Evidence for God from Science

Audie I think you are mad at me but the proof evolution is wrong is all around you.You would not even think about life evolving had you not heard about the TOE because you certainly have never seen or observed anything that would lead you to believe life evolves,the only thing you observe is variations in reproduction and perhaps life adapting.My point is that if biologists and scientists are going to present it as scientific truth and if society is going to be taught it is true then it needs evidence that demonstrates life evolves because the theory of evolution is nothing more than a scientific conspiracy theory,like bigfoot,aliens,etc without evidence life evolves.

bippy123 wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I already know there is no evidence anybody who accepts evolution can give that proves,shows or demonstrates scientifically life evolves.You can believe it all you want to and nobody can change your mind but if you believe life evolves there is no evidence that demonstrates life evolves and this is true even if you reject God because you say there is no evidence to show,prove or demonstrate he exists.I'm not even talking about naturalism but evidence life evolves,for those of you who believe it you are not being intellectually honest with yourself when you reject God because of a lack of evidence yet believe life evolves.

Abel I think we need to define what they mean by evolve ? If we are talking about adaptation or microevolution yes the evidence is strong , but Macroevolution or the changing from one kind to another, the evidence just isn't there .

It is Macroevolution that the theory of evolution stands on and it is this area that the evidence just doesn't support or warrant the belief that the theory of evolution is a scientific fact . To me it is more philosophy then science .

That is a good point bippy and you are right I need to define what we mean by evolve and I like to use dinosaurs evolving into birds as an example of life evolving.I have read peer reviewed scientific papers that say this happened and yet there is no evidence looking through their own evidence that demonstrates it happens and so I must just believe that peer reviewed paper because they say it happened.

So are you going to answer my question, Audie?

Jac3510 wrote:So are you going to answer my question, Audie?

She seems to be mad at me and yet I'm not mean at all.I just try to be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove.

Audie: "I'd agree that those arguing for creationism do so w/o regard to or information on science. "

Audie, that is a staggeringly ignorant/naive statement. Many highly qualified, published and peer-reviewed Phds, in fact, argue for Creationism PRECISELY BECAUSE of what they know about science! This is why they realize the limits of what is possible with the mere existence of the necessary elements involved, that their mere appearance is (yes, scientifically) inexplicable. And then these various, massively complex entities - from their very beginnings - must have programming and specific functions that adhere to consistent laws. There are just so many places in this argument where there is only data and no explanations for either these things and mechanisms existence, intelligence of programming, and unfathomable design and sophistication. In other words, such scientists are REALISTS in assessing what we DO know. Those in the fantasy realm suggest the impossible from nothingness, and then they assert those saying such things are statistically impossible, uncaused/from nothing, know little about science. This really pisses me off! It's both arrogant and a huge lie!

Audie, go to reasons.org, spend a few days there reading some of their many excellent articles - typically and prolifically footnoted to peer-reviewed research. Then come back and try to tell me that all those arguing for Creationism don't know anything about science. As it's the SCIENTIFIC data that drives the core approach of their ministry (btw, they are old-earth progressive creationists). Really, it's incredibly naive to say that - and I'm being generous in my assessment. And to say that the beginning origins of the universe has nothing to do with evolution - hooweeeeeeeeee - that's like saying that if we can just find a planet with enough H2O and the correct temperatures and atmosphere, that life likely arrived there as well (which NASA's promotes in it's constant search for relevance and funding). The initial beginnings and conditions have EVERYTHING to do with what was and is possible!

Here's a fun link (even though it is linked on a young earth website) (http://creation.com/richard-smalley): Know who Dr. Richard Smalley was (He believed in a 14 billion year old universe)? He was (M.A., Ph.D. (Princeton), the Hackerman Professor of Chemistry, Physics, and Astronomy at Rice University. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1996 for his discovery of (and his research on) a totally new allotrope (form) of carbon. This comprised unique soccerball-shaped molecules he named buckminsterfullerenes. Smalley certainly didn't initially accept Creationism, nor was he originally a Christian. And it was precisely his intense research into the details of evolutionary theories that changed his mind that, as a theory, it had many fatal flaws, and came to believe in Progressive Creationism.

Jac3510 wrote:So are you going to answer my question, Audie?

Oh, dont mean to ignore you. What was the Q?

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I think the difference between TE and ID is that TE demands that God be responsible for the process of evolution, that God is the sustainer of all and that, regardless of how random or not the process may be, it is God that drives it and sustaines it, even if He does not shape every single "mutation" Himself.
ID seems to imply that the design could have come from any intelligent source and that ID proponents simply thing that source is God.
ID also has to address what could be "flaws" or "issues" in the designs also ( like parasitic wasps- why would a designer design such an horrific mode of reproduction, or appendicitis for example).

