Evidence for God from Science

zoegirl wrote:

Enigma7457 wrote:I wasn't saying we came from apes then why are there still apes. I was saying, according to evolution (Surivival of the fittest) APEMEN were 'fitter' than apes. Yet APEMEN are gone and APES are still here. Why? If APEMEN were 'fitter' than apes, then apes should be gone and we should have apemen. If i am misunderstanding something about evolution, let me know.

I don't think ID 'tests' GOd. It only sets about to prove what he said. I am not (and cannot) be a Christian through blind faith. That is a problem of mine. I wish i could, but i can't. I need evidence. Something to base my faith on. Those who seek will find. Not those who sit around. Doubting isn't necessarily a bad thing as lond as it leads you to seek, since those who see, find.

I think I was confused by apemen...

If you are referring to hominid ancestors like Homo erectus, you bring up a good point. The arguement would be that either they did not survive and reproduce or that other species were fitter and replaced them in the environment (i.e. outcompete)

Populations survive because each FIT the environment they work with. Many speciation models depend upon allopatric speciation which requires a change in geography so that a population is separated and new selecvtive pressures are placed on each set of populations. The population of the alleged common ancestors of apes were in forests. A change in climate meant that suddenly there are both forests and grasslands. This change in geography means that there are new demands upon the population. THis means that the ancestors of the great apes were still fit for the forests, while some other portions of the ancestors were more fit for the grasslands. Because of these new selective pressures, each subset of the population changes when individuals survive and reproduce more than others because of difference phenotypes. Therefore it is quite plausible within this explanation that the hominids were no longer fit for their environmnet while the apes still were fit for theirs. as long as the environments that support them are still around, they will survive and reproduce

Now, whether this is plausible according to mutational probabilites, is another question.

I think that ID is great. I just remember a newspaper article on (at that time) junk DNA and the ID proponents saying that, according to what we know of God, then God wouldn't make junk DNA without a purpose and therefore there must be a purpose. They called this a testable hypothesis of design. I think this is a dangerous idea, that somehow God's intentions can be a testable hypothesis. God could make non-coding DNA (I know that they have found pruposes for junk DNA, just calling for caution). I just think we need to be careful to never restrict God within a box.

What was the beginning of evolution; before the ape or apeman, the very first thing that began this process? If it was a slurpy without a cup how do
they explain two legs or 4 or 6 or 8 or wings. was it the big bang that they claim began evolution?

Oh, I agree

Lest there be any confusion, i'm with you...although natural selecvtion itself does not necessarily lead to macroevolution. I think everybody is fearful of selection, when even Jacob selected his sheep and produced populations frequency changes. Ultimately, it comes down to whether mutations and other chromosomal/genome changes are powerful enough to lead to large scale changes.


I just want to make sure we know evolution just as well as them.

I think the biggest problem in the hisorical account of the earth according to random events in the beginning in the development of the cell. Pretty mysterious stuff.

I think you are very correct in that ID is very important

i will disagree with you on this because for the believer, one cannot be partnered with those who do not believe. plus i think it is a dangerous game adherants are playing.

there is nothing wrong with using science to investigate creation as that junk dna illustration proves but i do have a problem with submitting God to the criteria established by fallible science.

in essence i feel that a new definition of what is or isn't science needs to be established. christians cannot follow man's definitions, for God does not work by secular logic or plan.

too much data is ignored or omitted and too much leans towards a humanistic understanding which then denies the options God used. case in point, your point about homoerectus.

there is no proof whatsoever that such a species existed, i do not accept science's findings because of many reasons, one being it denies what God did at creation.

i am a person who starts with the Bible and all fields of exploration are just tools to use, they are not authoritative nor the final word. thus believers who accept science's 'findings' and use them also play a dangerous game with what they believe.

Most ID proponents are Christian although the discipline simply means that you believe there was an intelligent designer.

Read the rest of my posts...I also put caveats on ID. I can't win

However, I don't think the pursuit of understanding creation is, in itself, a problem. Psalm 19 establishes that God's creation is a testament to God. In Genesis we have a mandate to be responsible for the earth. Our role in the garden was clear. In Deuteronomy we are told to love the Lord with our minds as well. We are told to be ready to always give an answer for the hope that is within us in 1 Pet. We are to take captive every thought. Obviously pursuing understanding is not the problem. Solomon pursued knowledge and was exalted for his understanding.

If both His creation and His word are His testaments, then they should agree. If they don't, it's either our understanding of scripture or our understanding of the creation. It's our defecit, not God's.

The pursuit of understanding His creation is not the problem, it is our sinfulness that corrupts both the knowledge and the pursuit.

