Evidence for God from Science

Evolution, if true, is an ENTIRELY dependent serious of processes on what came into physical existence that did not previously exist. The universe roared into existence with immense power and immediately obeying key laws. So, this HAS to mean that 1) Something pre-existed all physical matter that was 2) uncreated and eternal, and 3) that had great power and intelligence. These are a fact. Those who delusionally think blind, random things can assemble a unbelievably sophisticated universe, given enough time - well, you'll never convince them with ANY calculation of the remote possibility of the odds of such. It will never dissuade them, no matter the exponential number of what any sane person would consider irrational to believe. Now, some will insist that this great intelligence and power are simply how things have always been - that the universe is possible because of the eternally pre-existing things just are naturally capable of all manner of incredibly, if unlikely, things - that the building blocks themselves simply have a collective (or progressively acquired) intelligence that is simply natural. But THAT is belief and speculation; it is not observable, is unproven, and endless THEORIES about that are floated as PROOF. Sorry, but while speculation and theories are part of the scientific PROCESS, they are not established FACTS of PROOF! And observations of HOW things work are not proof of WHY they exist or why they operate with such awesome consistency (from which observations of such are noted as established laws). Without the incredible consistency of how things function, we could not expect predictability from the scientific processes of analysis.

Crotchet, just a gentle criticism: It really doesn't do a whole lot of good to continue to quote Scripture as proof of things to people who do not accept that God exists or that the Bible is His word. And that is also likely why God gave us MORE than just Scripture, to reveal His existence, in all manner of things "clearly seen, being understood from what has been made" (Romans 1:20). Likewise, pushing a time frame for the creation of all these things is also unhelpful. I don't expect people to begin their worldview from or with MY sensibilities or understandings about God. But God has given us so much more for people who doubt His existence to examine. Conversations outside of the basic understanding that there HAS to be something (or Someone) beyond all that exists typically are of little productive value, in such dialogues.

Philip wrote:Evolution, if true, is an ENTIRELY dependent serious of processes on what came into physical existence that did not previously exist. The universe roared into existence with immense power and immediately obeying key laws. So, this HAS to mean that 1) Something pre-existed all physical matter that was 2) uncreated and eternal, and 3) that had great power and intelligence. These are a fact. Those who delusionally think blind, random things can assemble a unbelievably sophisticated universe, given enough time - well, you'll never convince them with ANY calculation of the remote possibility of the odds of such. It will never dissuade them, no matter the exponential number of what any sane person would consider irrational to believe. Now, some will insist that this great intelligence and power are simply how things have always been - that the universe is possible because of the eternally pre-existing things just are naturally capable of all manner of incredibly, if unlikely, things - that the building blocks themselves simply have a collective (or progressively acquired) intelligence that is simply natural. But THAT is belief and speculation; it is not observable, is unproven, and endless THEORIES about that are floated as PROOF. Sorry, but while speculation and theories are part of the scientific PROCESS, they are not established FACTS of PROOF! And observations of HOW things work are not proof of WHY they exist or why they operate with such awesome consistency (from which observations of such are noted as established laws). Without the incredible consistency of how things function, we could not expect predictability from the scientific processes of analysis.

You may be interested in this work.... This research is offering an alternative explanation to the expanding universe with no need for mysterious dark matter. In line with what is observed, this model suggests the Milky Way is at or near the center of the universe, making us special therefore contradicting the Copernican Principle...

"In summary: Our view is that the Einstein equations make more physical sense without Dark Energy or the cosmological constant, and Dark Energy is most likely an unphysical fudge factor, if you will, introduced into the theory to meet the data. But ultimately, whether Dark Energy or an expanding wave correctly explains the anomalous acceleration of the galaxies can only be decided by experiments, not the Copernican Principle or Occam’s razor."

https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~temple/!! ... b/cv83.pdf

Here it is again in lay man terms ...

"For the universe to appear to be accelerating at the same rate in all directions, we in the Milky Way would have to be near a local center, at the spot where an expansion wave was initiated early in the Big Bang when the universe was filled with radiation."

http://www.space.com/7145-big-wave-theo ... nergy.html

It is interesting work by Temple and Smoller and I hope they continue to work on it.

