Evidence for God from Science

Hello Jbuza.

Blob up above in this thread wrote:I conclude creationism itself is not science from the lack of self-criticism in the history of creationism.

Jbuza wrote:Again what is the difficulty?
...
No I will concede that there are some interpretations of observations that pose problems for creation, and creation has answered them (including earth age).
...
I am sorry that your theory has many problems, but the fact that few exist in creation is not a problem for me.
...
there is not a chance that I am wrong.

You are confirming my fears - creationists will not entertain being critical of creationism or that it could be in error. That is unscientific.

Jbuza wrote:So you are saying, and Darwin himself said numerous times, that there are a great many problems with evolution. I am sorry that your theory has many problems
...
I guess you are saying that evolution is so full of problems that it is credible.

It is the fact that evolutionists acknowledge and address those problems that make it credible science. Creationists don't do the same with creationism, as in your case.

Evolution however has had to alter its theory and hide in the past because the observations themselves prove evolution is not happening.

Creationism too has altered, as demonstrated in the answersingenesis link. The difference is evolution is self-correcting, creationism only reluctantly changes when it becomes untenable under the pressure of external critiques.

OK. I disagree, Theories are not science anyway, not even your precious evolution. They are explanations of observations, that's all.

The theory of gravity; the theory of general relativity; quantum theory and so on are all theories and are all science. Science is in the business of explaining observations and predicting future observations - that is what a theory does.

If you believe evolution that's fine,

I consider it probable.

but this evolution is science and creation is not is garbage. They are on equal footing scientifically. OF course evolution has a higher status within the scientific community because many fear creation and what it means.

That is an generic assertion of conspiracy. It is generic because anyone can say it to anyone else about anything whatsoever: e.g. "creationists fear evolution and what it means." Let's not go there, Jbuza, it's not productive.

Evolution dismisses problems that creationists birng up about evolution and attack creation.

Yes, evolutionists attack creationism but they also attack evolution (e.g. Gould-Dawkins and that fact that all known problems in evolution were epxosed by evolutionists not creationists). Creationists attack only evolution and never creationism (all known problems in creationism such as those at answersingenesis were exposed by evolutionists and not creationists). There in lies the credibility problem of creationism - evolutionists are doing all the work on both sides. Creationists stick together and merely defend their own position and attack the opposition collectively.

It's really an observation that species change over time, it is not a theory, it is an observation. This is ridiculous you think that the 2000+ years of science that predates evolution now belong to evolution.

Species change is an observation, yes, but evolution is the theory that explains it. Even the name gives it away - 'microevolution' comes from evolutionists and has only been around for about 150 years. Creationists have adopted it reluctantly but not contributed to it as a theory.

No. If your interested go look. There are several variations of creation that are at odds with each other.

No dispute comparable to those of genuine science (e.g. Gould-Dawkins; Hawking-Hoyle and now Hawking-Greene; Freud-Jung; Vygotsky-Piaget and on and on) exists in creationism to the best of my knowledge. And apparently to the best of yours either. This agains points to a credibility problem and the unscientific nature of creationism.

But I could be wrong.

Jbuza wrote:
No Blob sorry I was misleading, there is not a chance that I am wrong.
__

Why are you on this board if you are not open to discussion? And if you're simply here to convince others of your view, I can tell you, you are failing miserably with that attitude...

On another note, I'm reviewing your previous arguments, (that you cut and pasted from a site you didn't credit), I respond further soon, but my initial opinion is, 'Is that all you got?' Its hardly a smoking gun...

You know, young earth or old earth, God still loves you...

Whilst I disagree with Jbuza's point of view I don't think he deserves being accused of having an attitude problem. Similarly I can't see where he has cut and pasted, other than perhaps his list of 5 arguments - but these he openly and fairly presented as "the ideas of creationists" and offered "to provide more information" if anyone asked.

I didn't say he had a 'bad' attitude...

I said, with the attitude "there is no way I'm wrong" , he isn't likely to win many converts... wouldn't that have been his goal?

He is obviously not flexible in his view, why else then would he be here?

More flies with honey...

Fair enough, spacecase.

gone

gone

gone

gone

gone

gone

Jbuza wrote:Thanks Blob.

I know that could be the only thing. I realize that I could sound smug, but I assure you that statement did not come out of smugness. I don't have the answers nothing of this comes from myself. I believe I know where the answers lie, that's all. I am sure of my beleifs, and agree that there is no scientific basis for me to say that.

You're welcome. I just take you as being astounded I think like I do. I can only assure you that I am sincere and not just trying to be awkward.

BTW, it might be a day or two before I can get back to you in this thread as I have a lot on, but I will do so.

In the meantime take care.

Blob

gone

Jbuza wrote:Bgood wrote
So your logic is some therefore all?
Does this make sense?
Some white people are racist so all white people are racist.
Some fossils are hoaxes so all fossils are hoaxes.

No, I wasn't making a logical argument, I was stating a fact that there have been many fossil hoaxes. Evolutionists want their theory to be true so badly, and considering the lack of evidence to support it, they have tried fabricating it.

Yes, a few individuals have fabricated evidence in their zeolousness, but by not acknowledging the logical falacy in my previous post you are guilty of trying to have some represent all.
In short you are generalizing.

Jbuza wrote:Bgood wrote
There have been numerous biblical hoaxes.

Really such as . . .

And for you to only acknowledge that it occurs on one side only has me doubting your intellectual sincerity

Jbuza wrote:Bgood wrote
Human bones and artifacts found in Cambrian formations? Care to share?

No. You won't believe it any more than you believe the reports of man and dinosaur footprints together.

Again you have me doubting.

Jbuza wrote:Bgood wrote
So is it inconceivable that coyotes and wolves may have had a similar ancestor?

