Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:Silvertusk,

I believe this is what you were referring to:

Silvertusk wrote:
You could have had a breakdown of the continents providing continental shelves which provides a ideal environment for life to flourish and develop. It could have been the end of a long period of glaciation that again changed the environment again providing powerful extrinsic causes. Brian Cox even suggested that maybe at that time light may have broken through the dense cloud barrier at that time where the process of photosynthesis finally worked its magic - the extra abundance of light provided another power extrinsic cause. There are many other theories for the explosion which then led to powerful intrinsic causes in the organisms around at the time. Or of cause God could have caused anyone of these big changes or directly created the massive influx of life himself. Everything I have said above is plausible.

Silver, This is what I was talking about before. When the conditions on earth are ideal for specific kinds of life, God created it. None of what you said points to evolution. It all fits nicely in an OEC/PC worldview. The atmosphere finally allowed sunlight through, so God created plants that need sunlight, etc.

Silver, do a search on the Cambrian Explosion. From what I've read, even from Evolutionist sites, they admit that the evidence shows a rapid appearance of new phyla. That points towards PC, not sped up evolution. Remember the evidence shows an appearance of NEW phyla. Skeletal creatures that didn't exist before.

It also points to sped up macro evolution as well. Which is entirely plausable given the ideal conditions brought in from the Cambrian Explosion. For instance massive isolative reproduction giving rise to new species. The introduction of more light giving rise to more beneficial mutations and speciation. It could have been direct introduction by God or it could have been a rapid state of macroevolution brought about by the conditions of the CE. I am open to both ideas and either way God is involved as far as I am concerned. My point is - I do not see a problem with either view.

RickD wrote:

Silvertusk wrote:

Ivellious wrote:
Perhaps not random in the sense that you mean, but take this example: natural selection is a law of nature. Gravity and the other forces of the universe are a law of nature. Any kind of Christian will tell you that God created the laws of nature, obviously.

Now, when I roll dice, I consider the rolls to be random. However, in technical terms, every roll is explicitly "pre-determined" by the laws of physics. I consider them random (as a human), but once you dig deep enough, when I roll a certain way, it has to end up facing the way it ultimately does. No exceptions.

Evolution is analogous in many ways to the dice roll. You are just trading laws of physics for biological laws. While God may have set up the laws of nature so that they will act in a way that guides evolution, to us it is as random and non-seeing as rolling dice.

Another way of seeing it: Natural selection, when put in the circumstances that it has for the past few billions of years, will always work the way it did. Change the various variables and life could easily have evolved in a totally different direction, but for the variables that have affected it in our universe, it ended up here. Just like if I changed the variables of my dice throw (force, weight of the dice, direction of the toss, etc.) the results may have been different. This is how the evolutionary biologist defines randomness.

Good post - In actual fact it is now getting to the stage where Biologists can almost predict where evolution will go in certain species - nothing random or chance about that me thinks.

Silver, if what you said is true, then look at the key words you said:" in certain species ". That's not macro evolution. Micro evolution does not equal macro evolution.

In his book Alexander was referring to both micro and macro. You need evolution in a species to produce another species. To be honest it might be worth you looking at Denis Alexanders book - because he explains it a lot better than me.

Think after years of contemplation - I am seriously leaning towards theistic evolution as my creation stance - especially after reading Denis Alexanders's book - Creation of Evolution - do we have to choose.

I just find it very very comforting to know that there is no threat to my faith from evolution - and really evolution is neutral in the debate and it is only the new-athiests that have hijacked it as a tool to promote their natualistic beliefs.

Silvertusk.

Nice to know that SIlver

Personally I do not get why some people equate T.E with heresy or something frighteningly un-biblical, as J sounded on the first page. I have more concern about how many Christians and especailly in the YEC group have such a hostile attitude towards modern science.

neo-x wrote:

Think after years of contemplation - I am seriously leaning towards theistic evolution as my creation stance - especially after reading Denis Alexanders's book - Creation of Evolution - do we have to choose.

I just find it very very comforting to know that there is no threat to my faith from evolution - and really evolution is neutral in the debate and it is only the new-athiests that have hijacked it as a tool to promote their natualistic beliefs.

Silvertusk.

Nice to know that SIlver

Personally I do not get why some people equate T.E with heresy or something frighteningly un-biblical, as J sounded on the first page. I have more concern about how many Christians and especailly in the YEC group have such a hostile attitude towards modern science.

Couldn't agree more - and it is kind of ironic since in the past it was Christians or other theists that was the driving force behind science as people wanted to discover more of God's awesome creation.

