Evidence for God from Science

snorider wrote:

snorider wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

snorider wrote:Dan, do you know why we hiccup?

Sno I don't really care if evolution is true or not it has no bearing on the existence of God, my whole faith is buried in experiencing God's love.

I have seen the work of his hands daily, I have witnessed miracles and answered prayers.

I no longer need and intellectual proof of God, as I have a close personal relationship with him.

God is love, maybe you should think about that.


Dan

This is about Evolution, not about God's love. I'm happy you have a relationship with him.

Well, the hiccup, is something that we inherited from our fish friends before we landed.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/ ... ion-expla/

Google, more please. As are our male nipples, the function is no longer needed.

When we were fish we needed to regulate how and when oxygen went to our lungs, since we were in water, hiccups were a way of doing that. Like male nipples, that are no longer needed, we kept that trait, hiccups.

Jordan

Hiccups are triggered by electric signals generated in the brain stem. Amphibian brain stems emit similar signals, which control the regular motion of their gills. Our brain stems, inherited from amphibian ancestors, still spurt out odd signals producing hiccups that are, according to Shubin, essentially the same phenomenon as gill breathing.

Ok, we do things that are similar to creatures of the past, it doesn't mean that I once had gills and lived in a pineapple under the sea like Spongebob Squarepants, does it?

Either natural selection is stupid or wrong in this case. If we have evolved and varied over millions of years, and through that process we have developed new traits and got rid of old traits (such as gills) then why do some random traits stay within the human body and do not seem to have changed for millions of years. The hiccups are simply when a spasm contracts the diaphragm, a large sheet of muscle that separates the chest cavity from the abdominal cavity. This spasm causes an intake of breath that is suddenly stopped by the closure of the vocal cords (glottis). This closure causes the characteristic "hiccup" sound.

Not sure I would think of it as anything more than that. Also, hiccups effect men more than women and babies more than adults, it can also be brought on by many different things which cause damage to the diaphragm.

These areas of evolution are total speculation and borderline impossible to prove. If you can believe in them, surely there is reason to believe in God also?

SB

snorider wrote:Well, the hiccup, is something that we inherited from our fish friends before we landed.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/ ... ion-expla/

Google, more please. As are our male nipples, the function is no longer needed.

When we were fish we needed to regulate how and when oxygen went to our lungs, since we were in water, hiccups were a way of doing that. Like male nipples, that are no longer needed, we kept that trait, hiccups.

Good grief. I don't know whether you are being serious or if this is a joke. Sadly, I think you are being serious. When I read stuff like this, I think,.......well, I'll keep my comment to myself.

You use the word FUNTION. please explain to the superstitous, religous morons like myself, how function arrises in nature. When say something lost it's function, you are admitting that it has a function. So account for funtion in nature.

Hiccups

neo-x wrote:Dan, genes are, except for newly mutated genes, passed on from parent to child, you can't have them any other way, period. That is the reason why DNA test of yours can confirm who your DAD is, because the genes match.

Conflating

neo wrote:
Rick, I do. And that is why I am asking you to at least acknowledged a little science if not all. The similarity that you are talking about are genes, which parents give to child, there is no other way to account for those identical genes. A baby gets is genes from its parents, you get them from your parents. That is how your lineage is traced. That is not my interpretation, that is pure science fact.

Ok, Neo, I'll try to stay with you. But, I'm confused. You say there's no way to account for identical genes other than being passed down from generation to generation. But, simple logic tells me that since a chimp and a human are relatively similar physically and physiologically, then a Creator would have used more similar genes than say a human and a daffodil. It doesn't mean humans and chimps came from a common ancestor. It means in simple logic, that organisms that are similar physically and physiologically, will have more genes that are similar.

So the chimp and man shares, 2690 MILLION genomes, that is almost 3 billion, Rick.

" The chimp and man shares 2690 MILLION genomes"? Now you've lost me neo. Do you even know what a genome is? Here:

ge·nome
/ˈjēnōm/
Noun

The haploid set of chromosomes of an organism.
The complete set of genetic material of an organism.

