Evidence for God from Science

zoegirl wrote:Here's one part of the site that addresses some predictive elements of intelligent design...

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... emv8qbhR2r

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... I8CUU9d1i5

Here were my two links as well..

Als, perhaps there is a preview of Ross's books on Google books which would give at least a summary

--I think I fixed it, csll--

Thanks Vicki....

zoegirl wrote:

zoegirl wrote:Here's one part of the site that addresses some predictive elements of intelligent design...

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... emv8qbhR2r

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... I8CUU9d1i5

Here were my two links as well..

Als, perhaps there is a preview of Ross's books on Google books which would give at least a summary

Nothing on Google books yet, I'm afraid. I looked up a few reviews of the book but they were all so polarised as to be useless lol. From reading any given review you'd come away thinking Hugh Ross is either the brainiest chap ever or a bumbling fool.

limerick wrote:You are coming from a creationist viewpoint, thus, you will never have enough evidence, however this for me is solid evidence, you might disagree though.

Fossil From Last Common Ancestor Of Neanderthals And Humans Found In Europe, 1.2 Million Years Old

This is solid evidence for you? You mean that science is one's interpretation?

limerick wrote:You are taking me out of context, by highlighting the word possible, it is one of two options, one is correct, which one? scientists are working on it. So no, you have confirmed nothing.

So since scientists are working on it, that makes it the correct response?

limerick wrote:I believe that, that was the whole point of my argument, in that no one has said that Ardi is a direct common ancestor, and I have a belief in the fact of evolution.

The fact of evolution is seated in the argument that no one has said that Ardi is a direct common ancestor? Seems rather shady to me...

limerick wrote:Try looking at millions of fossils from museums all over the world, and there you will see your evidence.

So if I plant a fossil in a museum that is evidence? And yet no one has said that Ardi or any other fossil is a direct (without question) common ancestor to humans..

limerick wrote:A belief system as far as I'm concerned is when someone cannot explain something, they put it down to supernatural influence.

Or a miracle...

According to evolutionist George Wald all we need is time to prove evolutionary theory. He once stated, "Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles."

Even Darwin admitted this, as he stated, “To admit all this is, as it seems to me, to enter into the realms of miracle, and to leave those of science.”

limerick wrote:Quick answer no, but yes for online...no harm done...

Thanks for your honesty... I'll give you that...

Guys, I thought I would make a note... I'm actually not repudiating science or the idea of Darwinian evolution. I'll admit that it IS a possibility just like anything else... We simply do not know. So that is my stance.. What I'm against here is spot-welding arguments and closing communications. God could have used evolution in his creation as well... It's certainly possible. But when someone comes to me and says Darwinian evolution an unquestionable fact and creation is a myth, then I'm sorry. I'm going to raise a flag here.. I want to be real.. And be truthful with the scientific claims.

With that I'll say it again. When it comes to our origins, no one really has the answer.. We can shake it and bend it in all directions we want but in the end it still will take some faith to come up with the conclusions we perceive.. Let's just be truthful with one another.

Is that even possible?

That's right Gman. The discussion is open. Ideally we are all truth seekers. I'm a progressive creationist but read everything that interests me and that which I believe I really must read to gain a better understanding (whether or not it interests me) which means literature from the evolutionary camp. The problem is, as you say, when a faction of scientists with the government's backing (because the government today believes the only "neutral" path they can take is to throw their weight behind evolution and atheism: a gross misunderstanding on their part of what constitutes neutrality in the worldview wars [atheism is a view of the world with real consequences just like any religion and should be declared a religion imo so we can put everything on the table moving forward]) declare the matter closed when it's just getting started.

Gman wrote:Guys, I thought I would make a note... I'm actually not repudiating science or the idea of Darwinian evolution. I'll admit that it IS a possibility just like anything else... We simply do not know. So that is my stance.. What I'm against here is spot-welding arguments and closing communications. God could have used evolution in his creation as well... It's certainly possible. But when someone comes to me and says Darwinian evolution an unquestionable fact and creation is a myth, then I'm sorry. I'm going to raise a flag here.. I want to be real.. And be truthful with the scientific claims.