About homo erectus, we need to clarify. There are certainly bones of something. HE existed...what this means, however, is up to debate.

Most ID proponents are Christian although the discipline simply means that you believe there was an intelligent designer

yes, thank you. i understand that which is why i have a contention with it. i think that it is wrong , even if this is a semantic argument, to replace what we believe with alternative vocabulary.

most secularists refuse to be sophisticated and differentiate between bible followers and cults let alone try to compare terminology. i think that creation should be taught in the scientific classroom and it should be taught as it is written without subterfuge.

let's just be honest as the results of creation prove the initial act while evolution is still grasping for validity.

Read the rest of my posts...I also put caveats on ID. I can't win

sorry, i have read many of your posts and i am not talking specifically against anyone here. i am focused more on other aspects which need to be addressed.

The pursuit of understanding His creation is not the problem, it is our sinfulness that corrupts both the knowledge and the pursuit

i can agree with you here.

About homo erectus, we need to clarify. There are certainly bones of something

yes there are but refer to the previous quote and factor in that attitude then add information from the Bible. i have been forming a theory that many of those ancient bones are left over from the pre-flood civilization. secularists cannot support that because they would be undermining their own theories so they have to create fictitious species to compensate.

i do not have proof of such but from my discussins and evidence used against me, i can see how it is a possibility. we already have found sunken villages, land masses, and so on thus it is not a stretch to say those old bones were left as evidence to warn the modern age.

you must remember also, that scientists form theories on the barest of artifacts found. they do not wait for complete information before preaching that they have discovered soemthing. i believe they only have 400 partial neanderthal skeletons. well that is pretty slim to build a whole separate species upon.

it is not that they have evidence but how they use what evidence they have. itis the holes in their work which undermine their credibility and dicoveries.

YOu want creationism to be taught in the classroom and yet I bet we would disagree on what should be taught. And if I had a student in a public school I would not want us to throw out everything.

I am an OEC. I also teach high school biology. I also teach in a Christian school....But you better believe I teach evolution...I want these kids to know that theory better than any public school kid and I want them to be able to refute it other than simply saying "it's stupid". I know what is presented out there. One of my graduate profoesors bragged about being able to seduce the minds of ignorant freshman bio students because they didn't understand the basics of the theory and so were swayed by the arguements. He bragged about it. The enemy prowls around waiting to pounce. Far better that we talk about it than we simply ignore it and give students incomplete information. I have examined the Christian bio texts out there and I for one think most are sorry specimens. They get the theory of evolution wrong. They use outdated information, use poor data, and yes, they are strictly YEC. I never want to hear form my students...."You never prepared me for what I heard in college" . That, in my mind, would truly be the millstone around my neck.

As for ID who are non-Christians? Why shouldn't we discuss things with them? Wouldn't this simply be another forum for witnessing? We cannot exclude others from valid discussion...in fact, we would be falling into the same argument that we use at the scientists. "How dare you not let us bring God into the equation" We must first be able to dialogue.

YOu want creationism to be taught in the classroom

i see nothing wrong with it. the evidence that can be used is the study of the results of creation, which encompasses all scientific fields. the secular studings on hybrids will provide ample evidence to prove the phrase, 'after their kind'.

yet I bet we would disagree on what should be taught

not at all. i like the truth myself.

I am an OEC

so? i can make an argument for both the OEC & the YEC, along with the gap theory. that isn't important. what is important is not the date when God created, for if it was, He would have given more of a specific clue, but that HE created all life, the earth, the universe.

when is only needed for those secularists who demand some sort of security from knowing when something took place, it isn't germane to a believer's life because we do not get our faith, security, hope, example from a date, we get it from God.

as far as i am concerned , this argument on when God created the heavens and the earth is a distraction from whom God is and what He has done, robbing Him of glory, honor and praise. it also robs the believer from taking strength to meet life because their focus is not on God but some trivial pursuit.

I also teach high school biology. I also teach in a Christian school....But you better believe I teach evolution.

do i care? or do you you want me to stand in awe of you? either way won't happen as i am concerned with you doing it to the glory of God and that His creation gets taught properly.

One of my graduate profoesors bragged about being able to seduce the minds of ignorant freshman bio students because they didn't understand the basics of the theory and so were swayed by the arguements

i have heard about that happening, not just fromyour other posts but other sources years ago. he can do that because of the compromise of other believers who do not sort out the secular from the divine and show their students what is what.

i do not happen to believe in either micro or macro evolution because if i preach/write that evolution is wrong then it does not appear anywhere in human history. we cannot compromise, if we do then we have blown our message and told the world that we really do not believe what we say we do.

I never want to hear form my students...."You never prepared me for what I heard in college" .

then you should be commended and at least you saw a danger and did something about it.

