Can science prove the world is over 4 billion yrs. old?

[vz71]

Sheesh, what fervor? Am I so dumb as to think others can’t do exactly the same Google search as me?

It took me all of 5 seconds to prove the statements false.

Is this perhaps 5 seconds that you did not believe anyone would spend?

I check facts. When I find something incorrect, I usually believe a mistake has been made. But when a level of error is so high, it becomes something different entirely.

 

[buffalo]

Why not chemistry, emergent complexity, things built into the system at a deep level by physical law? I don’t see a need to posit anything special, to me that spoils the elegance and beauty of it.

Trying to compress it I get God put DNA into species but then think so what? I’m obviously not grasping whatever’s being said. My confusion about whether the “kinds” are supposed to come from DNA or from “metaphysical essence” is genuine, I’m not trying to win debating points.

That also confuses me. DNA is the language of evolution, and I’d have thought it indicates change over time rather than “that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator”.

Something is obviously going straight over my head, except I suspect that if I understood it properly I’d disagree even more.

I did but avoided mentioning it as it’s from another site and there was a whole bunch of things in it I disagreed with.

I like this - “things built into the system at a deep level”

There are 500 or so core genes that ALL living things have. The software (DNA) language plays the genetic piano to the tune of what the mother transmitted. This preserves the kind as to what it began as. Within this kind adaptation is allowed.

See Facilitated Variation and Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome****

Please share what you disagree with** in the philosophy article.**

Here is what we now know about evolution (problems)

1. The fossil record shows abrupt appearance and then stasis.
2. Natural selection is a conservative process not a creative one
3. Earliest cells were complex
4. ATP synthase motor (each and every living cell has one spinning up to 6000 RPM - energy producer
5. The tree of life has fallen and replaced by a bush
6. Horizontal gene transfer
7. Genetic entropy
8. Junk DNA overturned
9. Complex machinery in the cell.
10. Rapid adaptation
11. Finches beaks returned to normal
    12.Mt DNA passed thorugh father too
12. Mitochondrial clock - needs to be recalibrated
    14.Human -chimp similarity now below 70%
13. DNA actively through several iterations fights against mutations. (self-correcting mechanism)
    16.Epigenetics
    17.Complexity of protein folds
    18.Convergent evolution (features that have evolved several times)

There are more, but these are off the top of my head.

Thought of at once by the Creator - yes indeed - just as He knew you by name before you were born, God has total vision. The difficulty here is expressing sufficiently in human terms God’s raw ability to think life. If you mean change over time (aka adaptation) then I am OK with it, if you mean change over time mean simple cells to man over time through successive gradual steps then I object. IDvolution posits God expressed Himself in a way that gave rise to the basic kinds that DNA works to preserve over time.

 

[inocente]

It took me all of 5 seconds to prove the statements false.

My mock rage is losing its mockness and mockivity.

Why not do the search again and spend a little more time on it. Look at the line under the search box. It says “approximately 52,100 results”. That’s completely useless, it includes self-referencing hits and hits for sites that happen to use the same word for something else (like that French design company) or a similar word (like an interior design company named idevolution).

I’m an IT professional and know better than to lazily, passively and superficially accept everything Google tells me as some people might. Now that would be dishonest. After doing a bit of work, hint , it’s clear there are hardly any real hits indicating that “idvolution” is currently largely unknown. Isn’t that a lot more useful to know than artificially inflating the hit count to make people feel good about themselves?

There’s no reason why you would know that buffalo and I have been posting to each other for some time on various threads. I can’t speak for him but he’s certainly not my sworn enemy or anything, I’m not out to put him down.

So there’s a chance you were innocently mistaken about me. Can we agree it’s forgiven and forgotten now or does it have to be pistols at dawn or something?

 

[inocente]

I like this - “things built into the system at a deep level”

We aim to please.

*There are 500 or so core genes that ALL living things have. The software (DNA) language plays the genetic piano to the tune of what the mother transmitted. This preserves the kind as to what it began as. Within this kind adaptation is allowed. *

Agreed, what I’m having problems with is, at it were, understanding the vision – is it vanilla ID or something more?