I do find it interesting that the one thing that some believers and nonbelievers alike have in common is putting limitations on God, deciding what, supposedly, God can/should do or not.

Before any of you accept the theory of evolution,whether you believe in God or not,you should at least wait until scientists can demonstrate life evolves and not one has or can. Don't just accept speculation and imagination about how life evolves,but instead demand that scientists demonstrate it. It is important to know life evolves before you accept it.It requires more faith to believe life evolves than any miracle we read about in the bible.The more I look into the theory of evolution the more I realize it is "faith" science and not real science. Science lost its way when it comes to the theory of evolution.

Abel: Before any of you accept the theory of evolution,whether you believe in God or not,you should at least wait until scientists can demonstrate life evolves and not one has or can.

A HUGE mistake many make, is getting sucked into arguments about evolution, AS IF, they have anything to say about how a complex series of random/blind processes, that would have occurred over 10 billion years AFTER what they REALLY need to explain, has anything to do with disproving a Creator or the Bible. If evolution happened, it's all secondary and would have occurred WAY after what occurred long before. And I submit that the incredibly precise things which appeared at the Big Bang's beginning - that physically did not exist, mere moments before - had to have a source of immense power and intelligence. Why? Because that what appeared had every possible box checked for the precise kinds of things that would suggest an incredible intelligence behind the designs and functionality to them. RANDOM things didn't appear, but JUST THE RIGHT ones, with just the right configurations, creating just the right conditions, instantly obeying specific guiding laws. OH, and THEN, over 10 billion years later, SOMEHOW non-life would have had to become life. And ONLY then, IF evolution occurred, could it have taken off. But so many people think that if they can just prove evolution - or float a speculative/unproven theory that sounds plausible, that they can disprove God. But if they want to do that, they FIRST must credibly explain the incredible and instant appearance of physical things of awesome design and complexity, that appeared first and that evolution would have been entirely dependent upon.

And even IF evolution (simple organisms to evermore complex ones, including man) occurred, it says absolutely nothing about the existence of God! So, don't get sucked into such arguments. It's really rather pointless!

So, just exactly HOW precise were the conditions for the first life? Did the earth just get LUCKY???!!!

Reasons.org lists 226 parameters, each immensely complex, that ALL had to occur, for life on earth, as we know it, to be supportable: http://www.reasons.org/articles/fine-tu ... -june-2004

Of course, the conditions, as unlikely and complex as they individually are (and mindbogglingly so when we contemplate their precise and necessary interactions), are but the first steps as to what is necessary for life on earth. There STILL also had to be some extraordinary mechanism for non-life to become life! After ALL of those many miraculous things (well, that's the only word that seems to suit such and unlikely series of massively complex things (occurring without guidance), evolution itself, as complex, wondrous and totally dependent as it would have been, would have paled in relation to what HAD to have come FIRST!

Philip wrote:

Abel: Before any of you accept the theory of evolution,whether you believe in God or not,you should at least wait until scientists can demonstrate life evolves and not one has or can.

A HUGE mistake many make, is getting sucked into arguments about evolution, AS IF, they have anything to say about how a complex series of random/blind processes, that would have occurred over 10 billion years AFTER what they REALLY need to explain, has anything to do with disproving a Creator or the Bible. If evolution happened, it's all secondary and would have occurred WAY after what occurred long before. And I submit that the incredibly precise things which appeared at the Big Bang's beginning - that physically did not exist, mere moments before - had to have a source of immense power and intelligence. Why? Because that what appeared had every possible box checked for the precise kinds of things that would suggest an incredible intelligence behind the designs and functionality to them. RANDOM things didn't appear, but JUST THE RIGHT ones, with just the right configurations, creating just the right conditions, instantly obeying specific guiding laws. OH, and THEN, over 10 billion years later, SOMEHOW non-life would have had to become life. And ONLY then, IF evolution occurred, could it have taken off. But so many people think that if they can just prove evolution - or float a speculative/unproven theory that sounds plausible, that they can disprove God. But if they want to do that, they FIRST must credibly explain the incredible and instant appearance of physical things of awesome design and complexity, that appeared first and that evolution would have been entirely dependent upon.

