Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

First it is not the lack of an explanation for something else. It is the fact that there is no feasible way in which a event could happen. For example, if I showed out a MacIntosh computer, and asked you if it was feasible for it to have come about through sexual reproduction between two other M<ac computers, you would say that it is not feasible. therefore, we need to look at the remaining alternatives. It is not the failure to have an explanation - it is the fact that one or more approaches cannot possible happen.

It is a standard scientific approach - when you observe something, it might happen by a number of different ways. So you look at each one from a scie3ntific perspective, testing where possible, in an effort to determine which is correct. Once all possible alternatives but one are eliminated, then that which remains is accepted.

This is how most planets outside our solar system are found. It is how many phenomena in outer space are explained. Though in these cases, the criteria used to determine the final explanation is usually not quite as stringent as what I am using.

---

“When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
Sherlock Holmes, The Blanched Soldier

But, Tj3, you have not eliminated ANY possibilities. You have not actually made any effort to find a natural explanation for any of the items you listed. The only alternative on your list is one thing: a supernatural explanation. That is not the scientific approach at all.

You need a list of natural alternatives for EACH of your items, and you must eliminate these alternatives one by one. If you succeed in eliminating all of your alternatives, through rigorous experiment, then you must come up with MORE natural alternatives, until you find ONE you CANNOT disprove. And THAT'S the one scientists accept until further notice.

You have done the opposite. You have not a single natural alternative, and you have performed no experiment testing any natural alternative. Instead, you have immediately accepted as "proved" an unnatural explanation with no experimental evidence testing any alternatives.

In science, technically you cannot prove something like God; you can only disprove the alternatives, and you have not done that. You have just said you can't think of any alternatives.

If Watson and Crick had said, "We don't understand how genetic information is transferred from one generation to the next," (as Darwin, Weismann, Mendel, and hundreds of earlier scientists said), then you could argue (by your logic) that genes are a supernatural phenomenon since you wouldn't be able to think of an alternative. And had you lived before 1952, it's likely that you would have argued that. But we know that's wrong.

Because you live now, you know that genes are, in fact, information encoded in a molecule known as DNA, so you can't argue that inheritance has no natural explanation. The same is true of every single scientific fact ever discovered. Every thing we know was once not known, and could at that time have been used as "proof" that God exists--at least by your logic.

And each time a natural explanation was supplied--for photosynthesis, for how the heart pumps, for why we have tides--was God disproved? Hardly! But your logic, if turned on its head, would say so. This logic is just completely wrong. I hope you will take the time to try to understand what science is, because you have completely misunderstood the scientific method. If you were right, then scientists would disprove God every time they figured something out. I hope it's obvious to you that whether science explains how the eye evolved or why Jupiter is so big, it's never a disproof of God.

Have a great evening!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

But, Tj3, you have not eliminated ANY possibilities. You have not actually made any effort to find a natural explanation for any of the items you listed.

---

I have actually. I have examined each of these, but I am being open to listening to others, as to whether anyone else can offer an alternate possibility that we can examine.

Quote:

---

You need a list of natural alternatives for EACH of your items, and you must eliminate these alternatives one by one.

---

You have the floor - tell us what options you'd like us to examine.

Quote:

---

You have done the opposite. You have not a single natural alternative, and you have performed no experiment testing any natural alternative.

---

I take it that you have not been following the discussion.

Quote:

---

In science, technically you cannot prove something like God; you can only disprove the alternatives, and you have not done that. You have just said you can't think of any alternatives.

---

Again, you have not been following the discussion. The alternative of "God" was raised over and over again by the atheists, but not by myself. What I said was that I was prepared to submit the discussion to only those things that could be examined and proven by science. Why atheists were unwilling to do so is something known only to themselves.

Now, let's see your natural alternatives for any one of the examples.

I have not read all 500 plus entries in this thread, no. If that's required to discuss your post, then I withdraw.:)

As for the natural alternatives, that's your job, not mine. I could do it, but I'd rather discuss the logical error you make that dispenses with everything on your list at once than get bogged down in a discussion of biology in which I can be reasonably certain you'll just keep coming up with things that I can't explain.
That would be tedious and pointless. If you were actually interested in the biology, it would be fun and okay.

Bottom line: No matter how LITTLE I can explain, that lack of information provides no proof or evidence for the existence of God. Likewise, no matter how MUCH I can explain, that doesn't disprove God.

For some people, science makes God unnecessary, but not for others. But the important thing is that science can neither prove nor disprove something for which there is no evidence, by definition. If you could measure God and tell us where He is at any moment, he would no longer be a supernatural being. Religious feeling is subject to scientific explanation, since it's a natural phenomenon, but not God per se.

