Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Just wondering, what do you make of Christ... As in who he is to you? and I suppose why?

Kindly start a new thread, "Questioning Neo's beliefs: a guide to [have a beer] Christians who disagree with us" I will respond to it there.

No, seriously why do you even ask? I doubt it will be different than yours. We disagree on creation beliefs mostly, K, not necessarily all christian doctrine.

Bloody hell neo-x. Forget I asked. You beliefs don't make sense to me. We'll leave it at that.

come here bro. I love you. Don't mind the occasional jab, you have been throwing those lately too. I forgot to add the wink smiley in that post.

I find it quite demeaning when people start questioning of what Christ is to me, like how is that even a question related to evolution?

I guess in your instance I assumed that you were just asking plainly. Most people ask as if I became an atheist.

For these to replace the evolution model they need to come up with their scientific predictions, and that also is true for ID which is really lacking on that front.

And so here ya go: http://www.amazon.com/Creation-As-Scien ... tion+model Predictions abundant, you have!

neo-x wrote:I find it quite demeaning when people start questioning of what Christ is to me, like how is that even a question related to evolution?

I guess in your instance I assumed that you were just asking plainly. Most people ask as if I became an atheist.

I hear you bro, I get the same also, not just here but everywhere, it is very tiresome indeed. Don't people understand what it means to have faith, or better yet simple faith.

neo-x wrote:The thing is there are problems here with your scenario:

Here's an evolutionary scenario.
A couple, anatomically modern human like us, evolved.
Then they have offspring.

A couple doesn't evolve individually, in the same sense as humans are now on this planet. A complete population does. The gene pool needs to be SO MUCH BIGGER to achieve this outcome. It also assumes there is only couple. Out of curiosity do you believe this couple contains the mito eve?

I really don't know. Probably unlikely, but it is suggestive.

Re: gene pool, if it got there in the first place... then anything is possible naturally I'd think.
So it seems to me an odd argument to be coming from ToE quarters.

neo-x wrote:There is evidence that Neanderthals dna is mixed with us, or atleast some of humans. I tend to think that at some point that did happen, how much? I don't know.

Yes, I'm actually not sure what to make of it.
It's something I haven't really looked into though my understanding is that the evidence is thick.

neo-x wrote:What is quite astonishing is how the dna pits us. Look at the banana 50% same dna. The chimp 96-98% and many people like to point out how big the difference is even at 4% difference. I say well why not look at the rest of the 96 percent which is THE SAME? How do you account for that? but in comes the most absurd statement, God made everything from the same dna? any thing to back it up though? did God ran out of dna? But sadly no answer poof, nothing. Just a hunch.

Yes, but then there are other views that make more sense to me as a programmer.
I re-use code and templates all the time. Frameworks are pretty standards.
Why can't God be efficient? Because you don't think God would do it that way.

Really it comes back to the God doesn't need millions and millions of years to create argument.
If God is all-powerful then He could have done it in 6 days.
True. He could have done it in 7 minutes, 7 seconds or an instant.

Doesn't mean because God could have, that He would have created the way we think He did.

neo-x wrote:It essentially boils down to whether you believe if life can evolve from molecule to fish, to amphibian, reptile, to bipedals to humans. I think it can given the forces of nature. I think our argument's core issues lies here.

For me personally, "information theory" is something I don't believe Naturalist biologists have grappled well with.
If the information problem is resolved than I see no issues. But, it seems sights are only now being set on that.
I'll open another thread on this soon.

neo-x wrote:ID makes no sense, people who do make sense of it, doesn't make sense to me. A look at a shark and a lion and a Goat and I start to wonder what kind of intelligent designer makes those teeth and claws with brute force and high metabolism with the intention of having them to eat grass? Why does a cheetah runs so fast when he can simply waltz to the next grassy patch?

ID is largely misunderstood.
It was stigmatized as Creationism by opponents.
It was taken up by Creationists, especially those who didn't know better, and used/abused.
ID founders did themselves no favours by making a big umbrella and inviting all.