And even IF evolution (simple organisms to evermore complex ones, including man) occurred, it says absolutely nothing about the existence of God! So, don't get sucked into such arguments. It's really rather pointless!

So, just exactly HOW precise were the conditions for the first life? Did the earth just get LUCKY???!!!

Reasons.org lists 226 parameters, each immensely complex, that ALL had to occur, for life on earth, as we know it, to be supportable: http://www.reasons.org/articles/fine-tu ... -june-2004

Of course, the conditions, as unlikely and complex as they individually are (and mindbogglingly so when we contemplate their precise and necessary interactions), are but the first steps as to what is necessary for life on earth. There STILL also had to be some extraordinary mechanism for non-life to become life! After ALL of those many miraculous things (well, that's the only word that seems to suit such and unlikely series of massively complex things (occurring without guidance), evolution itself, as complex, wondrous and totally dependent as it would have been, would have paled in relation to what HAD to have come FIRST!

Yeah,I know it is mostly pointless to debate/argue whether or not the theory of evolution is true or not scientifically because it is hard to change minds but I believe from everything I have read and researched about it shows that it is not sound science nor is it how science should be done. I'm not anti-science but I expect good science and the only way to make sure we get sound science is to demand better science when it comes to evolution.

When I hear scientifically minded people claim that science does not prove anything? red flags go up,immediately because science should be in the business of proving or disproving things based on the scientific method but it is a cop-out just for the sake of the faith of evolution that science no longer discovers fact from fiction and there are no excuses for it,despite what we hear. It is apologetics for the faith of evolution when the scientific method is disregarded to prop up the theory of evolution.

I do agree that there had to be a God of immense power and intelligence before the big bang and it requires a lot less faith to believe it was God than random unguided processes that could bring it into existence with such precision.It requires a lot less faith especially the God of the bible based on who he is and what he can do according to scripture. But I think some of the problem is getting people to realize it was the God of the bible and not any other God. Often nonbelievers will bring up other god's as a possibility if it was a God that brought it into existence trying to make the case that it could possibly be any of the god's. These people might be smart scientifically but are totally clueless when it comes religion and so do not understand how we know it was the God of the bible and not any other god based on evidence behind our faith. They will not take the time to compare evidence and so just don't know.The fact remains that Christianity has more evidence it is true over any other religion,but when we say this? It is just seen as bias.

This is why I never forget to remind people that the greatest evidence I know of that absolutely proves Jesus is the true God is salvation and the way it changes a person on the inside unlike in any other religion where the person changes their self based on the laws of their religion. In Christianity,it is a miracle that the person is changed. I mean it is something that when it happens you know you are different somehow eventhough you are the same person.No true Christian changes their self like people do in all other religions. So eventhogh I can get into some of the evidence that has been discovered that backs up Christianity I never forget to point out salvation from Jesus is the greatest and most real proof Christianity is true. Sure in other religions a person can experience physical sensations of excitement by worshipping their god,but they still change their self according to the laws and beliefs of their religion and this is the difference.In Christianity if a person did this? They'd be a hypocrite.

I don't mind if people believe in some ToE, because when a self-professing Atheist does so, it shows me that they are being inconsistent with beliefs that they accept as true, namely that God doesn't exist (P) and ToE is true (Q). How so?

As I see matters, belief in ToE can only be rationally coherent if one has a supporting belief for accepting that their reasoning ability, experiences and brain are truth conducive. Indeed, this doesn't merely apply to ToE, but the entire enterprise of physical sciences and any belief we might hold.

The belief that we and our brains randomly evolved into self-conscious beings, that is evolved without any foresight, planning or guidance, without physical laws being defined or shapes, such leaves one without a supporting belief that their experiences and reasoning ability provide truth. The only truth possible, is therefore relative, and if truth is relative, then everything we believe in merely opinion, never logically grounded and therefore never rationally justified. We are conscious, but whether we are truly rational will always have a question mark beside it. (IceMobster, I know you understand this!)

So then, such in living their life must simply accept as a given that their experiences and reasoning ability are reliable because they seem that way (circular reasoning), or say they accept our reasoning ability and experiences are truthful as a brute fact. However, then there is no reason to believe we do in fact know truth, we merely accept such.

