Evidence for God from Science

Jbuza wrote:I still see no mechanism whereby the lifeforms that dies would become fossilized in sediment. I see no biblical evidence to suggest that only part of the land or only part of the sea gave forth life. IT seems that the fossils would ahve laid on the ground and rotted if nothing else.

The mist that came up made things moist. Why not some areas collect some of this every day, say sort of a swamp, or bayou, or daily drying very shallow sea? Then the windy part of the day comes, in that nice warm world, and dries it out. Rapid evaporation. Sediment remains. Things get fossilized?! Some areas. perhaps, quite wet, so, with fast accumulating sediment, lots of places to die, and get fossilized. Whats missing?
Now as to life in the ground, the cambrian, and pre cambrian fossils show there was plenty of it. But why would I have to assume mammals were at that time out all over the world? Either bible evidence, fossil record, or whatever? Same with sea life. Why must I assume, contrary to the fossil record, sea life was planet wide at this time?

I do find your idea about more rapid plant growth interesting. I think that weterings from beneath could increase the rapidity of growth compared with rain.

That may help, but I think it would have to be a hec of a lot more. Atomic, or molecular level changes, climate, and a lot of things. This is why I think that the universe back then was different, much like the universe in the future will be different. There will be no more decay, death, for starters, meaning atomic level changes right there! We could not live forever in a physical only universe, we just decay and rot, there must be more, and must have been more. Adam for example would have bodily lived forever if he could have again gotten back in the garden, and ate that tree of life. A guard had to be posted.

I can think of no evidence for the growth rates you are proposing unless it was the Word of God that caused the earth to bring forth vegetation.

Well, it always boils down, really to that. But I can think of some evidence. The bible evidence, and when plants were made. The only problem is trying to use the present physical only world as a basis for how it happened. It can't happen here.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: So why even bother trying to explain the fossils. They could have just been created just as they are.

Why not, we have evidence, it fits with creation, not evolution, why ignore it? If you have some point on the evidence, show it, if not, if you want a laugh, look at granny and the speck. Why not just claim the stork dropped the creator speck that the big bang came from, and granny bacteria they say all life on earth came from?

I can also claim that before the fall ticks ate grass and sharks ate seaweed.

But can you support it? Before the curse, a lot of things were fanasticly different. Maybe ticks ate the weeds, along with the mosquitoes, so ther never was any much to speak of then? Who knows. Long as you don't claim granny ate them I don't care!

I also suppose that as trees grew at miraculous rates that the seeds that a 200ft tall mature oak tree would fall to the earth and also themselves grow at fantastic rates. Thus foresting the world in a matter of hours.

The garden, with all the trees needed, yes. A universe that is merged with the spiritual would not be subject to chance and fluke like the evo nightmare dreams! It works on God's will, which was what Adam and Eve seperated themselves from, to a large extent. The trees and plants from eden, did have great conditions, as the time came to spread, however.

But I have a few questions, did the snake bounce around or did it once have legs?

It flew, if you ask my opinion! That is one reason being a dust sucker was such a punishment!

Also why do they no longer eat dust?

They do, they crawl on their belly on the ground. I suspect that every mouse or whatnot they eat has dust on it, and worse!

And finally what happened to the flaming sword?

What happened to eden? The guard was dispatched to guard the tree, to keep Adam from it. When that became no longer needed, why waste an angel?

dad wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: So why even bother trying to explain the fossils. They could have just been created just as they are.

Why not, we have evidence, it fits with creation, not evolution, why ignore it? If you have some point on the evidence, show it, if not, if you want a laugh, look at granny and the speck. Why not just claim the stork dropped the creator speck that the big bang came from, and granny bacteria they say all life on earth came from?

You can't ask for proof, you are not entitled to ask because...

dad wrote:

I can also claim that before the fall ticks ate grass and sharks ate seaweed.

