Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution

You claim the Bible has nothing to say about methodological naturalism. MN is not in the Bible under the label of MN.This assertion of yours is completely false. The issue is from the 18th verse of Romans 1 begins the wrath of God. This wrath is directed at persons who in the ensuing verses deliberately exclude God as Creator. This a priori decision triggers the punishment of the 21st verse - God darkening the heart and mind of violators. The 23rd verse declares the specific characteristics of these darkened persons.
Overall, the claim of God neutrality in MN and RE is the a priori decision to exclude by interpretation. Romans rats you off as to your true motive contained in the claims of MN and RE.I agree with you that MN and RE are the best ways of determining scientific truth. God's only quarrel is the dishonest clauses contained therein that claim Divine neutrality. No such beast exists and God in Romans says you are taking a position of exclusion toward Him.Then you make a statement about scientists not making Divine conclusions in their scientific literature.Yes, for the most part this is true. Every person reading this literature knows the worldview from which it is written. Every honest and intelligent person knows what they are also saying without having to actually say it - there is no single almighty Bible type of God.May I refer you to here : http://EvC Forum: Evidence For Evolution - Top Ten Reasons -->EvC Forum: Evidence For Evolution - Top Ten ReasonsNavigate to this statement :" What is ruled out is a single highly intelligent designer, operating always at the height of his powers. "There you have from the horses mouth the a priori decision God in Romans is responding to. MN and RE are God exclusionary not God neutral. The reason God is ruled out is because God has darkened this persons mind as a punishment for ruling Him out. This is a perfect example of my God sense removal argument. The only thing defective concerning the scientific evidence is this arbitrary ruling out of God. He only demands credit and thanks but these brilliant scientific types will not fork up. I am saying any and all scientific work presented under the umbrella of atheistic worldview has the twin message that a Creator was not involved.Then you misinterpret my arguments by accusing me of wanting to see prayer in the laboratory.Prayer belongs in the closet just like Christ ordered.I am identifying the defect in the message of the scientific evidence. This defect denies the existence of a Creator and the evidence is offered under this silent assertion." the cosmos is all there ever was "Every honest and intelligent person knows Sagan was lashing out at the Divine. But oh, I forgot Sagan conducted his work under MN and RE therefore this famous statement has no connection in evidencing atheist worldview.Your HERV-K challenge was made under the misunderstood belief that God sense makes one brighter.I never said or implied that.I have always maintained that atheist scientists are the absolute brightest minds. Once again, my argument says IF they offer their evidence to also mean God is not he Creator (and they do) then this evidences that they have no God sense.God sense means you are in bare minimum compliance with the two-fold demand of Romans (credit God, thank God).The Church cannot police what private persons choose to believe. But we can protest/applaud the Divine messages science makes. Romans says God is the Creator and anyone who cannot embace this truth has had their God sense removed from them as a penalty for arbitrarily excluding Him.

You're kidding, aren't you? Your "scientific evidence" against the theory of evolution is that a number of questions can't be answered (presumably to your satisfaction)? You seem to be taking the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance to a new height (or depth)!! How does one "refute" a question?Before anyone can respond to your first couple of questions, define "information" in the context of being a property exhibited by DNA.

You've just let the creator of this topic off the hook. This person has done absolutely zero work in his own topic except deny, deny, deny.Whatever scientific evidence that I have posted is my scientific evidence against evolution.Nothing has been refuted except that which you refuted and I accepted.I also admitted my original mistake (post 223) was to topic in a scientific arena, but I have laboriously argued the relevance of God sense in relation to the scientific and this was my foundational evidence.This Admin post of yours is equivalent to a judge not admitting evidence and thus gutting someones case.You say the six questions are or should be topics of their own. Then these points are evidence but NOT in my case. This doesn't make any sense.Those six points/questions are my evidence and they remain directed at the creator of this topic.Whatever you decide, if anything, I will genuinely abide by knowing I have had ample opportunity. Thank You.

why do i even try? maybe its the teacher in me, but recess is over willowtree.

quote:

---

Whatever scientific evidence that I have posted is my scientific evidence against evolution.

