Evidence For And Against Evolution

leroy said:

Again, why do you have the annoying habit of answering something unrelated to the comment that you are quoting?

Is there any naturalistic explanation for the FT of the universe that you would consider better than design? Yes or no?

you forgot to answer this question

Click to expand...

Because you have a habit of asking poorly formed questions. Get rid of buried assumptions in your questions, otherwise people will answer them the best that they can.

And you ignored the answer, there is no need to say it is "theoretically possible" to show that a naturalistic explanation is superior. The naturalistic explanation is already superior since it has evidence for it. There is no evidence for ID.

Jose Fly said:

There can be no alternative to "God did it". "God" by definition, can do absolutely everything imaginable so any potential alternative that's proposed would still fall within the category of "God can do that".


It no longer matters. Once you invoke a supernatural, all-powerful being, there cannot be any "alternative" (since that being can do everything).

Do you understand? How can there be an "alternative to everything"?

Click to expand...

Irrelevant, the fact that “God can do everything” does not imply automatically that God is the best explanation for everything.

As I said before, sure God could have had created live and genomes in pattern that looks like a Nested Hierachy, but common ancestry is demonstrably a better explanation than god, for such a pattern.

So even if you fail to fully disprove ID (because God can do anything) you could still in theory show that there is a better explanation for FT

Subduction Zone said:

Because you have a habit of asking poorly formed questions. Get rid of buried assumptions in your questions, otherwise people will answer them the best that they can.

And you ignored the answer, there is no need to say it is "theoretically possible" to show that a naturalistic explanation is superior. The naturalistic explanation is already superior since it has evidence for it. There is no evidence for ID.

Click to expand...

Well I what to know which naturalistic explanation is that, and why you think is superior to ID, many naturalistic explanations have been suggested and have been described in the literature, which one is your favorite, and why you think is better than design.

Once again you forgot to answer :

The point that I made is that it is at least theoretically possible to show that a naturalistic explanation for the FT of the universe is better than ID (in the same way it was shown that Common Ancestry is a better explanation for NH, than ID)

So do you agree with this statement, yes or no, if yes we can move on to another topic, if not, why not?

Click to expand...

leroy said:

Irrelevant, the fact that “God can do everything” does not imply automatically that God is the best explanation for everything.

Click to expand...

You specifically asked for an alternative to "God did it". Given that "God did it" encompasses anything and everything, it is therefore impossible such an alternative to exist.

As I said before, sure God could have had created live and genomes in pattern that looks like a Nested Hierachy, but common ancestry is demonstrably a better explanation than god, for such a pattern.

Click to expand...

How? Is God unable to create via common ancestry?

So even if you fail to fully disprove ID (because God can do anything)

Click to expand...

You cannot disprove "God did it", since God can supernaturally do anything and everything.

you could still in theory show that there is a better explanation for FT

Click to expand...

Impossible to do, since any alternative explanation would also fall within the range of "things God could have done".

leroy said:

Well I what to know which naturalistic explanation is that, and why you think is superior to ID, many naturalistic explanations have been suggested and have been described in the literature, which one is your favorite, and why you think is better than design.

Once again you forgot to answer :

Click to expand...

I did answer your question. Apparently you did not understand it

And what do you want an explanation for?

leroy said:

Those are very interesting points, but why do you have this annoying tendency of quoting form my comments and then make a comment that has nothing to do with the comment that you are quoting? (Yes I agree with your comment)

The point that I made is that even if NH doesn’t entirely and absolutely falsifies ID, common ancestry is a much better explanation for NH than ID, which is why one should accept universal common ancestry at least until someone provides a better explanation for NH.

I am pretty sure that we both agree on this point, so why are you making such a big deal?

Click to expand...

There have never been any evidence for ID, leroy.

ID has never been falsifiable, tested and peer-reviewed, because it assume the existence of the DESIGNER, which itself has never been falsifiable and tested.

The Designer is like God or fairy. Neither of them exist, because there are no evidence for either. And there are no EVIDENCE for this imaginary and nonexistent DESIGNER.

Any mention of Designer as explanation for how the natural world works, then the first thing any adherents (creationists) must do, is provide evidence to demonstrate this Designer is real and verifiable.

And no ID creationists have been able to do that. Not by Phillip Johnson and Stephen Meyer. Not by Michael Behe. And not by any creationists who have written about Intelligent Design, or made videos for online.