Please share what you disagree with* in the philosophy article***.

I’m getting a 404 file not found on the pdf today but found an html version elsewhere which from memory looks the same. Here’s my top issues.

Para two says evolution is unfalsifiable. ¿Que? Darwin himself gave the easiest way to falsify it – just find one specimen that can’t be explained by the theory and evolution is falsified, dead in the water. Easy peasy, zillions of candidates. 152 years later there have been many claims but all have failed, and of course every failed attempt tends to strengthen evolution’s acceptance. Very frustrating to those who don’t like it but just because they failed to find a falsification doesn’t mean the theory is unfalsifiable, the exact opposite, it means it’s a really strong scientific theory.

Then there’s this style of philosophy in general. A certain Woodbury is quoted that “an effect cannot be higher than its cause, and every agent produces a like unto itself”, and this is then provisionally taken to prove that, for instance, “non-intellective primates cannot give rise to intellective ones”. “This crucial insight means that the material organization needed for the new and higher form is never present until that new form itself is present.” Nope, it ain’t necessarily so. An alternative conclusion is that trying to explain the natural world by making such abstracted theoretical arguments is and always has been rather pointless, we first need instead to leave the ivory tower and get our hands dirty by looking at real world evidence before turning to theory.

Then there’s the business about forms, but that rehearses a traditional view of the unity-and-yet-distinction between body and soul, which we could argue about until the cows come home.

Here is what we now know about evolution (problems)

That’s a mighty fine list but then we could find a list of issues in any active field, as long as science is an ongoing exploration there are bound to be loose ends.

However, pointing to loose ends elsewhere doesn’t say anything positive about design. Everything design says is explained more deeply by evolution, since where design just wants to say “this was designed”, evolution always wants to go further to explain the component parts and how they developed.

Thought of at once by the Creator - yes indeed - just as He knew you by name before you were born, God has total vision. The difficulty here is expressing sufficiently in human terms God’s raw ability to think life. If you mean change over time (aka adaptation) then I am OK with it, if you mean change over time mean simple cells to man over time through successive gradual steps then I object.

You will definitely object then - from not just cells but from basic chemistry to man over time. From physics even.

 

[vz71]

My mock rage is losing its mockness and mockivity.

Why not do the search again and spend a little more time on it. Look at the line under the search box. It says “approximately 52,100 results”. That’s completely useless, it includes self-referencing hits and hits for sites that happen to use the same word for something else (like that French design company) or a similar word (like an interior design company named idevolution).

Who said anything about hit counts?
I was addressing the first page of hits.
Google tends to provide so much garbage that I never look beyond the first page for any search. Your mileage may vary with that.

I’m an IT professional and know better than to lazily, passively and superficially accept everything Google tells me as some people might. Now that would be dishonest. After doing a bit of work, hint , it’s clear there are hardly any real hits indicating that “idvolution” is currently largely unknown. Isn’t that a lot more useful to know than artificially inflating the hit count to make people feel good about themselves?

So you ignored the first hit?
It seemed to me that someone was trying to make the claim that the philosophy is so unknown even google cannot find it. And you were chiming in to back the point.

If that understanding is in error, my apologies.

 

[vz71]

Here’s my top issues.

Para two says evolution is unfalsifiable. ¿Que? Darwin himself gave the easiest way to falsify it – just find one specimen that can’t be explained by the theory and evolution is falsified, dead in the water. Easy peasy, zillions of candidates. 152 years later there have been many claims but all have failed, and of course every failed attempt tends to strengthen evolution’s acceptance. Very frustrating to those who don’t like it but just because they failed to find a falsification doesn’t mean the theory is unfalsifiable, the exact opposite, it means it’s a really strong scientific theory.

In practice, evolution is proving to be notoriously unfalsifiable.

I have been in more then a few debates where it literally appears that if something is within the realm of possibility, the theory is proven.