To be fair, most issues that can be pointed out in ID can also be pointed out in TE BUT since TE does NOT state that life was designed THIS way but "designed" to be able to evolve and adapt and IF it turned out "this way" then a TE exponent can simply say that, taking the parasitic wasp for example, life evolved that way simply because it was the most beneficial for that living organism at the time ( or something like that).
TE doesn't have to address the "purposely designed that way" argument.

Meyer would frame ID in this manner.

Back when proposed evolution, there was selective breeding -- humans have always done selective breeding.
For example, if you want really woolly sheep, mate up two that are the woolliest of their stock and keep doing it.
Eventually you should have a line of really woolly sheep.

Darwin essentially proposed that such selection could in fact be "natural".
That the design we see in nature, need not be actually designed but that nature gives the appearance of design.
Enter in "Natural Selection". Not a selection of species guided by intelligence, but rather a selection guided by nature.
For example, maybe the woolly sheep will end up surviving in a really cold season whereas the less woolly will die off.
Or Darwin's own example with finches beaks naturally adapting to their climate.

So what Darwin did was to say that what people thought was actual design, is actually apparent design.

Now this was before our modern understanding of inside the cell.
Information in our makeup, DNA, RNA and the like allows us to understand biological life and systems at a whole new level.
A level that is foundational to the macro level. Previously we just thought things worked, now we now there is a whole new complexity of information to it all (which is what Behe's book Darwin's Black Box is about).
And this information appears so specified that what Darwin thought was apparent design actually points back in the direction of true design.

Really, ID is about understanding the information we see in biology.
It is where information theory meet biologists, biochemists and the like.
A more appropriate term for Intelligent Design is perhaps really Information Design.
However, it seems the founders of this movement wanted to contrast against Darwin's reasoning for "apparent design" via natural selection, and thus you have "intelligent design".

I still feel many scientists are coming to terms with applying information theory to biology.
Intelligent Design as a movement will likely fall away, it no longer has the interest that it once us to.
But, the information we see in biological systems will never die. It is there for all to see.

Including people who were once firm Atheists like Antony Flew (and bippy it seems), who became convinced that some "God" must exist due to the complex information seen in biology. In light of this, according to Flew, the presumption of Atheism is now lost.

The son of a preacher 'falls away' from the church, and then, not having reached escape velocity, he falls back into it.

That is so deep!

Are you referring to Flew? Falling back into church?

Philip wrote:

Audie: "I'd agree that those arguing for creationism do so w/o regard to or information on science. "

Audie, that is a staggeringly ignorant/naive statement. Many highly qualified, published and peer-reviewed Phds, in fact, argue for Creationism PRECISELY BECAUSE of what they know about science! This is why they realize the limits of what is possible with the mere existence of the necessary elements involved, that their mere appearance is (yes, scientifically) inexplicable. And then these various, massively complex entities - from their very beginnings - must have programming and specific functions that adhere to consistent laws. There are just so many places in this argument where there is only data and no explanations for either these things and mechanisms existence, intelligence of programming, and unfathomable design and sophistication. In other words, such scientists are REALISTS in assessing what we DO know. Those in the fantasy realm suggest the impossible from nothingness, and then they assert those saying such things are statistically impossible, uncaused/from nothing, know little about science. This really pisses me off! It's both arrogant and a huge lie!

Audie, go to reasons.org, spend a few days there reading some of their many excellent articles - typically and prolifically footnoted to peer-reviewed research. Then come back and try to tell me that all those arguing for Creationism don't know anything about science. As it's the SCIENTIFIC data that drives the core approach of their ministry (btw, they are old-earth progressive creationists). Really, it's incredibly naive to say that - and I'm being generous in my assessment. And to say that the beginning origins of the universe has nothing to do with evolution - hooweeeeeeeeee - that's like saying that if we can just find a planet with enough H2O and the correct temperatures and atmosphere, that life likely arrived there as well (which NASA's promotes in it's constant search for relevance and funding). The initial beginnings and conditions have EVERYTHING to do with what was and is possible!

Here's a fun link (even though it is linked on a young earth website) (http://creation.com/richard-smalley): Know who Dr. Richard Smalley was (He believed in a 14 billion year old universe)? He was (M.A., Ph.D. (Princeton), the Hackerman Professor of Chemistry, Physics, and Astronomy at Rice University. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1996 for his discovery of (and his research on) a totally new allotrope (form) of carbon. This comprised unique soccerball-shaped molecules he named buckminsterfullerenes. Smalley certainly didn't initially accept Creationism, nor was he originally a Christian. And it was precisely his intense research into the details of evolutionary theories that changed his mind that, as a theory, it had many fatal flaws, and came to believe in Progressive Creationism.