This is for Phillips

If you embrace any form of TE, that necessarily means 1) That you believe God guided an evolutionary method of His creation and 2) that the details of the Adam & Eve account are mere parts of an allegory.

Is the account of the good samaritian a parable? how do you know the truth about that, where is it written that it is or isn't a parable? And yet you believe (I'm assuming) it is a parable. And even so the theological point of the story is not missed by you. Why is Genesis 1 any different.

I come to accept evolution after listened and studied some of what was being said. As I said before in another thread, you can not have matching genes and DNA, in a human and a fruit fly or the chimpanzee unless humans and these creatures had a common ancestor. There is no way around that, period. It is 100% testable by what we see today. Micro evolution in the long run becomes macro evolution, I would not separate them. To separate them shows a lack of biological facts, science and evolution.

No offense to anyone and I certainly don't mean to insult anyone of you but I do for one agree with Dawkins on this, those who reject evolution, simply do not understand it. This is not an attack on anyone's intelligence, people do read about evolution and still don't accept it, fine by me. But I think this reading of evolution is no more different than an atheist reading of the Bible and then coming here to poke us with it. They read it and still don;t accept it. The same way, many YEC's or ID's read evolution (or some short form of it) and don't accept it. I think much of this is because they are already reading it with their presumptions and biases in front of them. The same way you would read a Koran. You know you are not going to accept it, but you will read it just so that you know some of what it is in there and then you can knock it down. Like many do with T.E and evolution in general.

If you DISAGREE that if the actual events and creation of Adam and Eve are accurate as to their plain meanings/common understandings, then I think it's fair to say that a truthful account - meaning one that we would clearly understand - would have to written very differently. But why would God present us with a Scriptural explanation (a misleading allegory, and never clarified by other Scriptures), IF false, that He well knew would one day cause great conflict, disagreement and confusion? That makes little sense!

God didn't write Genesis 1, men did and they wrote what made sense to them and could make some sense to the people. God would not, could not give them science class, nor do I think it is or was important. And I think they certainly believed that the earth was made in 6 days, that Adam and eve were literal and the global flood and etc. their belief does not mean anything. The truth of that theological document, Genesis is clear and that is the main point of the story.

Evolution is true, regardless of how many people say it is ture or isn't. It can be further improved by later findings but to say it is just another theory is seriously ignorance of facts. Evolutionary model still has to explain a lot, sure but it can't be discarded as a whole. The same way we do not understand quantum gravity, and yet there is truth in there. We just do not know how much of it is there.

neo-x wrote:This is for Phillips

If you embrace any form of TE, that necessarily means 1) That you believe God guided an evolutionary method of His creation and 2) that the details of the Adam & Eve account are mere parts of an allegory.

Is the account of the good samaritian a parable? how do you know the truth about that, where is it written that it is or isn't a parable? And yet you believe (I'm assuming) it is a parable. And even so the theological point of the story is not missed by you. Why is Genesis 1 any different.

I come to accept evolution after listened and studied some of what was being said. As I said before in another thread, you can not have matching genes and DNA, in a human and a fruit fly or the chimpanzee unless humans and these creatures had a common ancestor. There is no way around that, period. It is 100% testable by what we see today. Micro evolution in the long run becomes macro evolution, I would not separate them. To separate them shows a lack of biological facts, science and evolution.

No offense to anyone and I certainly don't mean to insult anyone of you but I do for one agree with Dawkins on this, those who reject evolution, simply do not understand it. This is not an attack on anyone's intelligence, people do read about evolution and still don't accept it, fine by me. But I think this reading of evolution is no more different than an atheist reading of the Bible and then coming here to poke us with it. They read it and still don;t accept it. The same way, many YEC's or ID's read evolution (or some short form of it) and don't accept it. I think much of this is because they are already reading it with their presumptions and biases in front of them. The same way you would read a Koran. You know you are not going to accept it, but you will read it just so that you know some of what it is in there and then you can knock it down. Like many do with T.E and evolution in general.

If you DISAGREE that if the actual events and creation of Adam and Eve are accurate as to their plain meanings/common understandings, then I think it's fair to say that a truthful account - meaning one that we would clearly understand - would have to written very differently. But why would God present us with a Scriptural explanation (a misleading allegory, and never clarified by other Scriptures), IF false, that He well knew would one day cause great conflict, disagreement and confusion? That makes little sense!