People believing in Intelligent Design doesn’t make those beliefs, “evidence”.

Intelligent Design isn’t science or scientific theory, because it failed to meet all 3 requirements (eg failed to be falsifiable, failed to be tested (no observation, no evidence, no experiments), and failed to be peer reviewed).

Intelligent Design isn’t even a hypothesis, because it failed to be falsifiable.

And Intelligent Design isn’t a theoretical model, since it failed to show provable mathematical equations; so ID isn’t even logically feasible.

In order for Intelligent Design to be scientifically sound, it must pass on its own merits, so any statement, assertion or claim must be backed by evidence, and no one can show evidence to back up this faith-based Designer.

The ID’s weakest link, is the belief in Designer, just as the weakest link to creation is the Creator God, because Designer required FAITH for its existence, NOT EVIDENCE.

Jose Fly said:

Impossible to do, since any alternative explanation would also fall within the range of "things God could have done".

Click to expand...

Irrelevant, even accepting the premise that God Could have done anything, it doesn’t follow that God would necessarily do everything..

Even if God exists; there are many things in the universe that are not directly caused by God, agree?

How? Is God unable to create via common ancestry?

Click to expand...

Yes, but the best explanation for the NH pattern is common ancestry, this would be true even if God exists, and even if God is behind the mechanism. …..agree?

For example you could in theory claim (like many scientists do) that multiverse hypothesis is the best explanation for the FT of the universe, this could in theory be true even if God exists and even if God is the cause of the mechanism that creates universes.

I would be perfectly coherent to say, “God exists but he is not directly responsible for the FT of the universe. “

leroy said:

.
.
.
.
5 Or you can simply provide a better explanation than design for the FT or the universe.

Click to expand...

Or, you can accept the fact that if gravity had been too strong to allow the formation of stars, then we would not be here to discuss it.

However, if you want to insist on fine-tuning, then I'll stick to my earlier comment that the earth and therefore the entire universe, is better fine-tuned for cockroaches than for humans.

gnostic said:

There have never been any evidence for ID, leroy.

ID has never been falsifiable, tested and peer-reviewed, because it assume the existence of the DESIGNER, which itself has never been falsifiable and tested.

The Designer is like God or fairy. Neither of them exist, because there are no evidence for either. And there are no EVIDENCE for this imaginary and nonexistent DESIGNER.

Any mention of Designer as explanation for how the natural world works, then the first thing any adherents (creationists) must do, is provide evidence to demonstrate this Designer is real and verifiable.

And no ID creationists have been able to do that. Not by Phillip Johnson and Stephen Meyer. Not by Michael Behe. And not by any creationists who have written about Intelligent Design, or made videos for online.

People believing in Intelligent Design doesn’t make those beliefs, “evidence”.

Intelligent Design isn’t science or scientific theory, because it failed to meet all 3 requirements (eg failed to be falsifiable, failed to be tested (no observation, no evidence, no experiments), and failed to be peer reviewed).

Intelligent Design isn’t even a hypothesis, because it failed to be falsifiable.

And Intelligent Design isn’t a theoretical model, since it failed to show provable mathematical equations; so ID isn’t even logically feasible.

In order for Intelligent Design to be scientifically sound, it must pass on its own merits, so any statement, assertion or claim must be backed by evidence, and no one can show evidence to back up this faith-based Designer.

The ID’s weakest link, is the belief in Designer, just as the weakest link to creation is the Creator God, because Designer required FAITH for its existence, NOT EVIDENCE.

Click to expand...

In other words, no argument for the existence of God would ever be valid, if I don’t show a priori that God exists, is that what you are saying? Have you noticed the circular logic that you are using?

leroy said:

Is there any naturalistic explanation for the FT of the universe that you would consider better than design? Yes or no?

Click to expand...

Is complex reality better than magical nonsense? Yes.

leroy said:

Even if God exists; there are many things in the universe that are not directly caused by God, agree?

Click to expand...

How do you know? How do you know what things are and are not directly caused by God? If you want to invoke a god, then you must agree that only that god can know what it directly caused.

leroy said:

Irrelevant

Click to expand...

Bizarre. The fact that "God", as defined, can do anything and everything is entirely relevant to your request for alternatives to "God did it".

even accepting the premise that God Could have done anything, it doesn’t follow that God would necessarily do everything..

Even if God exists; there are many things in the universe that are not directly caused by God, agree?

