Evidence for God from Science

Neo,

In your last response to me, I have a few questions, but one thing really stood out to me for obvious reasons. Speaking of evolution, you said:

It specifically says that all humans share common ancestry, no exceptions, no miracles needed or are allowed.

No exceptions? No miracles needed or are allowed?

Do you see where I'm going with this?

mir·a·cle
ˈmirək(ə)l/Submit
noun
a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.

See the issue with saying that no miracles are needed or never happened is a tricky one.

Can someone explain by demonstrable natural or scientific laws how the big bang came to happen?

RickD wrote:Neo,

In your last response to me, I have a few questions, but one thing really stood out to me for obvious reasons. Speaking of evolution, you said:

It specifically says that all humans share common ancestry, no exceptions, no miracles needed or are allowed.

No exceptions? No miracles needed or are allowed?

Do you see where I'm going with this?

I don't. Please share.

PaulSacramento wrote:

mir·a·cle
ˈmirək(ə)l/Submit
noun
a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.

See the issue with saying that no miracles are needed or never happened is a tricky one.

Can someone explain by demonstrable natural or scientific laws how the big bang came to happen?

It's fairly simple. Evolution can explain man without a miracle. Hence none is needed. And as per Rock's initial premise where molecules to man evolution was possible, no such miracle would ever be needed.

And the big bang example is not a good one i suppose because no theory claims it happened under the known laws. It happened in the quantum field where no known laws of physics apply. And yes if we can have a singularity again, it can be proven. And it is further unfair because if that happened in front of you, you'd be obliterated. So if a tree fell in the forest and no one heard it...the old Chestnut. So that's the problem.

However, just to be clear are you saying that because it can't be demonstrated then it is a miracle?

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:Neo,

In your last response to me, I have a few questions, but one thing really stood out to me for obvious reasons. Speaking of evolution, you said:

It specifically says that all humans share common ancestry, no exceptions, no miracles needed or are allowed.

No exceptions? No miracles needed or are allowed?

Do you see where I'm going with this?

I don't. Please share.

Christ.

neo-x wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

mir·a·cle
ˈmirək(ə)l/Submit
noun
a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.

See the issue with saying that no miracles are needed or never happened is a tricky one.

Can someone explain by demonstrable natural or scientific laws how the big bang came to happen?

It fairly simple. Evolution can explain man without a miracle. Hence none is needed. And as per Rock's initial premise where molecules to man evolution was possible, no such miracle would ever be needed.

And the big bang example is not a good one i suppose because no theory claims it happened under the known laws. It happened in the quantum field where no known laws of physics apply. And yes if we can have a singularity again, it can be proven. And it is further unfair because if that happened in front of you, you'd be obliterated. So if a tree fell in the forest and no one heard it...the old Chestnut. So that's the problem.

However, just to be clear are you saying that because it can't be demonstrated then it is a miracle?

My point is the definition of a miracle is that it can't be explained by natural means.

Evolution can explain the CHANGES of man, not the origin of life.

PaulSacramento wrote:

neo-x wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

mir·a·cle
ˈmirək(ə)l/Submit
noun
a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.

See the issue with saying that no miracles are needed or never happened is a tricky one.

Can someone explain by demonstrable natural or scientific laws how the big bang came to happen?

It fairly simple. Evolution can explain man without a miracle. Hence none is needed. And as per Rock's initial premise where molecules to man evolution was possible, no such miracle would ever be needed.

And the big bang example is not a good one i suppose because no theory claims it happened under the known laws. It happened in the quantum field where no known laws of physics apply. And yes if we can have a singularity again, it can be proven. And it is further unfair because if that happened in front of you, you'd be obliterated. So if a tree fell in the forest and no one heard it...the old Chestnut. So that's the problem.

However, just to be clear are you saying that because it can't be demonstrated then it is a miracle?

My point is the definition of a miracle is that it can't be explained by natural means.

Evolution can explain the CHANGES of man, not the origin of life.

Yes. That's true. I agree.

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:Neo,

In your last response to me, I have a few questions, but one thing really stood out to me for obvious reasons. Speaking of evolution, you said:

It specifically says that all humans share common ancestry, no exceptions, no miracles needed or are allowed.

No exceptions? No miracles needed or are allowed?

Do you see where I'm going with this?

I don't. Please share.

Christ.

I see but we are talking about evolution from molecules to man which doesn't necessitate a miracle. Christ's birth doesn't fall under evolution. I think I have said it before, I think miracles can happen.

I don't want you to think that we are going with the "miracle of the gaps" argument, any less than someone is going with the "science of the gaps" argument.