I don't have to read the other 500 posts to know that, and not because I know anything about God, but because I know a lot about how science works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

I have not read all 500 plus entries in this thread, no. If that's required to discuss your post, then I withdraw.:)

---

The point is that you are making statements which are not true, based upon your lack of knowledge of the discussion. No, you are not required to read them all, but if you have not done so, then you are not in a position to make definitive statement about what I have or have not done.

Quote:

---

As for the natural alternatives, that's your job, not mine.

---

Well, I have done it, and if you are going to leave it to me, I could simply tell you the conclusion and that would be the end of the story. If you are unable or unwilling to put forward alternatives, then there is nothing more for me to consider.

Quote:

---

I could do it, but I'd rather discuss the logical error you make that dispenses with everything on your list at once than get bogged down in a discussion of biology in which I can be reasonably certain you'll just keep coming up with things that I can't explain.

---

You claim a logical error, but have yet to identify one.

Quote:

---

Bottom line: No matter how LITTLE I can explain, that lack of information provides no proof or evidence for the existence of God. Likewise, no matter how MUCH I can explain, that doesn't disprove God.

---

Like I said, you clearly have not read the discussion, because that is not the argument. If you wish to discuss logic, the logic fallacy that you are using is called a "strawman argument".

Quote:

---

For some people, science makes God unnecessary, but not for others. But the important thing is that science can neither prove nor disprove something for which there is no evidence, by definition. If you could measure God and tell us where He is at any moment, he would no longer be a supernatural being. Religious feeling is subject to scientific explanation, since it's a natural phenomenon, but not God per se.

---

And ignoring everything that I say does not endorse your perspective either.

Quote:

---

I don't have to read the other 500 posts to know that, and not because I know anything about God, but because I know a lot about how science works.

---

And so do I. That is why I, and other Christians are willing to use science. Atheists on the other hand are not willing to consider anything other than that which they consider natural (evolution). Denying an alternative without even being willing to consider it objectively is religion not science.

I note that the Christians are willing to discuss science alone, but atheists seem unwilling to allow the discussion to be based on what science alone can show.

That speaks volumes.

I was addressing the content of the post I first responded to. You are confused about how science works. God is not a testable hypothesis.

You claim you have experimental evidence that rules out all natural explanations for the several interesting natural phenomena you listed. But even if it were true that you had a large library of peer reviewed research eliminating a series of natural explanations, it's extremely unlikely that you could eliminate ALL natural explanations.

Science cannot be used to prove or disprove supernatural phenomena such as deities, fairies, and ghosts as long as those entities do not express themselves in any physical terms but only as feelings in the minds of believers. It doesn't matter how many posts I haven't read. Nothing you say can change that.

What puzzles me is your insistence on having scientific proof for a belief that is normally grounded in Faith. How can you claim faith and at the same time invoke a scientific rationale for your belief (even if I happen to think it's not a legitimate rationale)? Doesn't God want you to believe without question? The whole POINT of science is to question things, to challenge what is known and believed, to ask, which is why I call myself "asking," in case that wasn't obvious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

I was addressing the content of the post I first responded to.

---

And as you yourself admitted, that was 500 posts in, therefore you are making flat out statements that you claim to be fact, but are not because you do not have the benefit of known what has been said. To be honest, you could have said "it appears from what I have seen....." or something of the sort, but to make flat out statement when you don't have the facts and have not taken the time to ensure that your facts are straight is is just plain wrong. And what is worse, is that you then stand firmly on those unvalidated false claims.

Quote:

---

You are confused about how science works. God is not a testable hypothesis.

---

First, it is unscientific to toss out something just because you don't believe it to be true.

Second, you keep saying that I was trying to test God. Once again, you apparently refuse to listen to the facts. I stated outright, right at the start, that I would leave God out of it, and deal solely when what could be shown from science. Why you keep wanting ignore the facts is beyond me.

You claim you have experimental evidence that rules out all natural explanations for the several interesting natural phenomena you listed. But even if it were true that you had a large library of peer reviewed research eliminating a series of natural explanations, it's extremely unlikely that you could eliminate ALL natural explanations.

Look - if and when you actually care to have a real discussion, and actually listen to what others say, I would be more than willing to go through this with you. But at the moment, you appear to not know what was said, or what the discussion was about, and you appear to care little about that fact.

