Evidence for God from Science

Philip wrote:

Audie: What is your concern, such that you wish to terminate others' discussions with elaborate yawns and talk of the primacy of "first cause"?

Because most non-theists who are here constantly arguing over evolution typically are motivated because they see that as a validation that the Bible is untrue, and thus is an argument against Christianity. Most of the theists who argue over it do so because of how they view Scripture, and what it may or may not be talking about, or what it means. So, for the purposes of this forum, the over-arching question is whether God exists. I just like reminding them that evolution or not, God MUST exist - even if one only realizes that some super intelligent and powerful source had to pre-exist/be eternal and responsible for all we see, and that because of the massive sophistication, design, function of things that weren't here one moment, and in the very next they are operating with extraordinary power and precision, both as independent mechanisms and as well as they all necessarily interacted with one another - and still do.

It's good to remind people of the bigger issue, of the more important debate, within the central subject matter that this website is devoted to. And a big part of that reminder is that evolution is a secondary and entirely dependent, far LATER process that originated with some extraordinary intelligence that existed before all that physically exists - and that whatever that "thing" is, it was never in any way random or chaotic. It did not self-create itself. It did not accumulate vast intelligence by just pure chance, randomness and immense time. So, argue evolution all day and night, it won't change the much bigger refutation of non-theism.

Audie wrote:Read? You want me to read? Write down your disproof of ToE, that I made read it!
Why dont you? Let me guess! You got zip, nada, nothing, zero? Funny boy.

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:
I don't care much for debate or personalities when it's science we're talking about. What evidence do we have? Evidence matters.

And yes you are right we can throw away things that Darwin said or held, but so what? The ToE is based on evidence, not just Darwin. Darwin was wrong about things but how did we come to know that? Because there is evidence that is was wrong. But on the things that he was right and what evidence has brought to light via DNA and fossils is simply too much to be cast aside because Darwin was wrong on a few points.

Well my point was not so much about debates but was more about trying to point out how smart Hugh Ross is when it comes to science. I mean even if you disagree with Ross,you can tell when he debated Victor Stenger that he was debating on a science level and could call Victor Stenger on his non-peer reviewed scientific views.

As far as Darwin I don't see how you can dismiss Darwin and his influence on evolution like you are doing in order to overlook how bad science did confirming Darwin's predictions because he was the reason it became a scientific theory and so science needed to demonstrate Darwin's predictions and then do more research but they never did and its not just no transitional fossils but also how Darwin described evolution and life evolving based on variation and how scientists have had to weaken and water down what it means for life to evolve because of a lack of evidence.

If you understood what I know evolution science has regressed since Darwin. But this is something that you'd have to look into yourself with a desire to try to get to the truth.I doubt I will change your mind,it is always better for the other person to honestly look into it themselves to verify.

But I do sense that you are hiding behind the evolution wall implying that because we have this massive wall protecting evolution,that it is useless to try to go up against evolution,but evolution has never really gone up against Gap Creationism yet,except for so far back that nobody remembers or knows how bad Gap Theorists were defeating evolutionists in debates. It is a little kept secret that not many people know about,but the ToE does not want to tangle with the Gap Theory like it has the others. You'll just have to trust me.

It is useless to go against evidence without evidence to the contrary (which you don't have), no matter which way it lies. I changed my mind because I honestly looked into it and verified. For all it matters, you can take Darwin away and ToE would still stand on evidence, not on Dawrin.

And I'm sure Ross is very smart but as Lenox said "nonsense is still nonsense..."

I know it is useless to go against evidence without evidence which is one reason why Gap Creationism is more believable of a theory than the ToE is. Quantity of evidence will never beat quality of evidence. Yes,Hugh Ross is smart scientifically and he's alot smarter scientically than alot of atheist scientists that get propped up over him for some reason.