For instance, irreducibly complex systems…some, but not all…evolution simply does not provide a tenable explanation.
This would seem an area of falsability. Yet how many times do we see the proponent of the theory simply cling to the possibility (no matter how small) that the system evolved naturally.

There comes a point at which these defenses take on the properties of an unfalsifiable…and become more faith then science.

 

[buffalo]

We aim to please.

Agreed, what I’m having problems with is, at it were, understanding the vision – is it vanilla ID or something more?

I’m getting a 404 file not found on the pdf today but found an html version elsewhere which from memory looks the same. Here’s my top issues.

Para two says evolution is unfalsifiable. ¿Que? Darwin himself gave the easiest way to falsify it – just find one specimen that can’t be explained by the theory and evolution is falsified, dead in the water. Easy peasy, zillions of candidates. 152 years later there have been many claims but all have failed, and of course every failed attempt tends to strengthen evolution’s acceptance. Very frustrating to those who don’t like it but just because they failed to find a falsification doesn’t mean the theory is unfalsifiable, the exact opposite, it means it’s a really strong scientific theory.

Then there’s this style of philosophy in general. A certain Woodbury is quoted that “an effect cannot be higher than its cause, and every agent produces a like unto itself”, and this is then provisionally taken to prove that, for instance, “non-intellective primates cannot give rise to intellective ones”. “This crucial insight means that the material organization needed for the new and higher form is never present until that new form itself is present.” Nope, it ain’t necessarily so. An alternative conclusion is that trying to explain the natural world by making such abstracted theoretical arguments is and always has been rather pointless, we first need instead to leave the ivory tower and get our hands dirty by looking at real world evidence before turning to theory.

Then there’s the business about forms, but that rehearses a traditional view of the unity-and-yet-distinction between body and soul, which we could argue about until the cows come home.

That’s a mighty fine list but then we could find a list of issues in any active field, as long as science is an ongoing exploration there are bound to be loose ends.

However, pointing to loose ends elsewhere doesn’t say anything positive about design. Everything design says is explained more deeply by evolution, since where design just wants to say “this was designed”, evolution always wants to go further to explain the component parts and how they developed.

You will definitely object then - from not just cells but from basic chemistry to man over time. From physics even.

Have you noticed how evolutionism, the philosophy, just fits any problematic evidence in?

The list is not a list of loose ends. These are serious problems for evo and any honest scientist not wedded to the evo worldview will tell. Take a look at the Altenberg 16 interview. The top guys, while being cagey in their admissions, are acknowledging the latest findings. They don’t fit, period. They won’t fit, period.

The research is showing evidence for design. They thought they could suppress it but more and more is coming out. If you watch carefully you can see the ship turning, but it takes a while. Meanwhile typical attempts to insult, demean, legislate are going on.

IDvolution is the area where faith and science intersect. Anything from the religion (faith) side and the science (reason) that are in this intersection must complement each other. I believe it sets up a fine test:

“Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.” JPII

Now where is the weakness? Human reasoning of the science.

 http://www.searchquotes.com/images/quotemarkleft.png Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. http://www.searchquotes.com/images/quotemarkright.png JPII

Regarding your philosophy statement objection. “non-intellective primates cannot give rise to intellective ones”.

What is required? Information. Where does it come from? How is it inserted and maintained? Genetic entropy shows it cannot happen through natural means. And this is where we would be opposed - IDvolution posits that God created the world good, with these forms (prime matter) already in God’s thought or existence. Sin and corruption entered the world and from that time life has been struggling against decay and corruption. Bottom line - the earliest forms were better than we are.

Yes, I object to molecules to man. And sound science is coming to that conclusion. That is what is giving IDvolution some validation.

So, IDvolution (IMHO) sets up a fine test to human reasoning of science. I believe you should embrace it.

 

[buffalo]

I can’t speak for him but he’s certainly not my sworn enemy or anything, I’m not out to put him down.

Good to know…

 

[vz71]

Everything design says is explained more deeply by evolution, since where design just wants to say “this was designed”, evolution always wants to go further to explain the component parts and how they developed.

