Evidence for God from Science

chocloateonly

how many who posted under this topic are anti evolution?
truly?

I am a creationist, and I am strictly by the bible, but I believe micro evolution is part of creation.
the bible is not nessasarily mistaken, our understanding of it is.
We are too busy taking what scholars think as gospel to follow the instructions that were commanded by god. being to research, study and look into it ourselves.

Deborah - several appear to be, including the post before yours. Have I misunderstood?

HelpMeGod. What exactly are you talking about when you say evolution is taught as fact? What are the flaws (no need to go into huge details here, I just want to understand why you are thinking as you are since different people use different pieces of evidence to dispute)?

Myself, I don't really see any weaknesses so severe that it makes all of evolution fall apart. I do see a lot of disinformation on both sides of the argument, which I want to make sure we are excluding or will restate properly.

What are the flaws

LAW of Biogenisis.

chocloateonly wrote:HelpMeGod. What exactly are you talking about when you say evolution is taught as fact? What are the flaws (no need to go into huge details here, I just want to understand why you are thinking as you are since different people use different pieces of evidence to dispute)?

Evolution IS taught as fact, I always come across articles in Science Magazine, websites, or whatever have you, and they always say "Ahah!, we have discovered evolution to be fact, here is the proof!" If that "proof" exists, why do we still debate it, why are there still flaws in these articles? My teachers in school always taught evolution as fact, and I didn't buy it even though I wasn't into God at all, just something about it didn't sound right. The evolution I am referring to is non-theistic evolution, but more so, I have, once again, been having these thoughts that come from no where that say that evolution being it non-theistic or theistic is still false. Our dating methods are still flawed, everything and everyone in the evolution field literally jump to conclusions without a clear cut explainable answer for their reason, including both problems and non-problems. They will always present the non-problematic material and exclude the problems. As science evolves, I highly doubt they (all forms of scientists) will ever find a reason that a creator didn't create the universe. I have been studying this evolution thing for some time now, and put a lot of hours into studying it, it is still flawed and will continue to be flawed, and though Harvard is jumping in on the evolution thing, they MIGHT shed some new evidence but will still be flawed.

Well, remember: A Theory is a complex system of ideas that all hang together consistently as a result of logic and experiment and observation, and so on. There's no better term.
It's always 'Theory of Evolution'
A scientific theory always stands until it is falsified.

Thinker wrote: Evolution IS taught as fact, I always come across articles in Science Magazine, websites, or whatever have you, and they always say "Ahah!, we have discovered evolution to be fact, here is the proof!" If that "proof" exists, why do we still debate it, why are there still flaws in these articles? My teachers in school always taught evolution as fact, and I didn't buy it even though I wasn't into God at all, just something about it didn't sound right. .

That's why more and more states are now revising their educational standards to teach evolution as a theory alongside creationism. Most Americans accept creationism, so this is the right move.

ochotseat wrote:That's why more and more states are now revising their educational standards to teach evolution as a theory alongside creationism. Most Americans accept creationism, so this is the right move.

Name one state?

Kurieuo.

Kurieuo wrote: Name one state?
Kurieuo.

They had a whole issue of Time dedicated to the evolution vs. creationism battle in America. Not sure if it's still up on their site, but you can search through their archives.

If you buy into everything you read by those who want to ofuscate the science behind Intelligent Designs as religious. You do know ID proponents reject being associated with religion or Creationists, and that places such as AiG don't agree with Intelligent Design for this very reason? (I can try dig the article up if desired)

Kurieuo.

Kurieuo wrote: You do know ID proponents reject being associated with religion or Creationists

Intelligent design proponents support teaching creationism from an angle that says a deity was most likely behind the creation of things. That's better than not teaching it at all.

(I can try dig the article up if desired)

That'd be fine.

It is rather interesting. ID=religious nuts, but believing that everything came from nothing, order came from chaos, information from randomness, and that evolution happenned, even though everything seems to refute the idea....it's amazing that nobody comes out and labels them as religious nuts. And when anyone asks an evolutionist how something happenned, they quickly attack with "you're a religious nut/creationist/Christian" and all that nuttyness.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:It is rather interesting. ID=religious nuts, but believing that everything came from nothing, order came from chaos, information from randomness, and that evolution happenned, even though everything seems to refute the idea....it's amazing that nobody comes out and labels them as religious nuts. And when anyone asks an evolutionist how something happenned, they quickly attack with "you're a religious nut/creationist/Christian" and all that nuttyness.

Yes my brother, it is a nutty, nutty world. Like I said, (from an atheistic scientist point of view) "If it is intelligent, we reject it".

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:It is rather interesting. ID=religious nuts, but believing that everything came from nothing, order came from chaos, information from randomness, and that evolution happenned, even though everything seems to refute the idea....it's amazing that nobody comes out and labels them as religious nuts. And when anyone asks an evolutionist how something happenned, they quickly attack with "you're a religious nut/creationist/Christian" and all that nuttyness.

Although science is reliable in many cases, it isn't in all cases. After all, many scientists used to advance flat earth and racial superiority hypotheses.

This cartoon says it all!

Thinker wrote:

ochotseat wrote:We have to remember that most of the people in this country who believe in evolution happen to be Christians. Evolution isn't necessarily anti-God or anti-Bible, because God could have created or guided the process. The problem lies when teachers teach evolution with an atheist angle.

"because God could have created or guided the process."

So by using the word "could", that implies we don't know. By saying the word "could", that also means that God wasn't even involved, therefore making Him a non-existent being.

There is nothing inherently wrong with being unsure, it is this sort of thinking which has helped to propel modern advances in science.

It is in the realm of religion to have the absolute answers to the deepest of questions.
Scientists are people who acknowledge their ignorance of nature and strive to fill in the blanks within human limitations. Some "scientists" have gone too far and have created a pseudo athiestic science. This is the problem we are facing not science itself.