Thread: Who do you "pray" to?

Originally Posted by Seraphim

I also wanted to point out vis-a-vis my graph post that assumptions do indeed influence what is later determined to be "fact". And scientifically speaking the only correct conclusion based on the original data set that can be drawn is not that you have a linear, nor even a polynomial graph, all that can be determined from that data is that you have data at points A, B, & C. That's it. The rest is unsubstantiated.

Evolution has passed possibly the ultimate test: it has produced viable technology.

If you have been immunized against anything, you are using technology that would not have been devoloped if Evolution were false. If you go to the hospital with an unknown infection, they would not have a clue how to identify it if Evolution were false.

Denying Evolution while benefiting from it's technology is like listening to the radio while denying the existence of the electromagnetic spectrum. Or looking at Hiroshima while denying atoms. Or building an elaborate trap to kill someone by dropping a piano on their head, while denying gravity.

Originally Posted by jcd

Evolution has passed possibly the ultimate test: it has produced viable technology.

If you have been immunized against anything, you are using technology that would not have been devoloped if Evolution were false. If you go to the hospital with an unknown infection, they would not have a clue how to identify it if Evolution were false.

Denying Evolution while benefiting from it's technology is like listening to the radio while denying the existence of the electromagnetic spectrum. Or looking at Hiroshima while denying atoms. Or building an elaborate trap to kill someone by dropping a piano on their head, while denying gravity.

How pray tell do you come to these conclusions?

Originally Posted by jcd

Evolution has passed possibly the ultimate test: it has produced viable technology.

If you have been immunized against anything, you are using technology that would not have been devoloped if Evolution were false. If you go to the hospital with an unknown infection, they would not have a clue how to identify it if Evolution were false.

Denying Evolution while benefiting from it's technology is like listening to the radio while denying the existence of the electromagnetic spectrum. Or looking at Hiroshima while denying atoms. Or building an elaborate trap to kill someone by dropping a piano on their head, while denying gravity.

Evolution in regards to survival of the fittest, etc, and the passing on of genetic information may well be proven fact. I believe this is what you are refering to? Bacteria can easily be seen across many generations, developing resistance, what have you, right?

But Evolution in regards to one organism evolving into quite another over time I do not believe has been proven. However long you let those bacterium reproduce I do not think it has been shown that they become anything else than what they are.

It appears to me there are at least three representations of evolution:

#1- Survival of the fittest, change over time within a species

#2- Evolution in regards to one organism having developed from another through a great period of time, via a similar method as item #1 above, except not staying within a species.

#3- Using that method to extrapolate that this is how all life came to be.

Originally Posted by xman

I certainly can be guilty of generalizations, it often happens in discussions and I apologise for any confusion because of it.

That you are a parent twice over against the odds is quite joyful. Congratulations. But what is it that you observed? As the A through B to C example you sighted yourself what you observed was that you as a couple, against all odds, now have two children. It is not only uncertain that any gods or other magical beings had any hand in it, it is unprovable and anecdotal at best. It doesn't matter that people prayed for you, it can't be substantiated as having had any effect. Just like a man who claims to have seen a UFO, it doesn't mean one was there.

I am so very happy for you though.

As I said, it certainly is not scientifically evidenced fact.

Now, if my wife and I had been in our 20's, no health issues, no fertility issues and said that we prayed to God for a baby, and then became pregnant. Well that isn't so surprising, is it?

In our case, my wife was 40+, scientifically tested as not fertile.

There is a saying: Expecting fruit from a green branch is not a miracle, but rather getting fruit from a dry one is.

As far as A,B,C goes. That is not so cut and dry. Say you are sick, you go to the doctor, he gives you medicine, then you get better.
Can all that you can deduce from that be that you were once sick,and now you are better, without considering the intermediate step?

Oy, I'm having trouble keeping up with this thread, seems every time I come back there's another 2 pages. Really enjoying the different viewpoints though! I haven't been able to watch any of the videos posted as I don't have sound on my computer.