Are you saying there was something published for peer review in support of creationism?

Ken

A quote from Robert Jastrow
Leading NASA scientist, astronomer, physicist and cosmologist

"'for the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story [of the quest for the answers about the origin of life and the universe] ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Edit:
Robert was not a christian, he has been quoted as saying his beliefs shifted from agnostic and sometimes agnostic theism, he was extremely insightful and honest much to the dismay of his colleagues at times. I have to include one more quote.

"There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions [of scientists to evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning]. They come from the heart whereas you would expect the judgments to come from the brain. Why? I think part of the answer is that scientists cannot bear the thought of a natural phenomenon which cannot be explained, even with unlimited time and money. There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe. Every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event; every effect must have its cause, there is no First Cause. … This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized."

Kenny wrote:

Philip wrote:

Audie: "I'd agree that those arguing for creationism do so w/o regard to or information on science. "

Audie, that is a staggeringly ignorant/naive statement. Many highly qualified, published and peer-reviewed Phds, in fact, argue for Creationism PRECISELY BECAUSE of what they know about science! This is why they realize the limits of what is possible with the mere existence of the necessary elements involved, that their mere appearance is (yes, scientifically) inexplicable. And then these various, massively complex entities - from their very beginnings - must have programming and specific functions that adhere to consistent laws. There are just so many places in this argument where there is only data and no explanations for either these things and mechanisms existence, intelligence of programming, and unfathomable design and sophistication. In other words, such scientists are REALISTS in assessing what we DO know. Those in the fantasy realm suggest the impossible from nothingness, and then they assert those saying such things are statistically impossible, uncaused/from nothing, know little about science. This really pisses me off! It's both arrogant and a huge lie!

Audie, go to reasons.org, spend a few days there reading some of their many excellent articles - typically and prolifically footnoted to peer-reviewed research. Then come back and try to tell me that all those arguing for Creationism don't know anything about science. As it's the SCIENTIFIC data that drives the core approach of their ministry (btw, they are old-earth progressive creationists). Really, it's incredibly naive to say that - and I'm being generous in my assessment. And to say that the beginning origins of the universe has nothing to do with evolution - hooweeeeeeeeee - that's like saying that if we can just find a planet with enough H2O and the correct temperatures and atmosphere, that life likely arrived there as well (which NASA's promotes in it's constant search for relevance and funding). The initial beginnings and conditions have EVERYTHING to do with what was and is possible!

Here's a fun link (even though it is linked on a young earth website) (http://creation.com/richard-smalley): Know who Dr. Richard Smalley was (He believed in a 14 billion year old universe)? He was (M.A., Ph.D. (Princeton), the Hackerman Professor of Chemistry, Physics, and Astronomy at Rice University. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1996 for his discovery of (and his research on) a totally new allotrope (form) of carbon. This comprised unique soccerball-shaped molecules he named buckminsterfullerenes. Smalley certainly didn't initially accept Creationism, nor was he originally a Christian. And it was precisely his intense research into the details of evolutionary theories that changed his mind that, as a theory, it had many fatal flaws, and came to believe in Progressive Creationism.

Are you saying there was something published for peer review in support of creationism?

Ken

What did John Lennox use to beat Richard Dawkins about evolution in their debates? I think you would have to say ID mostly,it seems ID has the most effect against evolution but I often wished John Lennox would've used the Gap theory,ID worked but I think the Gap theory would work better against evolution.Now Richard Dawkins doesn't seem to debate anymore.I really like John Lennox.

melanie wrote:A quote from Robert Jastrow
Leading NASA scientist, astronomer, physicist and cosmologist

"'for the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story [of the quest for the answers about the origin of life and the universe] ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

So he scaled the mountains of IGNORANCE? And finds theologians have been there for centuries? Sounds like an insult to theism to me; what am I missing here?

K

If that reads like an insult to you, then you need to work on your reading comprehension.

This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized."

And so, a little bit of honesty occasionally slips out!