I have to take issue with this statement.

Everyone I have met that has subscribed to intelligent design has demonstrated a deep curiousity in how.

This is not an idle ‘this was designed’ it is a very active, “how did they do this?”

If anything, I would consider evolution to be the short end here.
Evolution is always looking for a natural explanation, and that is limiting since it discounts straight away any type of design.

 

[vz71]

Good to know…

Yikes.
Thanks for pointing it out.
I have corrected my post.

When writing in, I sometimes get lost among the quotes.

 

[inocente]

So you ignored the first hit?

Yes, self-referential hits don’t tell us anything useful and are well worth ignoring.

 

[inocente]

For instance, irreducibly complex systems…some, but not all…evolution simply does not provide a tenable explanation.

I’m not aware of any irreducibly complex systems. If one was found then the theory of evolution would immediately be falsified, worthless, and I’d have thought that would make the top story on world news. Until then a bit of skepticism about extravagant claims always comes in handy.

I’m wary of specifically debating evolution when it’s banned, especially as I’m the only one arguing for.

Everyone I have met that has subscribed to intelligent design has demonstrated a deep curiousity in how.

Quite possibly. I just meant that if I was to think snow leopards are designed, I might not be motivated to go much further in looking for an explanation of snow leopards. Before the theory of evolution, just about everyone believed in design and didn’t make much progress. Well, not until they started to put species into trees which led them to think of … evolution.

 

[inocente]

Have you noticed how evolutionism, the philosophy, just fits any problematic evidence in?

Don’t know what “evolutionism” might be except it seems to be a creationist invention, wishful thinking, trying to turn evolution into another mere –ism. Like creationism.

The list is not a list of loose ends.

I’m not in the life sciences so it’s not a big deal, it wouldn’t change my life if evolution was falsified, although I think that’s extremely unlikely. Due to the way it works science always tends to get it right in the end, and it’s fine with me if ID gets Christians thinking scientifically. But really, as I said before, I know God is with us because He touched my life and all the theorizing is irrelevant to my faith.

We’re probably OK discussing your web site but I’m wary of specifically debating evolution when it’s banned. Can you make your argument work using something else like big bang instead?

IDvolution is the area where faith and science intersect. Anything from the religion (faith) side and the science (reason) that are in this intersection must complement each other.

It’s hard for me to understand it as it seems to be a very Catholic oriented view, or at least I can’t think of any non-Catholic friends who could wrap their head around it, let alone agree.

 

[buffalo]

Don’t know what “evolutionism” might be except it seems to be a creationist invention, wishful thinking, trying to turn evolution into another mere –ism. Like creationism.

I’m not in the life sciences so it’s not a big deal, it wouldn’t change my life if evolution was falsified, although I think that’s extremely unlikely. Due to the way it works science always tends to get it right in the end, and it’s fine with me if ID gets Christians thinking scientifically. But really, as I said before, I know God is with us because He touched my life and all the theorizing is irrelevant to my faith.

We’re probably OK discussing your web site but I’m wary of specifically debating evolution when it’s banned. Can you make your argument work using something else like big bang instead?

It’s hard for me to understand it as it seems to be a very Catholic oriented view, or at least I can’t think of any non-Catholic friends who could wrap their head around it, let alone agree.

the ism - is what is going on today. Empirical proof does not exist so it qualifies.

Arrghhhh - I lose track - thought we were in the back fence. We can discuss it in the Back Fence.

Sure it is Catholic. I don’t think you will find anything there that would be a problem for a Baptist. Lots of Early Church Father references…and development up to 1500 and then stuff beyond, but again stuff that Baptist should have no problem with.

 

[buffalo]

I’m not aware of any irreducibly complex systems. If one was found then the theory of evolution would immediately be falsified, worthless, and I’d have thought that would make the top story on world news. Until then a bit of skepticism about extravagant claims always comes in handy.

I’m wary of specifically debating evolution when it’s banned, especially as I’m the only one arguing for.