Neo, a genome is the complete set of genetic material of an organism. A human has one complete set of genetic material. A HUMAN HAS ONE GENOME. So, how can a human and chimp share 2690 million complete sets of genetic material?
And, last best estimate, a human has 20,000-25,000 genes in the genome.

There is no other way to get those genes unless you both are born of the same ancestor.

Again, neo. The Creator gave similar organisms similar genes. It makes sense. Don't overlook simple logic.

If you think that the creator used the same building material, then what was the mechanism, did God hand made all the creatures, replacing genomes as he went by?

Huh? You're asking me to tell you what mechanism a God who is infinitely more intelligent than I am, used to create life? What does "replacing genomes as he went by" even mean? Each organism has one genome.

If he did use one material than that material only passed on because of reproduction. We know this much because it is a fact.

Stay with me here, Neo. This gets really simple, so don't get lost. The Creator used "something" to create life. If that "something" was the same thing, or something similar that He used for all organisms, then it would stand to reason that organisms show that they are similar. Which is why even organisms that aren't so similar, have some of the same genes.

And it shows a difference of 40 million genomes, which of course makes man different.

Neo, What do you even mean here? A difference of 40 million what?

And neo, please answer my question I asked you before: If man evolved from some "ancestor", whether it was a one celled organism, or whatever, how then do you explain how man was created in the image of God?

A hypothesis with only 55 pages in a book which no one has considered scientific, not even christian biologists for over 30 years, has something to say to you or not? My answer, it is not a good hypothesis. Plus there is no evidence for it, as for as I know. Meyer ultimately come back to the same circular reasoning and GOG.

This isn't addressing anything. It is prejudicial, poppycock. You really ought to examine yourself when you bark out accusations of evidence and one-liners. It's apparent you are religiously committed to Darwinism. You obviously, like many, do not even know what is being argued. We have millions of examples of how design works, and more importanly how function works. Please explain how that is GOG? It isn't. you won't address the actual issues of design and function. You resort to ad-hominem attacks, and popularity fallacies. The one thing you can't say, if you have studied this is that there is no evidence. There is ample evidence to study function and how it arrises. Please account for function in Darwinism?

Why would you answer? you have a GOG, at best.

According to you, anything other than Darwinist presuppositions is GOG. I don't see how that can be reasoned with.

Genomes are hereditary material J. Do you understand that?

If you keep talking to me like an idiot, I wouldn't expect an answer. You didn't even address function. The passing on of genetic material does not account for it's origin. Buildings and cars can have similar and even the same material. That doesn't mean they came from a common ancestor. Again, what does the word DESCENT mean?

If you have a genes in your body, than there must be similar genes in your parents body too, because you get your genes from them. Unless there is a new mutated genes which occurred in the embryo, you would show matching genes.

As I already said. Conflating.

So J, I am asking you again, please account for 2960 million genomes which are identical in the chimp and the man? since there is no other way to gain those genomes unless it was gained by hereditary mechanisms.

That is a loaded question and you know it. I'm not going to answer question begging. You've already presumed your answer. Sadly, I don't even think you see the fallacious tactics you've been brainwashed to employ.

The laws are made by him.

God of the gaps, god of the gaps! God of the gaps!!! Look everyone, he is saying God is responsible![/quote]

The only issue I have seen thus far, is you trying to attack my credibility to argue, nothing else.

I think people who perpetrate so called "science" when it is founded on question begging, equivocation, and conflating, need to be exposed. Nothing else.

Neo, a genome is the complete set of genetic material of an organism. A human has one complete set of genetic material. A HUMAN HAS ONE GENOME. So, how can a human and chimp share 2690 million complete sets of genetic material?
And, last best estimate, a human has 20,000-25,000 genes in the genome.

Thanks Rick, I just checked my reference, I erroneously used the word with that number, where as the number of DNA molecules or nucleotides, is the number I meant within the Genome that is similar. There are 2960 million DNA molecules (which also form genes) which are identical. however this does not change the argument I put forth you before. Again my apologies for the confusion.