Philip wrote:

Audie: "I'd agree that those arguing for creationism do so w/o regard to or information on science. "

Audie, that is a staggeringly ignorant/naive statement. Many highly qualified, published and peer-reviewed Phds, in fact, argue for Creationism PRECISELY BECAUSE of what they know about science! This is why they realize the limits of what is possible with the mere existence of the necessary elements involved, that their mere appearance is (yes, [b]scientifically) inexplicable[/b]. And then these various, massively complex entities - from their very beginnings - must have programming and specific functions that adhere to consistent laws. There are just so many places in this argument where there is only data and no explanations for either these things and mechanisms existence, intelligence of programming, and unfathomable design and sophistication. In other words, such scientists are REALISTS in assessing what we DO know. Those in the fantasy realm suggest the impossible from nothingness, and then they assert those saying such things are statistically impossible, uncaused/from nothing, know little about science. This really pisses me off! It's both arrogant and a huge lie!

Audie, go to reasons.org, spend a few days there reading some of their many excellent articles - typically and prolifically footnoted to peer-reviewed research. Then come back and try to tell me that all those ar^{guing for Creationism don't know anything about science.} As it's the SCIENTIFIC data that drives the core approach of their ministry (btw, they are old-earth progressive creationists). Really, it's incredibly naive to say that - and I'm being generous in my assessment. And to say that the beginning origins of the universe has nothing to do with evolution - hooweeeeeeeeee - that's like saying that if we can just find a planet with enough H2O and the correct temperatures and atmosphere, that life likely arrived there as well (which NASA's promotes in it's constant search for relevance and funding). The initial beginnings and conditions have EVERYTHING to do with what was and is possible!

Here's a fun link (even though it is linked on a young earth website) (http://creation.com/richard-smalley): Know who Dr. Richard Smalley was (He believed in a 14 billion year old universe)? He was (M.A., Ph.D. (Princeton), the Hackerman Professor of Chemistry, Physics, and Astronomy at Rice University. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1996 for his discovery of (and his research on) a totally new allotrope (form) of carbon. This comprised unique soccerball-shaped molecules he named buckminsterfullerenes. Smalley certainly didn't initially accept Creationism, nor was he originally a Christian. And it was precisely his intense research into the details of evolutionary theories that changed his mind that, as a theory, it had many fatal flaws, and came to believe in Progressive Creationism.

(K) Little to do with science on both sides imho. More a war of worldviews.

Audie:
I'd agree that those arguing for creationism do so w/o regard to or information on science. We have abe arguing for what he thinks the bible says and RD taking the hilariously uneducated stance that a scientific law has been proved. Bold font, even

First off, you took my quote out of context. Quote mining, essentially. I was clearly referring to people in this forum, not to everyone in the flipping universe. Why didnt you jump on K for saying essentially the same thing?

As for your inept description of me, based on your quote mine...
If you wish to have me do so, I can and will detail quite a running list of stunningly naive and ignorant things you say about science. Shall we have a go at it?

I am quite aware that there are many scientists of all manner of religious persuasion.
Buddhist, Moslem, Baptist, etc. It would be, yes, pretty dumb not to know that.
Good work, assuming that of me.

Having been around scientists all my life, I am fully aware that you dont get them all agreeing to the same things. "Herding cats' is a fair metaphor.

You've tossed in a lot of things that are questionable, some of which I put in bold.
I was going to try to deal with all of your post, but, it spreads out a mile wide.

Here is one: the origin of the universe / ToE. Do you feel you have to be able to explain the origin of the universe in order to understand geomorphology? Sure there needs to be a universe, demanding that it be explained before listening to how mountains form is silly. If you dont know and dont want to know, and wont believe it if you do, what ToE is about, fine. Your given reason for dismissal tho, is ridiculous.

If you could name someone who argues for creationisms because of what they know about science, and identify their reasons and data, that might be of some interest.

Could you? You just made general statements.

You didnt mention Dr. K Wise, a paleontologist, who said that if all the evidence in the universe turned against YEC, he'd still be a YEC as that is what the bible seems to say.

As you put it in a different context..
And so, a little bit of honesty occasionally slips out!

Id like to see names of people who claim to have evidence against ToE, who are not religious.


IF someone studies science, and becomes religious as a result, that is fine. Others study science and give up their religion.

What general conclusion do you come to from that?

As for someone claiming to have found "fatal flaws" in ToE, anyone can claim anything they like.

Nobody has ever published any work that identifies a fatal flaw. Until they do, its
hot air.

Oh and regards "fantasyland"..as the various schools of creationism are mutually incompatible, all but one, at the most, are fantasy. Which one do you favour?

But you were referring to the mystery of the origin of the universe.

Do you know what is meant by "expansion" or a "level one multiverse"?

If not, Id say you are in a poor position to talk about even the most simple basics
of theoretical cosmology.