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:59, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:I should really expand on that - you see, you're putting a false dichotomy. You're saying that something must be either (a) or (b). What if it's something else? What if the invisible pink unicorn is not a 'supreme being', but simply a quite powerful one? What if the Flying Spaghetti Monster is simply a creature from another planet? An example I gave below - what if we're a cosmic lab accident? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:59, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:: It's not semantics. People often use an initial capital for ''pronouns'' referring to God (see, for example, the sentence after next). That they are capitalised does ''not'' mean that they are names. The same with "God"—capitalisation does not mean that it is His ''name''. And no, my argument is based on etymology, facts of history, and logic: not on "everything is God unless I say it's not". You haven't disputed any of my argument, apart from your failed attempt regarding the capital letter, so the argument stands.
:: It's not semantics. People often use an initial capital for ''pronouns'' referring to God (see, for example, the sentence after next). That they are capitalised does ''not'' mean that they are names. The same with "God"—capitalisation does not mean that it is His ''name''. And no, my argument is based on etymology, facts of history, and logic: not on "everything is God unless I say it's not". You haven't disputed any of my argument, apart from your failed attempt regarding the capital letter, so the argument stands.
:: Your point about a false dichotomy could have some validity, except that I assumed that you were using those invented names as they are normally used, not in some novel way you just decided on. If you want to use them that way, then yes, the fact that we exist ''may'' be evidence for aliens ("a creature from another planet"). But as I point out above, where did ''this'' creature come from? Ultimately, you get back to a supernatural Creator as the ultimate cause. So even if you are correct, I'm still correct! Further, "evidence" can support more than one explanation. So our existence being evidence for aliens does not preclude our existence ''also'' being evidence for God.
:::No, it doesn't, as what you've basically said is that, as well as using 'God' to refer to the Christian god, you can also use 'He' and 'His'. You still haven't proven, in any way, that 'God' can also be used, for example, to refer to the Great Snozuflu. Even if the claim was, in fact, that he/she/it was a 'supreme being', he/she/it would be a god, not 'God'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:: Your point about a false dichotomy could have some validity, except that I assumed that you were using those invented names as they are normally used, not in some novel way you just decided on.
:::Well, in the case of the Great Snozuflu, what, exactly, is the normal way that term is used? I invented that term, so, in effect, the 'normal way' for that term to be used is whatever I say it is. If I decide that term is referring to a being from another planet, then that's what it refers to. If I decide it refers to a god, then it does. If I decide it refers to my pet cat, and we were created by my cat sneezing and that snot hitting a quantum subspace wave in the fabric of the space-time continuum, which catapulted it back in time, and that was the first set of microbes from which all life evolved, then it does. According to your argument, all three of those scenarios are actually solid science until someone comes up with solid evidence that disproves them. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
::If you want to use them that way, then yes, the fact that we exist ''may'' be evidence for aliens ("a creature from another planet"). But as I point out above, where did ''this'' creature come from? Ultimately, you get back to a supernatural Creator as the ultimate cause.
:::Nope, sorry. Ultimately, you get back to <u>a</u> cause. Scientifically, there is no evidence that it <u>must</u> be a 'supernatural Creator'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
::So even if you are correct, I'm still correct! Further, "evidence" can support more than one explanation. So our existence being evidence for aliens does not preclude our existence ''also'' being evidence for God.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::But we're back at the 'it must be evidence for God, because otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it' argument, which is no argument whatsoever. The question being asked is 'how did we come to exist?' You're saying the answer is, 'we exist, so it must be that God created us.' [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
"''And, of course, it's also evidence for evolution.''": Only if evolution has the ''capability'' of creating us. But it doesn't, as it cannot create genetic information.
"''And, of course, it's also evidence for evolution.''": Only if evolution has the ''capability'' of creating us. But it doesn't, as it cannot create genetic information.
:The other point, of course, is, even if you were completely and totally correct to say that evolution was incapable of creating genetic information, and thus incapable of creating us, the argument for our mere existence backing up God, when it comes down to it, is that 'God must have created us, otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it'. Well, by the same token, I can say that evolution must have overcome that barrier, otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it. Or that we must have been sneezed out of the nose of the Great Snozuflu because otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it. Or that we are the result of a hyper-advanced alien race's lab experiment that went wrong, otherwise we wouldn'r be here to talk about it, etc, etc, etc. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:33, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:The other point, of course, is, even if you were completely and totally correct to say that evolution was incapable of creating genetic information, and thus incapable of creating us, the argument for our mere existence backing up God, when it comes down to it, is that 'God must have created us, otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it'. Well, by the same token, I can say that evolution must have overcome that barrier, otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it. Or that we must have been sneezed out of the nose of the Great Snozuflu because otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it. Or that we are the result of a hyper-advanced alien race's lab experiment that went wrong, otherwise we wouldn'r be here to talk about it, etc, etc, etc. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:33, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:: Yes, I mean microbe-to-man evolution, and yes, the creation of new genetic information is ''supposed to be'' part of this process. The problem is, ''it doesn't work''!
:: Yes, I mean microbe-to-man evolution, and yes, the creation of new genetic information is ''supposed to be'' part of this process. The problem is, ''it doesn't work''!
::: You're not getting the distinction. Some people (generally not scientists) think that evolution is only concerned with the actual mechanism whereby genetic features change from generation to generation. This means that this mechanism takes existing genetic features and alters them. Evolution is normally regarded by scientists as also including the mechanism whereby these genetic features arose in the first place. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:: As for the "observations" backing up the idea that mutations can create information, let's have a look at them:
:: As for the "observations" backing up the idea that mutations can create information, let's have a look at them:
::* "''people ... acquired mutations that allow them to continue digesting milk into adulthood''", "''Creationists ... dismiss this as a malfunction, as the loss of the ability to switch off the production of the milk-digesting enzyme after childhood.''": Okay, that's the claim and counter-claim. How do they refute the creationist claim? They don't—they move on to the next claim!
