Disproving God using science?

[Robittybob1]

Just because the post immediately followed yours does not mean it was a direct response to you. I intended it as a broader point that spoke to the larger thread discussion occuring. Apologies for any confusion.

 

 

Maybe this will help: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#Reducing-atm

Thanks for clearing that up for Strange.

That article is quite good and if you know me at all you'll know why I liked this sentence straight out of the article.

"For example he neglects to mention the famous Murchison meteorite, which contains mixtures of organic compounds much like those produced in Miller-Urey style experiments, and which constitutes direct evidence that just the right kind of prebiotic chemistry was occurring at least somewhere in the early solar system, and that some of those products found their way to earth (see e.g. Engel and Macko, 2001 for a recent review)."

 

[forex]

 

That's a poor analogy. M-U was designed to show that life was possible through chemical reactions in the early Earth environment. It had no obligations to form an intricate whole, when it had billions of years to work on it. Billions, not thousands.

 

Except we see it every day, so your argument fails the reality check. Evolution is a fact, and the theory of Evolution describes its mechanisms. Sorry about what that does to your beliefs.

 

Miller-Urey Experiment showed that some organic compounds of life were possible through chemical reactions. Nothing more.

On the other hand, life is the ability to maintain and to replicate a set of interdependent molecular component parts forming a intricate whole(organism), which is impossible to form through chemical reactions because chemical systems are heading towards equilibrium or towards a state of minimum potential energy and not towards a state in which complex molecular component parts will maintain and replicate themselves.

 

Magic of time doesn't work here. The greater the time elapsed the greater should be the approach to equilibrium. This is science that can be observed in a laboratory every day.

Everything else is pseudoscience, just so stories, wishful thinking and hyped-up media reports.

 

Regarding evolution, what we see is nothing but frequency of phenotypic plasticity - results of the build-in ability of an organism to change its phenotype in response to changes in the environment.And that will not turn a bacteria into something like a human. Sorry about what that does to your beliefs.

[Robittybob1]

Abiogenesis? This thread is about adiogenesis, isn't it?

 

As a teenager I struggled with my family's explanation that God always existed and created the Universe. I thought, "Why couldn't the Universe always exist (without a god)? I didn't need proof, just doubt, which is sufficient..

Abiogenesis or adiogenesis are different spellings for the same event but only one is rejected by spellcheck.

[EdEarl]

Abiogenesis or adiogenesis are different spellings for the same event but only one is rejected by spellcheck.

I made up adiogenesis, which was meant to suggest genesis of a deity, but should have spelled it adeigenesis maybe. Thought I had a brainstorm; obviously, it was a brainbarf.

[Robittybob1]

I made up adiogenesis, which was meant to suggest genesis of a deity, but should have spelled it adeigenesis maybe. Thought I had a brainstorm; obviously, it was a brainbarf.

No it was great. I like making up new words too. What does the "a" at the beginning of adeigenesis imply? For in abiogenesis the "a" has a similar meaning to "before" but I couldn't find it quickly.

 

 

Origin of abiogenesis

New Latin, from (2)a- + bio- + Latin genesis

Edited February 16, 2016 by Robittybob1

[EdEarl]

Abiogenesis means new or earliest life.

[Robittybob1]

Abiogenesis means new or earliest life.

I know that but I was looking at the root of that word there was three parts "a", "bio" and "genesis"

In new word "a", "dei" and "genesis" so what is the "a" part mean? I can see dei is from deity and genesis - from Greek for origin, but what does the "a" mean?

