nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 205:
Line 205: + + + Line 235:
Line 238: + + + + + + Line 263:
Line 272: + + + Line 271:
Line 283: + + + + + + + +
→A fresh start: Evidence for God, scientists DO make conclusions on evidence like that, etc.
: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.
:: 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)
:'''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)
: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".
:: 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)
"''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)
"''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)
"''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.
:Well, firstly, you seem to be wanting to duck the argument by playing semantics. Well, this is flawed as, you seem to be saying that God is a generic term for a supreme being. Well, it's not - that's god. Small 'G'. God, big 'G', is a proper noun - the name for the Christian god. Secondly, your argument seems to be 'everything is God unless I say it's not'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:39, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:Well, firstly, you seem to be wanting to duck the argument by playing semantics. Well, this is flawed as, you seem to be saying that God is a generic term for a supreme being. Well, it's not - that's god. Small 'G'. God, big 'G', is a proper noun - the name for the Christian god. Secondly, your argument seems to be 'everything is God unless I say it's not'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:39, 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)
: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.
:: 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.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 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.
:Well, I've checked, and the answer seems to be that it depends on exactly what you mean by evolution. If you mean the entire process (which is the definition used by most, if not all, evolutionary scientists), then, yes, the mechanism for creating this genetic information is part of evolution, and thus your second sentence is wrong, in addition to your first one. If you restrict evolution to only the mechanism of the selection of the traits that are changed from one generation to the next, then, no, it's not included, and thus it is only your first sentence that is incorrect, but you miss out that evolution does not need to create genetic information as another mechanism does this. This is backed up by the fact that this has been observed to happen. [http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information.html Here], for example, is an article detailing a few.
:Well, I've checked, and the answer seems to be that it depends on exactly what you mean by evolution. If you mean the entire process (which is the definition used by most, if not all, evolutionary scientists), then, yes, the mechanism for creating this genetic information is part of evolution, and thus your second sentence is wrong, in addition to your first one. If you restrict evolution to only the mechanism of the selection of the traits that are changed from one generation to the next, then, no, it's not included, and thus it is only your first sentence that is incorrect, but you miss out that evolution does not need to create genetic information as another mechanism does this. This is backed up by the fact that this has been observed to happen. [http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information.html Here], for example, is an article detailing a few.
: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''!
:: 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!
::* "''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.
::* "''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.
:: 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?
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)