::* "''people ... acquired mutations that allow them to continue digesting milk into adulthood''", "''Creationists ... dismiss this as a malfunction, as the loss of the ability to switch off the production of the milk-digesting enzyme after childhood.''": Okay, that's the claim and counter-claim. How do they refute the creationist claim? They don't—they move on to the next claim!
:::I'll give you a clue - evolution states that advantageous genetic features arise and are selected for, and thus spread through that selection process. Guess what the ability to digest milk as an adult is, in the circumstances detailed in the article? Depending on how you define 'information', that means that is either an increase in information (as the body gains the information not to eliminate the ability to digest milk) or a decrease in information, as the mechanism for this is a situation whereby the body fails to produce the enzyme to trigger the elimination of this ability. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
::* "''a simple change in gene activity in sea squirts can turn their one-chambered heart into a working two-chambered one. Surely this counts as increasing information?''": Er, no. Simply ''suggesting'' that an increase in information was the cause does not make it so.
::* "''a simple change in gene activity in sea squirts can turn their one-chambered heart into a working two-chambered one. Surely this counts as increasing information?''": Er, no. Simply ''suggesting'' that an increase in information was the cause does not make it so.
:::You're missing the point. They know the cause - a change in gene activity. The results of this change is the development of a more complex heart, which is exactly the kind of thing evolution requires. This more complex heart also requires more information in the genetic sequence - the information to create two chambers, not one. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
::* "''Some monkeys have a mutation in a protein called TRIM5 that results in a piece of another, defunct protein being tacked onto TRIM5. The result is a hybrid protein called TRIM5-CypA ...''": So a mutation causes an ''existing'', but unused protein to be put to use. I can't tell much about this one, but it doesn't appear very convincing.
::* "''Some monkeys have a mutation in a protein called TRIM5 that results in a piece of another, defunct protein being tacked onto TRIM5. The result is a hybrid protein called TRIM5-CypA ...''": So a mutation causes an ''existing'', but unused protein to be put to use. I can't tell much about this one, but it doesn't appear very convincing.
:::So, what 'information' would a completely non-working protein be? If God created it, the only 'information' would be 'I can't create very well, as I left all sorts of useless crap in the genetic code'. This mutation adds information by taking a useless piece of protein and adding it to a working protein, thus creating a different protein. Again, exactly what evolution needs to work, especially as the part you lopped off that sentence is, 'which can protect cells from infection with retroviruses such as HIV.' [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:: And that's it. Three examples, presumably the best they could come up with, and none of them stack up.
:: And that's it. Three examples, presumably the best they could come up with, and none of them stack up.
:: "''the argument for our mere existence backing up God ... is that 'God must have created us, otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it'. Well, by the same token, I can say that evolution must have overcome that barrier, otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it.''": Yes, you could say that. But just like atheists dismiss that argument about God, I can dismiss it about evolution. If you want to believe ''on faith'' that evolution can do this, then I can, ''with at least equal legitimacy'', believe it about God, and you can't reject me doing so, and be consistent. To put it more bluntly, calling that faith in evolution "science" and my faith in God "religion" as though the two were somehow qualitatively different—as so many do—is dishonest. But there ''is'' a difference. That is, claiming that evolution can create new information is ''inconsistent'' with our ''observations'' that information only comes form an intelligence, but claiming that God can do it is ''consistent'' with those same observations. It still isn't proof, and ultimately is taken on faith. Are you therefore agreeing that your view is a faith position?
:::Well, in short, that is an article detailing three instances of exactly the kind of changes that the Theory of Evolution predicted way back before the existence of genes and genetic code was even known, and you're still saying that evolution is impossible and cannot happen. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:: "''the argument for our mere existence backing up God ... is that 'God must have created us, otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it'. Well, by the same token, I can say that evolution must have overcome that barrier, otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it.''": Yes, you could say that. But just like atheists dismiss that argument about God, I can dismiss it about evolution. If you want to believe ''on faith'' that evolution can do this, then I can, ''with at least equal legitimacy'', believe it about God, and you can't reject me doing so, and be consistent. To put it more bluntly, calling that faith in evolution "science" and my faith in God "religion" as though the two were somehow qualitatively different—as so many do—is dishonest.
:::Thank you - you have just defeated your own argument. If you remember, it was <u>you</u> who originally advanced that our mere existence was evidence for God. I merely pointed out that <u>by the same standards</u>, it was also evidence for evolution, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the invisible pink unicorn, etc, etc, etc. By my standards, not yours, this is not evidence for any of them, including evolution. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:: But there ''is'' a difference. That is, claiming that evolution can create new information is ''inconsistent'' with our ''observations'' that information only comes form an intelligence, but claiming that God can do it is ''consistent'' with those same observations. It still isn't proof, and ultimately is taken on faith. Are you therefore agreeing that your view is a faith position?
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::No, because your assertion that 'information can only come from intelligence' is wrong. I'll give you an example. Go to the number pad on your computer keyboard. Close your eyes and type in four numbers completely at random. I'll do the same - 4337. The result is information, in my case, the number four thousand three hundred and thirty-seven. Randomness is, in fact, capable of producing information. It may not be useful information, but, guess what? Not everything in any creature's genetic sequence is actually useful. In fact, it's fairly typical that there's plenty that's not. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)