As for ID who are non-Christians? Why shouldn't we discuss things with them? Wouldn't this simply be another forum for witnessing? We cannot exclude others from valid discussion...in fact, we would be falling into the same argument that we use at the scientists. "How dare you not let us bring God into the equation" We must first be able to dialogue.

idid not say 'don't dialogue', i read secular works all the time. those researchers do find evidence that christians aren't even looking for and they provide proof unintentionally for the Bible. i did say we should not 'partner' with them.

the verse that Paul wrote talking about being 'unequally yoked' doesn't just apply to marriage, it applies to all walks of life. for the non-believer has different values, different goals, a different god and the two are not marching in the same direction no matter how it looks.

saying the words, 'intelligent designer' just eliminates God and adds a host of other options when that is simply not true. the believer must remove such options from consideration andpoint the world to God and not leave the door open for satan to get a foothold.

I don't want you to stand in awe of me. I wanted to give background so that you understood my vehemence. Little snippy there!

I agree with you concerning the dates...I was quick to judge

Still see nothing wrong with ID as a study. By it's very defintion, those who aren't Christian are still seeing evidence for a designer and as such, are in agreement.

As for students being unprepared, I don't think it has anything to do with compromise. It has to do with a very seductive set of beliefs and ignorant minds who aren't prepared for the seduciton.

As for microevolution....sorry I wholeheatedle disagree. Many, many experiements that show that population frequecies can change and that some animals have different chances for survival and reprocution. Doesn't lead to anything like the historical accounts of evolution, though.

I think i get what you're saying about testing God. I guess i agree, in part. As long as we never say, God wouldn't have done that, then we are safe (But apparently we did with the Junk DNA).

Back to the Apemen. Another question (Again, feel free to correct me, you're actually pretty good at it): Why are so frail? If an Ape is strong, and we evolved mentally from an Ape, why did we not retain the Ape's strength? Granted, the strength wasn't as necesary any more since we are now smarter, wouldn't being smarter and stronger be more fit? You know, like planet of the apes?

Little snippy there

not really, just my normal reaction to lists of credentials.

I agree with you concerning the dates...I was quick to judge

no worries. i didn't look at it as judging but a statement of your position.

Still see nothing wrong with ID as a study

well you want God to be non-deceptive then believers must be also. if they believe that God created the world, then tome it is wrong to open the door to alternatives. one must be honest about what they believe, so if they believe God did it, then say God did it. you will get more respect and open more ears that way than by cloaking what you believe under the guise of i.d. or the words 'an intelligent designer'.

As for microevolution....sorry I wholeheatedle disagree

do you call the drowning of the polar bears because of the shrinking glaciers, micro-evolution or part of life caused by the greenhouse affect created by human industrialization?

i see what you described as part of normal life in the wild.

if evolution is not true, it cannot exist in any form, if one wants to be consistant with what they believe.

I want to say a few things before i post: I am a bad Christian. I don't have the staunch faith that archeolgist has. I wish i did. I don't pray as often as i should, i don't go to church as often as i should. I'm a good guy, just not a good Christian (my wife, on the other hand, is amazing).

However, a few years ago, i wasn't a Christian at all(i may have claimed it then, but i was far from it). I started to look. First, i examined evolution. It proved unreliable and 'iffy'. So I looked at the alternatives. ID seemed right.

Next, i looked at History. Historically, Jesus Christ is the best documented person alive. It all fits. Now, with confidence in the scriptures, i am beginning to apply his ways to my life. Regrettably, i wouldn't be doing that if it wasn't well documented, if the heavens didn't proclaim his glory.

Without ID and without physical evidence, i would not be a Christian, the poor one that i am. I may be a poor Christian, but without ID, i wouldn't be one at all. If evolution proved airtight i may have stopped my search there and joined the 'intellectual elites.' (tongue in cheek)

My point is this: Arch is right about ID not being enough. One has to put their faith in Christ entirely and not lean on our own understanding. But at the same time, some need a stepping stone.

CS Lewis described Christianity as a hall with many doors. The doors were labeled Methodist, Baptist, Pentecostal, etc. It doesn't matter how one gets to God, as long as they get there. I had to use ID, regrettable as that is. But, if it weren't there i may not have even entered the hall. Better to be a poor Christian than not one at all.

I am an OEC. I also teach high school biology. I also teach in a Christian school....But you better believe I teach evolution...I want these kids to know that theory better than any public school kid and I want them to be able to refute it other than simply saying "it's stupid"

I need to side with you on this point. It is always better to understand something you don't agree with so you know why you don't agree with it. If we can't point out the flaws in the theory, then there is no point in discussing it

The polar bears are an interesting case. First and foremost we need more information. Certainly there is some worrying data out there. I think we always should exmine out use of the resources that God has given us. I am worried that there is something happening that affects the food sources of the bear. Don't know enough, however, to feel confident on any direciton.