Those who believe in God however, have at least a supporting belief-reason for accepting their experiences and reasoning ability are reliable. The belief in God and ToE is therefore more coherent, in creation scenarios there are at least some foresight, planning and guidance, and so one could expect their "tools" for understanding the world around them were made to be reliable indicators of a real world.

Note, this doesn't necessarily mean Theists are rationally justified in their God belief, but rather they are rationally coherent within their beliefs. Well, that is, unless one believes Coherentism is a valid form of epistemic justification, which many do. If so, then while rationally justified perhaps, it doesn't mean one is correct in their beliefs but simply more probably correct.

RickD wrote:

neo wrote:
Life coming out of the abiogenesis idea is not really that strange to me either. I think it's very much probable and likely may have had happened that way. Once you allow the law of physics and chemistry and biology to have their way life would come out of it logically. Just like if you allow gravity alone, it would shape universes.

Neo,

Can you explain any evidence that shows me why you think it's likely that life on earth began by abiogenesis? I've searched on evidence for abiogenesis, and I'm only coming up with hypotheses, and speculation. Feel free to post a link.

There is evidence only that chemicals when open to early earth conditions, change themselves or mutate. Like the paper I cited. There is no evidence that life specifically started this way.

The logical inference is that small building blocks of life may have formed because of that and then the long road of evolution happened.

My contention was, and still is, that it is not entirely out of the question. That, yes, it is possible. Whether it happened like that or not, is still not clear.

The only thing me and Phil are at odds with is what the level of guidance that is needed.

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

neo wrote:
Life coming out of the abiogenesis idea is not really that strange to me either. I think it's very much probable and likely may have had happened that way. Once you allow the law of physics and chemistry and biology to have their way life would come out of it logically. Just like if you allow gravity alone, it would shape universes.

Neo,

Can you explain any evidence that shows me why you think it's likely that life on earth began by abiogenesis? I've searched on evidence for abiogenesis, and I'm only coming up with hypotheses, and speculation. Feel free to post a link.

There is evidence only that chemicals when open to early earth conditions, change themselves or mutate. Like the paper I cited. There is no evidence that life specifically started this way.

The logical inference is that small building blocks of life may have formed because of that and then the long road of evolution happened.

My contention was, and still is, that it is not entirely out of the question. That, yes, it is possible. Whether it happened like that or not, is still not clear.

The only thing me and Phil are at odds with is what the level of guidance that is needed.

Oh ok. From the way you said that it was probable, I thought you may have actual evidence pointing that way.

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

neo wrote:
Life coming out of the abiogenesis idea is not really that strange to me either. I think it's very much probable and likely may have had happened that way. Once you allow the law of physics and chemistry and biology to have their way life would come out of it logically. Just like if you allow gravity alone, it would shape universes.

Neo,

Can you explain any evidence that shows me why you think it's likely that life on earth began by abiogenesis? I've searched on evidence for abiogenesis, and I'm only coming up with hypotheses, and speculation. Feel free to post a link.

There is evidence only that chemicals when open to early earth conditions, change themselves or mutate. Like the paper I cited. There is no evidence that life specifically started this way.

The logical inference is that small building blocks of life may have formed because of that and then the long road of evolution happened.

My contention was, and still is, that it is not entirely out of the question. That, yes, it is possible. Whether it happened like that or not, is still not clear.

The only thing me and Phil are at odds with is what the level of guidance that is needed.

Oh ok. From the way you said that it was probable, I thought you may have actual evidence pointing that way.

I wouldn't dream of proclaiming something like that with certainty until or unless we have evidence. We don't know for certain how life SPECIFICALLY started.

What I was trying to say was that people who think that abiogenesis can never happen, are not truly giving the evidence the credit that it is due. We know that chemicals react and form small building blocks. So to entirely dismiss it, is well, premature to say the least.

Neo: There is evidence only that chemicals when open to early earth conditions, change themselves or mutate. Like the paper I cited. There is no evidence that life specifically started this way.

Of course, FIRST, the chemicals themselves had to be created, AND designed so as to function within certain, set parameters of functionality - without which none of what people theorize would be possible! Hopefully, Neo agrees with this - which was the entire point of my point of the original post. Perhaps it would have been better entitled, "Serious Problems withOUT God-Created Evolutionary Processes."