We need to always take what was written in the bible from the perspective of WHO was writing it, to WHOM and WHEN.
While the bible does not state, or could state, that man somehow evolved, what it does state is that LIFE couldn't come to be or continue to be, without God.

And by God it means something that is ALL powerful AND able to create the universe AND sustain it.
By sustain I mean that without this thing, the universe would simply not be what it is RIGHT NOW.
That is the Christian view of God and to understand that clearly we need to NOT think of God as some guy with a beard sending thunderbolts or whatever silly view some have of God,but of an Omnipotent force that not only creates but keeps things going by virtue of His existence.

And the arguments made for such a being to exist can only be understood by forgetting the view of God that a person may have that is,well, a "Sunday School" adolescent view of God ( not saying you have this view Neo, since I know you don't, just speaking in general).

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:Neo,

In your last response to me, I have a few questions, but one thing really stood out to me for obvious reasons. Speaking of evolution, you said:

It specifically says that all humans share common ancestry, no exceptions, no miracles needed or are allowed.

No exceptions? No miracles needed or are allowed?

Do you see where I'm going with this?

I don't. Please share.

Christ.

I see but we are talking about evolution from molecules to man which doesn't necessitate a miracle. Christ's birth doesn't fall under evolution. I think I have said it before, I think miracles can happen.

If God created Adam that would be a miracle too, right?

You said "all humans", and "no exceptions".

I'm not sure how you can be consistent if you allow for the miracle of Christ's conception, but won't allow for Adam's miraculous creation. On one hand, you say if God had to step in to miraculously create Adam, that shows God had to correct a mistake. Yet, on the other hand, you allow for God stepping in for Christ's miraculous conception.

It seems inconsistent.

If evolution had credible evidence behind it then I'd accept evolution,but it does'nt.And when I was going through the evidence and researching evolution I realized that it is not credible evidence and I don't see how so many scientific minded people can be so bamboozled by it. I mean sure there is alot of so-called evidence to wade through when it comes to evolution but without a credible mechanism and the amount of evidence behind evolution is nullified and you know that it is based on speculation,belief and assumptions that the whole theory of evolution is based on.Yeah,it seems like alot of evidence but it really is'nt so much when you realize they don't even know if life evolves.

I mean just think about that,they don't even know if life evolves. But because they believe it does they assume and speculate alot when it comes to the theory of evolution and this is what the theory of evolution is built on. The thing is is that there have been honest evolutionists that have acknowledged the lack of a convincing mechanism for how life evolves and they even have proposed mechanisms for how life evolves,but they have all been ignored by the majority who seen it as an attack on evolution instead of a way to help evolution be more credibile.

Now I'm not sure that the mechanisms that were proposed would help evolution but atleast they were honest and tried to do something about it.It is the majority that is the problem that just believe life evolves and they are like the high priests of evolution and what they say about it goes. Now earlier in this thread Paul posted links that shows communication amongst scientists about the theory of evolution but the problem is that they are not focused on the mechanism for how life evolves because they all already believe it does and accept it.But all they are really discussing is if they should focus on other aspects of evolution or not when they really should be focused on the lack of a credibile mechanism.

Because if they don't time will not help them and one of these days a knowledgable Gap Theorist is going to totally destroy an evolutionist in debates unlike with YEC's,Intelligent Designers,etc.Gap Theorists will totally destroy an evolutionist in debate like we have never seen before. You know we have all seen these debates through the years and it really just comes down to who you really believe more rather than real convincing evidence from either side and alot of times the theory of evolution is more believable.

But it will be different up against a knowledgable Gap Theorist because he will take much of evolution's own evidence and prove with it that the evidence proves there was a former world that once existed before this world we now live in that perished completely until God made this world we now live in. And without real evidence life evolves the theory of evolution will no longer be believed because a more believable theory - The Gap Theory will be more believable based on the evidence.Because they take much of the same evidence from the earth but use it to prove there was a totally different kind of world that once existed before this world we now live in existed."A Lost World" will be more believable than the theory of evolution based on much of that same evidence evolutionists go by.Same evidence to prove a different theory true instead of evolution. The Theory of evolution is vulnerable up against the Gap Theory. I mean it will totally rehaul and change how we look at history also.And keep in mind that the Gap Theory is one of many creation biblical interpretations and so it would be even more evidence the bible is true,once the evidence is laid out.

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:Neo,

In your last response to me, I have a few questions, but one thing really stood out to me for obvious reasons. Speaking of evolution, you said:


No exceptions? No miracles needed or are allowed?

Do you see where I'm going with this?

I don't. Please share.

Christ.