Click to expand...

No, I don't even think it's a question that's possible to answer. Do you have an objective means of distinguishing between "things caused by God" and "things not caused by God"?

Yes, but the best explanation for the NH pattern is common ancestry, this would be true even if God exists, and even if God is behind the mechanism. …..agree?

Click to expand...

You just illustrated my point. You previously argued that common ancestry is a better explanation for NH than "God did it", but now you admit that those two can actually be one and the same, which means one cannot be an alternative to the other.

For example you could in theory claim (like many scientists do) that multiverse hypothesis is the best explanation for the FT of the universe, this could in theory be true even if God exists and even if God is the cause of the mechanism that creates universes.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Since the two overlap, one cannot be an alternative to the other.

I would be perfectly coherent to say, “God exists but he is not directly responsible for the FT of the universe. “

Click to expand...

Only if you had an objective means for determining that to be so. Do you?

leroy said:

In other words, no argument for the existence of God would ever be valid, if I don’t show a priori that God exists, is that what you are saying? Have you noticed the circular logic that you are using?

Click to expand...

Nope. Not any more circular than what is done for anything else in the universe.

So, for example, if a physicist claims that a certain subatomic particle exists, the natural response is to say 'prove it'. In other words show *evidence*, not just argument, for the existence. And *that* involves finding some phenomenon that is observable, that the hypothesis of this particle predicts *and* is not predicted by the current system.

Furthermore, the properties of this particle should not contradict the known properties of other particles.

The 'God Hypothesis' comes nowhere close to this standard. For one, no prediction has ever been made of any phenomenon deriving from the existence of a God that is both observable and has no other, more viable, alternative. No, Fine Tuning is NOT an example.

leroy said:

Again, why do you have the annoying habit of answering something unrelated to the comment that you are quoting?

Is there any naturalistic explanation for the FT of the universe that you would consider better than design? Yes or no?

you forgot to answer this question

Click to expand...

Don't get ahead of yourself. You still owe the thread an argument and support for your assertion that ID explains FT.

Still waiting for that.

leroy said:

In the context of the FT tuning argument for example there are many things that one could theoretically do, to show that ID is probably wrong (ie more likely to be wrong tan correct)

1 You could show that the alleged initial conditions and constants are not really FT, for example it is said that if the force of gravity would have been a little bit stronger or weaker stars and planets, (and therefore life) would have not formed, you could show that stars and planets would form anyway regardless of the strength of the force of gravity. …..(the you would have to do the same with all the other constants and initial conditions that are said to be FT)

Click to expand...

A designer that can create a universe could design it so that things only appear fine tuned but really aren't, so that doesn't work.

leroy said:

2 You could show that life could exist even without stars and planets (maybe something equivalent would have formed if the force of gravity would have been different)……..( …..(the you would have to do the same with all the other constants and initial conditions that are said to be FT)

Click to expand...

A designer could design a universe with life and no stars or planets.

leroy said:

3 You could show that there is some sort of naturalistic bias in favor of a FT universe (this is sometimes called cosmical natural selection)

Click to expand...

A designer could make it look like it was natural.

leroy said:

4 you could show that a FT universe is logically necessary

Click to expand...

A designer could make this too.

leroy said:

5 Or you can simply provide a better explanation than design for the FT or the universe.

Click to expand...

Or you could provide any explanation supporting design like you said you were. How about that? You get to keep your burden of proof in the bargain. By Grabthar's Hammer, what a deal!

leroy said:

I would suggest that God is the designer. So what naturalistic explanation do you propose?

A

And again, I don’t understand your requirement, should I explain the teleological arguemnt? Should I provide a source that represents my view?

Click to expand...

Is the burden of proof, lava? Is that why you are so fired up to rid yourself of it?

leroy said:

In other words, no argument for the existence of God would ever be valid, if I don’t show a priori that God exists, is that what you are saying? Have you noticed the circular logic that you are using?

Click to expand...

I am not saying that at all, leroy.

In religions, you can rely on belief and faith alone, to accept whatever you want to believe...and you can believe whatever you like, whether it be the Abrahamic god, Luther, Ra, Isis, Zeus, Thor, Brahma, spirits, angels, demons, fairies, the FSM, etc, etc, etc...so whatever you like.

Religious beliefs are like personal beliefs, and everyone can have them, believe whatever they want. And I don’t dispute that at all.