Sometimes "a" could mean without, so does adeigenesis mean "origins without God" "origins without a deity"

Edited February 16, 2016 by Robittybob1

[DanTrentfield]

This is a very big thing to disprove, and yet a bigger thing to prove, I'll give what facts we know that support/attack both theories using the most neutral stance possible as the scientific method dictates:

 

1: Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, so matter and energy had to come from somewhere (For a God)

 

2: God would be impossible to detect prove or disprove as evidence cannot be collected from a neutral standpoint of intelligent design/creation (Against a God)

 

3: All math, physics, and chemistry provide no evidence of intelligent design besides the fact that they simply exist which just isn't good enough (Against a God)

 

4: Quantum mechanics, and quantum physics generally rule against the existence of a God (These being excepted from 3 because they provide especially strong bias against a God)

 

5: If there have been so many religions over thousands of years, why should any of them be real if all or most are said to be fake? (Against a God)

 

Unless there is more out there which I'm missing (Which there probably is, I just decided to make this a paragraph instead of a paper) the tally is God 1; No God 4. My money on neither because I can go on existing without either so this is a mute point for me.

Edited February 17, 2016 by DanTrentfield

[Robittybob1]

This is a very big thing to disprove, and yet a bigger thing to prove, I'll give what facts we know that support/attack both theories using the most neutral stance possible as the scientific method dictates:

 

1: Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, so matter and energy had to come from somewhere (For a God)

 

2: God would be impossible to detect prove or disprove as evidence cannot be collected from a neutral standpoint of intelligent design/creation (Against a God)

 

3: All math, physics, and chemistry provide no evidence of intelligent design besides the fact that they simply exist which just isn't good enough (Against a God)

 

4: Quantum mechanics, and quantum physics generally rule against the existence of a God (These being excepted from 3 because they provide especially strong bias against a God)

 

5: If there have been so many religions over thousands of years, why should any of them be real if all or most are said to be fake? (Against a God)

 

Unless there is more out there which I'm missing (Which there probably is, I just decided to make this a paragraph instead of a paper) the tally is God 1; No God 4. My money on neither because I can go on existing without either so this is a mute point for me.

You seem to have an unusual logic.

I might have scored that 1 to nothing.

2,3,4 and 5 don't seem to have any evidential value so are neither for or against. hence all score zero.

[EdEarl]

OM bussta thinks there is scientific proof for no god, DanTrentfield thinks there is a proof for God, an. d several of us say science cannot prove anything. The majority wins in a democracy. I'm waiting for the feathers to settle. Maybe a moderator will declare Dan to be hijacking a thread.

[Robittybob1]

OM bussta thinks there is scientific proof for no god, DanTrentfield thinks there is a proof for God, an. d several of us say science cannot prove anything. The majority wins in a democracy. I'm waiting for the feathers to settle. Maybe a moderator will declare Dan to be hijacking a thread.

DanTrentfield thinks there is a proof for God - just 1 out of the 5. The majority win on the forum. Did he hijack the thread? The OP seems to have a very loose question to answer:Quote OP #1

 

While I think the arguments are definitely irrefutable (it's hard to argue with math), do you think science can disprove God?

Edited February 17, 2016 by Robittybob1

[Phi for All]

DanTrentfield thinks there is a proof for God,

 

Did I misread him? I thought he came out 4:1 against?

[forex]

 

You have conveniently 'forgotten' the evidence i gave for this on that very thread.

 

On the plus side you provide a classic case study for how the anti-science establishment debates.

In the internet debates I have one simple rule: do not respond to claims that have nothing to do with basic argument.

The basic premis of my argument was this: "There is no knowledge in biology, based on facts learned through experiments and observation which shows that process of evolution can create new/de novo genes." Lenski experiment clearly demonstrated that the premise is true.

Your claim was this: "We have populations of a certain bacteria that were once susceptible to antibiotics which are no longer susceptible to antibiotics", and you gave the mecA gene as an example.

mecA gene is not "de novo" gene, whose evolution has been observed in the laboratory from initially identical populations that lack this gene. The mecA gene was discovered by scientist in bacterial cells fully functional. All we know is that in the wild it spreads by horizontal gene transfer and that it allows a bacterium to be resistant to penicillin and penicillin-like antibiotics.