God didn't write Genesis 1, men did and they wrote what made sense to them and could make some sense to the people. God would not, could not give them science class, nor do I think it is or was important. And I think they certainly believed that the earth was made in 6 days, that Adam and eve were literal and the global flood and etc. their belief does not mean anything. The truth of that theological document, Genesis is clear and that is the main point of the story.

Evolution is true, regardless of how many people say it is ture or isn't. It can be further improved by later findings but to say it is just another theory is seriously ignorance of facts. Evolutionary model still has to explain a lot, sure but it can't be discarded as a whole. The same way we do not understand quantum gravity, and yet there is truth in there. We just do not know how much of it is there.

I agree with some of your points above - but I would not go so far as to say Genesis is a parable. I think it has historical accuracy - just interpreted a certain way. I am more inclined to believe in a actual Adam and Eve - a couple of Neolithic farmers that God chose to be representative of Mankind and then the fall that occurred through them affected us all. A&E became Homos Divinus - the first modern humans to have that full relationship with God.

Plus of course that everything in creation is under God's soveriegn power, including evolution.

SIlvertusk.

but I would not go so far as to say Genesis is a parable

I am not saying Genesis is parable. Simply that some things are certainly not literal, for we have evidence today that proves so. This only highlights the limit of the knowledge of the writers of Genesis, the theological point remains in state.

a couple of Neolithic farmers that God chose to be representative of Mankind and then the fall that occurred through them affected us all. A&E became Homos Divinus

I am not very far from what you are saying here. Adam and Eve certainly existed, not in the same way, as the account of Genesis say.

neo-x wrote:

but I would not go so far as to say Genesis is a parable

I am not saying Genesis is parable. Simply that some things are certainly not literal, for we have evidence today that proves so. This only highlights the limit of the knowledge of the writers of Genesis, the theological point remains in state.

Fair enough.

neo-x wrote:

a couple of Neolithic farmers that God chose to be representative of Mankind and then the fall that occurred through them affected us all. A&E became Homos Divinus

I am not very far from what you are saying here. Adam and Eve certainly existed, not in the same way, as the account of Genesis say.

What is interesting about the Genesis account though is the way that the first part where "Adam" is mentioned it seems to be referring to mankind rather than a certain individual - the NIV have footnotes to that effect. It only becomes more definate that Adam is referring to an indivdual later on.

Note that mankind is also the last thing that is created - fits in nicely with the evolutionary account as we are the pinnacle of evolution as well as God's creation.

"Created" in this respect could easily be the use of evolution which God certainly set the mechanisms for and sustains throughout time. I do not see any contradiction in the Genesis account by putting this interpretion on it.

Silvertusk » Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:00 pm

neo-x wrote:
but I would not go so far as to say Genesis is a parable

I am not saying Genesis is parable. Simply that some things are certainly not literal, for we have evidence today that proves so. This only highlights the limit of the knowledge of the writers of Genesis, the theological point remains in state.



Fair enough.

You know this only changes what we were traditionally taught or what has been historically taught. For example the special creation of man, as in literal, out of the ground one.

Even if I go as far as deny the special creation of man, I do not think why that would be a problem. For instance. If evolution played out as in J's terms "molecules to man", then God being omniscient would know before hand where to what extent evolution would lead to. Thus knowing man and choosing him to be his special creation, not because of any other merit but his own divine will.

neo-x wrote:No offense to anyone and I certainly don't mean to insult anyone of you but I do for one agree with Dawkins on this, those who reject evolution, simply do not understand it. This is not an attack on anyone's intelligence, people do read about evolution and still don't accept it, fine by me. But I think this reading of evolution is no more different than an atheist reading of the Bible and then coming here to poke us with it. They read it and still don;t accept it. The same way, many YEC's or ID's read evolution (or some short form of it) and don't accept it. I think much of this is because they are already reading it with their presumptions and biases in front of them. The same way you would read a Koran. You know you are not going to accept it, but you will read it just so that you know some of what it is in there and then you can knock it down. Like many do with T.E and evolution in general.

Would you say it's possible you're reading evolution through the same biased prism you accuse others of doing? You agree with Dawkins on that statement but he has a far more sinister agenda as you well know. Do you also agree with him that evolution is an unguided, naturalistic process? How about what he believes on the origin of life, do you agree with that? Look I'm not playing devil's advocate here. I do, for all intents and purposes, believe that evolution (and yes, by that I mean macro ) is a plausible theory and the best one we have (so far) to explain how life evolved on earth. However (note the emphasis), and to borrow from a friend, that's whole lota equivocation and a priori assumptions. How can humans have common DNA with monkeys and bananas? Yes, common ancestry is a possibility. Is it the only one? Far from it. How about common design. How about of necessity from the laws of biology (i.e. the laws can only produce life with common traits though not necessarily through ancestry). Here's one for you that no atheist could possibly deny: how about good old-fashioned, unadulterated chance. Don't think that's possible?