I see but we are talking about evolution from molecules to man which doesn't necessitate a miracle. Christ's birth doesn't fall under evolution. I think I have said it before, I think miracles can happen.

If God created Adam that would be a miracle too, right?

You said "all humans", and "no exceptions".

I'm not sure how you can be consistent if you allow for the miracle of Christ's conception, but won't allow for Adam's miraculous creation. On one hand, you say if God had to step in to miraculously create Adam, that shows God had to correct a mistake. Yet, on the other hand, you allow for God stepping in for Christ's miraculous conception.

It seems inconsistent.

Maybe to you but to me these are two very different things. In the case for Adam, he could have come about from molecules to man, as everyone else. ToE answers that. In the case of Christ he could not have since it needed a miracle. In the case for Adam it didn't.

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote: I don't. Please share.

Christ.

I see but we are talking about evolution from molecules to man which doesn't necessitate a miracle. Christ's birth doesn't fall under evolution. I think I have said it before, I think miracles can happen.

If God created Adam that would be a miracle too, right?

You said "all humans", and "no exceptions".

I'm not sure how you can be consistent if you allow for the miracle of Christ's conception, but won't allow for Adam's miraculous creation. On one hand, you say if God had to step in to miraculously create Adam, that shows God had to correct a mistake. Yet, on the other hand, you allow for God stepping in for Christ's miraculous conception.

It seems inconsistent.

Maybe to you but to me these are two very different things. In the case for Adam, he could have come about from molecules to man, as everyone else. ToE answers that. In the case of Christ he could not have since it needed a miracle. In the case for Adam it didn't.

What's the problem? There is no problem if we look at this from a different perspective.Why could'nt we just say instead that in the former world there once existed hominids(human like beings or Pre-Adamite races) in it until that world perished,then after some time God made this world and created man and woman for this world but we've been looking at the evidence from the wrong perspective?Why have to wade through issues?

trulyenlightened wrote:

Philip wrote:

TrulyE: I was just wondering why Philip would choose someone so controversial, that even people of faith take issue with his Biblical interpretations.

Citing AIG just further shows me your ignorance of how you think most Christians must view issues of Creationism. AIG has repeatedly asserted things proven to be wrong. They've said things like the distance and age of stars are illusions.

First place, those in Hugh Ross' organization have impeccable scientific backgrounds - no, they didn't throw away their scientific integrity or confidence in the scientific method to support their Christian beliefs. AIG and YECs, however, interpret some science far differently, and actually dismiss certain widely held consensus of studies showing great age of the universe and the earth - Ross and co. accept these dates, but they do not accept that evolution - molecules to men. But they accept the data being sifted as factual. Both YECs / AIG and OECs agree on one thing: A Creator God. My point is that well-qualified scientists CAN and DO believe in God - and not all such scientists are Christians - some, like Einstein, embraced some type of Deist creator - not the God of the Bible.

TrulyE: It seems almost self-defeating to me, to choose this Christian scientist to champion his Belief-related points.

If scientific evidences point to some probability that some God-like Entity MUST exist, then is it any wonder that so many of the world's great scientist have believed in God? Many of these people concluded this FIRST from what they've learned from science. The problem for you is that you believe that only blind faith and religious beliefs inform us of God. But no thinking Christian believes this - we see tremendous evidences in what science has informed us on.

TrulyE: The problem with using any site as a resource, is that if you don't have the proper grounding, how could you determine if the information is right or wrong?

Concepts can be broken down into analogies and descriptive, dependent meanings. I don't need to know how to fly a passenger jet to understand the basic principles of airflow and flight. Does a physicist understand chemistry? Does a chemist understand microbiology. Do any of them have a geologist's or paleontologist's knowledge level? Course not. But they can understand things broken down to their wide consensus and conclusions. And we all can sift the basic concepts and descriptions of what they are based upon. And we can also see where, in their descriptions, various people have jumped an enormous, inexplicable gap, where they've connected things in their explanations that there was no bridge to beyond speculation. Truly, you've spoken of many things you yourself can't have expertise in. So, that's really not a valid claim.

How would you know what to look for? If you can't maintain impartiality, you will only see what you want to see, believe what you want to believe, and confirm what you want to confirm. In other words, NOT being impartial or objective.

First place, it's ridiculous to say one can't be impartial in their quest for knowledge. Yes, we ALL have presuppositions and biases, but the truly objective person has confidence that A) there is a truth and B) that if they come across something that challenges their presuppositions, that either the info is wrong, or their presupposition was.

TrulyE: Therefore, being scientific includes being objective and impartial. Therefore being exclusive and selective is not being scientific.