So, there is no knowledge in biology, based on facts learned through experiments and observation which shows that the mecA gene is de novo gene, formed through random genetic changes from pre-existing junk genes/DNA. All we know is that the mecA gene exist. Nobody saw it "evolving". So, your "evidence" has nothing to do with my basic premis.

 

That is why I responded with general claim that antibiotic resistance via mutation is due to loss of pre-existing cellular systems/activities and that resistance resulting from horizontal gene transfer merely provides a mechanism for transferring pre-existing resistance genes and does not provide a mechanism for the origin of those genes.

 

Now, imagine how much time I would need to respond to every non sequitur claim like yours. For this reason there is one Latin maxim: semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit or "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges". This rule exists in a courtrooms, in science, in philosophical discussion, in debates... burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

You implicitly made a claim that mecA gene is "de novo" gene formed through random genetic changes, but you didn't prove it. This time I made an exception and went to disprove something I shouldn't, but I won't do that next time.

Edited February 17, 2016 by forex

[DrP]

Laryngeal nerves are a very strong case that evolution is a real thing. It kinda clears it all up for me anyway. The Laryngeal nerve in a giraffe is clear evidence for either evolution or very flawed design.

 

I did try to come up with a reason why it would be beneficial to have your laryngeal nerve go down and around your aorta... it was very, very sketchy at least - hear goes anyway:

 

I read recently that you can survive a heart attack and a stopped heart by self cardial massage through powerful coughing that can and has been know to kickstart the heart much like CPR as the chest contracts and squeeses the heart during the coughing. If this nerve runs right round your aorta then I can see that mabye (MAYBE!!! clutching at straws... very fine breakable straws!!)... maybe during a heart attack this coughing could be helped by shouting and that the laryngeal nerve could tighten and pull up on the heart and help with this self massaging CPR...... but as I was typing it out it seemed so stupid I nearly just hit the delete button on my whole post. - lol.

[EdEarl]

 

Did I misread him? I thought he came out 4:1 against?

Perhaps (satire) I misread him.

Laryngeal nerves are a very strong case that evolution is a real thing. It kinda clears it all up for me anyway. The Laryngeal nerve in a giraffe is clear evidence for either evolution or very flawed design.

 

I did try to come up with a reason why it would be beneficial to have your laryngeal nerve go down and around your aorta... it was very, very sketchy at least - hear goes anyway:

 

I read recently that you can survive a heart attack and a stopped heart by self cardial massage through powerful coughing that can and has been know to kickstart the heart much like CPR as the chest contracts and squeeses the heart during the coughing. If this nerve runs right round your aorta then I can see that mabye (MAYBE!!! clutching at straws... very fine breakable straws!!)... maybe during a heart attack this coughing could be helped by shouting and that the laryngeal nerve could tighten and pull up on the heart and help with this self massaging CPR...... but as I was typing it out it seemed so stupid I nearly just hit the delete button on my whole post. - lol.

LOL

This kind of brainstorming is good, as long as everyone understands it is untested hypothesis.

Edited February 17, 2016 by EdEarl

[DrP]

OK - The evidence for this cough CPR is anecdotal at best... (at work - cannot link)... Statements by the American Heart Association and the Resuscitation Council UK suggest that there is no evidence for this (or against it though)... However, if alone and having a heart attack I would give it a go... I think the coughing part and chest thumping might just come naturally... anyway, the laryngeal nerve will probably play no part either so it's diversion around the heart is seeminly meaningless (and a pretty good case for evolution). ;-)

Edited February 17, 2016 by DrP

[Strange]

The basic premis of my argument was this: "There is no knowledge in biology, based on facts learned through experiments and observation which shows that process of evolution can create new/de novo genes."

 

This is a strawman. It looks very similar to the tornado in a junkyard argument. New genes are not magically going to appear from nothing (assuming that is what you mean by de novo). But there is plenty of evidence of "new" genes (i.e. genes that weren't present in ancestors) being produced. These are typically created by copying a segment of DNA or an entire chromosome, therefore they are not created de novo.