Neo: My contention was, and still is, that it is not entirely out of the question. That, yes, it is possible. Whether it happened like that or not, is still not clear.

Neo: The only thing me and Phil are at odds with is what the level of guidance that is needed.

Which is a really silly argument, because as God must be responsible for the ENTIRE beginning/creation of ALL things, and so ANY and ALL of the potential they might develop is entirely God-originated and programmed. Because as God knows ALL things: 1) It would have been impossible for Him to create ANY future things, worlds, universes, etc., that He hasn't ALWAYS known every minutia of how they would turn out, and 2) it would be impossible for Him to END UP with ANYTHING not as He specifically desired its outcome. And, obviously, throughout Scripture, God specifically interjected Himself and an interruption as to how things NORMALLY work, for specific purposes. So, while He lets things typically function as He designed them to, He does also interrupt them, if rarely. But BOTH are forms of GUIDANCE! And to suggest God doesn't control all - whether as to how He initially set them up, or whether He's "hands-on" ALL of the time - really, does it truly matter???!!! Why?

Here's the other thing that disturbs me. Evolution is touted as a random process with no certainties. I think this is what somehow disturbs theistic evolutionists, because the assertion of God "micromanaging" things irritates them. But there are and can be NO uncertainties with God. God didn't instill a process He didn't know the EXACT outcomes of! Such would be impossible, as He knows ALL things. So, MAN is no accident! To believe mankind was the result of a totally random process put into place that God didn't plan on, means that 1) God could not know the future, 2) that He could not control outcomes - or they weren't important to Him, 3) that He had not always known of the day He would create man, nor of the exact day the first green leafs upon the tree that He would one day physically be crucified upon would sprout. And things don't function with unfettered randomness, but with only some randomness possible, YET ONLY WITHIN SPECIFIC PARAMETERS!

If I program software to do this or that complex function,using an array of "IF/THEN" statements, which guide that function, and later install it, only occasionally checking in to see how it is performing - OR - whether I simply micromanage the functions of what would otherwise have been possible through programming it, A) the results would be the same because B) all possibilities are controlled as to how things are set up, and C) either way, all processes and potential originated with the programmer.

Neo: What I was trying to say was that people who think that abiogenesis can never happen, are not truly giving the evidence the credit that it is due.

Without God, NO, it could never have happened! And IF that is how God began life, He designed the capabilities and knew of EVERY outcome!

I'm a christian. I don't think we know enough on both sides of the argument. there are problems on both sides. But I don't see why God didn't use evolution on how he made man. Designed the universe and new what would happen when he spoke it in to existence It seems the most plausible explanation for how we came to be here and man having a spiritual nature. A few points.

The whole of universe seems to be running on science and we are biological creatures and we do share similar structures and materials with some animals.

A lot of things in Genesis are non literal and there are scientific problems. It does read like how ancient bronze age man saw the world and what they were concerned with.

It does look like in nature species are changing and could change, or evolve over a long period of time. Amphibians are fish that have come out of the water. the flying fox. Birds that no longer flying eg the New Zealand Kiwi bird who doesn't fly any more but and has the body temperature of an animal not a bird. You can see with a few million years its evolving into a mammal.

dougangel wrote:I'm a christian. I don't think we know enough on both sides of the argument. there are problems on both sides. But I don't see why God didn't use evolution on how he made man. Designed the universe and new what would happen when he spoke it in to existence It seems the most plausible explanation for how we came to be here and man having a spiritual nature. A few points.

The whole of universe seems to be running on science and we are biological creatures and we do share similar structures and materials with some animals.

A lot of things in Genesis are non literal and there are scientific problems. It does read like how ancient bronze age man saw the world and what they were concerned with.

It does look like in nature species are changing and could change, or evolve over a long period of time. Amphibians are fish that have come out of the water. the flying fox. Birds that no longer flying eg the New Zealand Kiwi bird who doesn't fly any more but and has the body temperature of an animal not a bird. You can see with a few million years its evolving into a mammal.

Um, maybe you could studyvsome biology before you try to take a stand on what makes sense?

Birds run hotter than mammals, btw.