So show the evidence. Quality/quantity don't matter as long as the evidence has merit.

abelcainsbrother wrote: Kenny the ToE is a conspiracy theory,it has all of the very same characteristics that conspiracy theories do,except it is coming from scientists. Like if you don't know about the evidence we have you don't know about it,

abelcainsbrother wrote:you have to understand the evidence we have and from people who know what they are talking about. Lizard people are real and if you don't believe it you don't understand the evidence we have,you are ignorant about it.
Flat-earth? The same thing.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:Read? You want me to read? Write down your disproof of ToE, that I made read it!
Why dont you? Let me guess! You got zip, nada, nothing, zero? Funny boy.

I have given more than a few reasons why the evidence used in evolution science is so weak and this is even if you reject God,it makes no difference if you believe in God or not. I was not trying to prove evolution is wrong. I have only given reasons throughout this thread that are real problems in evolution science when it comes to the evidence they use and it can be verified and I encourage you and others to look into it and verify because I've got no reason to lie or just make up things and I cannot change somebodies mind who just chooses to believe in evolution despite the serious problems when it comes to evidence life evolves and the evidence that is used by scientists to claim life evolves.

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote: Kenny the ToE is a conspiracy theory,it has all of the very same characteristics that conspiracy theories do,except it is coming from scientists. Like if you don't know about the evidence we have you don't know about it,

Evidence WE have? Who is this “we” you talking about? You got a frog in your pocket, or are there more of you aware of this “conspiracy” that you speak of?

abelcainsbrother wrote:you have to understand the evidence we have and from people who know what they are talking about. Lizard people are real and if you don't believe it you don't understand the evidence we have,you are ignorant about it.
Flat-earth? The same thing.

So lemme see if I’ve got this straight; You guys claim there are “lizard people”, that the Earth is flat, and that the Theory of Evolution is a conspiracy started by scientists.
Humm…. Tell you what; you go ahead and believe all of that if you wish and we will leave it at that.
After all, if nothing else, at least you guys are consistent.

Peace
Ken

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Well my point was not so much about debates but was more about trying to point out how smart Hugh Ross is when it comes to science. I mean even if you disagree with Ross,you can tell when he debated Victor Stenger that he was debating on a science level and could call Victor Stenger on his non-peer reviewed scientific views.

As far as Darwin I don't see how you can dismiss Darwin and his influence on evolution like you are doing in order to overlook how bad science did confirming Darwin's predictions because he was the reason it became a scientific theory and so science needed to demonstrate Darwin's predictions and then do more research but they never did and its not just no transitional fossils but also how Darwin described evolution and life evolving based on variation and how scientists have had to weaken and water down what it means for life to evolve because of a lack of evidence.

If you understood what I know evolution science has regressed since Darwin. But this is something that you'd have to look into yourself with a desire to try to get to the truth.I doubt I will change your mind,it is always better for the other person to honestly look into it themselves to verify.

But I do sense that you are hiding behind the evolution wall implying that because we have this massive wall protecting evolution,that it is useless to try to go up against evolution,but evolution has never really gone up against Gap Creationism yet,except for so far back that nobody remembers or knows how bad Gap Theorists were defeating evolutionists in debates. It is a little kept secret that not many people know about,but the ToE does not want to tangle with the Gap Theory like it has the others. You'll just have to trust me.

It is useless to go against evidence without evidence to the contrary (which you don't have), no matter which way it lies. I changed my mind because I honestly looked into it and verified. For all it matters, you can take Darwin away and ToE would still stand on evidence, not on Dawrin.

And I'm sure Ross is very smart but as Lenox said "nonsense is still nonsense..."

I know it is useless to go against evidence without evidence which is one reason why Gap Creationism is more believable of a theory than the ToE is. Quantity of evidence will never beat quality of evidence. Yes,Hugh Ross is smart scientifically and he's alot smarter scientically than alot of atheist scientists that get propped up over him for some reason.

So show the evidence. Quality/quantity don't matter as long as the evidence has merit.