We don't have to outright throw away everything that has to do with the evolutionary theory. In fact, I think this is where we need to recapture the truth...you say we want to, as Christians, recapture science. First let's examine the points of natural selection (which i mainly feel stabilizes populations). God created populations of species with many different phenotypes (just look at the breeds of dogs). God also creates environments that fluctuate in their resoures. Some rainy years, some not so rainy years. Why wouldn't God have created populations with the ability to withstand these fluctuations? All naturall selection states is that members within a population have differential reproduciton and survival success. If this is true (and many, many studies support this, as well as simply anecdotal evidence, not all dogs have the same litter of pups) then the next generation will have a slightly different phenotype frequency.

NOW, notice, however, that I did not include anywhere in this equation the introduction of NEW GENES. Many people confuse and equate natural selection with large scale changes. NAtural selection itself, DOES NOT CREATE NEW PHENOTYPES (mutations and other large chromosomal or genomic changes must do this). NAtural selection will only shift gene frequencies of existing genes. It, by itself, will NEVER create new species. (I can quote my evolution texts here, but I would have to find them )

I think we as Christian have this knee-jerk reflec about anything to do with evolution and it is time that we examine the facts and not decide on what is true simply because it is part of the evolutionary PHILOSOPHY. WE should decide whether this contrdicts scripture and not simply reject it based of what they say. Jacob himself choose which sheep to breed and he manipulated the population gene frequencies. This is all natural selection does. I think God in His wisdom created the flexibility within species to change within moderately changing environments. I think this again points to our being good stewards of the environment, that we cherish the environments he established and help restore His creation.

Again, selection, by itself, will never lead to large scale changes. And right now, the evidence for the power of mutations to lead to these changes is still scanty.

Enigma7457 wrote:I think i get what you're saying about testing God. I guess i agree, in part. As long as we never say, God wouldn't have done that, then we are safe (But apparently we did with the Junk DNA).

Back to the Apemen. Another question (Again, feel free to correct me, you're actually pretty good at it): Why are so frail? If an Ape is strong, and we evolved mentally from an Ape, why did we not retain the Ape's strength? Granted, the strength wasn't as necesary any more since we are now smarter, wouldn't being smarter and stronger be more fit? You know, like planet of the apes?

according to the evolutionists, our increased brain size gave us an advantage in strategic hunting and defense. Making tools for defense and thus not needing the strength. This allowed the humans who were not necessarily strong to still have an advantage and survive and reproduce.

HOWEVER, According to their model, the first structure to evolve woudl have been the pelvic bones, to walk upright. Their evidence for this is LUCY, Australopithicus afarensis (I think I got it ). Her pelvic bones are wider and more bowl shaped to support bipedal walking, whereas a chimps are narrower and do not support the weight of all fours. HOWEVER (and this is a big however), she still had the brain the size of a chimpanzee. She lost the ability to climb trees but still could not use tools. They studied her hands and concluded that she did not have the precision grasp to create and build tools (If you look at a chimps hand, the thumb and forefinger do not meet, whereas ours does, allowing for precise handling and shaping of tools). So here is my question....here you have evidence that she walked upright and lost the speed and agility in the trees but she was still too dumb to make tools for defense....
...so a slow stupid ape.... and what is the advantage here? What was her fitness potential?

Please never apologize for how you come to Christ...God appeared to Thomas and gave him what he needed to believe. Intelligent design does allow people to examine the evidence and most ID'ers never claim to not be christians, although I agree that we should never hide our light.

The polar bears are an interesting case. First and foremost we need more information

you didn't answer the question.

We don't have to outright throw away everything that has to do with the evolutionary theory

yes we do. for if we believe that God set everything up then evolution doesn't exist, nor can it exist. everything works as God laid it out. evolution plays no part in the equation at all.

First let's examine the points of natural selection (which i mainly feel stabilizes populations).

natural selection is not of God why would you keep using it?

Jacob himself choose which sheep to breed and he manipulated the population gene frequencies. This is all natural selection does

that is not natural selection but freedom of choice and preference. there is no room to compromise. either the evolutionary process is wrong and did not exist or God's plan is wrong and did not exist.

you cannot combine the two nor take the parts you like and use them.

I think God in His wisdom created the flexibility within species to change within moderately changing environments

again that is not natural selection but God ordering the universe.

so i am waiting for an answer to my question. it is not a hard one to answer nor does it need long clarifications. it is a simple question asking what you attribute their plight.

don't give me crap, just an answer.