---

ok, so it is your evidence. it was played with and the game did not go your way. so, you want to throw a fit and cry "foulplay"?nah-un, yah-hun, nah-un, yah-hun, blah, blah, blah...also, will people stop saying that evolution is athiestic. it is science. science is areligious. it makes no claims on religion one way or the other. personal beliefs and philosophy make you a theist or an atheist or a deist or a polytheist or whatever. one track minds leave no room for other trains. so, we will get nowhere.

Methodological Naturalism has nothign to do with a belief in whether God is the creator. Methodological naturalism states that the supernatural is outside the scope of science.So unless you can show where 1 Romans stats that science can prove that God exists methodological naturalism isn't there. And if it was then 1 Romans would be wrong since science can't prove that God exists.

Well Nosy,I'm just following what I am told and using common sense. To the best of my ability. Now if we have a common ancestor we're relatives. We're the same kind. Now, I must admit I have trouble seeing a donky and me having the same ancestor. But if we did, as long as the donkey is more distant than second cousin then I can marry the donkey. Ugh.I can't explain it better than that. If we had the same ancestor then we're the same kind.

What evidence? Well I just saw it on the history channel, that's all. I don't remember a lot of the details except they were saying that it had been found and the walls had tumbled down.So the exodus - I'm not sure exactly what you are looking for there. They left egypt. So you want campsites or something? I suppose they'd be big enough to leave some evidence I guess. Once you found where they were. About the conquests? I just don't know, sorry.I'm trying to read some stuff on evolution.

But even many creationist groups don't think that the same 'kind' can necessarily successfully breed. The set the kind at the level of genus or even family. So the breeding thing is not an issue.from the institute for creation research:

quote:

---

Man’s attempt to classify plants and animals is admittedly arbitrary. Therefore, the original kinds may have been in some cases what we now arbitrarily define as species, in others as genera. In many cases, in view of the high probability of rapid variation after the Flood, it may well have been what we now call the families (dogs, cats, horses, bears, etc.).

---

This suggest that my housecat and a tiger are the same 'kind'. I don't expect them to be breeding even if they have lunch together. So not all of the same 'kind' can breed successfully.

quote:

---

So the exodus - I'm not sure exactly what you are looking for there. They left egypt. So you want campsites or something? I suppose they'd be big enough to leave some evidence I guess. Once you found where they were.

---

you are right. we need campsites. we need something that shows that they were in egypt in the first place. no where in egyptian records does it show that a ton of isrealites were enslaved in egypt. the isrealites, however, occupied a tiny area at the far northern end of the egyptian kingdom at its greatest extent.

How is the exodus "scientific evidence against evolution"?Adminnemooseus makes that:How is the exodus "scientific evidence against evolution"?

​

FORUM RULE 1 - PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC FOR A THREAD!!!

​

IF SOMEONE GOES THAT BADLY OFF-TOPIC - DON'T RESPOND!!![This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-07-2004]

sorry if that bothered anyone. maybe my idea of topic is too broad. just thought to spread some objectively gathered info. just like what we do in science. can we parallel stuff from outside the topic to make a point about the topic? sorry if i did not tie in what i said about objectively gathered evidence refuting a biblical account. i will be more direct next time.added by edit...people use biblical "evidence" to try to refute evolution, cosmology, geology, etc. my point was that another major bible myth was just that, a myth. i'll stop trying to hammer the point home now. sounds like its been overdone already.[This message has been edited by hitchy, 02-07-2004]

Note that the yelling is not by me. I had some big time help there.(and AMoose, I am trying to control my number of posts, believe it or not).

quote:

---

I agree with you that MN and RE are the best ways of determining scientific truth. God's only quarrel is the dishonest clauses contained therein that claim Divine neutrality. No such beast exists and God in Romans says you are taking a position of exclusion toward Him.

---

I think I am beginning to see where the problem is here. The quarrel does not exist. Science i.e. methodological naturalism makes no statements positive or negative about any diety or anything supernatural. Science deals exclusively with that which is amenable to test and falsifiability. It does not disprove the existance of God/Gods/ or any other supernatural being(s). That is why it is naturalism and not supernaturalism. If you seek support for your faith in science, you will be disappointed.

quote:

---

Yes, for the most part this is true. Every person reading this literature knows the worldview from which it is written. Every honest and intelligent person knows what they are also saying without having to actually say it - there is no single almighty Bible type of God.