The question seems to be asking "how did any of this begin". By design or accident. Looking at the universe around us it is evident there is an intelligent design. An accident occurs when two or more unforseen events, causes merge - and the intended purpose then of any of it is halted. Something different happens. So the very nature of "accident" implies that which is unexpected or unintended. This brilliant universe that flows seamlessly through time, with its starry lights in a velvet night sky, its brilliant sun hung in heavens blue sky that warms and replenishes the earth, its deep blue oceans and desert sand dunes, delicate rain forests with its thundering water falls - these things all created to enhance our enjoyment of a planet designed for mans' pleasure. "In the beginning" is difficult for most of us to fathom how - before anything was He was. We cannot wrap our mind around this. The Indians have their Great White Spirit. Others have the Great Buddha. In the end, they all acknowledge an intelligence which they honor as the designer of all things. Even with the Big Bang Theory there had to have been a spark -where did that come from. Because we have finite minds we probably never will actually know in this life exactly "how" all of this could happen. But we can see that this universe is brilliantly designed to continue endlessly. There is nothing we can design with such perfection - every plant, animal, oceans and seas, forests and woods, all designed for a specific purpose to maintain its checks and balances effortlessly. Science will probably always continue its search but it is right in front of them -even the human body is a wonder in itself. So design - accident? Look at this brilliant, awe inspiring universe and decide.
rjmarie

Why should the eye be any harder to explain than any other natural phenomenon such as legs evolving from the fins of fish or ear bones evolving from ancient jaws, which evolved from the gill arches of primitive fishes? If you take the time to study all these things, there's great wonder, but less and less mystery.

Tom's entire argument is flawed, as I stated earlier. There is no need to address each of these wonders (and millions upon millions others) in order to see that ignorance does not prove anything, least of all the existence of God. Tom's inability to imagine an explanation for the evolution of the eye or the kidney is just a failure, not a proof.

I could equally well argue, "I don't know what the cube root of 5347 is, so therefore there is no answer, and all math is a hoax." Such profound ignorance would not prove anything except that I didn't know much math.

Anyone who is not filled with wonder at everything around them, is probably depressed. But wonder is also not proof of anything except that we live in an amazing universe and humans are given to feelings of awe and wonder.

We are designed to question and wonder and a free will to choose whatever suits us regarding what we believe or choose not to believe. We can choose to believe in God or not to believe. This however does not nor cannot deny the existence of an intricately designed universe that floes and ebbs seamlessly through time. We are blessed to be free thinking so that we can question anything and make our own decisions. The scientists may never be able to answer where the first breath of life came from - all that is created had to start with that first breath of life.
rjmarie

No argument with any of that except there's no evidence we were designed by a supernatural being. That notion is, to me, just an appealing and romantic hunch which pleases and gratifies a great many people. We truly can choose to believe what we like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

No argument with any of that except there's no evidence we were designed by a supernatural being. That notion is, to me, just an appealing and romantic hunch which pleases and gratifies a great many people. We truly can choose to believe what we like.

---

The problem is that, like Cred, you make that claim without being williung to examine the evidence that is put forward.

That is not scientific.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

Why should the eye be any harder to explain than any other natural phenomenon such as legs evolving from the fins of fish or ear bones evolving from ancient jaws, which evolved from the gill arches of primitive fishes? If you take the time to study all these things, there's great wonder, but less and less mystery.

---

Okay, why, if it is possible, has no one been able to explain it?

You got the floor - give us a plausible explanation

Quote:

---

Tom's entire argument is flawed, as I stated earlier. There is no need to address each of these wonders (and millions upon millions others) in order to see that ignorance does not prove anything, least of all the existence of God.

---

You have not yuet identifuied any logic fallacy. And I note that you have used a logic fallacy by claiming that those who disagree with you are "ignorant" and therefore you avoid the question. That is a defined logic fallacy.

Quote:

---

Tom's inability to imagine an explanation for the evolution of the eye or the kidney is just a failure, not a proof.

---

Sigh! It has nothing to do with inability to imagine an exaplanation - it is the fact that it is impossible. If you disagree, then give us a plausible explanation.

You are doing a great job of dancing ariound avoiding the question, why throwing darts anyone who disagrees with you, But that is neither scientific nor convincing.

Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye

This is a simplified explanation, but it is supported by the existence of a huge range of eyes of different kinds, from the simplest patch of light sensitive cells, to elaborate camera eyes, like those of mammals, octopods, and even jellyfish. There are all kinds of similarly complex organs, including the heart, the kidneys, and the brain, all of which exist in other animals in varying degrees of complexity.

The "eye is so complex" challenge to evolution is old hat. It was a problem for biology 150 years ago, not now. Not only is there objective evidence supporting this idea, at the gross anatomic level and, independently, at the molecular level, but there is no evidence for the idea that plants and animals have not evolved. In 200 years of biology, no one has found evidence that casts doubt on the idea. Every knew fact discovered in thousands of labs around the world, day in and day out, over decades and decades, is consistent with the idea of evolution. I know that's intensely frustrating to hear, but it's true.