You can make argument for God or for Designer, which ever one you like, but if your argument isn't falsifiable and you cannot test your argument, then your argument isn't objectively "scientific".

I am talking about science, and how religious beliefs are not science.

And science required to follow a certain standards that are not used in any religions.

The problems are that some theists, ESPECIALLY CREATIONISTS and some Muslims, think their beliefs, especially their respective scriptures, should be treated as science.

Science attempt to offer to EXPLAIN (the following):

1. WHAT the phenomena is
2. HOW does the phenomena works (eg the mechanisms)
3. and if there are possible applications for that phenomena, then you would have to further EXPLAIN WHAT you would or do with, and HOW would you go about doing it to make it work.

After explaining the phenomena (1, 2 & 3), a scientist would need to TEST the explanation (including testing any predictions and equations that formed part of the explanation). That would be point 4, testing.

I would say more about testing later, because I want to stress the 3 earlier points.

So point 1 is to explain what it is, point 2 is about the mechanisms of point 1, which is to explain how it all work.

To give you an example in biology, the study of anatomy is about the physical structures or the organs, while the study of physiology is about studying the function and mechanics of the structures or organs.

Point 3, is about what application that it might have. So for example, knowing point 1 & 2, point 3 is like studying medicine where you need to know what illness or diseases that can affect any body parts, and the application would be knowing how to treat it.

The problem with descriptions in religious scriptures, they never explain anything.

For instance, the creation in Genesis 1 and 2, it describe creating fishes, birds, land animals and humans. Everything is left without details, nothing that show the author understand the biology of any creature including man.

The only time Genesis describe any body parts of creature is that birds have wings, and man have ribs. That's about it. Any idiot living in that time would know birds have wings, and humans have ribs.

There is really nothing of values in Genesis concerning the anatomy and physiology of animals.

And it talk of "kinds". It never explain what kinds there, how many kinds there are, what cause specition, how does genetics works.

The Bible never explain. And it is the same with the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon, and any other religious texts.

Religious texts describe something in a very basic or general manners, but THEY NEVER EXPLAIN.

And there are nothing special when Genesis describe the Earth, Moon, Sun and stars.

For examples, it describe the Sun as one of the great lights in the sky, and the other light being the moon. But how does the Sun give light and heat? Why do the Earth and other planets orbited around the Sun, and how? How does the Earth rotate?

The Moon is moving around about the Earth, but the Sun isn't moving, the Earth is, in rotational motion, but the author doesn't know this.

And is the author(s) of Genesis describing the creation of the sun and stars - was he or they ever aware the Sun is just one of hundreds of billions of stars in the Milky Way?

I don't think anyone there at the time, realise the Sun is a star.

But getting back to believing in God's existence.

You can believe whatever you want, but like the very general and vague description of the Earth, Sun, plant life and animal life in Genesis 1, the Bible never EXPLAIN anything about God.

So that another reason why religion, especially creationism isn't science, because it never explain God.

What does anyone really know about God?

If you remember, I said that science doesn't just EXPLAIN, for any EXPLANATION to be "science", the explanation must also be TESTED in some ways.

TEST comes in the forms of OBSERVATION or EXPERIMENTS, and the TEST RESULTS will be your EVIDENCE and your DATA. Test is the way you objectively verify or validate if the explanation (eg model, hypothesis or theory) is true or not.

But a reminder, leroy. TESTING a hypothesis isn't just to confirm/verify if it is true, tests are also used REFUTE or DEBUNK any hypothesis that does meet with the requirements to be "science".

Being able to REFUTE a hypothesis is very important to science, to ensure

Science relies on EVIDENCE, positive or negative evidences, to respectively determine if it is true or false.

So TESTING and EVIDENCE are essential parts of science, and it is the major process or step in the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

But what is "evidence" in science?

Evidence is something that can be -

1. observed or detected,
   
2. measured,
   
3. quantified,
   
4. compared,
   
5. verified or refuted (in another word, "tested").

And you will need to record all this, which formed the basis of your data.

In experiments, it is important to verify, and that can only happen if you have multiple evidence or perform experiments multiple times.

But you may ask me -


Well, for one things, can anyone AND EVERYONE observe, measure or test God?

If you cannot observe or test God, then it is possible for science to OBJECTIVELY determine if God is real or not.

And that's the same with the DESIGNER in Intelligent Design. If you cannot observe or test the DESIGNER, then there are no evidence.

