Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: Confused how that is relevant to my post. And, I'm actually not quite sure what you're reasoning.

As I read through your post it is something that I noticed so I thought I would mention it.I'm just trying to show how it points to former life that had existed,that is all.

If a valid insight, I think such actually doesn't pose much issue to the days being understood in parallel.

Yet, "according to" (as found in ESV) is more accurate since there doesn't seem to be time implied in "after their kind" any more then we're created "after" God's likeness. Nor is time implied in the "after" with Noah taking onto the ark animals after their kind. (Gen 6:20) It is just a particular idiom being used to convey similar in kind.

OK,but I think if you read it in context you'll see that "after their kind" is referring to the beasts of the field,the cattle,creeping things,the beasts of the earth they were made after their kind. It is not saying "after God's kind" and this means this life had to have existed before and this life is based on this kind of life that had existed before,this life was brought forth after their kind. The context seems clear to me. The english is clear. But I digress.It was just something that I noticed as I read through it.

I think you're overlooking such being conceived of "in" God. All kinds of creatures were planned prior to creation, even Christ was planned to come and redeem humanity. Yet, it doesn't mean such were yet actualised in the world. God conceived of many different kinds of animals, and it was according to such, according to the kind of creatures God planned, that they were brought into existence.

Perhaps you can answer the old question, what gives a "cat" its catness or a dog its "dogness"? We have this ideal concept of what a cat or dog should be. Yet, when does it stop being such? If we cut off the whiskers, remove two legs trying to make them walk on two, or what is it exactly?

OK, But something to consider as a PC.I understand that PC's believe that at certian times God intervened over millions of years and created certian kinds of life at certian times. Now,would'nt it be good to have bible confirmation of it? By understanding that these beasts of the earth,etc were brought forth after their kind,you have biblical confirmation that life had existed before,instead of just claiming it happened that way.It actually helps you make a case for the idea that life had existed already before this life was brought forth based on life that had existed before and that God intervened at times and made other kinds of life based on former kinds of life. It works for both interpretations,by the way.Also the fossil record bears this out also,if you don't look at it from an evolution point of view. Like the rise of reptiles then mass exctinction and then the rise of mammals.

Angels and demons Are real. And some elements of evolution are indeed a mystery -- especially mutations that over long enough time can bring about positive changes in an animal. When in reality, two different animals did exist.

And no one is ever going to be able to convince me that 'given enough time' that fish were able to crawl onto land. And why would they Need to -- there was plenty of food in the water world for them.

crochet1949 wrote:Angels and demons Are real. And some elements of evolution are indeed a mystery -- especially mutations that over long enough time can bring about positive changes in an animal. When in reality, two different animals did exist.

And no one is ever going to be able to convince me that 'given enough time' that fish were able to crawl onto land. And why would they Need to -- there was plenty of food in the water world for them.

This is not to convince you rather show you the problem in the above for others.

mutations that over long enough time can bring about positive changes in an animal

There are no such things as positive and negative mutations. A mutation may help a species or it doesn't and leads to a branching off or extinction. The bear family having a mutation of white fur, led to the rise of polar bears.

Another misconception e.g, Philip said a couple of pages back I think that, one species morphs into another. That is wrong and just shows the misinformation that is taken as real without checking. Species divide, they don't morph.

And you're wrong about food in the sea as if it was always there. Of the dozen extinctions that have happened, 5 of them were major enough that they almost killed all life, almost.

I am ok with anyone thinking of being firm in what they believe, that's your right to do but if you are going to adapt a staunch position it is always good to research your facts and get them right so when you advocate for such and such it enables you further to be firm on your position at least. No sense in being firm on something which isn't true.

No offense intended I just think that it's a good exercise to do.

Re-- angels and demons -- I was agreeing with you.

My understanding of mutations is that they are the result of mess-up in the genetic code - link. There's also a back-up /repair mechanism that catches most of those hitches that occur. But once in a while a mistake gets through and a person ends up with a problem. A 'change' has taken place. But it also takes care of itself in the next generation or two.

The bears -- isn't it Also possible and black bears have a thinner fur covering because they are in a much warmer climate. The polar bears Need the much heavier fur for warmth. Polars bears Live in the colder regions.

The mutation itself could lead to the extinction.

Your terminology used is different -- he used the term 'morph' -- you use the term 'divide' and I would use the term 'change'. My perspective is that it doesn't happen at all. Why Would anything Need to 'divide' -- why wouldn't the animal simply keep on creating more just like himself?

The extinctions you mentioned. I looked that up once -- ice ages -- they were severe enough to kill off MOST everything. Why Not Everything. Apparently the sturdier stock manage to survive to ensure the next generation can be there. They still needed food to survive and shelter from the bitter cold. What makes one 'stock' any sturdier than any Other 'stock'. So -- why wouldn't that be true for Adam and Eve or later on Noah and his family. Some of the experts say that a population couldn't possibly come from only one male and one female. Because genetic problems would arise that would cause population to stop growing after a few generations. But -- the Adam and Eve situation is on another Forum.