BUT, nonetheless, I've read books and watched interviewed of the main players (Meyer, Dembski, Behe) and they make a lot of sense in what I've read and heard.

neo-x wrote:Why does a scorpion had a sting when death could only come through sin? Sin came into the world after creation but the devices of killing were all in God's design well before death actually came? So God did knew that death is going to be there and that just means God knew Adam would eat the fruit and be banished. Which simply means that God could have stopped all of that knowing full well the consequence of creation? and that is pandora's box

You're asking the wrong person.
I don't see physical death as a bad thing.
It allows us to have a new life more fully.

neo-x wrote:See all of that leads to more contradictions of God. I can simply say with facts that none of that happened. Death always existed. Hominid population never came to a bottleneck which was only one couple. Adam eat fruit or not, would have eventually died. If there was no death and Adam didn't eat the fruit, the planet would be unstable for life as there will be no chain of food nor enough food and space eventually, assuming no one ever died?

I agree.

neo-x wrote:On this planet life produced death and then death produced life, without us going into the ground and decomposing a lot of nature wouldn't be like you see today.

I agree.

neo-x wrote:The thing is I find it funny when people accept micro evolution but not macro its like saying I believe in inches but not miles.

Firstly, these terms came from science, and not your Creationist variety (@Audie -- show me I'm wrong).
And when framed within the context of biological information, then macro cannot be measured as micro over a greater distance.

neo-x wrote:

K wrote:But you reject that. Why?

Because I told you that there are multiple dna markings in our dna which go back to more than two ancestors. I am not trying to educate you in TOE but rather hoping that you read and see that explains why one couple can't be enough to produce human diversity we see today? Humans had to develop parallel at times with different natural pressures to become what they are today.

You always cite that we all trace back to one female, as if it makes any difference, it doesn't. I already told you that offsprings of other females are alive today as well. That basically shows how larger a population group evolved. You need to look for Common ancestorys first and then Most recent common ancestors.

Where do I cite that we all trace back to one female? Rather all women today (not necessarily at all time) are said to trace back to a common human ancestor that is anatomically the same.
I don't say this. Mito studies do. But then, genetic diversity is thrown in as evidence that there wasn't just one woman at the time. Which I'm well aware to.

BUT, I don't believe to be the nail in the coffin for to there being one human couple because rates are estimated, horizontal gene transfer is also becoming better understood, and who know what else?
This really is a new field and time and further studies will unlikely cover much more to explain the genetic diversity issue.

I am always perplexed though, because if evolution got us to diversity from simple cellular life, then it almost seems like a non-issue in the scheme of the much bigger picture.
That is, there are far greater problems going from simple cellular life to more complex, not to mentioned no workable natural origin of life accounting that we can sink our teeth into.

Philip wrote:

For these to replace the evolution model they need to come up with their scientific predictions, and that also is true for ID which is really lacking on that front.

And so here ya go: http://www.amazon.com/Creation-As-Scien ... tion+model Predictions abundant, you have!

its not peer reviewed, the description says " Hugh Ross draws from the depths of his studies in both science" so I mean not the book itself but his studies and the predictions. So it has no value to me, to top that he is not even a biologist, but I am letting that one slip this time.

I know neo and he holds Christ very dearly. To be our Saviour, to have ressurected and all that.

He is dear brother in Christ.

Kurieuo wrote:

neo-x wrote:The thing is there are problems here with your scenario:

Here's an evolutionary scenario.
A couple, anatomically modern human like us, evolved.
Then they have offspring.

A couple doesn't evolve individually, in the same sense as humans are now on this planet. A complete population does. The gene pool needs to be SO MUCH BIGGER to achieve this outcome. It also assumes there is only couple. Out of curiosity do you believe this couple contains the mito eve?

I really don't know. Probably unlikely, but it is suggestive.

Re: gene pool, if it got there in the first place... then anything is possible naturally I'd think.
So it seems to me an odd argument to be coming from ToE quarters.

neo-x wrote:There is evidence that Neanderthals dna is mixed with us, or atleast some of humans. I tend to think that at some point that did happen, how much? I don't know.

Yes, I'm actually not sure what to make of it.
It's something I haven't really looked into though my understanding is that the evidence is thick.

neo-x wrote:What is quite astonishing is how the dna pits us. Look at the banana 50% same dna. The chimp 96-98% and many people like to point out how big the difference is even at 4% difference. I say well why not look at the rest of the 96 percent which is THE SAME? How do you account for that? but in comes the most absurd statement, God made everything from the same dna? any thing to back it up though? did God ran out of dna? But sadly no answer poof, nothing. Just a hunch.

Yes, but then there are other views that make more sense to me as a programmer.
I re-use code and templates all the time. Frameworks are pretty standards.
Why can't God be efficient? Because you don't think God would do it that way.