But can you support it? Before the curse, a lot of things were fanasticly different. Maybe ticks ate the weeds, along with the mosquitoes, so ther never was any much to speak of then? Who knows. Long as you don't claim granny ate them I don't care!

proof?

dad wrote:

I also suppose that as trees grew at miraculous rates that the seeds that a 200ft tall mature oak tree would fall to the earth and also themselves grow at fantastic rates. Thus foresting the world in a matter of hours.

The garden, with all the trees needed, yes. A universe that is merged with the spiritual would not be subject to chance and fluke like the evo nightmare dreams! It works on God's will, which was what Adam and Eve seperated themselves from, to a large extent. The trees and plants from eden, did have great conditions, as the time came to spread, however.

proof?

dad wrote:

But I have a few questions, did the snake bounce around or did it once have legs?

It flew, if you ask my opinion! That is one reason being a dust sucker was such a punishment!

proof?

dad wrote:

And finally what happened to the flaming sword?

What happened to eden? The guard was dispatched to guard the tree, to keep Adam from it. When that became no longer needed, why waste an angel?

proof?

dad wrote:Some creatures, trilobites, and various things appear in the record, however, and seem to have been created at large on the planet at the time.

proof?

dad wrote:Perhaps for some reason like preparing the earth for man and beast, later, as they multiplied, and were to spread out from Eden. I would guess that they were not made to live forever, as creatures in Eden.

proof?

dad wrote:The planet was new, and the flood had not happened yet, which was a tremendous weight pressing down in the form of sky high water, really squishing and compressing things.

proof?

dad wrote:So, I would assume a sort of less compressed, looser ground.

proof?

I dont think the snakes flew, I think they had 12 legs. All animals did, after the fall the extra ones fell of making life more difficult.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
proof?

The bible. If you don't agree with that document, fine. Then, let's discuss your beliefs, which you claim are science, regarding old ages. Evidence you claim. My claim is belief, and so no proof is requied in a physical science sense. In your claim of a future or past that is purely physical only, and purely present only based, and which you claim is science, you do need to show evidence, however.

proof?

Well, the snake was found way up in a tree, how do you think it got there? Ha.

proof?

If you don't believe the story of the garden of eden, fine, let's not treat it like it should fit in a test tube of yours, it is long gone! If you have something to demonstrate that it could not have been then shoot.

dad wrote:Some creatures, trilobites, and various things appear in the record, however, and seem to have been created at large on the planet at the time.

proof?
Got a better explanation? Let me guess granny spawned the lot, yeah, right.

dad wrote:Perhaps for some reason like preparing the earth for man and beast, later, as they multiplied, and were to spread out from Eden. I would guess that they were not made to live forever, as creatures in Eden.

proof?
If the world didn't need some preparing why did God need to prepare a garden for us?

dad wrote:The planet was new, and the flood had not happened yet, which was a tremendous weight pressing down in the form of sky high water, really squishing and compressing things.

proof?
Logic. A flood that covers mountains sky high is heavy. Just lift a pot of water and see, Oh ye of little faith!

I dont think the snakes flew, I think they had 12 legs. All animals did, after the fall the extra ones fell of making life more difficult.

And your opinion outweighs the bible, because....?

dad wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
proof?

The bible. If you don't agree with that document, fine. Then, let's discuss your beliefs, which you claim are science, regarding old ages. Evidence you claim. My claim is belief, and so no proof is requied in a physical science sense.

You do realize you posted in the God and Science Forum?

dad wrote:In your claim of a future or past that is purely physical only, and purely present only based, and which you claim is science, you do need to show evidence, however.

Really all this is in the bible? Care to give me the verses?

dad wrote:

proof?

Well, the snake was found way up in a tree, how do you think it got there? Ha.

Heres a snake in a tree, but no wings.

dad wrote:

I dont think the snakes flew, I think they had 12 legs. All animals did, after the fall the extra ones fell of making life more difficult.

And your opinion outweighs the bible, because....?

Both opinions are equally unsupported by the bible.
In fact I would like you to go back and show me where anything I asked you to proove is in the bible?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Really all this is in the bible? Care to give me the verses?