So -- supposedly 'we' are in between ice ages?!

No offense taken.

Neo: Another misconception e.g, Philip said a couple of pages back I think that, one species morphs into another. That is wrong and just shows the misinformation that is taken as real without checking. Species divide, they don't morph.

Neo, technicalities aside, the point is that, according to the various evolutionary scenarios, no specie is static - they change, and over great period of time, radically so - to the point of being unrecognizable in pure form from their ancestors. So, please don't assert someone is propping up a strawman over technical language. The reality is that evolutionary belief asserts that there IS morphing per mutations. And per such beliefs, the idea that there is static specie is a false one - as all species would have been in various stages of transition, perhaps parked in a certain general forms, for however long periods. The idea that this morphing saw branches (that also further morphed), per generations and natural selection - these are what evolutionary scenarios entail. Simple cells and evolutionary processes eventually produced creatures who can compose art, music and do calculus, as well as have a inner desire to seek God or gods (while they live alongside millions of lesser-functioning organisms) - that is evolution. But, nonetheless, evolution proves nothing about God's existence. It does have ramifications for how one views Scripture - which is my much greater focus. Even the evolutionists aren't all on the same specific pages - while, perhaps, in the same general book.

neo-x wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:Angels and demons Are real. And some elements of evolution are indeed a mystery -- especially mutations that over long enough time can bring about positive changes in an animal. When in reality, two different animals did exist.

And no one is ever going to be able to convince me that 'given enough time' that fish were able to crawl onto land. And why would they Need to -- there was plenty of food in the water world for them.

This is not to convince you rather show you the problem in the above for others.

mutations that over long enough time can bring about positive changes in an animal

There are no such things as positive and negative mutations. A mutation may help a species or it doesn't and leads to a branching off or extinction. The bear family having a mutation of white fur, led to the rise of polar bears.

Another misconception e.g, Philip said a couple of pages back I think that, one species morphs into another. That is wrong and just shows the misinformation that is taken as real without checking. Species divide, they don't morph.

And you're wrong about food in the sea as if it was always there. Of the dozen extinctions that have happened, 5 of them were major enough that they almost killed all life, almost.

I am ok with anyone thinking of being firm in what they believe, that's your right to do but if you are going to adapt a staunch position it is always good to research your facts and get them right so when you advocate for such and such it enables you further to be firm on your position at least. No sense in being firm on something which isn't true.

No offense intended I just think that it's a good exercise to do.

How can you claim evolutionists don't claim life morphs into other kinds of life over time? All you've got to do is look at the evolution tree of life to know they do,but there are evolutionists who have written books explaining how life morphed into other kinds of life.Ever heard of tool box genes?I mean they are just assuming and explaining how they think it happened with no evidence but they have tried to explain how the fins evolved into legs and then wings,etc.Google Pakecetus which was a land mammal similar to a wolf that is believed to be the first whales. A common tactic by evolutionists is to deny macro-evolution shrinking evolution down to just micro-evolution hoping you don't check out the evolution tree of life,or things that have been taught by evolutionists about morphing.

crochet1949 wrote:

The bears -- isn't it Also possible and black bears have a thinner fur covering because they are in a much warmer climate. The polar bears Need the much heavier fur for warmth. Polars bears Live in the colder regions.

Evolutionists would say it was the snow and cold which led to the heavy white fur - those bears which happened to be born with lighter-coloured (camouflaging, I guess), heavier fur survived better in snowy conditions, which meant they could reproduce more than their ancestors and relatives with darker, thinner fur. The shaggy white coats ended up winning out in the snow.

I was thinking about teeth the other day though, having realised recently that some animals, like humans, have 'baby teeth' which drop out as the animal grows, and wondering how evolution could have led to that. It's a great idea when our mouths grow but our teeth don't, to have a bigger set waiting, but it must have been a very complicated process if evolution was responsible.

Nicki wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:

The bears -- isn't it Also possible and black bears have a thinner fur covering because they are in a much warmer climate. The polar bears Need the much heavier fur for warmth. Polars bears Live in the colder regions.

Evolutionists would say it was the snow and cold which led to the heavy white fur - those bears which happened to be born with lighter-coloured (camouflaging, I guess), heavier fur survived better in snowy conditions, which meant they could reproduce more than their ancestors and relatives with darker, thinner fur. The shaggy white coats ended up winning out in the snow.

Actually, they wouldn't say snow led to the white fur as there is nothing in the snow that can produce a mutation. A mutation happened which led to white fur and bears that were close to the polar regions found an advantage in the snow. The rest I agree with.

neo-x wrote:Actually, they wouldn't say snow led to the white fur as there is nothing in the snow that can produce a mutation. A mutation happened which led to white fur and bears that were close to the polar regions found an advantage in the snow. The rest I agree with.