With that I'll say it again. When it comes to our origins, no one really has the answer.. We can shake it and bend it in all directions we want but in the end it still will take some faith to come up with the conclusions we perceive.. Let's just be truthful with one another.

Is that even possible?

I can only agree with this really - I think we quite nicely occupy opposite ends of the same spectrum. I have to say that on the weight of evidence that I've seen from the research I've done into the matter that evolution is a fact on a par with just about any other scientific theory I've studied. However, like you I'm happy to admit the possibility that I'm wrong and am open to the idea that it is possible that life arose in another way.

I have to agree 1000 times with the point about being truthful with scientific claims and evidence. Thankfully drug companies in most developed countries are subject to declaring their research before it is undertaken, making it very difficult for them to bury the results of any research that doesn't go their way. I think a couple of things that everyone posting in this forum would probably agree on is the need to make mainstream media more accurate and less sensationalist when reporting on science, and the need to prevent over-zealous politicians misusing science to support their policies. To make a broad generalisation I'd say that scientists are often humble and honest, but they often get misquoted and have their claims overblown by media outlets looking for attention-grabbing headlines.

Age - hope you don't mind me picking you up on a point...I don't think that governments (at least not in the UK, not sure of the details of the situation where you are) are pushing atheism. I think that there's a definite trend towards secularism in a lot of countries (i.e. not giving special care to any one faith, or lack of faith). In countries that have a majority faith I think this can often be perceived as the eroding of the rights of people who hold that faith, rather than increading rights for other people. For example my mother thinks that the fact that homosexual couples are gaining many of the rights of heterosexual couples is an assault on her faith, when it really isn't.
Just my thoughts - hope I didn't misinterpret what you wrote.

touchingcloth wrote:

Gman wrote:Guys, I thought I would make a note... I'm actually not repudiating science or the idea of Darwinian evolution. I'll admit that it IS a possibility just like anything else... We simply do not know. So that is my stance.. What I'm against here is spot-welding arguments and closing communications. God could have used evolution in his creation as well... It's certainly possible. But when someone comes to me and says Darwinian evolution an unquestionable fact and creation is a myth, then I'm sorry. I'm going to raise a flag here.. I want to be real.. And be truthful with the scientific claims.

With that I'll say it again. When it comes to our origins, no one really has the answer.. We can shake it and bend it in all directions we want but in the end it still will take some faith to come up with the conclusions we perceive.. Let's just be truthful with one another.

Is that even possible?

I can only agree with this really - I think we quite nicely occupy opposite ends of the same spectrum. I have to say that on the weight of evidence that I've seen from the research I've done into the matter that evolution is a fact on a par with just about any other scientific theory I've studied. However, like you I'm happy to admit the possibility that I'm wrong and am open to the idea that it is possible that life arose in another way.

I have to agree 1000 times with the point about being truthful with scientific claims and evidence. Thankfully drug companies in most developed countries are subject to declaring their research before it is undertaken, making it very difficult for them to bury the results of any research that doesn't go their way. I think a couple of things that everyone posting in this forum would probably agree on is the need to make mainstream media more accurate and less sensationalist when reporting on science, and the need to prevent over-zealous politicians misusing science to support their policies. To make a broad generalisation I'd say that scientists are often humble and honest, but they often get misquoted and have their claims overblown by media outlets looking for attention-grabbing headlines.

Even from opposite ends of the spectrum, those are 2 of the most level-headed posts I have ever encountered on the subject. Kudos to you both.

Np touching cloth.

Even from opposite ends of the spectrum, those are 2 of the most level-headed posts I have ever encountered on the subject. Kudos to you both.