There is ample evidence to study function and how it arrises.

Feel free to post.

Why would you answer? you have a GOG, at best.

According to you, anything other than Darwinist presuppositions is GOG. I don't see how that can be reasoned with.

No, not really, but I believe you are hiding behind one.

If you keep talking to me like an idiot, I wouldn't expect an answer. You didn't even address function. The passing on of genetic material does not account for it's origin. Buildings and cars can have similar and even the same material. That doesn't mean they came from a common ancestor. Again, what does the word DESCENT mean?

I asked you to show me a valid model for biological function, you didn't give one and you expect me to present evidence? pretty bold for someone who has just been using debate tactics to avoid presenting his case.

As I already said. Conflating.

You would.

So J, I am asking you again, please account for 2960 million genomes which are identical in the chimp and the man? since there is no other way to gain those genomes unless it was gained by hereditary mechanisms.

That is a loaded question and you know it. I'm not going to answer question begging. You've already presumed your answer. Sadly, I don't even think you see the fallacious tactics you've been brainwashed to employ.

Not at all, unless you don't have the answer feel free to avoid this too, as you have continuously been doing. There is no loaded question, you can't deny that the DNA is identical, so I expect you have a valid answer, I am asking you for it. Forget about me, let me for the argument sake concede that I am a pathetic debater compared to you, happy now? Now don't let my ignorance upset you, answer the question.

The laws are made by him.
God of the gaps, god of the gaps! God of the gaps!!! Look everyone, he is saying God is responsible!

[/quote]
Yes, but that does not affect my argument at all because unlike you I am not arguing for this.

The only issue I have seen thus far, is you trying to attack my credibility to argue, nothing else.

I think people who perpetrate so called "science" when it is founded on question begging, equivocation, and conflating, need to be exposed. Nothing else.

Well then good luck, I am sure you are good at this sort of stuff. Now if you get time, feel free to show me any evidence for ID.

And neo, please answer my question I asked you before: If man evolved from some "ancestor", whether it was a one celled organism, or whatever, how then do you explain how man was created in the image of God?

I don't think physical image is in question here. Unless God has eyes, ears, brain, blood, arms, legs and sex organs, not sure how can we say we were made in his image? It must be spiritual or the meaning of image becomes conflicting or lost. Because if Man was made in God's image physically then the chimp was made in God's image with just a little bit of change.

neo-x wrote:

Neo, a genome is the complete set of genetic material of an organism. A human has one complete set of genetic material. A HUMAN HAS ONE GENOME. So, how can a human and chimp share 2690 million complete sets of genetic material?
And, last best estimate, a human has 20,000-25,000 genes in the genome.

Thanks Rick, I just checked my reference, I erroneously used the word with that number, where as the number of DNA molecules or nucleotides, is the number I meant within the Genome that is similar. There are 2960 million DNA molecules (which also form genes) which are identical. however this does not change the argument I put forth you before. Again my apologies for the confusion.

Thanks for clearing up the confusion, neo. Whatever the number of DNA that are the same just shows to me that the Creator created organisms that are similar physically, and physiologically, to have similar DNA.
Genetic information is encoded in DNA. If God wanted to create 2 physically and physiologically similar organisms, wouldn't it seem logical that they would have similar DNA?

I don't think physical image is in question here. Unless God has eyes, ears, brain, blood, arms, legs and sex organs, not sure how can we say we were made in his image? It must be spiritual or the meaning of image becomes conflicting or lost. Because if Man was made in God's image physically then the chimp was made in God's image with just a little bit of change.

I too think it's spiritual. Or at least mental and spiritual. My point is that scripture says that man was physically made from the dust of the earth. The text doesn't say or imply that God chose a preexisting hominid, and gave it a spirit. It seems pretty clear that when God created man, He created a new creature. Then to make a woman, God took part of the man, and fashioned her. The text doesn't say that God grabbed a preexisting female hominid, and tossed in a spirit.

