Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Even if Darwin's theory is incorrect(It isn't) it doesn't prove god. There could be any number of natural theories that would explain it. We just don't know them.

And as I said you can't claim god did it till you prove god. Otherwise I can say it was done by bigfoots with fairy wings and you can't prove me wrong based on your method of evidence.

This has nothing to do with my belief in the super natural. It is simply a matter of evidence. Every solution we have ever found has been a natural solution even things that at one time were attributed to the supernatural were found to have natural solutions. So until you prove one supernatural solution you can't invoke it when talking about science.

So once again the only evidence for god is evidence of the super natural. Prove ghosts, goblins, demons, devils, angels, or god himself. Then we will talk about using them in scientific theory until then your wrong...

---

Evolution's New Wrinkle: Proteins With 'Cruise Control' Act Like Adaptive Machines

Quote:

---

"The discovery answers an age-old question that has puzzled biologists since the time of Darwin: How can organisms be so exquisitely complex, if evolution is completely random, operating like a 'blind watchmaker'?" said Chakrabarti, an associate research scholar in the Department of Chemistry at Princeton. "Our new theory extends Darwin's model, demonstrating how organisms can subtly direct aspects of their own evolution to create order out of randomness."



How did these proteins develop these abilities in the first place?





... certain systems undergoing natural selection can adjust their evolutionary course in a manner "exactly like that of the centrifugal governor of the steam engine, which checks and corrects any irregularities almost before they become evident." In Wallace's time, the steam engine operating with a centrifugal governor was one of the only examples of what is now referred to as feedback control. Examples abound, however, in modern technology, including cruise control in autos and thermostats in homes and offices.




Note the comparison to man made intelligent design




The authors sought to identify the underlying cause for this self-correcting behavior in the observed protein chains. Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues. Applying the concepts of control theory, a body of knowledge that deals with the behavior of dynamical systems, the researchers concluded that this self-correcting behavior could only be possible if, during the early stages of evolution, the proteins had developed a self-regulating mechanism, analogous to a car's cruise control or a home's thermostat, allowing them to fine-tune and control their subsequent evolution. The scientists are working on formulating a new general theory based on this finding they are calling "evolutionary control."





again the comparison to man made intelligent design and the if

---

Michael, don't you understand how factual science brings up more and more questions of evolution that cannot only be answered by terms like "if" or "theory". Evolution is not a fact - evn these scientists would term it as such. Evolution is conditional upon a "ifs" and science is discovering more and more design and complexity that can't be factually attributed to the THEORY of evolution.

You should really read the entire article before you post them otherwise the end of the article might not support your position

Quote:

---

The scientists do not know how the cellular machinery guiding this process may have originated, but they emphatically said it does not buttress the case for intelligent design, a controversial notion that posits the existence of a creator responsible for complexity in nature.
Chakrabarti said that one of the aims of modern evolutionary theory is to identify principles of self-organization that can accelerate the generation of complex biological structures. "Such principles are fully consistent with the principles of natural selection. Biological change is always driven by random mutation and selection, but at certain pivotal junctures in evolutionary history, such random processes can create structures capable of steering subsequent evolution toward greater sophistication and complexity."

---

That is a self interested statement - he cannot factually explain the "pivotal juncture."

The actual facts are evidence of design - their analogy to cruise cntrol or thermostats and other man made thought out designs betrays what they truly think

The analogies are there to make it easier for you to understand what the proteins do, not to imply that they are designed.

You unfornately you used your own reasoning instead of theirs. Forgive me if I assume they say what they mean instead of injecting my own opinion into their heads as your doing.

I used quoted their own words.

Now I ask, how did proteins, theoretically a product of evolution,

1] develop the ability to control the actual process that controls them? Are proteins "intelligent" controlling their destiny like we humans do in genetics and medicine?

2] how did this ability of proteins to "control evolution" get translated to a genetic code that can be reproduced? Which came first the protein or the genetic code? HOw?

Modern science is showing evidence that only brings more and more questions about evolution. That is what the article is about.