There are many verses that indicate there is more than just the physical at work. Take for example the ones talking about the new heavens, that ware eternal. The ones where we still see a sun that didn't fade out as your present based science tells us will happen!

Heres a snake in a tree, but no wings.

Hmm, well, I suppose you could call that twig a tree. Here is a tree.
http://www.csir.co.za/websource/ptl0002 ... es%203.jpg
Lets see it slink up that one. Actually, having legs is also maybe right,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/680116.stm

Both opinions are equally unsupported by the bible.
In fact I would like you to go back and show me where anything I asked you to proove is in the bible?

If you cannot evidence the old age foundational belief called a part of science, -that the future and past were physical only like the present, fine. Admit it, and we can move over to the realm of belief. There, I will happily defend my beliefs, and see if you can do the same. I know wherof I speak. Not in the lighthearted opinion that snakes walked or had wings, but in the impossibility of God's eternity being physical only. So, do you admit it?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Heres a snake in a tree, but no wings.

Umm, yeah, does a snake need wings to work its way around anything? And all this "proof" you keep asking of from dad, how about you provide proof for your stated assumptions.

dad wrote: Well, it always boils down, really to that. But I can think of some evidence. The bible evidence, and when plants were made. The only problem is trying to use the present physical only world as a basis for how it happened. It can't happen here.

That's true there were processes at work that we don't see, and there is the power of God.

I think John 1:1 is clear that all things that God created he created through his word. That there was nothing that he did create, that he didn't create through his Word.

I think that through the power of his Word he caused all the dry land to bring forth, and all the sea to bring forth. I think through his word he caused the Garden of Eden to Grow Just as he wanted it to be for Man.

I believe the vast majority of fossils were laid down after the flood of Noah's time. I find it the only event convincing evough to create the vast quantity of sediment and wide spread enough to kill animals where they lived.

I agree there was a mist that watered the whole face of the ground, but am not sure that there is evidence to suggest that it was on the order of what you are setting forth. I have never seen these ideas so find them interesting.

Thinker wrote: Umm, yeah, does a snake need wings to work its way around anything? And all this "proof" you keep asking of from dad, how about you provide proof for your stated assumptions.

I made my assumptions in jest. He is the one who beleived that snakes had wings. And that the snake was in a tree.

dad wrote:

Heres a snake in a tree, but no wings.

Hmm, well, I suppose you could call that twig a tree. Here is a tree.
http://www.csir.co.za/websource/ptl0002 ... es%203.jpg
Lets see it slink up that one. Actually, having legs is also maybe right,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/680116.stm

First off there is no verse which sais that the snake was even in a tree. You must have picked that up from some illustrations. Next there is still no direct evidence that the snake changed at all.

Both opinions are equally unsupported by the bible.
In fact I would like you to go back and show me where anything I asked you to proove is in the bible?

dad wrote:If you cannot evidence the old age foundational belief called a part of science, -that the future and past were physical only like the present, fine. Admit it, and we can move over to the realm of belief. There, I will happily defend my beliefs, and see if you can do the same. I know wherof I speak. Not in the lighthearted opinion that snakes walked or had wings, but in the impossibility of God's eternity being physical only. So, do you admit it?

I asked you for proof for your statements. You respond by dodging the issue? Why did the snake need anything at all, back then the world could have had no gravity, or the ground was spongy and springy allowing animals to bounce into the trees. The fossils were craft projects by the first children of adam. When the end times come mosquitos in the middle of taking blood will spit it out and return to eating weeds.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: I dont think the snakes flew, I think they had 12 legs. All animals did, after the fall the extra ones fell of making life more difficult.

What would be wrong with that if the environemtnal forces required it?