Perhaps you could explain how man is a distinct creature created in God's image, and at the same time just another evolved hominid. I don't get how that's consistent with scripture.

neo-x wrote:Feel free to post.

Your using a computer aren't you? Does it function? Why?
What is function? The action for which a thing is particularly fitted or employed. You see evolution smuggles this in all the time.

I asked you to show me a valid model for biological function, you didn't give one and you expect me to present evidence? pretty bold for someone who has just been using debate tactics to avoid presenting his case.

Again the thread is Evolution. Competing theories, alternate theories etc. are NOT required to challenge Evolution. Has nothing to do with debate tactics. It has to do with recognizing rabbit trails. The tactic goes like this. Obviously you know I don't have a model for function because function is abstract. So, you assume that this somehow verifies that evolution is true. Show me how evolution accounts for function. Is there function in nature? Account for it.

Not at all, unless you don't have the answer feel free to avoid this too, as you have continuously been doing. There is no loaded question, you can't deny that the DNA is identical

,
Haven't denied it, and don't appreciate you continuously implying that I am. Straw men, straw men, oh my.
Only denying the conflating you are sneaking in. Find one place where I denied. THis is more than once that you have essentially lied about my position. Valid answer is all biological forms are built from the same building blocks.

Well then good luck, I am sure you are good at this sort of stuff. Now if you get time, feel free to show me any evidence for ID.

[/quote]
As I said, I'm not arguing for ID. Only stated that ID has offered an alternate theory. As I've stated in numerous threads, complexity is NOT the issue. Function is the issue. Please account for function. The thread is on Evolution, and it cannot account for function. Design CAN.

What is function? The action for which a thing is particularly fitted or employed. You see evolution smuggles this in all the time.

Not at all. What have you been reading about evolution? Mutation comes first, function comes later. You've got it the other way around, no wonder it doesn't make sense. Mutation is random and there is no perfect state of function. How do you know that our bodies can not be better or worse? You see it working, you think it is perfect? A single cell organism is as perfect as a human. Because "perfect" in evolutionary terms is irrelevant. The only thing is, some mutation survives, others don't through natural selection.

Again the thread is Evolution. Competing theories, alternate theories etc. are NOT required to challenge Evolution. Has nothing to do with debate tactics. It has to do with recognizing rabbit trails. The tactic goes like this. Obviously you know I don't have a model for function because function is abstract. So, you assume that this somehow verifies that evolution is true. Show me how evolution accounts for function. Is there function in nature? Account for it.

What? you're worried about the trivial thread title now? Well I can't help but test those "competing" theories when they don't present their own case. If you don't have a model, what exactly are you arguing for in the first place? You want to make sure that evolution does not called right but is that all, how do you fit the biological facts when you don't have any specific scientific model J into your own view?

By the way, I thought you had left YEC, but your profile still says you're YEC?

Obviously you know I don't have a model for function because function is abstract. So, you assume that this somehow verifies that evolution is true. Show me how evolution accounts for function. Is there function in nature? Account for it.

A lack of model outside of evolution does not make evolution right. Evolution does not even need one. It is not the lack of other competing evidence, it is the evidence within science that the evolutionary model holds too. You just don't like it, that's all.

Function is the result of mutation. By natural selection, an organism survives and in the long run uses the mutation to its benefit. You perhaps do not understand but terms like "random" or arbitrary have a precise meaning in evolution.