 

But by restricting your argument to only magical methods of creating new genes, you ensure that it is right but also irrelevant. What is the point of that?

[Phi for All]

I did try to come up with a reason why it would be beneficial to have your laryngeal nerve go down and around your aorta... it was very, very sketchy at least -

 

I think the reason the laryngeal nerves are the way they are isn't because they serve a purpose being inordinately long (it's only inches from the brain to the larynx in humans, for instance), but because there was no overriding reason to make them shorter. The energy expense in rerouting that nerve to be shorter obviously isn't worth it, and so it doesn't change. Not in any tetrapods. No matter the length of the nerve (we're pretty sure it's longer in whales, and predict it was longer for sauropods, although that type of cell deteriorates too quickly for fossilization to tell us much).

[DanTrentfield]

You seem to have an unusual logic.

I might have scored that 1 to nothing.

2,3,4 and 5 don't seem to have any evidential value so are neither for or against. hence all score zero.

You're right, I should stop posting late at night..... at least I said my moneys on neither....

[Phi for All]

You're right, I should stop posting late at night..... at least I said my moneys on neither....

 

Still, you have a Humanist outlook to the situation, it seems. For instance, if you're not a stamp-collector, you view religion the same way you view collecting stamps. You don't hate stamps or those who collect them, you just don't participate. Simple.

 

And so, while we are completely open to some evidence for or against, until that's available, we can focus on humans and their development in the universe. And leave stamps and gods to those who're interested.

[DanTrentfield]

OM bussta thinks there is scientific proof for no god, DanTrentfield thinks there is a proof for God, an. d several of us say science cannot prove anything. The majority wins in a democracy. I'm waiting for the feathers to settle. Maybe a moderator will declare Dan to be hijacking a thread.

Excuse me, I organized my statements (With dubious reasoning of course as it was late at night, but they still stand) using a neutral standpoint as the scientific method dictates, and clearly stated my own neutrality as once again dictated by the scientific method, I am neither for nor against because it is:

 

1 a mute point

 

2 a non-realistically debatable topic as there is not enough proof on either side to form a concluding statement for either side

[Prometheus]

The second null hypothesis - "evolutionary processes are not able to create new genes" has also never been refuted. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/90622-how-can-a-rational-person-believe-in-evolution/?p=881811

Without new genes evolution is not possible.

 

Of course, the implicit null-hypothesis most anti-evolutionists actually have is 'magic invisible sky daddy did it'.

 

The basic premis of my argument was this: "There is no knowledge in biology, based on facts learned through experiments and observation which shows that process of evolution can create new/de novo genes." Lenski experiment clearly demonstrated that the premise is true.

Your claim was this: "We have populations of a certain bacteria that were once susceptible to antibiotics which are no longer susceptible to antibiotics", and you gave the mecA gene as an example.

mecA gene is not "de novo" gene, whose evolution has been observed in the laboratory from initially identical populations that lack this gene. The mecA gene was discovered by scientist in bacterial cells fully functional. All we know is that in the wild it spreads by horizontal gene transfer and that it allows a bacterium to be resistant to penicillin and penicillin-like antibiotics.

So, there is no knowledge in biology, based on facts learned through experiments and observation which shows that the mecA gene is de novo gene, formed through random genetic changes from pre-existing junk genes/DNA. All we know is that the mecA gene exist. Nobody saw it "evolving". So, your "evidence" has nothing to do with my basic premis.

 

That is why I responded with general claim that antibiotic resistance via mutation is due to loss of pre-existing cellular systems/activities and that resistance resulting from horizontal gene transfer merely provides a mechanism for transferring pre-existing resistance genes and does not provide a mechanism for the origin of those genes.