This really is the crux of the matter isn't it. Why is it OK to explain evolution with all its changing forces during and after the big bang and throughout imagined ages, causing animal life to change, but you feel that creation could not have been? IT is no less alarming for your example to have happened, than for kind not to beget kind. Unfiromitarianism isn't science, and doesn't spport evolution or creation. There is no basis to say that ages caused the geological column any more than theorizing that abundant mists from the ground caused it.

Bgood Wrote
First off there is no verse which says that the snake was even in a tree. You must have picked that up from some illustrations. Next there is still no direct evidence that the snake changed at all.

Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent Because you did this (tricked the woman), You are cursed above all cattle and beast. You shall go on your belly and eat dust all the days of your life.

What is your explanation for the singularity of the snake as a land animal? IT's not that adaptive to not have legs. Everything else on land has legs.

This seems to indicate that before the fall, that is before God cursed the snake, and cursed the ground, that the snake had some other way of getting around. I would venture to guess that it was legs.
--
Bgood Wrote
Why did the snake need anything at all, back then the world could have had no gravity, or the ground was spongy and springy allowing animals to bounce into the trees. The fossils were craft projects by the first children of adam. When the end times come mosquitos in the middle of taking blood will spit it out and return to eating weeds.


IT is possible that the mosquitoes are part of the curse. I don't know. Again I don't comprehend why you have a problem with things changing as the environment changes. Why can't a mosquito change from eating blood to eating weeds? IT seems unlikely that gravity didn't work, or else the water wouldn't flow back into the ground and need to come back up the next day.

Why is their a problem with accepting that things weren't uniform throughout the history of the earth? The other theory of origin's also requires non-unifrom processes, and since the evidence is so strong for the recent global flood, evolution has been forced to hide under the name of actualism to try and keep remotely convincing, and accept that presupposing only today's processes and at today's rate on the past is not explanative of what we observe. The very fact of pangea, and formation of the earth demand that we recognize that processes are not the same as today. I am not sure how a thinking person can find explanations about decay rates, or other supposedly uniform processes as evidence for anything. Are you trying to prove a negative looking for the great flaming sword that guards the tree of life? If God is spirit only, like some suggest, perhaps his angels are spirit's; perhaps man is so far removed from God that he is no longer able to see into the spiritual realm. I personally believe God to also be physical and the sword physical, but that's interpretive. There could be a flaming sword.
--

Dad. How would dinosaurs get trapped into these bogs and become fossilized? Wouldn't they in large part have stayed out of the swamp or been able to get out? Are you suggesting volumes of water capable of trapping and washing beasts into low areas? Wouldn't beasts killed have been eaten or rotted? Wouldn't you need a vast amount of sediment to cover the trapped animals? Predators could dig and organism of decay would work even under the soil for some distance. It seems that for this to work it would have to be huge flooding everyday when the mist came up causing wide spread erosion and sedimentation on the scale of more than a small swamp in order to create numerous vast fossil areas.

Also just another comments about mists from the ground. IT is in fact a better system of watering plants, and that system was destroyed when God judged wickedness in Noah's day breaking the fountains of the deep and destroying by a global flood. Good irrigation systems installed water from beneath the ground.

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: I dont think the snakes flew, I think they had 12 legs. All animals did, after the fall the extra ones fell of making life more difficult.

What would be wrong with that if the environemtnal forces required it?

This really is the crux of the matter isn't it. Why is it OK to explain evolution with all its changing forces during and after the big bang and throughout imagined ages, causing animal life to change, but you feel that creation could not have been?

There are no changing forces before and after the Big Bang. Progression is based on unchanging constant forces. It is not I who denies creationism, it is you who denies any other possibilities and then yells and screams about an open arena of ideas. Look back at all the posts between you and I, it is you who is being dogmatic and unopen to possibilities.

Jbuza wrote:IT is no less alarming for your example to have happened, than for kind not to beget kind. Unfiromitarianism isn't science, and doesn't spport evolution or creation. There is no basis to say that ages caused the geological column any more than theorizing that abundant mists from the ground caused it.