Level-headedness is an undesirable trait, contrary to survival of the fittest, and will be exterminated from the human species through natural selection.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

touchingcloth wrote:I can only agree with this really - I think we quite nicely occupy opposite ends of the same spectrum. I have to say that on the weight of evidence that I've seen from the research I've done into the matter that evolution is a fact on a par with just about any other scientific theory I've studied. However, like you I'm happy to admit the possibility that I'm wrong and am open to the idea that it is possible that life arose in another way.

I think a lot of the evidence has to do with one's bias... For the most part, anything that doesn't jive with evolutionary theory is considered a religious endeavor.. So, any form of creationism is pretty much labeled unscientific from the get go. Therefore it is not pursued scientifically giving the monopoly of attention to Darwinan evolution.. I think if the teachers of evolution would realize this, to know and understand evolutionary theory, but not require the public to believe it as an unquestionable fact, then much of this conflict would go away..

But not to stifle evolutionary theory, keep everything in context..

touchingcloth wrote:I have to agree 1000 times with the point about being truthful with scientific claims and evidence. Thankfully drug companies in most developed countries are subject to declaring their research before it is undertaken, making it very difficult for them to bury the results of any research that doesn't go their way. I think a couple of things that everyone posting in this forum would probably agree on is the need to make mainstream media more accurate and less sensationalist when reporting on science, and the need to prevent over-zealous politicians misusing science to support their policies. To make a broad generalisation I'd say that scientists are often humble and honest, but they often get misquoted and have their claims overblown by media outlets looking for attention-grabbing headlines.

Yes, I don't think scientists are evil for presenting their evidence. For the most part, however, the public sector of scientists do not question evolutionary theory.. And when it is presented in a way that it is the only truth by either the media or scientist themselves, I'm not surprised when you will find people objecting to it..

Byblos wrote:Even from opposite ends of the spectrum, those are 2 of the most level-headed posts I have ever encountered on the subject. Kudos to you both.

Call it a work in progress..

jlay wrote:Level-headedness is an undesirable trait, contrary to survival of the fittest, and will be exterminated from the human species through natural selection.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

touchingcloth wrote:Proof is something beyond all of the natural sciences - namely biology, physics and chemistry. Proof is unique to the mathematician and the logician...I've tried to stress this point several times.

I'm curious, though; if people like Dawkins use evolution to prop up their lack of faith, then what of christian scientists in the field of evolution (people like Kenneth Miller), and what of the official stance of the Catholic church on evolution?

I don't know. What of them? I am talking specifically about fanatical Darwinians like Dawkins, who believe in a "universal Darwinism" which can answer any questions in life, be they cultural, biological et cetera. Dawkins uses rhetoric to prop up his position, and he twists and turns Darwin's postulation to accomodate his universal Darwinism. Dawkins abuses and abandons the empiricity which is apparently so sacred to the conscientious scientist. He speaks in a tone remarkably similar to that of the bible-thumping fundamentalists he so vociferously critisises. If I were a scientist, I'd distance myself from this jerk.

Dan

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:The matching of chromosome 2 is so much more than a "banding pattern" though. It contains telomeres (the code at the end of chromosomes) in the centre, and it has 2 centromeres - 1 either side of the central telomeres.

And the telomeres in humans are unique. In comparison to primates, humans have much shorter telomeres only 10 kilobases long.

touchingcloth wrote:I agree with you that this could indeed be explained by your common designer hypothesis. But what I'm talking about is prediction; could/did the designer hypothesis make such a specific prediction about a chromosome that very much appears to be fused, based on the different number of chromosome pairs between humans and other apes?

Very much appears to be fused? But not entirely as we have seen... Again, you have to fill in the blanks.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm gives a short and easily understandable explanation of the amazing evidence for the human fusing of chromosomes 2p and 2q from the ancestor of humans and chimps.

It's almost as if God coded in the DNA of chromosomes 2, 2p, and 2q, a pamphlet named "Common Ancestry for Dummies" for people like me.