Which is why all scientists agree on virtually everything? Else, if they were all truly objective and impartial, they'd all come to the same conclusions, right? But great scientists often have highly exclusive and selective views that differ from those of their colleagues. Such circular reasoning you have.

I never claimed that Scientists can't believe in a God. I never stated that Dr. Ross and Co. did not have impeccable credentials. So please, no more straw man. I merely stated from a scientific perspective, that there is no such thing as a Christian scientist, there is only a scientist. If scientific evidence pointed to the probability that a God-like entity existed, what does that have to do with the world's greatest scientists believing in God? Are saying that because of their belief in a deity, that this somehow increases the probability of the existence of God? There is no such correlation! The great scientist that I listed, were certainly not theists(including Einstein). Most were Agnostics. Why do you simply ignore this information, and keep parroting nonsense? What metaphysical or Theological discoveries have been discovered in the last 1000 years? Name one new discovery!

"Does a physicist understand chemistry? Does a chemist understand microbiology"? Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, won the 2009 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. What do you think is his area of expertise is? He is a Physicists and Microbiologists. There are many scientist that are multidisciplined. What is relevant, is the level of scrutiny that scientists would apply to an explanation. After, "Of course not, I have no idea what you are trying to say.

A scientist will understand the fine-tuning as well as the design. The novice or non-scientist will understand the design but rarely the fine-tuning. If there is disagreement on a scientific issue, it will be in the fine-tuning, not the design. It is very true that many great scientist have disagreements among their colleagues. That is why objective evidence is so important in resolving these disagreements. In science it is irrelevant how impartial you are. All that matters is how impartial your data and your evidence is. Science has a way of regulating itself. The greatest dream of most scientists, is to disprove someone else's work. You must convince members of your peers that your ideas are correct. There are no such vetting occurring in non-academia. You can believe in anything you want, until you decide to submit your belief to peer review. Most scientist believe in most things, but no two people will believe in everything.

Your last comment makes no sense to me. Do you even know what circular reasoning mean? What does that have to do with your examples, or anything I have said? Don

For TrulyE. Here is that debate I told you about earlier between Hugh Ross(Theist) and Victor Stinger(Atheist) concerning science that you might find interesting.It is about two hours long so make sure you have enough time to watch it.Just see what you think about it because I think Hugh Ross won this debate but you can decide for yourself.
Hugh Ross(Theist) vs Victor Stinger(Atheist) concerning science.
https://youtu.be/Bzo1y95fs7g

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote: I don't. Please share.

Christ.

I see but we are talking about evolution from molecules to man which doesn't necessitate a miracle. Christ's birth doesn't fall under evolution. I think I have said it before, I think miracles can happen.

If God created Adam that would be a miracle too, right?

You said "all humans", and "no exceptions".

I'm not sure how you can be consistent if you allow for the miracle of Christ's conception, but won't allow for Adam's miraculous creation. On one hand, you say if God had to step in to miraculously create Adam, that shows God had to correct a mistake. Yet, on the other hand, you allow for God stepping in for Christ's miraculous conception.

It seems inconsistent.

Maybe to you but to me these are two very different things. In the case for Adam, he could have come about from molecules to man, as everyone else. ToE answers that. In the case of Christ he could not have since it needed a miracle. In the case for Adam it didn't.

What?

Then you just contradicted what you said here:

It specifically says that all humans share common ancestry, no exceptions, no miracles needed or are allowed.

Which was what I was trying to ask you about in the first place.

Edit:

And there's this inconsistency. Again, since the inconsistency is in your belief, I'm assuming for the sake of discussion, that molecules to man evolution is true. You said:

Taking your premise that molecules to man evolution were possible and happening - I think that it is certainly possible that God could make Adam and Eve as special creations. But I would ask why?

It seems futile. If molecules to man evolution were successful then why make one separate pair? There isn't any need for it.

Also, your premise assumes that since macroevolution was happening that God indeed willed it or designed it or was somehow in control of it or its intended outcomes?

This alone defeats the very purpose for special creation as it means that whatever had God intended through evolution wasn't happening so he had to intervene to fix things. The only problem is it makes God a poor planner. The only way you intervene in something is when things are not going as you want them to be. And since evolution is happening already as God's intended it to be, then there is no need to make a special case.
In this scenario, God is either inefficient and unintelligent and that is something we both agree on, that God isn't both.

On one hand, God has no need to make a special case with the miraculous creation of Adam, because it makes God a poor planner if He had to intervene to fix things. Yet on the other hand, God intervened to fix things by the miraculous conception of Jesus Christ.

Both miracles. Both intervening by God. Only one makes God inefficient and unintelligent.

That's inconsistent.