My point is that while TE may be the best scientific explanation we have, it most certainly is NOT a proven fact so let's tread lightly with our respective assumptions.

Would you say it's possible you're reading evolution through the same biased prism you accuse others of doing?

I would whole heartedly concede that this can very well be a possibility, yet I don't think that it being so has any affect of the nature of facts that support the theory.

Do you also agree with him that evolution is an unguided, naturalistic process?

Yes I certainly think it is (I am not arguing specifically for T.E here), though not for starters, I certainly think that the laws of properties of organic matter, in whatever form they may be would certainly be only possible with God kick starting things.

How about what he believes on the origin of life, do you agree with that?

I don't know but why would you assume that I believe what he believes, all in all?

You agree with Dawkins on that statement but he has a far more sinister agenda as you well know

I am very well aware of that agenda, it is just that I find the original statement, I wrote of his, pretty accurate.

I do, for all intents and purposes, believe that evolution (and yes, by that I mean macro ) is a plausible theory and the best one we have (so far) to explain how life evolved on earth. However (note the emphasis), and to borrow from a friend, that's whole lot a equivocation and a priori assumptions.

Genetically, that is the only one which fits the bill. And what explains everything. There may be revision, as in all theories but the basic mechanism is true. We know that because we can see it in reproduction today.

Is it the only one? Far from it. How about common design. How about of necessity from the laws of biology (i.e. the laws can only produce life with common traits though not necessarily through ancestry).

Common, design, common DNA. just but not through evolution, right?. Well, DNA works through evolution, that is not my opinion Byb. It is a fact. And if someone thinks that common DNA is used, they are in fact actually supporting Theistic Evolution in full force, because common DNA, comes only in parts, not in full, and the parts that we share with other species just happen to be passing through reproduction. And that is sole reason why there is no uniform set of number of genes we share, because they all split somewhere. Else if God, hand made everything that is in existence then one must wonder about the many if's and assumptions which carry there as well.

Here's one for you that no atheist could possibly deny: how about good old-fashioned, unadulterated chance. Don't think that's possible?

An atheist would of course start with NO god, I say that God knows everything so he knows the outcome of all chances (if you wanna put it that way) but I don't see how it impacts anything theologically that is against faith in Christ, if that was your concern.

To re-iterate, I am saying that evolution is the only way to explain life, no other way comes close. There is no mechanism for any other way, if there is. I am all ears but I usually do not get a satisfactory answer on this one. The usually answer I always get, is the "burden of proof lies on me" and there it ends because they won't simply admit it. And that comes from misunderstanding things. As I wrote earlier.

My point is that while TE may be the best scientific explanation we have, it most certainly is NOT a proven fact so let's tread lightly with our respective assumptions.

I apreciate it Byb, I just don't think I am treading heavily. The mechanism is proven, that is why biologists use that mechanism for further research. What remains to be proven, are gaps in theory and they will one day be. But I don't see these gaps as changing the nature of the mechanism of evolution in the first place. To put it to you this way. A lot of Church doctrine was not unified until years later, centuries. And with the reformation, even more so, and yet, even with all the changes, radical or lukewarm, the basic truth of Christianity is the same. We have much complete theological arguments today then in medieval church and yet, we are around the same thing. I don't suppose anyone would agree that just because we have some form of mystery in all forms of theology that we must therefore reject Christianity as the sole way to God or reduce it to be one of the plausible ways to God, right?

neo-x wrote: Is the account of the good samaritian a parable? how do you know the truth about that, where is it written that it is or isn't a parable? And yet you believe (I'm assuming) it is a parable. And even so the theological point of the story is not missed by you. Why is Genesis 1 any different.

It's called hermanuetics. And quite frankly Neo, you demonstrate yours are bad. There are literary methods to determine such things, and you apparently think we are to ignore them. But this is no surprise coming from someone who diminishes the inspriration of the scripture, and exalts the wisdom of men.

I come to accept evolution after listened and studied some of what was being said. As I said before in another thread, you can not have matching genes and DNA, in a human and a fruit fly or the chimpanzee unless humans and these creatures had a common ancestor.
There is no way around that, period. It is 100% testable by what we see today. Micro evolution in the long run becomes macro evolution, I would not separate them. To separate them shows a lack of biological facts, science and evolution.