Well the only problem is I don't want to turn this into another Gap Theory thread.I have just been dealing with evolution science on its own merits based on its evidence in this thread without bringing it into it.But I think I can say this,the reasons I've already given that are real serious probems with evidence in evolution science already makes evolution look weaker and less believable already without having even brought the Gap Theory into it. If people have looked into these serious problems with evidence in evolution science and verified that they are real problems? The ToE is already less believable already whether they believe in God or not. Of course though people can choose to believe anything they choose to.

RickD wrote:Neo,

Please don't forget to address this post of mine when you get a chance.

Thanks

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:Neo,

Please don't forget to address this post of mine when you get a chance.

Thanks

All, you know, due respect, and that is not addressed to me but-

Isnt it properly the role of a modulator to discourage rather than
introduce gish?

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

Neo wrote:
That is why science accepts ToE and not GT or PC. Because they neither posit any predictions nor are open to corrections, in the same way, science is. But then that is how all beliefs work.


And also, that is why if there is ever such evidence that shows inconsistencies between ToE's prediction and scientific findings, then yes we could scrap it and start anew. That is the beauty of it. GT and PC, or any other form of belief can't do that. And that is why it's not considered science in the first place.

That's absolutely false Neo. I've told you, at least, two times that Hugh Ross' book More Than a Theory, does posit predictions and is open to corrections.

I think you really need to read the book, so you'll stop making these false assertions.

On the contrary, I did read it, and Ross' so called predictions are scientific and geological facts that he states would be found in his model, which is talking in circles. And when he doesn't do that he makes non-specific predictions, vague to the point that you can change them to fit anything and refilter it. I was quite disappointed by Ross' predictions. He fits evidence into the theory, working his way backwards.

I mean he is a scientist. If his predictions are correct, why not push them to peer review? But I think I know the reason they won't hold up. And that is why I call it belief and not science.

Here is the list of his predictions:
1. transcendent creation event
2. cosmic fine-tuning
3. fine-tuning of the earth’s, solar system’s, and Milky Way Galaxy’s characteristics
4. rapidity of life’s origin
5. lack of inorganic kerogen
6. extreme biomolecular complexity
7. Cambrian explosion
8. missing horizontal branches in the fossil record
9. placement and frequency of “transitional forms” in the fossil record
10. fossil record reversal
11. frequency and extent of mass extinctions
12. recovery from mass extinctions
13. duration of time windows for different species
14. frequency, extent, and repetition of symbiosis
15. frequency, extent, and repetition of altruism
16. speciation and extinction rates
17. recent origin of humanity
18. huge biodeposits
19. Genesis’ perfect fit with the fossil record
20. molecular clock rates

Just take #20...really he/his model predicted that?
No, he just states all these things and then claims his model predicts that, but sadly science does that.

Take #3
That's the anthropic statement, it's not even a prediction.

Most of the items on this list is common knowledge.
What horrifies me is his obsession to fit Genesis with every scientific fact we know, and that ends in either the Bible being distorted or the correlation being silly.

I'm afraid, I'm not making false assertions, Rick. You would know given my history on this topic and my love of science, if Ross's statements had been actual prediction based on a model, I would have had no trouble accepting it. But they're not really what he says they are and I am not sure how one can accept that.

I call it belief and I respect if you call it that. I have no qualms about it. After all, I believe in God creating things but not the way we think when reading genesis. But if it is being passed on as science, then I would expect some science behind it. But in truth Ross' motivation is to fix the bible in science or vice versa. I think this attitude is misguided to some extent and it starts to look ugly very soon if continued.

Tl;Dr Ross's predictions failed to impress me. I find them misleading, vague and non-specific. In short, not scientific predictions at all.

Neo,
Do you mind telling me where in More Than a Theory, that you got that 1-20 list that you call his predictions, from? I can't seem to find it anywhere.

Is not this 1-20 a gish?

RickD wrote:Neo,

Please don't forget to address this post of mine when you get a chance.

Thanks

RickD wrote:

Is not this 1-20 a gish?

Audie,

I have no idea what a gish is. And yes, I googled it.