Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

neo wrote:
On a serious note, the parts that we have evidence against are not true or at least are problematic enough to be viewed with caution.

Evidence that parts of the Bible are not true?
Not true as you interpret them? Or not true, period?

untrue as to What I think is the best exegesis of the text. Ofcourse to me there is no such dichotomy as you said. I don't think there is more than one interpretation which has merit to be considered seriously.

Neo: I don't think there is more than one interpretation which has merit to be considered seriously.

And that is a FAR different matter than simply saying something is not true at all.

However, IF ANY of the Bible, as originally written, is false and not presently held by the Church in an intact WHOLE, then that means one or more of the following is true:

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 31#p219131

Philip wrote:

Neo: I don't think there is more than one interpretation which has merit to be considered seriously.

And that is a FAR different matter than simply saying something is not true at all.

However, IF ANY of the Bible, as originally written, is false and not presently held by the Church in an intact WHOLE, then that means one or more of the following is true:

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 31#p219131

I am not sure if a good second interpretation is present for saying that Adam and Eve were first humans other than what the scriptures say. Do you know any?

RickD wrote:Ok. I guess my next question would be, how do you differentiate between something being related/having a common ancestor, and having similar, even very similar, DNA?

That's exactly the point I was addressing with my mention of examples of inefficient design, and, in earlier comments, redundant DNA. Vestigial structures are another example of animal physiology which fits better into an evolutionary than a creationary scenario.

How does something that works efficiently, appear to be inefficiently derived? The system works, so it's not inefficient in and of itself. It just appears to be derived inefficiently? I would think that a system that works just fine, would only appear to be derived inefficiently, if it was assumed to be derived in a way that it wasn't.

This gets to the crux of the ‘material evidence’ debate. Obviously, evolutionarily derived organisms work as efficiently as they can, but that efficiency often occurs within less than optimal constraints. Compared to chimanzees, to which we are mostly closely similar, either by evolution or design, for thousands of years the proportion of mothers who died in childbirth was vastly higher in humans than in chimps because of our less than optimal pelvic structure. Inguinal hernias as a result of our less than optimal vas deferens, spinal arthritis because of our less than optimal vertebral column, our inability to manufacture vitamins and our propensity to inherited disease all suggest a design derived as best as can be from a previous one rather than an independently created organism. One is put in mind of the world’s first iron bridge (in the town now called Ironbridge, UK), which is made of joists and joins and pegs in the style of old wooden carpentry, just out of iron. It works fine, and was a marvel in its day, but its design was much less than optimal, such that modern bridges are designed quite differently. Of course it is difficult to view all the evidence wholly impartially, although I’m sure we all try. But I think that these aspects of human physiology, although not conclusive refutation of independent creation, are better evidence of an evolutionary past.

Philip wrote:However, IF ANY of the Bible, as originally written, is false and not presently held by the Church in an intact WHOLE ....

Ah! Goody! The Church again... now whose Church is that this time, I wonder. Seriously, though, I think this beginning is still mired in muddle. No Church holds that the bible is in every sentence literally true, but then no Church holds that the bible is in any part false. Although this sounds like a total contradiction, I think it really means that the words true and false are not, in this case, direct opposites. Truth can be found in writing that is not factually correct. Whenever anybody suggests this here, various people immediately respond that they personally have a perfect idea of what is factually correct and what is not, and by implication, that anybody who disagrees with them is wrong. There have been endless discussions about whether the 'days' of Genesis are meant to be the successive days of a week, immensely long periods of time, individual days but separated by long periods of time, or simply aspects of creation which do not demand literal chronology. Not to mention the global vs local flood and all those 'kinds' of animals. They can't all be correct.

So given that the bible cannot be taken literally, and that none of us has been given divine insight into its correct interpretation, has God done anything to help us in our efforts to comprehend it accurately - and therefore inerrantly? The answer, of course, is yes. He has given us the vast extent of the universe in all its diversity, and the incredible reasoning power of our collective observational, experimental, deductive and inferential brains. To ignore the subtleties of creation, the minutely thin layers of geological strata and individual wisps of DNA in favour of individual, idiosyncratic, personal conviction is to abandon all the assistance given us by God to comprehend him. Basically, God has given us Science. We ignore it at risk of completely missing the whole point of scripture. Don't you think?

Here's something for the evolutionists amoung us. It's only 45 min long.

5 Royal Problems with MacroEvolution

The Royal Society called for a meeting to revise the standard theory of evolution because of the many issues with such theory. Our two guests who are experts in the field went there and are here to talk about the top 5 problems with Macro-Evolutionary Neo-Darwinian theory. Find out what they are!