DNA decoding shows that all DNA, is made up of 4 nucleotides represented with letters G, A, T, and C. And meaning full DNA spells 3 letter words at best. There are a total of 64 codons which can be formed. But when these codons act with the 21 amino acids. They form sequences which consist of hundreds of amino acids, each sequence being a protein molecule. While the number of DNA bases is 4 and the meaningful DNA words to be 64, there is practically no limit on how many protein molecules can be formed through these amino acids sequences. When DNA mutates, forming new or altering already established sequences, a new function may arise. If it is meaningful, meaning it spells like the 64 word DNA dictionary, then it means a change (a new function), otherwise there are times when only garbled sequences may be formed too (hint, junk DNA comes in this category too) from within, not outside. Whether the function is useful or not to the survival of the organism is the other stage and that is where natural selection occurs. Survival dictates function. If the organism finds the change useful, adapts and thrives, the mutated gene survives more and more and thus ends up in the entire population or most of it. If the change is useless the DNA still can survive. If the change is harmful (harm meaning anything that is different to its current survival tactics), the creature would have a difficult time, it may die, it may become diseased, it may change to adapt. If it may not survive (but did reproduce), the chances of the harmful gene being populated less and less but nonetheless, a part of the offspring DNA.

Valid answer is all biological forms are built from the same building blocks.

J, those genes and DNA molecules only come in the latter organisms if the existed in earlier too. Meaning reproduction. there is no other way we can have identical genes. This is a biological process. When you say what you say in this line, you are actually putting up the GOG, I talked about earlier. And even if you do not agree with me, you still have no evidence and mechanism to show your theory possible. Where as evolution has evidence and is defining the procedure too. Time to step down of your high horse, J. Either you have evidence or at least a theoretical model to back up what you are claiming or you don't. You can't have both.

As I said, I'm not arguing for ID. Only stated that ID has offered an alternate theory. As I've stated in numerous threads, complexity is NOT the issue. Function is the issue. Please account for function. The thread is on Evolution, and it cannot account for function. Design CAN.

Conflict here! you are not arguing for design and you end your line with the same assertion, "design can"? What are you arguing for J, are you arguing for YEC, OEC, or your own opinion? I know you are not arguing for ID, evolution or T.E.

For the intents and puposes of this thread, I am arguing AGAINST Darwinian evolution.

neo-x wrote:DNA decoding shows that all DNA, is made up of 4 nucleotides represented with letters G, A, T, and C. And meaning full DNA spells 3 letter words at best. There are a total of 64 codons which can be formed. But when these codons act with the 21 amino acids. They form sequences which consist of hundreds of amino acids, each sequence being a protein molecule. While the number of DNA bases is 4 and the meaningful DNA words to be 64, there is practically no limit on how many protein molecules can be formed through these amino acids sequences. When DNA mutates, forming new or altering already established sequences, a new function may arise. If it is meaningful, meaning it spells like the 64 word DNA dictionary, then it means a change (a new function), otherwise there are times when only garbled sequences may be formed too (hint, junk DNA comes in this category too) from within, not outside. Whether the function is useful or not to the survival of the organism is the other stage and that is where natural selection occurs. Survival dictates function. If the organism finds the change useful, adapts and thrives, the mutated gene survives more and more and thus ends up in the entire population or most of it. If the change is useless the DNA still can survive. If the change is harmful (harm meaning anything that is different to its current survival tactics), the creature would have a difficult time, it may die, it may become diseased, it may change to adapt. If it may not survive (but did reproduce), the chances of the harmful gene being populated less and less but nonetheless, a part of the offspring DNA.

I am well aware that mutation is a necessary ingredient in evolution theory. I assume when you speak of mutation you are speaking of coding errors. I am well aware of mutations and how they effect the genome. But like so many, I see you putting your hope in mutation when the evidence isn't there. It is an evolution of the gaps. "See these little mutations. This bacteria has greater survivability....." But we are able to recognize coding errors in the genome. How do you account for functioning systems through coding error? Vision, taste, hearing, etc. Are you saying the eye is the result of mutations, that were just lucky enough to result in vision? It is wishful thinking, and nothing you stated above confirms how we get a functioning eye, or pulmonary system. Not one iota. Show me how mutation accounts for that? You can't and you know it. You again are conflating what we do know and can observe into something else entirely.
Proposing that function is just an accident of random mutation is like supposing that given enough time, the scrap metal in my garage will assemble into an funcitoning lawn mower.