Dead right. In fact bears with white fur occur now, and no doubt occurred a million years ago, among normal brown populations, but in temporate and boreal environments, this mutation is a distinct disadvantage, and neither the bears nor their variation achieved permanence. As the population expanded northwards, then this variation became more advantageous, and a community of white bears developed. A mutation does not necessarily occur just when it's needed, not does environmental pressure stimulate mutation rates, it merely facilitates the continuity of the mutation in advantageous circumstances.

There are some evolutionary biologists that are beginning to re-evaluate the natural selection process as we have known it for years.
Right now we do NOT know how the process works.
To use the above example, we do NOT know HOW the process "decides" or "selects" that white fur is an advantage or that thicker fur is an advantage.
Something happens and, somehow, the animal realizes that white fur helps in the hunting process ( camouflage) and, somehow, via natural selection, that trait is "passed" on as a "beneficial trait" but we don't know WHY this happens.

See, on one had we say this:
Natural selection leads to evolutionary change when individuals with certain characteristics have a greater survival or reproductive rate than other individuals in a population and pass on these inheritable genetic characteristics to their offspring.

Then we say:
However, natural selection itself is the single process in evolution that is the antithesis of chance. It is predictable. It says that, within a specific environmental context, one genotype will be better than another genotype in survival or reproduction for certain reasons having to do with the way its particular features relate to the environment or relate to other organisms within the population. That provides predictability and consistency. So, if you have different populations with the same opportunity for evolution, you would get the same outcome.


BUT still say:
Evolution is random and unguided ( as some say).

I don't think it is fair to say that the environmental pressures don't stimulate mutation rates when mutations are caused by environment factors such as radiation from the sun or environmental chemicals.
In many ways, the environment IS the driver of the process.

Environmental conditions may increase mutations, but I don't think it is the pressure on the reproductive success of the species that increases them (environmental pressure), merely the conditions. Some environmental conditions may decrease mutation rates but increase environmental pressure. Whether the mutations get used is determined by environmental pressure. However I take your point.

Which doesn't imply that evolution is a by-product of a process "trying to adapt" to the every changing environment.
While I do believe that evolution is "guided" to a certain extent, I believe it is "guided" via an internal mechanism in living cells as opposed to an "eternal" source.

I think I understand, but we are not quite as hopelessly ignorant of ideas as some seem to think.
Can I try to work my way through this (below)?

"Something happens..." - Yes. Genetic change via incorrect reproduction or radiation.
"and, somehow, the animal realizes..." Surely a metaphor. The animal doesn't realise anything.
"that white fur helps in the hunting process ( camouflage)..." Yes. Such an animal captures prey quicker, eats more easily, is healthier, and has more time for mating. Although the increased mating facility may be offset by decreased 'attractiveness' to the opposite sex, as long as the one outweighs the other the new genetic structure will be passed on to some of its offspring.
"and, somehow,..." as long as the genes for white fur are passed on at all, they will tend to occur in increasingly large numbers of animals. Gradually white animals will out-perform darker ones in a snowy environment, which eventually leads to the darker ones becoming a minority. They may struggle on as a minority, die out, move elsewhere, or simply, by near universal interbreeding, be absorbed into the white community.
"via natural selection..." That's what natural selection is.
"that trait is "passed" on as a "beneficial trait"..." Beneficial, defined as leading to increased reproductive success.
"but we don't know WHY this happens." Well, as you can see, we've a pretty good idea.

hughfarey wrote:I think I understand, but we are not quite as hopelessly ignorant of ideas as some seem to think.
Can I try to work my way through this (below)?

"Something happens..." - Yes. Genetic change via incorrect reproduction or radiation.
"and, somehow, the animal realizes..." Surely a metaphor. The animal doesn't realise anything.
"that white fur helps in the hunting process ( camouflage)..." Yes. Such an animal captures prey quicker, eats more easily, is healthier, and has more time for mating. Although the increased mating facility may be offset by decreased 'attractiveness' to the opposite sex, as long as the one outweighs the other the new genetic structure will be passed on to some of its offspring.
"and, somehow,..." as long as the genes for white fur are passed on at all, they will tend to occur in increasingly large numbers of animals. Gradually white animals will out-perform darker ones in a snowy environment, which eventually leads to the darker ones becoming a minority. They may struggle on as a minority, die out, move elsewhere, or simply, by near universal interbreeding, be absorbed into the white community.
"via natural selection..." That's what natural selection is.
"that trait is "passed" on as a "beneficial trait"..." Beneficial, defined as leading to increased reproductive success.
"but we don't know WHY this happens." Well, as you can see, we've a pretty good idea.

Oh yes, I agree on your explanation.
We just don't know HOW or WHY the natural selection process works and, IMO, I believe it is an "internal programming" in the cells.
I mean, the process isn't "intelligent" enough to "deduce" what is or isn't beneficial if it were then it would be "intelligent" right?
I mean we know WHY a trait is selected via natural selection but we don't know WHY natural selection works at all.