---

This is just simply not true. I challenge you to open a single issue of Nature or Science (primary literature journals of the highest prestige) and find a single article that even deals with the supernatural. You will find last weeks papers describing the observations from the various mars probes. There is a signal transduction paper. One on ecology. None of them say anything one way or the other about any diety.

quote:

---

" What is ruled out is a single highly intelligent designer, operating always at the height of his powers. "

---

You are failing to distinguish the opinion of a person (whether scientist or not) from science and the subjects amenable to scientific study. If Richard Dawkin's wants to make anti-religious rants, that is his opinion and is not based on anything testable or falsifiable. If he describes a natural observation and details the experiments that support a hypothesis explaining the observations, this is not an opinion but a scientific fact. It is amenable to testing, is falsifiable, and anyone from any religion (or no religion) can go to the lab and do the same experiments themselves without relying on his say so.

quote:

---

He only demands credit and thanks but these brilliant scientific types will not fork up. I am saying any and all scientific work presented under the umbrella of atheistic worldview has the twin message that a Creator was not involved.

---

The manual that came with my car says nothig about a Creator or God. Should I assume that everyone who makes or owns a Volkswagen is an god hating atheist? In fact, the head of the Human Genome Project (the publicly funded one not the Celera private venture), is an openly devout christian. I think he would be very surprised to be accused of being an atheist.

quote:

---

Then you misinterpret my arguments by accusing me of wanting to see prayer in the laboratory.

​

Prayer belongs in the closet just like Christ ordered.

---

It is not very clear what you want exactly. It seems you want every paper on epigenetics to say "thanks god for the paper". I say this because on the one hand you claim that religion does not need to be a part of published science and on the other hand that the absence of commentary about religion in scientific literature is bad.

quote:

---

Every honest and intelligent person knows Sagan was lashing out at the Divine. But oh, I forgot Sagan conducted his work under MN and RE therefore this famous statement has no connection in evidencing atheist worldview.

---

And that is why you should ignore Sagan's opinion about religion and separate that from his objective work in science. You are confusing the two. I had a supervisor as a postdoc who miserable. He had absolutely the worst personality you can imagine. However, he and his group have published some very good research. It really does not matter if I like his politics, his favorite color, or him as a person. All that matters in this case are the methods he used and if his hypotheses are supported by the evidence he gathered.

quote:

---

Your HERV-K challenge was made under the misunderstood belief that God sense makes one brighter.

​

I never said or implied that.

​

I have always maintained that atheist scientists are the absolute brightest minds. Once again, my argument says IF they offer their evidence to also mean God is not he Creator (and they do) then this evidences that they have no God sense.

---

If a scientist tells you that they have evidence that there is no god, you should be very very skeptical. They have no common sense. There is no way for science to prove or disprove anything supernatural.

quote:

---

Romans says God is the Creator and anyone who cannot embace this truth has had their God sense removed from them as a penalty for arbitrarily excluding Him.

---

You just have to be very careful that you are distinguishing the opinions of those who practice science, basket weaving, or kickboxing, from actual science. Again, science has nothing to say about the existence of the supernatural.

Are you sure about that? I thought it was the other way around - that it was J. Craig Venter, the Celera guy, who was the Christian.The guy who was (one of?) the head(s) of the Human Genome Project, John Sulston, seems to be pretty agnostic:

quote:

---

Sulston was merely an adequate student who got interested in science in adolescence, and found its explanations better than his father's religion could offer: "As a strategy for living, religion didn't make much sense to me."

---

(from a review of a book of his: NonfictionReviews.com is for sale | HugeDomains)I dunno, though. Maybe I've got it wrong. It's a quibble, and it doesn't change your point - a scientist is about as likely to be devoutly religious as they are arrogantly atheist.

Hi crash,
I meant Francis Collins. It was probably wrong to say he is the head of the project as it is a consortium of different institutes each with its own director.