And even if you do not agree with me, you still have no evidence and mechanism to show your theory possible.

As I said you, are on your computer? Does it function? Why? Every functioning device is a case study on how function dictates design. If seeing how function works in your everyday world doesn't convince you, then what else would?

A lack of model outside of evolution does not make evolution right. Evolution does not even need one. It is not the lack of other competing evidence, it is the evidence within science that the evolutionary model holds too. You just don't like it, that's all.

I have no problem with the evidence. The evidence doesn't take sides. People do. No I don't like a worldview that is founded on question begging, conflation, and equivocation. Should I?

neo-x wrote:Now if you get time, feel free to show me any evidence for ID.

Here is evidence of ID;
http://indianautosblog.com/wp-content/u ... 0x1410.jpg

There are innumerable evidences for intelligent design;
http://images.wisegeek.com/laptop-computer.jpg
http://www.ncee.org/2012/11/tuckers-len ... utomation/
http://www.douglaserice.com/wp-content/ ... mation.jpg
http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/effective- ... designers/
http://www.intelligentdesigns.com/main.html
http://www.idez.com/

I could keep listing evidences without stop for longer than all our lifetimes put together.
The better question begging to be asked is what evidence do you have of non intelligent design...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... xMmLakH2LQ

Biomimetics: Learning From Biology
You Won’t Believe These Designs
What happens when engineers look at biology? Unlike evolutionists, they see designs for all kinds of useful applications. “Biomimicry,” explains one article, “is an incredibly productive technique.”
There are the butterflies whose colorful wings arise from fine scales and ridges creating optical interference, a technology used in low-power video displays. And there is the mosquito's proboscis—its needle that we can barely feel because it is highly serrated. Now we have serrated hypodermic needles that are much less painful.
Termites build mounds that have incredible temperature control. They maintain 87 degrees with a system of vents, drawing air from the ground, which the termites open and close as needed. Now architects are using the same principles for better building designs.
The lotus plant is self-cleaning. Water rolls off its waxy leaves due to its tiny bumps which leave no room for droplets to accumulate. Dirt is picked up by the water rather than sticking to the leaf, a design now used in self-cleaning materials including windows and high-voltage power equipment.
Humpback whales have bumps on their flippers which would seem to create more drag but they actually work better, with a third less drag than smooth versions. Now you can see bumps on turbine and fan blades that are 20 percent more efficient.
The list goes on and on. The skin of sea cucumbers, which can rapidly stiffen, inspired a plastic that can switch from a stiff to a pliable state in seconds. The odd shape of the boxfish is surprisingly efficient and inspired a new automobile design. Rodents self-sharpening teeth inspired a new blade design that is self-sharpening. The amazing gecko feet, which provide strong adhesion via the weakest of forces (the van der Waals forces) inspired the Ghecko Tape and Geckskin, which can hold up 700 pound objects.
Biomimicry works not only because nature is chocked full of incredibly effective and efficient designs, but because so many of these designs are clever and non intuitive. We never would have thought of these designs. The sheer creativity evident in biology is far more striking than its incredible high functionality. Meanwhile evolutionists still can’t figure out why their theory keeps failing.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/12 ... ology.html

Intelligent design can only be recognised by an understanding from Intelligence.

We have also seen what mutations or coding errors have done for the fruit over many years, and the results were fruit flies that could never survive outside of the labs. They subjected these fuit flies to all sorts of radiation and harsh conditions and no macroevolution. The evidence just isnt there.

jlay wrote: Are you saying the eye is the result of mutations, that were just lucky enough to result in vision?

Yes, for all of the theories about how an eye, before it became a totally functioning eye, was supposedly useful to various species, are at best, useless conjecture. And a human eye, an organ of such complexity? A human eye that had evolved to only 95% of what it needs to be a fully functioning organ of sight, might as well be a zit on one's butt, as it would still be useless for sight. And one must explain those many in-between advantages - what were the supposed purpose and function of so much time and so many stages BEFORE the eye had completely evolved to being capable of sight?