Anyway, Like Seraphim I'm an engineer, degree in mechanical engineering with automotive concentration, I work in vehicle durability testing following basically the scientific method as far as having repeatable controlled results, observing evidence and drawing conclusions from that. On top of that I'm a 2nd generation engineer (my dad has a Ph.D in Nuclear Metallurgy, and has worked on development of naval reactors, was a professor at UVA, and worked in the nuclear power industry for many years), so I've been around the engineering culture my whole life.

In the case of both my dad and myself, this mindset is exactly what has led us to the conclusion of believing in the Christian faith/God, Jesus Christ, etc. My dad often comments that evolution would be a fine theory if only it didn't require so much unsubstantiated faith.

Vestigial Organs: The Wings of the Flightless Cormorant - Richard Dawkins

I was going to get deep but there's no hope for any common ground.
Mr. Dawkins calls this "in a negative direction" . This to me is micro evolution (within a species) no proof in chemical data only mutation. The wings still have purpose because without them the bird would not be able to catch its food.

The bird that fishes, but doesn’t fly

Intelligent design does not claim to be science but Theory. The issue is anyone attempting to bring anything other macro evolution to their peers for scientific consensus is gonna face opposition that hasn't been seen since the inquisition( Galileo who was a religous man and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life because of what he was suggesting not only by the church but was also conndemmed by his "peers") .
Did you even look at this website?
FAQ: Does intelligent design theory implement the scientific method?

Here is a vid about peer review
Discovery Institute

I haven't the time right now but I will be back.

Originally Posted by JMS

How pray tell do you come to these conclusions?

I don't know how I can be more clear.

I pointed out three scientific theories: electro-magnetism, atoms, and gravity.

I then pointed out three technologies based on these theories: radios, bombs, and falling pianos.

Isn't it obvious that denying the theories while accepting the technology is absurd?

But how do any of those technologies relate to evolution?
You're suggesting that electromagnetism evolved?

Originally Posted by jcd

I don't know how I can be more clear.

I pointed out three scientific theories: electro-magnetism, atoms, and gravity.

I then pointed out three technologies based on these theories: radios, bombs, and falling pianos.

Isn't it obvious that denying the theories while accepting the technology is absurd?

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Evolution in regards to survival of the fittest, etc, and the passing on of genetic information may well be proven fact. I believe this is what you are refering to? Bacteria can easily be seen across many generations, developing resistance, what have you, right?

But Evolution in regards to one organism evolving into quite another over time I do not believe has been proven. However long you let those bacterium reproduce I do not think it has been shown that they become anything else than what they are.

I wasn't just referring to evolution being observed forwards, with lineages splitting into a tree like structure. It can be varified backwards, from the branches to the trunk, using genetic markers, so despite what you say, it has been proven. This is what is used to identify unknown organisms, and allows them to be attacked if necessary. (This is the same technology which will verify if the child who looks suspiciously like the mailman really is who he is supposed to be.)

You allude to, but don't use the (horrible) terms micro/macro evolution. You believe in micro, but not macro. This position doesn't have a basis because
a) there are no barriers (even proposed barriers) to prevent many micro events adding up to a macro event.
b) macro evolution has been proved to have happened, using genetic evidence.

Proved when, and by whom?
At least as of the last biology class/textbook I had (2003) mutation resulting in a new species was completely unverified. Adaptation within a species is of course completely verified.

Originally Posted by jcd

I wasn't just referring to evolution being observed forwards, with lineages splitting into a tree like structure. It can be varified backwards, from the branches to the trunk, using genetic markers, so despite what you say, it has been proven. This is what is used to identify unknown organisms, and allows them to be attacked if necessary. (This is the same technology which will verify if the child who looks suspiciously like the mailman really is who he is supposed to be.)

You allude to, but don't use the (horrible) terms micro/macro evolution. You believe in micro, but not macro. This position doesn't have a basis because
a) there are no barriers (even proposed barriers) to prevent many micro events adding up to a macro event.
b) macro evolution has been proved to have happened, using genetic evidence.