“Developments in evolutionary biology and adjacent fields have produced calls for revision of the standard theory of evolution, although the issues involved remain hotly contested.” ― The Royal Society.

Link: http://player.subsplash.com/xfn4kbl

So -- creation as stated in Genesis isn't really viable because all human physiology doesn't always work to the precision that some of us feel it Should. So therefore, there Must be some amount of evolution involved? Is that what you're suggesting? And you're comparing people with chimps because we're closest in design with them?


Biblical inerrancy -- guess that depends on who a person is talking To and what brings up the topic. Yes, the Bible / God's Word IS without error. It is God's Word. No one else's. And many times --it's those questions about the flood, creation, etc. that are being discussed. "Maybe someone misinterpreted something" because all of That couldn't Possibly have happened That way. It's beyond Our human understanding. Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean it didn't happen.

And, a good question -- what "Church" is being referred to. The RCC or the Church that Jesus Christ founded. John 14:6 "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man comes to the Father But By Me." So -- what did Jesus Christ Do that makes Him the Only way To the Father/God in heaven. Why was He able to Do that which He Did? A couple of miracles involved. Since God was / Is mighty enough to do That -- why do we short-change His ability to create This world exactly as He said He did it.

When I say the "Church" - I am referring to the fact that WITHIN the worldwide Church of all believers in Christ, that that Scripture can be found intact. That does not mean that people haven't tacked on books (like the RCC) or that there is universal agreement amongst all meanings. It means that the vast majority of the church holds the very same books of Scripture as God-breathed. While some might insist OTHER books as well, that doesn't negate that the actual, original whole isn't intact to the point of great confidence. Argue with the scholarship if you wish. But again, if not, WHY not? And what does that say about God's views of the importance of His word? Why no heads-up by God's writers and recorders that there are many problems with the accuracy of Scripture? I'm waiting!

Philip wrote:Argue with the scholarship if you wish.

I'm not arguing against any scholarship. I've no idea what you're thinking of.

But again, if not, WHY not?

What? Nope, still a mystery...

And what does that say about God's views of the importance of His word?

What does what say about God's views? Still can't make sense of it...

Why no heads-up by God's writers and recorders that there are many problems with the accuracy of Scripture? I'm waiting!

Waiting for what? For me to explain why the bible writers were inspired as they were, rather some other way. Why? They were inspired in different ways, and wrote what they did for different reasons.

Stu wrote: The Royal Society called for a meeting to revise the standard theory of evolution because of the many issues with such theory. Our two guests who are experts in the field went there and are here to talk about the top 5 problems with Macro-Evolutionary Neo-Darwinian theory. Find out what they are! “Developments in evolutionary biology and adjacent fields have produced calls for revision of the standard theory of evolution, although the issues involved remain hotly contested.” ― The Royal Society.

The entire conference, entitled "New Trends in Evolutionary Biology" can be found on the Royal Society website. Two dozen eminent scientists presented papers on the importance of their specific area of study within evolution, mostly asking that it should be given more importance than it currently receives. None of them suggest that any form of creationism is an acceptable mechanism for evolution, none of them suggests that all living things do not have a single common ancestor, none of them suggest that genetic inheritance is not the foundation of evolutionary diversity. Sure, the relative importance of the new studies is hotly contested, just as a group of generals can have heated arguments as to how to organise a battle - but to claim that this means they are actually on the enemy side is unjustified.

hughfarey wrote:

Stu wrote: The Royal Society called for a meeting to revise the standard theory of evolution because of the many issues with such theory. Our two guests who are experts in the field went there and are here to talk about the top 5 problems with Macro-Evolutionary Neo-Darwinian theory. Find out what they are! “Developments in evolutionary biology and adjacent fields have produced calls for revision of the standard theory of evolution, although the issues involved remain hotly contested.” ― The Royal Society.

The entire conference, entitled "New Trends in Evolutionary Biology" can be found on the Royal Society website. Two dozen eminent scientists presented papers on the importance of their specific area of study within evolution, mostly asking that it should be given more importance than it currently receives. None of them suggest that any form of creationism is an acceptable mechanism for evolution, none of them suggests that all living things do not have a single common ancestor, none of them suggest that genetic inheritance is not the foundation of evolutionary diversity. Sure, the relative importance of the new studies is hotly contested, just as a group of generals can have heated arguments as to how to organise a battle - but to claim that this means they are actually on the enemy side is unjustified.

