Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:Was there something about evolutionary theory to discuss?

Other than it being the work of SATAN !?!?!?!

Yeah, well, that one was a conversation killer, for sure.

Im wondering if, this nominally being an evidence of god in science forum and all, if maybe someone sees the the hand of God in evolution, rather than that of the other guy.

God is in ALL, He SUSTAINS ALL.
IF evolution is true then it is of God.
IMO, Evolution will only lead people away from Christ if people put more faith in what they THINK, then in Christ.

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:Was there something about evolutionary theory to discuss?

Other than it being the work of SATAN !?!?!?!

Yeah, well, that one was a conversation killer, for sure.

Im wondering if, this nominally being an evidence of god in science forum and all, if maybe someone sees the the hand of God in evolution, rather than that of the other guy.

God is in ALL, He SUSTAINS ALL.
IF evolution is true then it is of God.
IMO, Evolution will only lead people away from Christ if people put more faith in what they THINK, then in Christ.

I guess thats one of the things that puts me off about the whole thing, I like to think.

Audie wrote:I've no interest in any ism or ology that suggests its best for me not to think.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:I've no interest in any ism or ology that suggests its best for me not to think.

You misunderstand what I wrote.

It isn't about NOT thinking, it is about thinking that what you THINK you know about evolution somehow means that Christ didn't live, die and was resurrected so that all the believe in Him are saved.
That is the whole point of the gospel and Christianity.
Salvation Through Christ.

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:I've no interest in any ism or ology that suggests its best for me not to think.

You misunderstand what I wrote.

It isn't about NOT thinking, it is about thinking that what you THINK you know about evolution somehow means that Christ didn't live, die and was resurrected so that all the believe in Him are saved.
That is the whole point of the gospel and Christianity.
Salvation Through Christ.

Kind of hoped I misunderstood! I did, of course, know what the point of Christianity is.

Evolution will only lead people away from Christ if people put more faith in what they THINK, then in Christ.

This particular aspect of science does not anyhow say or suggest that Jesus was not as the Christians believe him to have been.

I dont believe any thinking person is going to make it an either / or.

If it were, tho, then I'd say its the Christians with the misplaced faith.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:I've no interest in any ism or ology that suggests its best for me not to think.

You misunderstand what I wrote.

It isn't about NOT thinking, it is about thinking that what you THINK you know about evolution somehow means that Christ didn't live, die and was resurrected so that all the believe in Him are saved.
That is the whole point of the gospel and Christianity.
Salvation Through Christ.

Kind of hoped I misunderstood! I did, of course, know what the point of Christianity is.

Evolution will only lead people away from Christ if people put more faith in what they THINK, then in Christ.

This particular aspect of science does not anyhow say or suggest that Jesus was not as the Christians believe him to have been.

I dont believe any thinking person is going to make it an either / or.

If it were, tho, then I'd say its the Christians with the misplaced faith.

Many people that believe in evolution do so for a variety of reasons and, yes, some because they do not want to believe in God and find in evolution a way to rationalize this.

We neednt discuss the shallow thinking of such people, whether they are hypothetical or real.

The thing is, all evolution has been PROVEN to be is change over time.
There is no profound theological statement attached to evolution unless someone decides to make one.

Science does not do proof of course, but setting that aside, evolution is about change over time, sure. People do of course decide that they know that there was a simultaneous creation of all life, not long ago, and then they get into a lot of excited either or stuff, shout about Satan etc.

EX:
God creates life and endows life with the ability to adapt to change imposed on it by it's environment, this ability can lead life to change into many, many different types of life and this ability allows life to continue under even extreme circumstances and, eventually, this ability will allow Life to "evolve" to the point that a particular type of life ( called Human) will be able to communicate with God and even become "like God".
God has , of course, the sovereign right to interfere at any point BUT He ALWAYS sustains it

I could accept that, tho I see no reason to think its so.

IF I did think theres a god, then-
Id tend to think that all that was needed for life to appear and do its thing would be inherent in the nature of reality, and needed no tinkering past the "big bang" or whatever it was that happened.

Id tend to think that all that was needed for life to appear and do its thing would be inherent in the nature of reality, and needed no tinkering past the "big bang" or whatever it was that happened.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Id tend to think that all that was needed for life to appear and do its thing would be inherent in the nature of reality, and needed no tinkering past the "big bang" or whatever it was that happened.

Science disagrees with you.
In the case of evolution, for example, even the most "atheist" of scientists admit that natural selection has to happen for evolution to happen and if that is the case then there IS a process in nature that "tinkers" with life.
It can hardly be called unguided either by the way, just by the term "process", which implies:

Dear me, its nothing to admit, not about atheists. Of course there has to be natural selection. By "tinker' I meant supernatural intervention.

