Evidence for God from Science

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.And the Spirit if God moved upon the face of the waters. I reckon if the earth was created but without form (Gen1:2), the scriptures may...

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.And the Spirit if God moved upon the face of the waters. I reckon if the earth was created but without form (Gen1:2), the scriptures may...

Such is quite difficult for me to swallow in evolutionary terms. Of course, throw God into the picture (if you lean towards Theistic Evolution) and odds don't really matter, anything is really possible and evolution happened. God allows those Christians comforted by the laws of physics being finely...

What is disputed is your claim that human, chimp and chicken DNA is more or less similar, and that all the derivations from experimental results to the contrary are guesswork. This part of your reply deserves a post of its' own. What on earth are you talking about? I never said a chimp and chicken ...

I don't think either of us will get much further along these lines, so if you don't mind this will be my last post on the subject. I understand exactly what your scientists are saying, and exactly where, and by how much, they demonstrate the similarities and differences between chimp and human DNA....

It's called backing my view with more than my opinion. It is nice to chat, but I find it a waste of time to go around in circles using vagaries and opinion alone. Really? then it's good to read some proper research to see whether it really does back your opinion. Absolutely! However, unlike you, hu...

Thanks for the unnecessary information (which isn't all accurate). Just an FYI, I'm a nurse as I'm a scientist. Background in cardiac trauma among others, with unlimited access to scientific journals that are used for evidence based practice and best practice (you'd think they are the same, but the...

Thanks for the unnecessary information (which isn't all accurate). Just an FYI, I'm a nurse as I'm a scientist. Background in cardiac trauma among others, with unlimited access to scientific journals that are used for evidence based practice and best practice (you'd think they are the same, but the...

In other words, this research is no more than guess work with insertion values such as mutation rates that scientists are still debating over. I don't think this is easy to respond to. No, the research is not guesswork, but yes, it is still being debated about. You seem happy to accept mitochondria...

hughfarey, I like to post research to support the assertions I make. Me too, as you must be aware. Perhaps I should have waited till I had more time to respond. For the initial size of a human population based on gene diversity: "Estimation of Hominoid Ancestral Population Sizes under Bayesian...

hughfarey wrote: The minimum number of an ancestral group of organisms is related to their genetic diversity. Although Mitochondrial Eve was the source of all modern mtDNA, she and a single partner could not have encompassed the entire gene pool of the human species, which is why it is generally th...

hughfarey said I dispute that, but it gets to the core of the discussion. It's not that this or that piece of evidence proves creation or evolution, but that it can be interpreted as better supporting one than the other. It seems that the DNA evidence can be interpreted as supporting either. What ev...

hughfarey said That's cherry picking your evidence, in my opinion. Evolutionists don't deny that DNA comparisons lead to a single male and female ancestor. However, the same evidence also suggests that that they lived thousands of years apart, and other evidence suggests that they were not alone. I ...

There is a general point to be made here, which is that whenever a 'spontaneous creationist' spots a disagreement among evolutionists, that alone is assumed to be good evidence that evolution is a complete nonsense and thus creationism must be correct. They rarely look at themselves from a similar ...

An interesting collection of statements, which illustrate well the different approaches that creationists and evolutionists take to the evidence - evidence, I may say, entirely discovered by evolutionists. The mantra “this supports creationism” is, I’m afraid, more or less meaningless. After all, a...