Evidence for God from Science

crochet1949 wrote:If there is no explanation of the Origins OF -- how can there Be development Of.

Take a Person -- a baby -- we Know it came about from egg / sperm combo. The baby developed in the woman's uterus. It gets born -- the parents are Not surprised as to 'where did this baby come From'. Now -- IF a baby were left on someone's front porch -- they wouldn't simply take the baby into their house and begin raising it. They Would want to know Where the baby came From. Because there is - at Least a mother Somewhere. And obviously there was a Father or there wouldn't Be a baby to leave on a front porch. So -- the parents can watch their baby develop into a toddler, teenager, adult.

So -- we Know there is an earth with animals and people -- we can Observe That. And life Does happen one generation at a time. We also know That.

There are Lots of people who do ancestor searches because they are Curious as to Who their ancestors are.

Another subject -- birds that have wings but don't fly. Turkeys, chickens, peacocks, etc. They are born - one generation at a time, Also. People are the 'key' to any changes / to bring out features of the animal. "Birds of a feather Do flock together' / mate and reproduce little ones of their kind that grow up to be mature birds that continue to reproduce after Their Kind. They are Not going to change Gradually into something Else. Because they produce One Generation at a time.

dougangel wrote:

Um, maybe you could studyvsome biology before you try to take a stand on what makes sense?

Birds run hotter than mammals, btw.

I do know that. That was my point. It seems to be evolving out of bird chararistics into a mammal over time. there are quite a few animals like this that seem to be in transision stage.
Honorary mammals
Kiwi’s habits and physical characteristics make them unbird-like in many ways. Sometimes they are referred to as an honorary mammal.
They build burrows like a badger, and sleep standing up.
The kiwi’s body temperature is lower than most birds, which range from 39ºC – 42ºC. The kiwi is more like a mammal, with a temperature between 37ºC and 38ºC.
The kiwi’s powerful muscular legs are heavy and marrow-filled, like a mammal, with skin as tough as shoe-leather. They make up a third of the bird’s weight. The skeletons of most birds are light and filled with air sacs to enable flight.
The eye sockets of most birds are separated by a plate, but in kiwi they are divided by large nasal cavities – just like most mammals.
While most birds depend on sight, the kiwi relies on a highly developed sense of smell and touch.
The kiwi’s sense of hearing is also well developed. Its ear openings are large and visible, and it will **** its head to direct its ear toward soft or distant noises.
Unlike most birds, which have one ovary, a female kiwi has two – like a mammal. If she produces more than one egg in a clutch, ovulation occurs in alternate ovaries.
The chick emerges from its enormous egg as a mini adult, fully feathered and able to feed itself – which is very unusual for a bird.
And finally, a kiwi’s plumage is shaggy and hair-like, and it has cat-like whiskers on its face and around the base of its beak. These super-sensitive way-finding whiskers are likely to have evolved to help the bird feel its way through the dark.

Audie wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:If there is no explanation of the Origins OF -- how can there Be development Of.

Take a Person -- a baby -- we Know it came about from egg / sperm combo. The baby developed in the woman's uterus. It gets born -- the parents are Not surprised as to 'where did this baby come From'. Now -- IF a baby were left on someone's front porch -- they wouldn't simply take the baby into their house and begin raising it. They Would want to know Where the baby came From. Because there is - at Least a mother Somewhere. And obviously there was a Father or there wouldn't Be a baby to leave on a front porch. So -- the parents can watch their baby develop into a toddler, teenager, adult.

So -- we Know there is an earth with animals and people -- we can Observe That. And life Does happen one generation at a time. We also know That.

There are Lots of people who do ancestor searches because they are Curious as to Who their ancestors are.

Another subject -- birds that have wings but don't fly. Turkeys, chickens, peacocks, etc. They are born - one generation at a time, Also. People are the 'key' to any changes / to bring out features of the animal. "Birds of a feather Do flock together' / mate and reproduce little ones of their kind that grow up to be mature birds that continue to reproduce after Their Kind. They are Not going to change Gradually into something Else. Because they produce One Generation at a time.

If we dont know the origin of water, how can random raindrops produce this?

https://www.google.com/search?q=carlsba ... OurJhQM%3A

See how that goes? You could apply it to math, too. How can we study or know anything about math if we know not whence it comes?

I wonder if you would agree that you know next to nothing about
evolution? No crime in that, just an observation. I dont know enough about football
to know how many guys on a team or even if it changes depending.