Puzzled look. It is not 100% testable. It is speculative. And something you have chosen to put your faith in. Despite the fact that you have yet to address the foundational issues of confalting, equivocating, and question begging. It seems like a lot of tap dancing is being done here. The part in bold is a faith statement. The fact that you reduce the bible to allegory while at the same time lifting presumption to fact tells me all I need to know.

No offense to anyone and I certainly don't mean to insult anyone of you but I do for one agree with Dawkins on this, those who reject evolution, simply do not understand it.

Another logical fallacy. And yes, it is absolutely an attack on someone's intelligence. Just in this sentance you have equivocated. I accept every testable and verifiable evidence under the broad banner of evolution. How intelligent is it to continue to prop up your positions with blatant fallacy and then attack other people's intelligence? Answer: Not very.

Evolution is true, regardless of how many people say it is ture or isn't. It can be further improved by later findings but to say it is just another theory is seriously ignorance of facts. Evolutionary model still has to explain a lot, sure but it can't be discarded as a whole. The same way we do not understand quantum gravity, and yet there is truth in there. We just do not know how much of it is there

I picture this said with arms crossed, bottom lip out, and stomping foot.

Silvertusk wrote:
In his book Alexander was referring to both micro and macro. You need evolution in a species to produce another species. To be honest it might be worth you looking at Denis Alexanders book - because he explains it a lot better than me

Silver, I know if one is going to hold to macro evolution, one would need "evolution in a species". The problem is that many kinds of evolution are observable. Macro evolution is often assumed true because so many other kinds of evolution are true.

Neo wrote:
I come to accept evolution after listened and studied some of what was being said. As I said before in another thread, you can not have matching genes and DNA, in a human and a fruit fly or the chimpanzee unless humans and these creatures had a common ancestor.

Neo, whether or not you want to admit it, this statement is not logical. As I see it, there are at least two possibilities why there is shared dna. The first is macro evolution. All things evolved from a common ancestor. And second, a common designer. A designer used similar materials to create the dna of living things.
Bananas and humans share dna. To me, it is much more logical to believe bananas and humans share a common designer, not a common ancestor.

Neo wrote:
There is no way around that, period. It is 100% testable by what we see today.

Neo, are you telling me that it is 100% testable that humans and chimps have shared dna, or that it's 100% testable that humans and chimps have a common ancestor? It seems to me you are assuming common ancestry from shared dna.

Neo wrote:
Micro evolution in the long run becomes macro evolution, I would not separate them. To separate them shows a lack of biological facts, science and evolution.

this is an assumption, Neo. This is not provable.
Neo, I ask you to go to Reasons.org. There is a Biologist there named Fazale Rana. He was an evolutionist. Search through some of his articles and podcasts. If you are truly open and unbiased, then I believe you can learn a lot from him.

Neo wrote:

No offense to anyone and I certainly don't mean to insult anyone of you but I do for one agree with Dawkins on this, those who reject evolution, simply do not understand it.

Neo, nobody is rejecting evolution. Some are rejecting the unprovable idea that since some kinds of evolution are true, therefore all kinds of evolution are true.

Neo wrote:
God didn't write Genesis 1, men did and they wrote what made sense to them and could make some sense to the people. God would not, could not give them science class, nor do I think it is or was important. And I think they certainly believed that the earth was made in 6 days, that Adam and eve were literal and the global flood and etc. their belief does not mean anything. The truth of that theological document, Genesis is clear and that is the main point of the story.

Neo, are you aware that one can still read Genesis and other parts of scripture in a literal context, and believe the text says that the earth was made in six long periods of time, Adam and Eve were literal humans, and there was no "global" flood in Noah's time?

Neo wrote:
Evolution is true, regardless of how many people say it is ture or isn't. It can be further improved by later findings but to say it is just another theory is seriously ignorance of facts. Evolutionary model still has to explain a lot, sure but it can't be discarded as a whole. The same way we do not understand quantum gravity, and yet there is truth in there. We just do not know how much of it is there.

Neo, again, to say, "Evolution is true", is a very broad statement. Of course Evolution is true. And Evolution is not true at the same time. Macro evolution cannot be assumed true just because other kinds of evolution are true. You need to understand that scientists like Dawkins, cannot believe macro evolution is not true. They have to assume macro evolution necessarily comes as a result of micro evolution, because Naturalism is all he can believe in.

Neo, I ask you to please go to Reasons.org, and do some research. Fazale Rana was an evolutionist who found some difficulties with certain assumptions in evolution. Listen to what he has to say. You can agree or disagree, but be open.