Science cannot God's existence, because nothing in the scriptures provide falsifiable information/explanation about God.

The scriptures and religious texts are nothing more than unfalsifiable stories. And belief in them, or the interpretations of the stories are not evidence.

Do you now understand what I am getting at?

Jose Fly said:

Bizarre. The fact that "God", as defined, can do anything and everything is entirely relevant to your request for alternatives to "God did it".

Click to expand...

Just like The fact that you have the hability to kill a dog, does not automatically imply that you are responsable for the death of the dog that was found in the streets.

The fact that God can do anything (directly) does not automatically imply that he is the direct cause of everything.

No, I don't even think it's a question that's possible to answer. Do you have an objective means of distinguishing between "things caused by God" and "things not caused by God"?

Click to expand...

Yes it is called " appeal to the best explanation" given the criteria commonly accepted in science like explanatory power, explanatory scope, predictive power, parsimony, consistency with previous knowledge etc.... Common ancestry is a better explanation for NH than design. Wouldn't you agree with this point? Answer yes or no

You just illustrated my point. You previously argued that common ancestry is a better explanation for NH than "God did it", but now you admit that those two can actually be one and the same, which means one cannot be an alternative to the other.

Click to expand...

Common ancestry is the best explanation for NH, this is true regardless of the mechanism that caused the common ancestry.

I believe that the common ancestor came from God, you probably believe that it came from an organic soup, but regardless on who is correct it is still a fact that common ancestry is the best explanation for NH. Agree, yes or no

You wouldn't say that the NH are caused by the soup, just like I wouldn't say that NH was caused by God.

Polymath257 said:

Far from clear. We have some degree of fine tuning once stars get going, but it isn't clear that is the case prior to that.



Well, one of my points is that this *isn't* actually a model. It is very, very far from being a model. But, even with that, it is far better than anything ID has come up with. But, since ID hypothesizes that the constants *can* be different, that means they can change. And that means there could be an equilibrium that gives the observed values.

That said, and if I cared to elaborate on this line of thinking, I would guess the coalescence to the current values for the constants happened during the inflationary stage.

Among the issues that need to be dealt with: what is the feedback mechanisms for changing the constants? What drives them to change? And, most importantly, what predictions can be made from this conjecture that could be tested?

But, again, ID provides none of those either. What I have proposed is something that does not introduce an un-evidenced intelligence, but instead only postulates that the constants can change and that the current values are the equilibrium ones.

My model wins simply because ID cannot do anything that even this toy idea can do.

Click to expand...

And that means there could be an equilibrium that gives the observed values.

Click to expand...

Ok but why is it that the point of equilibruim of each of the constants and initial conditions happened to be the exact values that would allow for the existence of atoms, molecules, stars, chemistry (and therefore life)?

Was this just a coincidence?

I am asking these questions because I want to understand your proposition, (just want to avoid answering with a strawman)

Polymath257 said:

If I ask how a piece of pottery came into existence, saying that some unknown person did it isn't an answer. Saying *how* they did it, what processes were used, what materials, where those materials were obtained, etc. *is* an answer. or saying that a specific person or culture did it by the processes already determined by that culture is another answer.

But just saying some intelligence did it *isn't* an answer.

The same can be said for all the other objects you mention. To simply say 'some intelligence did it' just isn't an answer: HOW did they do it? Which what materials? In what order? How did they get the materials? how did they learn the technology to be able to do it?

But simply saying someone did it just isn't an explanation at all.

Click to expand...

Well I don't know exactly what you mean by "answer" but sure if someone finds a piece of pottery it would be perfectly rational to say that it was designed by an unknown individual, who used a mechanism that we don't understand yet.

And if we ever find pottery in other planets it would be obvious that they where created by intelligent individuals, even if we don't know who the aliens, are, nor where did they come from, nor the mechanism used to create such pottery. Those questions could be left for future reaserch..... , but it would still be obvious that those pieces of pottery where created by an intelligence, regardless if we ever find an answer to those other questions.

The point is that there are objective ways to detect design, there are patterns (like those in pottery) that are better explained by design, than by natural mechanisms, agree? Yes or no

The FT argument simply proposes that the finely tuned pattern that we observe in the constants of nature is better explained by design than by natural mechanisms.... . In the same way pottery in other planets would be better explained by design than by natural mechanisms.