Really it comes back to the God doesn't need millions and millions of years to create argument.
If God is all-powerful then He could have done it in 6 days.
True. He could have done it in 7 minutes, 7 seconds or an instant.

Doesn't mean because God could have, that He would have created the way we think He did.

neo-x wrote:It essentially boils down to whether you believe if life can evolve from molecule to fish, to amphibian, reptile, to bipedals to humans. I think it can given the forces of nature. I think our argument's core issues lies here.

For me personally, "information theory" is something I don't believe Naturalist biologists have grappled well with.
If the information problem is resolved than I see no issues. But, it seems sights are only now being set on that.
I'll open another thread on this soon.

neo-x wrote:ID makes no sense, people who do make sense of it, doesn't make sense to me. A look at a shark and a lion and a Goat and I start to wonder what kind of intelligent designer makes those teeth and claws with brute force and high metabolism with the intention of having them to eat grass? Why does a cheetah runs so fast when he can simply waltz to the next grassy patch?

ID is largely misunderstood.
It was stigmatized as Creationism by opponents.
It was taken up by Creationists, especially those who didn't know better, and used/abused.
ID founders did themselves no favours by making a big umbrella and inviting all.

BUT, nonetheless, I've read books and watched interviewed of the main players (Meyer, Dembski, Behe) and they make a lot of sense in what I've read and heard.

neo-x wrote:Why does a scorpion had a sting when death could only come through sin? Sin came into the world after creation but the devices of killing were all in God's design well before death actually came? So God did knew that death is going to be there and that just means God knew Adam would eat the fruit and be banished. Which simply means that God could have stopped all of that knowing full well the consequence of creation? and that is pandora's box

You're asking the wrong person.
I don't see physical death as a bad thing.
It allows us to have a new life more fully.

neo-x wrote:See all of that leads to more contradictions of God. I can simply say with facts that none of that happened. Death always existed. Hominid population never came to a bottleneck which was only one couple. Adam eat fruit or not, would have eventually died. If there was no death and Adam didn't eat the fruit, the planet would be unstable for life as there will be no chain of food nor enough food and space eventually, assuming no one ever died?

I agree.

neo-x wrote:On this planet life produced death and then death produced life, without us going into the ground and decomposing a lot of nature wouldn't be like you see today.

I agree.

neo-x wrote:The thing is I find it funny when people accept micro evolution but not macro its like saying I believe in inches but not miles.

Firstly, these terms came from science, and not your Creationist variety (@Audie -- show me I'm wrong).
And when framed within the context of biological information, then macro cannot be measured as micro over a greater distance.

neo-x wrote:

K wrote:But you reject that. Why?

Because I told you that there are multiple dna markings in our dna which go back to more than two ancestors. I am not trying to educate you in TOE but rather hoping that you read and see that explains why one couple can't be enough to produce human diversity we see today? Humans had to develop parallel at times with different natural pressures to become what they are today.

You always cite that we all trace back to one female, as if it makes any difference, it doesn't. I already told you that offsprings of other females are alive today as well. That basically shows how larger a population group evolved. You need to look for Common ancestorys first and then Most recent common ancestors.

Where do I cite that we all trace back to one female? Rather all women today (not necessarily at all time) are said to trace back to a common human ancestor that is anatomically the same.
I don't say this. Mito studies do. But then, genetic diversity is thrown in as evidence that there wasn't just one woman at the time. Which I'm well aware to.

BUT, I don't believe to be the nail in the coffin for to there being one human couple because rates are estimated, horizontal gene transfer is also becoming better understood, and who know what else?
This really is a new field and time and further studies will unlikely cover much more to explain the genetic diversity issue.

I am always perplexed though, because if evolution got us to diversity from simple cellular life, then it almost seems like a non-issue in the scheme of the much bigger picture.
That is, there are far greater problems going from simple cellular life to more complex, not to mentioned no workable natural origin of life accounting that we can sink our teeth into.

Appreciate your answer and will respond later.

1over137 wrote:I know neo and he holds Christ very dearly. To be our Saviour, to have ressurected and all that.

He is dear brother in Christ.

Thank you for your kind words.

neo-x wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Just wondering, what do you make of Christ... As in who he is to you? and I suppose why?

Kindly start a new thread, "Questioning Neo's beliefs: a guide to [have a beer] Christians who disagree with us" I will respond to it there.

No, seriously why do you even ask? I doubt it will be different than yours. We disagree on creation beliefs mostly, K, not necessarily all christian doctrine.