Other than what one may think is implied by human words applied to it, Im unaware of any evidence of evolution being guided. (which implies, does it not, an intelligent guide?)

1.
a systematic series of actions directed to some end:
to devise a process for homogenizing milk.
2.
a continuous action, operation, or series of changes taking place in a definite manner

:

There is no evidence of evolution being direct to any end that I am aware of.
Please say if there is.

And what is selection ( as in Natural selection):

""Selection" is a word, and words are open to a lot of equivocation and interpretation.


se·lec·tion
səˈlekSH(ə)n/
noun
1.
the action or fact of carefully choosing someone or something as being the best or most suitable.

2.
BIOLOGY
a process in which environmental or genetic influences determine which types of organism thrive better than others, regarded as a factor in evolution.

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Id tend to think that all that was needed for life to appear and do its thing would be inherent in the nature of reality, and needed no tinkering past the "big bang" or whatever it was that happened.

Science disagrees with you.
In the case of evolution, for example, even the most "atheist" of scientists admit that natural selection has to happen for evolution to happen and if that is the case then there IS a process in nature that "tinkers" with life.
It can hardly be called unguided either by the way, just by the term "process", which implies:

Dear me, its nothing to admit, not about atheists. Of course there has to be natural selection. By "tinker' I meant supernatural intervention.

Other than what one may think is implied by human words applied to it, Im unaware of any evidence of evolution being guided. (which implies, does it not, an intelligent guide?)

1.
a systematic series of actions directed to some end:
to devise a process for homogenizing milk.
2.
a continuous action, operation, or series of changes taking place in a definite manner

:

There is no evidence of evolution being direct to any end that I am aware of.
Please say if there is.

And what is selection ( as in Natural selection):

se·lec·tion
səˈlekSH(ə)n/
noun
1.
the action or fact of carefully choosing someone or something as being the best or most suitable.

2.
BIOLOGY
a process in which environmental or genetic influences determine which types of organism thrive better than others, regarded as a factor in evolution

""Selection" is a word, and words are open to a lot of equivocation and interpretation.


This isnt necessarily the place to discuss how evolution is understood to work, but
you are a couple of points off compass.

Perhaps an analogy would be useful, think of setting up a sprinkler to simulate rain (or be patient, and wait for rain). Have an area of bare loose dirt to work with.

You've seen this; in no time, a miniature river system develops, complete with tributaries, meanders, cut banks, riffle-and-run, braided channels, sand bars, and if you are more patient, cut off oxbows, distributaries an delta and an evaporation pan.

No plan, no guidance, no "selection" per se, no choice, no best, no most suitable.

It just happens as the nature of the soil, the slope, the intensity of the rain, and, of course, the math of particle size and stream velocity and all the other laws and principles involved.

Evolution is more complex, but its not different in kind.
.

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Id tend to think that all that was needed for life to appear and do its thing would be inherent in the nature of reality, and needed no tinkering past the "big bang" or whatever it was that happened.

Science disagrees with you.
In the case of evolution, for example, even the most "atheist" of scientists admit that natural selection has to happen for evolution to happen and if that is the case then there IS a process in nature that "tinkers" with life.
It can hardly be called unguided either by the way, just by the term "process", which implies:

Dear me, its nothing to admit, not about atheists. Of course there has to be natural selection. By "tinker' I meant supernatural intervention.

Other than what one may think is implied by human words applied to it, Im unaware of any evidence of evolution being guided. (which implies, does it not, an intelligent guide?)

1.
a systematic series of actions directed to some end:
to devise a process for homogenizing milk.
2.
a continuous action, operation, or series of changes taking place in a definite manner

:

There is no evidence of evolution being direct to any end that I am aware of.
Please say if there is.

And what is selection ( as in Natural selection):

""Selection" is a word, and words are open to a lot of equivocation and interpretation.


se·lec·tion
səˈlekSH(ə)n/
noun
1.
the action or fact of carefully choosing someone or something as being the best or most suitable.

2.
BIOLOGY
a process in which environmental or genetic influences determine which types of organism thrive better than others, regarded as a factor in evolution.

This isnt necessarily the place to discuss how evolution is understood to work, but
you are a couple of points off compass.

Perhaps an analogy would be useful, think of setting up a sprinkler to simulate rain (or be patient, and wait for rain). Have an area of bare loose dirt to work with.

You've seen this; in no time, a miniature river system develops, complete with tributaries, meanders, cut banks, riffle-and-run, braided channels, sand bars, and if you are more patient, cut off oxbows, distributaries an delta and an evaporation pan.

No plan, no guidance, no "selection" per se, no choice, no best, no most suitable.