Scoop: Mazur: Altenberg! The Woodstock of Evolution?

These scientists cannot agree either on the "facts"

Ladies and Gentlemen : can we please get back on-topic again ?

Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence ?

Can any query or reply to that query (in this topic a list of queries on evolution was used) that is not about the existence of "God" itself be used as valid OSE for the existence of "God"?? Or does valid OSE for the existence of "God" have to be about the existence of "God", and not about anything else ?

Or is the existence of "God" something you just BELIEVE in, and for which there is no OSE ?

:)

.

.

Inthebox,

That is great that 16 people can get together and talk about other theories than evolution and if they come up with any proof I'll welcome it. However until they have proof their opinion is simply their opinion. Also why would you bring philosophers to a science meeting? Something's fishy about that...

Regardless though disproving evolution doesn't prove god. It just disproves evolution.

As I have been saying prove one instance of the supernatural and I'll concede your points. Every single time I have said this though you have ignored this point so I don't expect anything different this time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Inthebox, That is great that 16 people can get together and talk about other theories than evolution and if they come up with any proof I'll welcome it.

---

It was a consensus! Thus we can conclude that 98% of all experiments show that Darwinism is wrong – since 100% of these 16 said so. Isn’t that the way science works?

Scientific theories are changing to fit the evidence? Heresy! :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

Scientific theories are changing to fit the evidence? Heresy! :rolleyes:

---

Yeah! Heresy!

Let’s see the mutable word of science or the immutable word of God; which is better? Which would I rather believe in? I’m at a loss Cap, help me out.

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Yeah! Heresy!

Let’s see the mutable word of science or the immutable word of God; which is better? Which would I rather believe in? I’m at a loss Cap, help me out.

JoeT

---

The answer is the mutable word of science.

I don't know if given a choice, I'd think I'd rather live in a fantasy world. My brain just won't let me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

That is true. You just have warped sense of what is feasible compared to 99% of the scientists out there. You believe a supernatural solution that hasn't been proven makes more sense than a natural solution that hasn't been proven. Then try to say your supernatural solution is the one and only solution.

---

Michael,

I wonder why yopu keep twisting what I said. Let me say it again. I am prepared to discuss ithis issue SOLELY on the basis of what can be shown scientifically. And for some reason, it is the atheists who keep wanting to deviate away from the science basis for the discussion.

Quote:

---

Your ideas and concepts show no grounding in reality or science as the rest of us know it.

---

Personal attacks prove nothing other that you are not prepared to discuss this issue on a purely scientific basis. I have validated each of my points, and you keep backing away from using science.

I would love to have a debate based solely on science the problem is your definition of what is evidence and what is not does not meet the same standards as the scientific community has.
Even when you are proven 100% wrong you don't admit it. So what's the point of arguing with you. If your not going to learn anything by me doing it.

I have given you the evidence from the link to science daily article.

Is there a proven "natural" explanation to the genetic code, proteins that self regulate, how these proteins came to be?. they're super natural as you say.

And the link to the phd's that could not agree on evolution - what is your academic background that qualifies you to supercede phds? Or is it your faith in evolution that leads you to the conclusions that you reach?

Yours truly - BS bio / medical - Christian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

I wonder why you keep twisting what I said.... I am prepared to discuss .... of what can be shown scientifically.... atheists who keep wanting to deviate away from the science basis.... Personal attacks prove nothing .... I have validated each of my points .... you keep backing away from using science.

---

Typical Tj3...

Tj3 refers to opponents and insists on others twisting of what was said, but often does exactly the same.

Tj3 offers to discuss the issue on a scientific basis, but posts statements that are at best pseudo-scientific and that refer to something entirely different.

Tj3 posts deliberately and repeatedly off-topic, and laments that "Atheists" want to deviate away from the science basis for "the discussion" - when he means his discussion (which is deliberately off-topic).

Tj3 "cries" that personal attacks prove nothing.. but follows that frequently with posts that have a core of personal revenge and intolerance, and that are in effect personal attacks themselves.