Bloody hell neo-x. Forget I asked. You beliefs don't make sense to me. We'll leave it at that.

come here bro. I love you. Don't mind the occasional jab, you have been throwing those lately too. I forgot to add the wink smiley in that post.

Yes, well I'm a bit raw lately. BUT, I'm straight up.
You're just some shmuck over the other side of the world remember.
I don't question your Christianity, more puzzled by it not to mention your Theism.

Ok, where this thread started to be another thread? I consider splitting.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

neo-x wrote:I find it quite demeaning when people start questioning of what Christ is to me, like how is that even a question related to evolution?

I guess in your instance I assumed that you were just asking plainly. Most people ask as if I became an atheist.

I hear you bro, I get the same also, not just here but everywhere, it is very tiresome indeed. Don't people understand what it means to have faith, or better yet simple faith.

I know...I think my satire skills are lacking.

Neo wrote:
We don't need only explanations. The problem with all these beliefs, OEC, day age, progressive is that they only explain they don't predict and they can't be falsified because they are not science based at all, they're beliefs. Evolution predicts (many other predictions exists) we will never find a rabbit fossil in the Triassic dating range. If we do find it well yeah I will admit that the whole timeline of evolution is in question and we have erred. But not before that, no. For these to replace the evolution model they need to come up with their scientific predictions, and that also is true for ID which is really lacking on that front.

That's simply not true Neo.

I mentioned this to Audie a while back when she made a similar claim. So, here's your OEC model.
More Than a Theory: Revealing a Testable Model for Creation
This book is more recent than Creation as Science.

And, More Than a Theory: Revealing a Testable Model for Creation has scientific predictions.

And the issue of humans and Neanderthals breeding isn't set in stone:
http://www.reasons.org/articles/neander ... erbreeding

Neo,

There were some issues I had with some things you said. I know K addressed a lot of it, but I just thought I'd give my perspective.

Neo wrote:
What is quite astonishing is how the dna pits us. Look at the banana 50% same dna. The chimp 96-98% and many people like to point out how big the difference is even at 4% difference. I say well why not look at the rest of the 96 percent which is THE SAME? How do you account for that? but in comes the most absurd statement, God made everything from the same dna? any thing to back it up though? did God ran out of dna? But sadly no answer poof, nothing. Just a hunch.

I account for that with simple logic. God used chemicals on the earth to create all living things on the earth. He used dna as the blueprint for life. I see you overlooking the simplest reason why living things share similar dna. I can't give you scientific evidence that backs that up. I just don't have it. I haven't looked to see if it even exists. But, simple logic backs it up.

ID makes no sense, people who do make sense of it, doesn't make sense to me. A look at a shark and a lion and a Goat and I start to wonder what kind of intelligent designer makes those teeth and claws with brute force and high metabolism with the intention of having them to eat grass? Why does a cheetah runs so fast when he can simply waltz to the next grassy patch?

ID does not equal YEC. I used to think that it did too, until Bippy explained it to me, and I looked into it for myself.
So, this argument is against YEC, not ID in general.

Why does a scorpion had a sting when death could only come through sin? Sin came into the world after creation but the devices of killing were all in God's design well before death actually came? So God did knew that death is going to be there and that just means God knew Adam would eat the fruit and be banished. Which simply means that God could have stopped all of that knowing full well the consequence of creation? and that is pandora's box

Neo,
Sin came into the world after Adam's sin. But sin came into the world of what? The world of humanity. Not the world as the earth. Remember, sin was already in the world(earth) before Adam sinned. Satan was on the earth, and he was the first sinner.

See all of that leads to more contradictions of God. I can simply say with facts that none of that happened. Death always existed.

I agree that death in the animal world always existed.

Hominid population never came to a bottleneck which was only one couple.

I don't disagree with that statement. But I don't agree that hominids evolved into modern humans. So to say the hominid population never came to a bottleneck, is meaningless to the question if humans came to a bottleneck.

Adam eat fruit or not, would have eventually died. If there was no death and Adam didn't eat the fruit, the planet would be unstable for life as there will be no chain of food nor enough food and space eventually, assuming no one ever died?

I disagree. Adam was in the garden. The tree was in the garden. The garden was a special place set apart from the rest of the world. It seems pretty clear to me that the bible says that Adam's eating of the fruit is what kept him from dying. There's no indication in scripture, that anyone but Adam and Eve had access to the fruit of the tree of life. So, your argument of overpopulation really isn't an argument.