ACB: I do think that evolution keeps a lot of people from believing in God

Philip wrote:

ACB: I do think that evolution keeps a lot of people from believing in God

That's because 1) they are asking themselves the wrong questions, and 2) they don't seem to understand that it would have been entirely dependent upon what is more important that needs explaining (why there is ANYTHING that exists, and how design and function existed in things INSTANTLY appearing, and immediately obeying complex laws). They also fail to understand evolution - even if it occurred, refutes absolutely nothing when it comes to God. These are why it is foolish to get sucked into evolution arguments. It's the wrong argument about the wrong thing.

I missed your point then. You think a kiwi must speed up, or slow down its metabolism to turn into
a mammal?

The bird is not ever going to turn into a mammal. Sometime "convergent evolution" gives us
disparate creatures supetficially similar in morphology. Ichthyosaurs and dolphins eere not / are not
turning into fish.

hughfarey wrote:I'm not sure what this discussion is really about, but I haven't posted for a while, so let's have a go.

1) Where did kiwis come from? It seems probable that the area of Gondwanaland in which kiwis began to evolve had few if any mammals, so that in the absence of such predators, some birds were able to sacrifice the ability to fly in favour of conserving the energy required to do so. It is not clear how closely all flightless birds are related, i.e. whether one group of flightless birds dispersed across South America, Madagascar and Australasia and diversified once the continents separated, or whether flightlessness evolved independently in different groups. Either way, as New Zealand separated due to tectonic drift, it continued to exclude mammals (except for a few bats, which could fly across the sea) until they were introduced by people in the 18th century, so kiwis were able to evolve according to a relatively predator free environment.

2) Where are they going? In the absence of predators or humans, there is a tendency for island species to get smaller, which may be why kiwis are not as big as emus. Like Australian marsupials, the kiwi has evolved to fill the ecological niche which in other continents is filled by mammals, so it is not surprising that, given 85 million years or so, it has evolved to resemble mammals in many ways. However, as dougangel points out convergent evolution will not make a bird a mammal, any more than, say, a marsupial rat is in any way a rodent, however closely it resembles one (or a dolphin is a shark, as suggested previously). Kiwis will never to be able to mate with badgers (whose ecological niche they seem mostly to have occupied).

dougangel wrote:

I missed your point then. You think a kiwi must speed up, or slow down its metabolism to turn into
a mammal?

The bird is not ever going to turn into a mammal. Sometime "convergent evolution" gives us
disparate creatures supetficially similar in morphology. Ichthyosaurs and dolphins eere not / are not
turning into fish.

I did give you quite a comprehensive list where the Kiwi is in fact gaining mammal features and losing bird features and in fact biologists are calling it an honorary mammal so I don't know why you don't understand that ?

Im not the one who doesnt understand what they mean.

. So it was safer on the ground and there was a better food supply in the bush at night

you are just making things up. Safer from what?

So I can't agree with you. It is changing into a mammal and you can see this happening over a long period of time.

Suture self but "changing into a mammal" is nonsense; whoever calls it an honourary mammal do not mean that. Nor would anyone familiar with what evolution is say something that out to lunch.

Philip wrote:

ACB: I do think that evolution keeps a lot of people from believing in God

That's because 1) they are asking themselves the wrong questions, and 2) they don't seem to understand that it would have been entirely dependent upon what is more important that needs explaining (why there is ANYTHING that exists, and how design and function existed in things INSTANTLY appearing, and immediately obeying complex laws).

IF there are people who let evolution keep them from belief in god, they are stupid.

They also fail to understand evolution

Much like you and abe

- even if it occurred

"even tho" "is occurring"

, refutes absolutely nothing when it comes to God

Evolution is a process of course, but nothing in science refutes God. The six day poof and the gad and some other silliness, that is another matter.

. These are why it is foolish to get sucked into evolution arguments. It's the wrong argument about the wrong thing

That really makes no sense, unless the discussion is specifically about whether science
proves there is no god. Which is a dumb argument that I hope nobody here is than much of a dimwit.

From my pov, it is a bit foolish to discuss / argue it as nobody on the creationist side can approach the subject with knowledge and / or intellectual honesty.

Still, it seems possible that the cognitive dissonance will somehow lead to an epiphany for some few.

Few. The crazed absurdity of claiming that glaciers were "stuck down' during the "flood",
as a way to get out of the fact that the glaciers prove there was no world wide flood-that is not enough to crack through the thick ideological armor needed to hold onto "flood" as a real world wide event.

I guess if they thought that floodism requires saying hot is cold, then they'd burn a hole through their hands before they'c say that charcoal actually can be real hot.




.