No, it's not. Is it inconceivable that coyotes and wolves may have been created distinct? Your case of the similarity of similar animals proves nothing. Since evolution predicts speciation, and we don't see speciation instead of allowing this evidence to convince you that evolution is false you (evolution) simply create another “law” of punctuated equilibrium and hide in the past since observations prove evoution is not happening.

So did god create coyotes recently? Did God create poodles? What about labradoodles?

Jbuza wrote:Bgood wrote
Tell me looking at the skulls above what would a transitional form look like?

Your asking me what the transitional species between two canines would look like? A dog. Now what would the transitional species look like between a bird and a dog? What would the transitional species between an ape and a man look like? Ooops evolutionist artists have scientifically drawn them <lol> or pieced them together from a pig tooth and their imagination.

You are misrepresenting the other side. This shows that you are being either disingenuine or uninformed. According to evolutionary theory birds did not evolve from dogs and there fore there would have to be a whole host of intermediate and ancestral forms to link the two species. Its like asking, show me who married Jbuza's cousin to give birth to Jbuza.

Jbuza wrote:Bgood wrote
How come there are no elephant or hippo bones with the dinosaur bones? I suppose the elephants did not die until later?

There are.

Care to share, or again is this statement with no integrity?

Jbuza wrote:Bgood wrote
Of course there will not be a complete geological column. One cannot expect sedimentation to occur constantly in one area for the entire geological history of the Earth.

Exactly, and the geological column is a fabrication.

How did you come to this conclusion? Because you refuse to beleive does not make it a fabrication.

Jbuza wrote:Bgood wrote
However if fossil forms appear consistently in similarily aged rocks a geological column can be peiced together. Or do you have another explanation for this consistency?

Wait I thought you said there is no consistency in the geological column.

Did I say it was inconsistent? Can you show me where I said this?

Jbuza wrote:So are you saying that the inconsistent geological column is aged because it contains certain fossil forms?

I only said that it had to be peiced together. Because different areas were subject to sedimentation throughout the Earth's history the story has to be peiced together. This is different from inconsistent.

Its like a mystery where there are several clues and the detective has to peice the clues together.

Jbuza wrote:Bgood wrote
Give me a real world example of how something can be shown to be mathmatically impossible without out knowing all the data.

That my dog will be a chicken eventually

I specifically stated without knowing all the data. Terrible example it is well known dogs don't become chicken. But I suppose coyotes suddenly appearing in my kitchen is more likely.

Jbuza wrote:Bgood wrote
The idea that there is no evidence appears to be only an opinion given that as you state below reasonable people disagree.

I agree. Which is why I ask . . . What have you found in your life that makes you believe in evolution?

Then why are you being so unreasonable in your arguments? At least try to see things from another perspective. Otherwise don't even bother, because from your own perspective everyone else is wrong and needs to be convinced. In this world view you see proponents of opposing views as people trying to convince you. No need to project your approach.

Jbuza wrote:This attitude that says that the only thing that one can scientifically theorize about origins is evolution is fascist, controlling and definitely not science.

Other scientific explanations of the diversity of life would be welcome. However even the most sophisticated formatting of creationism, i.e. ID, is no more scienctific than astrology, according to its most eminent advocate:

Question: But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
Behe: Yes, that's correct.

Source. (pdf file, approx 200KB)
(I have provided a link so you can see that is a genuine quote, it is very up to date, and you can also check it is not out of context.)

Jbuza wrote:How do you explain the development of old earth creation, theistic evolution, and ID? These things are all a result of creationists addressing problems with “science”.

Creationists certainly do develop and try to fix their ideas, and there is nothing unscientific about that. Yet how come you have a problem when evolutionists do the same?...

I guess you are saying that evolution has a long history of observations not in harmony with evolution, so evolution "has corrected itself" and explained away observations that disprove it.

That both evolutionists and creationists fix their theories is not my issue. Good science equally involves trying to break a theory - to expose problems and identify difficulties - yet creationists never do this to creationism whereas evolutionists do it to evolution. Every known problem (such as those I previously mentioned) in both evolution and creationism have been discovered and exposed by evolutionists, never by creationists. I can provide many clear examples if you wish. If you know of a clear counter example for each please state them.

Is there any observation that would convince you that evolution is false?

Yes. An observation of spontaneous generation of a multicelluar lifeform.

Is there any observation that would convince you creationism is false?

It seems that every observation that brings evolution into question is dismissed,

My entire point is that every observation that brings evolution into question is exposed by evolutionists. It is self regulating.

Can you provide an example of a known problem with creationism that was exposed by creationists?

Evolution has done a poor job of predicting future observations.

If I provide some clear examples of predicted (and then later confirmed) observation from evolution would you concede this is not the case?

Also, can you provide some clear examples of predicted (and then later confirmed) observation from creationism?

Blob wrote
and that fact that all known problems in evolution were epxosed by evolutionists not creationists

BS

Please don't swear, even by acronym.

Can you please provide an example of a known and acknowledged problem in evolution exposed by a creationist.

(I have provided an example of problems with creationism exposed by evolutionists that are acknowledged by creationists with my answersingenesis link).

RE: MICROEVOLUTION
I suppose you think that everyone had their heads in the sand with regards to this until your precious evolutionists added their tag to it

Please provide a pre-evolution source that discusses the law of natural selection acting on random mutations.

So genuine science is evolution your bias is large and very visible.

You invited people who favour evolution over creationism to post why in this thread. It's rather unfair to then turn round and say "you favour evolution so you are biased".

Your comment lacks legitimacy because I acknowledge I could be wrong whereas you declare yourself absolutely infallible on the issue. I would suggest that the bias is stronger with you.

Also, should you answer any of my requests for examples to support your arguments please also provide authoritative links.