Evidence for God from Science

Excuse me? Are you reading what I posted by the evolutionists? "Natural selection, on the other hand, is a blend of chance AND "sorting." It's a supposed blend of chance AND sorting... It's not a solely random process. Get it now?? Clearly it is difficult to understand! You've choppe...

August wrote:Howl? Nice.

Yup. Since you believe that negatives can be proved, then I've just proved there's no God. God is supposed to be everywhere, but there's no God in my pocket. QED.

Unfortunately your statement is incorrect.... Did you read earlier what I stated? "Evolution by natural selection, on the other hand, is a blend of chance and "sorting." - Biology : Concepts and connections — Ch. 13.12, pg 269, 2008. This statement is by renowned evolutionists. Do yo...

August wrote:It is not an assertion. I have evidence that there is nothing in my pocket.

You only have evidence that there's no bird in there of a type which you have previously encountered.

You'd be the first to howl if I said I have evidence there's no God because I can't see one.

How do you come to know the meaning of the evidence? How do you know when your personal experience is valid or not? How do you "experience" something? Via my education, and deductive reasoning. Are you so short of arguments about evolution that you have to take this philosophical line? Wh...

I have proved it, and you cannot refute it except by adding to the argument by being absurd. If you want to hold to a belief in small invisible flamingo's or pelicans, then be my guest. But that belief is patently absurd unless you prove it. Under that supposition we are to suppose that anything is...

I have proved a negative. You added an absurdity to the argument, which, unless you can show that your absurdity is valid, fails to address my argument. But I don't want to play your childish games, I want you to deal with the formal logic, which you appear utterly incapable of doing. Russell's tea...

Assertion is not an argument or proof. Your pelican example fails on two levels: lack of experience of all pelicans, and also the reliance on your perceptions. You can't prove a negative, so why are you asking me to? Russell's teapot illustrates the point perfectly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rus...

These metaphysical diversions, as you call them, are the basic truths that underwrite what we believe. So if you cannot account for it, then why should we believe you? OK, how do I know anything? I am persuaded by evidence which is presented to me, combined with personal experience. In the case of ...

I'm sorry, maybe you should run us through that proof again. Only in you mind did you prove anything. I, on the other hand, proved two negatives which you could not disprove, despite venturing into the realms of the absurd. Like I say, if you really want to prove that "You can't prove negative...

August wrote:So how can you know anything? How do you know what you know is not random gibberish?

I'm tempted to say "because I'm not a creationist", but that would be impolite. You enjoy these metaphysical diversions?

You have not shown anything of the sort. You have not even started to deal with any formal logic, all you have done was to provide a couple of cute but absurd answers to examples. Lol, and don't flatter yourself about the RLN issue. The RLN discussion ended because you, as you did throughout this w...

August wrote:You stated that we live in a random world.

Elements of it are random. Gene mutation, and genetic drift, for instance.

Gman wrote:Yes I have... And I use college biology books too. Sorry.

Then you should have paid better attention. Natural selection isn't random chance.

Unfortunately Darwinian evolution (the god of chance) is evidence free... There is no proof of it. Sorry. Maybe you would like to tackle some of the questions here? http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html#0rWBK2TtU7kc There's a ton of evidence in favour, and none whatsoever against. Y...