Digging around for proof of God's existence

@fmf said
I don't agree. I don't see how faith without proof is superior in any way to faith that is based on perceived proof.

But you have no faith and therefore are not equipped to lecture about faith.


If faith is proven, it ceases to be faith and becomes fact.

@suzianne said
But you have no faith and therefore are not equipped to lecture about faith.

I may well understand faith better than you do, given my circumstances.

@suzianne said
And I didn't claim that you did.

If that is true, then how silly it was of you to blurt out:

"If you just want to claim that no one should listen to him, then you should post your own thread and say exactly that, instead of this integrity-free path you did take."

@fmf said
If that is true, then how silly it was of you to blurt out:

"If you just want to claim that no one should listen to him, then you should post your own thread and say exactly that, instead of this integrity-free path you did take."

If you do, then you should. Sounded pretty clear to me.

@suzianne said
If you do, then you should. Sounded pretty clear to me.

Despite your rather clumsy swing, I am not claiming that no one should listen to mchill - far from it, indeed, I am engaging him - and, despite your suggestion, I am not going to start a new thread of my own in order to address the OP on this one.

@mchill said
Be it through mathematics, archology, numerology, biology, genealogy, paleontology or any other arts and sciences, people have been digging around for centuries for proof of God's existence. Well folks, that's A-OK with me, and I'll admit, it's led to some scientific breakthroughs, but IMHO it's running in the wrong direction.

A young rabbi once said "If one has to dig up ...[text shortened]... use you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

In life, are you in the habit of believing things without corroborating evidence?

Charlatans around the world rejoice!

@suzianne said
I agree. How much faith do they have to begin with, if they think they need some kind of "proof"? Where there are artifacts that people claim prove the existence of God, there are con men, looking for a fast buck. The fact remains that we can never have proof of God. Air-tight proof of God means we have no choice to believe or to not believe. This goes against God's pla ...[text shortened]... proof of God. This is what is meant by John 20:29 (which I'm sure you meant, there is no John 29.)

I actually find theistic indifference to proof alarming.

Free will doesn't excuse one from the search for proof, it enables it.

Stephen Meyer an ID exponent said it may be time to redefine science's definition.

"Darwinists say they're under some sort of epistemological obligation to continue trying . . . "

He means trying to apply Darwin's nineteenth -century thinking to twenty-first century reality. That is applying explanations from an era of the steamboat are no longer adequate to explain the biological world in the 21rst century information age.

Dr. Meyer again: [my bolding]

"Darwinists say they're under some sort of epistemological obligation to continue trying, because to invoke design would be to give up on science. Well, I say its time to redefine science. We should not be looking for only the best naturalistic explanation, but the best explanation, period. And intelligent design is the explanation that's most in conformity with how the world works."

The Cambrian explosion is a mysterious episode in life's history. Darwin considered it a disturbing challenge to his theory of gradual and unguided evolution by natural selection. It is still a challenge.

Information Enigma: Where does information come from? (good music too)

Dr. Stephen Meyer.

YouTube&ab_channel=DiscoveryScience

@sonship said
The Cambrian explosion is a mysterious episode in life's history. Darwin considered it a disturbing challenge to his theory of gradual and unguided evolution by natural selection. It is still a challenge.

Information Enigma: Where does information come from? (good music too)

Dr. Stephen Meyer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-FcnLsF1g&ab_channel=DiscoveryScience

To be clear, this poses a challenge regarding the origin of all life; it is not a challenge to the fact of evolution, the gradual progression of the diversity of life.

@vivify said
To be clear, this poses a challenge regarding the origin of all life; it is not a challenge to the fact of evolution, the gradual progression of the diversity of life.

Well there are some distinct oddities from the Burgess Shale formation which aren't easily shoe-horned into a gradual progression. Good support for the 'punctuated equilibrium' model - S J Gould wrote a great book about it.

@vivify

To be clear, this poses a challenge regarding the origin of all life; it is not a challenge to the fact of evolution, the gradual progression of the diversity of life.

Go to about 15:35 in the video and listen for just three to four minutes.
The narrator said that some evolutionary biologists themselves say the combinatorial problem poses a problem for evolution per se.

The narrator:
"It follows that it is overwhelmingly likely that a random mutational search would have failed to produce even one new functional protein fold in the entire history of life on earth."

@sonship said
@vivify

To be clear, this poses a challenge regarding the origin of all life; it is not a challenge to the fact of evolution, the gradual progression of the diversity of life.

Go to about 15:35 in the video and listen for just three to four minutes.
The narrator said that some evolutionary biologists themselves say the combinatorial pr ...[text shortened]... have failed to produce even one new functional protein fold in the entire history of life on earth."

I checked out your source and their videos are explicitly anti-evolution. It follows then that your source is biased.

That aside, why point is being made here? Is this about the claim that mutations don't produce "new information" like IDists like to allege?

@vivify

I checked out your source and the videos are explicitly anti-evolution. It follows then that your source is biased.

That is bordering on a genetic fallacy.
"Its wrong because look who made it."


One man's "anti-evolution bias" is another man's progress of science.
One man's "anti-evolution bias" is another man's inference to the best explanation is being alternative theory. In this case Intelligent Design.

That aside, why point is being made here? Is this about the claim that mutations don't produce "new information" like IDists like to allege?

Go to 12:00 - 15:41

Unless you decide simply not to give it your time and rest that the source makes all things in the talk untrue.

@sonship said
@vivify

I checked out your source and the videos are explicitly anti-evolution. It follows then that your source is biased.

That is bordering on a genetic fallacy.
"Its wrong because look who made it."


One man's "anti-evolution bias" is another man's progress of science.
One man's "anti-evolution bias" is another man's inference to the ...[text shortened]... decide simply not to give it your time and rest that the source makes all things in the talk untrue.

I didn't say the video is wrong because it's biased, I simply pointed that it is. Bias often leads to incorrect information or assumptions that are self-serving.

But I did watch the section of the video your referenced, and it's still not clear what point is being made. Is it saying that a probability of a mutation with "information" occurring is low? If so, that's ridiculous, since they happen all the time.

If that's not what it's saying, please clear it up.