No forces have changed, the fundamental laws of nature have remained the same. Yet now we are able to fly anywhere on the planet within a single day. Now we are able to communicate with each other accross vast distances. Technology has gotten far more complex and so has human society. Yet the laws that govern this world have not changed.

[/quote Jbuza]
What is your explanation for the singularity of the snake as a land animal? IT's not that adaptive to not have legs. Everything else on land has legs

Could you explain to me what you mean by "singularity of the snake as a land animal"? There are other terrestrial organisms that are legless, such as legless lizards (family Anguidae, which are different than snakes). Also, there are examples of aquatic snakes, arboreal snakes, fossorial snakes, etc., so they are not limited to only terrestrial environments. Also, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that leglessness can be adaptive in terms of accessing prey burrows, hiding places, etc. in situations where legs would be a hindrance.

thereal wrote:[/quote Jbuza]
What is your explanation for the singularity of the snake as a land animal? IT's not that adaptive to not have legs. Everything else on land has legs

Could you explain to me what you mean by "singularity of the snake as a land animal"? There are other terrestrial organisms that are legless, such as legless lizards (family Anguidae, which are different than snakes). Also, there are examples of aquatic snakes, arboreal snakes, fossorial snakes, etc., so they are not limited to only terrestrial environments. Also, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that leglessness can be adaptive in terms of accessing prey burrows, hiding places, etc. in situations where legs would be a hindrance.

Ok fine call em legless lizrds if you want I don't care. Umm the ocean variety don't crawl on the ground, they swim.

I think the snake could still survive with hans and legs. Foxes and coyotes dig into burrows.

Just because the snake has learned to adapt without the prescense of arms doesn't mean that there were adaptive forces that caused it to lose it's arms and legs. If this is the case when all the prey lived in burrows why didn't everything lose its legs and just regrow them from natural selection when the prey moved out of the burrows?

Supposed phylogentic trees caliming trash are trash. Draw all the charts you wan't. A four foot legless lizard crawling around on its belly is a snake, oh wait sorry they are snake like lizards that are of more common decent than the sanke. Whatever your picture book based upon your presupposition of evolution would work good to start my fire tonight, it's getting cold. Presupposed charts, is that all you got?

Jbuza wrote:

thereal wrote:[/quote Jbuza]
What is your explanation for the singularity of the snake as a land animal? IT's not that adaptive to not have legs. Everything else on land has legs

Could you explain to me what you mean by "singularity of the snake as a land animal"? There are other terrestrial organisms that are legless, such as legless lizards (family Anguidae, which are different than snakes). Also, there are examples of aquatic snakes, arboreal snakes, fossorial snakes, etc., so they are not limited to only terrestrial environments. Also, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that leglessness can be adaptive in terms of accessing prey burrows, hiding places, etc. in situations where legs would be a hindrance.

Ok fine call em legless lizrds if you want I don't care. Umm the ocean variety don't crawl on the ground, they swim.

They are not the same.
http://www.uga.edu/srel/legless_lizard.htm

Jbuza wrote:I think the snake could still survive with hans and legs. Foxes and coyotes dig into burrows.

Just because the snake has learned to adapt without the prescense of arms doesn't mean that there were adaptive forces that caused it to lose it's arms and legs. If this is the case when all the prey lived in burrows why didn't everything lose its legs and just regrow them from natural selection when the prey moved out of the burrows?

Because selection can only work on mutations which occur. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution.

Jbuza wrote:Supposed phylogentic trees caliming trash are trash. Draw all the charts you wan't. A four foot legless lizard crawling around on its belly is a snake, oh wait sorry they are snake like lizards that are of more common decent than the sanke. Whatever your picture book based upon your presupposition of evolution would work good to start my fire tonight, it's getting cold. Presupposed charts, is that all you got?

Do you ever bother to look at the evidence?
Ground Skink

Eastern glass lizard

Ophisaurus

Pygopodidae

Superficially these look alike but I assure you that internally they do not resemble snakes.
Its like calling Koala bears, Bears.