Tj3 claims that he has validated each of his points, but in effect never does that, and shies away the moment you request him to back-up his wild claims with valid evidence (OSE).

Tj3 suggests that others keep backing away from using science, when he himself refuses to provide OSE for his own wild claims, and when he provides his pseudo-scientific "back-up" it is not for the topic, but for an entire different and off-topic item.

You would almost expect this is in that respect a copy of the "What is truth" topic.

Note that this topic is called : Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence ?

Also note that this topic in effect is questioning if any query or reply to that query (in this topic a list of queries on evolution was used) that is not itself about the existence of "God", can be used as VALID OSE for the existence of "God".

I strongly suggest that any claim towards the existence of "God" has to be DIRECT and VALID OSE for the existence of "God", and for nothing else.

The reality is of course that the existence of "God" is something you only can BELIEVE in, and for which there is no OSE !

Ladies and Gentlemen : can we please get back on-topic again ?


:)

.

.

It is interesting to note that Cred rarely posts a message where he does not attack those who disagree with him. He believes that there is no God, and yet refuses to provide any OSE. He attacks those that do provide OSE for a creator, and refuses to actually engage on the topic.

When people do post evidence that disagrees with him, he tries to change the topic.

Yes, can we get back on the topic?

How about the eye. Can anyone give a plausible explanation as to how the eye came to be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

It is interesting to note that Cred rarely posts a message where he does not attack those who disagree with him.

---

I just react to what you post here so often - to me and a few selected others - by showing your own negative approach.

Next to that I always try to get back to the topic itself, and restart with the original topic question, which is here :

Note that this topic is called : Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence ?

Also note that this topic in effect is questioning if any query or reply to that query (in this topic a list of queries on evolution was used) that is not itself about the existence of "God", can be used as VALID OSE for the existence of "God".

I strongly suggest that any claim towards the existence of "God" has to be DIRECT and VALID OSE for the existence of "God", and for nothing else.

The reality is of course that the existence of "God" is something you only can BELIEVE in, and for which there is no OSE !

So all : can we please get back on-topic again ?

:)

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

It is interesting to note that Cred rarely posts a message where he does not attack those who disagree with him. He believes that there is no God, and yet refuses to provide any OSE. He attacks those that do provide OSE for a creator, and refuses to actually engage on the topic.

---

You can't provide OSE for something that doesn't exist that why you won't get any atheist to prove that there isn't a god. It's just like bigfoot. Even if we cut down every forest in the world you would still have people that say we didn't account for his invisibility powers. Which makes it impossible to prove a negative of that scale.

You also can't prove your supernatural hypothesis by disproving a natural one. Any scientific theory has to stand on its own.

As I have been saying prove one instance of the supernatural and I'll concede your points. Every single time I have said this though you have ignored this point so I don't expect anything different this time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

I just react to what you post here so often - to me and a few selected others - by showing your own negative approach.

---

Ho hum... same old same old.

Cred, if you spent half the time doing your research and dealing with the topic as you do posting abuse, you would be a much stronger contributor and a much stronger defending of your faith in evolution and the belief that there is no God.

Quote:

---

The reality is of course that the existence of "God" is something you only can BELIEVE in, and for which there is no OSE !

---

The reality is the belief that there is no God is something you only can BELIEVE in, and for which there is no OSE !

A study of nature does indeed provide OSE for an intelligent design and creation. Just as when we see a Macintosh Computer, that is OSE for the existence of engineers who designed the computer even though you cannot see them, or when I see a Ford Truck going down the street, that is evidence of an intelligent designer and manufacturer who designed and built the truck, even though I do not see who did it. In each case we see the result, the evidence that provides un-mistakable evidence of intelligent design.

Likewise in nature, we see designs of far greater complexity than we see in cars or home computers, and if we can see evidence of a designer in a car or computer, how much more so in nature where the technology is so far beyond our technology as to not be even within grasp.

For example when we see the design of the following, we see the evidence of design:

EYE : How about the eye. Can anyone give a plausible explanation as to how the eye came to be?