Evidence for God from Science

BUT, you don't even need to dive too much into fossils, geology, dating methods and rates of this and that. It is simply common sense that the Earth is older than 6000 years old. There are simply too many lifeforms, too many geologic events, too many distinct periods in Earth's history for it to FI...

I'm not really into this young vs. old business, but I'll say one thing. IF I were to be making a case for anything younger then 10 thousand years old, it would have to be the earth. The universe is obviously a lot older given its constant expansion rate from the big bang and by looking at the age o...

there are a lot of things on Earth that are detrimental to mankind or else do nothing of any significance for mankind. And why would humans catch HIV from monkeys if they werem't closely related? If humans were a "special creation", shouldn't we have been created immune to the diseases of...

Anita, just one thing, when David B. tells us that DNA is a messy storage attic and that it contains non-coding DNA in one sentence, we know that he is just stating his opinion, since even Wiki defines junk DNA as such: In molecular biology, junk DNA is a provisional label for the portions of the DN...

David, first you say:

1)

Irrefutable evidence for common descent:

then you say:

2)

This is absolute proof of common descent.

While I think ERV's, pseudogenes etc... are examples supporting common descent, they are in no way 2).

Just to add to the discussion, here are a few smiley's that might be of relevance to the OP:

You can't argue against the smileys

This is an example of what Darwinian Evolution is not. Venter even stated that even though they are using existing design, there is no room for hope since this is a matter of engineering and not some sort of waiting game expecting results to come through without paying attention to details.

Can someone please tell me why, if all earthly organisms do not share a common ancester, they all share the same four nitrogen bases in their DNA. Adenine, cytosine , guanine and thymine are found in all organisms, experiments have also been conducted transplanting DNA from one species to another, ...

While I find theistic evolution to make sense for the Universe and all life on Earth, since God had to put it there in the beginning and lay the "ground rules", I am unsure on how our current manifestation of human (H. sapiens) became the species "created in God's image". I don'...

I went back to read the first page of the thread.... Micro evolution is nothing like Macro Evolution. Why? Because there is no such thing as Macro evolution. There simply is or isn't evolution. The only place Macro Evolution exists is in a place called philosophy. Micro evolution is observable, stic...

Oh, come on.....they can handle it! Let me cry a river here for them. Debate is only fair. There is a vocal proportion of scientists who use the *mechanism* of evolution to gird their philosophy of naturalism and atheism. They tread into waters their own science cannot support. Fair is fair. THey u...

I don't really buy that the loss of eyesight in any animal is considered "degenerated". Maybe the eyes themselves are degenerate, but the organism itself is just as likely more derived, as in the degenerate eyes are apomorphic. This is plainly obvious in deepwater fishes and even inverteb...

I'll have to remember that ID accepts microevolution AND Darwinian in reverse. At this rate, it won't be long until they accept all evolution. Microevolution does not create anything either, its a reactive process and if you can provide me one example of a reactive process that creates complex spec...

So the loss of eyes is explainable by Darwinian evolution and IDer's agree since it is an example of a loss of function. I want to know how this does anything for either side? I guess ID wants to define exactly what type of evolution is likes and what it doesn't. The point is the article attempts t...

Himantolophus wrote:so lots of micro-evolution doesn't equal macroevolution? I'm well aware of the "change within a kind is allowed" argument and this seems to be one of them. But my first sentence still stands... where does micro end?

Hi Himatolopus, I don't think this has any relevance to the OP.