It just happens as the nature of the soil, the slope, the intensity of the rain, and, of course, the math of particle size and stream velocity and all the other laws and principles involved.

Evolution is more complex, but its not different in kind.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Id tend to think that all that was needed for life to appear and do its thing would be inherent in the nature of reality, and needed no tinkering past the "big bang" or whatever it was that happened.

Science disagrees with you.
In the case of evolution, for example, even the most "atheist" of scientists admit that natural selection has to happen for evolution to happen and if that is the case then there IS a process in nature that "tinkers" with life.
It can hardly be called unguided either by the way, just by the term "process", which implies:

Dear me, its nothing to admit, not about atheists. Of course there has to be natural selection. By "tinker' I meant supernatural intervention.

Other than what one may think is implied by human words applied to it, Im unaware of any evidence of evolution being guided. (which implies, does it not, an intelligent guide?)

1.
a systematic series of actions directed to some end:
to devise a process for homogenizing milk.
2.
a continuous action, operation, or series of changes taking place in a definite manner

:

There is no evidence of evolution being direct to any end that I am aware of.
Please say if there is.

And what is selection ( as in Natural selection):

""Selection" is a word, and words are open to a lot of equivocation and interpretation.


se·lec·tion
səˈlekSH(ə)n/
noun
1.
the action or fact of carefully choosing someone or something as being the best or most suitable.

2.
BIOLOGY
a process in which environmental or genetic influences determine which types of organism thrive better than others, regarded as a factor in evolution.

This isnt necessarily the place to discuss how evolution is understood to work, but
you are a couple of points off compass.

Perhaps an analogy would be useful, think of setting up a sprinkler to simulate rain (or be patient, and wait for rain). Have an area of bare loose dirt to work with.

You've seen this; in no time, a miniature river system develops, complete with tributaries, meanders, cut banks, riffle-and-run, braided channels, sand bars, and if you are more patient, cut off oxbows, distributaries an delta and an evaporation pan.

No plan, no guidance, no "selection" per se, no choice, no best, no most suitable.

It just happens as the nature of the soil, the slope, the intensity of the rain, and, of course, the math of particle size and stream velocity and all the other laws and principles involved.

Evolution is more complex, but its not different in kind.

No, you are confusing the randomness of what causes mutation or how mutation can come about with how nature "selects" which mutations are beneficial OR how nature selects how to take advantage of certain mutations.

The more science learns about the genetics to less "unguided" the process seems.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Id tend to think that all that was needed for life to appear and do its thing would be inherent in the nature of reality, and needed no tinkering past the "big bang" or whatever it was that happened.

Science disagrees with you.
In the case of evolution, for example, even the most "atheist" of scientists admit that natural selection has to happen for evolution to happen and if that is the case then there IS a process in nature that "tinkers" with life.
It can hardly be called unguided either by the way, just by the term "process", which implies:

Dear me, its nothing to admit, not about atheists. Of course there has to be natural selection. By "tinker' I meant supernatural intervention.

Other than what one may think is implied by human words applied to it, Im unaware of any evidence of evolution being guided. (which implies, does it not, an intelligent guide?)

1.
a systematic series of actions directed to some end:
to devise a process for homogenizing milk.
2.
a continuous action, operation, or series of changes taking place in a definite manner

:

There is no evidence of evolution being direct to any end that I am aware of.
Please say if there is.

And what is selection ( as in Natural selection):

""Selection" is a word, and words are open to a lot of equivocation and interpretation.


se·lec·tion
səˈlekSH(ə)n/
noun
1.
the action or fact of carefully choosing someone or something as being the best or most suitable.

2.
BIOLOGY
a process in which environmental or genetic influences determine which types of organism thrive better than others, regarded as a factor in evolution.

This isnt necessarily the place to discuss how evolution is understood to work, but
you are a couple of points off compass.

Perhaps an analogy would be useful, think of setting up a sprinkler to simulate rain (or be patient, and wait for rain). Have an area of bare loose dirt to work with.

You've seen this; in no time, a miniature river system develops, complete with tributaries, meanders, cut banks, riffle-and-run, braided channels, sand bars, and if you are more patient, cut off oxbows, distributaries an delta and an evaporation pan.

No plan, no guidance, no "selection" per se, no choice, no best, no most suitable.

It just happens as the nature of the soil, the slope, the intensity of the rain, and, of course, the math of particle size and stream velocity and all the other laws and principles involved.

Evolution is more complex, but its not different in kind.

No, you are confusing the randomness of what causes mutation or how mutation can come about with how nature "selects" which mutations are beneficial OR how nature selects how to take advantage of certain mutations.

The more science learns about the genetics to less "unguided" the process seems.

On what basis do you make the statement about science learning it seems guided?