The enemy? That's the kind of talk I've grown accustomed to, from certain militant yecs. But a Theistic Evolutionist calling creationists "the enemy"?

RickD wrote:The enemy? That's the kind of talk I've grown accustomed to, from certain militant yecs. But a Theistic Evolutionist calling creationists "the enemy"?

Not at all. I used the word in an illustrative context about generals planning a battle, not literally. I'm sure we're all seekers after truth together here...

Philip: Why no heads-up by God's writers and recorders that there are many problems with the accuracy of Scripture? I'm waiting!

Hugh: Waiting for what? For me to explain why the bible writers were inspired as they were, rather some other way. Why? They were inspired in different ways, and wrote what they did for different reasons.

Hugh, you KNOW that's not what I'm asking you. I parts of Scripture are untrue, not inspired by God to have been included as they are, if they are merely made up by the imaginations of men (creative writing and fiction, if you will), then why no warnings or cautions EVER, not by one Prophet, Apostle or Jesus? Why is exactly the opposite claimed and EMPHASIZED, across Scripture? This is a glaring issue for those who don't believe the Bible we have (Protestant canon) isn't directly inspired by God, because it makes no sense they wouldn't have. Purity and truth are things God constantly stresses throughout Scripture.

hughfarey wrote:

Stu wrote: The Royal Society called for a meeting to revise the standard theory of evolution because of the many issues with such theory. Our two guests who are experts in the field went there and are here to talk about the top 5 problems with Macro-Evolutionary Neo-Darwinian theory. Find out what they are! “Developments in evolutionary biology and adjacent fields have produced calls for revision of the standard theory of evolution, although the issues involved remain hotly contested.” ― The Royal Society.

The entire conference, entitled "New Trends in Evolutionary Biology" can be found on the Royal Society website. Two dozen eminent scientists presented papers on the importance of their specific area of study within evolution, mostly asking that it should be given more importance than it currently receives. None of them suggest that any form of creationism is an acceptable mechanism for evolution, none of them suggests that all living things do not have a single common ancestor, none of them suggest that genetic inheritance is not the foundation of evolutionary diversity. Sure, the relative importance of the new studies is hotly contested, just as a group of generals can have heated arguments as to how to organise a battle - but to claim that this means they are actually on the enemy side is unjustified.

That's all in your head my man
I merely pointed out an interesting video which suggests that random mutation/natural selection is not sufficient to account for all that we see in the past and present, along with a few other problems for neo-Darwinism.

And I suggest you and the other evolutionists here actually listen to that 45 min audio. It's quite eye-opening and raises 5 big problems with current evolutionary thinking, and delves into them a little. Epigenetics and the formation of body plans for one is very interesting.

hughfarey wrote:

Stu wrote: The Royal Society called for a meeting to revise the standard theory of evolution because of the many issues with such theory. Our two guests who are experts in the field went there and are here to talk about the top 5 problems with Macro-Evolutionary Neo-Darwinian theory. Find out what they are! “Developments in evolutionary biology and adjacent fields have produced calls for revision of the standard theory of evolution, although the issues involved remain hotly contested.” ― The Royal Society.

The entire conference, entitled "New Trends in Evolutionary Biology" can be found on the Royal Society website. Two dozen eminent scientists presented papers on the importance of their specific area of study within evolution, mostly asking that it should be given more importance than it currently receives. None of them suggest that any form of creationism is an acceptable mechanism for evolution, none of them suggests that all living things do not have a single common ancestor, none of them suggest that genetic inheritance is not the foundation of evolutionary diversity. Sure, the relative importance of the new studies is hotly contested, just as a group of generals can have heated arguments as to how to organise a battle - but to claim that this means they are actually on the enemy side is unjustified.

I agree that evolutionary scientists that disagree with an evolutionary theory or mechanism still believe in molecules to man. There really aren't many choices. Either life as we see it arose somehow by a natural mechanism or by the hand of a higher power.

I think one of the most convincing supports for a creationist view of any kind is that despite all that earth has going for it, address, in the right part of the galaxy, tectonics, iron core, magnetosphere, water, etc etc etc, the countless happenstances that had to come together for intelligent life to arise and thrive, life arose only once.

Even if I were to take an evolutionary point of view I would suggest that life on this planet 'must' be made of a similar blueprint to 'live'. IOW, even if life arose more than on one occasion 'genes' are the only mechanism by which life can reproduce. TOE would be more believable if this occurred on more than one occasion on earth. For all the years earth has been around, for life to have arisen only once is seriously getting close to what would appear to be a 'miracle'.