Now it's your turn to provide objective evidence for the existence of God that doesn't consist of you saying you don't understand something.

For example, I can prove bears exist because I can photograph them, I can collect hair, blood and fecal samples from them. They are demonstrably real. What objective evidence--something even an atheist could see and measure-- is there for God's existence?

The question of God's existence or non existence is an effort in futility and has been going on since the beginning of time. Those who believe will always believe, those who do not will always doubt and find reasons He does not. That is the greatness of our free will to think and do as we wish for our lifes. I would never attempt to force anyone to my beliefs but to let them take their own journey through this life on this beautiful planet earth we call home. This is what creates the diversity of heart and mind we see here and I respect this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye

---

We discussed this before. This does not tell us how the eye evolved from a light sensitive spot. Without all parts of the eyes in place, any one of these parts in ineffective. Sio please, tell us the progression of eevents that may have occurred.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye

This is a simplified explanation, but it is supported by the existence of a huge range of eyes of different kinds, from the simplest patch of light sensitive cells, to elaborate camera eyes, like those of mammals, octopods, and even jellyfish. There are all kinds of similarly complex organs, including the heart, the kidneys, and the brain, all of which exist in other animals in varying degrees of complexity.

The "eye is so complex" challenge to evolution is old hat. It was a problem for biology 150 years ago, not now. Not only is there objective evidence supporting this idea, at the gross anatomic level and, independently, at the molecular level, but there is no evidence for the idea that plants and animals have not evolved. In 200 years of biology, no one has found evidence that casts doubt on the idea.Every knew fact discovered in thousands of labs around the world, day in and day out, over decades and decades, is consistent with the idea of evolution. I know that's intensely frustrating to hear, but it's true.

Now it's your turn to provide objective evidence for the existence of God that doesn't consist of you saying you don't understand something.

For example, I can prove bears exist because I can photograph them, I can collect hair, blood and fecal samples from them. They are demonstrably real. What objective evidence--something even an atheist could see and measure-- is there for God's existence?

---

Your link does not have OSE as to how the eye came to be.

The evidence that Cred is seeking is in him and us, and science shows that.

The eye, renal physiology, the electron transport chain, pulmonary physiology, neuroanatomy etc..


- all these show DESIGN.

So much design that there is biomimetics.

What is your OSE "natural" explanations for these things?
What specific genetic mutations explain human or comparative physiology? - up right walking, echolocation, etc...

What is the OSE, "natural" explanation for the genetic code?
Even Crick, a co-founder of the DNA double helix, and an atheist, has no "natural" explanation for what science has OSE of.

Quote:

---

Every knew fact discovered in thousands of labs around the world, day in and day out, over decades and decades, is consistent with the idea of evolution

---

Species Diversity Of Enigmatic 'Flying Lemurs' Doubled By New Study

Quote:

---

"We were guessing that we might find that there were different species of Sunda colugo—although we were not sure," said Jan Janecka of Texas A&M University. "But what really surprised us was how old the speciation events were.


Janecka said they were particularly surprised to find that each geographic region they studied harbors its own unique species of colugo. And the species tally for colugos will likely continue to rise. "It appears that within smaller geographic areas

---

Just an example that everything is no already established evolutionary fact

News articles providing evidence of intelligent creation and design come up in the news all the time. We read in the new that scientists are going to try to design a compuing system that can simulate some basic functions at the level of a cat's brain. One scientist sais:

"`The mind has an amazing ability to integrate ambiguous information across the senses, and it can effortlessly create the categories of time, space, object, and interrelationship from the sensory data,' says Dharmendra Modha, the IBM scientist who is heading the collaboration.

`There are no computers that can even remotely approach the remarkable feats the mind performs,' he said. "
(Source: BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | IBM to build brain-like computers ).

The article goes on to say:

"Supercomputing, in turn, can simulate brains up to the complexity of small mammals, using the knowledge from the biological research. Modha led a team that last year used the BlueGene supercomputer to simulate a mouse's brain, comprising 55m neurons and some half a trillion synapses.

`But the real challenge is then to manifest what will be learned from future simulations into real electronic devices - nanotechnology,' Prof Modha said.

Technology has only recently reached a stage in which structures can be produced that match the density of neurons and synapses from real brains - around 10 billion in each square centimetre."

The design of even a cat or mouse brain is so far advanced that even with our technology today, this is a stretch. And they are only working on one portion of the mouse and cat brain - simple thought processes.

According to those who think that the brain was developed naturally through chance, this would mean that they would foresee no problem with a few supercomputers designing and building themselves out of nothing but what we find in the ground / dirt.

Thank you for that post TJ3 it points out exactly why you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to evolution.