 

So the question is: is mecA a new gene? I'm not really sure what you mean by new: i'm going with it hasn't been observed by humans before - let me know if this is incorrect. Staphylococcus aureus was first sequenced in 2001 so we're unlikely to know whether mecA is a new gene as antibiotic resistance was already present in this species. However, your claim is not just "There is no knowledge in biology, based on facts learned through experiments and observation which shows that process of evolution can create new/de novo genes." but also that this precludes evolution (let me know if you wish to move the goalposts again). You don't necessarily need new genes to drive evolution, recombinations of existing genes may be enough. As in when a bacterial population acquires a new trait - initially present only a few individuals - like antibiotic resistance. It is populations that evolve, not individuals.

 

Now, imagine how much time I would need to respond to every non sequitur claim like yours. For this reason there is one Latin maxim: semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit or "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges". This rule exists in a courtrooms, in science, in philosophical discussion, in debates... burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

You implicitly made a claim that mecA gene is "de novo" gene formed through random genetic changes, but you didn't prove it. This time I made an exception and went to disprove something I shouldn't, but I won't do that next time.

 

Even if the evidence i supplied was erroneous (i.e. mecA is not a new gene), it would not be a non-sequitur. I'm not normally so pedantic but as you are trying to muddy the waters rather than seeking clarity i will draw attention to it (there may be people following the debate unfamiliar with non-sequiturs and will learn about it in the context of our debate). If the evidence is erroneous then the premise is flawed, not the logical structure of my argument.

 

It is deliciously ironic that your claim of a non-sequitur is itself a non-sequitur.

 

Also, you have admonished others (more than once) for neglecting evidence you have supplied, but then defend your right to do so. This is the very definition of hypocrisy and another classic trick of the anti-scientific minded.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Prometheus

[Phi for All]

Excuse me, I organized my statements (With dubious reasoning of course as it was late at night, but they still stand) using a neutral standpoint as the scientific method dictates, and clearly stated my own neutrality as once again dictated by the scientific method, I am neither for nor against because it is:

 

1 a mute point

 

2 a non-realistically debatable topic as there is not enough proof on either side to form a concluding statement for either side

 

1. Definitely not mute since we're talking about it. If you mean "moot", I disagree. It's not debatable really, and it's not that the subject is too uncertain. Because:

 

2. It IS non-realistically debatable, but not for the reasons you list. It's not debatable because of the intrinsic nature of god(s) to be magically unobservable. Without direct empirical observation, we can easily attribute anything claimed to be from gods to natural causes. Trying to disprove god(s) violates methodology that requires a theory to be falsifiable. Not false, but capable of being shown to be false. You can't do that with god(s) who can't or refuse to be observed. So actually, the science "side" of the debate is that it can't take a side if it can't observe supportive evidence to form an hypothesis, conduct experiments, and make predictions based on consistent, repeatable outcomes.

 

Science is NOT the tool to use in this instance.

[DanTrentfield]

 

1. Definitely not mute since we're talking about it. If you mean "moot", I disagree. It's not debatable really, and it's not that the subject is too uncertain. Because:

 

2. It IS non-realistically debatable, but not for the reasons you list. It's not debatable because of the intrinsic nature of god(s) to be magically unobservable. Without direct empirical observation, we can easily attribute anything claimed to be from gods to natural causes. Trying to disprove god(s) violates methodology that requires a theory to be falsifiable. Not false, but capable of being shown to be false. You can't do that with god(s) who can't or refuse to be observed. So actually, the science "side" of the debate is that it can't take a side if it can't observe supportive evidence to form an hypothesis, conduct experiments, and make predictions based on consistent, repeatable outcomes.

 

Science is NOT the tool to use in this instance.

Yes which is why my money is on neither. *Science doesn't apply* WHOOSH over my head. (About the moot versus mute, I hate English because it has so many spellings of the same word, for instance you have Enquire versus Inquire and other silly stuff like that.) My native Swedish is much better.

Edited February 17, 2016 by DanTrentfield

[Moontanman]

Gods in general cannot be disproved, but a God specifically can be, for instance it is pretty obvious that the god of the holy bible as described in the Bible is false..