Quite possibly. I just meant that if I was to think snow leopards are designed, I might not be motivated to go much further in looking for an explanation of snow leopards. Before the theory of evolution, just about everyone believed in design and didn’t make much progress. Well, not until they started to put species into trees which led them to think of … evolution.

The flagellum - take away any part…

At first the response was the blood clotting cascade? - but now we know that came after.

Mousetrap is IC - It’s specified function ceases when a part is removed.

 

[Lui]

I’m not in the life sciences so it’s not a big deal, it wouldn’t change my life if evolution was falsified, although I think that’s extremely unlikely. Due to the way it works science always tends to get it right in the end, and it’s fine with me if ID gets Christians thinking scientifically. But really, as I said before, I know God is with us because He touched my life and all the theorizing is irrelevant to my faith.

I agree. I roughly believe in evolution and that God created all but I’m not an “evolutionist” who walks from door to door trying to convince people of evolution. I just believe that the earth is about 4 billion years old(if science makes totally new discoveries regarding evolution, it’s fine with me). I just don’t believe the earth is extremely young and dinos and humans lived together like the Flinstones 10000 years ago or whenever. That is too absurd for me.

 

[vz71]

I’m not aware of any irreducibly complex systems.

ATP synthase motor
bacterial flagellum
The blood clotting mechanism

Are just a few.
And here is what I have noted for some time now.
With each of these, science has proposed a series of steps that could bring about the end product through some evolutionary process. However, these steps are significant in number, often with many steps occurring at the same time independant of each other, and over an extremely long period of time.

The chances of random mutations eventually ending with these is remote in the extreme.
And I will lay claim that falsifiability is lost since the chances are so remote we are talking about faith rather then actual science.
Just because a thing is within the realm of possibility does not mean that it happened or will happen.

If I see a hole a few inches in diameter and several inches deep, one could conclude someone dug it. Or we could conclude that lightning hit the same spot on the granite over and over again and after many thousands of lightning strikes dug into the granite.
Both theories can be of scientific merit, but only one is reasonable when anyone looks at the odds of a given event happening.

 

[vz71]

Yes, self-referential hits don’t tell us anything useful and are well worth ignoring.

In this instance, it was the main page.

 

[rossum]

ATP synthase motor
bacterial flagellum
The blood clotting mechanism

All three are indeed Irreducibly Complex. The problem for your argument is that Irreducibly Complex systems can evolve, and have been observed to evolve. Professor Behe himself has even calculated that a simple IC system can evolve in a small population of bacteria in about 20,000 years. See: Behe and Snoke (2004).

The chances of random mutations eventually ending with these is remote in the extreme.

Please show your calculations and the numbers you arrive at. In particular you will need to give the probabilities of each transition in the development of the IC mechanism and incorporate the effect of natural selection in the relevant population in the environment at the time.

Almost every probability calculation I have seen from the Creationist/ID side has failed to include the effects of natural selection acting in the population. A calculation that does not include natural selection is irrelevant to the probability of something evolving. Evolution includes natural selection as one of its mechanisms so any calculation purporting to represent evolution has to include the effects of natural selection.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

ATP synthase motor
bacterial flagellum
The blood clotting mechanism

Are just a few.
And here is what I have noted for some time now.
With each of these, science has proposed a series of steps that could bring about the end product through some evolutionary process. However, these steps are significant in number, often with many steps occurring at the same time independant of each other, and over an extremely long period of time.

The chances of random mutations eventually ending with these is remote in the extreme.
And I will lay claim that falsifiability is lost since the chances are so remote we are talking about faith rather then actual science.
Just because a thing is within the realm of possibility does not mean that it happened or will happen.

If I see a hole a few inches in diameter and several inches deep, one could conclude someone dug it. Or we could conclude that lightning hit the same spot on the granite over and over again and after many thousands of lightning strikes dug into the granite.
Both theories can be of scientific merit, but only one is reasonable when anyone looks at the odds of a given event happening.

Excellent. A possibility that defies the odds has no strength of argument.