Evidence for God from Science

So, by talking to a guy who teaches...we'll be set on the right track...

Hi Kmart!

Maybe I don't have a lot of time on my hands, but since you do, read my post again, cause you must not have understood it.
If you're interested in the fossil record, you are not into young earth. Neither am I, the scientist in me doesn't like it. But if I'm wrong, that's ok, my ticket to heaven isn't based on my belief of the creation details.
But at the same time, you fight random undirected evolution, because it doesn't fit the fossil record. Neither do I, I believe God was involved, because there isn't enough time for him not to be.

But if you look again, at what humans are capable of doing today, can you not imagine what we could do 50 years from now?
I don't remember the details so don't quote me but, didn't they engineer a virus to cure children with bubbleboy syndrome? Didn't it work because the virus changed their genes? Some children were cured, and a couple got leukemia, right? We still have a way to go...
But if we are capable of changing genes, with a virus, is it that far out of the realm of plausibility, that we could make horse come from a zebra? And if so, why couldn't God chose to have a group of Neanderthals give birth to nothing but Homosapiens? And after some time, he took one aside, and breathed into him a spirit, and named him Adam...

God loves us, Jesus died for us. Our parents gave us our body, The Lord gave us our soul. Believe whatever convinces your mind of what your heart already knows…

PS: I found the article...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/01/15/gene.therapy.ap/

.......................

jettlogic wrote: They abuse and distort science in the name of religion and visa versa and are generally all-round irritating - even more so because Joe Christian actually listens to them as they are ostensibly "on the same side". Thus they succeed in driving Christians away from scientific literacy, and science majors away from Christianity (no I'm not a Christian, but you are, so you should be concerned).

</let-off-steam-rant-for-personal-destressing>

So I guess you believe that anything that does not lead to evolution is a twistage of science.

How about some acutal examples, of How science is being twisted. Easy to say it with no real evidence

.............

jettlogic wrote:I'm short on time, so JBuza get's the wikipedia treatment. First, what I mean by "abuse and distort science" is:

Creation science represents an attempt by creationists to legitimize religious scriptures in scientific terms, by attempting to demonstrate compatability between science and their creationist worldview. The scientific status of Creation Science, despite its name, is disputed; it is not regarded as a true science by the scientific community, because Creation Science begins with the desired answer and attempts to interpret all evidence to fit in with this predetermined conclusion, whereas, in theory, pure science works by using the scientific method to formulate theories and predictions based on solid evidence; however it would be naive to assume that individual scientist work without any personal presuppositions.

Well duh, to wiki not you, that is how science works. You start with the desired answer you form a hypothesis, and you collect evidence, to see if it fits the desired answer. It is no different than evolution. If I had more time I would carry this post further. Suffice it to say that evolutionists and creationists will interpret things differently based upon the hypothesis they form and will make different predictions. One may predict that all bones dug up will be of distinct types, and the other may predict that they will dig up transitional forms. I'm not sure if it will do any good, in light of several other instances, to say that it is not science to try and say the only valid theoretical framework for discovery is evolution.

Don't pin the tail on the wrong donkey jetillogical.

I say there is no evidence for it...because there isn't. The evidence that is used is either neutral, refuted, or in several cases hinder, rather than help, the theory of evolution. You're referring to young earth guys aren't you with Humphrey and AIG aren't you.

jettlogic wrote:It's also an abuse of religion because it's treating a spiritual **HOLY** book like a friggin highschool science textbook.

The Bible doesn't even describe atoms for goodness sake. That would be a good start if you wanted to claim it was scientific. I realise the greeks had the general idea of atoms, but something ancient which got at least protons/neutrons/electrons right would go a long way to claiming some scientific input from its supernatural inspirer.

See my new thread here.

There is no situation in the Bible where God breaks His own physical laws when He performs a miracle.

The opposite is true. Jesus' miracles prove it.
1. Stilling the Storm
2. Feeding the 5000
3. Walking on the Water
4. Feeding the 4000
5. Temple Tax in the Fish's Mouth
6. Withering the Fig Tree
7. Draught of Fish
8. Turning Water into Wine
9. Second Draught of Fish

That's not breaking any laws.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:That's not breaking any laws.

That's breaking physical laws of nature, such as gravity.

smrpgx wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:That's not breaking any laws.

That's breaking physical laws of nature, such as gravity.

Well, that means when you put on clothes (hopefully) you are breaking the laws of physics...why? They're not falling to the ground!

smrpgx wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:That's not breaking any laws.

That's breaking physical laws of nature, such as gravity.

But couldn't you think that He did use nature under His power without breaking any laws? I find it very possible, even today, but not like it was when Jesus ACTUALLY walked the earth.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:That's not breaking any laws.

I would say Walking on Water was Breaking the Laws. As Peter Found out rather quickly when he started sinking.

Jettlogic,

Your statement is false that a DayAge interpretation is not literal. I am an Old Earth Creationist, but I take the Analogic Day view, which has strong support inside of the Christian Community, but more importantly, is very much ingrained into Ancient Hebrew Culture.

Days 1 through 3 describe the Kingdoms and 4 -6 Describe the Kings of the Kingdoms. Dr. Ross and many other OEC take Scripture literally and have conclusively shown that the word Yom only means literal Day about half the time it is used in Scripture.

The main thrust behind the Genesis Accoutn was to write down the literal Word of God in the culture spoken too. Genesis' goals were to debunk pantheism and show that the Creator God was the Creator and separate from his creation. Most impressively, it showed that there was a Beginning.

The only way you can state that macroevolution is true is to "infer" that it is true from the fossil record. The problem is that Genetic phylogenies have debunked most of the "inferred" logical sequences. The best examples are the Whale Phylogeny and the hominid to human phylogeny.

Abiogenesis is laughable and takes a tremendous amount of religous faith to believe.

Dan